议程、联盟、资源和合作方案:利用城市制度框架研究城市治理过程

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q2 URBAN STUDIES
Julien van Ostaaijen
{"title":"议程、联盟、资源和合作方案:利用城市制度框架研究城市治理过程","authors":"Julien van Ostaaijen","doi":"10.1177/10780874231180812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the questions when undertaking comparative research into local politics and processes of collective organization is what frame should be used. In recent decades, many scholars have opted for the urban regime. There is however much debate about the usefulness of this concept for comparative purposes, with the urban regime accused of being theoretically both too narrow as well as too general. In three Dutch case studies, researchers have sought a middle way by applying the urban regime's four building blocks (agenda, coalition, resources, and scheme of cooperation) as a heuristic framework. The results show that this approach has several advantages, especially for comparative purposes, as it provides a clear oversight as to which agendas dominate where and when, and how certain coalitions, resources, and schemes of cooperation align. These benefits however require close attention to certain points: researchers should interpret the building blocks consistently and try to avoid overlap and repetition between them.","PeriodicalId":51427,"journal":{"name":"Urban Affairs Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agendas, Coalitions, Resources, and Schemes of Cooperation: Using the Urban Regime Framework to Study Processes of Urban Governance\",\"authors\":\"Julien van Ostaaijen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10780874231180812\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the questions when undertaking comparative research into local politics and processes of collective organization is what frame should be used. In recent decades, many scholars have opted for the urban regime. There is however much debate about the usefulness of this concept for comparative purposes, with the urban regime accused of being theoretically both too narrow as well as too general. In three Dutch case studies, researchers have sought a middle way by applying the urban regime's four building blocks (agenda, coalition, resources, and scheme of cooperation) as a heuristic framework. The results show that this approach has several advantages, especially for comparative purposes, as it provides a clear oversight as to which agendas dominate where and when, and how certain coalitions, resources, and schemes of cooperation align. These benefits however require close attention to certain points: researchers should interpret the building blocks consistently and try to avoid overlap and repetition between them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Affairs Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Affairs Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874231180812\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Affairs Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874231180812","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在对地方政治和集体组织过程进行比较研究时,一个问题是应该使用什么框架。近几十年来,许多学者选择了城市制度。然而,对于这一概念在比较方面的有用性,人们有很多争论,城市制度被指责在理论上既过于狭隘,也过于笼统。在荷兰的三个案例研究中,研究人员通过应用城市制度的四个组成部分(议程、联盟、资源和合作方案)作为启发式框架,寻求了一种折中的方法。结果表明,这种方法有几个优点,特别是出于比较目的,因为它提供了一个明确的监督,可以监督哪些议程在何时何地占主导地位,以及某些联盟、资源和合作计划如何协调一致。然而,这些好处需要密切关注某些方面:研究人员应该始终如一地解释构建块,并尽量避免它们之间的重叠和重复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Agendas, Coalitions, Resources, and Schemes of Cooperation: Using the Urban Regime Framework to Study Processes of Urban Governance
One of the questions when undertaking comparative research into local politics and processes of collective organization is what frame should be used. In recent decades, many scholars have opted for the urban regime. There is however much debate about the usefulness of this concept for comparative purposes, with the urban regime accused of being theoretically both too narrow as well as too general. In three Dutch case studies, researchers have sought a middle way by applying the urban regime's four building blocks (agenda, coalition, resources, and scheme of cooperation) as a heuristic framework. The results show that this approach has several advantages, especially for comparative purposes, as it provides a clear oversight as to which agendas dominate where and when, and how certain coalitions, resources, and schemes of cooperation align. These benefits however require close attention to certain points: researchers should interpret the building blocks consistently and try to avoid overlap and repetition between them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Affairs Review
Urban Affairs Review URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Urban Affairs Reveiw (UAR) is a leading scholarly journal on urban issues and themes. For almost five decades scholars, researchers, policymakers, planners, and administrators have turned to UAR for the latest international research and empirical analysis on the programs and policies that shape our cities. UAR covers: urban policy; urban economic development; residential and community development; governance and service delivery; comparative/international urban research; and social, spatial, and cultural dynamics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信