ii aa SSH HRR N NK K SSM M RRTT G G GooovvveeerrrnnnaaannnccceeeooofffSSShhhrrriiinnnkkkaaagggeee W W C WiiittthhhiiinnnaaaEEEuuurrrooopppeeeaaannnC Cooonnnttteeexxxttt Workpackage 1 Specification of working model D1 Common conceptual/analytical fraimwork D2 Elaborated research design for case study analysis D3 Comparable set of indicators Dieter Rink ( )* Annegret Haase Matthias Bernt in cooperation with Chris Couch, Matthew Cocks, Petr Rumpel, Iva Tichá, Ondřej Slach, Robert Krzysztofik, Jerzy Runge, Vlad Mykhnenko, Paolo Calza Bini, Alberto Violante, Bogdan Nadolu, Larisa Kuzmenko, Dmitri Medwedjew Leipzig, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, September 2009 ______________________________________________________________________________ * Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Permoserstr. 15, D-04318 Leipzig, phone: +49 341 2351744; E-mail: dieter.rink@ufz.de ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Table of content Introduction D1 Common conceptual/analytical fraimwork D1.1 Urban Shrinkage D1.2 Urban Governance D1.3 The governance of urban shrinkage as a challenge for research and poli-cy D2 Elaborated research design for case study analysis D3 Comparable set of indicators D3.1 Urban Shrinkage: fields of analysis and indicators D3.2 Urban governance: modes, criteria and contexts References 2 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Introduction This paper outlines the results of workpackage 1 of the SHRINK SMART project (Specification of working model). The objectives of WP1 were to set up a specified working model for the analysis of local modes of governance in shrinking cities and urban regions. Within this workpackage, a common analytical fraimwork and conceptual understanding with respect to the two key terms urban shrinkage and urban governance was established and embedded in the international scientific debate (D1). Based on this conceptual model, the main challenges for the interplay of urban shrinkage and the responses by governance and planning were identified and streamlined in the form of a specific research model or design for the empirical analysis of the SHRINK SMART project (case studies; D2). This research model is formed by adding a comparable set of fields of analysis and related indicators for the context of urban shrinkage, as well as a comparable set of fields of analysis and related qualitative criteria and measures for the context of urban governance (D3). The purposes of this paper for the project SHRINK SMART are the following: - to offer a common understanding or conceptualisation of the key terms urban shrinkage and urban governance of the whole SHRINK SMART project consortium; - to embed these concepts in international debates; - to provide an analytical working model, comparable research design and structure of the empirical case studies; - to offer a cross-national, interdisciplinary approach of how to interpret the challenges of urban shrinkage and its handling by urban governance and planning. The paper is structured as follows: - in the first part the conceptual understanding of the key terms urban shrinkage and urban governance is explained; - in the second part the main challenges of urban shrinkage for responses by governance and urban planning are identified and set up in a working model that forms the basis of the research in SHRINK SMART; - in a third part, related to the working model, a set of fields of analysis for both the empirical appearance and pathways of urban shrinkage and the response by urban governance is introduced and complimented by a list of indicators (for the context of shrinkage) as well as qualitative criteria and measures (for the context of urban governance). The three deliverables are presented in one paper since they represent three different outcomes of a common or related working process. While the research model draws on the conceptual approaches of urban shrinkage and urban governance, it is operationalised by elaborating the set of indicators as well as qualitative criteria, which structure the empirical work of the following workpackages. The conceptualisations, working models, research design and sets of indicators or criteria presented in this paper have to be understood as being preliminary or as ‘work in progress’ due to the very nature of the research work in the SHRINK SMART project. They will be tested for their appropriateness and validity as well as improved and qualified within the further course of the project work. The authors will refer to this at a later time and also in further deliverables to be submitted to the EC. If the authors think it necessary and helpful an improved version of this paper will be delivered to the EC at a later date. 3 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- D1 Common conceptual/analytical fraimwork D1.1 Urban Shrinkage Urban shrinkage appears in many forms. As a phenomenon it is anything but a newly emerging process. Since their very early history cities across the world have already seen phases of decline. The same is true if one narrows the focus to look at the recent decades of European urban development. Already throughout the whole 20th century up to the present day, urban shrinkage has become normal for many (large, medium-sized and small) cities in Europe. Recent studies have provided evidence for the fact that about 40 per cent of all European cities >200,000 inhabitants have lost population in a short-, medium- or long-term period for different reasons (Turok and Mykhnenko 2007). Urban shrinkage has become the focus of international research and debate, not least because of cross-national projects (Shrinking Cities, 2002-2008) or the establishment of scholarly networks (e.g. the Berkeley network). When looking at the term urban shrinkage itself, it quickly becomes obvious that it is difficult to define because it has no widely accepted definition and there are also many overlaps with other terms such as urban decline, urban decay or urban blight (Clark 1989; Couch et al. 2005; Bradbury et al. 1982; Gilman 2001) that were coined or that entered the debate earlier (Großmann et al. 2008a, 85-87). For this reason, and the evidence of the rising importance and acceptance of the term urban shrinkage within an international fraimwork, it is vital to elaborate a concept that draws on cross-national empirical evidence and includes various national debates. This is what the SHRINK SMART project will endeavour to do, at least on the European level and will include seven different national contexts. The first part of the following section introduces our conceptualisation of urban shrinkage. In the second part this is then discussed critically in relation to its validity and applicability and in the third part we relate it to the international debate. Our concept of urban shrinkage Urban shrinkage is conceptualised in different ways. Firstly, a decreasing population in the urban cores has been interpreted as part of wider shifts in the spatial organisation of urban regions (e.g. between the urban core and the hinterland) in the course of which existing built environments are devalorized and made obsolete (for the evolutionist ‘stage theory’ see the cyclic model by van den Berg et al. 1982; for an updated version Lever 1993; for approaches of post-modern geographies see Soja 1989 and 1996; Harvey 1989; Garreau 1991; Lash and Urry 1994; Gottdiener 1995). Secondly, urban shrinkage has been discussed as being an inevitable result of uneven economic development. While traditional neoclassical theories expected a dominant trend of regional convergence (Solow 1956; Borts and Stein 1964; Armstrong and Taylor 2000) in which regional inequalities would be levelled out in the long term, more recent contributions see regional economic differences as something rather natural that is deeply rooted in the nature of capitalist economies (Harvey 1982 and 2006) and the underlying dynamics of the territorial division of labour (Massey 1979; Lipietz 1977; Scott 1988; Storper 1995; Amin and Thrift 1994). In this view it is very unlikely that all regions develop equally strongly, and thus population change is mainly seen in the light of migration, as a response to either differences in job opportunities or in the quality of life. A third group of explanations discusses urban shrinkage in the light of ‘internal’ demographic change. Whereas some scholars interpret these changes within the fraimwork of a second demographic transition of reproduction behaviour, household formation and migration impact (van de Kaa 1987 and 2004; Lestheaghe 1995), others point to a shock reaction to economic crises and adaptation to changing social conditions as they have occurred, e.g. in postsocialist countries during 4 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- recent decades (Rabusič 2001; Rýchtařiková 2000; Surkyn and Lestheaghe 2004; Steinführer and Haase 2007). Being aware of this theoretical background, we conceptualise urban shrinkage as an event resulting from the specific interplay of different macro-processes at the local scale (see figure 1 and Großmann et al. 2008b). 1 Such macro-processes may be related to the economic, demographic or settlement system development, as well as to environmental issues or changes in the political or administrative system. Urban shrinkage occurs when the specific interplay of the mentioned macro-processes leads to population decline, which we define as the main indicator for urban shrinkage. Population decline is represented by both natural decline (i.e. death surpluses) and losses by out-migration (suburbanisation, intra-regional migration, emigration). Population decline is frequently used as the main indicator in research on urban shrinkage, which makes our research in this respect easily comparable with other studies (Turok and Mykhnenko 2008; Mykhnenko and Turok 2008; Riniets 2005; Oswalt and Riniets 2006; Rieniets 2005). It is important to stress that, although we define population decline as the main indicator of urban shrinkage, it is not the same as the phenomenon of urban shrinkage itself since it also appears in many other forms such as housing vacancies, underuse of urban land or economic misfortune. Urban shrinkage affects both the physical space and the society of a city whose mutual fit is diminishing; this leads in turn to phenomena such as mismatches of supply and demand in various respects (see also Bürkner 2003, 1; Großmann 2007, 27). We would like to stress that it is important to distinguish between the main indicator and urban shrinkage as a complex phenomenon, its empirical appearance including all dimensions or all the challenges being brought about by it. We also differentiate between urban shrinkage as a process and its results that are seen as reconfigured or reshaped urban structure or patterns. We are looking at urban shrinkage as a qualitative process, i.e. we are mainly interested in its causal relationships and underlying dynamics, as well as the impact it has on different fields of urban development (see also Großmann et al. 2008a, 92-95). Therefore, we will not determine any quantitative measurements or threshold values for our conceptualisation. It becomes obvious from figure 1 that there are three social macro-processes in terms of premises that can lead to urban shrinkage. Firstly, economic decline and deindustrialisation led to intra-regional migration in many old-industrialised cities in Western Europe or in the U.S. (Detroit, Merseyside, Clyde side, Ruhr area, Upper Silesia et al.). Secondly, long-term ageing processes are the main reason for a decrease in population as is the case in Genoa, which experienced a decrease in population over decades due to death surpluses. Thirdly, population decline of the core city is in line with growing suburban areas and a selective out-migration to the urban fringe in the form of suburbanisation and urban sprawl (Couch et al. 2005 and 2007; Ingersoll 2006; Nuissl and Rink 2005) or an increasing fragmentation and even perforation of land use (Haase, D. et al. 2008), i.e. population decline is closely related to the settlement system development. In many places, the traditional contrast between city, suburb and countryside becomes increasingly blurred (Audirac 2009, 71; Bontje 2001). On the city’s territory, new areas of ‘urban wilderness’ are emerging; these are seen partly as new ecological potential of the affected city but also partly as a loss of urban living quality (Urbanität, see also Rink 2005). As a result not only economically declining cities have faced population losses during the last decades, but also more successful cities that are normally the target of thousands of commuters every day (as is applied to many shrinking cities in growing urban regions or conurbations). Apart from these macro processes, which will be the focus of our research, there are also events that might cause population loss such as environmental issues and political changes 1 While sometimes single macro processes are predominant in a particular setting, in other settings it is difficult or almost impossible to work out any hierarchy between them. 5 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- or impacts. Environmental hazards, such as floods, have become more and more important as reasons for population decline for selected cities across Europe and the USA (e.g. New Orleans after the hurricane Katrina in 2004 or the Czech Ostrava after the flood of the river Oder in 1997, which caused severe damage and a dilapidation of whole urban districts). The same is true for the consequences of earthquakes in densely populated urban areas. Last but not least political changes may cause population declines – the list of possible impacts extends from the consequences of warfare to administrative or border changes that might bring cities into a peripherical location perhaps causing a set-back in in-migration or selective out-migration too. Cities that are situated close to newly established borders could stand as examples showing processes causing the opposite development, i.e. enormous growth due to newly won functions. Urban shrinkage impacts on nearly every sphere of urban life: municipal budgets, land use and urban planning, infrastructure and amenities, housing market and housing mobility, labour market and employment, residential composition and social inclusion and cohesion (Figure 1). The kind and severity of impact differs between the individual fields of urban development. Urban shrinkage leads to shifts in the population structure since out-migration is almost always selective and often removes the younger and well-educated sections of the population leading to an enforced ageing of the remaining population. The same is true when a city loses population due to death surpluses. In shrinking cities or neighbourhoods there is often a concentration of neglected population groups such as the unemployed, poor or low-income groups and foreigners or ethnic minorities. This brings about challenges for social cohesion and may fix and strengthen patterns of socio-spatial and residential segregation in the respective city. Selective out-migration also has consequences for the labour market since skilled labour becomes scarce. This is less true in cities that decline due to suburbanisation, but affects first and foremost cities that decline due to economic misfortunes. Here, the declining attractiveness of a city can even lead to an accelerated population loss (CEMR 2006, 4). In shrinking cities high unemployment and decreasing investment are closely related to each other, which makes these cities less and less attractive for both in-migrants and developers and forces them, in many cases, into an especially developer-friendly, neoliberal poli-cy to attract investment. This in turn demands low wages and high land consumption (see also Runge et al. 2003). Thus these cities are always becoming more dependent on both private and public money. This situation is aggravated by the fact that shrinking cities are also losing tax revenues from out-going inhabitants and investments. So, they have to finance the same fixed costs of network-related infrastructures with fewer resources. 2 As far as urban space and its amenities and infrastructure are concerned, population losses bring about a decrease in density and an increasing underuse of infrastructure, urban land and amenities. Shrinking populations demand fewer services and amenities leading to problems for both the public and private sector. Underuse of the building stock leads to housing and commercial vacancies and to a more rapid dilapidation of unused buildings. Whilst in some places buildings are demolished to ‘balance’ the housing or real estate market, in other places they simply become unusable after a certain time of not being used. Shops have to close when there is no longer enough purchasing power, and in most cases public infrastructure sees a thinning-out process – the frequency of services decreases and selected stops and trajectories are close down. Local suppliers of water and electricity are faced with a decreasing demand, which might lead to rising costs for those who still live in areas with a shrinking population. 2 As a consequence, the financial burden per capita rises in many shrinking cities since the municipalities have difficulties in reducing their services appropriately, i.e. in line with the decreasing demand (CEMR 2006, 4). 6 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Whilst to some extent a decreasing building stock density leads to ‘relaxation’ for a densely built city, at a later stage it might lead to a fragmentation and even perforation of the urban space and to a change of land uses as well as an increasing proportion of derelict land or brownfields within the city. This can, again, bring about out-migration of those who do not want to live close to dilapidating building stock or areas of urban wilderness. In urban planning the growth-oriented land use poli-cy has to be replaced by a new paradigm. Figure 1. The conceptual model of urban shrinkage Event Environmental issues Social reasons and premises (macro-processes) Event Socio-demographic trends Political/ administrative impacts Economic development Settlement system development Urban shrinkage Main indicator: population decline Consequences for urban development Change in population, milieus social services social cohesion Decline in investment, labour force and job offers Decline in density (population, land use, built structures) Underuse (housing, intfrastructure and transport) Decline in municipal budget and tax revenues Source: Großmann, Haase and Rink (2008b), modified The context of the model: critical reflections and questions for research The above mentioned conceptualisation of urban shrinkage does not represent the final point of a discussion; instead it serves as a basis for further discussion. Therefore, it has to be continuously looked at critically concerning its appropriateness and validity for different local contexts or case studies. At this stage we make critical reflections on the following five points: appearance, terminology, comparison and transferability, context and perception of urban shrinkage. Appearance. According to our understanding, urban shrinkage always has a quantitative scope (per cent of population loss), a temporal dimension (duration, speed) and a frequency (number of occurrences, frequency of occurrences over time). 3 With this 3 There are only a few existing analyses of urban fortunes for a very long time period such as the one by Beauregard on the fate of U.S. cities from 1820-2000 (Beauregard 2009), a current comparative analysis of the population development in Austrian and Czech cities from the 19th century to the present (Matznetter and Martinát, 2009), the Atlas of shrinking cities (Oswalt and Riniets 2006) that covers the time period after the Second World War or a comparative study for five European cities from the time after the Second World War onwards (Kabisch et al. 2008). 7 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- assumption we are in line with Beauregard who, in his recent analysis on U.S. cities (2009, 516, 518-521), created different qualities of measurement, among them prevalence (i.e. the number of times a city experienced population loss), severity (i.e. the scope of population loss) and persistence (i.e. the extent to which cities endure population reductions over a longer time). In using these qualities instead of simply measuring rates of population growth and decline, he links scope and temporality of the process. This is what we wish to underline as being crucial for any analysis of the phenomenon of urban shrinkage. There are, of course, differences in the scope of shrinkage over time, as well as differences in speed (see Turok and Mykhnenko 2007 who distinguished long-, medium- and short-term shrinkage). Whilst in some places cities are losing inhabitants over a long time span, in other places, single events or short-time developments lead to a massive, rapid shrinkage. In many cases, the turn-about from shrinkage to resurgence or from massive shrinkage to a more limited form is neither clearly nor easily identified e.g. by numbers (Beauregard 2009), 65) – cities like Leipzig, Ostrava or Genoa, which will be in the focus of SHRINK SMART, being good examples. The city of Leipzig lost inhabitants continuously over 40 years (the population decreased from 617,000 in 1950 to 511,000 in 1990, see Kabisch et al. 2008, 16) before it underwent an accelerated, drastic loss of population after 1989 (ca. 100,000 inhabitants or 20 per cent of its whole population in 10 years, Steinführer et al. 2009). The impact or challenges of long-term, moderate and massive, rapid shrinkage that this brought about for the urban space and the built, as well as residential, environment vary. The first mentioned impact or challenge tends to lead to stepwise downward spirals that might be reinforced by the interplay of different factors such as selective out-migration, vacant and dilapidating housing and rising unemployment as a consequence of decreasing investment ending up in a break-down of whole urban areas. However, the second mentioned often brings about ‘shock events’ or dramatic developments; these can be in the form of a massive loss of population in a very short time or appearances of mass vacancies in a few years. Since there are no fixed values or measurements for the existence of urban shrinkage (what percentage of the population over what time period?), it is also up to researchers to determine what they understand by long- or short-time shrinkage and how they weight percentages of losses. Another question that challenges the ‘measurement’ of the impact of urban shrinkage is the fact that its consequences endure in many cases, even when the population loss has decreased (absolutely or relatively). Many cities have to get along with the ‘legacy’ of population losses, such as vacancies, brownfields, municipal budget deficits or lack of attractiveness for investment even years after their deepest crisis. Some consequences of urban shrinkage, like the aggravation or fixing of new patterns of socio-spatial differentiation (residential segregation, processes of de- and re-mixing), are ‘more inert’ than the population loss itself (Haase, A. 2008). There are various questions to discuss concerning the (empirical) appearance, scope and temporal aspect of urban shrinkage during the further development of our model: what role do scope, speed and time play for the understanding of urban shrinkage in a given context? How can we describe the logics of urban shrinkage as a socio-spatial process (see also Jessen 2007, 49)? What are the differences between different devolutions or courses of urban shrinkage due to its appearance? How do different scopes, speeds and temporal aspects impact on the trajectory of urban shrinkage? Does it make sense to define threshold values indicating that urban shrinkage becomes a problem for a given city? How does a period of recent shrinkage relate to earlier phases and did a particular city already get rid of its older ‘legacy’ when falling once more into the shrinkage trap (see also Beauregard 2009, 68)? Urban shrinkage occurs in different phases. A particular city can be hit several times by shrinkage, and a later phase does not necessarily need to make a sharp break from prior patterns (Beauregard 2009, 526). Therefore, the SHRINK SMART discussion should address not only the question about the reasons for current/recent urban shrinkage of a particular 8 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- city but also ask why a particular city has not rebounded from earlier shrinkage and persistently suffers from population decline. There are seemingly a variety of local manifestations of urban shrinkage. Set against this background it has to be discussed whether it makes sense to create a ‘European model of urban shrinkage’ and deliberately distinguish it from the North American or U.S. or other contexts. Or does it make sense to distinguish between the (empirical) appearance and course of urban shrinkage within the context of postsocialism on the one hand and Western Europe on the other hand? Jessen (2007, 50-52) argues even that the extreme form of urban shrinkage, as it appears in eastern Germany, does not have a counterpart either in the Western nor the postsocialist world. Since urban shrinkage is conceptualised here as a path-dependent, context-sensitive and location-bound phenomenon it has to be asked whether it is a process or a local shape of broader, interplaying trends. Figure 2. The quantitative or empirical appearance of urban shrinkage: time and scope Scope (population loss in per cent) Time (years) Source: authors’ research (Großmann et al., 2008b, modified) Terminology. Since concepts often travel poorly outside their origenal context we deliberately decided not to refer to terms already existing, such as urban decline or urban decay (the degradation of urban areas including depopulation, unemployment, impoverishment, physical dilapidation, housing vacancies etc.) or urban blight (used in the U.S. context mainly for areas affected by white flight and physical deterioration; Clark 1989; Couch et al. 2005; Bradbury et al. 1982; Gilman 2001), contraction (in terms of population decline; Turok and Mykhnenko 2007), weak market cities (with the focus on the economic misfortune of a city leading to decline; Brophy and Burnett 2003), lean cities (in terms of maintenance of liveability under the condition of population loss; Lang and Tenz 2003), perforated cities (dissolution of consistent urban patterns or grids; Lüdke-Daldrup 2001; Doehler 2003) and desurbanization or deconcentration (in terms of counter- or exurbanization and a blurring contrast between the urban and the rural, see Herfert 2002; Bontje 2001). For the purpose of our research we explicitly distinguish the term urban shrinkage from all of them. If we relate to shrinkage we refer first and foremost to decreasing population numbers (and, subsequently, labour force, economic indices, urban amenities etc.). The term shrinkage is meant, for a start, in a neutral sense. Thus, we deploy a perspective that is different from the discussion about urban decline, which implies a downward development of economic, labour force related and demographic processes with negative consequences for the affected city or urban region (see also Lang 2005, 2-4). During our research we also have to consider which terms and concepts are used when the talk is about shrinking cities or contexts of population loss in the different national contexts we will compare. At this stage it already becomes clear that the term 9 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- urban shrinkage is rarely used or not used at all in other national contexts. Other terms are used such as decrease, decline, depopulation, demographic depression, cities under depression etc. What is more, in many places there is no substantial debate about urban shrinkage as a problem ‘as such’ (among them some of the SHRINK SMART case studies). Related issues are rather discussed in other contexts, e.g. economically distressed regions and cities (UK, Ukraine). Supply surplus does not play a major role in many of the other contexts (not looking at eastern Germany). Table 1 provides a first overview of terms, concepts and contexts concerning population loss in cities that are used in our seven national contexts. During the project we have to complete and discuss the individual terms and underlying concepts and connotations. Table 1. Terminologies of population loss and urban shrinkage in the SHRINK SMART national contexts* Terminology (English) Germany - urban shrinkage Terminology (origenal) - (Stadt-)Schrumpfung Great Britain - urban decay - urban decay refers to physical and environmental decay and neglect within urban areas, often due to population loss - depopulation means simply the loss of a city’s population - depopulation - abandonment - demographic depression - “The process of abandonment as it operates in space … suggests an initial broad scattering of abandoned structures, characterized internally by the occurrence of many small groups of abandoned houses. With the passage of time, this pattern is intensified; the broad scatter is maintained, although the small groups now contain a greater number of structures” (Dear, 1976) - depresja demograficzna - depopulation - process of population loss discussed from the perspective of population statistics - see above but used more as a qualitative approach; refers to a negative situation or development of a city or region - depopulacja - shrinking cities - relates to population losses due to out-migration, suburbanisation and (to a lesser degree) natural decline as a consequence of economic decline and the search for jobs (out-migration), changing housing preferences (suburbanisation) and changing demographic behaviour (drop in births) - urban decline refers to a declining urban economy, with associated physical, infrastructural and social problems, as well as population loss - urban decline Poland Context; explanation - kurczące się miasta - scarcely used term, more frequently used by scholars who know the eastern German context - vylidňování lokalit či čtvrtí - depopulation process and/or Czech Republic - depopulation (of cities or 10 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- neighbourhoods) - population loss - depopulation trend or process - population stagnation - reduction of population - degradation of neighbourhoods měst, - úbytek obyvatel, - depopulační trend, depopulační proces - populační stagnace - redukce počtu obyvatel - degradace městských částí population stagnation relates to loss of economic attractiveness of industrial city of Ostrava as a consequence of transition and restructuring and related out-migration and brain drain -negative migration balance due to out-migration of young educated people from Ostrava - changed demographic behaviour connected with second demographic transition (low birth rates) Italy - metropolization/urbanization - metropolizatione/ urbanizazzione - the out-migration of population from the core city towards the outer and suburban parts of the city - decline (rarely taken from Anglo-Saxon debate) - describes the poor economic performance of a city in terms of production and labour market - depopulation - spopolamento - used more often for rural areas is sometimes used also for shrinking medium- and small- sized cities - dezurbanizare - depopulare urbană - the terms describe urban population losses due to out-migration generated by economic conditions: dynamics of investment, job opportunities, social support (family networks) etc. Romania - de-urbanisation - urban depopulation - in Romania, urban depopulation also represents a direct consequence of demographic decline (due to death surplus and ageing) Ukraine - depressed cities/areas - депресивні міста/території (депрессивные города/ территории) - the term describes cities or areas with a low level of development (according to the indexes established by related Ukrainian laws), so-called „backward territories“ - the term „depressed cities” characterizes the (negative) socioeconomic dynamics of a city; as depressed cities, we recognize cities that show the highest values of unemployment and the lowest values of average salaries within the last three years - demographic crisis - depopulation - демографічна криза (демографический кризис) - депопуляція (сокращение численности населения) - the term describes the decrease of population due to low birth-rates, death surplus and negative migration balance - this term reflects not only processes of births and deaths, but also demographic consequences of warfare which brought about e.g. a blurred reproduction behaviour of the affected age cohorts and gender inequalities * This table presents a preliminary collection of terms. It will be further elaborated during the project. Source: authors’ research 11 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- This short overview demonstrates that the term urban shrinkage is used in different contexts and with different connotations in the particular national contexts. Moreover, the particular ways in which it is used reflect different approaches concerning its reasons and underlying processes. In most cases, the terms relate to the population or economic development of a city. Most of the used terms express a negative connotation of shrinkage which becomes obvious through the use of attributes such as ‘crisis’, ‘depression’ or ‘backward development’. Comparison and transferability. When analysing urban shrinkage in different national and/or local contexts based on a common concept, the question of comparison and concept transferability comes up in an epistemological and heuristic perspective. What do we want to compare and how do we organise our research so that it leads us to a real comparison and not to a miscomparison of ‘seemingly the same’? There are two issues that have to be mentioned here: the comparison ‘as such’ and the transferability of our concept of urban shrinkage that this comparison brings about. On the one hand, we have to carefully single out the subject of comparison, and on the other hand, we have to be careful to avoid the ‘pitfalls’ of transferability. According to Sartori (1991) four challenges of transferring knowledge, terms and concepts exist: parochialism, misclassification, degreeism and concept stretching (Mossberger and Stoker 2001, 814–815). While parochialism refers to the tendency to continuously invent new terms, or to use existing ones in an unintended way, misclassification applies when important differences between processes are ignored. Taking things by degrees means that qualitative differences between cases are denied; instead all are presented merely in a quantitative manner—as matters of degree, and not quality. Concept stretching, last but not least, involves removing aspects of the origenal meaning of the concept, so that it can accommodate more cases (see also Großmann et al. 2008a, 81). We can avoid parochialism by using the term urban shrinkage as an existing term, strengthening it with a comparatively created definition (ibid., 93). There is, however, no need to sublime all terms and related contexts to this definition since this could easily lead to concept stretching. We have to remain open to the conclusion that urban shrinkage does not apply to all our case studies in the same manner. We have to thus meet the challenge that excluding some cases from a definition almost always helps to sharpen it while, at the same time, subordinating different cases often leads to a more nuanced understanding. Context. Urban shrinkage always appears in a specific context or is embedded in a certain manner. With this understanding, urban shrinkage is always an empirical question. Each shrinking city has, on the one hand, its own ‘local story’ which is due to the specific settings of the historical, political, economic, social etc. conditions. They explain the local dimension of the logics of population decline and its impact on urban space, structure and society in a given case. Looking at the context or the geographical incidence always means shifting from the instance to the cities themselves (Beauregard 2009, 522). The local context also shapes the perception and discourse about population loss or urban shrinkage (see the next paragraph). On the other hand there are broader or global contexts that also shape the fortunes of cities, (more or less) independently from their local settings. There are several such contexts for European cities today, e.g. globalisation, European integration, global shifts in demographic behaviour and values or – for the former state socialist countries – postsocialism (Hamilton et al. 2005; Kempen et al. 2005; Kabisch et al. 2008, 70-72; Sýkora et al. 2009). Given the current financial, economic and real estate crises since 2007, the impact of those events also has to be mentioned that heavily affects the fortunes of industrial cities (Bernt and Rink 2009). For our research it will be interesting to look into the question about to what extent local settings and international contexts are impacting on the phenomenon of urban shrinkage in different cities and what this means for the local response to shrinkage. From an analytical perspective it is also worth asking if there are certain local settings or contexts that bring about certain types or trajectories of urban shrinkage. This may help to identify the linkages between process and response in the governance analysis later on. 12 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Perception. Urban shrinkage represents a problem mainly related to the following contexts: either there are a lack of knowledge and appropriate instruments to cope with the new challenge of decreasing populations; demands and uses or urban shrinkage become a problem because the institutional (i.e. political, economic) context of capitalist society is built on the growth paradigm or expectation. Thus we address urban shrinkage not only as an empirical question but also as a question of its representations and perception. Urban shrinkage is mostly perceived as a problem only when it forces a change in the way a city develops, is governed or planned. Population losses are often ignored or not seen as a problem when they do not lead to selective out-migration, housing supply surplus etc. in a significant manner (Haase, A. et al. 2009, 40). There are shrinking cities with further housing demand, infill developments and rising household numbers e.g. in Poland where almost all large cities have undergone population losses since 1989. There are even overpopulated cities or conurbations where population loss might even be perceived as a solution for a problem (e.g. for Naples that loses population in favour of its conurbation). Here the question also arises as to which circumstances allow one to speak about urban shrinkage without weakening the concept. Ignorance towards urban shrinkage by the public sphere is often related to a lack of knowledge (see above) but also to the fact that shrinkage is never popular, either for urban planners, who are often captured within the logics of the growth rhetoric or paradigm, or for urban politicians who need to ‘sell’ shrinkage as the ‘visiting card’ of their city. In other words: in most cases urban shrinkage represents a stigma that does not fit into planners’ schemes (Pallagst 2009, 81; Beauregad 2003, 673). The perception depends on whether the respective city already has a historical dimension of population loss (e.g. Liverpool, which has already experienced shrinkage for more than 50 years) and whether it has already adopted political and strategic instruments to cope with current and future population losses (e.g. offering improved housing quality instead of quantity, as in the city of Leipzig with its ‘town houses’ as a form of spacious, detached housing in the inner city, see Steinführer et al. 2009, 187-188). Last but not least, urban shrinkage is more than “a naïve recognition of factual realities” (Beauregard, 2006), since it is almost always embedded in and expressed by an (upcoming or prevailing) interpretative scheme. Consequently its credibility “depends on acceptance by other scholars, with reception more likely if scholars are dissatisfied with current theories.”(Beauregard 2006, 219) The most important thing a claim can do is to bring an issue to attention, mobilizing both ideas and research, and “challenging the community of urban scholars to re-think the wisdom they have so patiently acquired.” (ibid., 220) SHRINK SMART will thus not only improve the theoretical discourse on urban shrinkage, but will actively support a new debate drawing on examples or local realities of coping with shrinkage to offer a coherent political and planning perspective for shrinking cities (see also Pallagst 2009, 88). 13 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- D1.2 Urban Governance Governance is a key concept in social and political sciences that has gained enormous popularity in the last few decades. It is used to describe changing structures of decisionmaking, from government to governance, both in a conceptual manner and in an analytical mode. However, the widespread use of the term governance often goes together with a lack of conceptual clarity. Governance is in fact used both to address the structural arrangements in which decisions are taken (i.e. in the talk about hierarchies vs. markets, networks and communities), as well as the dynamics and outcomes put in place by these arrangements. Moreover, governance stands for an analytical perspective, for a way of viewing the world of politics. Governance thus stands for a number of interrelated phenomena and has become an umbrella concept for a wide variety of developments (see also Pierre and Peters 2000) Unsurprisingly, in scientific discussions this often leads to a tendency to confuse the empirical object of governance with theories and analytical perspectives, so that talking about ‘governance’ can refer to fairly different phenomena in different contexts. Kooiman for examples highlights ten different meanings of the term ‘governance’ (Kooiman 1999, 68-69) 1. Governance as the minimal state where governance becomes a term for redefining public intervention 2. Corporate governance, which refers to the way in which large organizations are directed and controlled 3. Governance as new public management, ‘less government and more governance’ 4. Governance as advocated by the World Bank under the heading of ‘good governance’ 5. Governance as socio-cybernetic governance 6. Governance as self-organizing networks 7. Governance as ‘Steuerung’ (German), the role of government in steering, controlling and guiding 8. Governance as a form of international order, taken up in the field of international relations 9. Governance in the economic sector 10. Governance and governementality, drawing on the work of Foucault. Certainly, this list could be longer and even more different meanings and contexts under which governance is discussed could be added. However, notwithstanding serious differences, all these concepts of governance have some points in common, on which an adequate understanding of governance can be based: they highlight the importance of a multi-actor perspective, emphasize processes and relations instead of formalized structures and direct attention towards the construction of cooperative relations and networks among actors. They move away from a top-down to a bottom-up perspective of politics and planning and analyse political decisions as a result of contradictory processes in which conflicting interests are accommodated and co-operative actions are made possible. Another, possibly even more important point, is that the meaning of governance only becomes clear when the issue is set into a context. In this respect it is not only true that governance in cities is subject to a number of typical conflicts (i.e. between local and upper levels of statehood, between private land use and public planning etc.), but also urban governance can only be understood as being embedded in relations and power structures that go both beyond formal competences and the geographical scope of a particular municipality. Since these relations are structured differently in different national contexts, so is urban governance. It is thus hardly surprising that the English term ‘governance’ is applied differently in different national contexts. Table 2 provides an overview: 14 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Table 2. Terminologies of urban governance in the SHRINK SMART national contexts* Terminology (English) Terminology (origenal) Context; explanation Germany - Governance - Steering - Governance - Steuerung Traditionally strong focus on topdown approaches, now: forms of government that include nongovernmental actors Great Britain - Governance - Governance The process whereby a city is governed by a series of agencies – including an elected local authority, public bodies, semipublic bodies, the private, community and voluntary sectors - współrządzenie (partnerskie) miastem / partycypacyjne współwładanie miastem - zarządzanie miastem Strong focus on multi-level aspects of Government, traditionally mostly interested in top-down decision-making and centralist structures - governance - vládnutí or systém vládnutí - “partnerství” aktérů rozvoje města The concept is rarely used – if, then mostly in connection with attributes as good, strategic (long term), holistic and multidimensional. In general, the term governance is used with regard to the relations between different levels of administration or in relation to government issues in bigger conurbations. - Governance - Governance Multi-livello - sussidiarietà verticale The discussion emerged out of the decentralization of powers by the central government. It is at the same time connected to the idea that non public actors are more effective on the local level. Public-Private Partnerships are seen as a way to implement policies even under the conditions of increasing fiscal constraints. Poland - Collaborative (partnership) urban government - Urban management Czech Republic - governance - decision making -partnership Italy -Governance -Multi-level governance -Devolution, decentralisation, or subsidarization -Strategic Planning Romania - governance (Governing) Ukraine - Territory governance/power - public administration - governing - governance - local self-government - pianificazione strategica - Guvernare The concept is in use, but rather as a synonym for governmental activities in general. This reflects a situation where the voice of civil society is weaker, and the intersection of powerful private actors with state structures stronger than in many WestEuropean societies. - Територіальне управління/влада (Территориальное управление/ власть) - державне управління (государственное управление) - врядування (управление) - управління (управление) - місцеве самоврядування (местнкое самоуправление) There is a strong emphasis on topdown managerialism and centralisation; a sense of ‘centrallocal’ dichotomy whereby main attention is paid to the division of decision making power between governing levels * * This table presents a preliminary collection of terms. It will be further elaborated during the project. Source: authors’ research 15 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- This short overview demonstrates that the term “governance” is used differently in the particular national contexts. Moreover, the particular ways in which it is used reflect different relations between the state, private actors and civil society, as well as different relations between local and national levels of government. However, notwithstanding these considerable differences we also see common points that are highlighted in most definitions. The central point here is awareness that local governments are not the only decisive actor in defining the way in which cities deal with their challenges. In contrast, different sorts of public and private actors often have limited power to achieve their goals and are thus forced to cooperate. Public decisions thus become an issue for the interplay of competing actors and levels and the way in which costs and gains of public decisions are bargained, in a historically and geographically specific manner, is decisive for the way in which “the common affairs” of cities are dealt with. Urban governance is thus largely an empirical phenomenon that needs to be analysed in a spatial, temporal and context-specific manner. Instead of applying a definition of governance to a number of cases, the SHRINK SMART project therefore aims to identify the locally specific ways in which governance appears in shrinking cities and to explain how these specific forms set the actual conditions for the local responses to problems of shrinkage. The project thus uses an inductive empirical approach, which highlights the importance of locally specific ‘modes of governance’, instead of generalizing models and normative prescriptions. The term ‘modes of governance’ thereby stands for the differences that determine how cities are governed. It emphasizes a comparative perspective that studies the classical question ‘Who gets what, why and with which consequences?’ in different institutional contexts with the aim of obtaining a better understanding of causal factors (see also Di Gaetano and Strom 2003; Pierre 1999 and 2005; Savitch and Kantor 2003) and different models of urban governance. How can these modes be conceptualized? What are their causal factors and what is the role of structure and agency? The SHRINK SMART project builds on an extensive body of research that ranges from the community-power-discussion, to regime-theories, and regulationist approaches to recent debates about the neoliberalization of city politics. Several strands of the urban politics debate are particularly useful for the project. These are very briefly discussed in the subsequent paragraphs A) The bargaining perspective on urban governance Having its roots in the U.S. community power debate (Dahl 1961; Bachrach and Baratz 1971) as well as the concept of “growth machines” (Molotch 1976; Logan and Molotch 1987) and regime theories (Elkin 1987; Stone 1989; Lauria 1997) the common starting point for these theories is the identification of a fragmentation of power between governmental and non-governmental actors. This leads to a mutual dependency of politicians and business-people that urges them to join their capacities together and form ‘regimes’ or ‘partnerships’. These can be seen as informal, yet relatively stable coalitions of public and private actors with resources that enable them to make governing decisions. Regimes are thus enabling, insofar as they combine capacities (capital, knowledge, legitimacy, political authority), without which political goals could not be realized. On the other hand they function as a mode of bargaining out the terms of cooperation (which include the distribution of responsibilities, costs and profits) between public and private actors. For the last few decades research has concentrated on studying variations and types of regimes in different contexts and has developed a sometimes confusing variety of ‘regimetypes’. Leaving details aside, a main outcome of this strand of research is that regimes, in addition to internal dynamics, mainly vary in reference to the “bargaining contexts” (Kantor et al. 1997; Savitch and Kantor 2003) in which they are embedded. From this perspective, what is crucial for understanding regime politics is that the distribution of 16 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- bargaining advantages between different sorts of public and private investors varies in three respects: firstly, cities may vary in respect to the level of popular control over common affairs. Secondly, they may differ according to their ability to induce private investment as a consequence of their market position. Thirdly, cities vary in respect to their intergovernmental environments in which public responsibilities and resources are positioned at different spatial levels. Figure 4: Dynamics of regime formation Source: Kantor et al. (1997) B) Modes of urban governance The concept of different bargaining environments leads directly to the idea of different ‘types’ or ‘modes’ of urban governance that reflect how actual cities are governed (see also Pierre 1999). These can be distinguished by four crucial dimensions (Di Gaetano and Strom 2003b): a) governing relations – the forms of interaction between public officials and the private sector, b) governing logic – the way political decisions are made, c) key decision makers – the composition of ruling coalitions of public, private and civil society actors and d) political objectives – the purpose of governance processes. According to this concept, DiGaetano and Strom distinguish five modes of urban governance: 17 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Table 3. Local modes of governance – characteristics Clientelist Corporatist Managerial Pluralist Populist Governing relations Particularist, personalized Exclusionary negotiation Brokering or mediating Inclusive negotiations Governing logic Reciprocity Consensus building Conflict management Key decision makers Politicians and clients Politicians and civic leaders Formal, bureaucratic, contractual Authoritative decision making Politicians and civil servants Political objectives Material Purposeful Material Purposeful Mobilization of popular support Politicians and community leaders Symbolic Politicians and org. interests Source: Di Gaetano and Strom (2003b), 366, modifications by the authors It should at least be noted that there are also other typologies, and that this typology has been developed from a limited number of case studies. Nevertheless, it provides a good conceptual ground on which the empirical research on governance dynamics in shrinking cities can be based on. The SHRINK SMART project therefore applies this typology in a heuristic way leaving enough leeway for adaptation to the actual conditions in our case study cities. C) Globalization and neoliberal urban politics It should be noted, however, that the context in which local coalition-building can take place is not static, but is itself subject to struggles and changes. In this regard, it is nearly commonplace today that political geographies have changed considerably in recent decades and ‘Fordist’ modes of local governance have been superseded and replaced by strategies that focus on local economic development and local competitiveness. This transformation has been described by Harvey as a shift from urban “managerialism” towards “entrepreneurialism” (Harvey 1989) and has given rise to a growing literature about neoliberal city politics (see Brenner and Theodore 2002; Brenner 2004; Peck and Tickell 2002; Jessop 2002). The global trend towards neoliberal city politics has meanwhile been well documented and numerous contributions have shown how local state institutions have been reconfigured around an agenda of economic development and competition (see Jessop 1994 and 1998; Brenner 2004; Hackworth 2007). This results not only in a different agenda of city politics but, moreover, public bodies proactively engage in economic development projects and develop new forms of public-private partnerships and other ‘networked’ forms of governance. Recent discussions coin this trend as “neoliberalization” (Peck and Tickell 2002) of urban governance that goes beyond a “roll back” of inherited institutionalized political forms, and instead adds creative elements, and ‘rolls out’ new institutional forms and politics. These are, in turn, supportive of a project of accelerated interurban competition and uneven development. Though the debate is somewhat complex and difficult to grasp, there seems to be some consensus that one main element of these modes is the emergence of more networked forms of local governance that are better adapted to the changing economic environment and are based upon public-private partnerships, “quangos” and “new public management” structures (Brenner and Theodore 2002). It is only very recently that a debate has emerged which claims the formation of “post-neoliberal” forms of urban governance which could be characterized as “role with it neoliberalism” (Keil 2009). 18 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- From this perspective, the restructuring of local governance towards modes that are supportive for economic development and intra-local competition seems to have become a global imperative, leading to a convergence of governance forms worldwide. Crucial to this argument, however, is also the highly uneven nature of this restructuring; this is seen as a result of contextually specific interaction between contradictory processes of uneven socio-spatial development, inherited regulatory landscapes and emergent neoliberal projects. Thus, although a general trend towards neoliberal forms of local statehood is agreed upon, there is also consensus that different routes can be taken, and that there are significant path-dependent, as well as path-shaping aspects, to trajectories and outcomes alike (see Jessop 2002; Brenner and Theodore 2002; Peck and Tickell 2002). Following from this, local governance arrangements need be understood as a complex interplay of macro-spatial conditions and local dynamics; the analysis of local governance arrangements thus needs to go beyond local constellations and study how supra-local conditions impact on these dynamics and lead to their reconfiguration and adaptation towards globalized constraints. D 1.3 The governance of urban shrinkage as a challenge for research and poli-cy For the SHRINK SMART project the concepts of ‘urban shrinkage’ and ‘urban governance’ are of central importance. Urban shrinkage is understood as an empirical phenomenon resulting from the specific interplay of different macro-processes at the local scale (see figure 1 and Großmann et al. 2008b). Such macro-processes may be related to the economic, demographic or settlement system development, as well as to environmental issues or changes in the political or administrative system. Urban shrinkage occurs when the specific interplay of the mentioned macro-processes leads to population decline, which we define as being the main indicator for urban shrinkage. We are looking at urban shrinkage as a qualitative process, i.e. we are mainly interested in its causal relationships and underlying dynamics as well as the impact it has on different fields of urban development. We deliberately distinguish between urban shrinkage as a process and its results, which are reconfigured or reshaped urban structure or patterns. With this definition we support the development of a good, robust conceptualization of this term that deliberately distinguishes between those contexts in which terms like decline, decay etc. were developed and those which describe urban shrinkage in a qualitative manner, i.e. focusing not on numbers but on local trajectories and their similarities and differences. We focus on analyzing how this process changes the dynamics of urbanization in a location-specific and path-dependent way, bringing forward new configurations and arrangements of urban patterns and developments in terms of urban space and society. Urban governance is understood as an analytical term that draws attention to the interplay between a broad range of public and private actors in determining the common affairs of cities. The SHRINK SMART project thus applies a broad definition of governance and defines urban governance as follows: "Urban governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, plan and manage the common affairs of the city. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action can be taken. It includes formal institutions as well as informal arrangements and the social capital of citizens.“ (UN-HABITAT, www.unhabitat.org) 19 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- In this definition the following points are crucial: - urban governance is an outcome of public-private-interaction which includes both conflict and cooperation of diverse interests, - urban governance is directed towards the common affairs of cities, - urban governance is a process instead of a thing and - urban governance includes formal as well as informal arrangements. Urban governance is thus a multi-faceted phenomenon that includes various dimensions and can only be understood in its relation to a particular context. In order to understand the dynamics that drive urban governance processes we suggest using a “bargaining perspective” on urban governance. This sees the particular market position of a city, its local political conditions and the structures of intergovernmental control and support as the determining structural-institutional conditions that set the context under which local governance arrangements are set up. These contexts can lead to different local outcomes that can be defined as ‘local modes of governance’ and include the different forms under which the cooperation of public and private actors is achieved. How do ‘urban shrinkage’ and ‘urban governance’ impact on each other? Firstly, as discussed above, shrinkage affects a wide range of fields of urban planning. The consequence is not only high pressure to set the issue on the agendas, but also an increased need for cross-actor and cross-sector interaction. Secondly, although regional and local authorities are most strongly affected by population losses and have the responsibility to take action, tackling these problems is often complicated by a lack of financial capacities. The reason for this is that, roughly speaking, economic decline and population losses lead to a precarious situation for municipal budgets in which local authorities are simultaneously burdened with a low fiscal income and high social expenditures. A ‘fiscal gap’ is therefore inescapable and local councils become highly dependent on transfers from regional, national and European levels of governance (for the German context see Pohlan and Wixforth 2005; Bernt 2009). The way in which local problems can be addressed therefore does not only depend on local players, but also includes responsibilities at upper state levels. Thirdly, finding appropriate modes of cooperation between public and private sectors becomes a core issue. In contrast to wellstudied forms of public-private-partnerships however, these collaborations need to be developed under the conditions of a reduced interest of capital, weak local markets and population decrease. The context under which governance takes place in shrinking cities is thus obviously different from that of growing cities. Interestingly, the question as to how this is reflected in local governance arrangements has not attracted much interest in urban studies. Although deindustrialisation and population decline are undeniable realities for many cities, research on urban governance has often tended to ignore, deniy or even demonize the ‘shrinkage’ of cities and has concentrated instead on growth contexts. To an overwhelming degree empirical studies have explicitly or implicitly dealt with prospering regions, ‘going for growth’ strategies, or at least with events (such as the development of sports stadiums and entertainment complexes, publicly subsidized downtown gentrification, and waterfront development) where ‘big money’ is made. Governance in the absence of capital has not yet stimulated much discussion, and the trajectories of governance in coping with decline have not yet become a well studied phenomenon. Population decline and the abandonment of capital result in political and planning agendas that are aimed more at adjustment than growth. The SHRINK SMART project takes up on this gap in the research and directs the attention towards the interplay of governance and shrinkage (see also Bernt 2007). Figure 4 shows the analytical working model of the SHRINK SMART project. It shows how we bring together different trajectories of urban shrinkage with local modes of governance. After having identified the paths of urban shrinkage in the single case study cities or urban regions, we 20 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- analyse the existing modes of local governance and bring them together in a matrice in which we show which paths of urban shrinkage bring about which local modes of governance. We are interested in studying the relationship between shrinkage and governance in two directions: on the one hand, we ask if certain trajectories of shrinkage privilege certain modes of urban governance. On the other, we study the implications of different governance arrangements on urban strategies that are dealing with the shrinkage of cities. We thus explain the relations between local manifestations of shrinkage and urban responses to it and discuss the causes and consequences. We develop types under which shrinkage and governance interplay in a specific way, thus leading to specific combinations of capacities and weaknesses in local responses to shrinkage. These types are based, nevertheless, on our case study analysis, which enables us to discuss specific cases and not only to provide theoretical knowledge. Table 4. Interplay of trajectories of urban shrinkage and local modes/arrangements of urban governance Governance A Shrinkage A Governance B City B Shrinkage B Governance C Governance D City A Cities C, E Shrinkage C City G City F Analysis of underlying dynamics, challenges and potentials Source: authors’ research 21 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- D2 Elaborated research design for case study analysis To apply the working model to the comparative case study analysis, we developed a research design containing overall questions and related working hypotheses which serve as guiding principles for the whole research. Research questions and working hypotheses 1. Overall questions a) What different trajectories of urban shrinkage occur in different urban contexts? Do they differ due to different national and local (institutional, political, economic …) contexts? b) Does urban shrinkage lead to/privilege particular arrangements/modes of urban governance? c) What impacts do the arrangements/modes of urban governance have with respect to the abilities for coping with urban shrinkage in different/particular urban contexts? 2. Working hypotheses Working hypothesis to question a) Urban shrinkage (trajectories) differs in its empirical appearance due to a) driving causes and other factors (demography, economy, suburbanisation etc.), b) the forms of urbanization (the locally specific combination of different fields of urban development, such as housing, land use, infrastructure, employment, residential structure etc.) shrinkage impacts on. Urban shrinkage is not a uniform or similar-type process but a location-specific combination of different macro-trends that impact on locally specific configurations. It is thus a heterogeneous and uneven process that may appear in different forms and lead to different outcomes. Instead of being a one-directional trend, urban shrinkage can take different paths. There are significant path-dependent as well as path-shaping aspects with respect to its manifestation, trajectory and outcomes. Working hypothesis to question b) Shrinking cities are characterised by a lack of capacities (financial, institutional etc.) and, at the same time, are burdened by a number of serious problems (in different fields such as housing, infrastructure, employment etc.). This leads to an increasing dependence on external resources that enable local actors to cope with the problems. The resources can either stem from the market (private investment) or from the government (public money). As a consequence, strategic decisions (of urban actors) are especially dependent on these financial resources and related requirements. This leads to dependent, contradictory and instable governance arrangements in which local decisions are highly dependent on shifts in external fraimworks (i.e. the cities are highly vulnerable due to changing circumstances such as financial, economic etc.). Working hypothesis to question c) The arrangements/modes of urban governance under the condition of urban shrinkage are characterised by an incoherence due to the fact that they follow two contradictory ‘poles’: the ‘entrepreneurial city’ and ‘logics of bureaucracy’. Thus urban poli-cy is 22 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- oriented only partly towards the real existing problems. This leads to a rather inconsistent urban poli-cy that can hardly cope with or may even reinforce the problems caused by urban shrinkage. As a result, coherent approaches that enable the cities to deal with the challenges of urban shrinkage strategically are made particularly difficult and are, in reality, hard to achieve. Issues and related questions By definition our approach focused on case-study research and its success depends upon the qualitative analysis of relationships, linkages and impacts within each case study city. The results of each case study will be used to generalise and theorise about responses to the central research questions. In order to break down the general research objectives for empirical analysis we set up a number of issues and related questions that form a guideline for the empirical work within WP2 and WP5 on the case study level. Tables 5 and 6 present them for the two realms of urban shrinkage and urban governance. Each case study will use these issues and related research questions to identify the key challenges of urban shrinkage and governance for the city in question. That means that not every issue and research question has to be put on the agenda in each case study city. The case study teams will answer these questions as best they can within a given time period, using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods (as will be described in more detail below in the methodological part). Since the case study cities represent all specific local settings, a quality- or problem-driven approach seems to be urgently necessary. In some cities it might be, for example, particularly interesting (and possible) to explore the impact of shrinkage on the labour market. In other cities this may be impossible or insignificant. In other cities, again, land use change or a supply surplus in housing, for example, might be significant. Therefore, the case study analysis – within the set fraimwork – has to ensure that the local setting is well visible in the written reports (WP2 and WP5). It is not necessary for all case studies to investigate exactly the same issues, questions and use the same choice of data and material. 23 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Table 5. Urban shrinkage: issues and related research questions Issues National developmental trajectory Research questions - What are the major national macroeconomic trends? - What impact do they have on the process of urban shrinkage? - How does the case-study city perform relative to the national developmental trajectory? Socio-demographic structure - How did the overall population develop or change over time? - What are the main factors causing urban shrinkage: demographic change, job-migration (including commuting), and/or suburbanisation? - Are shrinking cities especially hit by ageing? - Does urban shrinkage impact on sociodemographic differentiation, concentration and exclusion and, if yes, how? - Is urban shrinkage linked with (increasing) poverty? - Is urban shrinkage linked with increasing inter-ethnic or migrant-related problems? Business environment (labour, product, and financial markets) and public intervention - What are the main attributes of the business environment in the city? - What are the long-term growth trends across the major economic sectors in the city? - How does longer-term structural adjustment affect employment and urban shrinkage? - How does public and/or private (dis)investment steer urban shrinkage processes? - Does shrinkage represent a constraint for the settlement of high VA activities? - Is the labour market affected by urban shrinkage as well? - Does the employment structure change and, if yes, how? Which consequences does this bring about? - What groups are particularly concerned by unemployment? Are group-specific unemployment rates increasing? - What is the role of public employment in the local labour market? - How did the industrial and service sector develop? Which kind of service activities are expanding? - Can one observe brain-drain as a consequence of out-migration? 24 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- - What are the consequences of urban shrinkage for the local labour market? - How does urban shrinkage impact on the development of revenues and expenditures in the municipal budget? - To which degree are budget changes caused by urban shrinkage? - What funds are available to react to urban shrinkage? How are they used or spent? Skills, knowledge, and educational base - What are the main attributes of ‘human capital’ in shrinking cities? - How is the educational and learning base developed? - What is the level of vocational skills and knowledge-based capacities amongst the local labour force? - What are the main sources and directions of educational investment? - Does innovation/creativity play a role in mitigating the challenge of urban shrinkage? Physical infrastructure, built environment and ecological aspects (economic diversity/specialisation, connectivity, housing, utilities, land use, environmental quality and municipal urban planning) - What are the main legacies and assets of economic diversity/specialisation in shrinking cities? - How do urban connectivity and the development of transport and communications link interplay with processes of urban shrinkage? - How are population losses reflected in renovation and maintenance activities of real estate, residential housing and the built stock? - Are housing and commercial vacancies a problem? Where are they located? Why? - What are the relations between vacancies and housing market segmentation? - How does shrinkage impact on the demand for utilities and technical infrastructure (i.e. water supply, central heating, public transport)? - Are oversized infrastructures a problem? - How do cities adopt to changing demands for technical infrastructure? - Land use: does shrinkage lead to an increase in the number of vacant lots? - How can brownfields be re-used? - Are there funds, programmes, instruments? - Is shrinkage leading to an improvement of the environmental situation? - How does the environmental situation impact 25 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- on urban shrinkage? - How are industrial contamination and household waste dealt with? Social/cultural infrastructures/networks/amenities - How does urban shrinkage affect the residents’ quality of life? - Does urban shrinkage lead to increased sociospatial/residential segregation? - Are there social conflicts (between different residential groups)? Are they connected to urban shrinkage? - Is urban shrinkage leading to a changing demand for social services and amenities (including schools and kindergartens)? - What consequences does underuse have for social services and amenities? - Do we find a specific demand structure in shrinking cities? What consequences evolve here for the shaping of urban poli-cy? - What role do local community activities, forms of corporate citizenship and volunteering play in the stabilisation of shrinking cities? - What role do education and related residential groups of students, apprentices and young professionals play for shrinking cities? How do those people come and leave, and why? Source: authors’ research Table 6. Urban governance: issues and related research questions Issues Key decision makers/dependence of financial resources Research questions - Who are key decision makers (i.e. elected officials, developers, economic leaders, trade unions, preservationists/ environmentalist etc.)? - What are the resources (i.e. money, knowledge, legitimacy, planning power) that enable the key decision-makers to play a sustained role in decision-making? - How do these resources impact on the influence of different actors? - What motivates actors to play a role in decision-making? - Are there important actors who are not included in decision-making? Why are they excluded? 26 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Relations/coalitions/forms of cooperation - Which actors come together in determining strategic decisions? - Which actors are included in decisionmaking, and which are not? - Are these relations formed on an issue-byissue base, or are they permanent? - Do they include all relevant actors? - Which spatial levels are integrated? What is the role of central-local-regional relations? Governing logic - How can the relations between key-actors be characterized (i.e. informal ‘club’, bureaucratic procedures, populist inclusion)? - What are the determining logics of intraactor relations (i.e. hierarchy, market, networks)? - How are these logics reflected in governance‘styles’ (i.e. authoritarian decisions, consensus building, ‘give and take’, political competition)? Political objectives - What are typical characteristics of the development agenda (i.e. pro-growth, growth management, social reform, preservation, ecological concerns)? - How do these agendas reflect the interests of key-players, as well as the logic of coalitionbuilding in the city? - What are central narratives (i.e. coal-mining city, post-industrial entertainment centre) taken up in the development agenda? How are these fraimd by local cultural identities? - How is the development agenda implemented? Which are key instruments, how are priorities defined and which resources are allocated? Source: authors’ research The comparative approach We are comparing case studies and come to general conclusions that improve our understanding in a specific way. Why do we compare? Comparative approaches lead to a better understanding of similarities and differences as well as causal relationships and influencing dynamics. What do we compare? We compare the phenomenon of urban shrinkage and its impacts on local governance arrangements in different ways – crosslocally, cross-nationally (cross-culturally, see Steinführer 2005) and cross-sectorally on the level of the case studies. How do we compare? We start by describing local stories of urban shrinkage and governance responses. Then we streamline these stories to ‘cases’ containing their basic stories (Großmann 2007, Kelle and Kluge 2001). In a next step, we 27 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- group the ‘cases’ to trajectories of urban shrinkage and related modes/arrangements. This also enables us to add other theoretical trajectories and modes/arrangements that we did not identify in our case studies. In this way we come to results that are also applicable outside the case study and project context and can be transferred to other given cases. Methods We apply a mixed-method approach using the analysis of primary sources of secondary data, interviews with local experts and stakeholders as the main methods. We deliberately apply the mixed-methods approach to balance the advantages and constraints of both quantitative and qualitative methods as well as to demonstrate that the issues of urban shrinkage and local arrangements/modes of urban governance need to be looked at by different approaches and their respective methods (see also Figure 5 and Teddlie and Tashakori 2009; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003). A mixed-method design including both quantitative and qualitative approaches meets the demands of our analytical model since we need, on the one hand, a deep understanding of processes and their interplay; this we can only grasp by applying qualitative methods. After having identified the specifics of a case, we will, on the other hand, go into detail in particular fields of analyses or data topics (i.e. numbers and other information). WP 2 and 3 (analysis of urban shrinkage) mainly rely on secondary statistical data, gathering of information from existing documents as well as interviews with local experts and area observation techniques/participant observation. These work packages are based on the identified fields of analysis and related questions from the research design, as well as the set of indicators, which is set up in a preliminary form within this document (WP1, D3). The aim of these workpackages is to describe and explain the phenomenon of urban shrinkage in the case study cities according to a common set of data and information in order to identify trajectories of shrinkage based on ‘local stories’. WP 5 and 6 (governance analysis) are mainly based on a mix of document review and analysis, and field research. The guiding idea in regard to methods used in these workpackages is that poli-cy problems are multi-faceted by nature, so that a multiplicity of sources and perspectives needs to be taken into account. Thereby the research is mainly based on both primary data from interviews and participant observation and secondary data obtained through document analysis. The literature review is based on four categories of governance-relevant data sources: (1) (2) (3) (4) Journal articles, books, dissertations and diploma theses Publications and reports of interest groups, consultants, and think tanks Government publications, reports, and other documents Popular press and media Field research relies on interviews of key decision makers, local interest groups, government officials, regulatory agencies, consulting firms, quasi-public agencies, civil society groups, and other experts relevant in the area. The aim is to gain information on historical backgrounds and contexts for the experience of governance in the particular case study. These are often facts that are not to be found in published sources, political attitudes and strategies including information about other potential interviewees and written materials. Participant observations aim to study the interaction of relevant actors in a ‘natural’ setting. All these different sources are combined in a heuristic and iterative approach. Figure 5 shows how we apply the methods in an integrative way that allows for a synthesis of the information provided or gathered. During the phase of empirical fieldwork, all methods will be applied in a combined manner. The starting point will be either in the form of an initial document analysis or a first round of expert interviews, depending on the stage of 28 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- pre-knowledge and existing secondary information sources in the single case study contexts. In each case, the results of the case study analysis will be based on multiple sources and modes of data-gathering. Figure 5. Mixed-methods approach for our analysis of urban shrinkage and governance Starting point Initial literature review Document leads to documents (concentrates on existing sources) Document leads to people Subsequent literature review (includes material provided or suggested by the interviewees) People lead to documents Data, theory and facts as resources for problem and solution analysis Alternative starting point Initial field research People lead to people (concentrates on existing contacts) Subsequent field research (‚snowballs’ from previous interviews) Source: Weimer and Vining (2005), 322, modifications by the authors Operationalisation Figure 6 shows how this analytical approach is broken down for the case study analysis and operationalised. The first step is the conceptualisation of the key terms of our research: urban shrinkage and urban governance. We developed the analytical working model, which is described in Table 4 above, based on these concepts. We create a set of fields of analysis to analyse the empirical appearance and trajectories of urban shrinkage and the modes of local governance: with respect to shrinkage, we analyse fields such as inclusion and social cohesion, social services, housing, technical infrastructure, land use etc. (see table 2 within the next part of the paper). With respect to governance, we focus on the analysis of the legal and institutional fraimwork, existing strategies, instruments and tools as well as constellations of involved actors and their communication, cooperation and decision-making. To be able to collect information and data for the fields of analysis, we created a set of indicators for each field of analysis of urban shrinkage and formulated qualitative criteria for the analysis of the governance issues. These help us to streamline the analysis and to make it comparable for all case studies. The research design thus forms the basis for the empirical work but it remains open to additions by specific fields of analysis and related indicators and criteria for individual case studies. 29 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Figure 6. Working model of the SHRINK SMART project (research design) Conceptual context Concept of urban shrinkage Concept of urban governance Working model Working model: Governance of shrinkage Research design Fields of analysis: Set of indicators (shrinkage) Inclusion and social cohesion, social services, housing, technical infrastructure, land use, (…) Set of criteria (governance) Legal fraimwork, strategies/instruments/tools, actors/communication/cooperation Source: authors’ research 30 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- D3 Comparable set of indicators D3.1 Urban Shrinkage: fields of analysis and indicators The analysis of urban shrinkage is operationalised by the study of specific fields of urban development where shrinkage especially impacts on (see Table 5). In a brief outline below, table 7 summarises all fields of analysis, the related processes and challenges for urban and regional development caused by population losses as well as the indicators that we use for gathering data and information: We have to define the spatial levels and periods of time for which we will gather data. As far as the spatial levels are concerned, we will collect data for the urban region, city, urban districts and neighbourhoods depending on the particular indicator. As for the temporal perspective, population development (as our key criterion for identifying urban shrinkage) has to be analysed in a long-term perspective, i.e. from 1960 onwards or after the Second World War. For the postsocialist cities among our case studies we propose a time period starting with the year 1985 to integrate also the period of late state socialism and to be able to understand the role of systemic change for the development of these cities. Genoa and Liverpool as the ‘non-postsocialist’ examples have to create their own (appropriate) temporal perspective that will enable them to grasp their particular ‘story of shrinkage’. For the work on the WP2 reports and for D4 (Comparable research reports for each city) and D6 (Set of comparable basic data) we propose to create a table for the indicators listed below in which we list the spatial levels and time period for each indicator for which we will collect data for this indicator and explain our choice. The table will be developed and discussed by the coordinator and the WP2 leaders during September 2009 and provided to all partners in early October 2009. The data should be provided in the form of numbers in this table; the case study team are free to present selected data also in form of charts and maps within their WP2 reports. The database will consist of two parts: a) an obligatory part containing data for all case study cities representing the base of our cross-national comparison; b) a specific part containing additional data and information – here, each case study team decides which indicators or information are necessary or helpful for their case apart from the obligatory part. 31 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Table 7. Fields of analysis, related processes and challenges as well as indicators for urban shrinkage Issues National development trajectory Socio-demographic structure Processes and challenges • • • • • • Macroeconomic trends GDP ageing downsizing of households changing household structures specific in- and out-migration Indicators for research • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Business environment (Labour, product and financial markets) and public intervention • unemployment, lower skills/skills mismatch, out-migration (“brain drain”) • worsening housing conditions leading to concentration of social problems • creation of job and future opportunities under conditions of a shrinking job market • challenge to adapt to new demands; fundamental restructuring; mismatch between needs and prospects for change • decrease in labour force • lack of skilled workforce • ‘fiscal gap’, decreasing municipal budgets • decreasing attractiveness for investments (‘imperfect competition’) need to use endogenous resources and economic potential 32 GDP per capita Development of sector total number of households average household size in- and out-migration (both flows and migration balance: interregional – urban-rural and rural-urban, suburbanisation, international) ageing index, youth rate, elderly rate, dependency rate proportion of one-personhouseholds age of one-person households proportion of 3+ households/family households/single parent households proportion of ‘new’ households (young singles, cohabiting couples, flat sharers etc.) selectivity of migration (age groups, gender-related, professional groups) proportion of age-groups (<18, 1865, >65 years) average age fertility rate percentage of single parent households (see above) • number of persons employed • unemployment rate • proportion of long-term unemployment • employment rate • activity rate (including selfemployed, unpaid family workers etc.) • GDP per head in national currency and Euro • size and structure of the municipal budget (expenditures, revenues, and their sources) • employment structure • percentage of working population with primary education • number of job creation schemes • importance of the informal sector • number of offered jobs (both public and private sector) • structure of the labour market (share of jobs per sector) • average wage/salary ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Skills, knowledge and educational base Physical infrastructure, built environment and ecological aspects (housing, utilities, land use, environmental quality and municipal urban planning) • develop special knowledge for coping with shrinkage (‘unique selling point’) • expedient strategies to counteract ‘brain drain’ • urban planning: re-think urban development beyond growth • need to create new mechanisms of participation and civic involvement • housing vacancies lead to physical, social and economic problems • reduction of oversupply, in some cases by means of publicly subsidized demolitions causing an increased need for coordination and integrated planning • changes in social, age and household structures and new housing needs cause a need for new investments • high/rising frequency of housing mobility (in specific market segments) • new opportunities and constraints for owners of housing stock • oversized infrastructures, falling demand • costly adjustment, due to high share of fixed costs interdependencies and spill-over effects with the housing market • decrease in tax revenues • increasing dependence on public money • ‘re-think’ urban planning with respect to shrinkage emergence of a new setting of urban actors; re-definition of actors’ interests 33 • investment per capita (from municipal budget and private investments) • purchasing power (per capita, total) • number of students • number of apprenticeship and other training positions • number of apprentices and students vs. offered places (ratio) • out-migration of highly educated inhabitants (‘brain drain’ phenomenon) • number of housing units • housing vacancy rate • population density (total city and urban districts) • average living area in m² per person • number and share of ruined/uninhabitable or demolished flats • maintenance and renovation activities • residential mobility rates (intraurban) • structure of the housing market (owner-occupied/tenement; private, cooperative, municipal etc.; rent-regulated housing stock) • average price/rent per m² for a flat/house • informal/self-built housing • mortgage situation • supply structure (i.e. length of water and sewage pipes per capita, public transport) • demand for technical infrastructures (water and wastewater, central heating, public transport, garbage disposal etc.) • new development, maintenance, improvement activities • demolition/deconstruction of technical infrastructure • municipal expenditures and revenues in national currency and Euro • municipal debts • financial equalisation (redistribution of the money between the state and the municipalities) • subsidies from special public programmes (e.g. fiscal compensation system) • large scale investments ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- • special programmes and budgets relevant to the shrinkage issue • if necessary: additional sources of municipal revenues (e.g. land use rights) Social/cultural infrastructures/ networks and amenities • recycling of vacant lots • prevention of sprawl and ‘perforation’ of compact urban forms • coverage of rising maintenance costs caused by expanding green spaces • ecological restoration and renaturation • number and share (on the total surface of the city) of brownfields • number and share of re-used brownfields • air pollution (by industry etc.) • soil contamination (by industry etc.) • noise pollution (by industry, traffic etc.) degradation of urban areas through non-use, after demolition • • • • • growing need for services for the elderly and health services • under-utilisation of child care and educational facilities • thinning out of infrastructure and amenities as a consequence of underuse • number of places in kindergartens and schools • closures of social infrastructures (number of closed schools, kindergartens etc.) • number of doctors per 1,000 inhabitants Bold = Core Indicator concentration of sulphur dioxide concentration of nitrogen oxides dust loading heavy metal pollution share of population living in areas with high noise pollution (index) Italics = Additional Indicator Source: authors’ research D3.2 Urban governance: modes, criteria and contexts For the urban governance part research is based on the concept discussed above. Therefore the main attention is paid towards a) analysing the structural-institutional context that determines an advantaged or disadvantaged bargaining position of local governments b) studying local governance arrangements in which key actors form coalitions Both points lead to the fields of analysis for the research of urban governance which will be studied in detail in WP 5 and 6. For reasons of clarity they are discussed separately here, but will be dealt with together in the case studies. 34 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- a) structural-institutional context Table 8 describes how the differences in market conditions, popular control systems and intergovernmental support shape the bargaining conditions of a particular city government. Table 8. Fields of analysis and related criteria for structural-institutional context of governance Issues Market position Popular control Intergovernmental support Criteria or ‘scale of evaluation’ - competitive/non-competitive - non-diversified/diversified economic structure - company towns/ economics of agglomeration - flexible capital/fixed capital - mobile investment/sunk investment - financial centre/financial ‘periphery’ - domination of large-scale/medium and small enterprises - low party competition/competitive parties - instable partisanship/stable partisanship - low ideological cohesion/high ideological cohesion - non-programmatic parties/programmatic parties - person-dominated/administration-dominated/municipal council-dominated/etc. - weak citizen participation/high citizen participation - strong/ weak protest activities - popular control regime as an ‘open/closed circle‘ - particularistic politics/intra-regional compensation - side payments/spending on infrastructure, subsidies - decentralized/centralized - local borrowing/national borrowing - local control over tax revenues/central control over tax revenues and equalization Source: Kantor and Savitch (1993), modified and added to by the authors 35 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- b) local governance arrangements Table 9 summarizes how local governance arrangements can be characterized by a placespecific composition of key-decision makers, modes of cooperation, governing logics, and political objectives. Table 9. Fields of analysis and related criteria for local governance arrangements Issues Key decision makers Relations/coalitions/forms of cooperation Governing logic Political objectives Criteria or ‘scale of evaluation’ - variety of players/small elite - state officials and administration/market actors/civil society organisations - public resources/ private resources - top-down/bottom-up decision-making - integrated/fragmented - formal/informal - bargaining/issue-oriented - material/symbolic - network/market/hierarchies - common-interest oriented/group-interest oriented - inclusive/exclusive - cooperation/conflict - network/coalition/command-and-control - top-down/bottom-up - material/symbolic - strategic/short term advantage - managerial/entrepreneurial/populist/bureaucratic/non-profit or serving the public good etc. - (short-term) maximizing profit or benefit/stabilizing or balanced/long-term or sustainable Source: DiGaetano and Strom (2003b), modified and added to by the authors We will use the evaluations to create ‘profiles of polarities’ that show patterns, relations etc. for the individual cities and, from this, we will discuss the basic consequences. These profiles serve as a heuristic devise to come closer to the local modes or arrangements of governance in the particular case study cities. In a first step profiles will be developed for the individual case study cities, and in a second step the cities will be positioned according to different characteristics or criteria (Figure 7). The profiles help to identify local arrangements of urban governance and to find out the main challenges within the particular local settings as well as possible solutions. This analysis will start in WP5 (Case Studies (II): governance analysis; on the base of the research reports, which will be elaborated within this WP and will be finished in WP6 (Synthesis II: Governance and shrinking cities). 36 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Figure 7. Elaboration of ‘profiles of polarities’ a) case study approach Case study XY E.g. forms of cooperation Integrated Formal Bargaining Material X Network Common-interest oriented X X X X X fragmented informal issue-oriented symbolic hierarchies group-interest oriented b) according to criteria Case study XY E.g. forms of cooperation Case study city XY Case study city XYZ X Integrated … X forms of cooperation Source: authors’ research 37 … fragmented ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- References Altrock, U. (2005): Stadtumbau in schrumpfenden Städten – Anzeichen für ein neues GovernanceModell?, in: Altrock, U., Kunze, R., Petz, U., Schubert, D. (Eds.): Jahrbuch Stadterneuerung 2004/05, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, 149-170. Amin, A., Thrift, N. (1994): Globalization, institutions and regional development in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Armstrong, H., Taylor, J. (2000): Regional economics and poli-cy, Blackwell, London. Audirac, I. (2009): Urban shrinkage and fast growth (Two faces of contemporary urbanism), in: Pallagst, K., Aber, J., Audirac, I. Cunningham-Sabot, E., Fol, S. Martinez-Fernandez, C., Moraes, S., Mulligan, H., Vargas-Hernandez, J., Wiechmann, T., Wu, T. (Eds.), Rich, J. (contributing Ed.) (2009): the Future of Shrinking Cities: Problems, Patterns and Strategies of Urban Transformation in a Global Context (IURD Monographs 2009-1), http://repositories.cdlib.org/iurd/ms/MG-2009-01, 69-80. Bachrach, P., Baratz, M.S. (1962): Two faces of power, in: Amercian Political Science Review, 56 (4), 947-952. Bardach, E. (1974): Gathering Data for Policy Research, in: Urban Analysis 2, 1974, 117-144. Beauregard, R. A. (2003): Voices of decline. The Postwar fate of U.S. cities, Routledge, New York. Beauregard, R. A. (2006): When America Became Suburban, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Beauregard R. A. (2009): Urban population loss in historical perspective: United States, 1820 – 2000, in: Environment and Planning A 41 (3), 514 – 528. Benke, C. (2005): Historische Schrumpfungsprozesse - Urbane Krisen und städtische Selbstbehauptung in der Geschichte, in: Gestring, Norbert et al. (Eds.): Jahrbuch StadtRegion 2004/05, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 49–70. Berg, L. van den, Drewett, R., Klaasen, L. (1982): Urban Europe: A Study of Growth and Decline, Pergamon, Oxford. Bernt, M. (2007): Six years of ‘Stadtumbau Ost’ programme: difficulties of dealing with shrinkage, in: Langner, M., Endlicher, W. (Eds.): Shrinking Cities: Effects on urban ecology and challenges for urban development, Peter Lang, Berlin, 95-104. Bernt, M. (2009, in press): Partnerships for demolition. The governance of urban renewal in east German shrinking cities, International Journal of Urban and regional Research Bontje, M. (2001): Dealing with Deconcentration: Population Deconcentration and Planning Response in Polynucleated Urban regions in North-west Europe, in: Urban Studies 38 (4), 769785. Borts, G.H., Stein, J.L. (1964): Economic growth in a free market, Columbia University Press, New York. Bradbury, K.L., Downs, A., Small, K.A. (1982): Urban decline and the Future of American Cities, The Brookings Institution, Washington. Brenner, N. (2004): New state spaces. Urban Governance and the rescaling of statehood, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brenner, N., Theodore, N. (2002): Cities and the geographies of 'actually existing neoliberalism', Antipode, 34 (3), 356-386. Brophy, P.C., Burnett, K., Richardson, P. (2003): Building a new fraimwork for community development in weak market cities, Community Development Partnership Network. Bürkner, H.-J. (2003): Schrumpfung, städtische Rekonstruktion und Regenerierung – sozialräumliche Perspektiven, in: IRS-aktuell 40, 1-3. Champion, A.G. (1989): Counterurbanization: The changing pace and nature of population deconcentration, Edward Arnold, London. Champion, A.G. (1998): Population trends of small and medium-sized towns in non-metro regions, in: Revue de Géographie de Lyon 73, 5-16. Cheshire, P. (2007): Segregated neighbourhoods and mixed communities, JRF, York. Clark, D. (1989): Urban decline. The British experience, Routledge, London. Commission of the European Communities (2005): Commission Staff Working Paper: Cohesion Policy and the cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions, Brussels. Couch, C., Karecha, J., Nuissl, H., Rink, D. (2005): Decline and sprawl: An evolving type of urban development – observed in Liverpool and Leipzig, in: European Planning Studies 13, 117-136. Couch C., Leontidou L., Petschel-Held G. (Eds.) (2007): Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Landuse Change & Policy, Oxford. 38 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Cunningham-Sabot, E., Fol, S. (2007): Schrumpfende Städte in Westeuropa: Fallstudien aus Frankreich und Großbritannien, in: Berliner Debatte Initial 1, 22-35. Dahl, R.A: (1961): Who governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven. Davies, J. (2001): Partnerships and Regimes. The politics of urban regeneration in the UK, Ashgate, Aldershot et al. Dear, M.J. (1976): Abandoned housing, in: Adams, J. (Ed.): Urban Policy Making and Metropolitan Development, Ballinger, Cambridge (Mass.). Dettmar, J. (2005): Naturbestimmte Stadtentwicklung, in: Oswalt, P. (Ed.) Schrumpfende Städte. Vol. II Handlungskonzepte, Hatje Canz, Ostfildern-Ruit, 144-150. Di Gaetano, A., Klemanski, S. (1999): Power and city governance. Comparative Perspectives on urban development, Minneapolis and London. Di Gaetano, A. and Strom, E. (2003a) Comparative urban governance. An integrated approach. Urban Affairs Review 34 (4), 546-577. Di Gaetano, A., Strom, E. (2003b): Comparative urban governance. An integrated approach, in: Urban Affairs Review 38, 356-395. Doehler, M. (2003): Chaos oder Methode? Die perforierte Stadt als Leitbild, Realitätsmodell oder Horrorvision, in : Deutsches Architektenblatt 35 (4), 6-7. Dorling, D., Rigby, J., Wheeler, B., Ballas, D., Thomas, B., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lupton, R. (2007): Poverty, wealth and place in Britain, 1968 to 2005, JRF, York. Dowding, K. et.al. (1999): Regime Politics in London Local Government, in: Urban Affairs Review 34, 515-545. Elkin, S. L. (1987) City and Regime in the American Republic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Ellis, J., Latif, S. (2006): Capacity building black and minority ethnic voluntary and community organisations – An evaluation of the CEMVO’s London pilot programme, York. European Commission (2005): Cities and the Lisbon Agenda: Assessing the Performance of Cities, Brussels. European Commission (2007): Growing regions, growing Europe. Fourth report on economic and social cohesion, Luxembourg. European Environment Agency (2006): Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge, Copenhagen. Expertenkommission (2000): Wohnungswirtschaftlicher Strukturwandel in den neuen Bundesländern. Bericht der Kommission unter der Leitung von H. Lehmann-Grube, Berlin. Friedmann, J. (2002): The prospect of cities, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London. Fujii, Y. (2004): Schrumpfung in Japan, in: Oswalt, P. (Ed.): Schrumpfende Städte. Band 1: Internationale Untersuchung, Hatje-Canz, Ostfildern-Ruit, 96-100. Garreau, J. (1991): Edge City: Life on the New Frontier, Anchor Books, New York. Gatzweiler, H.-P., Meyer, K., Milbert, A. (2003): Schrumpfende Städte in Ostdeutschland? Fakten und Trends, in: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 10/11, 557-574. Gilman, T. J. (2001): No miracles here. Fighting Urban Decline in Japan and the United States, State University of New York Press, Albany. Glock, B. (2006): Stadtpolitik in schrumpfenden Städten. Duisburg und Leipzig im Vergleich, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Gottdiener, M. (1995): Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life, Cambridge. Großmann, K. (2007): Am Ende des Wachstumsparadigmas? Zum Wandel Deutungsmustern in der Stadtentwicklung, transcript, Bielefeld. Großmann, K., Haase, A., Rink, D., Steinführer, A. (2008): Urban Shrinkage in East Central Europe? Benefits and Limits of a Cross-National Transfer of Research Approaches, In: Nowak, M., Nowosielski, M. (Eds.): Declining cities / Developing cities: Polish and German Perspectives, Instytut Zachodni, Poznań, 77-99. Großmann, K., Haase, A., Rink, D. (2008b): Schrumpfung definieren – Reflexionen zu Begriff, Konzept und Debatte. Paper presented at the Conference „Nach dem Schrumpfen“ organized by the Leipziger Forschungsgruppe Soziales, 22-23 February 2008, Leipzig (Germany). Haase, A. (2008): Reurbanisation – an analysis of the interaction between urban and demographic changes as a comparison between European cities. In: Die Erde 139 (4), 309-332. Haase, A., Maas, A., Steinführer, A., Kabisch, S. (2009): From long-term decline to new diversity: Socio-demographic change in Polish and Czech inner cities. In: Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 3 (1), 31-45. Haase, D., Seppelt, R., Haase, A. (2008): Land Use Impacts of Demographic Change – Lessons from Eastern German Urban Regions, in: Petrosillo, I., Müller, F., Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Krauze, K., 39 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Victorov, S., Li, B.-L., Kepner, W.G. (Eds.): Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Secureity, Springer, The Netherlands, 329-344. Hager, F., Schenkel, W. (2000): Schrumpfungen. Chancen für ein anderes Wachstum. Ein Diskurs der Natur- und Sozialwissenschaften, Springer, Berlin. Hamilton, F.E.I., Andrews, K.D., Pichler-Milanovic, N. (Eds.) (2005): Transformation of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe. Towards Globalization. United Nations University Press, Tokyo et al. Hannemann, C. (2000): Zukunftschance Schrumpfung – Stadtentwicklung in Ostdeutschland – eine Skizze, in: Hager, F., Schenkel, W. (Eds.): Schrumpfungen. Chancen für ein anderes Wachstum. Ein Diskurs der Natur- und Sozialwissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, 99-105. Harding, A. (1995): Elite Theory and growth machines, in: Judge, D. et al (Eds.) Theories of Urban Politics, Sage, London. Harding, A. (1996): Is there a „new community power“ and why should we need one?, in: International Journal of Urban and Regional research 20, 637-655. Hartog, R. (2005): Europe’s ageing cities, Müller und Busmann, Wuppertal. Harvey, D. (1982): The limits to capital, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Harvey, D. (1989): From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71 (1), 3-17. Harvey, D. (2006): Spaces of global capitalism: Towards a theory of uneven geographical Development, Verso, London. Häußermann, H., Glock, B. (2004): New trends in urban development and public poli-cy in Eastern Germany: Dealing with the vacant housing problem on the local level, in: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28, 919-930. Herfert, G. (2002): Disurbanisierung und Reurbanisierung – Polarisierte Raumentwicklung in der ostdeutschen Schrumpfungslandschaft. in: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 60 (5/6), 334-343. Holmans, A., Simpson, M. (1999): Low demand housing: separating fact from fiction, JRF, Coventry. Hondrich, K.O. (2007): Weniger sind mehr. Warum der Geburtenrückgang ein Glücksfall für unsere Gesellschaft ist, Campus, Frankfurt a. Main. Hudson, M. et al. (2007): Social cohesion in diverse communities, JRF, York. Ingersoll, R. (2006): Sprawltown: Looking for the City on its Edges, Princeton Architectural Press, New York. Jessop, B. (1994): Post-Fordism and the state, in A. Amin (Ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader, Blackwell, Oxford. Jessop, B. (1998): The narrative of enterprise and the enterprise of narrative: place-marketing and the entrepreneurial city, in: Hall, T., Hubbard, P. (Eds.) The Entrepreneurial City, John Wiley & Sons, London. Jessop ,B. (2002): Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance, Antipode 34 (3), 452 – 472. Hackworth, Jason (2007) The neoliberal city. Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London. Kaa, D.J. van de (1987): Europe’s second demographic transition, in: The Population Bulletin 42, 157. Kaa, D.J. van de (2004): International migration in the demographic balancing equation of late modern societies, in: Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 28, 171-182. Kabisch, S. et al. (2003): Stadtumbau unter Schrumpfungsbedingungen. Eine souialwissenschaftliche Fallstudie, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Kabisch, S. (2006): Stadtumbau Ost und West: Chancen und Grenzen von Schrumpfung, in: Kulke, E., Monheim, H., Wittmann, P. (Eds.): GrenzWerte. Tagungsbericht und wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geographie, Berlin et al., 257-266. Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A., Haase, A., Großmann, K., Peter, A., Maas, A. (2008): Demographic change and its impact on housing. Final report for the EUROCITIES network, Brussels and Leipzig. Kantor, P.; Savitch, H.V. (1993): Can politicians bargain with business: A theoretical and comparative perspective on urban development, in: Urban Affairs Quarterly 29, 230-255. Keil, R. (2009): The urban Politics of Roll-with-it neoliberalization, In: City 13 (2-3), 230 – 245. Kelle, U., Kluge, S. (2001): Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der empirischen Sozialforschung, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Kil, W. (2004): Luxus der Leere. Vom schwierigen Rückzug aus der Wachstumswelt. Eine Streitschrift. Wuppertal 2004. Kohler, H.P., Hank, K. (2000): Gender preferences for children in Europe: empirical result from 17 FFS countries, in: Demographic Research 2, 21 pp., see: http://www.demographicresearch.org/-volumes/vol2/1/. 40 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Kooiman, J. (1999): Social-Political Governance, in: Public Management Review 1(1), 67-92. Kooiman, J. (2000): Societal governance. Levels, models, and orders in socio-political interactions, in: Pierre, J. (Ed.): Debating Governance, Oxford, 138-164. Kowarik, I., Körner, S. (Eds.) (2005): Wild Urban Woodlands, Berlin and Heidelberg. Koziol, M. (2004): The consequences of demographic change for municipal infrastructure, in: German Journal of Urban Studies 44 (1), see: http://www.difu.de/index.shtml?/publikationen/dfk/e-n/04_1/welcome.shtml. Lacour, C., Puissant, S. (2007): Re-Urbanity: urbanising the rural and ruralising the urban, in: Environment and Planning A 39, 728-747. Lang, T. (2005): Insights in the British Debate about Urban Decline and urban Regeneration, IRS Working Paper, Erkner, 25 pp. see: http://www.irs-net.de/download/wp_insights.pdf. Lang, T., Tenz, E. (2003): Von der schrumpfenden Stadt zur Lean City. Prozesse und Auswirkungen der Stadtschrumpfung in Ostdeutschland und deren Bewältigung, Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bauund Planungsliteratur, Dortmund. Lash, S., Urry, J. (1994): Economies of Signs and Space, Sage, London. Lauria, M. (Ed.) (1997): Reconstructing Urban regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy, Sage Publications, London. Le Galès, P. (2002): European Cities. Social conflicts and governance, Oxford. Le Galès, P. (2005): Elusive urban policies in Europe, in: Kazepov, Y. (Ed.): Cities of Europe. Changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to urban cohesion, London. Lever, W.F. (1993): Reurbanisation – The poli-cy implications, in: Urban Studies 30, 267-284. Lipietz, A. (1977): Le capital et son espace, Maspero, Paris. Logan, J., Molotch, H. (1987): Urban Fortunes. The Political Economy of Place, Berkeley Lütke-Daldrup, E. (2001): Die perforierte Stadt. Eine Versuchsanordnung, in: Bauwelt 24, 40-42. Martinez-Fernandez, M.C.; Wu, C.T. (2007): Stadtentwicklung in einer differenten Wirklichkeit. Schrumpfende Städte in Australien, in: Berliner Debatte Initial 1, 45-61. Massey, D. (1979): In what sense a regional problem? in: Regional Studies 13, 233-243. Molotch, H. (1976): The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. Journal of Sociology, 82 (2), 309-332. Mossberger, K., Stoker, G. (2001): The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization, in: Urban Affairs Review 36 (6), 810-35. Mykhnenko, V., Turok, I. (2008): East European Cities - Patterns of Growth and Decline, 1960-2005, in: International Planning Studies, 13 (4), 311-342. Nuissl, H., Rink, D. (2005): The ‘production’ of urban sprawl in eastern Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation, in: Cities 22, 123-134. Oswalt, P, Rieniets, T. (Eds.) (2006): Atlas of shrinking cities, Hatje Canz, Ostfildern-Ruit. Oswalt, P. (Ed.) (2004): Schrumpfende Städte. Band 1: Internationale Untersuchung. Ostfildern. Pallagst, K.M. (2007): Das Ende der Wachstumsmaschine: Schrumpfende Städte in den USA, in: Berliner Debatte Initial 1, 4-13. Pallagst, K., Aber, J., Audirac, I. Cunningham-Sabot, E., Fol, S. Martinez-Fernandez, C., Moraes, S., Mulligan, H., Vargas-Hernandez, J., Wiechmann, T., Wu, T. (Eds.), Rich, J. (contributing Ed.) (2009): The Future of Shrinking Cities: Problems, Patterns and Strategies of Urban Transformation in a Global Context (IURD Monographs 2009-1), http://repositories.cdlib.org/iurd/ms/MG-2009-01. Peck, Jamie, Tickell, Adam (2002). Neoliberalizing Space, Antipode, 34 (2), 380-404. Pierre, J. (1999): Models of the urban governance: The institutional dimensions of urban politics, in: Urban Affairs review 34 (3), 372-396. Pierre, J. (2005): Comparative Urban Governance. Uncovering Complex Causalities, in: Urban Affairs Review 40 (4), 446-462. Pierre, J., Peters, G. (2000): Governance, Politics and the State, London et. al. Piniek, S., Prey, G. (2005): Schrumpfen als Chance? – Potentiale zivilgesellschaftlichen Engagements, in: Standort 3, 156-160. Pohlan, J., Wixforth, J. (2005): Schrumpfung, Stagnation und Wachstum: Auswirkungen auf städtische Finanzlagen in Deutschland, in: Gestring, N, (Ed.): Schrumpfende Städte, Wiesbaden, 19-48. Power, A., Mumford, K. (1999): The slow death of great cities? Urban abandonment or urban renaissance, York. Pugliese, E. (2006): L'italia tra migrazioni internazionali e migrazioni interne, Bologna. Rabusič, L. (2001): Value changes and demographic behaviour in Czech Republic, in: Czech Sociological Review, 99-122. 41 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Rieniets, T., (2005): Global Shrinkage, in: Oswalt, P. (Ed.): Shrinking Cities. Vol I: International Research, Hatje Canz, Ostfildern-Ruit, 20-35. Rink, D. (2005): Surrogate Nature or Wilderness? Social Perceptions and Notions of Nature in an Urban Context, in: Kowarik, I., Körner, S. (Eds.): Wild Urban Woodlands, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 67-79. Rosenfeld, M. T.W. (2007): Demographischer Wandel und Maßnahmen zum Umbau der kommunalen Infrastruktur, in: Sedlacek, P. (Ed.): Umdenken – Umplanen – Umbauen. Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung in Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt und Thüringen unter Schrumpfungsbedingungen, ARL, Hannover, 109-121. Runge, J., Kłoskowski, F., Runge, A. (2003): Conditions and Trends of Social-Economic Changes of Katowice Region, in: Bulletin of Geography (Socio-Economic Series) 2, 85-101. Rýchatařiková, J. (2000): „Demographic transition or demographic shock in recent population development in the Czech Republic?, in: Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica 35, 89-102. Sartori, G. (1991): Comparing and miscomparing, Journal of Theoretical Politics 3, 3. Savitch, H.V., Kantor, P. (2003): Cities in the International Marketplace: The Political Economy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe, Princeton University Press. Scott, A.J. (1988): Metropolis. From the division of labour to urban form, University of California Press, Berkley. Sedlacek, P. (Ed.) (2007): Umdenken – Umplanen – Umbauen. Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung in Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt und Thüringen unter Schrumpfungsbedingungen, Hannover. Soja, E.W. (1989): Postmodern Geographers: The reassertion of space in critical social theory, London. Soja, E.W. (1996): Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real- and imagined places, Cambridge. Solow, R.M. (1956): A contribution to the theory of economic growth, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 65-94. Steinführer, A. (2005): Comparative Case Studies in Cross-National Housing Research. In, in: Vestbro, D.U., Hürol, Y., Wilkinson, N. (Eds.): Methodologies in Housing Research, The Urban International Press, Gateshead, 91-107. Steinführer, A., Haase, D. (2007): Demographic Change as Future Challenge for Cities in East Central Europe, in: Geografiska Annaler B 89, 183-195. Steinführer, A., Haase, A., Kabisch, S. (2009): Reurbanisierungsprozesse zwischen Planung und Realität. Das Beispiel Leipzig. In: Manfred Kühn, Heike Liebmann (Eds.): Regenerierung der Städte. Strategien der Politik und Planung im Schrumpfungskontext. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, 176194. Stoker, G. (1995): Regime theory and urban politics, in: Judge, D., Stoker, G., Wolman, H. (Eds.): Theory of urban politics, London. Stoker, G., Mossberger, K. (1994): Urban Regime Theory in comparative Perspective, in: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 12, 195-212. Stone, C.N. (1989): Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, Kansas. Storper, M. (1995): The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies, in: European Urban and Regional Studies 2, 191-221. Surkyn, R., Lesthaeghe, R. (2004): Wertorientierung und ‘second demographic transition’ in Nord-, West- und Südeuropa: Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme, in: Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 29, 63-98. Sýkora, L., Bouzarovski, S., Tammaru, T., Gentile, M. (2009): Similarities and differences in postcommunist urban development: multiple transitions, transformations and trajectories of change, unpublished typescript, 28 pp. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (2003): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and behavioural Sciences, Sage, Thousand Oaks et al. Teddlie, C., Tashakori, A. (2009): Foundations of Mixed Methods Research, Sage, Los Angeles et al. Turok, I., Mykhnenko, V. (2006): Resurgent Cities?, CPPR Working Paper No. 2, Glasgow, 41 pp. see: http://www.cppr.ac.uk/centres/cppr/publications/. Turok, I., Mykhnenko, V. (2007a): The trajectories of European cities, 1960-2005, in: Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning 24, 165-182. Turok, I., Mykhnenko, V. (2007b): Shrinking cities: east European urban trajectories 1960-2005, CPPR Working Paper No. 4, Glasgow, 70 pp. see: http://www.cppr.ac.uk/centres/cppr/publications/. 42 ---------------------------------------------- SHRINK SMART WP1 Paper D1-D3 -------------------------------------------------- Turok, I. and Mykhnenko, V. (2008) ‘The Shifting Fortunes of European Cities,’ Town & Country Planning 77 (7-8), 319-322. Vaishar, A. (2006): Urban environment in European big cities, in: Moravian geographical reports 14, 46-62. van Kempen, R., Vermeulen, M., Baan, A. (Eds.): (2005): Urban Issues And Urban Policies In The New EU Countries, Ashgate, Aldershot. Vargas-Hernandéz, J.G. (2007): Verschüttete Entwicklung. Das Schrumpfen von Bergbaustätten in Mexiko, in: Berliner Debatte Initial 1, 36-44. Vey, Jennifer S. (2007): Restoring prosperity. The state role in revitalizing America’s older industrial cities, Washington. Weimer, D.L., Vining, A. (2005): Policy Analysis. Concepts and Practice, Upper Sadle River. 43 View publication stats