IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v10y2020i2p34-d372824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Legitimation of Planning Processes as a Challenge to Metropolitan Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Growe

    (Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Berliner Straße 48, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Mark Baker

    (School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M139PL, UK)

  • Abbas Ziafati Bafarasat

    (School of Art and Architecture, Yazd University, Mortaz Court, Sahlebne Ali Avenue, Imam Street, Yazd 89195-741, Iran)

Abstract

This study identifies three types of legitimation from the literature that can be applied within metropolitan governance in the contested sphere of spatial planning: input legitimation, throughput legitimation, and output legitimation. The reason for discussing different forms of legitimation within metropolitan governance is that, globally, only a relatively few metropolitan regions are governed directly through a single elected tier of government such as a regional council. Thus, governance mechanisms in most metropolitan regions involve some form of joint working or cross border governance initiatives that have to be legitimized in the absence of a single overarching elected council covering the whole metropolitan area. The main question discussed in this paper is, therefore, whether all three types of legitimation identified are utilized to legitimize governance mechanisms at the metropolitan scale with a specific focus—as a core part of metropolitan governance—on spatial planning processes and projects. In conceptual terms, our typology structures fuzzy lines of legitimation across the three (the “how”, “who” and “what”) suggested aspects of metropolitan governance in the literature. From this point, we draw on cross-case reviews of variables involved in the design, application, and outcome of input, throughput, and output legitimation in Germany and England, chosen because neither has a formal tier of metropolitan-wide government despite their differences in terms of their highly regionalised and highly centralised national government contexts respectively. This relational methodology helps us to learn about the contextual dynamics of how the three types of legitimation might reinforce one another in different international settings, leading to the overall conclusion that they will work best in combination, although output legitimation has a distinctive capacity to work in less formal settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Growe & Mark Baker & Abbas Ziafati Bafarasat, 2020. "The Legitimation of Planning Processes as a Challenge to Metropolitan Governance," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:34-:d:372824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/2/34/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/2/34/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. REITEL Bernard & SOHN Christophe & WALTHER Olivier, 2009. "Cross-border metropolitan integration in Europe (Luxembourg, Basel and Geneva)," IRISS Working Paper Series 2009-02, IRISS at CEPS/INSTEAD.
    2. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    3. Rudiger Ahrend & Abel Schumann, 2014. "Approaches to Metropolitan Area Governance: A Country Overview," OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2014/3, OECD Publishing.
    4. Mark Baker & Cecilia Wong, 2013. "The Delusion of Strategic Spatial Planning: What's Left After the Labour Government's English Regional Experiment?," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 83-103, February.
    5. Melanie Nagel & Keiichi Satoh, 2019. "Protesting iconic megaprojects. A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1681-1700, June.
    6. Christophe Sohn & Bernard Reitel & Olivier Walther, 2009. "Cross-Border Metropolitan Integration in Europe: The Case of Luxembourg, Basel, and Geneva," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(5), pages 922-939, October.
    7. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    8. Karsten Zimmermann, 2014. "Democratic metropolitan governance: experiences in five German metropolitan regions," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 182-199, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simin Yan & Anna Growe, 2022. "Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fricke, Carola, 2014. "Grenzüberschreitende Governance in der Raumplanung: Organisations- und Kooperationsformen in Basel und Lille," Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Grotheer, Swantje & Schwöbel, Arne & Stepper, Martina (ed.), Nimm's sportlich - Planung als Hindernislauf, volume 10, pages 62-78, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    2. Sabine Dörry & Olivier J Walther, 2015. "Contested ‘Relational Policy Spaces’ in Two European Border Regions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(2), pages 338-355, February.
    3. DECOVILLE Antoine & DURAND Frédéric & SOHN Christophe & WALTHER Olivier, 2010. "Spatial integration in European cross-border metropolitan regions: A comparative approach," LISER Working Paper Series 2010-40, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    4. WALTHER Olivier & REITEL Bernard, 2012. "Cross-border policy networks in the trinational region of Basel," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-26, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    5. John Harrison & Darren P Smith & Chloe Kinton, 2016. "New institutional geographies of higher education: The rise of transregional university alliances," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(5), pages 910-936, May.
    6. Philippe Van Kerm, 2013. "Generalized measures of wage differentials," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 465-482, August.
    7. Amir Hefetz & Mildred E Warner & Eran Vigoda-Gadot, 2012. "Privatization and Intermunicipal Contracting: The US Local Government Experience 1992–2007," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(4), pages 675-692, August.
    8. Baer, Moritz & Campiglio, Emanuele & Deyris, Jérôme, 2021. "It takes two to dance: Institutional dynamics and climate-related financial policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    9. DURAND Frédéric & NELLES Jennifer, 2012. "Cross-border governance within the Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai (ELKT) through the example of cross-border public transportation," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-16, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    10. Kristina Zumbusch & Roland Scherer, 2015. "Cross-Border Governance: Balancing Formalized and Less Formalized Co-Operations," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-21, July.
    11. OMRANI Hichem & CHARIF Omar & GERBER Philippe & BÓDIS Katalin & BASSE Reine Maria, 2012. "Simulation of land use changes using cellular automata and artificial neural network," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-01, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    12. Zhang, Xianchun & Sun, Yi, 2019. "Investigating institutional integration in the contexts of Chinese city-regionalization: Evidence from Shenzhen–Dongguan–Huizhou," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. repec:irs:cepswp:12-25 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. John Harrison & Michael Hoyler, 2014. "Governing the new metropolis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(11), pages 2249-2266, August.
    15. Dening Chen & Zuxin He & Xinyi Hong & Xinxin Ni & Renfeng Ma, 2022. "Green and Low-Carbon Commuting Evaluation and Optimization of a Cross-Border Metropolitan Region by the Subway Network: The Case of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, July.
    16. repec:irs:cepswp:12-26 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Mengjia Zhen & Junlan Yu & Siyi Chen & Ning Wang & Zhigang Chen, 2023. "Evaluating the Impact of County-to-District Transformation on Urban Residential Land Supply: A Multi-Period Difference-in-Differences Model Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Francis E. Hutchinson, 2021. "In the gateway's shadow: Interactions between Singapore's Hinterlands," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 71-87, March.
    19. SOHN Christophe & REITEL Bernard, 2012. "Le rôle des Etats dans la construction des régions métropolitaines transfrontalières en Europe. Une approche scalaire," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-42, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    20. SOHN Christophe, 2012. "La frontière comme ressource dans l'espace urbain globalisé. Une contribution à l'hypothèse de la métropole transfrontalière," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-25, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    21. Yan Huang & Wei Lang & Tingting Chen & Jiemin Wu, 2023. "Regional Coordinated Development in the Megacity Regions: Spatial Pattern and Driving Forces of the Guangzhou-Foshan Cross-Border Area in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-27, March.
    22. Cavallaro, Federico & Dianin, Alberto, 2019. "Cross-border commuting in Central Europe: features, trends and policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 86-104.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:34-:d:372824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.