Urban transport policy transfer: "bottom-up" and "top-down" perspectives
The paper provides insights into the urban transport policy transfer process, focusing particularly on the transfer of the transport policy within the EU. The themes of the paper are structured according to five of the "Dolowitz and Marsh questions": what is transferred?; why do actors engage in policy transfer?; who are the key actors involved in the policy transfer process?; from where are the lessons drawn?; and what restricts or facilitates the policy transfer process? The methodological approach taken for considering each question involves two steps. Firstly, a "bottom-up" step considers the views of policy transfer from a "city perspective", for which use is made of results from interviews recently carried out within the EU project "Transport Research Knowledge Centre" (TRKC). These interviews were intended to ascertain the information needs of seven "representatives" of European cities, all of whom were involved in the Cities Reference Group of the EU project "Citymobil". These seven cities have widely varying characteristics in terms of size and geographical location (across Europe). By discussing information needs, the interviewees provided many insights into the transport policy transfer process. Secondly, a "top-down" step considers the policy transfer questions from an "EU perspective'; use here is made of various transport policy documents published by the European Commission (EC). For each of the five questions, "bottom-up" and "top-down" perspectives are examined and compared. The final section of the paper draws conclusions, providing a number of recommendations to both city authorities and the EU on how urban transport policy transfer might be enhanced in the future.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 18 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Harriet Bulkeley, 2006. "Urban sustainability: learning from best practice?," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 38(6), pages 1029-1044, June.
- Oliver James & Martin Lodge, 2003. "The Limitations of 'Policy Transfer' and 'Lesson Drawing' for Public Policy Research," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 1(2), pages 179-193.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:18:y:2011:i:3:p:513-521. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.