Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Standard

Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects. / Eckersley, Peter Mark.

2014.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Harvard

Eckersley, PM 2014, 'Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects'.

APA

Eckersley, P. M. (2014). Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects.

Vancouver

Eckersley PM. Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects. 2014.

Author

Eckersley, Peter Mark. / Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects.

Bibtex - Download

@conference{757aa15c761e4ad9a4223c5e587b402a,
title = "Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects",
abstract = "This paper draws on over 30 fieldwork interviews to compare the governance of urban development projects in the “twin towns” of Newcastle (England) and Gelsenkirchen (Germany). It finds that Gelsenkirchen has been able to adopt a more hierarchical approach to stipulating the sustainability criteria of new developments, whereas Newcastle has had to work more closely with other partners and seek greater compromises in building design.These different approaches map on to the characteristic “policy styles” associated with England and Germany (Richardson, 1982) and are shaped by the different institutional contexts within which local government operates in each context (Type II and Type I multi-level governance respectively (Hooghe and Marks, 2003)). Various different organisations have had some responsibility for Science Central, the development project in Newcastle, which means the council has to work horizontally to have the capacity to implement its policy objectives. In contrast, Gelsenkirchen has kept the management of its Ebertstrasse redevelopment in-house and thereby been able to exercise hierarchicalauthority over the project to ensure it contains ambitious sustainability features.",
keywords = "local governance, Germany, England, climate change, policy-making",
author = "Eckersley, {Peter Mark}",
note = "Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Consortium for Political Research in Glasgow",
year = "2014",
language = "English",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - CONF

T1 - Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects

AU - Eckersley, Peter Mark

N1 - Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Consortium for Political Research in Glasgow

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This paper draws on over 30 fieldwork interviews to compare the governance of urban development projects in the “twin towns” of Newcastle (England) and Gelsenkirchen (Germany). It finds that Gelsenkirchen has been able to adopt a more hierarchical approach to stipulating the sustainability criteria of new developments, whereas Newcastle has had to work more closely with other partners and seek greater compromises in building design.These different approaches map on to the characteristic “policy styles” associated with England and Germany (Richardson, 1982) and are shaped by the different institutional contexts within which local government operates in each context (Type II and Type I multi-level governance respectively (Hooghe and Marks, 2003)). Various different organisations have had some responsibility for Science Central, the development project in Newcastle, which means the council has to work horizontally to have the capacity to implement its policy objectives. In contrast, Gelsenkirchen has kept the management of its Ebertstrasse redevelopment in-house and thereby been able to exercise hierarchicalauthority over the project to ensure it contains ambitious sustainability features.

AB - This paper draws on over 30 fieldwork interviews to compare the governance of urban development projects in the “twin towns” of Newcastle (England) and Gelsenkirchen (Germany). It finds that Gelsenkirchen has been able to adopt a more hierarchical approach to stipulating the sustainability criteria of new developments, whereas Newcastle has had to work more closely with other partners and seek greater compromises in building design.These different approaches map on to the characteristic “policy styles” associated with England and Germany (Richardson, 1982) and are shaped by the different institutional contexts within which local government operates in each context (Type II and Type I multi-level governance respectively (Hooghe and Marks, 2003)). Various different organisations have had some responsibility for Science Central, the development project in Newcastle, which means the council has to work horizontally to have the capacity to implement its policy objectives. In contrast, Gelsenkirchen has kept the management of its Ebertstrasse redevelopment in-house and thereby been able to exercise hierarchicalauthority over the project to ensure it contains ambitious sustainability features.

KW - local governance

KW - Germany

KW - England

KW - climate change

KW - policy-making

M3 - Paper

ER -