Governance Innovation and The State: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-The-State
Governance Innovation and The State: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-The-State
Governance Innovation and The State: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-The-State
net/publication/313201213
CITATIONS READS
47 678
1 author:
Erik Swyngedouw
The University of Manchester
188 PUBLICATIONS 17,341 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
TLR - Turning livelihoods to rubbish? Politics of waste and urban poverty View project
TLR - "Turning livelihoods to rubbish? Politics of Waster and urban metabolism" View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Erik Swyngedouw on 20 February 2017.
Erik Swyngedouw
[Paper first received, June 2004; in final form, June 2005]
Summary. This paper focuses on the fifth dimension of social innovation—i.e. political
governance. Although largely neglected in the mainstream ‘innovation’ literature, innovative
governance arrangements are increasingly recognised as potentially significant terrains for
fostering inclusive development processes. International organisations like the EU and the World
Bank, as well as leading grass-roots movements, have pioneered new and more participatory
governance arrangements as a pathway towards greater inclusiveness. Indeed, over the past two
decades or so, a range of new and often innovative institutional arrangements has emerged, at a
variety of geographical scales. These new institutional ‘fixes’ have begun to challenge traditional
state-centred forms of policy-making and have generated new forms of governance-beyond-the-
state. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of governmentality, the paper argues that the emerging
innovative horizontal and networked arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are
decidedly Janus-faced. While enabling new forms of participation and articulating the state –
civil society relationships in potentially democratising ways, there is also a flip side to the
process. To the extent that new governance arrangements rearticulate the state-civil society
relationship, they also redefine and reposition the meaning of (political) citizenship and,
consequently, the nature of democracy itself. The first part of the paper outlines the contours of
governance-beyond-the-state. The second part addresses the thorny issues of the state –civil
society relationship in the context of the emergence of the new governmentality associated with
governance-beyond-the-state. The third part teases out the contradictory way in which new
arrangements of governance have created new institutions and empowered new actors, while
disempowering others. It is argued that this shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ is
associated with the consolidation of new technologies of government, on the one hand, and with
profound restructuring of the parameters of political democracy on the other, leading to a
substantial democratic deficit. The paper concludes by suggesting that socially innovative
arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are fundamentally Janus-faced, particularly under
conditions in which the democratic character of the political sphere is increasingly eroded by the
encroaching imposition of market forces that set the ‘rules of the game’.
2004; Whitehead, 2003; González and Healey, associated with the rise of a neo-liberal govern-
this issue; SINGOCOM, 2005; Moulaert et al., mental rationality and the transformation of
this issue). Governance-beyond-the-state the technologies of government.
refers in this context to the emergence, Governance as an arrangement of governing-
proliferation and active encouragement (by beyond-the-state (but often with the explicit
the state and international bodies like the inclusion of parts of the state apparatus) is
European Union or the World Bank) of insti- defined in the context of this paper as
tutional arrangements of ‘governing’ which the socially innovative institutional or quasi-
give a much greater role in policy-making, institutional arrangements of governance that
administration and implementation to private are organised as horizontal associational
economic actors on the one hand and to parts networks of private (market), civil society
of civil society on the other in self-managing (usually NGO) and state actors (Dingwerth,
what until recently was provided or organised 2004). These forms of apparently horizontally
by the national or local state. In addition, as organised and polycentric ensembles in
argued in other papers in this issue, socially which power is dispersed are increasingly
innovative practices in urban governance and prevalent in rule-making, rule-setting and
territorial development are also invariably rule implementation at a variety of geographi-
associated with the emergence of new insti- cal scales (Hajer, 2003b, p. 175). They are
tutional forms that draw heavily on a greater found from the local/urban level (such as
involvement of individuals or actors from development corporations, ad hoc committees,
both the economy and civil society (Moulaert stakeholder-based formal or informal associ-
et al., 2005). In a context of perceived or real ations dealing with social, economic, infra-
‘state failure’ on the one hand and attempts structural, environmental or other matters) to
to produce systems of ‘good’ governance on the transnational scale (such as the European
the other, institutional ensembles of govern- Union, the WTO, the IMF or the Kyoto proto-
ance based on such horizontally networked col negotiations) (Swyngedouw, 1997). They
tripartite composition are viewed as empower- exhibit an institutional configuration based
ing, democracy enhancing and more effective on the inclusion of private market actors,
forms of governing compared with the sclero- civil society groups and parts of the ‘tra-
tic, hierarchical and bureaucratic state forms ditional’ state apparatus. These modes of
that conducted the art of governing during governance have been depicted as a new
much of the 20th century. While these innova- form of governmentality, that is ‘the conduct
tive figures of governance often offer the of conduct’ (Foucault, 1982; Lemke, 2002),
promise of greater democracy and grassroots in which a particular rationality of governing is
empowerment, they also exhibit a series of combined with new technologies, instruments
contradictory tendencies. It is exactly these and tactics of conducting the process of
tensions and contradictions that this paper collective rule-setting, implementation and
will focus on. often including policing as well. However,
While much of the analysis of a changing, if as Maarten Hajer argues, these arrangements
not new, governmentality (or governmental take place within an ‘institutional void’
rationality; see Gordon, 1991) starts from the
There are no clear rules and norms accord-
vantage-point of how the state is reorganised
ing to which politics is to be conducted
and mobilises a new set of ‘technologies of
and policy measures are to be agreed upon.
governing’ to respond to changing socioeco-
To be precise, there are no generally accepted
nomic and cultural conditions, this paper
rules and norms according to which policy-
seeks to assess the consolidation of new
making and politics is to be conducted
forms of governance capacity and the associ-
(Hajer, 2003b, p. 175; original emphasis).
ated changes in governmentality (Foucault,
1979) in the context of the rekindling of the The urban scale has been a pivotal terrain
governance–civil society articulation that is where these new arrangements of governance
GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1993
have materialised in the context of the emer- social movements, and ‘insurgent’ planners
gence of innovative social movements on the (see Sandercock, 1998)” (Goonewardena and
one hand and transformations in the arrange- Rankin, 2004, p. 118; see also Novi and
ments of conducting governance on the other Leubolt, this issue). It is exactly this interplay
(Le Galès, 1995; Brenner and Theodore, between the empowering gestalt of such new
2002; Jessop 2002a). Much of the empirical governance arrangements on the one hand
and case study research on which this paper and their position within a broadly neo-
draws was undertaken in the context of liberal political-economic order on the other
two major European-Union-funded research that this paper seeks to tease out.
projects on urban development and urban In the first part of the paper, we outline the
governance (see Moualert et al., 2001, 2002, contours of governance-beyond-the-state. In
2006; SINGOCOM, 2005; see also other the subsequent part, we address the thorny
papers in this issue). The main objective of issues of the state– civil society relationship
this paper is to address and problematise in the context of the emergence of the new
these emerging new regimes of (urban) governmentality associated with governance-
governance with a particular emphasis on beyond-the-state. In the third part, we tease
changing political citizenship rights and out the contradictory way in which new
entitlements on the one hand, and their arrangements of governance have created
democratic credentials on the other. Our new institutions and empowered new actors,
focus will be on the contradictory nature of while disempowering others. We argue that
governance-beyond-the-state and, in particu- this shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’
lar, on the tension between the stated objec- is associated with the consolidation of new
tive of increasing democracy and citizen’s technologies of government (Dean, 1999), on
empowerment on the one hand and their the one hand, and with profound restructuring
often undemocratic and authoritarian charac- of the parameters of political democracy on
ter on the other. This analysis is particularly the other, leading to a substantial democratic
pertinent as the inclusion of civil society deficit. Hence, this mode of governance
organisations (like NGOs) in systems of entails a transformation of both the institutions
(urban) governance, combined with a greater and the mechanisms of participation, nego-
political and economic role of ‘local’ political tiation and conflict intermediation (Coaffee
and economic arrangements, is customarily and Healey, 2003). Participation, then, is one
seen as potentially empowering and democra- of the key terrains on which battles over the
tising (Le Galès, 2002; Hajer, 2003a; Novy form of governance and the character of
and Leubolt, this issue). These forms of regulation are currently being fought out
governance are innovative and often promis- (Docherty et al., 2001; Raco, 2000). We shall
ing in terms of delivering improved collective conclude by suggesting that socially innova-
services and they may indeed contain germs tive arrangements of governance-beyond-
of ideas that may permit greater open- the-state are fundamentally Janus-faced,
ness, inclusion and empowerment of hitherto particularly under conditions in which the
excluded or marginalised social groups. democratic character of the political sphere
However, there are equally strong processes is increasingly eroded by the encroaching
at work pointing in the direction of a greater imposition of market forces that set the
autocratic governmentality (Swyngedouw, ‘rules of the game’.
1996, 2000; Harvey, 2005) and an impover-
ished practice of political citizenship. These
2. Governance-beyond-the-State:
socially innovative forms of governance are
Networked Associations
both actively encouraged and supported by
agencies pursuing a neo-liberal agenda (like It is now widely accepted that the system of
the IMF or the World Bank) and “designate governing within the EU and its constituent
the chosen terrain of operations for NGOs, parts is undergoing rapid change (European
1994 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW
Commission, 2001; Cars et al., 2002; Le direction of their interests (Paquet, 2001,
Galès, 2002). Although the degree of change quoted in Hamel, 2003, p. 378; author’s
and the depth of its impact are still contested, translation)
it is beyond doubt that the 19th and 20th
From this perspective, it is not surprising to
century political formations of articulating
find that such modes of ‘governance-beyond-
the state– civil society relationship through
the-state’ are resolutely put forward as pre-
different forms of representative demo-
senting an idealised normative model (see
cracy, which vested power in hierarchically
Le Galès, 1995; Schmitter, 2000, 2002) that
structured transcendental state-forms, is
promises to fulfil the conditions of good
complemented by a proliferating number of
government (European Commission, 2001)
new institutional forms of governing that
“in which the boundary between organisations
exhibit rather different characteristics
and public and private sectors has become
(Jessop, 1995, 2002b; Kooiman, 1995, 2003;
permeable” (Stoker, 1998, p. 38). It implies
Grote and Gbikpi, 2002). In other words, the
a common purpose, joint action, a framework
Westphalian state order that matured in
of shared values, continuous interaction and
the 20th century in the form of the liberal-
the wish to achieve collective benefits that
democratic state, organised at local, often
cannot be gained by acting independently
also at regional, and national scales, has
(Stoker, 1998; Rakodi, 2003). This model
begun to change in important ways, resulting
is related to a view of ‘governmentality’ that
in new forms of governmentality, character-
considers the mobilisation of resources (ideo-
ised by a new articulation between state-like
logical, economic, cultural) from actors
forms (such as—for example, the EU, urban
operating outside the state system as a vital
development corporations and the like), civil
part of democratic, efficient and effective
society organisations and private market
government (Pierre, 2000a, 2000b). Schmitter
actors (Brenner et al., 2003). While the
continues to argue that, in a normative-
traditional state form in liberal democracies
idealised manner,
is theoretically and practically articulated
through forms of political citizenship which Governance arrangements are based on a
legitimise state power by means of it being common and distinctive set of features:
vested within the political voice of the citi-
—Horizontal interaction among presump-
zenry, the new forms of governance exhibit
tive equal participants without distinc-
a rather fundamentally different articulation
tion between their public or private
between power and citizenship and constitute,
status.
according to Lemke (2001, 2002), a new form
—Regular, iterative exchanges among a
of governmentality. As Schmitter defines it
fixed set of independent but interdepen-
Governance is a method/mechanism for dent actors.
dealing with a broad range of problems/ —Guaranteed (but possibly selective)
conflicts in which actors regularly arrive access, preferably as early as possible
at mutually satisfactory and binding deci- in the decision-making cycle.
sions by negotiating with each other and —Organized participants that represent
co-operating in the implementation of categories of actors, not individuals
these decisions (Schmitter, 2002, p. 52) (Schmitter, 2000, p. 4).
total of social forms and relations that are through a system of pluralist democratic
neither state nor market. These are usually controls, civil society emerged as both an
captured under the notion of ‘civil society’. arena for state intervention and a collection
There is considerable confusion about the of actors engaging with and relating to the
status, content and position of ‘civil society’, state (Lemke, 2001). At the same time, the
both analytically and empirically. This con- liberal state maintained the ‘economic’
fusion arises partly from the meandering sphere as a fundamentally ‘private’ one, opera-
history of the concept, partly from the chan- ting outside the collective sphere of the state
ging position of civil society within political but shaping the material conditions of civil
society (see Novy and Leubolt, this issue). life in a decisive manner. The social order,
While the early Enlightenment view of ‘civil consequently, became increasingly seen and
society’ posited ‘civil’ society versus constructed as the articulation between state,
‘natural’ society, Hegel and Marx considered civil society and market. While for Hegel
civil society as a set of economic/material and Marx, albeit in very different ways, the
relations versus the state. Of course, this ideal of society resided in transcending the
change in perspective was in itself related to separation between the ‘political state’ and
the changing nature of the state (from a ‘civil society’, the operation of the economy,
‘sovereign’ to a bio-political state—i.e. from under the hidden hand of the market in
a (feudal) state focused on the integrity of its liberal-capitalist societies, rendered this desi-
territorial control to one operating allegedly red unity of state and civil society impossible.
in the ‘interest of all for the benefit of all’). In fact, a fuzzy terrain was produced, some-
Liberal thinkers, like Alexis de Tocqueville, where in-between, but articulating with, state
in turn, associated ‘civil society’ with volun- and market, but irreducible to either; a
tary organisations and associations. In con- terrain that was neither state nor private, yet
trast, with Antonio Gramsci, writing at the expressing a diverse set of social activities
time of the embryonic formation of the and infused with all manner of social power
liberal-democratic Keynesian-welfarist state, relations, tensions, conflict and social
civil society became viewed as one of the struggles. Civil society is, in other words,
three components (the others being the state the pivotal terrain from which social transfor-
and the market) that define the content and mative and innovative action emerges and
structure of society (Gramsci, 1971). For where social power relations are contested
him, civil society is the sum total of private and struggled over. The relative boundaries
actors (outside state and market) and constitu- between these three instances (i.e. state, civil
tes the terrain of social struggle for hegemony society and market) vary significantly from
(Showstack Sassoon, 1987; Simon, 1991; time to time and from place to place. The
MacLeod, 1999). Moreover, both ‘civil notion of civil society, therefore, also cannot
society’ and its meaning are also closely be understood independently of the relations
related to the Foucaultian notion of ‘govern- between political and economic power, the
mentality’. Indeed, with the rise of the first articulated in terms of access to or
liberal state in the 18th century, civil society control over the state apparatus, the latter in
became increasingly associated with the terms of access to or control over resources
object of state-governing as well as being per- for accumulation (whether in the form of
ceived as the foundation from which the monetary, physical, cultural or social capital).
state’s legitimacy was claimed. In addition, In sum, the position and role of civil society
as the state turned increasingly into a bio- are closely related to the dynamics of
political democratic state, concerned with other ‘moments’ of society—i.e. state and
and intervening in the ‘life qualities’ of its economy. At moments of increasing socio-
citizens (health, education, disciplining, economic tension and restructuring (such as
socioeconomic well-being, among others) during the 1920s/1930s or 1980s/1990s), the
from whom the state draws its legitimacy ‘conduct of conduct’ changes in such a way
GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1997
This ‘destatisation’ (Jessop, 2002b) of a series new articulations between state, market and
of former state domains and their transfer civil society generate new forms of gover-
to civil society organisations redefines the nance that combine the three ‘moments’ of
state– civil society relationship through the society in new and often innovative ways
formation of new forms of governance- (Brenner, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2004).
beyond-the-state. This encompasses a three- Of course, the new modalities of govern-
fold reorganisation (Swyngedouw, 1997, ance also involve the mobilisation, by the
2004; see also Lemke, 2002). First is the state, of a new set of technologies of power,
externalisation of state functions through which Mitchell Dean (1999) identifies as
privatisation and deregulation (and decentrali- technologies of agency and technologies of
sation). Both mechanisms inevitably imply performance. While the former refers to strat-
that non-state, civil society or market-based egies of rendering the individual actor respon-
configurations become increasingly involved sible for his or her own actions, the latter
in regulating, governing and organising a refers to the mobilisation of benchmarking
series of social, economic and cultural activi- rules that are set as state-imposed parameters
ties. Second is the up-scaling of governance against which (self-)assessment can take
whereby the national state increasingly place and which require the conduct of a
delegates regulatory and other tasks to other particular set of performances. These technol-
and higher scales or levels of governance ogies of performance produce ‘calculating
(such as the EU, IMF, WTO and the like) individuals’ within ‘calculable spaces’ and
and, third, is the down-scaling of governance incorporated within ‘calculative regimes’
to ‘local’ practices and arrangements that (Miller, 1992). Barbara Cruikshank (1993,
create greater local differentiation combined 1994) refers in this context to the mobilisation
with a desire to incorporate new social of ‘technologies of citizenship’, which are
actors in the arena of governing. This includes defined as
processes of vertical decentralisation towards
the multiple techniques of self-esteem, of
sub-national forms of governance (see
empowerment and of consultation and
Moulaert et al., 2002; or SINGOCOM, 2005,
negotiation that are used in activities as
for a range of case studies).
diverse as community development, social
These three processes of rearrangement of
and environmental impact assessment,
the relationship between state, civil society
health promotion campaigns, teaching at
and market, simultaneously reorganise the
all levels, community policing, the combat-
arrangements of governance as new institu-
ing of various kinds of dependency and so
tional forms of governance-beyond-the-state
on (Dean, 1999, p. 168).
are set up and become part of the system of
governing, of organising the ‘conduct of Ironically, while these technologies are often
conduct’. This restructuring is embedded in advocated and mobilised by NGOs and other
a consolidating neo-liberal ideological civil organisations speaking for the disempow-
polity. The latter combines a desire to con- ered or socially excluded (Carothers et al.,
struct politically the market as the preferred 2000), these actors often fail to see how these
social institution of resource mobilisation instruments are an integral part of the con-
and allocation, a critique of the ‘excess’ of solidation of an imposed and authoritarian
state associated with Keynesian welfarism, neo-liberalism, celebrating the virtues of self-
and a bio-political engineering of the social managed risk, prudence, and self-responsibility
in the direction of greater individualised (Castel, 1991; O’Malley, 1992; Burchell, 1996;
responsibility (Harvey, 2005). Of course this Dean, 1995, 1999).
scalar reorganisation of the state and the To the extent that ‘participation’ is
associated emergence of a neo-liberal govern- invariably mediated by ‘power’ (whether poli-
ance-beyond-the-state redefine in fundamental tical, economic, gender or cultural) among
ways the state– civil society relationship. The participating ‘holders’, between levels of
GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1999
realisation of the Rousseauian ideal in new social actors, the consolidation of the
immanent forms of governing on the one presence of others, the exclusion or diminished
hand, and the imposition of a transcendental power position of groups that were present in
Hobbesian leviathan on the other, there are earlier forms of government and the continuing
also significant counter-tendencies. In parti- exclusion of other social actors who have never
cular, as discussed above, tensions arise been included. The new ‘gestalt of scale’ of
between governance has undoubtedly given a greater
voice and power to some organisations (of a
(1) The possibilities and promises of enhan-
particular kind—i.e. those who accept playing
ced democratisation through participatory
according to the rules set from within the
governance versus the actualities of non-
leading élite networks). However, it has also
representational forms of autocratic élite
consolidated and enhanced the power of
technocracy.
groups associated with the drive towards
(2) The extension of ‘holder’ participation as
marketisation and has diminished the partici-
partially realised in some new forms of
patory status of groups associated with social-
governance versus the consolidation of
democratic or anti-privatisation strategies.
beyond-the-state arenas of power-based
Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
interest intermediation.
governance-beyond-the-state is embedded
(3) The improved transparency associated
within autocratic modes of governing that
with horizontal networked interdependen-
mobilise technologies of performance and of
cies versus the grey accountability of hier-
agency as a means of disciplining forms
archically articulated and non-formalised
of operation within an overall programme of
and procedurally legitimised, associations
responsibilisation, individuation, calculation
of governance.
and pluralist fragmentation. The socially
These tensions arise in a particularly prevalent innovative figures of horizontally organised
and acute way in the context of the processes stakeholder arrangements of governance that
of rescaling of levels of governance. The up- appear to empower civil society in the face
scaling, down-scaling and externalisation of of an apparently overcrowded and ‘excessive’
functions traditionally associated with the state, may, in the end, prove to be the
scale of the national state have resulted in Trojan Horse that diffuses and consolidates
the formation of institutions and practices of the ‘market’ as the principal institutional
governance that all express the above con- form.
tradictions. This is clearly evident in the
context of the formation (and probably
implementation) of a wide array of socially
Note
innovative urban and local development
initiatives and experiments, on the one hand, 1. “Les nouveaux modèles d’action en émer-
and in the construction of the necessary gence resultant de la combinaison plus ou
moins concertée d’acteurs sociaux provenant
institutional and regulatory infrastructure de divers milieux (privé, public, civique)
that accompanies such processes on the dans le but d’influencer les systemes
other. Needless to say, this ambiguous shift d’action dans de sens de leur intérêts”
from government to a hybrid form of (Paquet, 2001).
government/governance, combined with the
emergence of a new hierarchically nested
and relationally articulated ‘gestalt of scale’, References
constitutes an important and far-reaching
socio-political innovation. AKKERMAN , T., HAJER , M. and GRIN , J. (2004)
The interactive state: democratisation from
Thirdly, the processes of constructing above?, Political Studies, 52, pp. 82 –95.
these new choreographies of governance are BECK , U. (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge:
associated with the rise to prominence of Polity Press.
2004 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW
HAMEL , P. (2002) Conclusion: enjeux institution- LEMKE , T. (2002) Foucault, governmentality, and
nels et défis politiques, in: C. GENDRON and critique, Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), pp. 49– 64.
J. C. VAILLANCOURT (Eds) Développement MACLEOD , G. (1999) Entrepreneurial spaces,
durable et participation publique: De la conte- hegemony, and state strategy: the political
station écologique aux défis de la gouvernance, shaping of privatism in lowland Scotland,
pp. 377–392. Montréal: Presses de l’Université Environment and Planning A, 31, pp. 345–375.
de Montréal. MILLER , P. (1992) Accounting and objectivity:
HARVEY , D. (2005) Neoliberalism: A Short the invention of calculating selves and calculable
History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. spaces, Annals of Scholarship, 9(1/2), pp. 61–86.
HERTZ , N. (2002) The Silent Takeover: Global MITCHELL , K. (2002) Transnationalism, neo-
Capitalism and the Death of Democracy. liberalism, and the rise of the shadow state,
London: Arrow. Economy and Society, 30(2), pp. 165– 189.
HIRST , P. (1995) Can secondary associations enhance MOULAERT , F., MARTINELLI , F. and
democratic governance?, in: E. O. WRIGHT (Ed.) SWYNGEDOUW , E. (2005) Social Innovation,
Associations and Democracy, pp. 101–114. Governance, and Community Building—
London: Verso. SINGOCOM. Final Report Month 40, European
JESSOP , B. (1995) The regulation approach: gov- Union Framework V, Key Action Improving
ernance and post-fordism: alternative perspec- Socio-economic Knowledge Base, Contract
tives on economic and political change, No. HPSE-CT2001-00070, Project No. SERD-
Economy and Society, 24, pp. 307–333. 2000-0028, Brussels.
JESSOP B. (1998) The rise of governance and the MOULAERT , F., MARTINELLI , F. and
risks of failure: the case of economic develop- SWYNGEDOUW , E. (2006) Social innovation
ment, International Social Science Journal, and governance in European cities: between
50(155), pp. 29– 46. path dependency and radical innovation,
JESSOP , B. (2002a) Liberalism, neoliberalism and Special Issue, Journal of European Urban and
urban governance: a state-theoretical perspec- Regional Studies (forthcoming).
tive, Antipode, 34(2), pp. 452– 472. MOULAERT , F., RODRIGUEZ, A. and
JESSOP , B. (2002b) The Future of the Capitalist SWYNGEDOUW , E. (Eds) (2001) Social polariz-
State. Oxford: Blackwell. ation in metropolitan areas: the role of new
JESSOP , B. (2002c) Governance and meta- urban policy, Special Issue, European Urban
governance in the face of complexity: on the and Regional Studies, 8(2).
roles of requisite variety, reflexive obser- MOULAERT , F., RODRIGUEZ, A. and SWYNGEDOUW ,
vation and romantic irony in participatory E. (Eds) (2002) The Globalized City:—Economic
governance, in: P. GETIMIS , H. HEINELT , G. Restructuring and Social Polarization in Euro-
KAFKZALAS ET AL. (Eds) Participatory Govern- pean Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ance in a Multi-level Context: Concepts and NEWMAN , J. (2001) Modernising Governance:
Experience, pp. 33 –58. Opladen: Leske and New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.
Budrich. O’MALLEY , P. (1992) Risk, power and crime
KOOIMAN , J. (1995) Modern Governance: New prevention, Economy and Society, 21(2),
Government –Society Interactions. London: pp. 252–275.
Sage. PACQUET , G. (2001) La gouvernance en tant que
KOOIMAN , J. (2000) Societal governance: manière de voir, in: L. CARDINAL and
levels, models and orders of socio-political C. ANDREW (Eds) La démocratie à l’épreuve
interaction, in: J. PIERRE (Ed.) Debating de la gouvernance, pp. 9–41. Ottawa: Presses
Governance: Authority, Steering and Demo- de l’Université d’Ottawa.
cracy, pp. 138–166. Oxford: Oxford University PAGDEN , A. (1998) The genesis of ‘governance’
Press. and Enlightenment conceptions of the cosmopo-
KOOIMAN , J. (2003) Governing as Governance. litan world order, International Social Science
London: Sage. Journal, 50(155), pp. 7– 15.
LE GALÈS , P. (1995) Du gouvernement local à la PIERRE , J. (2000a) Debating Governance:
gouvernance urbaine, Revue Française de Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford:
Science Politique, 45, pp. 57 –95. Oxford University Press.
LE GALÈS , P. (2002) European Cities: Social PIERRE , J. (2000b) Governance, Politics and the
Conflicts and Governance. Oxford: Oxford State. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
University Press. POULANTZAS , N. A. (1980) Research note on the
LEMKE , T. (2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’— state and society, International Social Science
Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de Journal, 32(4), pp. 600– 608.
France on neo-liberal governmentality, RACO , M. (2000) Assessing community partici-
Economy & Society, 30(2), pp. 190– 207. pation in local economic development: lessons
2006 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW
for new urban policy, Political Geography, STOKER , G. (1998) Public–private partnerships in
19(5), pp. 573–599. urban governance, in: J. PIERRE (Ed.) Parner-
RAKODI , C. (2003) Politics and performance: the ships in Urban Governance: European and
implications of emerging governance arrange- American Experience, pp. 34 –51. Basingstoke:
ments for urban management approaches and Macmillan.
information systems, Habitat International, SWYNGEDOUW , E. (1996) Reconstructing
27(4), pp. 523–547. citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and
RHODES , R. (1999) Understanding Governance. the new authoritarianism: closing the
Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Belgian mines, Urban Studies, 33(8),
Accountability. Buckingham: Open University pp. 1499–1521.
Press. SWYNGEDOUW , E. (1997) Neither global nor local:
ROSE , N. and MILLER , P. (1992) Political power ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale, in:
beyond the state: problematics of government, K. COX (Ed.) Spaces of Globalization: Reassert-
British Journal of Sociology, 43, pp. 173–205. ing the Power of the Local, pp. 137–166.
SANDERCOCK , L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis. New York: Guilford.
Chichester: J. Wiley and Sons. SWYNGEDOUW , E. (2000) Authoritarian govern-
SCHMITTER , P. (2000) Governance. Paper ance, power and the politics of rescaling,
presented at the Conference ‘Democratic and Environment and Planning D, pp. 63 –76.
Participatory Governance: From Citizens to SWYNGEDOUW , E. (2004) Globalisation or ‘gloca-
“Holders”’, European University Institute, lisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling,
Florence, September. Cambridge Review of International Affairs,
SCHMITTER , P. (2002) Participation in governance 17(1), pp. 25– 48.
arrangements: is there any reason to expect it SWYNGEDOUW , E., MOULAERT , F. and RODRI-
will achieve ‘sustainable and innovative policies GUEZ , A. (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in
in a multi-level context’?, in: J. R. GROTE and Europe: large-scale urban development projects
B. GBIKPI (Eds) Participatory Governance: and the new urban policy, Antipode, 34(3),
Political and Societal Implications, pp. 51 –69. pp. 542–577.
Opladen: Leske and Budrich. UNESCAP (UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND
SHOWSTACK SASSOON , A. (1987) Gramsci’s SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE
Politics. London: Hutchinson. PACIFIC) (2004) What is Good Governance?
SIMON , R. (1991) Gramsci’s Political Thought. (http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.
London: Lawrence & Wishart. htm; accessed 9 March 2004).
SINGOCOM (2005) www.ncl.ac.uk/ipp/research/ WHITEHEAD , M. (2003) ‘In the shadow of hierar-
projects/singocom.htm; accessed 1 May 2005. chy’: meta-governance, policy reform and
SMITH , N. (1984) Uneven Development. Oxford: urban regeneration in the West Midlands,
Blackwell. Area, 35(1), pp. 6–14.