Defining and assessing the transformational nature of smart city governance: insights from four European cases
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Author | Giorgia Nesti |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852318757063 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Defining and assessing
Sciences
2020, Vol. 86(1) 20–37
!
the transformational
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
nature of smart city
DOI: 10.1177/0020852318757063
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
governance: insights
from four European cases
Giorgia Nesti
University of Padova, Italy
Abstract
Smart cities are a new approach to urban development based on the extensive use of
information and communication technologies and on the promotion of environmental
sustainability, economic development and innovation. The article is aimed at discussing
whether the adoption of a smart city approach entails the transformation of existing
institutional structures and administrative practices. To this end, four cases of European
smart cities are analysed: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Turin and Vienna. The article
describes their models of governance, investigates the level of transformation that
occurred in their governmental structures, outlines the main drawbacks and identifies
possible connections with the emergent paradigm of the New Public Governance.
Points for practitioners
The article offers in-depth insights about how smart governance is implemented in
practice. It outlines the smart city model of urban governance as the result of specific
goals, relationships among stakeholders, policy styles and policy tools. Smart gover-
nance entails the adoption of a new approach based on experimentation, collaboration
with all local stakeholders and the reorganisation of existing government structures.
This process should be driven by public actors and should be supported by appropriate
tools to manage interactions, to foster coordination, to enhance democratic legitimacy
and accountability, and to ensure tangible results for citizens.
Corresponding author:
Giorgia Nesti, Department of Political Science, Law and International Studies, University of Padova, Via del
Santo 28, 35123 Padova, Italy.
Email: giorgia.nesti@unipd.it
Nesti
21
Keywords
citizen participation, collaborative innovation, governance, New Public Governance,
smart cities
Introduction
Over the last 10 years, smart cities emerged as an increasingly important field of
research. Cities play a pivotal role as economic drivers and places of creativity and
innovation (European Union, 2011), but, at the same time, cities have been
increasingly urged to find effective and efficient solutions to wicked problems,
such as globalisation, financial crises, climate change and environmental pollution.
Several municipalities have coped with these challenges through the adoption of a
smart city approach.
There is no agreement among scholars on a shared definition of a smart city
(Angelidou, 2014, 2016, 2017a; Glasmeier and Nebiolo, 2016; Hollands, 2008,
2015; Meijer and Bolı´var, 2015; Nam and Pardo, 2011; Neirotti et al., 2014;
Vanolo, 2016). Its fuzzy nature is due to a stratification of concepts elaborated
in different research areas, such as urban planning, geography, economic develop-
ment and engineering (Meijer and Bolı´var, 2015). It also depends on the lack of
metrics to assess the real benefits generated by investments in smart city strategies
(Angelidou, 2017a; Glasmeier and Nebiolo, 2016).
Meijer and Bolı´var (2015) recently reviewed the literature on smart cities,
identifying three main focuses around which the concept revolves: technologies,
human resources and governance. The technological focus refers to the centrality
of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to increase the efficiency
of infrastructure and to improve the quality of local policies, especially those
targeted at environmental sustainability (Angelidou, 2016). The human resource
focus relates to the importance of a well-educated population and knowledge cap-
ital as drivers of urban growth and innovation (Angelidou, 2016). The governance
focus emphasises the relevance of partnerships and networking among local stake-
holders to foster innovation (Torfing, 2016). Drawing on these three components,
Meijer and Bolı´var (2015: 7) define the smartness of a city as ‘its ability to attract
human capital and to mobilize this human capital in collaboration between
the various (organized and individual) actors though the use of information and
communication technologies’.
While the role of technologies and knowledge in smart cities has been exten-
sively analysed by the literature, governance has only recently gained importance
in the academic debate (Glasmeier and Nebiolo, 2016), so it still represents a topic
not thoroughly investigated both at the theoretical and at the empirical level
(Kitchin, 2015). In particular, current reflections are dominated by the idea that
smart cities have – or should have – an inherently transformative connotation
(Meijer and Bolı´var, 2015) since traditional institutions do not have the right
22
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(1)
capacities to cope with new urban challenges (Angelidou, 2014; Bakıcı et al., 2013;
Bolici and Mora, 2015; Nam and Pardo, 2011; Neirotti et al., 2014; Zygiaris, 2013).
Yet, empirical research on the types and modes of governance adopted by smart
cities is lacking.
The article is aimed at contributing to this literature by discussing whether the
adoption of a smart city approach entails the transformation of existing adminis-
trative structures and practices and the transition to a real new system of gover-
nance. To this end, four cases of European smart cities are analysed: Amsterdam,
Barcelona, Turin and Vienna. Using part of the data collected during a two-year
research project on smart city governance,1 the article describes the models of
governance adopted by the four smart cities, investigates the level of transforma-
tion that occurred in their governmental structures, outlines the main drawbacks
and identifies possible connections with the emergent paradigm of the New Public
Governance (NPG) (Osborne, 2006), with which smart city governance potentially
shares several characteristics (Meijer and Bolı´var, 2015).
The article proceeds as follows. Drawing on Pierre’s (2011) models of urban
governance, the second section introduces the analytical framework and illustrates
the methodology. In the third section, the framework is applied to the four smart
cities to describe their governance approaches, and the fourth section compares
empirical findings. The fifth and sixth sections examine whether and how a trans-
formation of existing governance structures occurred in the four cities, as well as
related challenges. Conclusions summarise findings, analyse them with reference to
the NPG approach and suggest future lines of inquiry.
Analysing smart city governance: theoretical framework
and methodology
In political science, governance can be defined as a new mode of managing complex
societal issues based on the collaboration of government with non-public stakehold-
ers (Bevir, 2013). Consequently, urban governance, or the governance of a city, can
be defined as a collaborative process between governmental and non-governmental
actors in the making of urban public policies (Blanco, 2014: 123). According to
Pierre (2011), urban governance is characterised by nine elements (see Table 1).
Thus, the governance approach adopted by a city is determined by: the goals
settled by political actors; the consensual or conflictual nature of the political
debate among parties within local politics; and the more or less collaborative
and inclusive type of exchange existing among local governments, organised inter-
ests and citizens. Urban governance is also shaped by: the type of actors in charge
of managing contingencies; the policy style adopted to define and to implement
local policies; the existing patterns of subordination between the local government
and economy – which can be positive or negative, depending on the more or less
active role performed by the politico-administrative system in local economic
development (Pierre, 2011: 143); and the policy tools adopted to implement the
Nesti
23
Table 1. Characteristics of urban governance.
Political objectives
Type of goals established by politico-administrative institutions.
Policy style
The way in which politico-administrative institutions make and
implement policies given their relation with society. It can be
pragmatic or ideological.
Political exchange
Type of relationship among parties within local politics. It can
be consensual or conflictual.
Public–private exchange
Type of exchange between institutions and organised interests.
City–citizen relationship
Type of relationship between institutions and citizens. It can be
inclusive or exclusive.
Primary contingency
Main actors responsible for the management of local
contingencies.
Key instruments
Type of policy tools adopted to implement urban governance.
Patterns of subordination
Type of relationship between urban economic policy and
politico-administrative institutions. It is negative when the
latter is subordinated to the former and it does not con-
tribute to its functioning; it is positive when politico-
administrative institutions contribute to the economy.
Key evaluative criteria
Criteria adopted to assess the governance approach.
Source: Adapted from Pierre (2011).
governance approach. Finally, urban governance is characterised by the expected
outcomes that it is supposed to achieve.
The framework just depicted is applied to describe the main elements of smart
city governance that characterised...
To continue reading
Request your trial