Metropolitan Innovation and Governance Networks

Bruno Dente

Politecnico di Milanopresented at the WOW3 conference

Bloomington, June 2-6, 2004

The research

Comparing (and explaining) the level of innovativeness, the governance structure and the social capital dynamics in four Italian metropolitan cities

The hypotheses

1. The level of innovation in a metropolis depends upon the density and complexity of the governance network

2. The morphology of the governance networks is affected by the variation of social capital stock

In other words….

The periods of innovation in a political system are explained by an external shock (or a particular policy) resulting in a sudden increase of social capital.

What is important is not the absolute level but the variation.

The theoretical problems:

1. What is social capital?

We define social capital à la Bourdieu as the relational capacity of the actors.

This implies not only an abstract ability of cooperate but actual co-operative behaviour

This implies as well the ability of private actors to engage themselves in the provision of public or collective goods

The theoretical problems:

2. What is innovation?

We define innovation as the ability to alter either the agenda, the products or the processes of urban policy

We adopt a sustainable development approach in which the economic well being is complemented by the preservation of natural goods and by the social inclusiveness of the city

The theoretical problems:

3. What is governance?

By governance we define the set of actors (public and private, corporate and individual, local and supra or infra local) who participate in the (innovative) policies at metropolitan level

The morphology of governance is given by the level of complexity and density of the actors’ network

The analytical problems:

1. How to measure social capital?

In order to measure social capital we are trying to identify the characteristics of the dominant élite, if any, and assess their resources and capacities.

But this is still very provisional

The analytical problems:

2. How to measure innovation?

In order to measure innovation we have built a matrix that on one axis has the different possible sectors/policies and on the other the agenda, product or process dimension of innovation

The more filled are the cells of the matrix the more innovative is the city

 TYPES OF INNOVATION

  agendanew issues and new problems

productnew solutions to old

problems

processnew methods for solving old and new problems

symbolic new forms of communication

Turin ++ ++ ++ +

Neaples + + - ++

Florence + ++ ++ +

Milan - ++ + -

The analytical problems:

3. How to measure governance?

We have selected a sample of 30 different innovation processes in the last 10 years and we have mapped the actors of each process.

After a common classification of the actors we have collapsed all the cases in one chart in order to calculate the complexity and density of the governance network

National administration

Provincial government

Other municipalities

Multinational and national companies

Local technical agencies

Universities

Voluntary sector

Experts

Political parties

Chamber of Commerce

Trade associations

Central municipality

National technical agencies

THE GOVERNANCE NETWORK OF TURIN

Regional government

Trade unions

Citizens groups

Central administration field offices

Economic and social actors

Institutional and political actors

Presences

15 30 15

Supra local actors

Local Actors

Presences Institutionaland politicalactors

15 30 15

Economicand social actors

Nationaladministration

Courts

Regionalgovernment

Centralmunicipality

Othermunicipalities

Supra local actors

Local actors

Multinationaland nationalcompanies

Citizensgroups

Nationaltechnicalagencies

Universities

Landowners

Chamber of Commerce

Tradeassociations

Experts

Politicalparties

Localtechnicalagencies

Tradeunions

Voluntarysector

Provincialgovernment

First provisional conclusions

The first of the two hypotheses, the one concerning the link between the structure of the governance networks and the level of innovation at the metropolitan level, receives some support from the empirical data at least in the comparison between Milan and Turin

The cities are similar,

Both cities were confronted with the same external shocks: the scandals of the early ’90ies, the Italian financial crisis of 1992, the transformation of the institutional structure (direct election of the Mayor in 1993, dissolution of the traditional majority parties)

but..

In Milan - starting from an higher level of social capital (the richness of the voluntary sector) - the crisis was re-absorbed through a traditional adjustement of the political offer (the Northern League)

..while...

In Turin – where the crisis was deeper (decline of the motor industry) – this created the conditions for a mobilisation of the civil society (the new mayor and many members of the city government had no previous experience)

with the consequence that

In Milan the network is more fragmented – in particular in the relationship between the municipalities of the area

In Turin is more integrated and created the conditions for the development of further integrative processes (the strategic plan)

and the result of

A higher level of innovation, mainly in the agenda, process and symbolic dimensions, in Turin

A process much more led by the institutions in Turin, while the innovation in Milano very often is promoted outside the official channels and barely tolerated by the city government