Territorial Impact Assessment of Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies in ESPON Space

ESPON PROJECT 2.3.2: GOVERNANCE OF TERRITORIAL AND URBAN POLICIES FROM EU TO LOCAL LEVEL

Luxembourg, 14th October 2005

Joaquín Farinós DasíUniversity of Valencia

A very particular topic of research

• Governance is not a policy but a way of design and applies different policies with territorial impact

• Territorial and urban are spatial based policies

• Tailored application of TIA, adapted to

… unavailability of statistical data and indicators … difficult to define an ‘a priori’ hypothesis … not possible nor convenient to ‘encapsulate’ governance ‘a priori’ … inductive/qualitative approach especially appropriate … integration inductive (hypothesis formulation) and deductive (test) … benchmarking in order to learn about reasons of good and failed

examples and their possible transferability

• Appropriate level: State (National vs. State). Regions/NUTS 3?

• Original project that uses experience we are gaining as a source and base to help build the theory concerning governance and territorial cohesion

Two ways to understand the topic

• Territorial Governance can be seen as a simple application in the urban and territorial field of general principles of governance or,

• As a process with specific features because its object is the territory and its aims to manage territorial dynamics through the pilotage of a multiplicity of actors sharing a common agreed objective (spatial visions to improve territorial cohesion at different levels )

• The second one is more strategic but much more difficult to assess for which qualitative data and inductive methods can be very useful

• We try to cover both perspectives in our project, however constraints of data, time and resources impose limits that only allows, in some cases, to find out hypothesis for future developments

Operational definition of governance and formulation of hypothesis

Territorial governance is a process

that has specific

characters

its object is the territory

its aims to regulate, to “govern”, to manage territorial dynamics through the pilotage of a multiplicity of actors

Definition

A process of actors co-ordination to develop social, intellectual and political capitals and of territorial development based on a non destructive use of territorial specificities in order to improve territorial cohesion at different levels

Challenge

How to improve Territorial Cohesion

Territorial Development Processes and Results

Participation Procedures, Processes and Outcomes

Vertical and Horizontal Coordination and Cooperation

Primary Hypotheses

• principles of good governance have positive impact over a territory; that is, governance practices should improve territorial cohesion objective

- impacts in GDP/GVA, employment, welfare and public services and sustainability

• it is possible to recognize and assess factors that characterize good governance (prerequisites, “mechanisms”); they could be “transferables”

• some specific territorial features and dynamics also as institutional frameworks of territorial and urban policies have positive effects

- good governance is mainly to be assessed on a territory-basis

Types of indicators/criteria

Context

Policies

Territorial features and dynamics

Favourable territorial preconditions

Institutional frameworks of territorial policies

Processes

To describe

To evaluate

To describe

TGAs

To evaluate

Results

Methodological Overview

ESPONData Base

Additional Data & Indicators

(Other Programmesand Projects)

(Gaps)TPG

NEW DATA COLLECTION

Refine / Adjust to the Project Objectives METADATA DATA

COMPARABLE DATA

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

Qualitative Impact Analysis

(Case Studies)NEW INDICATORS Quantitative Impact

Analysis

BENCHMARKING COMPARISON

POLICY RECOMENDATIONS

The need of integrating Quantitative – Qualitative Approaches

QUALITATIVE

Indicators / Criteria of Levels

National Other

Context Describe Territorial Features & Dinamics Nat. Ov. Case Stud.

Evaluate Territorial Features & Dinamics Case Studies

Policies Describe institutional framework of territorial policies instruments and procedures for governance

Nat. Ov.

Case Stud.

Translate in

QUANTITATIVE Territorial

Governance Actions

Evaluate Governance Processes Results

Data Collection through Case Studies

BENCHMARKING

COMPARISON:Analyse potential impacts

of Good Governanceon Urban & Territorial

Policies

POLICYRECOMENDATIONS

Available Data+

Data collection

SCALES

Method in National Overviews: Context update

• NOs and CSs constitute, as sequential steps, the way in which we try to know territorial governance in its three dimensions: as structure (or preconditions for governance), as process and as results.

• Information from the NOs was exploited and organized in a systematized way, mainly through tabulation in semi-closed tables with limited alternatives for answers.

- as a result a Synthesis Report was elaborated

- national information was tested in a second round with national writers

- this information was placed by countries into a matrix (‘yes/not’)

- the matrix was again circulated among TPG members

- this matrix was the starting point to mapping

Mapping Exercise

*Governance Score calculated summing up the result of the Score components of five headers of National Overviews:

1) official acceptance of governance and principles, 2) changes in formal government in the direction of governance, 3) Experience with participation processes, 4) experience with partnerships, 5) extent of financial dependence of local government on central government.

• So, it was followed a continued system of mutual assessment (insider investigator triangulation method) between TPG (broadest in ESPON1), Working Package responsible and Project Coordination

• Open questions for NOs:

- improve systematisation of all amount of information & identify main/key issues

- contrast for agreement following a Delphi method (closer to theory triangulation method) between: 232 project, other related ESPON projects and national experts from ESPON Contact Points

• Limits: time and resources, and previous failed experiences in other ESPON projects.

• Next research steps concentrated on specific issues considered more consistent (in a comparative way) while others remain for future developments.

Method in National Overviews: Context update

Specific Issues from National Overviews for Case Studies

     As structural conditions

- Changes in formal government in the direction of governance

      - Priority emphasis on governance objectives as indicated in NO

     - Conditions leading to shifts towards governance:

Positive elements are:

· long tradition of “working together” and citizens’ participation,

· innovations in the field of partnership creation,

· reorganization of spatial planning system and

· introduction of new instruments and agencies

      -  Catalysts and barriers to changes to governance

    CSs mainly focus in governance as process

Collecting Data from EU and National Statistical Sources (1/2)

NUTS 3 Reference(s) of Case Study Readme!

Area Sqkm

1984 1989 1994 1999 2004Population (.000)GDP (.000, Euro, PPS/capita) Readme!

Employment (.000)Prim Sector (%)Sec Sector (%)Tert Sector (%)Employment NACE L-O (.000) Readme!

1984 1989 1994 1999 2004Unemploymentrate %

Assessment Readme!Social Questions 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Foreigners (.000, not home nationality)

(x where appropriate)

-1 (parallel societies exist)

0 (do not know, hard to say)

+1 (integrated society)

Dependency Rates (% of Population receving welfare support)

Do you observe features of a 'Parallel Society' in you country, case study?

Collecting Data from EU and National Statistical Sources (2/2)

SustainabilityDoes a Local Agenda 21 activity exist? (delete where appropriate)

Yes No

Budget figures 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004Public Budget (.000 EUR) Readme!Share National (%)Share Regional (%)Share Local (%)Share Social Insurances (%)Deficit development (%)Deficit National (%)Deficit Regional (%)Deficit Local (%)Voter turn out in Elections: 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 Readme!

LocalRegionalNational

European

Matrix for Case Studies Proposal

VERTICAL RELATIONS HORIZONTAL RELATIONS Governance dimensions

Geographical

Multi-level Cooperation

Decentralizat./ Devolution / Regionalisat.

Multi-Actor/ Multi-Chanel

Among Territories

Integrated Policies

Participation of NGA/

Openness

OMC, Innovative

Mechanisms

Trans-national/ Cross-border

1.1, 5.2, 12.2, 13.1, 14.2, 17.2, 23.1a, 23.2a, 27.1, 28.2

13.1 1.1, 5.2, 8, 12.2, 23.1, 28.2

12.2, 13.1, 14.2, 17.2, 27.1, 28.2

(12.2), 13.1, 14.2, 17.2, 18.1, 23.1, 23.2, 27.1,(28.2)

13.1, 14.2, 17.2, 23.1, 23.2, 27, 28.2

8, 23.2

National

9.1, 11.1, 18.1, 21.1, 26.1

2.2, 18.1, 26.1

2.2, 9.1,11.1, (16.2), 18.1

2.2, 15.2, 18.1, 26.1

2.2, 5.1, 9.1, 11.1, 18.1, 21.1

9.1, 11.1, 18.1

21.1

‘Regional’ Polycentric

Urban Networks

1.1, 3.1, 5.3alt, 8, 10.1, 13.2, 15.1, 15.2, 18.1, 19.1, 28.1

3.1, 5.3alt, 12.1, 17.1, 22.1, 26.1, 28.1

1.1, 5.3alt., 10.1, 12,1, 13.2, 19.1, 22.1, (28.1)

3.1, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1, 19.1, 22.1, 25, 28.1

3.1, 10.1, 12.1, 13.2, 15.1, 15.2, 18.1

8, 10.1, 13.2, 15.1, 15.2, 18.1, 28.1

10.1, 13.2

Functional Urban Areas, Metropolitan

Regions

1.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 9.2, 10.3, 11.2, 14.1, 16.1, 18.1, 19.2, 20.1, 24, 25, 27.2

16.2, 25 1.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.1, 7.1, 10.3, 11.2, 20.1, 24

9.2, 11.2, 14.1, 16.1, 19.2, 20.1, 25, 27.2

4.2, 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 9.2, (14.1), 16.2, 16.1, 19.2, 24, 27.2, 29.1

1.2, 4.2, 6.1, 7.2, 9.2, 11.2, 14.1, 16.1, 20.1, 24, 27.2

7.2, (16.2)

Urban – rural

2.1, 4.1, 18.1, 20.2

× 2.1, 3.2, 5.3alt, 10.2, (16.2), 20.2, 26.2

3.2, 4.1, 20.2, 22.2, 26.2

2.1, 3.2, 4.1, 10.2, 14.1, 22.2

2.1, 4.1, 26.2, 29.2

3.2, 20.2, 22.2, 26.2

Intra-city 18.1, 6.2 18.2, 21.2 5.1, 18.2,

21.2 18.2 5.1, 6.2,

18.2 1.2, 5.1, 6.2, 18.2

6.2, 18.2, 21.2

Case Studies Map

Guidelines for Case Studies

Part I: Context for the CSs ( includes 7 topics) Part I I: Thematic Sections. Key aspects of Governance Identified in CSs

I ) Vertical relations during processes of public decision making in the case study (Principles involved: effectiveness, coherence, accountability, subsidiarity) A: Vertical multilevel (territory level) relation of governance (includes 7

questions) B: Decentralisation, devolution, regionalisation (includes 10 questions)

I I ) Horizontal relations during processes of public decision making in the case study (Principles involved: effectiveness, coherence, accountability, openness) A: Horizontal “multi-channel” relations between actors, governmental and

non governmental (civil society, private sector), (includes 13 questions) B: Horizontal relations among territories, coordination of territorially based

policies, multisectoral or integrated policies approaches (includes 15 possible questions)

I I I ) Participation, openness A: Public (non governmental) participation in the processes of decision

making, and the implementation of the decision (includes possible 14 questions)

B: Openness (includes 7 questions) IV) Innovative tools, practices and mechanisms (includes 12 possible questions) V) Outcomes (policies, strategies, partly refer to matrix “integrated policies”):

decisions and implementation. (To be filled for each case studies). A: The decision(s) (includes 10 possible questions) B: Which implementation (includes 7 questions)

Part I I I : Governance failures and success ( includes 14 questions)

‘Numeric’ approach towards Case Studies (1/5)

Summarising Case Study Part II - Theme: Vertical relations between territories (Related to Part II, Section I-A, question 2 & Part II, Section I-B, question 4 // Part II, Section I-A, question 3 & Part II, Section I-B, question 5)

T2 - Main territorial levels involved (please list)

Degree of involvement (Q2, Q4)

Competences (Q3, Q5)

Negotiating power (Q3, Q5)

Financial Resources (Q3, Q5)

Other (please specify) (Q3, Q5)

Scores -1 = not involved/not applic.

0 = standar involvement +1 = strongly involved

-1 = no autonomy 0 = balanced situation +1 = high/full autonomy

Summarising Case Study Part II - Theme: Vertical relations between territories (Related to Part II, section I-A, Question 5)

T3 - Actors (please specify)

Cooperation Coordination Dialogue Other (please specify)

Civil Society Private Actors Lobbying Groups Other not mentioned before

Scores -1 = inexistent 0 = balanced +1 = permanently & strongly integrated part of decision making

‘Numeric’ approach towards Case Studies (2/5)

Summarising Part II - Theme: Horizontal relations between actors (Related to Part II, section II-A, questions 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11)

T4 - Other Actors (please list) Involvement

(Q 3) Influence on decision

making (Q 4) Coordination

(Q 5) Mobilizing ?

(Q 9) General

Influence (Q 11) Civil Society Private Actors Lobbying Groups (Q9)? Other actors, governmental and not, not mentioned before?

Scores -1 = mainly formal 0 = balanced +1 = mainly informal

-1 = no influence/involvement; 0 = balanced / fair; +1 = strong position / active

Summarising Part II - Theme: Horizontal relations between territories (Related to Part II, section II-B, questions 2, 6, 13)

T5– Main territorial levels involved

(please list)

Territorially integrated

policies (Q2)

Sectorially integrated

policies(Q6)

Policy Packages

(Q6)

Cooperation (Q2)

Coordination (Q2)

Dialogue (Q2)

Conflict (Q2)

Protest (Q13)

Non Relations

(Q2)

Other (Specify)

(Q2) Scores -1 = non existent / negative ;

0 = balanced/fair ; +1 = strong position

‘Numeric’ approach towards Case Studies (3/5)

Summarising Part II - Theme: Instruments and mechanisms – IN DECISION MAKING PHASE (Related to Part II, section III-A (public, non governmental, participation), questions 3,4,5,6 & Part II, section III-B (Openness), questions 2,3,4,6)

T6.1 - Mechanisms/Instruments (please list, you can also extend !)

Statutory? (Q3)

Binding? (Q 4)

Effectiveness? (Q5, Q6)

Contributing to openess? (Q1?, Q2)

Known by actors? (Q2, Q4)

Resources available? (Q6)

Civil Society Private Sector Lobby Groups Other not mentioned before? Scores 1 = Yes

0 = No -1 = not at all 0 = average + 1= strongly

-1 = not at all 0 = average + 1 = very effective

1 = Yes 0 = No

1 = Yes 0 = No

1 = Yes 0 = No

Summarising Part II - Theme: Instruments and mechanisms – IN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE (Related to Part II, section III-A (public, non governmental, participation), questions 3,4,5,6 & Part II, section III-B (Openness), questions 2,3,4,6)

T6.2 - Mechanisms/Instruments (please list, you can also extend !)

Statutory? (Q3)

Binding? (Q 4)

Effectiveness? (Q5, Q6))

Contributing to ‘openess’? (Q1?, Q2)

Known by actors? (Q2, Q4)

Resources available? Q6)

Civil Society Private Sector Lobby Groups Other not mentioned before? Scores 1 = Yes

0 = No -1 = not at all 0 = average + 1= strongly

-1 = not at all 0 = average

+ 1 = very effective

1 = Yes 0 = No

1 = Yes 0 = No

1 = Yes 0 = No

Summarising Part II - Theme: Actor perspectives –IN DECISION MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASES (Related to Part II, section III-A (public -non governametal- participation), questions 6, 10, 11)

IN DECISION MAKING PHASE IN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE T7 - Other Actors (please list)

Influence on decision making

(Q 6)

Involvement (Q 10)

Coordination (Q 11)

Influence on implementation

(Q 6)

Involvement (Q 10)

Coordination (Q 11)

Civil Society Private Sector Lobbying Groups Other not mentioned before? Scores -1 = no influence/involvement;

0 = balanced / fair; +1 = strong position / active

Part II – Section IV: Innovative tools, practices and mechanisms

T.8 –Innovat. tools, practices & mechanisms

(Please list)

Levels of Public Power

involved

Integration (strategies,

policies) (Q3)

Partnership (Q3)

Co-operation

(Q3)

Co- ordination

Q3)

Dialogue (Q3)

Conflict (Q3)

Non Relations

(Q3)

Other (Specify)

(Q3)

Achievement of Objectives

(Q9)

Score -1 = not at all

0 = partly +1 = strongly

-1 = not at all 0 = partly + 1= completly

‘Numeric’ approach towards Case Studies (4/5)

‘Numeric’ approach towards Case Studies (5/5)

Table 9: Part II – Section V: Outcomes , Part III: Failures and Successes Part II, Section V-A (the decision), questions 4 & 6; Part II, Section V-B (the implementation), questions 3; Part III, question 3.

Outcomes Part II. Sec. V-A Q4 - Integrated planning - Territorial policy coordination - Capacity to integrate local interest and to represent them

Q6 - Helping EU Cohesion

Part II. Sec. V-B Q3 - Specific governance mode Score: -1 = Not at all 0 = Partly +1 = Strongly Failures & Successes Part III.

Q 3 - Build a consensus - To agree on the contribution of each stakeholder - To achieve negotitated and shared rules - To achieve integration of territorial action - To reach a common spatial vision - To go on with implementation

Q 11 - Obstacles and barriers Score: -1 = Strong 0 = Possible to overcome +1 = No obstacle

Looking for Data and Indicators

ESPONData Base

AdditionalData & Indicators

(Other Programmesand Projects)

TPGNEW DATA

COLLECTION

Refine / Adjust to the Project Objectives METADATA DATA

COMPARABLE DATA & INDICATORS

GAPS

ITPICSPIEPISPProcess (P)

ITSICSSIESISSStructure (S)Feature

Space (*)(T)

Civil Society(CS)

Economy(E)

State(S)

Domain

ITPICSPIEPISPProcess (P)

ITSICSSIESISSStructure (S)Feature

Space (*)(T)

Civil Society(CS)

Economy(E)

State(S)

Domain

* Space has to be seen as an encompassing category

Starting set of Indicators

Starting set of Indicators

Domain Principle of good governance

State

ISS Employment total, NACE L-P, Population, Budget figures. Qualitative side: TRUST 1 [includes World Bank surveys on legal system, government, national democracy, parties, parliament]

Effectiveness

ISP Delta(*) for Employment, L-P, Population, budget figures. Qualitative side TRUST 2 [includes World Bank surveys on government effectiveness (only indicator available as time series and for 29 countries), regulatory quality, e-government contact for SME (both indicators have gaps, more than half of the countries show no data); internet users per household (ESPON Db)]

Effectiveness

Economy IES GDP/GVA, HQ [head quarter function for MEGA, urban audit],

Service Society (specific services). Data in part from ESPON Db or Eurostat – partly to be collected; problem of area coverage.

Effectiveness

IEP Delta for GDP/GVA; delta for other indicators. Regulatory burden Index [NUTS 0]

Effectiveness Accountability

Civil Society ICSS QUALI 1 to describe the current situation [with respect to spatial

planning; data from NOs] Participation

Openness

ICSP QUALI 2 [data from the Numeric Approach in the CSs] Partic. / Open.

Space**

ITS Pentagon, Polycentricity, Settlement Structure, FUA, Urban-rural typology – all ESPON Db – existing data; area coverage a problem.

Coherence

ITP Lagging regions, multi modal accessibility, MEGA – all ESPON Db - existing data; area coverage a problem.

Relations

(*) Delta valuates difference between two data or two reference points)

** The indicators on spatial aspects are used to further differentiate the regional situation.

Source: IRPUD

LOOKING FOR A REGIONAL TYPOLOGY

• By combining the structural with the dynamic indicators we might at least achieve a typology of regions

Data on Indicator on ISS & IST & IES & ICSS → Structure Typology ISP & ITP & IEP & ICSP → Dynamics

Thank you for your attention!!