The Political Economy of Cities II BENV 7721 Paul Collits paul.collits@outlook.com

Sources Australian Government, Our Cities Our Future: A National Policy for a Productive, Sustainable and Liveable Future (Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2011) Cheshire, Nathan, Overman Urban Economics and Urban Policy: Challenging Conventional Policy Wisdom (Edward Elgar 2014) Spatial Economics Research Centre, London School of Economics http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/

Sources Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History, University of Chicago Press (2005) Patrick Troy, The Perils of Urban Consolidation, Federation Press (1996) Peter Calthorpe, William Fulton, The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl, Island Press (2001)

Ed Glaeser “… it is somewhat remarkable that our cities have been so successful despite the many shortcomings of urban politics and government” (2014)

Cheshire et al Cities support specialisation, social interaction and exchange of ideas (Marshall) Infrastructure, buildings and urban form are not ends in themselves Land use planning has “generated substantial economic and social costs for large groups of people” Lack of robust evaluations of urban policy

Cheshire et al (Cont.) Policies should be judged for their impact on people, not places Area effects v composition effects Policies must be realistic in the face of strong market forces (which cause unevenness) Economics has been too little used in urban policy Cities – land, labour and housing markets all interact Many urban policies do little or generate unintended and counterproductive consequences Policy makers must be clear as to the causes of disparities

Area Effects v Composition Effects Area effects – the extent to which some cities offer better outcomes for similar types of people Composition effects – the extent to which the characteristics of people differ across cities Area effects are persistent and not susceptible to effective policy interventions

The Policy Buzz Words The three imperatives of contemporary urban policy – Productivity Sustainability Liveability “Balance” or trade offs??? Affordability???

Drivers of Policy Ideology – world view, paradigm, way of seeing things, core beliefs, philosophy Neo liberalism (economic rationalism), conservatism, socialism, environmentalism Economic and social conditions History (and geography in the case of spatial policy) Problems being confronted Policy ideas Interest groups The disposition of the public to the issue and its solutions Administrative process

The Policy Process The role of government – address market failures, regulate, provide services, address inequality The bureaucracy The policy cycle – problem definition; agenda setting; policy development; implementation; evaluation (see Bridgeman and Davis)

Models of the Policy Process Rational actor model Incrementalism Satisficing Log rolling (trading of favours) Public choice theory Agenda setting Wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) Anthony Downs – the issue attention cycle

Downs and the Five Stages of the IAC Downs described 5 stages of the issue-attention cycle 1. The pre-problem stage. Here the problem exists, but commands little public attention. 2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm. The public suddenly becomes aware of the problem and demands emphatically that it be solved. 3. Realizing cost of significant progress. The realization sets in that solving the problem would be very costly and require sacrifice from large parts of the population. 4. Gradual decline of intense public interest. Interest wanes in the problem. Other problems find their way to the "alarmed discovery" stage and the old one is displaced. 5. The post-problem stage. The issue moves into a "twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest." Institutions or policies created in the "discovery" stage may persist however, and continue to work toward the solution to the problem.

Policy in Australia Three levels of government Vertical fiscal imbalance Growing influence of Commonwealth Weakness of local government No democratic recognition of region scale Resistance by local government and communities to amalgamation City centrism

Spatial and Non Spatial Policies “People” v “place” policy Most policy is “spatially blind”, ie has no spatial intent Policies affect regions positively and negatively Examples? Education policy Spatial policy – makes “place” front and centre Critiques of spatial policy – effectiveness, cost, unintended consequences

Urban Policy Urban policy is place policy Negotiated split between State and local government Traditional land use planning essentially regulatory – zoning, development control 1970s – EPA Act; new reach, environmental imperative 1970s-80s - managing population growth; sprawl; urban consolidation; urban containment 1980s – “sustainability”; triple bottom line 1990s -2000s – “liveability” and place making / urban design / revitalisation (regeneration) 2000s – local economic development

Key Policy Challenges of Australian Cities Economic decline, under-performance Managing future growth Congestion Pollution Uneven outcomes / Inequality / concentration of poverty Poor public transport Transport planning, land use planning, housing, and economy mismatches Affordability / home ownership Sprawl (???) Governance and coordination Others?

“Joined up” Governance New Labour in Britain Addresses fragmentation Alignment Coordination Integration Process re-engineering The five levels of collaboration – mutual awareness; learning exchange; sharing resources; co-execution; innovating together (Purdue)

Urban Interest Groups The property industry Environmentalists Community defenders Industry sectors, eg transport/logistics, manufacturing Local government Experts/practitioners

Discussion questions? Essay questions Other Next week – land use planning and economic development practice; case studies