Governing Greater Sydney: The democratic promise and contention of local governments’ metropolitan integration

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2023-10-12 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12601
Jordan Taylor
{"title":"Governing Greater Sydney: The democratic promise and contention of local governments’ metropolitan integration","authors":"Jordan Taylor","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Metropolitan planning in Australia is argued to suffer from a ‘governance deficit’, alongside various calls for planning reform. The Greater Sydney Commission (renamed the Greater Cities Commission in 2022) was established in 2015 as a state-appointed planning commission to preside over new strategic and statutory planning powers; local governments’ metropolitan integration is one tenet of the reform's ambition for a more cohesive system. While the grounds for reform are often argued on effective terms, there is a clear need to explore the ways it may suffer from a ‘democratic deficit’ or be democratically defensible. This study explores the shifting planning powers, accountabilities, and forms of interest representation at the local level of the political system, in Australia's most concerted contemporary metropolitan reform attempt.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>The reformed planning process promoted new forms of substantive exchange and coordination from the local government sector informing local, district, and metropolitan planning processes.</li>\n \n <li>Interest representation outside of local governments’ required plans is largely voluntary; Western City District councils demonstrated considerably more inter-council collaboration as well as collaboration with the Commission than the Central City District. New forms of inter-local exchange and coordination may help address ‘fragmented’ localism.</li>\n \n <li>The reform has improved prior democratic qualities of local strategic planning and improved policy accountabilities between councillors, the community, and planners in a loose compliance framework.</li>\n \n <li>The state's governance of housing growth targets and land use was said to contradict what had been negotiated between councils and the Commission, alongside local governments’ increasingly narrow land-use and development approval powers and policy churn of its governance.</li>\n \n <li>Practitioners can use the meta-governance framework to consider the democratic ‘performance’ or defensibility of the Greater Sydney Commission's governance system and improve this or similar metropolitan governance reform settings.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"83 3","pages":"433-456"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12601","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12601","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metropolitan planning in Australia is argued to suffer from a ‘governance deficit’, alongside various calls for planning reform. The Greater Sydney Commission (renamed the Greater Cities Commission in 2022) was established in 2015 as a state-appointed planning commission to preside over new strategic and statutory planning powers; local governments’ metropolitan integration is one tenet of the reform's ambition for a more cohesive system. While the grounds for reform are often argued on effective terms, there is a clear need to explore the ways it may suffer from a ‘democratic deficit’ or be democratically defensible. This study explores the shifting planning powers, accountabilities, and forms of interest representation at the local level of the political system, in Australia's most concerted contemporary metropolitan reform attempt.

Points for practitioners

  • The reformed planning process promoted new forms of substantive exchange and coordination from the local government sector informing local, district, and metropolitan planning processes.
  • Interest representation outside of local governments’ required plans is largely voluntary; Western City District councils demonstrated considerably more inter-council collaboration as well as collaboration with the Commission than the Central City District. New forms of inter-local exchange and coordination may help address ‘fragmented’ localism.
  • The reform has improved prior democratic qualities of local strategic planning and improved policy accountabilities between councillors, the community, and planners in a loose compliance framework.
  • The state's governance of housing growth targets and land use was said to contradict what had been negotiated between councils and the Commission, alongside local governments’ increasingly narrow land-use and development approval powers and policy churn of its governance.
  • Practitioners can use the meta-governance framework to consider the democratic ‘performance’ or defensibility of the Greater Sydney Commission's governance system and improve this or similar metropolitan governance reform settings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治理大悉尼地区:地方政府大都市一体化的民主承诺与争议
澳大利亚的大都市规划被认为存在 "治理赤字",同时也有各种规划改革的呼声。大悉尼委员会(2022 年更名为大城市委员会)成立于 2015 年,是一个由州政府任命的规划委员会,主持新的战略和法定规划权力;地方政府的大都市整合是改革的宗旨之一,旨在建立一个更具凝聚力的系统。虽然改革的理由往往是有效的,但显然有必要探讨其可能存在的 "民主赤字 "或民主辩护的方式。本研究探讨了在澳大利亚当代最协调一致的大都市改革尝试中,地方层面政治体系中规划权力、问责制和利益代表形式的转变。 实践者要点 改革后的规划过程促进了地方政府部门新形式的实质性交流和协调,为地方、地区和大都市规划过程提供了信息。 在地方政府规定的规划之外,利益代表在很大程度上是自愿的;与中心城区相比,西城区议会之间的合作以及与委员会的合作要多得多。新形式的地方间交流与协调可能有助于解决 "支离破碎 "的地方主义问题。 改革提高了地方战略规划的民主性,并在一个宽松的合规框架内改善了议员、社区和规划者之间的政策问责。 据说,国家对住房增长目标和土地使用的管理与议会和委员会之间的协商相矛盾,同时,地方政府的土地使用和开发审批权越来越小,其管理政策也在不断变化。 实践者可以使用元治理框架来考量大悉尼委员会治理体系的民主 "绩效 "或可辩护性,并改善该治理体系或类似的大都市治理改革环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - TOC Issue Information - TOC Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1