城市与建筑专业英语.doc

Since the 1980s,governance has been studied in relation to the effects that globalization has had on policy. Although no consensus has been reached on the definition of governance ,it certainly denotes a shift in the roles of formal government structures and contemporary agencies as well as a change in the distribution of responsibilities among public ,private, voluntary and household groups. With an increasing fragmentation of responsibilities in the urban arena,the focus has shifted to new institutional relations and the policy processes of different constituents and agencies at the existing national and local levels.The effects of this fragmentation are also reflected in economic and spatial planning. A new form of politics has emerged as a result of the rescaling of the state. Taking a networked form, governance spans the relations between continental, national, regional and local governments. The changing governmental structure of cities and regions has been shaped by the interaction of economic and institutional factors, which have been mediated through political,cultural and other contextual forces. In the process, the relationship between urban development and urban policy has become more complicated . Yet so far, a satisfactory urban governance model that can adequately represent all cases has not been developed. There are various ways to define governance. The term has its theoretical roots in many academic fields ,including institutional economics, international relations,development studies, political science and public administration. Generally speaking, Governance is a method/mechanism for dealing with a broad range of problems/conflicts in which actors regularly arrive at mutually satisfactory and binding decisions by negotiating with each other and cooperating in the implementation of these decisions(Schimitter,2002,p.53;cited in Haus & Heinelt,2005,p.19).Whereas Schmitter seeks the common denominator ,Rhodes (1996)distinguishes six meanings of the term. In the first, governance -as the minimal state-redefines the extent and form of public intervention together with the capacity of markets and quasi-markets to deliver public intervention together with the capacity of markets and quasi-markets to deliver public services.On the other hand, governance-specifically corporate governance-refers to a system providing the direction and control of organizations. In the third usage, governance denotes the new public management approach, hence meaning managerialism and new institutional economics. Managerialism involves introducing private-sector management methods into the public sector. In new institutional economics, in contrast, incentive structures like market competition are introduced into public service provision. The fourth usage refers to the introduction of good governance as a social-cybernetic system. In this system, governance is the result of interactive social-political forms of governing. Governance as self-organizing networks involves the management of networks . Combining these different usages of the term, Rhodes lists the shared characteristics of governance:interdependence between organizations; continuous interaction between network members; game-like interactions; and a significant degree of autonomy from the state . Referring to the shift from government to governance, Haus and Heinelt state that Governance implies a different way of coordinating societal interactions :away from the subordination and regulation of society by the state (be it a parliamentary or presidential, a consociational or competitive，a direct or representative democracy) towards horizontal and cooperative modes of coordination (Haus & Heinelt , 2005,p.19). In another comparison between government and governance, Rosenau notes that Governance is . A more encompassing phenomenon than government. It embraces governmental institutions but it also subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanisms whereby those persons and organizations with this purview more ahead , satisfy their needs and fulfill their wants (Rosenau,1995,p.4). According to Jessop (1998) governance refers to any mode of coordinating interdependent activities. The rise of governance practices is due to secular shifts in the political economy. Self-organizing interpersonal networks , negotiated inter-organizational coordination and decentered context-mediated inter-systemic steering become more significant than the markets or hierarchies for economic , political and social coordination. Under the influence of globalization, there are also changes in urban governance towards competition-oriented, innovation-oriented policies and new bargaining systems (Jessop,1995;Mayer,1994). From another perspective, Urban governance . Represents an essential institutional scaffolding upon which the national and subnational geographies of state regulation are configured as well as one of the major politico-institutional mechanisms through which those geographies are currently being reworked(Brenner,2004,p.447). There are three trends in urban governance. First , local politics have gained in importance as a focus for proactive development strategies. Second , there is observed both in the local economic interventionism and in the reorganization of public services. Local governments started to involve other non-governmental actors in key toles.Finally, due to the expansion of the sphere of local political action, new bargaining systems and forms of public-private partnerships are being redefined (Pierre,1998). Referring to the transformation in the American government over the last generation, Kettl (2000)mentions that for governance, the government system must be adapted by integrating the new horizontal systems and the traditional vertical ones .This change would prepare the system to meet the challenges posed by globalization. Feeling the effects of globalization,cities started to market themselves in the global economy. Meanwhile, local governments became part of a broader growth coalition in which they joined forces with all the other actors .Urban governance is based on the explicit representation and coordination of functional interests active at the local level . Given the cooperative style of policy-making, the local authority stopped giving orders and stared to moderate or initiate cooperation instead .In the new forms of urban governance,diverse actors are involved in programs far economic development and technological modernization:business associations, chambers of commerce,local companies , banks , research institutes, universities, and trade unions. But urban governance is also grounded in the expanded sphere of local political action , including an additional set of actors :welfare associations , churches, union and grassroot initiatives,and community organizations (Mayer,1994).1. Background : New challenges need new approaches Ever since - at the latest - the emergence of globalisation , in particular major cities all over the world have been confronted with two vital inter-linked questions: How can social and spatial deprivation and the resulting societal and spatial fragmentation be mitigated or even resolved? How can local economic growth , inter national and inter-regional competitiveness and new employment opportunities be stabilised or achieved ? To meet these - and other - challenges , new forms of governance have gained importance by involving civil society (NGOs, business, you, the people) in decision making and in implementing these decisions . This integrated urban governance approach requires changes in administrative action and settings , too . Integrated Urban Governance implies going beyond mere coordination between policies , and thus encompasses joint work among sectors . It refers to both horizontal integration between policy sectors (different departments ) and vertical inter-governmental integration (between different tiers of government ) , as well as beyond administrative boundaries (in the double sense : city administration - regional/ national administration and administration - civil society ). In spite of this ambitious definition, in real world processes or procedures , a hierarchy of cooperative approaches can be observed :Though integrated urban governance includes the entire spectrum of traditional policy fields, three of these fields appear to be of particular importance in dealing with the challenges mentioned above: Education Local economy Mobility2. Integrated urban governance : coping with a 2C climate change - the biggest challenge for urban governance over the next 20 years There are many challenges to urban governance that require joined-up holistic solutions to deal with them effectively , such as crime and drug-trafficking , neighbourhood stigmatisation, and high levels of unemployment . Arguably the biggest challenge , though , is how societies are going to collectively avert global warming. The challenge for urban governance is to create a framework of public that will shift the trend from high carbon to low carbon consumption . We have the technologies we will need over the next 10-15 years and we have the financial capital - as shown by the recent financial stimuli for national economies and for military mobilisation in Iraq. Probably $20-30 trillion will be invested in the world on infrastructure over the next 20 years. Substantial public sector spend is , therefore, available to invest in low carbon opportunities and to lever further private sector investment if there is the political will to act .Political mobilisation cannot wait for international treaties, but must be based on consensus and negotiation in each country and city between taxpayers , consumers and shareholders , on the way forward and on who bears the risks , hazards and the distribution of opportunities . There is no non-interventionist way of doing this . It has to be big government and smart government which take on the role . The challenge for urban governance is that the role is still uncharted - the role between the citizen , society and the state .Many cities have overcome the perceived risks of investment and institutional inertia .3. Berlin:On the way to integrated urban governance - Neighbourhood Management and the Framework Strategy Socially Integrative City Berlin is currently implementing the framework strategy known as Socially Integrative City. This integrated , social area orientation approach starts from the various lifestyles, the needs of The residents. It requires multi-sectoral cooperation between administrative departments (horizontal integration) , and cooperation between the regional level authorities and the local level (vertical integration), inclusion of the inhabitants and empowerment for them . All this requires framework conditions and administrative structures in accordance. The framework strategy is currently being trialed in three pilot areas . The intention is to use the strategy to counteract and prevent negative effects , in particular in social area respects (for example, segregation and degradation of individual areas ) in the entire city area. One important instrument in observing, evaluation and prognosis is the system of monitoring socially oriented urban development.The framework strategy is based on lessons learnt in the neighbourhood management system, which has been in operation for ten years now in (on todays figures ) 35 neighbourhood areas . The neighbourhood management system describes an approach which aims to upgrade and stabilise what are known as areas with special development needs . It is structured around public participation and involvement of civil society elements . In the neighbourhood management system , a number of instruments have been developed which may also be applied in implementing the framework strategy .These include , for example , neighbourhood councils and the neighbourhood found provisions .Though neighbourhood management (NM) had many positive results (empowerment and involvement were strengthened , increased cooperation between players , interdepartmental cooperation within