Collaborative Governance in Urban Planning: Patterns of Interaction in Curitiba and Montreal
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 147, Issue 1
Abstract
Collaborative governance is the idea that governments, civil society, and private actors can engage in collective policy-making processes. However, which structures and practices facilitate or hinder the deliberative dimension of collaborative governance? This research is based on case studies of urban planning processes carried out in Curitiba (Brazil) and Montreal (Canada). Using 20 semistructured interviews with key informants, planning documents, and media coverage, the study identified the crucial moments and key determinants in the interactions between public and private actors. Despite their disparate histories of urban planning and management, both case studies revealed significant commonalities, namely the varying extent of collaborative interactions among stakeholders according to the type of actors involved, the arena, and the phase of the planning process. The success of the democratic reform in Curitiba was undermined by the maintenance of informal institutions, whereas consultation fatigue explained the lack of participation in Montreal. Although based on a small number of cases and plans, our findings revealed the mechanisms, factors, and processes that could help transition urban planning processes from informative/consultative practices to collaborative governance models.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Acuña, C. H., and W. C. Smith. 2007. “La economia política del ajuste estructural: La lógica de apoyo y oposici.” In Lecturas sobre el Estado y las políticas públicas: Retomando el debate de ayer para fortalecer el actual, edited by C. H. Acuña, 203–238. Buenos Aires: Proyecto de Modernización del Estado Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros de la Nación.
Agranoff, R. 2006. “Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers.” Public Adm. Rev. 66 (6): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x.
Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2007. “Collaborative governance in theory and practice.” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18: 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Aoki, M. 2007. “Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes.” J. Inst. Econ. 3 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137406000531.
Arnstein, S. R. 1969. “A ladder of citizen participation.” J. Am. Inst. Plann.35 (4): 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. “Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.” Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26: 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
Brasil. 2015. Estatuto das Metrópoles. Lei Federal [Estatute of the Metropolises, Federal Law], n° 13.089.
Bratt, R. G., and K. M. Reardon. 2013. “Beyond the ladder: New ideas about resident roles in contemporary community development in the United States.” In Policy, planning and people: Promoting justice in urban development, edited by N. Carmon and S. Fainstein, 356–382. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Cheyne, C. 2015. “Changing urban governance in New Zealand: Public participation and democratic legitimacy in local authority planning and decision-making 1989–2014.” Urban Policy Res. 33 (4): 416–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.994740.
City of Montreal. 2012. “Development plan.” Accessed February 1, 2017. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=67,297449&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.
Concitiba. 2014. “Regimento interno da Plenária Expandida do Concitiba da Revisão do Plano Diretor de Curitiba 2014” [Internal rules of the Concitiba Expanded Plenary of the Curitiba Master Plan process]. Accessed July 6, 2016. https://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/conteudo/conselho-da-cidade-de-curitiba/1628.
Concitiba. 2015. Ofício circular 001/2015 – Concitiba. Curitiba, 20 January 2015.
Curitiba. 2014. “Audiência para revisão do Plano Diretor reúne mais de 300 pessoas” [Public hearing to the Master Plan process gathers more than 200 people]. Accessed May 27, 2016. http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/audiencia-para-revisao-do-plano-diretor-reune-mais-de-300-pessoas/32437.
Curitiba. 2015. “Plenária Expandida aprova 47 emendas ao anteprojeto do Plano Diretor de Curitiba” [Expanded Plenary approves 47 amendments to the Curitiba Master Plan draft]. Accessed July 6, 2016. http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/plenaria-expandida-aprova-47-emendas-ao-anteprojeto-do-plano-diretor-de-curitiba/35472.
Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. “An integrative framework for collaborative governance.” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011.
Follador, D., F. Duarte, and M. Carrier. 2018. “Informal institutions and path dependence in urban planning: The case of Curitiba, Brazil.” J. Urban Affairs https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1495040.
Frey, K. 2007. ““Governança urbana e participação pública” [Urban governance and public participation].” RAC-eletrônica: Rev. Adm. Públ. 1 (1): 136–150.
Gaudin, J.-P. 2002. Pourquoi la gouvernance? Paris: Presses de Science Po.
Gazeta do povo. 2014. “Modelo de revisão do Plano Diretor não agrada especialistas” [The modelo f the Master Plan revision process des not please experts]. Accessed May 27, 2016. https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vida-e-cidadania/modelo-de-revisao-do-plano-diretor-nao-agrada-especialistas-1vjqdv9erxl12b6wgpyq2hs9a/.
Government of Quebec. 2016. “Charter of Ville de Montréal. Act respecting land use planning and development, A-19.1.” Accessed February 1, 2017. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showDoc/cs/C-11.4?anddigest=.
Gray, B. 2004. “Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration.” J. Community Appl. Social Psychol. 14 (3): 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.773.
Hall, P. A., and R. C. R. Taylor. 1996. “Political science and the three new institutionalisms.” Political Stud. 44 (5): 936–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x.
Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. 1st ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Healey, P. 2006. Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Hermet, G., A. Kazancigil, and J. Prud’Homme. 2005. La gouvernance. Un concept et ses applications. Paris: Karthala.
Hodgson, G. 2006. “What are institutions?.” J. Econ. Issues 40 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879.
Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 2004. “Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century.” Plann. Theory Pract. 5 (4): 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170.
Irazábal, C. 2005. City making and urban governance in the Americas: Curitiba and Portland. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kapucu, N., F. Yuldashev, and E. Bakiev. 2009. “Collaborative public management and collaborative governance: Conceptual similarities and differences.” Eur. J. Econ. Political Stud. 2 (1): 29–60.
Kaufman, S., M. Elliott, and D. Shmueli. 2003. “Frames, framing and reframing.” Accessed May 20, 2015. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing.
MAMOT (Ministère des Affaires Municipales et de l’Occupation du Territoire). 2014. “Avis gouvernemental sur la conformité du premier projet de Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé de l’Agglomération de Montréal aux orientations gouvernementales en matière d’aménagement du territoire.” 3–72. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/publications/ministere/acces_information/Diffusion_information/2016-187_schema_amenagement_agglo_mtl.pdf.
MAMOT (Ministère des Affaires Municipales et de l’Occupation du Territoire). 2015. “Avis gouvernemental sur la conformité du deuxième projet de Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé de l’Agglomération de Montréal aux orientations gouvernementales en matière d’aménagement du territoire.” 73–74. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/publications/ministere/acces_information/Diffusion_information/2016-187_schema_amenagement_agglo_mtl.pdf.
Mendoza, E. C. 2007. “Usos y costumbres en la hechura de las políticas públicas en México. Límites de las policy sciences em contextos cultural y politicamente diferentes.” In Lecturas sobre el Estado y las políticas públicas: Retomando el debate de ayer para fortalecer el actual, edited by Acuña, 359–388. Buenos Aires: Proyecto de Modernización del Estado Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros de la Nación.
Morse, R. S., and J. B. Stephens. 2012. “Teaching collaborative governance: Phases, competencies, and case-based learning.” J. Public Affairs Educ. 18 (3): 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2012.12001700.
North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678.
North, D. 1992. “Institutions, ideology, and economic performance.” Cato J. 11 (3): 477–496.
North, D. 2003. “Five propositions about institutional change.” Accessed May 12, 2015. https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/3876.
O’Brien, M. 2012. “Review of collaborative governance: factors crucial to the internal workings of the collaborative process.” Accessed May 6, 2015. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/review-of-collaborative-governance.pdf.
OCPM (Office de Consultation Publique de Montréal). 2007. “Consultation et participation publiques à Montréal: 20 ans de pratique.” Accessed November 10, 2016. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/prt_vdm_fr/media/documents/ocpm20ans_1.pdf.
Oliver, J. E. 2001. Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pierre, J. 2011. The politics of urban governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Quick, K. S., and M. S. Feldman. 2011. “Distinguishing participation and inclusion.” J. Plann. Educ. Res. 31 (3): 272–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11410979.
Schwarz, R. 2006. “Using the facilitative leader approach to create an organizational culture of collaboration.” In Creating a culture of collaboration, edited by S. Schuman, 281–301. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Souto-Maior, J., and L. M. Gondim. 1992. ““Avaliação de arranjos institucionais para a gestão e o planejamento democráticos” [Institutional arrangements evaluation for the democratics management and planning].” Rev. Adm. Públ. 26 (3): 140–151.
Susskind, L., and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse. Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Tsebelis, G. 1990. Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Vodoz, L. 2013. “Gouvernance et participation.” In Les horizons de la gouvernance territorial, edited by L. Vodoz, L. Thévoz, and P. Faure, 171–183. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
Weir, M., J. Rongerude, and C. K. Ansell. 2009. “Collaboration is not enough: Virtuous cycles of reform in transportation policy.” Urban Affairs Rev. 44 (4): 455–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087408322590.
Woldeamanuel, M., and J. Palma. 2016. “Are you really listening to me? Planning with the community in urban revitalization projects.” In Untamed urbanisms, edited by A. Allen, A. Lampis, and M. Swilling, 179–180. New York: Routledge.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 147 • Issue 1 • March 2021
Copyright
© 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 19, 2019
Accepted: Aug 6, 2020
Published online: Nov 20, 2020
Published in print: Mar 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Apr 20, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.