Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T20:02:16.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Debate in Urban Anthropology and the Development of the Empirical Investigation of Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Paola De Vivo
Paola De Vivo*
Affiliation:
University of Naples Federico II, Italy
*
Paola De Vivo, University Federico II, Naples, Italy. Email: padevivo@unina.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The complexity of our ‘object’ of study, leading to the question ‘what is really the city?’ requires the use of different levels of analyses. At the same time, a way must be found to develop an explanatory model that brings together the knowledge thus produced. The study of governance in the city is necessarily part of any research aimed at investigating empirically the processes regulating the social life. The key implication is to address its impact; a task made particularly complex by the often difficult relationship between the implementation of governance and the interaction with a diversity of societal actors, for the ongoing dialectic between the formal and the informal in urban life. We often find that this dialectic produces ambiguity, unexpected results, gaps between planned objectives, and competition instead of cooperation among actors, pointing to the weakness of the rationalistic model of public action. Perhaps the most important lesson that we have learnt about government and governance is that the delusion that we feel when trying to understand urban policies results from our incapacity fully to grasp the complexity of human life.

Keywords

governanceproduction of knowledgecomplexityurban life
Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 63 , Issue 3-4: Urban Anthropology , August 2016 , pp. 28 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benjaminsen, T, Sjaastad, E (2008) Where to draw the line: mapping of land rights in a South African Commons, Political Geography, 27(3): 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrisford, S (2011) Unravelling Apartheid spatial planning legislation in South Africa: a case study, Urban Forum, 22(3): 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M (2011) Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In: Bevir, M (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Governance. London: Sage, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bifulco, L, de Leonardis, O (2006) Integrazione tra le politiche come opportunità politica. In: Donolo, C (ed.) Il futuro delle politiche pubbliche, Milano: Mondadori, pp. 31–58.Google Scholar
Bobbio, L (2006) Le politiche contrattualizzate. In: Donolo, C (ed.) Il futuro delle politiche pubbliche. Milano: Mondadori. pp. 59–79.Google Scholar
Borraz, O, Le Galès, P (2010) Urban governance in Europe: The Government of What?, Metropoles, 7: 1–41.Google Scholar
Burroni, L, Crouch, C, Keune, M (2005) Governance caleidoscopica, debolezza istituzionale e sviluppo locale, Stato e Mercato, 75(2): 423–453.Google Scholar
Capano, G, Lippi, A (2010) Gli strumenti di governo stanno cambiando? Aspetti teorici e problemi empirici, Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche, 2: 5–30.Google Scholar
Cerase, FP (2006) Amministrare: l’economia, la società. Ragioni, competenze, soggetti. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
Cooper, J, Brady, D (1981) Institutional context and leadership style: the House from Cannon to Rayburn, American Political Science Review, 75(2): 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vivo, P (2004) Pratiche di concertazione. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
De Vivo, P (2006) Ricominciare: il Mezzogiorno, le politiche, lo sviluppo. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
De Vivo, P (2013) symbolic policies and citizenship: the case of Naples, Urbanities, 3(1): 22–41, www.anthrojournal-urbanities.com.Google Scholar
De Vivo, P, Sacco, E (2008) Dopo lo sviluppo locale: ricostruendo tracce e prospettive di una strategia di intervento, Quaderni di Sociologia, lii (48): 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denter, B, Rose, L, eds (2005) Comparative Local Government in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Doig, JW, Hargrove, EC (1987) Leadership and Innovation: A Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore-London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, SN, Roniger, L (1984) Patrons, Clients and Friends. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, Human Geography, 71b (1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B (2003) Governance and metagovernance: on reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In: Bang, HP (ed.) Governance as Social and Political Communication. Manchester: MUP, pp. 142–172.Google Scholar
John, P (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouve, B (2005) From government to urban governance in Western Europe: a critical analysis, Public Administration and Development, 25(4): 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascoumes, P, Le Galès, P (2007) From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation, Governance, 20(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Galès, P (2002) European Cities, Social Conflicts and Governance. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Galès, P (2011) Policy instruments and governance. In: Bevir, M (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Governance. London: Sage, pp. 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J, Molotch, H (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mariotto, S (2007) Globalizzazione e città: le lepri del capitalismo, Stato e Mercato, 75(1): 79–108.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R (1993) Governing failures and the problem of governability: some comments on a theoretical paradigm. In: Kooiman, J (ed.) Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R (1999) La teoria della governance: sfide e prospettive, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, xxix(1): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, M (2011) Network management. In: Bevir, M (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Governance. London: Sage, pp. 436–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, I (1996) Managing Existence in Naples: Morality, Action and Structure. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, I (2012a) Entrepreneurialism in Naples: formality and informality, Urbanities, 2(1): 30–45, www.anthrojournal-urbanities.com.Google Scholar
Pardo, I (2012b) Exercising power without authority: powerful elite implode in urban Italy. In: Pardo, I, Prato, GB (eds) Anthropology in the City: Methodology and Theory. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge), pp. 53–78.Google Scholar
Pardo, I, Prato, GB (2010) Introduction: disconnected governance and the crisis of legitimacy. In: Pardo, I, Prato, GB (eds) Citizenship and the Legitimacy of Governance. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Pardo, I, Prato, GB (2012) Introduction: the contemporary significance of anthropology in the city. In: Pardo, I, Prato, GB (eds) Anthropology in the City: Methodology and Theory. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Parry, J (2012) Comparative reflections on fieldwork in urban India: a personal account. In: Pardo, I, Prato, GB (eds) Anthropology in the City: Methodology and Theory. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge), pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
Prato, GB (2010) The ‘costs’ of European citizenship: governance and relation of trust in Albania. In: Pardo, I, Prato, GB (eds) Citizen-ship and the Legitimacy of Governance. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge), pp. 133–151.Google Scholar
Robinson, WI (2007) Theories of globalization. In: Ritzer, G (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S (1999) Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A (2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization, Planning Theory, 8(1): 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, S (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sassen, S (2001) Global cities and global city-regions: a comparison. In: Scott, AJ (ed.) Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy. New York: OUP, pp. 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, S (2008) Una sociologia della globalizzazione. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B (1999) Transformational leader or faithful agent? Principal agent theory and house party leadership, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24(3): 421–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spyridakis, M (2010) Between structure and action: contested legitimacies and labour processes in the Piraeus. In: Pardo, I, Prato, GB (eds) Citizenship and the Legitimacy of Governance. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge), pp. 153–170.Google Scholar
Stone, C (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Throgmorton, J (1996) Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical Construction of Chicago's Electric Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Van Assche, K, Beunen, R, Duineveld, M (2014) Formal/informal dialectics and the self-transformation of spatial planning systems: an exploration, Administration and Society, 46(6): 654–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicari Haddock, S (2013) Questioni urbane. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Watson, V (2002) Change and Continuity in Spatial Planning: Metropolitan Planning in Cape Town under Political Transition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar