Introduction

The governance of London has long been an issue of contention and subject to upheavals, shifting logics and competing ideological projects. The city's overwhelming dominance of national economic, political and cultural life in the UK has been widely documented, as have its ‘global city’ credentials. Its unique circumstances reflect, and are in part reproduced by, a particular assemblage of local, metropolitan, national and global public and private sector organisations that sit in a sometimes uneasy co-existence. It is simultaneously lauded by some as one of the great democratic cities of the world at the same time as others characterise its politics as confusing and contradictory. Indeed, at its most extreme, writers such as Travers (2004) curiously describe London as an ‘ungovernable’ city, as if its governance is somehow dysfunctional in relation to a utopian view of governance efficiency and cohesiveness.

These contrasting views of London's politics are evident in current debates and strategies over sustainability planning. London has seen something of a renaissance in its government structures during the 2000s. It is the only city in England in which a relatively powerful Mayor has control over key policy fields. The 32 London boroughs also play an important role in coordinating and shaping local welfare and sustainability strategies. In short, representative government in the city matters in a way that is perhaps not so true of other English cities where the powers and responsibilities of local government are less well developed. On the international stage London is often put forward as an exemplar or model for others to follow. It is perceived to be a city that promotes vigorous economic growth, a high quality of life and a political system based on democratic openness and accountability.

And yet, at the same time, as this chapter will show, a paradox is emerging. Despite the empowerment of government bodies, the city has undergone a quiet revolution in its governance arrangements. Surreptitiously, and in the name of wider visions of ‘Good Governance’ and sustainability, private companies and experts have taken ownership of a growing proportion of the city's key public infrastructure.