Advertisement

Governing ambiguity and implementing cross-sectoral programmes: urban regeneration for social mix in Paris

  • Clément BoisseuilEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article deals with the implementation of cross-sectoral programmes for urban regeneration. Contributing to the literature on social mixing in housing and to debates within the third generation implementation research, it argues that concepts of governing and implementing should be differentiated. Based on a case study of a cross-sectoral, multi-layered and multi-actor programme for urban regeneration of low-income neighbourhoods in Paris, it shows that governing relates to ‘power over’ a multidimensional policy problem, while implementing corresponds to ‘power to’ take action in a certain policy sector. This conceptual distinction allows the scrutiny of vertical and horizontal governance structures within cross-sectoral urban programmes, showing the complexity of integrated housing initiatives. Following Matland’s (J Public Adm Res Theory 5(2): 145–174, 1995) synthesis, the article argues that his variables of ambiguity and conflict cannot be isolated from one another. Indeed, the level of ambiguity around initial policy goals produces a proportional degree of conflict during the implementation phase.

Keywords

Governance Implementation Urban regeneration Ambiguity Conflict 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Arbaci, S., & Rae, I. (2013). Mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in London: Policy myth or effective device to alleviate deprivation? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 451–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthurson, K., Levin, I., & Ziersch, A. (2015). Social mix, “[A] very, very good idea in a vacuum but you have to do it properly!” Exploring social mix in a right to the city framework. International Journal of Housing Policy, 15(4), 418–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacqué, M.-H., & Charmes, E. (2016). La mixité sociale, et après?. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  4. Bacqué, M.-H., Fijalkow, Y., Launay, L., & Vermeersch, S. (2011). Social mix policies in Paris: Discourses, policies and social effects. International Journal of Urban Regional Research, 35(1), 256–273.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, M., & Maginn, P. J. (2005). Urban change and conflict: Evaluating the role of partnerships in urban regeneration in the UK. Housing Studies, 20(1), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakeley, G., & Evans, B. (2009). Who participates, how and why in urban regeneration projects? The Case of the New City of East Manchester. Social Policy and Administration, 43(3), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanc, M. (2010). The impact of social mix policies in France. Housing Studies, 25(2), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boisseuil, C. (2016). Agences exécutives et reddition de comptes: le cas de l’Agence nationale pour la renovation urbaine. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 160(4), 1155–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bridge, G., Butler, T., & Le Galès, P. (2014). Power relations and social mix in metropolitan neighbourhoods in North America and Europe: Moving beyond gentrification? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1133–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chamboredon, J.-C., & Lemaire, M. (1970). Proximité spatiale et distance sociale. Les grands ensembles et leur peuplement, Revue Française de Sociologie, 11(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. K. (2013). “Positive” gentrification, social control and the “Right to the City” in mixed-income communities: Uses and expectations of space and place. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 480–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaskin, R. J., Webber, H. S., & Joseph, M. L. (2007). The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty Through Mixed-Income Development. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 369–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clerval, A. (2013). Paris sans le peuple. La gentrification de la capitale. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  14. Commaille, J., & Jobert, B. (1998). Les métamorphoses de la régulation politique. Paris: LGDJ.Google Scholar
  15. Cour des comptes. (2012). La politique de la ville. Une décennie de réformes. Paris: Cour des comptes.Google Scholar
  16. Donzelot, J. (Ed.). (2012). A quoi sert la rénovation urbaine ?. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  17. Donzelot, J., & Estèbe, P. (1994). L’État animateur: essai sur la politique de la ville. Paris: Esprit.Google Scholar
  18. Epstein, R. (2013). La rénovation urbaine: Démolition-reconstruction de l’Etat. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  19. Galster, G. (2007). Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis. International Journal of Housing Policy, 7(1), 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galster, G. C., & Friedrichs, J. (2015). The dialectic of neighborhood social mix. Housing Studies, 30(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Genestier, P. (2010). La mixité: mot d’ordre, vœu pieux ou simple argument. Espaces et sociétés, 1(140–141), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, P. (2009). Social stakes of urban renewal: Recent French housing policy. Building Research and Information, 37(5–6), 638–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Górczyńska, M. (2017). Social and housing tenure mix in Paris intra-muros, 1990–2010. Housing Studies, 32(4), 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, H., & Booth, P. (1996). Six years of urban policy in France: The contrat de ville programme. Modern and Contemporary France, 4(2), 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, S., & Hickman, P. (2011). Resident participation in housing regeneration in France. Housing Studies, 26(6), 827–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  27. Houard, N. (2009). Droit au logement et mixité: les contradictions du logement. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  28. Houard, N. (Ed.). (2012). La politique de la ville: Comparaison internationale. Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique.Google Scholar
  29. Huete-Garcia, M. A., Merinero-Rodríguez, R., & Muñoz-Moreno, R. (2016). Urban regeneration policy from the integrated urban development model in the European Union: An analytical approach based on the study of Spanish cities. Local Government Studies, 42(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huning, S., & Schuster, N. (2015). “Social Mixing” or “Gentrification”? Contradictory perspectives on urban change in the Berlin district of Neukölln. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 738–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. John, P., & Cole, A. (1999). Political leadership in the new urban governance: Britain and France compared. Local Government Studies, 25(4), 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirszbaum, T. (2008). Rénovation urbaine, les leçons américaines. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  33. Kokx, A. (2011). Partnerships in urban restructuring: Building long-term relationships or a pragmatic managerial tool? The Dutch experience. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(5), 1026–1047.Google Scholar
  34. Korsu, E. (2016). Building social mix by building social housing? An evaluation in the Paris, Lyon and Marseille Metropolitan areas. Housing Studies, 31(5), 598–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larsen, K. (2005). New Urbanism’s role in inner-city neighborhood revitalization. Housing Studies, 20(5), 795–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lascoumes, P. (1990). Les normes juridiques et la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques. Année Sociologique, 40, 43–71.Google Scholar
  37. Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449–2470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lelévrier, C. (2010). La mixité dans la rénovation urbaine: Dispersion ou re-concentration? Espaces et sociétés, 1(140–141), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lelévrier, C. (2013). Forced relocation in France: How residential trajectories affect individual experiences. Housing Studies, 28(2), 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Livingston, M., Kearns, A., & Bailey, N. (2015). Delivering mixed communities: The relationship between housing tenure mix and social mix in England’s neighbourhoods. Housing Studies, 28(7), 1056–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lopez-Morales, E. (2011). Gentrification by ground rent dispossession: The shadows cast by large-scale urban renewal in Santiago de Chile. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 330–357.Google Scholar
  43. Matland, R. (1995). Synthesizing implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.Google Scholar
  44. Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8, 538–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muir, J. (2004). Public participation in area-based urban regeneration programmes. Housing Studies, 19(6), 947–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muller, P. (2000). L’analyse cognitive des politiques publiques: vers une sociologie politique de l’action publique. Revue française de science politique, 50(2), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muller, P. (2005). Structures, acteurs et cadres cognitifs. Revue française de science politique, 55(1), 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ONZUS—Observatoire National des Zones Urbaines Sensibles. (2013). Dix ans de Programme national de rénovation urbaine: Bilan et perspectives. Paris: éditions du CIV.Google Scholar
  49. Palier, B. (2002). De la crise aux réformes de l’État-providence. Le cas français en perspective comparée. Revue française de sociologie, 43(2), 243–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pansardi, P. (2012). Power to and power over: Two distinct concepts of power? Journal of Political Power, 5(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peters, G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. (1984 [1973]) Implementation. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rose, D., Germain, A., Bacqué, M.-H., Bridge, G., Fijalkow, Y., & Slater, T. (2013). “Social Mix” and neighbourhood revitalization in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local policy discourses and expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montréal (Canada). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 430–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saetren, H. (2014). Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sander, R. H., Kucheva, Y. A., & Zasloff, J. M. (2018). Moving toward integration: The past and future of fair housing. Boston: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanter, A., & Toubon, J.-C. (1999). Mixité sociale et politiques de peuplement: genèse de l’ethnicisation des opérations de réhabilitation. Sociétés contemporaines, 33(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Unsal, B. O. (2015). State-led urban regeneration in Istanbul: Power struggles between interest groups and poor communities. Housing Studies, 30(8), 1299–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Kempen, R., & Bolt, G. (2009). Social cohesion, social-mix and urban policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Visser, K., Bolt, G., & Van Kempen, R. (2013). Urban restructuring and forced relocations: Housing opportunities for youth? A case study in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 28(2), 294–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolman, H. (1981). The determinants of program success and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 4, 433–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’études européennes et de politique comparéeSciences PoParisFrance

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options