Learning from Elsewhere? A Critical Account on the Mobilisation of Metropolitan Policies

  • Peter SchmittEmail author


This chapter discusses the emerging body of literature on the mobilities of metropolitan policies since the 1980s. It will achieve this by reviewing the various directions of research and by identifying a number of implications of when such policies are mobilised and eventually land in a given metropolitan area or city, respectively. A tentative typology on the movement of different types of urban/metropolitan policies is suggested that intends to kick off a debate on whether we can distinguish the degrees of visibility, transferability and mutability between these different types of policies. The chapter finalises with some concluding observations concerning the current state of the study of the mobilisation of metropolitan policies and by pointing out some avenues for future research. The key contribution of this chapter is an overview of the conceptual, empirical and historical literature about the mobilisation of metropolitan policies within urban and planning studies.


Policy transfer Policy mobilities Policy learning Metropolitan policies Inter-urban competition 


  1. Adscheid, T., & Schmitt, P. (2019). Mobilising post-political environments: Tracing the selective geographies of Swedish sustainable urban development. Urban Research and Practice.
  2. Andersson, I., & Cook, I. (2019). Conferences, award ceremonies and the showcasing of ‘best practice’: A case study of the annual European Week of Regions and Cities in Brussels. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. Scholar
  3. Andersson, I., & James, L. (2018). Altruism or entrepreneurialism? The co-evolution of green place branding and policy tourism in Växjö, Sweden. Urban Studies, 55(15), 3437–3453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, T., & Temenos, C. (2015). Urban policy mobilities research: Introduction to a debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 824–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and Marsh revisited. Political Studies Review, 9(3), 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blok, A. (2012). Greening cosmopolitan urbanism? On the transnational mobility of low-carbon formats in northern European and east Asian cities. Environment and Planning A, 44(10), 2327–2343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borén, T., & Young, C. (2013). Getting creative with the ‘creative city’? Towards new perspectives on creativity in urban policy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1799–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borén, T., & Young, C. (2016). Conceptual export and theory mobilities: Exploring the reception and development of the ‘creative city thesis’ in the post-socialist urban realm. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 57(4–5), 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunet, R. (1989). Les Villes Européennes. Montpellier: RECLUS.Google Scholar
  10. Bulkeley, H. (2006). Urban sustainability: Learning from best practice? Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1029–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., Palgan, Y. V., McCormick, K., Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Mai, L., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2018). Urban living laboratories: Conducting the experimental city? European Urban and Regional Studies. Scholar
  12. Buller, J., & Gamble, A. (2002). Conceptualising Europeanisation. Public Policy and Administration, 17(2), 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bulmer, S., Dolowitz, D., Humphreys, P., & Padgett, S. (2007). Policy transfer in the European Union. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Carr, C. (2014). Discourse yes, implementation maybe: An immobility and paralysis of sustainable development policy. European Planning Studies, 22(9), 1824–1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CEC [Commission of the European Communities]. (1999). European spatial development perspective: Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  16. CEC [Commission of the European Communities]. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  17. Cheshire, P. (1990). Explaining the recent performance of the European Community’s major urban regions. Urban Studies, 27(3), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook, I. (2008). Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US business improvement districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies, 45(4), 773–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook, I., & Ward, K. (2011). Trans-urban networks of learning, mega-events and policy tourism: The case of Manchester’s Commonwealth and Olympics games projects. Urban Studies, 48(12), 2519–2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cook, I., & Ward, K. (2012). Conferences, informational infrastructures and mobile policies: The process of getting Sweden ‘BID ready’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cook, I., Ward, S., & Ward, K. (2015). Post-war planning and policy tourism: The international study tours of the Town and Country Planning Association 1947–1961. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(2), 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crivello, S. (2015). Urban policy mobilities: The case of Turin as a smart city. European Planning Studies, 23(5), 909–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, P., Zhan, L., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable-smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities: Making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109(16), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deas, I., & Giordano, B. (2001). Conceptualizing and measuring urban competitiveness in major English cities. Environment and Planning A, 33(8), 1411–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Degen, M., & García, M. (2012). The transformation of the ‘Barcelona model’: An analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(5), 1022–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2012). The future of policy transfer research. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Evans, M. (2009). Policy transfer in critical perspective. Policy Studies, 30(3), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fält, L. (2018). Globala stadsplaneringsideal: insikter från Ghanas nya stad Appolonia [Global urban planning ideals: Insights from Ghana’s new city of Appolonia]. In Andersson, I. (Ed.), Globala Flöden och Lokala Praktiker: Policymobilitet i Tid och Rum [Global flows and local practices: Policy mobility in time and space] (pp. 89–110). Ödeshög: Ymer.Google Scholar
  32. Freestone, R. (2015). The exhibition as a lens for planning history. Planning Perspectives, 30(3), 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fricke, C. (2020). Implications of metropolitan policy mobility: Tracing the relevance of travelling ideas for metropolitan regions. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 115–130). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Friedmann, J., & Wolff, G. (1982). World city formation: An agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6(3), 309–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Giffinger, G., Haindlmaier, G., & Kramar, H. (2010). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research and Practice, 3(3), 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gold, J. R., & Ward, S. (1994). Place promotion: The use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and regions. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. González, S. (2011). Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in motion’: How urban regeneration ‘models’ travel and mutate in the global flows of policy tourism. Urban Studies, 48(7), 1397–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gordon, I. (1999). Internationalisation and urban competition. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 1001–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hall, P., & Pain, K. (Eds.). (2006). The polycentric metropolis. Learning from mega-city region in Europe. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  40. Harrison, P. (2015). South-South relationships and the transfer of ‘best practice’: The case of Johannesburg, South Africa. International Development Planning Review, 37(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler B, 71(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Healey, P. (2012). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Planning Theory, 11(2), 188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Healey, P. (2013). Circuits of knowledge and techniques: The transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1510–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Heidenreich, M. (1998). The changing system of European cities and regions. European Planning Studies, 6(3), 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hein, H. (2014). The exchange of planning ideas from Europe to the USA after the Second World War: Introductory thoughts and a call for further research. Planning Perspectives, 29(2), 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hult, A. (2015). The circulation of Swedish urban sustainability practices: To China and back. Environment and Planning A, 47(3), 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joss, S., Cowley, R., & Tomozeiu, D. (2013). Towards the ‘ubiquitous eco-city’: An analysis of the internationalization of eco-city policy and practice. Urban Research & Practice, 6(1), 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kearns, A., & Paddison, R. (2000). New challenges for urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5–6), 845–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kennedy, S. M. (2016). Urban policy mobilities, argumentation and the case of the model city. Urban Geography, 37(1), 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Knox, P., & Taylor, P. J. (Eds.). (1995). World cities in a world-system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kunzmann, K., & Wegener, M. (1992). The pattern of urbanization in Western Europe. Ekistics, 58(350/351), 282–291.Google Scholar
  52. Lütz, S. (2007). Policy-transfer und policy-diffusion. In A. Benz & N. Dose (Eds.), Handbuch Governance (pp. 132–143). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCann, E. (2004). ‘Best places’: Interurban competition, quality of life and popular media discourse. Urban Studies, 41(10), 1909–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCann, E. (2008). Expertise, truth, and urban policy mobilities: Global circuits of knowledge in the development of Vancouver, Canada’s ‘four pillar’ drug strategy. Environment and Planning A, 40(4), 885–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCann, E. (2011). Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McCann, E. (2013). Policy boosterism, policy mobilities, and the extrospective city. Urban Geography, 34(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012a). Policy assemblages, mobilities and mutations. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012b). Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘studying through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2013). A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: Geographies, assemblages, mobilities and mutations. Policy Studies, 34(1), 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McLean, B. L., & Borén, T. (2015). Barriers to implementing sustainability locally: A case study of policy immobilities. Local Environment, 20(12), 1489–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peck, J. (2011). Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 773–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods and mutations. Geoforum, 41(2), 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2012). Follow the policy: A distended case approach. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2014). Going Dutch? The export of sustainable land-use and transport planning concepts from the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 52(9), 1558–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pow, C. P. (2014). License to travel. City, 18(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sassen, S. (2018). Cities in a world economy (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  69. Savitch, H., & Kantor, P. (1995). City business: an international perspective on marketplace politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19(4), 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmitt, P. (2013). Planning for polycentricity in European metropolitan areas—Challenges, expectations and practices. Planning Practice & Research, 28(4), 400–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, D. A., & Timberlake, M. (1995). Conceptualising and mapping the structure of the world system’s city system. Urban Studies, 32(2), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stead, D. (2012). Best practices and policy transfer in spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stein, C., Michel, B., Glasze, G., & Pütz, R. (2017). Learning from failed policy mobilities: contradictions, resistances and unintended outcomes in the transfer of ‘Business Improvement Districts’ to Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stone, D. (1999). Learning lessons and transferring policy across time, space and disciplines. Politics, 19(1), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33(4), 1–17.Google Scholar
  78. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Theodore, N., & Peck, J. (2012). Framing neoliberal urbanism: Translating ‘commonsense’ urban policy across the OECD zone. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(1), 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thomas, R., Pojani, D., Lenferink, S., Bertolini, L., Stead, D., & van der Krabben, E. (2018). Is transit-oriented development (TOD) an internationally transferable policy concept? Regional Studies, 52(9), 1201–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van den Berg, L., & Braun, E. (1999). Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for organizing capacity. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 987–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  83. Ward, S. (2013). Cities as planning models. Planning Perspectives, 28(2), 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weber, R., & Reardon, M. (2015). Do eco-districts support the regional growth of cleantech firms? Notes from Stockholm. Cities, 49(1), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wiig, A. (2015). IBM’s smart city as techno-utopian policy mobility. City, 19(2–3), 258–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wood, A. (2015). The politics of policy circulation: Unpacking the relationship between South African and South American cities in the adoption of bus rapid transit. Antipode, 47(4), 1062–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wood, A. (2016). Tracing policy movements: Methods for studying learning and policy circulation. Environment and Planning A, 48(2), 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zimmermann, K. (2020). From here to there: Mapping the metropolitan politics of policy mobilities. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 95–113). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations