Understanding the Emergence of the Spanish Urban Agenda: Moving Towards a New Multi-level Urban Policy Scenario?

Abstract

The urban question has attracted the attention of decision-makers in the last years. As a result, several stakeholders and government levels are launching the development of their urban agendas, a trend that can be observed particularly in some EU member states. In this context, Spain emerges as an interesting case since it has just approved its national urban agenda: the Spanish Urban Agenda (SUA). This is the first time that the country has adopted a national framework for urban policies. One of the reasons for this is the formal sharing of competences between the different territorial levels, in which the national, regional and local governments have not yet developed effective mechanisms for working collaboratively in the urban development policy field. The distribution of power has evolved into a fragmented urban policy scenario. In this context, the multi-level governance (MLG) issue becomes a relevant aspect that needs to be addressed by the SUA in order to become a real transformative instrument. This chapter develops an analytical framework aimed at assessing to what extent the SUA has made relevant progress in this regard. The results show that even if the institutional setting remains the same, the SUA tries to overcome the so-called MLG gaps introducing a MLG approach. The SUA does not only consider the limitations of the political context, but also introduces a series of mechanisms that reinforce, on the one hand, the relationship between the national and the local levels and, on the other, its orientation to implementation.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Manifestation of the “MLG gaps” in the Spanish context

‘MLG gaps’	Evidence identified in the Spanish context
Information	– Lack of information systems enabling citizens to be aware of and compare the effectiveness and efficiency of the different policies and public services; – Lack of information or methodology that encumbers cost and impact analysis (policy funding); – Lack of information systems to manage public policy, complications for inter-operability of the different applications designed by the Regional Governments – Lack of updated data or deficient data entry (AEVAL 2011) – Need of shared information systems for the management of public policies (SUA 2019: 38)
Capacity	– Insufficient structure and capacity of local entities to access funding sources, as well as for their management (SUA SWOT Analysis SO 10 2019: 252)
Fiscal/funding	– Local administrations have an endemic shortage of the local funding. They demand more funds, as they are the closest administration to citizens’ demands, – Insufficient financing of policies or services (SUA 2019: 38)
Administrative	– Lack of integral planning processes which can hinder the coherence and complementarity of policies (AEVAL 2011) – Blurring of jurisdictions; – Excess of regulations (CORA 2013: 87) – Long terms of urban planning , producing a gap between the implementation of the plans and the needs foreseen in them; – Complex and heterogeneous regulatory system in urban matters, which hinders the application of the different plans and urban management; – Lack of flexibility of planning instruments, to adapt the plans to new demands or unforeseen needs that may arise in the city; – Normative and administrative rigidity for the reuse of endowments and public spaces, and for the insertion of new uses in case of “underutilization”; – Difficult coexistence of the different sectoral plans and local planning . (SUA SWOT Analysis SO 10 2019: 252) – Insufficient relation between the decisions taken by the different administrative levels, the possible duplications or inefficiencies, the lack of shared or integrated planning processes (SUA 2019: 38)
Policy	– Absence of participatory, common or cooperative procedures at administrative and political level (AEVAL 2011) – Overlapping functions; – No traditions of cooperating (CORA 2013: 87) – Deficient territorial planning, with an absence of coordination between supra-municipal instruments and local instruments.

1. Source Authors’ elaboration

Appendix 2

Analysis of the SUA from an MLG perspective: content and process

SUA Objective level (SO1O)			With which MLG gaps are related?					To which governance issue is related? Pillars of policy process
			MLG gaps					Better			PrinciplesKin
Description of the objective	Relevance	Impact	Information	Capacity	Fiscal/ funding	Administrative	Policy	Regulation	Funding	Knowledge	Participation	Partnership
10.1 Regulatory and Planning framework	13	17	2	0	0	11	4	11	1	2	1	4
10.2. Citizen participation and MLG	14	25	6	1	2	8	8	11	1	5	7	5
10.3. Capacity-building and Funding	12	26	2	4	11	5	4	0	9	3	1	5
10.4. Campaigns and Dissemination of information	7	19	2	8	0	3	6	2	0	7	5	3
Total			12	13	13	27	22	24	11	17	14	17
National Administration Action Plan (NAAP)	Relevance	Impact	Information	Capacity	Fiscal/ funding	Administrative	Policy	Regulation	Funding	Knowledge	Participation	Partnership
Normative	9	8	0	0	0	7	1	7	0	0	0	0
Planning	2	4	0	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	0	0
Governance and Participation	5	12	2	2	0	4	4	5	0	3	1	4
Funding	3	9	1	1	2	2	3	2	2	0	0	3
Knowledge exchange and Dissemination	18	44	11	15	0	11	7	6	2	14	9	10
Total			14	18	2	17	14	13	4	17	10	17
Total S010 + NAAP			26	31	15	44	36	37	15	34	24	34

SUA Objective level (SO1O)	Does it explicitly consider the interaction* between/within levels? Type of interaction
	Vertical				Horizontal
Description of the objective	L	R	N	Int	C	A	E	I = A	I = T
10.1 Regulatory and Planning framework	4				0
10.2. Citizen participation and MLG	2				12
10.3. Capacity-building and Funding	6				5
10.4. Campaigns and Dissemination of information	1				7
Total	13				24
National Administration Action Plan (NAAP)	Vertical				Horizontal
Normative	2				0
Planning	2				2
Governance and Participation	4				3
Funding	3				3
Knowledge exchange and Dissemination	9				15
Total	16				21
Total S010 + NAAP	29				45

1. Indicator: implicit/explicit mentions at objective/action/indicator level
2. Relevance = n of action lines/actions embedded in each objective. Impact on MLG gaps = Sum of scores of each objective. Vertical: between different territorial levels (Local, Regional, National, International)/Horizontal: between public and private sector (Citizens, Associations, Economic organizations/Intra-Administration (I = A)/Between the same territorial level (I = T)
3. Source authors’ elaboration
4. Maximal scores are indicated in bold values. First, it is highlighted which are the subobjectives and the NAAP intervention areas that have achieved a higher score in terms of relevance and impact. Second, they indicate the maximum value achieved by each one of them in relation to the dimensions of analysis, namely: (1) MLG gaps, (2) pillars of the policy process and (3) type of interaction