This paper examines the notion of democratic accountability through an investigation of metropolitan governance in South Hampshire, UK. The author employs an interpretive approach to trace varying readings of democratic accountability and to analyse how these notions reflect and influence specific institutional arrangements. The paper highlights how accountability can be strategically deployed to accomplish and bolster diverse policy and political objectives and how these interpretations impact the quality of democratic engagement
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AggerA.LöfgrenK. (2008) Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes, Planning Theory, 7(2), pp. 145–164.
2.
AllmendingerP.HaughtonG. (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), pp. 89–103.
3.
BeethamD. (2004) Towards a universal framework for democracy assessment, Democratization, 11(2), pp. 1–17.
4.
BehnR. D. (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
5.
BevirM. (2003) Narrating the British state: an interpretive critique of New Labour’s institutionalism, Review of International Political Economy, 10(3), pp. 455–480.
6.
BevirM. (2004) Governance and interpretation: what are the implications of postfoundationalism?, Public Administration, 82(3), pp. 605–625.
7.
BevirM. (2006) How narratives explain, in: YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (Eds) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, pp. 281–290. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
8.
BevirM. (2010) Democratic Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BevirM.RhodesR. A. W. (1999) Studying British government: reconstructing the research agenda, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1(2), pp. 215–239.
10.
BevirM.RhodesR. A. W. (2006) Interpretive approaches to British government and politics, British Politics, 1(1), pp. 84–112.
11.
BovensM. (2006) Analysing and assessing public accountability: a conceptual framework. European Governance Paper No. C-06-01.
12.
BovensM. (2007) New forms of accountability and EU-governance, Comparative European Politics, 5(1), pp. 104–120.
13.
BovensM.SchillemansT.HartP. T. (2008) Does public accountability work? An assessment tool, Public Administration, 86(1), pp. 225–242.
14.
BrennerN. (2002) Decoding the newest ‘metropolitan regionalism’ in the USA: a critical overview, Cities, 19(1), pp. 3–21.
15.
BrennerN. (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
BullA. C. (2005) Democratic renewal, urban planning and civil society: the regeneration of Bagnoli, Naples, South European Society and Politics, 10(3), pp. 391–410.
17.
BuserM.FarthingS. (2011) Spatial planning as an integrative mechanism: a study of sub-regional planning in South Hampshire, Planning Practice and Research, 26(3), pp. 307–304.
18.
CoxK. (1993) The local and the global in the new urban politics: a critical view, Environment and Planning D, 11(4), pp. 433–448.
19.
CoxK. (2011) Commentary: from the new urban politics to the ‘new’ metropolitan politics, Urban Studies, 48(12), pp. 2661–2671.
20.
DaviesJ. S. (2007) The limits of partnership: an exit-action strategy for local democratic inclusion, Political Studies, 55(4), pp. 779–800.
21.
DaviesJ. S. (2009) The limits of joined-up government: towards a political analysis, Public Administration, 87(1), pp. 80–96.
22.
DavoudiS. (2008) Conceptions of the city-region: a critical review, Urban Design and Planning, 161(DP2), pp. 51–60.
23.
EtheringtonD.JonesM. (2009) City-regions: new geographies of uneven development and inequality, Regional Studies, 43(2), pp. 247–265.
24.
GibbsD.KruegerR. (2012) Fractures in meta-narratives of development: an interpretive institutionalist account of land use development in the Boston city-region, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), pp. 363–380.
25.
GOSE (Government Office for the South East) (2009) The South East Plan: The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England. Norwich: The Stationery Office.
26.
GrossJ. S.HambletonR. (2010) Global trends, diversity, and local democracy, in: HambletonR.GrossJ. S. (Eds) Governing Cities in a Global Era: Urban Innovation, Competition, and Democratic Reforms, pp. 1–12. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
Guarneros-MezaV.GeddesM. (2010) Local governance and participation under neoliberalism: comparative perspectives, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(1), pp. 115–129.
28.
HambletonR.GrossJ. S. (Eds) (2007) Governing Cities in a Global Era: Urban Innovation, Competition, and Democratic Reform. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
HansenA. D. (2007) Governance networks and participation, in: SørensenE.TorfingJ. (Eds) Theories of Democratic Network Governance, pp. 247–261. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
HarrisonJ. (2007) From competitive regions to competitive city-regions: a new orthodoxy, but some old mistakes, Journal of Economic Geography, 7(3), pp. 311–332.
32.
HarrisonJ. (2008) The region in political economy, Geography Compass, 2(3), pp. 814–830.
33.
HarrisonJ. (2010) Networks of connectivity, territorial fragmentation, uneven development: the new politics of city-regionalism, Political Geography, 29(1), pp. 17–27.
34.
HarrisonJ. (2011) Local enterprise partnerships. Centre for Research in Identity, Governance, Society/Globalization and World Cities Research Network, Loughborough University.
35.
HarrisonJ. (2012) Life after regions? The evolution of city-regionalism in England, Regional Studies, 46(9), pp. 1243–1259.
36.
HarrisonJ. (forthcoming) Rethinking city-regionalism as the production of new non-state spatial strategies: the case of Peel Holdings Atlantic Gateway Strategy, Urban Studies.
37.
HaughtonG.AllmendingerP.CounsellD.VigarG. (2010) The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. London: Routledge.
38.
HealeyP. (2007) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.
39.
HealeyP. (2009) City regions and place development, Regional Studies, 43(6), pp. 831–843.
40.
HerrschelT. (2009) City regions, polycentricity and the construction of peripheralities through governance, Urban Research & Practice, 2(3), pp. 240–250.
41.
HerrschelT.NewmanP. (2002) Governance of Europe’s City Regions: Planning, Policy and Politics. New York: Routledge.
42.
HopkinsD. (2010) The emancipatory limits of participation in planning: equity and power in deliberative plan-making in Perth, Western Australia, Town Planning Review, 81(1), pp. 55–81.
43.
JohnP.MussonS.TickellA. (2001) England’s problem region: regionalism in the South East, Regional Studies, 36(7), pp. 733–741.
44.
JonasA. E. G.WardK. (2007) Introduction to a debate on city-regions: new geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), pp. 169–178.
45.
JossS. (2010) Accountable governance, accountable sustainability? A case study of accountability in the governance for sustainability, Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(6), pp. 408–421.
46.
JusticeJ.SkelcherC. (2009) Analysing democracy in third-party government: business improvement districts in the US and UK, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), pp. 738–753.
47.
KantorP. (2008) Varieties of city regionalism and the quest for political cooperation: a comparative perspective, Urban Research and Practice, 1(2), pp. 111–129.
48.
KlijnE.SkelcherC. (2007) Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not?, Public Administration, 85(3), pp. 587–608.
49.
KoelbleT. A.LipumaE. (2008) Democratizing democracy: a postcolonial critique of conventional approaches to the ‘measurement of democracy’, Democratization, 15(1), pp. 1–28.
50.
KruegerR.GibbsD. (2010) Competitive global city regions and ‘sustainable development’: an interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England, Environment and Planning A, 42(4), pp. 821–837.
51.
KüblerD.SchwabB. (2007) New regionalism in five Swiss metropolitan areas: an assessment of inclusiveness, deliberation and democratic accountability, European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), pp. 473–502.
52.
MacLeodG. (2011) Urban politics reconsidered: growth machine to post-democratic city?, Urban Studies, 48, pp. 2629–2660.
53.
MacLeodG.JonesM. (2011) Renewing urban politics, Urban Studies, 48, pp. 2443–2472.
54.
MathurN.SkelcherC. (2007) Evaluating democratic performance: methodologies for assessing the relationship between network governance and citizens, Public Administration Review, 67(2), pp. 228–237.
55.
McGuirkP. (2007) The political construction of the city-region: notes from Sydney, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), pp. 179–187.
56.
MoulaertF.MartinelliF.SwyngedouwE. (2005) Social innvation and governance in local communities. Final SINGOCOM report to the EC (FP6). IRRESI, Lille.
57.
MouffeeC. (2005) On the Political. London: Routledge.
58.
NadinV. (2007) The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England, Planning Practice and Research, 22(1), pp. 43–62.
59.
NeumanM.HullA. (2009) The futures of the city-region, Regional Studies, 43(6), pp. 777–787.
60.
NysethT. (2008) Network governance in contested urban landscapes, Planning Theory & Practice, 9(4), pp. 497–514.
61.
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004) Planning Policy Statement 11: regional spatial strategies. ODPM, London.
62.
PapadopoulosY. (2003) Cooperative forms of governance: problems of democratic accountability in complex environments, European Journal of Political Research, 42(4), pp. 473–510.
63.
PapadopoulosY. (2007) Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance, European Law Journal, 13(4), pp. 469–486.
64.
PapadopoulosY.WarinP. (2007) Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?, European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), pp. 445–472.
65.
PembertonS.LloydG. (2011) Facilitating institutional reform in England: reconciling city-regions and community planning for efficiency gains?, European Planning Studies, 19(3), pp. 501–517.
66.
PetersB. G. (1998) Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.
67.
PhilpM. (2008) Delimiting democratic accountability, Political Studies, 57(1), pp. 28–53.
68.
PoulsenB. (2009) Competing traditions of governance and dilemmas of administrative accountability: the case of Denmark, Public Administration, 87(1), pp. 117–131.
69.
PurcellM. (2007) City-regions, neoliberal globalization and democracy: a research agenda, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), pp. 197–206.
70.
PUSH (Partnership for Urban South Hampshire) (2007) Agreement relating to the partnership for urban south Hampshire. PUSH, Southampton.
ScottJ. W. (2007) Smart growth as urban reform: a pragmatic ‘recoding’ of the new regionalism, Urban Studies, 44(1), pp. 15–35.
77.
SkelcherC. (2007) Does democracy matter? A transatlantic research design on democratic performance and special purpose governments, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), pp. 61–76.
78.
SkelcherC.MathurN.SmithM. (2005) The public governance of collaborative spaces: discourse, design and democracy, Public Administration, 83(3), pp. 573–596.
79.
SørensenE. (2006) Metagovernance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance, The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), pp. 98–114.
80.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2005) The democratic anchorage of governance networks, Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), pp. 195–218.
81.
SteffekJ. (2010) Public accountability and the public sphere of international governance, Ethics & International Affairs, 24(1), pp. 45–68.
82.
SwyngedouwE. (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental production, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), pp. 601–620.
83.
SwyngedouwE. (2011) Designing the post-political city and the inusrgent polis. Civic City Cahier 5. London Bedford Press.
84.
TorfingJ.SørensenE.FotelT. (2009) Democratic anchorage of infrastructural governance networks: the case of the Femern Belt Forum, Planning Theory, 8(3), pp. 282–308.
85.
WardK.JonasA. E. G. (2004) Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: a critical reinterpretation of the new regionalism, Environment and Planning A, 36(12), pp. 2119–2139.
86.
WheelerS. M. (2002) The new regionalism: key characteristics of an emerging movement, Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), pp. 267–278.
87.
Wilks-HeegS. (2009) New Labour and the reform of English local government, 1997–2007: privatizing the parts that Conservative governments could not reach, Planning Practice and Research, 24(1), pp. 23–39.
88.
WillisJ. W. (2007) Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
89.
YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (Eds) (2006) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
