This paper stresses the role of collaborative working within the new urban governance literature. The legacy approach for the 2014 Commonwealth Games has thus far been well received as an example of successful partnership working. Glasgow’s approach to legacy is discussed within the wider context of an increasing strategic focus on event-led regeneration. High-level political support for legacy led to the early development of Glasgow’s Legacy Plan in 2009, followed by the development of a legacy partnership: the Glasgow Legacy Board. The paper contributes to the literature by exploring a conceptual understanding of inter-governmental working for regeneration, through close examination of Glasgow’s legacy approach, development, structure and governance. To what extent does Glasgow’s collaborative approach to legacy represent a new institutional form of network governance for the delivery of urban regeneration in Scotland? The paper also reflects on the long-term transferability of this collaborative approach to legacy for the delivery of urban regeneration in Scotland beyond 2014.
AgranoffRMcGuireM (2003) Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Governance, London: Routledge.
2.
Ainsworth S and Harkins J (2014) Evaluating the effectiveness of the HIA for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, Edinburgh: Report, Duddleston Harkins Social Research Ltd.
3.
AnderssonTArmbrechtJDLundbergE (2008) Impact of mega-events on the economy. Asian Business and Management7(2): 163–179.
4.
Audit Scotland (2009) Commonwealth Games 2014, Report, November 2009.
5.
Audit Scotland (2012) Commonwealth Games 2014, Report, March 2012.
6.
BakerHR (1992) Important factors concerning the discussion of multicommunity collaboration. In: KorschingPBorichTStewartJ (eds) Multicommunity Collaboration an Evolving Rural Revitalization Strategy, Ames: Iowa State University Press, pp. 143–148.
7.
BarclayJ (2009) Predicting the costs and benefits of mega-sporting events: misjudgement of Olympic proportions?Economic Affairs29(2): 62–66.
8.
BörzelTA (1998) Organizing Babylon – On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration76(2): 253–274.
9.
BradshawTK (2000) Complex community development projects: Collaboration, comprehensive programs, and community coalitions in complex society. Community Economic Development Journal35(2): 135–145.
10.
CarleyM (2000) Urban partnerships, governance and the regeneration of Britain’s cities. International Planning Studies5(3): 273–297.
11.
CashmanR (2003) What is “Olympic legacy”? In: De MoragasMKennettCPuigN (eds) The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984–2000, Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, pp. 31–42.
12.
CashmanRHughesA (1999) Staging the Olympics: The Event and Its Impact, Sydney: UNSW Press.
13.
Chalkley B and Stephen E (1999) Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games. Planning perspectives 14(4): 369–394.
14.
CiglerBA (1999) Pre-conditions for the emergence of multi-community collaborative organizations. Policy Studies Review16: 86–102.
15.
Clark J and Kearns A (2014) People, place and prosperity in the East End of Glasgow: An assessment of the potential economic impacts of the 2014 commonwealth games and associated regeneration activities on local communities. Report, University of Glasgow, UK.
16.
Coalter F, Allison M and Taylor J (2000) The role of sport in regenerating deprived urban areas. Report, Edinburgh Centre for Leisure Research, University of Edinburgh.
17.
ColemanWDPerlA (1999) Internationalized policy environments and policy network analysis. Political Studies47: 691–709.
18.
CowellR (2004) Community planning: Fostering participation in the congested state?Local Government Studies30: 497–518.
19.
CoxKRWoodA (1994) Local government and local economic development in the United States. Regional Studies28: 640–646.
20.
DamerS (1989) Glasgow Going for a Song (City Cultures), Glasgow: Lawrence and Wishart.
21.
DaviesJS (2002) Urban regime theory: A normative-empirical critique. Journal of Urban Affairs24(1): 1–17.
22.
DaviesJS (2003) Partnerships versus regimes: Why regime theory cannot explain urban coalitions in the UK. Journal of Urban Affairs25: 253–270.
23.
EdelenbosJKlijnEH (2007) Trust in complex decision-making networks; a theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration and Society39(1): 25–50.
24.
EdelenbosJVan BuurenAKlijnEH (2013) Connective capacities of network managers. Public Management Review15(1): 131–159.
25.
GirginovV (2011) Governance of the London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport47(5): 543–558.
26.
Glasgow City Council (2008a) Commonwealth Games political responsibilities. Report for, Glasgow’s Executive Committee, September.
27.
Glasgow City Council (2008b) 2014 Commonwealth Games Health Impact Assessment (HIA): planning for legacy.
28.
Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2009) The Glasgow 2014 Legacy Framework. Report, Glasgow.
29.
Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2011) Proposed Glasgow 2014 legacy framework governance structure. Report for Glasgow’s Executive committee, February.
30.
Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2013) Progress report and action plan. Report for Glasgow’s Executive Committee, June.
31.
Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2014) The 2014 legacy story: Beyond 2014. Report, Glasgow.
32.
Gratton C (1999) Sports-related industry study: Final report. Manchester: Manchester City Council and Northwest Development Agency.
33.
GrayNMooneyG (2011) Glasgow’s new urban frontier: ‘Civilising’ the population of ‘Glasgow East’. City15(1): 4–24.
34.
HallCM (2004) Sports tourism and urban regeneration. In: RitchieBAdairD (eds) Sports Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, Clevedon: Channelview Publications, pp. 192–206.
35.
HardingA (1998) Public-private partnerships in the UK. In: PierreJ (ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 71–92.
36.
HarveyD (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation of urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler71B: 3–17.
37.
HarveyD (2001) Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography, London and New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
HillerH (2000) Toward an urban sociology of mega-events. Research in Urban Sociology5: 181–205.
39.
HolmanN (2007) Following the signs: Applying urban regime analysis to a UK case study. Journal of Urban Affairs29: 435–453.
40.
HolmanN (2013) Effective strategy implementation: Why partnership interconnectivity matters. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy31(1): 82–101.
41.
HymanJ (2002) Exploring social capital and civic engagement to create a framework for community building. Applied Developmental Science6(4): 196–202.
42.
JonesC (2001) Mega events and host-region impacts: Determining the true worth of the1999 Rugby World Cup. International Journal of Tourism Research3: 241–251.
43.
Jessop B (198) The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal 50(155): 29–45.
44.
Keast R, Mandell MP and Agranoff R (2013) Network Theory in the Public Sector: Building New Theoretical Frameworks. Vol. 17. New York: Routledge.
45.
KenisP (1991) The preconditions for policy networks: Some findings from a three-country study on industrial restructuring. In: MarinBMayntzR (eds) Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, pp. 297–330.
46.
KenisPSchneiderV (1991) Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In: MarinBMayntzR (eds) Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, pp. 25–59.
47.
KlijnEKoppenjanJ (2000) Public management and policy networks: Foundations to a network approach to governance. Public Management2: 135–158.
48.
KlijnEHEdelenbosJSteijnAJ (2010a) Trust in governance networks: Its impact and outcomes. Administration and Society42(2): 193–221.
49.
KlijnEHSteijnAJEdelenbosJ (2010b) The impact of network management strategies on the outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration88(4): 1063–1082.
50.
Klijn E, Ysa T and Sierra V (2013) Governance networks and trust: Exploring the relation between trust and network performance in Taiwan, Spain and The Netherlands. In: Eleventh Public Management Research Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, 20–22 June 2013.
51.
LackeySFreshwaterDRupasinghaA (2002) Factors influencing local government cooperation in rural areas: Evidence from the Tennessee valley. Economic Development Quarterly16(2): 138–154.
52.
LaneCBachmanR (1998) Trust Within and Between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Application, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
LawlessP (2001) Community economic development in urban and regional regeneration: Unfolding potential or justifiable scepticism?Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19: 135–155.
54.
LawlessP (2004) Locating and explaining area-based urban initiatives: New deal for communities in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy22: 383–399.
55.
LeopkeyBParentM (2012) Olympic Games legacy: From general benefits to sustainable long-term legacy. The International Journal of History and sport29(6): 924–943.
56.
LGA (1998) The new commitment to regeneration. Local Government Association circular, April.
57.
LowndesVSkelcherC (1998) The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration76(2): 313–333.
58.
MarshD (1998) Comparing Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
59.
MartinsMASerraAP (2007) Market impact of international sporting and cultural events. Journal of Economic Finance35(4): 382–416.
60.
MasonM (2007) Collaborative partnerships for urban development: A study of the Vancouver Agreement. Environment and Planning A39(10): 2366–2382.
61.
MathesonC (2010) Legacy planning, regeneration and events: The Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games. Local Economy25(1): 10–23.
62.
McCartneyGSHanlonPBondL (2013) How will the 2014 Commonwealth Games impact on Glasgow’s health, and how will we know?Evaluation19(1): 24–39.
63.
McCartneyGSThomasHThomsonJ (2010) The health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: Systematic review (1978–2008). British Medical Journal340: 2369.
64.
MatthewsP (2012) From area-based initiatives to strategic partnerships: Have we lost the meaning of regeneration?Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30(1): 147–161.
65.
MooneyG (2004) Cultural policy as urban transformation? Critical reflections on Glasgow, European City of Culture 1990. Local Economy19(4): 327–340.
66.
O’TooleLJ (1997) Treating networks seriously: Practical and research based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review57: 45–52.
PatonKMooneyGMcKeeK (2012) Class, citizenship and regeneration: Glasgow and the Commonwealth Games 2014. Antipode44: 1470–1489.
69.
PorterL (2009) Planning displacement: The real legacy of major sporting events. Planning Theory and Practice10(3): 395–418.
70.
PreussH (2004) The Economics of Staging the Olympics: A Comparison of the Games 1972–2008, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
71.
ProvanKMilwardHB (2001) Do networks really work?A framework for evaluating public sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review61: 414–423.
72.
Provan KG, Amy F and Joerg S (2007) Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management 33(3): 479–516.
73.
RhodesRAW (1988) Beyond Westminister and Whitehall. The Sub-Central Governments of Britain, London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.
74.
RhodesRAW (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.
75.
ScharpfFW (1978) Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In: HanfKIScharpfFW (eds) Interorganizational Policy Making, London: Sage, pp. 345–370.
76.
ScharpfFW (1994) Games real actors could play. Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics6(1): 27–53.
77.
Schneider V (1992) The structure of policy networks. a comparison of the ‘chemicals control’ and ‘Telecommunications’ Policy Domains in Germany. European Journal of Political Research 21: 109–129.
78.
SørensenETorfingJ (2007) Introduction: Governance network research: Towards a second generation. In: SørensenE TorfingJ (eds) Theories of Democratic Network Governance, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–20.
79.
StokerG (1998a) Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal155: 17–28.
80.
StokerCN (1998b) Public-private partnerships and urban governance. In: PierreJ (ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 34–51.
81.
VerarosNKasimatiEDawsonP (2004) The 2004 Olympic Games announcement and its effect on the Athens and Milan stock exchanges. Applied Economic Letters11(12): 749–753.
82.
WeberEPKhademianAM (2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review68: 334–349.
83.
Weed M (2014) Mass participation in sports events. In: Grix J (ed) Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-Events: Concepts and Cases. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
84.
WeissTGWilkinsonR (2014) Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. International Studies Quarterly58(1): 207–215.
85.
WolfFS (2004) Analysis of documents and records. In: von FlickUKardoffESteinkeI (eds) A Companion to Qualitative Research, London: Sage, pp. 284–288.
