This study addresses the research question of how the tensions between urban commons and ‘the public’ might be resolved through boundary spanning. Urban commons offers a new lens for public managers and politicians to rethink ways that urban resources could be governed to enhance public problem-solving and co-create public-value outcomes. Through in-depth case analyses of commoning initiatives at five public markets in Hong Kong, we find that tensions with bureaucratic modes of governance, marketisation of public space, land politics, and little trust in the government were major barriers of commoning. The results also pointed to the unique boundary spanning strategies to facilitate commoning such as using co-creation and political framing to align community interests and public agenda and using legal framing to enable the reallocation of property rights among property owners and community actors. This research also revealed distinct dynamics of boundary spanning in illiberal democratic systems.
AnsellChrisGashAlison. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18 (4): 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
2.
AnsellChrisGashAlison. 2012. “Stewards, Mediators, and Catalysts: Toward a Model of Collaborative Leadership.” The Innovation Journal17 (1): 1–18.
3.
BlancoIsmaelLowndesVivienPratchettLawrence. 2011. “Policy Networks and Governance Networks: Towards Greater Conceptual Clarity.” Political Studies Review9 (3): 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00239.x
4.
BoydellSpikeSearleGlen. 2014. “Understanding Property Rights in the Contemporary Urban Commons.” Urban Policy and Research32 (3): 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.901909
5.
BruunMaja Hojer. 2015. “Communities and the Commons: Open Access and Community Ownership of the Urban Commons.” In Urban Commons: Rethinking the City, edited by BorchC.KornbergerM., 153–170. London: Routledge.
6.
BuchananJames M.YoonYong J.. 2000. “Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons.” The Journal of Law and Economics43 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1086/467445
7.
BurnsJohn P.WeiLiGuy PetersB.. 2013. “Changing Governance Structures and the Evolution of Public Service Bargains in Hong Kong.” International Review of Administrative Sciences79 (1): 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312467614
8.
ChanJohannes. 2018. “A Storm of Unprecedented Ferocity: The Shrinking Space of the Right to Political Participation, Peaceful Demonstration, and Judicial Independence in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Constitutional Law16 (2): 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy053
9.
CheungChor-Yung. 2011. “How Political Accountability Undermines Public Service Ethics: The Case of Hong Kong.” Journal of Contemporary China20 (70): 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2011.565180
10.
EmersonKirkNabatchiTinaBaloghStephen. 2012. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
FeinbergArthurGhorbaniAminehHerderPaulien. 2021. “Diversity and Challenges of the Urban Commons: A Comprehensive Review.” International Journal of the Commons15 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1033
14.
FlanaganJohn C. 1954. “The Critical Incident Technique.” Psychological Bulletin51 (4): 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
15.
FosterSheila RIaioneChristian. 2019. “Ostrom in the City: Design Principles and Practices for the Urban Commons.” In Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons, edited by HudsonB.RosenbloomJ.ColeD., 235–255. London: Routledge.
16.
GidwaniVinayBaviskarAmita. 2011. “Urban Commons.” Economic and Political Weekly46 (50): 42–43.
HardtMichaelNegriAntonio. 2009. Commonwealth. Harvard University Press.
19.
HarveyDavid. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso Books.
20.
HellerMichael A. 1998. “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets.” Harvard Law Review 111 (3): 621–688. https://doi.org/10.2307/1342203
JohnstonErik W.HicksDarrinNanNingAuerJennifer C.. 2011. “Managing the Inclusion Process in Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21 (4): 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq045
27.
KipMarkusBieniokMajkenDellenbaughMaryMüllerAgnes KatharinaSchwegmannMartin. 2015. “Seizing the (Every) day: Welcome to the Urban Commons.” In Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market, edited by DellenbaughM.KipM.BieniokM.MüllerA.SchwegmannM., 9–25. Basel: Birkhäuser.
LeitnerHelga. 1990. “Cities in Pursuit of Economic Growth: The Local State as Entrepreneur.” Political Geography Quarterly9 (2): 146–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-9827(90)90016-4
34.
LinebaughPeter. 2014. Stop, Thief! The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance. In Press.
35.
LingHohSiongHoMohdAliFanTu. 2016. “Do Institutions Matter in Neighbourhood Commons Governance? A Two-Stage Relationship Between Diverse Property-Rights Structure and Residential Public Open Space (POS) Quality: Kota Kinabalu and Penampang, Sabah, Malaysia.” International Journal of the Commons10 (1): 294–333. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.618
36.
LoganJohn R.MolotchHarvey. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37.
MaNgok. 2016. “The Making of a Corporatist State in Hong Kong: The Road to Sectoral Intervention.” Journal of Contemporary Asia46 (2): 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2015.1084026
MolotchHarvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology82 (2): 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/226311
40.
MooreMark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
41.
NabatchiTina. 2012. “Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values.” Public Administration Review72 (5): 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x
42.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2007. Competitive Cities: A New Entrepreneurial Paradigm in Spatial Development. Paris: OECD.
43.
OstromElinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
PurcellMark. 2008. Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. New York: Routledge.
47.
QuintanaAnastasiaCampbellLisa M.. 2019. “Critical Commons Scholarship: A Typology.” International Journal of the Commons13 (2): 1112–1127. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.925
48.
RhodesRod AWWannaJohn. 2007. “The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians.” Australian Journal of Public Administration66 (4): 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x
49.
RhodesRod AWWannaJohn. 2009. “Bringing the Politics Back in: Public Value in Westminster Parliamentary Government.” Public Administration87 (2): 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01763.x
50.
RoseCarol. 1994. Property and Persuasion. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.
51.
SchlagerEdellaCoxMichael. 2018. “The IAD Framework and the SES Framework: An introduction and Assessment of the Ostrom Workshop Frameworks.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Weible, C. M., and P. A. Sabatier, 215-252. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284
SørensenEvaBrysonJohnCrosbyBarbara. 2021. “How Public Leaders Can Promote Public Value Through Co-Creation.” Policy & Politics49 (2): 267–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16119271739728
56.
SørensenEvaHendriksCarolyn M.HerttingNilsEdelenbosJurian. 2020. “Political Boundary Spanning: Politicians at the Interface Between Collaborative Governance and Representative Democracy.” Policy and Society39 (4): 530–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1743526
57.
SørensenEvaTorfingJacob. 2019. “Designing Institutional Platforms and Arenas for Interactive Political Leadership.” Public Management Review21 (10): 1443–1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1559342
TorfingJacobAnsellChristopher. 2017. “Strengthening Political Leadership and Policy Innovation Through the Expansion of Collaborative Forms of Governance.” Public Management Review19 (1): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1200662
62.
TorfingJacobSørensenEva. 2019. “Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians may Benefit from co-Creating Public Value Outcomes.” Administrative Sciences9 (3): 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030051
63.
TorfingJacobSørensenEvaRøiselandAsbjørn. 2019. “Transforming the Public Sector into an Arena for co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward.” Administration & Society51 (5): 795–825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057
64.
UlloaIgnacio Castillo. 2015. “Acting in Reality Within the Cranny of the Real: Towards an Alternative Agency of Urban Commons.” In Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market, edited by DellenbaughM.KipM.BieniokM.MüllerA.SchwegmannM., 130–147. Basel: Birkhäuser.
van MeerkerkIngmarEdelenbosJurian. 2018b. Boundary spanners in public management and governance: An interdisciplinary assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
68.
van MeerkerkIngmarEdelenbosJurian. 2018a. “Facilitating Conditions for Boundary-Spanning Behaviour in Governance Networks.” Public Management Review20 (4): 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1302248
69.
WangXiao Lu. 2020. “Marketization in a Statist-Corporatist Nonprofit Sector: The Case of Hong Kong.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 88 (2): 449-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020852320925867
70.
WangHuanmingRanBing. 2021. “Network Governance and Collaborative Governance: A Thematic Analysis on Their Similarities, Differences, and Entanglements.” Public Management Review, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2011389
