IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i1p415-d474869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Emergence of Innovative Multi-Actor Collaborations toward a Progressive Urban Regime in Madrid (2015–2019)

Author

Listed:
  • Clara Medina-García

    (Department of Architecture, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
    Department of Political History, Theories and Geography, Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology, Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

  • Rosa de la Fuente

    (Department of Political History, Theories and Geography, Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology, Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

  • Pieter Van den Broeck

    (Department of Architecture, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium)

Abstract

For the last decade, urban actors around the globe have been struggling to adapt to a post-crisis and austerity context through increasing social mobilization and experimentation, calling for an urban democracy renewal and challenging established neoliberal urban regimes and governance systems. This has triggered social innovations, in which novel collaborative formulas have been envisioned and implemented. In particular, civil-public collaborations (CPCs) have come to the fore as an empowering alternative to the well-established private–public partnerships (PPP). This article examines the conditions of possibility, enabling mechanisms and constraints for the emergence of innovative multi-actor collaborations (IMACs). For this aim, we developed a three-fold analytical framework combining social innovation, public governance, and urban regime theory. We applied this framework to the case of the so-called “government of change” in Madrid between 2015 and 2019. After exploring the pre-2015 context, the institutional innovations implemented once Ahora Madrid accessed the local government, and the post-2019 context, it points to the preconditions that allowed experimentation with IMAC, identifies the institutional mechanisms and governance innovations that support their emergence, and assesses to what extent and how power to act was created and used to accomplish urban regime change.

Suggested Citation

  • Clara Medina-García & Rosa de la Fuente & Pieter Van den Broeck, 2021. "Exploring the Emergence of Innovative Multi-Actor Collaborations toward a Progressive Urban Regime in Madrid (2015–2019)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-29, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:415-:d:474869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/415/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/415/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Craps & Inge Vermeesch & Art Dewulf & Koen Sips & Katrien Termeer & René Bouwen, 2019. "A Relational Approach to Leadership for Multi-Actor Governance," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Robert Lukesch & Alice Ludvig & Bill Slee & Gerhard Weiss & Ivana Živojinović, 2020. "Social Innovation, Societal Change, and the Role of Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-28, September.
    3. Emma Puerari & Jotte I. J. C. De Koning & Timo Von Wirth & Philip M. Karré & Ingrid J. Mulder & Derk A. Loorbach, 2018. "Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Torill Nyseth & Abdelillah Hamdouch, 2019. "The Transformative Power of Social Innovation in Urban Planning and Local Development," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6.
    5. Stephen P. Osborne, 2006. "The New Public Governance?-super-1," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 377-387, September.
    6. Torill Nyseth & Torill Ringholm & Annika Agger, 2019. "Innovative Forms of Citizen Participation at the Fringe of the Formal Planning System," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 7-18.
    7. Fran Tonkiss, 2013. "Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 312-324, June.
    8. Stijn Oosterlynck & Yuri Kazepov & Andreas Novy & Pieter Cools & Eduardo Barberis & Florian Wukovitsch & Tatiana Saruis & Bernhard Leubolt, 2013. "The butterfly and the elephant: local social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty dynamics," ImPRovE Working Papers 13/03, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    9. David Brain, 2019. "Reconstituting the Urban Commons: Public Space, Social Capital and the Project of Urbanism," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 169-182.
    10. Sergio Belda-Miquel & Victoria Pellicer-Sifres & Alejandra Boni, 2020. "Exploring the Contribution of Grassroots Innovations to Justice: Using the Capability Approach to Normatively Address Bottom-Up Sustainable Transitions Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baxter, Jamie Scott & Chatzichristos, Georgios & Christmann, Gabriela & Hennebry, Barraí & Kovanen, Sunna & Novikova, Marina & Olmedo, Lucas & Stoustrup, Sune W. & van Twuijver, Mara & Umantseva, Anna, 2020. "Social Enterprises in Structurally Weak Rural Regions: Innovative Troubleshooters in Action. Handbook for Practitioners," IRS Dialog 6/2020, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    2. Darren Sharp & Rob Raven, 2021. "Urban Planning by Experiment at Precinct Scale: Embracing Complexity, Ambiguity, and Multiplicity," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 195-207.
    3. Aleksandra Maksimovska & Aleksandar Stojkov, 2019. "Composite Indicator of Social Responsiveness of Local Governments: An Empirical Mapping of the Networked Community Governance Paradigm," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 669-706, July.
    4. Olga I. Timofeeva, 2022. "Methodology and Results of Measuring the Transparency of Russian Regional Budgets," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 6, pages 44-58, December.
    5. Ross Beveridge & Philippe Koch, 2021. "Contesting austerity, de-centring the state: Anti-politics and the political horizon of the urban," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(3), pages 451-468, May.
    6. Lindsay P. Galway & Charles Z. Levkoe & Rachel L. W. Portinga & Kathryn Milun, 2021. "A Scoping Review Examining Governance, Co-Creation, and Social and Ecological Justice in Living Labs Literature," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Sébastien Gand & Elvira Periac, 2015. "Vers des écosystèmes de services gérontologiques ?," Post-Print hal-01164391, HAL.
    8. Laura Carmouze & Christophe Alaux & Fouchet Robert, 2021. "Co-construire les services publics locaux : une approche stratégique de la participation des parties prenantes externes. Cas de l’analyse des besoins sociaux dans des centres communaux d’action social," Post-Print hal-04188705, HAL.
    9. Torill Nyseth & Abdelillah Hamdouch, 2019. "The Transformative Power of Social Innovation in Urban Planning and Local Development," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6.
    10. Nicola Mario Iacovino & Sara Barsanti & Lino Cinquini, 2017. "Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration, New Public Management and Public Governance: the Case of the Tuscany Region," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 61-82, March.
    11. Ahmed Ehab & Tim Heath, 2023. "Exploring Immersive Co-Design: Comparing Human Interaction in Real and Virtual Elevated Urban Spaces in London," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Viviana Asara, 2018. "Untangling the radical imaginaries of the Indignados' movement: Commons, autonomy and ecologism," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2018_04, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    13. Bea Cantillon & Natascha Van Mechelen, 2013. "Poverty reduction and social security: Cracks in a policy paradigm," Working Papers 1304, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    14. Hugo A López & Pedro Ponce & Arturo Molina & María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya & Edgar Lopez-Caudana, 2021. "Design Framework Based on TEC21 Educational Model and Education 4.0 Implemented in a Capstone Project: A Case Study of an Electric Vehicle Suspension System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Rizzo, Ilde, 2023. "How "one-size-fits-all" public works contract does it better? An assessment of infrastructure provision in Italy," EconStor Preprints 270729, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    16. Aimee Felstead & Kevin Thwaites & James Simpson, 2019. "A Conceptual Framework for Urban Commoning in Shared Residential Landscapes in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, November.
    17. ter Bogt, Henk & Tillema, Sandra, 2016. "Accounting for trust and control: Public sector partnerships in the arts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 5-23.
    18. Mihajla Gavin & Scott Fitzgerald & Susan McGrath-Champ, 2022. "From marketising to empowering: Evaluating union responses to devolutionary policies in education," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 33(1), pages 80-99, March.
    19. Yuriy V. Belousov, 2022. "Transparent Budget in the System of Public Administration," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 4, pages 79-91, August.
    20. Markiewicz Joanna, 2018. "Value Creation by Support Organizations Through the Prism of Conflicting Institutional Logics," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 54(2), pages 122-135, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:415-:d:474869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.