Multilevel governance and knowledge-based urbanism

Share

In this article, we first indicate the significance of cities in the global economy and the role of cities and universities in the emerging patterns of multilevel governance in Europe. We then discuss the relationships between the city and the university, using examples from the UK universities and discuss their roles in local governance and their responses to globalisation processes.

Cities and multilevel governance

Central to the notion of multilevel governance is the dispersion of authoritative decision making across multiple territorial levels and the interconnected rather than nested relationships between political arenas. In this context actors are drawn from beyond the boundaries of the formal institutions of government, spread among public, private and civil society sectors, and straddle jurisdictional boundaries. These actors represent diverse, and sometimes conflicting, policy objectives and interests. Two forms of developments have been particularly important in the emergence of multi-level governance in Europe over the last sixty years: Europeanisation and regionalisation. The former has shifted authority in many areas of policy making upwards from national states to European institutions. The latter has shifted authority downwards, in many European countries, from national to subnational levels of government including cities and urban regions with universities playing a significant role at the urban level.

Multilevel governance finds different manifestations in Europe, reflecting the local histories and specificities that are partly shaped by the nature of the relationships between European institutions, national governments, local authorities, and the plethora of stakeholders that operate at multiple levels. Different histories and traditions have led to highly centralised or federal and decentralised national governments. The complexity of the European Union’s institutions, the diversity and range of local government forms and traditions, and the different degrees to which the market has become a key player in local affairs, create a multifaceted and diverse range of actors, rules and regulations that shape the lives of different places (Davoudi and Madanipour, 2015). Regarding the latter, the size and extent of the market’s presence and influence varies widely from one country to another and from core to peripheral regions of Europe. Furthermore, market players range from multinational corporations that have a presence and a role in many places at once, to locally embedded businesses with no or little engagement beyond their localities. Civic society groups also play an important role in local governance, filling the gaps left by the state and the market, in addition to performing the traditional roles of facilitating social participation and engagement. Urban governance, therefore, consists of a larger number of stakeholders, an increasing level of complexity, and a higher level of significance in multilevel governance (Madanipour, Hull and Healey, 2001).

»Town and Gown«

The relationship between the city and the university has ebbed and flowed since the early medievaluniversities became integrated into the cities. On the one hand, universities have been a source of knowledge and vitality for the city. On the other hand, they have been a source of tensions with local residents and city authorities. A classic example of conflicts between »town and gown« is the way in which Cambridge University was founded. After a violent fight in 1209, the townspeople of Oxford forced Oxford University’s scholars to flee to a new location which became Cambridge University. This in turn led to tensions with the townspeople of Cambridge and later the granting of special privileges and protection to Cambridge University by the king. Today such adversarial relationships between cities and universities are rare, often replaced by attempts on both sides to create fruitful collaborations, as discussed below.

Universities, knowledge economy and urban governance

Universities are increasingly important stakeholders in urban governance, playing a variety of different roles. As the space of action has opened up for different actors, and as the number of stakeholders in local governance has multiplied, universities, as large institutions with thousands of employees and students, are able, and expected, to play a more active role in local affairs. The context of this ability varies widely in different European countries, as the extent of universities’ autonomy is not the same everywhere. Nevertheless, as most universities are public institutions, and as the public sector’s primary objective is economic growth, universities are urged to play their part in the development of the local economy. Their rise and fall, their decisions to expand or contract, and the range of goods and services used by them and their students and employees have a direct impact on the local economy and society. This is especially the case in smaller cities with a large university. Here the fortunes of the university and the city can become tightly intertwined (Benneworth, Charles and Madanipour, 2010).

A major factor for the growing significance of cities and universities in local and national economies is globalisation. Globalisation has changed the basis of local economies in advanced industrial countries. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services with transformative consequences for cities. Cities have become the cornerstones of the global economy in which the productive forces are concentrated and linked through new technologies. Although large, global cities have assumed a commanding role in the global division of labour, smaller and medium sized cities form important nodes in this global network. Globalisation and structural economic change have urged a move towards a knowledge-based economy (Madanipour, 2011).

In the European Union, theLisbon Strategy and its successor »Europe 2020« advocate the development of a knowledge-based economy for the future of Europe (EC, 2009). Major structural challenges, from globalisation to climate change and ageing, are exacerbated by the ongoing economic crises. The competitive advantage of Europe is seen to lie in »the production of high value-added goods and services, embodying a high level of physical and human capital and knowledge« (EPC, 2009:1). Universities, seen as sites of knowledge production have a central place in this scenario.

In the context of the drive towards knowledge-based urbanism, the universities’ roles are more multi-faceted than ever before. They are expected to become the power houses of the knowledge economy, catalysts for attracting clusters of knowledge industries and significant players in the global economy, while continuing their traditional roles of teaching and research, as well as being fully integrated into their urban context. As a growing sector of the economy, the institutions of higher education are expected to compete in the global league tables, attract international researchers as well as recruiting fee-paying students. In a world order characterised by competition, universities are encouraged to compete with one another, but at the same time contribute to the advancement of knowledge, which often requires collaboration across countries and continents.

The relationship between the university and the city can be a close collaboration at the institutional and social levels, the university serving both as a source of economic prosperity and social pride for the city. This relationship can also be a cause for concern, especially in cities where the university is one of the largest institutions. A rich university with well paid staff and middle class students may be at odds with a host city that is suffering from industrial decline. In the context of the dwindling public budgets, the local authority’s plans and financial capacities may not be aligned with those of the university. A university’s ambitions to excel on the global scene might also be limited owing to the local considerations and limitations. Disputes may range from the use of land to tax and other privileges enjoyed by the university, especially if parts of the city suffer from social and economic disadvantage. The decisions to expand the university by recruiting larger numbers of students may lead to pressure on housing availability and price, and the impact of the clusters of student housing on the city’s residential population may be considerable. The seasonal character of the university’s activities may generate fluctuations in the life of the city.

The British experience

British universities exemplify the rising importance of the higher education institutions in urban affairs and in the rapidly changing multilevel governance. The processes of deindustrialisation and transition to services have necessitated new skills, while universities as large corporations have become significant players at many levels. Given that universities were underfunded, they used their considerable urban property assets, which have benefited from rising land prices, to balance their books. Regional development agencies encouraged them to spread their activities and act as catalysts to stimulate economic growth in their urban region. While these prospects suffered from a setback in the economic crisis of 2008, many universities have continued to grow partly due to the rising number of international students. In the UK, universities have shown a growing share of the GDP and a high rate of employment and income (Kelly, McNicoll and White, 2014). In 2010, the Coalition Government abolished the regional tier of governance and instead introduced local enterprise partnerships and combined authorities in metropolitan areas in which the public and private sector actors, including universities, are encouraged to form territorial coalitions.

The university governance is an additional level in the multilevel governance of cities. In the older universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, the old college-based structure has been maintained. While colleges are constituent parts of the university, they are autonomous and control their own affairs. There may be considerable differences between the colleges within one university in terms of their wealth, size of property, grandeur of architecture, location in the city, level of endowments, order of seniority in ceremonies, connection to the hierarchies of power, and prestige within the university and beyond. At the same time, the unity of the university needs to be maintained and the central administration expects to be able to have control and oversight over the colleges. The disparity between different colleges and the different levels of power and expectation between the centre and the college create its own governance challenge.

At the same time, through their history and alumni these elite universities have permanent links to the national elite in politics, economics, science and media, which go beyond local engagements and grant them an important position in the national governance. Through these linkages, elite universities accumulate social and material assets which maintain and enhance their competitive advantages. Furthermore, they enjoy a prestigious place in the international league tables by combining historical privileges with scientific excellence. All these turn the elite universities into magnets around which clusters of companies are created that are involved in innovations in science and engineering. Association with these universities, which are also close to London, have multiple symbolic and material advantages for companies including access to a pool of scientists, talents and innovations. 

Creating innovative clusters of this kind, and of the sort that was formed at the interface between Stanford University and Silicon Valley companies, has become a holy grail for national and regional policy makers. A British minister announced, »I'm a firm believer in clusters – best defined as a low-risk environment for high-risk activity« (Willets, 2010). Science parks and cultural quarters are planned to facilitate the meeting of minds and their interface with the industry, creating a critical mass of creative and knowledge-based activities (Madanipour, 2011). In Newcastle, the University, the City Council, and the former regional development authority jointly acquired a vacant site of the former brewery at the heart of the city with the explicit aim of creating a cluster of science and engineering, where the researchers and entrepreneurs mingle and form partnerships for commercialisation of scientific discoveries. Although this project suffered a setback from the economic crisis and the abolition of regional authority, it has remained on the agenda of both the university and the city and developments are underway (Goddard and Vallance, 2013).

The relationship between the city and the university, therefore, finds economic, social and political dimensions while the relationship between town and gown remains ambivalent.  On the one hand, new sources of tensions have emerged due to the clusters of students housing in the city. Local residents complain about the noise and disturbance and local authorities put pressure on universities to manage their students housing more effectively. On the other hand, representatives of the universities’ senior management teams are often invited to key local decision making arenas as major players.

Overall, the processes of globalisation, European integration, economic restructuring, and the changing relationships between the state, market, and society, have led to a multilevel governance landscape. The new global division of labour, has given newfound significance to cities whereby knowledge-based activities, perceived to be crystallised in universities (Davoudi, 2006; 2015), are at the core of economic production. The role of the universities and cities in knowledge-based urbanism and multilevel governance, therefore, is more significant than ever before. The British experience shows the diversity of the universities and the different roles they play in a hierarchy of their own. They seem to follow a model of close collaboration with different levels of governance and with private companies in innovative clusters. Although tensions between the city and the university has not been fully resolved, the role of the university in local governance, in the context of a multiplicity of actors within a neoliberalising political and economic context, has gained an increasing salience.

Universities have recognised their role, not only adding value to urban economies but also better engaging with local communities and the wider society by contributing to the so called »grand challenges«. This is clearly reflected in Newcastle University’smission statement which is to be a »world class civic university«. This means not only being »a world-class research-intensive University«, but also »playing a leading role in the economic, social and cultural development of the North East of England«.  The statement is based on the acknowledgment that the primary feature of a civic university is its sense of purpose – an understanding of not just »what it is good at, but what it is good for«. To play a proactive role in the life of the cities, the universities need to integrate four domains of their activities. These, according to the OECD reviews of the universities and regions include: regional capacity building, regional innovation, human capital and skills development, and social and cultural development (OECD, 2007).

 

References