Governing Greater Sydney: The democratic promise and contention of local governments’ metropolitan integration

Author:

Taylor Jordan1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Social and Political Sciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia

Abstract

AbstractMetropolitan planning in Australia is argued to suffer from a ‘governance deficit’, alongside various calls for planning reform. The Greater Sydney Commission (renamed the Greater Cities Commission in 2022) was established in 2015 as a state‐appointed planning commission to preside over new strategic and statutory planning powers; local governments’ metropolitan integration is one tenet of the reform's ambition for a more cohesive system. While the grounds for reform are often argued on effective terms, there is a clear need to explore the ways it may suffer from a ‘democratic deficit’ or be democratically defensible. This study explores the shifting planning powers, accountabilities, and forms of interest representation at the local level of the political system, in Australia's most concerted contemporary metropolitan reform attempt.Points for practitioners The reformed planning process promoted new forms of substantive exchange and coordination from the local government sector informing local, district, and metropolitan planning processes. Interest representation outside of local governments’ required plans is largely voluntary; Western City District councils demonstrated considerably more inter‐council collaboration as well as collaboration with the Commission than the Central City District. New forms of inter‐local exchange and coordination may help address ‘fragmented’ localism. The reform has improved prior democratic qualities of local strategic planning and improved policy accountabilities between councillors, the community, and planners in a loose compliance framework. The state's governance of housing growth targets and land use was said to contradict what had been negotiated between councils and the Commission, alongside local governments’ increasingly narrow land‐use and development approval powers and policy churn of its governance. Practitioners can use the meta‐governance framework to consider the democratic ‘performance’ or defensibility of the Greater Sydney Commission's governance system and improve this or similar metropolitan governance reform settings.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3