Public, Local, and Urban Governance: Concepts and Dynamics

Some changes and dynamics since the 1970s, such as globalization, decentralization, marketization, urbanization, and economic, financial, and environmental crises and disasters, among others, have had some important consequences for public administration. As a result, market-based approaches such as the new public management (NPM) approach and the public choice theory, and their associated values and principles (neoliberal ideology) have become dominant in the field of public administration and policy on a global scale since the 1980s. In the market-based approaches, focus is on free market mechanisms and principles, customer orientation, smaller government, performance, entrepreneurship, flexibility, efficiency and economy. According to these approaches, the public sector is seen to have become too monopolist, centralist, overloaded, excessive and inefficient and, thus, some market-based public service delivery systems as well as increased cooperation with the private and civic sectors are seen necessary to enhance efficiency, performance, economy and competition in the public sector.

Public and urban public governance have also become important in Türkiye. The new local administration laws of the mid-2000s redefined and restructured local, urban, and metropolitan administrations in line with the tendencies of growing decentralization, marketization, and governance, partly reducing the centralist and top-down structures and practices and the role and control of the central government over the local/urban administrations. Accordingly, diversity, interdependency, participation, and collaboration in developing solutions to common urban public problems and enhancing the quality of urban life and services have been increasingly recognized in urban governance and policy-making processes. Yet, some challenges and shortcomings continue to exist, such as rapid urbanization, environmental crises and disasters, changing and increasing citizen needs and demands, inadequate public participation, legitimacy, accountability, and public control, among others. These challenges and issues necessitate participative urban public governance.

Despite the dominance of the market-based approaches in recent decades, their compatibility with the basic principles and methods of public administration has drawn increased criticism since the 1990s. It is asserted that public administration denotes something more than private business issues and principles, and requires more than a narrow view of adopting market mechanisms or principles. Besides, the market-based approaches do not seem to show any particular concern for public values or principles such as ethics, public interest, openness, trust, equality, and justice. Public administration functions in line with the principles of equity, responsiveness, integrity, fairness and equal opportunity in access to public services and policy-making processes, participation and collaboration as well as the classical principles of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.

The whole thrust of the public governance approach revolves around redefining and redelivering the power of the state in the economic and social arena. In the public governance model, governments do not simply regulate, distribute, or redistribute public benefits or services. Public governance also gives government and public management the responsibility for steering and coordinating society, economy, and a wide variety of actors and resources to achieve desired public objectives. It is a complex, diffuse, politically-mediated, legitimate, multi-level and multi-actor process in which collective goals and policy priorities are defined, and needed resources are brought together from a large number of various actors necessary to attain those goals. This bringing together, steering and coordination often involve voluntary de-bureaucratized and deregulated methods rather than hierarchical control and command.

Accordingly, public managers are viewed to have multiple roles and responsibilities going beyond their roles in the traditional public administration or the market-based approaches. In traditional public administration, the role of public administrators has been constrained basically to the implementation of policies, rules and procedures and production of goods and services directly in a hierarchical bureaucratic system. In the market-based approaches, meeting agreed performance targets has been their primary responsibility. Yet, in public governance, they are expected to ensure effective and smooth mediation and steering of multi-agency and cross-sector participation in order to facilitate the formation of common public opinion and to secure needed resources, and effective and efficient delivery of public services. Besides, they need to guide public agencies through complex challenges, and to maintain the overall capacity of the system. Effective public managers will understand that they only have imperfect control over a complex network of players and institutions in order to manage their agencies. Thus, public managers are expected to have not only technical expertise but also effective political skills to manage public agencies in a political context. For this reason, a variety of leadership skills such as conflict moderation, change management, information sharing, trust building, conflict management, critical and innovative thinking is needed for effective and successful public management.

Representative democracy as the most common form of democracy is the government of the people for the people through their representatives. In representative democracy, sovereignty resides in the citizenry, but citizens exercise their power indirectly through elected officials. Thus, decisions and policies are made by elected bodies or officials that reveal the will of the public. This indirect exercise of power through intermediary representatives distinguishes representative democracy from more participative forms of democracy. A model of pluralistic representative democracy is offered as a hybrid form built upon elected government on the basis of equal votes, fair, competitive, and free elections, public control, diversity, the right to information, and basic rights and freedoms. It is essential that freedoms and opportunities be distributed fairly among citizens. Besides, pluralistic representative democracy involves setting terms of office for representatives and holding periodic and genuine elections. Moreover, the European Council (2017: 28) sees necessary the principles of the separation of powers and of the rule of law along with a system of sufficient checks and balances for a democratic political system.

Similarly, Habermas argues that dysfunctional representation systems and the dominant role of market logic and corporate role in representative democracies harm the legitimacy of political and other public decisions, officials, and institutions. For this reason, Habermas tries to solve the problem of legitimacy through participation and negotiation in representative democratic systems. Based on public communication, the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms, Habermas supports full and open citizen participation in the public decision-making process or deliberation. In Habermas’s model of participatory and deliberative democracy, participation is not limited to elections but rather it has public will formation via widespread political participation at its center. For Habermas, institutionalized communication procedures and conditions is the framework of public communication and negotiation in his model of participatory and deliberative democracy. The basic elements of this model are citizenship, basic individual rights and freedoms, participation, negotiation and compromise. Every citizen affected by a public decision should have the right to participate equally in public debate and decision-making, and to express their demands and criticisms as well as the right to object, to ask questions, to put forward arguments and to elaborate on their arguments. Yet, the ideal of deliberative and participatory democracy has yet to be implemented successfully, and participation deficit and legitimacy crisis have yet to be resolved properly.

Public governance offers to bring politics and management together in policy-making processes, and, to some degree, provides solutions to the problems of democratic deficit (inadequate participation, responsiveness, deliberation, transparency, legitimacy and public trust), and overloaded and low-performing public administration. Public governance is a multifaceted process with complex relationships with democracy, democratic values and principles such as pluralism, responsiveness, accountability, and participation. In both public governance, and participatory and deliberative democracy, the more inclusive and pluralistic the deliberation or decision making, the more participatory, democratic and open a political or public governance system is expected to be. In general, public governance is not offered as a way to replace democracy by extending ordinary citizen involvement in politics or government but rather seen as complementary to it as a participatory public management style. Public governance is more related to public management than democratic politics, general political elections or widespread involvement of the general public in government. Yet, public governance goes in tandem with democracy, and takes democratic political processes, dynamics and principles into account as the basic elements of a resilient democratic system.

The rules, principles and actors in representative democracy may differ from the ones in public governance. Democracy refers to a political system with general and competitive political elections involving political parties and their candidates, elected democratic decision/policy-making institutions, popular sovereignty, political accountability, the principle of the rule of law, equality and other constitutional rights and freedoms, all of which contribute to public trust and the representativeness, accountability and legitimacy of the political system and public administration. For effective democracy, no matter their socioeconomic status, the participation of ordinary citizens in the elections and government is important. Yet, public governance focuses on policy/decision-making processes, and is a more pragmatic mechanism for managing and implementing policy. It is more concerned with responsiveness to group interests, accountability and effective provision of public services as well as practical and accessible methods of participation of a variety of public, quasi-public, private and civic actors, interest groups, and policy experts. For public governance, the involvement of important and related stakeholders and concerned and interested citizens in public policy-making processes is enough to realize the aim of participatory management.

Over the past few decades how metropolitan areas are governed have undergone major changes showing common tendencies towards some sort of new participative government and management styles. These changes have stemmed from globalization, decentralization, digitalization, national and local contextual dynamics and problems related to participation, accountability, legitimacy, and urbanization, among others.

Urban governance often goes in tandem with public governance at the national or regional levels because if a country has an effective governance and democratic system at the national level, it is most likely that it will also have effective local, urban or regional public governance and local democracy. This could be tied to the need for effective multilevel governance because many complex public policy matters cannot be successfully managed and resolved by a single level of government, requiring cooperation and collaboration among various public entities at different levels (i.e., supranational, national, regional, local, city or urban levels). So, effective coordination and collaboration among multilevel bodies of governance can only be expected in a country with strong democratic institutions and traditions.

Local/urban challenges, problems and issues can be attended to more effectively and rapidly at these levels by local/urban governments. Despite the differences among localities and cities, they are “affected by common trends and face common challenges”. One of the key challenges they face is to develop new models of management and policy/decision-making that would contribute to their effective management, competitiveness, inclusiveness, and responsiveness. Such tendencies and needs have been obvious not only at the national or regional but also at the local and urban levels. Local/ urban governance has been one of the most effective responses to these demands, and an effective method of participatory, collaborative and consultative style of decision/policy-making.

Local governance can be defined as the formulation and execution of collective action at the local or/and city levels based on the principles of participation, responsiveness, efficiency, effectiveness, openness, transparency, accountability, legitimacy, rule of law, innovation, collaboration, equity, sustainability, among others. In other words, local governance is the process of managing a locality by deliberating the challenges, problems and solutions an urban community faces with the participation of relevant actors. Local governance requires meaningful devolution of powers and responsibilities down to democratic local bodies that are accountable and accessible to local citizens enjoying full democratic rights and liberties. Local, regional, national or global public and private actors and civic networks, concerned local citizens, among others, may be involved in local governance and delivery of local/urban services. There may be various types of local governance such as local agenda-21, urban or metropolitan governance, governance via local irrigation or development associations among local administrations, urban governance for urban regeneration, and local/ urban/regional development and services. Local governance provides enhanced dialogue among local citizens, opportunities and channels for local participation and collaboration for diverse local community needs and challenges.

Urban governance is the most common type of local governance since cities and urban areas house the majority of populations in many countries as in Türkiye. Urban/metropolitan areas are often characterized by a high degree of “governmental fragmentation” involving the multiplicity of surrounding suburbs, district municipalities and other external political and administrative units. Urban/metropolitan areas or cities are the most suitable areas for governance and participation because they are common living spaces containing fragmented local administrative and political units, complex socio-economic, political, administrative and cultural relations and interaction forms. Besides, problems and challenges tend to concentrate in urban/metropolitan areas, requiring timely, effective and fair solutions. A list of urban problems may include, but not limited to, urban growth and development, housing, transportation, crime, segregation, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, pollution, climate change, sustainability, quality of urban life, and urban-rural connectivity, among others (European Commission, 2022).

Local and urban public governance also plays a key role in overcoming the shortcomings of representative democracy by increasing local participation and responsiveness to neighborhood-level preferences, and enhancing openness, transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. The main goals in urban governance are listed below:

• To achieve common urban goals,
• To deal with common urban challenges and problems,
• To improve spatial, social and economic conditions and environment in urban areas

Public governance in urban areas entails complex interactions, coordination and collaboration among various actors such as public, private, civic and community organizations to address the intricate challenges of contemporary cities. This collaborative approach aims to address the diverse common needs and challenges inherent in local and urban contexts. Accordingly, urban public governance is the process of participatory management of a locality, urban area or city by deliberating its problems, challenges and policy options with the participation of relevant actors utilizing personal, organizational, political, socioeconomic or managerial influence and power. It refers to the systems and processes by which cities are governed via effective public leadership and the involvement of various public, semi-public, private and civic actors, and interested or concerned citizens. Urban public governance entails joint participatory decision/policy-making mechanisms based on such principles as collaboration, coordination, deliberation, transparency, responsiveness, diversity, accountability, equity, effectiveness, and decentralization.

Urban public governance necessitates effective urban public leadership navigating through public, quasi-governmental, civic and private actors at various levels of governance . Because most governmental functions involve all three levels of government, public managers also need to understand the functioning of multilevel and the role of different levels of governments. Successful urban governance requires public managers to facilitate partnerships, collaboration, and coordination between multilevel government entities, businesses, community organizations, and citizens for effective policy development, solving urban problems, and establishing common directions for the community. Public managers act as facilitators of collaboration, bringing together different stakeholders to address urban challenges collectively and ensure the inclusive development of local communities. Their leadership, strategic decision-making, and emphasis on collaboration, facilitating widespread participation and accountability collectively contribute to the effectiveness and responsiveness of urban public management, diminishing polarization, teaching diversity, and building community with a focus on the local common good.

Urban public governance offers new ways to tackle urban issues and problems via public policy-making processes. It facilitates collaborative decision-making, and enables a diverse set of actors and networks to contribute their expertise, views, and resources to collectively address urban challenges. Urban governance forms the bedrock of responsive, participatory and effective policy-making, addressing the challenges posed by urbanization and local community dynamics. Urban policy-making provides city managements and urban communities with the direction to be followed for the attainment of specific common goals. Urban governments should mediate and enable private, civil and public actors to come together in governance processes, discuss urban issues and problems, and develop policies to tackle these problems.

Urban policy process in many countries starts with “simple reaction to urban problems by providing essential public services and infrastructure, followed by efforts to control and manage growth due to the challenges of congestion and overcrowding. Social and environmental programs are then made to ameliorate the effects of urban decline and poverty. These programs are usually the starting points of the efforts of renewal, reinvestment, and regeneration; there follows a new cycle of urban growth and development”

Local administration system in Türkiye has undergone important changes and reforms especially in the 1980s and then in the 2000s due to historical, political, and socioeconomic factors, and a range of challenges, including rapid urbanization, demographic shifts, environmental concerns, fragmentation in urban areas, increasing and diversifying citizen demands and needs. These reforms have in general expanded the responsibilities, resources and powers of local administrations, and clarified the limits of central government’s influence. The tutelage powers of the central administration and governors on the local administrations are limited mainly to legal control, and their discretionary powers to control the municipalities have been ended largely. The reforms in the mid-2000s especially decentralized the centralist administrative system to some degree, and reorganized the structures, functions and processes related to the state-society-market, central-local government, and metropolitan-district municipality relations and interactions. These reforms provided greater local autonomy by devolving some administrative and financial powers down to the local and urban administrations, and established new province-wide metropolitan municipalities, citizen’s assemblies and service delivery mechanisms on the basis of governance and the NPM approaches.

Metropolitan governance in Türkiye has evolved after the early 1980s in response to the rapid urbanization and the need for effective, efficient and integrated management in major urban centers with fragmented local administrative structure. The current metropolitan municipality law numbered 5216 was enacted in 2004. This law extends their powers and capacity, and maintains the two-tiered metropolitan municipal system, including the first-tired province-wide metropolitan municipality and the second-tiered metropolitan district municipalities. The major amendment Law numbered 6360 and enacted in the year of 2012, put into effect with the 2014 local elections, reorganized the metropolitan municipal system and increased the number of metropolitan municipalities to 30. It also enlarged the metropolitan municipality limits to the borders of the whole province in each of these 30 provinces, giving authority to metropolitan municipalities in the entire territory of their respective provinces. This Law created a centralized metropolitan municipality system at the provincial level and a powerful metropolitan mayorship. The metropolitan mayor is elected by direct popular vote in the whole province. Thus, the metropolitan mayor is placed in a position to represent the whole province as a strong and visible managerial and political figure.

Citizen involvement and collaboration with civil society organizations have been increasingly recognized as important components of urban and metropolitan governance to ensure responsive and effective urban decision-making and urban service delivery. Various mechanisms are designed to increase public participation, effectiveness, transparency, collaboration, and responsiveness in urban governance, policy-making, and service delivery in Türkiye. These mechanisms aim to create a more participatory and inclusive decision-making and planning environment, ensuring that the diverse voices of citizens and stakeholders are considered in shaping the future of metropolitan areas and communities.

Provisions of the Municipality Law numbered 5393 regarding participatory mechanisms are listed below:

• In Article 14, the act puts municipalities in charge of all common local matters.
• Article 24 paves the way for experts from NGOs, unions, professional organizations, and universities to participate in specialized commissions.
• Article 41 gives municipalities the responsibility of preparing strategic plans by ensuring the participation and input of actors and institutions such as NGOs, professional organizations and universities.
• Article 75 encourages municipalities to develop joint service projects with organizations such as NGOs, associations and foundations pursuing public interest, bar associations, professional organizations, and universities, among others.
• Article 77 encourages voluntary citizen participation in municipal activities and service delivery, especially local social and cultural services.

Yet, there are still multifaceted issues and problems in urban governance such as rapid urbanization and technological advancements, coordination and collaboration in service delivery, inadequate mechanisms and levels of public participation, increased social and spatial disparities, among others, reflecting challenging and dynamic urban landscape in Türkiye. Addressing these challenges requires incorporating innovative policies and collaborative efforts that would contribute to the development of resilient, equitable, citizen-centered, and forward-looking urban environments. It could not be argued that effective public participation and democratic governance practices are realized to some extent in urban areas in Türkiye. Urban public governance offers solutions in this respect but in Türkiye, there is still a need to prioritize enhancing effectiveness, efficiency, economy, performance, sustainability, resilience and quality in policy-making and implementation and urban service delivery, and to foster responsiveness, community engagement, collaboration, trust, accountability, transparency, openness, and fair access to basic public services. Participatory urban public governance and the involvement of private and civic actors would further improve legitimacy, responsiveness and trust in government and public governance. In this regard, the present form and functioning of the newly structured citizen assemblies is ineffective and financially dependent on the funds and support of the municipalities. Thus, they should be strengthened since they provide genuine opportunities for local residents and social groups to participate in urban governance and have displayed some successful practices of local initiatives on urban solidarity, resilience and sustainability.

Aligning urban governance and policy-making with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations can guide future urban policies in addressing environmental, social, and economic dimensions and dynamics for sustainable urban development. New digital technology should also be integrated into urban governance, decision/policy-making and service delivery to increase efficiency, effectiveness, data-driven decision-making, responsiveness, resilience, citizen engagement and access. Embracing smart city initiatives represents a promising prospect for urban communities and local and urban governance. Future efforts regarding governance ought to focus on the creation and implementation of real and functional participatory, collaborative and democratic governance processes and mechanisms at the local, urban, metropolitan and national levels.