ABSTRACT
The literature on UK urban governance is dominated by two contrasting strands of
thought. One strand of scholarship, most notably Rhodes (1996, 1997, 1999), emphasises
horizontal transactions in the rise of autonomous, self-governing networks. But a second
strand, including Davies (2003, 2004a), Bache (2003), Marinetto (2003) and others perceive
that far from disengaging, or empowering other actors, the national state is actually
augmenting its power over local politics. The protagonists in this debate often present
nuanced arguments which recognise complexity and acknowledge competing views, but
there has been little attempt to theorise the relationship between the primary modes of
social organisation in urban politics: hierarchy, market and networking (Kjaer, 2004, p. 203).
Furthermore, argues Kjaer, the governance debate has tended to elide the issue of political
conflict. This is not to say that scholars do not recognise conflict when it occurs, but that
they have not adequately considered what happens when governance does not produce
consensus and conversely what the reality of conflict means for the sustainability of
network governance (2004, pp. 1989)?
