ABSTRACT
This contribution presents an analytical framework that is specifically applicable to the planning and development processes of many comparable urban development projects (see chapter 1, section 'Governance and Management Perspective'). We start by asking if it is possible and worthwhile to look for new ways to initiate planning processes that give priority to projects integrating living, working and recreation in developing urban areas. By applying the network approach to an analytical task, we can describe the situation in a particular urban area but also see if 'new' instruments make the planning process more efficient and more effective. Given the financial constraints and the established structures for integration and distribution, many towns and cities have tried to at least expand their political scope for activity by increasing their political-administrative power and capacities. This calls for an optimal distribution of legal, financial and organisational resources. But it also involves building forms of co-operation between the various authorities, administrative units and pressure groups. This concerns, on the one hand, democratically legitimised processes and structures, which are firmly anchored in the institutions. On the other hand, it concerns the formation of policy networks for the planning, decision making and implementation phases of programmes and measures. An increasing number of actors, addressee and pressure groups seek to participate in the institutionalised or ad-hoc policy networks in the area of urban planning. Thus, political responsibility is not solely demonstrated by
the reduction of budget deficits. It is also shown by the consistent implementation of new forms of co-operation and management.
