ABSTRACT
Spatial problems increasingly transcend administrative boundaries. Answers to questions regarding new spatial dynamics have to be found in the urban networks, with a multitude of different interests and conflicts. The urban regions, often undefined politically-administratively, are becoming the playing field in which policy-making and its execution should occur (Healey et al. 1997). The fragmentation within the urban regions, the internal competition and the often uneven distribution of costs and benefits, however, often limit the creativity in which spatial developments take place (Levy 1992; Goetz & Kayser 1993; Salet et al. 2003; Stein 2005). A coordination dilemma exists (Scharpf 1997). Attempts to address the absence of a ‘problem owner’ at the super-local scale by amendments in governing mechanisms were often difficult to implement or did not achieve the envisaged results (Phares 2004). Increased comprehensive and high-qualitative development in a region requires an increased level of effectiveness from the various government levels (local, regional and (supra-) national) in their collaborations (Calthorpe & Fulton 2001; Porter & Wallis 2002) and operational strategies of collective action between and within the relevant scales (Hooghe & Marks 2001). The ultimate partnership in an interactive governance process is the formation of a self-governing network. Such a network includes the establishment of a level of mutual understanding and embeddedness in order to develop a shared vision and jointworking capacity (Stoker 1998, 22-23) with interdependencies between actors and relaxed hierarchical levels. As Gualini (2002, 33, emphasis in original) argues ‘the challenge for governing and managing action becomes that of co-production, of the pursuit of joint results from the activity and initiative of multiple social actors.’
