X hits on this document

Word document

Authors: Françoise Barten1, Marco Akerman2, Daniel Becker3, Sharon Friel4, Trevor Hancock5, ... - page 18 / 47





18 / 47

power asymmetries, it is “very probable that social movements will potentially mobilize outside of participatory budgeting rather than through it” (Sintomer et al, 2008:175).

The ideal-types were defined for analytical purposes, but in practice a mix of arrangements  will  often develop.Finally, it is worth noting the challenges for conducting comparative research and for assessing the effectiveness of  governance in Europe. Quantitative data were often not available; contextual variables influenced both the development of the models as well as the outcomes (Sintomer et al, 2008).  

Intersectoral action, partnerships, networks, and accountability

Intersectoral action for urban health and health equity is of three sorts: working across departments within city government (‘whole of government’ approach); across different actors (“horizontal” intersectoral action), and action across the different levels of policy and action concerned with urban health (“vertical” intersectoral action across neighbourhood, city, urban/rural, state/provincial, national/federal and international levels) (Hancock, 2008).

Partnerships across city departments are vital for improving urban health and health equity because many of the factors that affect health are determined to a greater or lesser extent by departments such as public works/engineering, housing, planning, parks, police, education, community development, social and health services. Solid waste management is a good example that illustrates the imperative of a joined-up urban planning approach and multi-level governance. Effective partnerships require political and bureaucratic leadership at the highest levels as well as appropriate structures and processes. The case of solid waste  underlines the need to move a technocratic approach and to address in particular the underlying systemic conditions including political, sociological and environmental relationships  (Bhuiyan, 2009;.Calo and Parise, 2009). Critical differences between developed and low-income countries e.g. in terms of relative wealth, decision-making autonomy, legal and regulatory framework, economic complexity should be acknowledged in order to overcome the real challenges and making partnerships work. A marked contrast is the impact of the informalisation of the economy. (Shafiul and Mansoor, 2004). Private sector involvement is not new, but privatization has never been easy; a myriad of issues -the relevance and importance of which are unique to the specific conditions of each setting-  need to be considered, in order to make participation of the private sector effective (Eggerth, 2005:

Document info
Document views168
Page views168
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 10:35:01 UTC 2017