The politics of co-implementation and their potential in shaping egalitarian cities

Abstract

This paper contributes to the debate on co-production in planning theory and practice by examining the political agency of non-profit housing actors—here termed “alternative co-producers”—in building an egalitarian city. Drawing from theories of co-production, planning politics, democracy and governance, the paper introduces, theorizes and operationalizes the concept of “co-implementation” as the political moment in which egalitarian cities can be jointly shaped by public authorities, co-producers and the civil society. By egalitarian cities, we mean cities governed by a reinvented democratic arrangement that can better realize policy and planning goals in the direction of “housing for all.” To test the political agency of alternative co-producers in their role as plan co-implementers, the paper relies on empirical evidence from HousingNOLA; a 10-year strategy and implementation plan in post-Katrina New Orleans. By critically examining the politics of HousingNOLA during the first 3 years of its implementation (2015–2018), the paper reveals the political conditions and practices that have favored or hampered co-implementation in New Orleans and that have determined progress in realizing an egalitarian city.

Keywords

Planning politics bottom-linked governance co-implementation alternative co-producers “neo” democracy

Introduction

This paper introduces to the debate on co-production in planning theory and practice the concept of co-implementation as key for building egalitarian cities. Our aim is to uncover the role and political agency of non-profit housing actors in democratizing planning processes using insights from theories of co-production, planning politics and democracy as well as empirical evidence from HousingNOLA, a multiyear strategy and implementation plan as well as a multipartner collaborative planning process focusing on how post-Katrina New Orleans can ensure affordable, high quality housing for all residents.

Previous research on the non-profit housing sector has focused on its embeddedness in communities and its development of initiatives that foster and empower the human, social and political capital of its target communities (Bratt, 2006; Gittell and Wilder, 1999; Marshall et al., 2016; Paidakaki et al., 2022; Smith, 2008). In this paper, we study non-profit housing actors as “alternative co-producers,” namely, pro-equity and pro-comaterializing non-profit housing policy implementers (e.g., non-profit real estate developers, community development corporations, faith-based community developers, community land trusts, and sweat-equity-based homebuilders) who mobilize discursive and material practices in their aim to claim their right to socio-politically influence the planning and development of cities (Paidakaki and Moulaert, 2018). More specifically, we examine alternative co-producers in their role as co-implementers, understood as watchdogs of planning and implementation processes with a vision to preserve and produce “housing for all,” and scrutinize their political interactions with decision- and policy-makers and the civil society to catalyze socio-spatial transformations. Our aim is to demonstrate the political roles alternative co-producers play in guiding the development of an egalitarian city in and through the further democratization of planning and implementation processes. Following Paidakaki et al. (2022), we understand an egalitarian city as a city where all neighborhoods are recognized for their unique housing and social needs as well as for their distinct socio-demographic and physical characteristics. In such a city, housing actors (including alternative co-producers), neighborhood communities, and institutional structures (e.g., state agencies, governmental authorities, elected officials, foundations, financial institutions, and faith-based organizations) are jointly responsive to specific community needs.

Although their central role is largely understudied in planning theory, alternative co-producers are important political and institutional actors in co-implementation processes. Firstly, a vast majority of alternative co-producers aim to improve the housing conditions of the most deprived and to advance the existing governance culture that frames the modus operandi of affordable housing provision. Secondly, because of their ethics and practice of inclusivity, alternative co-producers are well positioned in multi-level governance arrangements, interacting concurrently with target populations and institutional structures (Paidakaki et al., 2022). This position allows alternative co-producers to seek empowerment from their grassroots bases and set forward policy changes at inter-organizational negotiation tables. This paper seeks answers to the following questions: Which political conditions and actions exist and emerge in the long-term planning and implementation process that hinder or facilitate co-implementation (namely, the collective translation of housing goals and objectives into real outcomes)? What political tactics, claims and strategies do alternative co-producers use to ensure co-implementation by counteracting “sheered-off” pro-equity plan implementation trajectories? And how does co-implementation contribute to the development and governance of egalitarian cities?

To answer these questions, we mainly rely on theories of co-production, planning politics, democracy and governance. Insights from co-production (Albrechts, 2013; Bovaird, 2007; Joshi and Moore, 2004; Mitlin, 2008; Ostrom, 1996; Watson, 2014) and planning politics (Albrechts, 2020; De Blust and Van Den Broeck, 2019; Gualini, 2001; Healey, 1999; Moulaert, 2005; Servillo and Van Den Broeck, 2012; Van Den Broeck, 2008, 2010, 2011; Van Den Broeck and Verachtert, 2016; Wildavsky, 1973) cast light on the agential features of planners and the power dynamics of the wider political context in planning processes. Democracy theoreticians (Galli, 2011; Swyngedouw, 2009; Swyngedouw and Wilson, 2014) elaborate on the political conditions that hinder or foster democratic urban processes, while theories of socially innovative governance (Moulaert, 2020; Moulaert et al., 2019) analyze how new initiatives create the basis for socio-political transformation by activating and further democratizing bottom-linked governance arrangements. This paper introduces to the debate the concept of co-implementation as key for strengthening the political agency and expanding the meaning and usefulness of co-production in planning theory and practice.

Empirical evidence for this study is drawn from the experiences of the HousingNOLA planning process. In 2014, HousingNOLA was initially managed by the Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance (GNOHA), a housing alliance of mainly alternative co-producers that emerged in 2007 as a small and loose coalition in the aftermath of the 2005 Katrina disaster, and which—over the years—has evolved into a highly professional, institutionalized and influential actor in the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. Since 2015, the HousingNOLA plan has been led by the HousingNOLA partnership, a multipartner alliance with a considerable presence of GNOHA’s members.

To develop a broader and deeper understanding of alternative co-producers as catalytic players in democratizing planning and implementation processes and forming egalitarian cities, we examine the political actions and tactics of GNOHA and HousingNOLA partners in their co-implementation of the HousingNOLA plan. We also study the institutional responses to their political actions and the way in which this interaction has unfolded within multi-level governance tiers and against the backdrop of a dynamic political climate. Short-term ethnographic research for this study was first conducted during the making of the HousingNOLA plan (2014–2015) and focused on GNOHA’s political agency. This research entailed participant observation and note taking in strategic meetings (three of GNOHA’s and four of HousingNOLA’s) as well as in-depth interviews with GNOHA’s president, program manager and program coordinator. Following this initial ethnographic study, research was conducted focusing on the specific political features of GNOHA’s and HousingNOLA’s actions during the early years of co-implementation covering a time span of 3 years (between 2015 and 2018). Communication¹ between GNOHA, the HousingNOLA partnership and their allies in the form of weekly email updates over these years was analyzed and key documents related to the progress of the plan’s co-implementation were assessed (10 Year Strategy and Implementation Plan; HousingNOLA Report Cards, 2016, 2017, 2018). The research was complemented with an in-depth interview with the chair of GNOHA, who later became the Executive Director of the HousingNOLA’s partnership.

Our paper is structured as follows. The section Co-production: Scientific Discourse and Critical Voids in Planning Literature presents a brief overview of the most relevant theoretical insights of co-production in planning processes and highlights their merits and critical voids. The sections Co-production and the Politics of Planning and Theorizing co-Implementation: Insights from Democracy and Governance Theories bring theories of planning politics, democracy and governance in dialogue in order to introduce the concept of co-implementation and its transformative potential in leading to the development of egalitarian cities. The section The Politics of HousingNOLA Plan Co-implementation presents the political climate during the first 3 years of HousingNOLA plan’s co-implementation in New Orleans, and the political actions of GNOHA and HousingNOLA partners and institutional responses therein. The section Political Conditions Hampering or Favoring Co-implementation highlights the political conditions and practices that favored or hampered co-implementation. Finally, the section Conclusions concludes by assessing the feasibility of building egalitarian cities, taking into account the political fermentations that unfold during planning and co-implementation processes.

Co-production: Scientific discourse and critical voids in planning literature

This paper aims for a conceptual/theoretical contribution in the scholarship of planning co-production by focusing on the role of “alternative co-producers” in processes of “co-implementation” aimed at a more “egalitarian city.” Co-implementation, thus, is embedded in the scientific discourse of co-production and aims to shed bolder light on the politics and governance of participatory plan realization (or not) during implementation; a planning dimension that remains underinvestigated.

The notion of co-production is epistemologically rooted in the works of Latour (1990) and Jasanoff (1996) who argued that knowledge cannot be excluded from the social context within which it is constructed. Their work questioned the explicit division between two apparently distinct rationalities: the scientific (expert) and the societal (lay people); positing that scientific knowledge and society are not only interdependent (Latour, 1988), but even “co-produced, each underwriting the other’s existence” (Jasanoff, 2004, p. 17). In the context of these constructivist approaches, the political dimension of science, and thus of knowledge formulation, was often addressed (Jasanoff, 1996, 2004). The “co-production” discourse and practice stressed the critical shift of power from a group of experts (scientists, politicians, decision-makers) to a wider network that actively embodies citizens, local communities and a wide range of societal groups (Latour, 1987, 1990).

The empowerment of communities in the production of knowledge was extensively elaborated upon in debates concerning the delivery of resources and services. In the work of institutional economist Elinor Ostrom, co-production emerged as what was believed to be a politically neutral concept referring to the added value of resource contribution in the joint state-citizens production and delivery of public goods and services (Bovaird, 2007; Joshi and Moore, 2004; Ostrom, 1996). Co-production was conceptualized as an improved service delivery mechanism and as a reactive tool to weaker, conventional forms of state delivery (Mitlin, 2008). In a similar fashion, Bovaird (2007) praised co-production as a process that also creates openings for citizens with diverse and conflictual interests and values to influence policy. As such, he recognized power redistribution as an inevitable outcome of co-production activities, which can only be productive if conflict is effectively treated within governance arrangements (Bovaird, 2007; Watson, 2014). Building on the work of Ostrom, Joshi and Moore (2004) introduced the term “institutionalized co-production” to underscore the need for an uninterrupted provision of goods and services and the importance of formalizing the co-production services. Adding yet a new element in the scientific discourse on co-production, Mitlin (2008) celebrates the political emancipation of citizens and grassroots movements as co-producers. She writes about “co-production led by grassroots movements”: namely, the organized urban poor struggling to consolidate and strengthen their political position for access to resources and services for the satisfaction of their human needs. Mitlin still embeds her scrutiny of co-production within the conventional framework of joint service delivery but treats co-production as a proactive grassroots tool that not only contributes to the betterment of the nature, objectives and functions of the state apparatus but also to the invigoration of citizenship.

Similar political applications of co-production have recently found fertile ground in Planning Studies. Albrechts and Watson have embraced the added value of the political nature of co-production in reframing and practicing spatial planning. Albrechts (2013:56) refers to Moulaert (2000) when arguing that through co-production, “strategic planning no longer obsessively looks inward to targets and procedures, but increasingly looks outward to local neighborhoods to create supportive socio-spatial places, seeking out local energy where it exists to help deliver and broaden policies, actions or projects and seeing citizens for what they can do, not just what they need.” Based on this, he makes a plea for a radical form of strategic planning in which social innovation of citizens and co-production plays a key role. Watson (2014), in a similar manner, argues that co-production in urban planning further radicalizes the traditional forms of progressive planning practices, such as participatory planning or collaborative and communicative planning (see more in Lane, 2005).

This shift in focus has furthered the scientific discussion on co-production and its potential to frame and shape more strategically and democratically planned cities. Several knowledge gaps remain in the planning and co-production scholarship, nonetheless, that urgently need to be addressed, particularly in regard to the proactive role and the heterogeneity of politicized co-producers involved not only in policy implementation and publicly subsidized social service delivery but in the whole planning production and implementation process. First, the discourse on co-production mainly focuses on power distribution between states and citizens. There is little inquiry into power relations and imbalances among heterogeneous co-producers and the interlinked governance arrangements that guarantee “co-production equity,” that is to say an equal treatment of all agents involved in the development and implementation of spatial plans. Second, in planning studies, “citizens” or “communities” are largely treated as homogeneous groups, whereas in reality, a wide range of actors concurrently co- and hetero-develop a city.² Especially in planning practice, co-producers are not only non-profit/non-governmental or grassroots organizations, groups of urban poor or social movements, but also for-profit or even pro-speculation organizations. This heterogeneity is insufficiently discussed in co-production literature. A third aspect that has received little attention is the mediating role of co-producers in the provision of goods and services—specifically in housing and spatial plans—and their unique professional position that allows them to concurrently interact with public authorities/elected officials, local communities and other co-producers to trigger smaller or larger socio-political transformations. Finally, even less attention has been given to the involvement and political activism of co-producers in the materialization of commonly agreed-upon plans.

Given the scope of this paper, we aim to advance the co-production discourse in planning theory and practice by mainly addressing the fourth literature lacuna. That is the all-encompassing aspect of alternative co-producers’ political agency in plan implementation processes, which interrelates to their mediating role and claims for equal treatment in the co-production of goods and services. We specifically give a more prominent place to the concept of co-implementation: namely, the political moment in which alternative co-producers in their role as planners activate their specific knowledge (e.g., on housing production, land and real estate market and policies, local needs, and socio-spatial complexities) and political agency (e.g., advocacy, lobbying, and campaigns) in order to challenge implementation processes that deviate from their original pro-equity socio-spatial vision and, in turn, socio-spatially shape and improve the democratic governance of egalitarian cities.

For this purpose, we bring theories of planning politics into dialogue with theories of democracy and governance, in order to account for the political activism of co-producers involved in planning and development processes. To make our analysis more concrete, we embed the notion of co-production within housing systems and examine the politics of co-implementation through the actions of alternative co-producers involved in planning processes. Inspired by the concept of social resilience cells (Paidakaki and Moulaert, 2017, 2018; Paidakaki and Parra, 2018), we define co-producers in housing systems as housing policy implementers who organize themselves discursively and actively to influence the development profile of a city. Co-producers are divided into two large categories: the hegemonic and the alternative. Hegemonic co-producers are for-profit regional and/or national housing builders who develop large-scale settlements for mixed-income households at strategic locations and who interact with institutional structures to promote their speculative land and housing profits. Under neoliberal governance arrangements, hegemonic co-producers are generally privileged urban actors (Paidakaki et al., 2022). Alternative co-producers are non-profit housing providers who build small-scale housing for mainly low- and middle-income clients in areas with specific societal challenges (underinvestment and gentrification). They aim to advance the conditions of the poorest and most disadvantaged, transform neoliberal institutional structures to pro-poor/anti-speculation public institutions and rearticulate power asymmetries in the housing/real estate sector; in doing so, they may come into conflict or seek consensus with institutional structures (see more in Paidakaki et al., 2022). In our paper, we focus on the growing prominence and influence of alternative co-producers as urban planning stakeholders in ensuring a more universal satisfaction of housing needs across neighborhoods through co-implementation.

Co-production and the politics of planning

In planning theory and practice, the missing dimension of co-production is the political agency of different actors involved in implementation processes. Flinders et al. (2016) have recently attempted to stir up a debate on the politics of co-production, claiming that the shift of power associated with the co-construction of knowledge and policies is followed by a shift of governance roles and governance boundaries, although the normative regime that regulates these boundaries can put the egalitarian potential of co-production at stake. This normative regime, shaped within a wider political climate, legitimizes co-producers’ competences and powers in the whole process of policymaking and implementation. Likewise in planning processes, different episodes are led by distinct constellations of actors (decision- and policy-makers, co-producers, advocates, and community groups), characterized by their unique agendas, goals, strategies and time perspectives, and coordinated under specific power relations (Albrechts, 2020). This negotiative process, within which various actors interact expressing different “driving forces,” is accentuated during various episodes in planning and implementation processes (Healey, 1997, 2003). According to Wildavsky (1973), during implementation, plans are adapted to socio-political changes that often follow the development and legitimization process, creating space for various co-producers to invigorate their political agency and materialize their claims. Van den Broeck (2010, 2011; Van den Broeck and Servillo, 2012, De Blust and Van den Broeck, 2019) furthers this by arguing that planning actors enter various episodes of dialectical actor-institutional dynamics beyond (stages of) plan-making and implementation. Hence, implementation manifests itself as a politically loaded process that is driven by various actors—including co-producers—with (a)symmetric power relations that are determined by a dynamically changing and multi-tier political climate and by the subsequent distribution of governance roles within urban systems. As stressed by Albrechts (2020), there is a renewed call in recent planning literature (Grooms and Boamah, 2018; Karki, 2017) for planners to play an active role in politics in order to steer the real implementation of their plans and the realization of their visions. As a consequence, planning theorists and practitioners need to know more about the actions and the political capacity of planners and co-producers when they interact with elected officials affecting the plan implementation process, and about how this interaction can have a serious impact on political decisions.

“Co-implementation” can be coined as a new concept that explains in depth the political interrelations that affect (the levels of) materialization of planning actions. So far, only few policy studies refer to the notion of co-implementation, approaching it as a collaborative practice that complements a series of other cooperative actions (co-design, co-create, co-delivering, and co-assessing) (Brand and Peters, 2019; Elliott and Salamon, 2002; Hill and Hupe, 2002; Hood, 2007; Peters and Van Nispen, 1998). The theorization of co-implementation—especially its political dimensions—is, however, entirely absent in the scientific literature and discourse. Here, it is argued that co-implementation is not a mere phase within planning processes, but it is the dimension stressing the political agency of co-production. Co-implementation is understood as a political instrument—operating both as a process and a goal—for societal and spatial transformation. As such, it serves as a bridge between planning studies approaching co-production “as a process” that strengthens democratic principles for the empowerment of planners and co-producers, and those that highlight it as a “goal” to collectively achieve determined planning objectives (Moser, 1983). Deeper knowledge and empirical evidence are needed on the dynamic governance fermentations and political tactics of co-producers that cause continuities and/or discontinuities in planning and implementation on the ground. In the following sections, we further unpack and analyze the transformative potential of co-implementation by enriching the concept with insights from theories of democracy and governance.

Theorizing co-implementation: Insights from democracy and governance theories

Centering “the political” is a necessary condition for tackling questions of planning and implementation, “co-production equity” and the creation of egalitarian cities, especially in Europe and the USA where post-political governance arrangements in cities are largely in place (Swyngedouw, 2009). Post-politics refer to urban development processes governed by closed-shop commissions informed by consensus around the inevitability of neoliberal capitalism (Paidakaki et al., 2022). As a result, post-political arrangements tend to privilege hegemonic co-producers who plan and develop cities for medium-to-high income populations in areas with revenue-generating capacities (Paidakaki et al., 2022). How can this post-political governance and its highly uneven socio-spatial consequences be rectified? How can we move away from such arrangements and toward ones where pluralism of co-producers and developmental propositions become the starting point of politics (debate, disagreement, and dissensus) guiding the planning and development of cities? (Swyngedouw, 2009; Swyngedouw and Wilson, 2014).

Post-political arrangements temporarily foster exclusive co-implementation processes led by hegemonic co-producers and their allies. However, such arrangements can be overthrown and replaced by “neo-political” governance structures that offer an institutional setting not only for powerful pro-growth urban coalitions to shape and reshape the trajectories of urban planning and development processes but for alternative co-producers and their allies as well. Political struggles of alternative co-producers are or can be instrumental in leading urban processes and the construction of new and emancipatory urbanities (Moulaert et al., 2007; Paidakaki and Moulaert, 2018; Swyngedouw, 2009). Alternative co-producers claim their right to equity in co-implementation basing their political actions on the unconditional premise for justice and emancipation. Emancipated and equally treated co-producers do not only express demands to the elites to rectify injustices and inequalities (Swyngedouw, 2009), but at the same time solidify the unconditionality of equality and liberty in the governance of cities and their planning processes. A real politicization occurs when alternative co-producers, underprivileged in neoliberal and post-political arrangements, (re)democratize planning and implementation processes, improve the overall governance of cities and affect development trajectories in the direction of egalitarian cites. Alternative co-producers are, hence, essential in the production of properly democratic cities. Furthermore, democratic politics are always socially and spatially disruptive and transformative. What exactly does this disruption and transformation translate into?

Democracy in post-political governance structures is not political anymore but consensual and bureaucratic (Galli, 2011). By limiting itself to a neutralized institutional setting—namely, focused on the regulation of relations between individuals, groups and interests using law for certain purposes (e.g., growth, economic prosperity, and social cohesion)—democracy loses its internal and vital social dialectic. As a result, the post-political nature of democracy does not unfold all its aspects and possibilities (Galli, 2011). A “neo-political” democracy would be one that is formed through the reactivation of political dialectics through conflict and effective institutional structures; it would be the result of an attempt to deconstruct and liberate differentiation of the political field (Galli, 2011). This “new” democracy can only be enacted through the performance of real politics between decision-makers and social and economic actors—including alternative co-producers—and the interactive formation of bottom-linked governance through co-construction (analysis, co-learning, and negotiation) and confrontation (protest and conflict) (Galli, 2011; Moulaert et al., 2019). In socially innovative governance scholarship, bottom-linked governance is understood as “new forms of democratic governance collaboratively built between socially innovative initiatives and activists, their scalarly dynamic networks and state institutions and agencies” (Moulaert et al., 2019:64). It is considered to be an essential element in the process of necessary socio-political transformation from a post-political democracy to a neo-political one, where leadership is shared and not meant to serve mostly growth interests and where multi-vocality and diversity are respected and dealt with and immunity to inequality reinforcing power games is built up (Moulaert, 2020; Moulaert et al., 2019).

Drawing from theories of post-politics, democracy and governance we understand co-implementation as a collective, equity-based, politically active and socially transformative planning process that holds the potential to maintain pro-equity plan implementation trajectories as well as mold and further democratize bottom-linked governance arrangements that lead to the development of egalitarian cities. Spatial planning, especially housing planning and its proper design and co-implementation, is (or can be) a powerful tool for alternative co-producers to envision and implement more equitable cities. By activating their agency during planning and implementation processes, these co-producers can constantly challenge dysfunctionalities in the governance of housing systems (i.e., hierarchical or paternalistic modes of governance favoring managerial efficiency and exclusive arenas of decision and policymaking) and shape (re)development plans that nurture a wider range of housing options and take into consideration the different needs and assets of neighborhoods.

The next section reports on our research on HousingNOLA in post-Katrina New Orleans. We focus on the first years of the plan’s co-implementation (2015–2018) in order to identify and analyze the social-political conditions and actions that have favored or hampered the HousingNOLA plan implementation and determine the impact this has had on facilitating a “smooth” transition toward an egalitarian city.

The politics of HousingNOLA plan co-implementation

The lack of an official policy on housing in New Orleans during the late post-Katrina years triggered a planning process aimed at producing a housing plan for the city. The HousingNOLA plan emerged as an idea in 2014, when the Foundation for Louisiana, in dialogue with GNOHA—a highly professional, institutionalized and influential urban alliance of predominantly alternative co-producers since the later years of the post-Katrina recovery—discovered the evident lack of an official housing policy in the city. As a result, the Foundation mandated GNOHA through their program entitled the “Together Initiative” to facilitate and later incubate a 10-year multipartner collaborative planning process. Since 2015, HousingNOLA has grown into a collaborative partnership led by GNOHA leadership and with members from a wide range of industry sectors (including non-profit and for-profit housing developers, public administration, academia, banks, foundations, neighborhood associations, civil right movements, and green energy advocates) with the aim to co-implement a community-led housing plan focusing on how New Orleans could ensure affordable, high quality housing for all residents over the course of 10 years (2015–2025). The rationale behind this collaborative process was to redirect earlier market-led recovery planning processes that had led to a fragmented and spontaneous post-Katrina rebuilding outcome (Paidakaki and Moulaert, 2018) and facilitate a planning process that treats all neighborhoods in an equity-based way and harvests insights from a wider network of actors (residents, community leaders, and public and private organizations).

“The questions we have to address in the HousingNOLA process are: What are our numbers? What are our needs? How many units of affordable housing do we have, and how many do we need? People are afraid of that conversation I think, because if anyone wants to talk about it then we’re obligated to do it…” (Andreanecia Morris, 2015; personal communication).

The HousingNOLA process is divided into two main phases: the joint development of a housing plan (2014–2015) and the implementation of this plan (2015–2025). During the first phase, a wide range of organizations and institutions interacted with each other and shared insights (non-profit and for-profit developers, public officials, financial institutions, philanthropic bodies, and academics). These met in various forums (in the Leadership Board, working groups, and community tables) with the aim of producing a housing plan.³ In 2015, exactly 10 years after Katrina, HousingNOLA released its 10 Year Strategy and Implementation Plan. With yearly updates until 2025, the 10 Year Strategy and Implementation Plan has since become GNOHA’s most crucial advocacy instrument.

The following sections study GNOHA and HousingNOLA partnership in their role as plan co-implementers by shedding light on their political practices, strategies, and tactics toward other key co-implementers (or facilitators of implementation), such as city and State elected officials and public authorities, State legislators, and political candidates to put pressure in order to ensure a smooth co-implementation of the housing plan. Particular focus is given to the political climate and institutional settings (nature and evolution) in which the implementation of the plan unfolded in the early years of the co-implementation process. How were GNOHA and HousingNOLA partners politically activated to ensure that the plan would not become a dormant document trapped under a pile of government papers, but instead that its objectives would be implemented? What was the nature of the political climate and institutional settings in which the plan unfolded? To what extent did GNOHA’s and the HousingNOLA partners’ political activity and institutional responses favor or hamper co-implementation? This empirical section seeks answers to these questions.

Toward inclusionary zoning

Political climate

In the first year of the HousingNOLA plan, co-implementation was charged with enthusiasm in the city’s elected officials. Already in December 2015, Council member Brossett introduced Affordable Housing Impact Legislation, the first action item under the HousingNOLA implementation plan. The legislation required all draft ordinances, zoning or land-use applications to include an Affordable Housing Impact Statement, namely, an instrument to assess the potential impact of housing construction on municipalities’ affordable housing stock (City Planning Commission, 2016). In June 2016, Mayor Landrieu pledged to add (build or preserve) another 2500 units of affordable housing over the next 5 years, increasing the commitment of the city and state agencies to 7500. He committed to work with the HousingNOLA partnership and the City Council to create more inclusive zoning laws—laws allowing developers to build denser residential developments in exchange of a portion housing units for lower income people—and leveraging city-owned properties for affordable development, among other strategies (Office of the Mayor, 2015). As an annex to HousingNOLA, the mayor’s office issued a 23-page report Housing for a Resilient New Orleans that provided more details on the mayor’s housing strategy. The Landrieu administration planned to spend $17.3 million in 2016 on affordable housing and to dedicate $10 million annually for subsequent years. This would leave about $7 million per year to reach the annual goal. In August 2016, the City Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a study on affordable housing impact statements (AHIS) to the City Council for review.

GNOHA and HousingNOLA’s political actions

Despite the favorable political climate, GNOHA and HousingNOLA partners still had to take action to ensure a smooth plan implementation. They objected, for instance, to the mayor and the council’s decision regarding an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that would effectively ban multifamily developments in historic districts. They participated in public hearings of the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the Louisiana Housing Corporation and engaged with various housing institutions to promote HousingNOLA’s policy recommendations. They also took part in budget hearings to make sure that affordable housing was prominent on the agenda. They advocated in favor of the adoption of an Affordable Housing Impact Statement, which would also be required for land-use applications where developers needed city incentives to include affordable housing units in their projects (e.g., density bonus). GNOHA and their partners also made comments and suggested amendments to articles in the Master Plan that disallowed or restricted the implementation of the HousingNOLA plan.

At the end of the first co-implementation year, in September 2016, the HousingNOLA partners released a Report Card. In this document, they evaluated the city’s progress in implementing the plan and held themselves and the city accountable for addressing the diverse housing needs of New Orleanians. In this report, HousingNOLA partners gave the city an overall grade “B”: The number of 1439 affordable homes was lower than those actually needed, but it almost met the commitment made by the mayor, demonstrating that the city and state agencies were capable of working together. The grade was considered a positive evaluation of the steps taken by city officials to reduce housing costs for New Orleanians.

State preemption meets housing advocacy

Political climate

In the second year of the HousingNOLA plan, co-implementation continued to unfold within a favorable political environment at the city level. The elected officials grew responsive to an important component of the HousingNOLA plan, which was the review of the feasibility of Inclusionary Housing programs and the City’s existing Density Bonus, an incentive-based instrument for inclusionary housing programs. In October 2016, the City Council adopted a motion to develop a smart housing mix that leveraged market rate development activity to build and preserve lower-priced housing. The City Council directed the City Planning Commission (CPC) to study the issue more in depth. In February 2017, the CPC approved a study that recommended that 12% of units in multifamily developments be rented or sold below market rate, a policy applicable to the city’s most in-demand neighborhoods (Mid-City, Marigny, Lakeview). The study was a first step toward drafting an ordinance.

The political ambience at the State level was less auspicious. Plan implementation stumbled upon state preemption of local laws,⁴ an aggressive tool of conservative States against progressive cities to usurp local authority. The State preemption was used to eliminate the discussion on policy recommendations in the HousingNOLA Smart Housing Mix Study (Andreanecia Morris, 2018; personal communication). Advocated by the homebuilders’ association and drafted by a State Senator whose district includes part of the wealthiest district Uptown in New Orleans, a law (Senate Bill 162) was approved by the Louisiana State that would ban local governments from implementing affordable housing mandates under inclusionary zoning. However, in May 2017, the House Commerce Committee voted marginally against the Bill.

GNOHA and HousingNOLA’s political actions

Unsurprisingly, the new focus of HousingNOLA partners became that of overcoming barriers to housing production created by State legislature. To this end, HousingNOLA activists were constantly present at the State Legislature not only to oppose Senate Bill 162, but also to promote the merits of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, especially in times of shrinking federal housing programs and funds. At the local level, housing advocates faced the challenge of having their plan uninterruptedly implemented in periods of local elections. GNOHA used the political momentum to challenge candidates on housing issues by seeking support from a larger base. Through their new platform #PutHousingFirst, the advocates sought and secured the commitment of thousands of registered voters to support the implementation of the HousingNOLA plan. The openness to a larger base was a strategic move.⁵

At the end of the second year of co-implementation, the HousingNOLA advocates gave the City a grade “C” in their 2017 Annual Report Card. The drop-in grade reflected the limited housing development productivity (488 new affordable housing opportunities) as well as the failure to address critical issues (such as the implementation of recommended changes to the Master Plan).

Activating newly elected city authorities

Political climate

In the third year of the HousingNOLA plan, co-implementation was fraught with an increasingly challenging political climate. Following up on Senate Bill 162 but with a change of wording from “inclusionary zoning” to “voluntary incentive policies,” a new State law (Senate Bill 464) sought to forbid municipal and parish governments in Louisiana from requiring developers to include a specific number of low-income units for receiving building permits. After strong advocacy efforts from the HousingNOLA partners and other affordable housing advocates and allies across the State, Governor Edwards vetoed the state preemption Bill. Nonetheless, the City of New Orleans slowed down implementation efforts of mandatory inclusionary zoning.

GNOHA and HousingNOLA’s political actions

State preemption remained a “battlefield” for housing advocates during the third year of implementation. The housing advocates rallied against the new legislation by reactivating their campaign #PutHousingFirst and interacting with their political representatives. Andreanecia Morris explains: “… last year they tried to stop us from doing inclusionary zoning. And we won, but it came back again this year. One of the irritating things is we spend most of our time in stopping them from stopping us. And then we failed to implement our own policy” (2018 personal communication). To strengthen their persuasive capacity at the Louisiana level, and in anticipation of future action items of the HousingNOLA plan that were state-dependent, the organization supported the launch of HousingLOUISIANA, a statewide network of regional housing alliances (Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Lafayette, Shreveport, North Shore, Lake Charles, Monroe, and Houma/Thibodaux) that address housing affordability at the local level. As Morris eloquently argues: “What’s next? The travel is so we can take the message out. Just like we need Lafayette and Lake Charles and the North Shore saying Housing First, and we need it across the country, and we need it across the world. This is how New Orleans can stay on track… From Housing Louisiana to Housing America to Housing World/Earth!” (Andreanecia Morris, 2018; personal communication).

In spite of the meritorious efforts of GNOHA and HousingNOLA advocates to prevent the Louisiana State from interrupting plan implementation, the 2017 city elections and the transition period to the newly elected city administration stalled it. To ensure that the HousingNOLA plan outlive elected officials, the housing advocates took a series of steps to remind the newly elected city administration of their responsibility to co-implement the plan (Put Housing First) and satisfy the housing needs of all New Orleanians in a timely manner. One important action was the release of a semi-annual report showing the low figures of affordable housing development activity (with a prediction for 750 new houses being built, whereas 2500 had been committed and 7750 were needed by the end of September 2018). A second important action was the promotion of a set of priorities to be adopted by the newly elected administration by the end of 2018. These included: the adoption and implementation of the Smart Housing Mix Ordinance and necessary changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) as required by the Master Plan Amendments and the HousingNOLA 10 Year Plan; increased housing production and available resources; and a stronger Housing Trust Fund to meet production goals. A third action was to retain a lively public discourse and feed the interest of citizens on housing issues. This was achieved by launching a “neighborhood housing plan pilot program” with the goal to further encourage local community development and help residents better understand the state of housing in New Orleans.

Due to the overall unsatisfactory progress in meeting the housing objectives of the HousingNOLA plan—in terms of volume as well as inclusion of recommendations in local policies—the overall efforts earned a grade “D” in the Third Report Card.

With increasingly worsening grades as co-implementation years unfolded, important questions have emerged about the limits of the current governance arrangements dealing with the challenging endeavor of real co-implementation. Why a collectively researched and produced housing plan, like that of HousingNOLA, could not move forward and be co-implemented? The following section provides a synthesis of the political conditions and practices that have favored or hampered co-implementation in New Orleans, and critically examines the potential possibilities and constraints for materializing the ambition of shaping egalitarian cities.

Political conditions hampering or favoring co-implementation

Τhe realization of planning goals and objectives into real-life outcomes appears to be highly contingent upon the (evolving) nature of a multi-level political climate, institutional setting, and political agency. Reflecting on the case of the HousingNOLA plan co-implementation, we have detected specific political conditions and practices that favored or hampered co-implementation, and in turn impacted the realization of producing an egalitarian New Orleans.

Political conditions hampering co-implementation

The first political condition hampering co-implementation is state preemption. State preemption appears as a negative and aggressive political tool that limits cities’ autonomies and confines their capacity to control and organize egalitarian urban development processes. Another important condition is the counter-advocacy efforts by opposing forces. Implementation deviates from initial planning goals when hegemonic housing actors propose counterproductive legislature that is driven by market-based solutions (regardless of whether these solutions are equitable or impactful on the poor or middle classes). A third condition hampering co-implementation is associated with the radically reduced public (federal) funding for subsidized affordable housing causing difficulties in access to resources and the semi-implementation of local plans. Lastly, the empirical research reveals that temporal inconsistencies of political support result in a lack of specific strategies and ideas for fostering a productive institutional framework in which affordable housing can be provided. Elected officials’ lack of constant interest in affordable housing translates into pre-election promises of policies that become dormant and delegitimized unless they are constantly being challenged by housing advocates.

Political conditions favoring co-implementation

The first political condition that favors co-implementation is the constant (political) presence of informed and networked alternative co-producers who interact with elected officials and civil society in various arenas and contribute to the multi-level formulation of strategies and co-implementation practices. Another major condition favoring co-implementation is the establishment of housing alliances and planning initiatives at larger scales. A proliferation of housing alliances is deemed necessary, especially for actions in urban housing plans that depend on higher tiers of administration, in order for plans to be turned into real-life outcomes at the city level. A third condition is the capacity of alternative co-producers and their alliances to remain connected to larger community networks and to their broader base in order to ensure well-founded and persuasive advocacy processes. Lastly, co-implementation is fostered when alternative co-producers are mindful of the temporality and fragmentation of political support and, hence, take actions to have co-implementation outlive administrations.

Above all, the experience of HousingNOLA reveals that the political activism of alternative co-producers appears as a response to the temporal and fragmented political support of elected officials for the poorest and the disadvantaged, especially when the implementation of plans deviates from their original pro-equity socio-spatial vision.

Conclusions

This paper sought answers to the following questions: Which political conditions and actions exist and emerge in the long-term planning and implementation process that hinder or facilitate co-implementation? What political tactics, claims and strategies do alternative co-producers use to ensure co-implementation by counteracting “sheered-off” pro-equity plan implementation trajectories? And how does co-implementation contribute to the development and governance of egalitarian cities? Bridging theories of co-production, planning politics and democracy, the main conceptual/theoretical contribution of our paper was the introduction and definition of the concept of “co-implementation” in planning theory and practice; a planning dimension that can play a catalytic role in democratizing urban governance and shaping more egalitarian urban development but which, thus far, remained insufficiently scrutinized. Empirically, this paper contributed to the analysis of co-implementation by using evidence from HousingNOLA, a multiyear implementation plan in post-Katrina New Orleans aiming to ensure affordable, high quality housing for all residents.

Our research on HousingNOLA shows that the vision of building an egalitarian city is constantly jeopardized and only partially materialized because of interrupted and disrupted planning and implementation processes. Specific goals and actions oriented toward the satisfaction of housing needs will not produce expected outcomes when met with temporalities of political support, power imbalances across administration scales, austerity-inspired housing policies and the powerful influence of pro-growth urban actors. The vision of making an egalitarian city, however, is still visible on the horizon when alternative co-producers become watchdogs of planning and implementation, and use these processes as an instrument to politically empower themselves in the city and in regional arenas, to rectify persisting neoliberal policies and manifest new aspects of democratic governance that can guide more fair urban redevelopment outcomes.

As the case of New Orleans exemplifies, politically savvy and well-organized alternative co-producers can respond to—and hopefully overcome—multiple administrative and political rigidities by scaling out their political actions and reinforcing their political voice in and through the support of ordinary city residents. This has resulted in the formation of a “neo-political” governance arrangement of New Orleans, namely, a bottom-linked governance arrangement through which alternative co-producers are liberated—also through the support of a larger base—to challenge institutional structures and institutional fallacies and start molding a more favorable multi-level and ideologically varied political climate that can better allow an uninterrupted and undisrupted plan co-implementation. HousingNOLA, hence, confirms the political nature of co-implementation and provides inspiration for alternative co-producers and their alliances across the world to politically activate themselves in planning processes and in doing so democratize urban processes at large.

As the conditions favoring co-implementation reveal (i.e., the constant presence of politically active co-producers in state arenas, the proliferation of housing alliances across territories, and the connection of co-producers to constituencies), co-implementation informed by a “neo-political” and “neo-democratic” bottom-linked governance emerges as a necessary pre-condition for building egalitarian cities. GNOHA and HousingNOLA partners, in their role as alternative co-producers and emancipated and leading plan co-implementers, saw the value of HousingNOLA plan implementation and used it as a political instrument i) to increase their visibility and influential capacity in housing governance arenas and ii) to steer uninterrupted pro-equity redevelopment trajectories as designed through debate, disagreement, and dissensus with powerful co-implementers (public authorities and governmental agencies).

However, the undesired socio-spatial effects that were showcased by the low performance of the HousingNOLA plan co-implementation provide evidence of a co-implementation process that has not yet reached its societal ambition of building an egalitarian city. This calls attention to another very crucial parameter in building the egalitarian city: that of identifying which form of capitalism (or political economy paradigm) and state need to be in symbiosis with co-implementation in order to reach the ideal of the egalitarian city. Alternative co-producers are, hence, expected to widen their political claims, level up their political ambition, and build up a larger political base during co-implementation processes while keeping an eye toward promoting and shaping a radicalized “neowelfare” state. This yet-to-be-developed state could become an optimal hosting environment for co-implementation when deep public subsidies are distributed across co-producers, neighborhoods, and social groups in an equity-based manner; and when a wider range of substantially financed housing possibilities for the heterogeneous neighborhoods of the cities is publicly deliberated and offered. Future research on the state-finance-planning nexus will shed more light on co-implementation and its full political potential in shaping egalitarian cities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. The authors would also like to extend their gratitude to Prof. Emer. Frank Moulaert for his inspiring advice and suggestions and to Ms. Andreanecia Morris who graciously agreed to participate in this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen (FWO) under Grants [number 83682 and number 11F3513N].

Notes

Angeliki Paidakaki is an urban and housing researcher with an expertise in egalitarian urban (re)development, governance innovations and affordable housing in (post-)crisis times. Since 2018, she has been a postdoctoral researcher at KU Leuven, where her 2017 PhD dissertation on the post-Katrina recovery of New Orleans was awarded the University’s highest distinction. Her research focuses on the social and political agency of non-profit housing actors to better realize their housing-for-all vision and shape more egalitarian post-crisis cities. In 2020, she was awarded the Fulbright-Schuman grant to conduct research on the politics of housing alliances in the USA. Her project is hosted by the University of Illinois at Chicago in the academic year 2021–2022 and is co-sponsored by KU Leuven.

Xenia Katsigianni is a postdoctoral researcher and a member of Planning and Development Research Group in the Department of Architecture at KU Leuven. Initially trained as an architect engineer, she received her PhD degree in Geography and Spatial Planning in Greece, further holding a master degree in Environment and Bioclimatic Architecture acquired in Spain (UPM), and a Postgraduate Diploma in Spatial Development Planning (KUL). Katsigiannis research experience focuses on the fields of spatial planning, land policy, risk governance, disaster management, insular development and commons. She has more than 10 years of work experience as a freelance architect and 9 years of teaching experience at Harokopio University of Athens (courses: Urban and Regional Planning, Land Policy, Safe Cities, Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction Planning).

Pieter Van den Broeck is professor of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development in the Department of Architecture at KU Leuven. He has 25 years of experience in the field of spatial development analysis and planning, in research and practice. From a critical institutionalist perspective and a methodological interest in transdisciplinary action research, he engages in research on planning instruments, social innovation and territorial development, governance of socio-ecological systems, and land policies and commons. Ongoing projects cover themes such as land access and the rebuilding of the commons, post-disaster recovery, sustainable rural development, participation and planning, long-term change, and urban regeneration. Pieter coordinates the 30 ECTS intensive programme “European/International Module of Spatial Development Planning (EMSDP/IMSDP).”

References

Albrechts

(2013) Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory 12(1): 46–63.

Albrechts

(2020) From the limits of planning to political engagement. In: Albrecht

(ed), From the Limits of Planning to Political Engagement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 259–276.Planners in Politics

Bovaird

(2007) beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–860.

Brand

Peters

(2019) Co-implementation Guidelines (Report D3.1.) Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods Research and Implementation Support in Europe (SUNRISE). Version 1.0. https://civitas-sunrise.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SUNRISE_D3.1_Co-implementation-Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2022).

Bratt

(2006) Community development corporations: Challenges in supporting a right to housing. In: Bratt

Stone

Hartman

(eds), A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda. Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Temple University Press, pp. 340–359.

City Planning Commission (2016) Affordable Housing Impact Statement Study. https://www.nola.gov/city-planning/major-studies-and-projects/affordable-housing-impact-statement-study/affordable-housing-impact-statement-study/ (accessed on 02 July 2021).

De Blust

Van den Broeck

(2019) From social innovation to spatial development analysis and planning. In: Van den Broeck

Mehmood

Paidakaki

, et al. (eds), From Social Innovation to Spatial Development Analysis and Planning. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 100–105.

Elliott

Salamon

(2002) The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Flinders

Wood

Cunningham

(2016) The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 12(2): 261–279.

10.

Galli

(2011) Il Disagio Della Democrazia. Turin, Italy: Giulio Einaudi Editore.

11.

Gittell

Wilder

(1999) Community development corporations: Critical factors that influence success. Journal of Urban Affairs 21(3): 341–361.

12.

Grooms

Frimpong Boamah

(2018) Toward a political urban planning: learning from growth machine and advocacy planning to “plannitize” urban politics. Planning Theory 17(2): 213–233.

13.

Gualini

(2001) Planning and the Intelligence of Institutions: Interactive Approaches to Territorial Policy-Making between Institutional Design and Institution-Building. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

14.

Healey

(1997) Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan International Higher Education. Hampshire, England: Macmillan Press. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2

15.

Healey

(1999) Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning, and Shaping Places. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(2): 111–121.

16.

Healey

(2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory 2(2): 101–123.

17.

Hill

Hupe

(2002) Implementing Public Policy. London, UK: Sage.

18.

Hood

(2007) Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance 20(1): 127–144.

19.

HousingNOLA (2015). HousingNOLA 10-Year Strategy and Implementation Plan. http://flux.modiphy.com/files/view/14208 (accessed on 22 March 2018).

20.

HousingNOLA (2016). HousingNOLA 2016 Annual Report Card. http://flux.modiphy.com/files/view/14862 (accessed on 09 December 2018).

21.

HousingNOLA (2017). HousingNOLA 2017 Annual Report Card. https://fluxconsole.com/files/item/87/20284/HousingNola2017ReportCard.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2018).

22.

HousingNOLA (2018). HousingNOLA 2018 Annual Report Card. https://fluxconsole.com/files/item/87/38041/2018HousingNOLAReportCard.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2018).

23.

Jasanoff

(1996) Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science 26(2): 393–418.

24.

Jasanoff

(2004). In: Jasanoff

(ed), Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In: States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 13–45.

25.

Joshi

Moore

(2004) Institutionalised co-production: unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. Journal of Development Studies 40(4): 31–49.

26.

Karki

(2017) Should planners join politics? Would that help them make better cities? Planning Theory 16(2): 186–202.

27.

Lane

(2005) Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. Australian geographer, 36(3): 283–299.

28.

Latour

(1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.

29.

Latour

(1988) The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.

30.

Latour

(1990) Postmodern? no, simply amodern! steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21(1): 145–171.

31.

Marshall

Rowberry

Esnard

(2016) Core capabilities and capacities of developer non-profits in postdisaster community rebuilding. Natural Hazards Review. 18(2). 1–10.

32.

Mitlin

(2008) With and beyond the state - co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization 20(2): 339–360.

33.

Moser

(ed.), (1983). Evaluating community participation in urban development projects. London, UK: Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, Development Planning Unit.

34.

Moulaert

(2000) Globalization and Integrated Area Development in European Cities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

35.

Moulaert

(2005) Institutional Economics and Planning Theory: A Partnership between Ostriches? Planning Theory 4(1): 21–32.

36.

Moulaert

(2020) How to Rebuild Solidarity in a Market Society - and what Are the Challenges for Socially-Innovative Governance and Political Leaders? Lisbon: Portugal, pp. 30–31.

37.

Moulaert

MacCallum

Van den Broeck

, et al. (2019) Bottom-linked governance and socially innovative political transformation. In: Howaldt

Kaletka

Schröder

, et al. (eds), Atlas of social innovation. Second volume: A world of new practices. Munich, Germany: Oekom Verlag, pp. 62–65.

38.

Moulaert

Martinelli

González

, et al. (2007) Introduction: social innovation and governance in european cities. European Urban and Regional Studies 14(3): 195–209.

39.

Office of the Mayor (2015) Mayor Landrieu Signs Ordinance to Promote Development of More Affordable Housing in New Orleans. New Orleans: City of New Orleans. https://nola.gov/mayor/news/archive/2015/20150909-housingordinance/ (accessed on 02 July 2021).

40.

Ostrom

(1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development 24(6): 1073–1087.

41.

Paidakaki

Moulaert

(2017) Does the post-disaster resilient city really exist? International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 8(3): 275–291.

42.

Paidakaki

Moulaert

(2018) Disaster resilience into which direction(s)? Competing discursive and material practices in post-Katrina New Orleans. Housing, Theory and Society 35(4): 432–454.

43.

Paidakaki

Parra

(2018) “Housing for all” at the era of financialization; can (post-disaster) cities become truly socially resilient and egalitarian? Local Environment 23(10): 1023–1040.

44.

Paidakaki

Moulaert

Leinfelder

, et al. (2022) Can pro-equity hybrid governance shape an egalitarian city? Lessons from post-Katrina New Orleans. Territory, Politics, Governance. 10(2): 277–295.

45.

Peters

Van Nispen

(eds), (1998) Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.

46.

Servillo

Van den Broeck

(2012) The social construction of planning systems: a strategic-relational institutionalist approach. Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 41–61.

47.

Smith

(2008) The challenge of strengthening non-profits and civil society. Public Administration Review 68(1): 132–145.

48.

Swyngedouw

(2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3): 601–620.

49.

Swyngedouw

Wilson

(2014) There Is No Alternative. In: Wilson

(ed), The Post-political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 299–312.

50.

Van den Broeck

(2008) The changing position of strategic spatial planning in flanders. a socio-political and instrument-based perspective. International Planning Studies 13(3): 261–283.

51.

Van den Broeck

(2010) De sociale constructie van plannings- en projectinstrumenten. Onderzoek naar de socio-technische dynamiek in het `Eerste Kwartier' in Antwerpen (transl.: The social construction of instruments for planning and development. Analysis of the socio-technical dynamics in the 'First Quarter' in Antwerp). Unpublished PhD Thesis, Leuven, Belgium, K.U. Leuven.

52.

Van den Broeck

(2011). Analysing Social Innovation through Planning Instruments: A Strategic-Relational Approach. In: Oosterlynck

Van den Broeck

Albrechts

, et al (eds), Strategic projects, catalysts for change. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 52–78.

53.

Van den Broeck

Verachtert

(2016) Whose permits? The tenacity of permissive development control in Flanders. European Planning Studies 24(2): 387–406.

54.

Watson

(2014) Co-production and collaboration in planning - The difference. Planning Theory & Practice 15(1): 62–76.

55.

Wildavsky

(1973) If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences 4(2): 127–153.