TY - JOUR
T1 - “Urban interventionism” in welfare and planning
T2 - National typologies and “local cultures” in Europe
AU - Carpenter, Juliet
AU - Pereira, Patrícia
AU - Dlabac, Oliver
AU - Zwicky, Roman
N1 - UIDB/04647/2020
UIDP/04647/2020
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Comparative research on welfare and planning has traditionally been based on broadly defined typologies of national welfare state and planning systems, thereby neglecting the role of local “cultures” that help sustain and redevelop underlying institutions and practices. Drawing on a European-wide survey of city mayors, we explore how well the established typologies are reproduced in local welfare and planning cultures, as reflected in mayoral attitudes, and whether there are systematic variations of welfare and planning cultures even within the same country. The findings suggest that nationally based categories of welfare regimes and planning systems do not necessarily correspond with mayors’ preferences for “urban intervention” in service delivery, housing provision, or planning. Local specificities, including permeability to the influence of European institutions and policies, may in fact have a significant impact on mayors’ attitudes in these fields, possibly creating new local understandings as well as pressures for reforming national welfare and planning systems. These conclusions strengthen the argument that “local cultures” are presenting a challenge to national typologies of planning and welfare, and are important elements to take into account when exploring the evolution of urban policies at the local level.
AB - Comparative research on welfare and planning has traditionally been based on broadly defined typologies of national welfare state and planning systems, thereby neglecting the role of local “cultures” that help sustain and redevelop underlying institutions and practices. Drawing on a European-wide survey of city mayors, we explore how well the established typologies are reproduced in local welfare and planning cultures, as reflected in mayoral attitudes, and whether there are systematic variations of welfare and planning cultures even within the same country. The findings suggest that nationally based categories of welfare regimes and planning systems do not necessarily correspond with mayors’ preferences for “urban intervention” in service delivery, housing provision, or planning. Local specificities, including permeability to the influence of European institutions and policies, may in fact have a significant impact on mayors’ attitudes in these fields, possibly creating new local understandings as well as pressures for reforming national welfare and planning systems. These conclusions strengthen the argument that “local cultures” are presenting a challenge to national typologies of planning and welfare, and are important elements to take into account when exploring the evolution of urban policies at the local level.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087565699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000549636600001
U2 - 10.1080/07352166.2020.1770604
DO - 10.1080/07352166.2020.1770604
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85087565699
VL - 44
SP - 1019
EP - 1038
JO - Journal of Urban Affairs
JF - Journal of Urban Affairs
SN - 0735-2166
IS - 7
ER -