COURSE SYLLABUS Subject: Lecturer: Urban Development Theories Jan Fransen (IHS EUR), Dritan Shutina (POLIS) Lectures Exercises Discussions Total in class hours Assignment Credits 7 hours 7 hours 4 hours 18 hours Submit Final paper 3 ECTS 1. General Course Description This course analyses the way that the economy and actors shape cities. The economy has a huge impact on urban development. Cities compete locally and internationally to attract investors and skilled manpower. Global cities have developed as the homes of multinational companies and are connected in intercontinental, national and local networks. They want to be and remain attractive for multinationals and the higher educated and hence invest heavily in inner city revitalisation, culture and (more recently) in a cleaner environment. Yet other cities are less connected to global markets and tend to lag behind. Their business environment is less attractive, as the market is small, infrastructure sometimes poor and skilled labour may be scarce. If their economy does not depend on the highly educated, having an attractive inner city tends to be considered less important. Hence, economic development not only impacts on the wealth and inequality of cities, but also on the form of cities through inner city development, cultural development and urban sprawl (middle class looking for cleaner environment). Not only economic actors shape cities, but also actors in land, housing and other sectors. Real estate developers, for instance, buy and develop land and hence strongly influence the physical development and segmentation of a city. New environmental concerns and regulations set by the government change the way cities develop. The government is probably one of the key actors able to influence urban development. Yet, opinions on the role of the government differ strongly between academicians and politicians. The two extreme and opposing opinions are on the one hand socialism, where the government determines everything and on the other hand the free market, where the market determines everything. In reality all countries are in between these two extremes, with for instance the European welfare state giving more emphasis to the role of governments and the USA more to the role of the private sector. Some consider the government as the key developmental agent, but others think that the government at best enables the private and civil sector, if at all. A main characteristic of cities in developing countries is informality, where development takes place below the radar of government. The role of government thus becomes even more debated. Jointly, the economy and the way actors behave determine how and where cities grow, what role they play and ultimately what challenges urban managers face in directing urban development. 1
2. Course Objectives This module discusses how the economy and actors shape cities, enabling participants to assess the ever continuing development cycles of cities. Participants will be enabled to: None Define urban competitiveness and their impact on urban development Appreciate how cities develop over time, depending on the economic context and role of actors Describe the role of key actors in development and their impact on urban form 3. Program Material 4. Assignments WEEK 1 1. You are expected to read literature before each session WEEK 2 1. City presentations: city competitiveness This assessment is based on an analysis of the Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum. a. Present, for your city, the keys for competitiveness: factor-driven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven. b. Analyse your city based on Porter s diamond or Kitson s capitals c. Compare your city to two main competitors and recommend what requirements or capitals need improvements. 2. City presentations: urban life cycle a. Present the stage of your city, based on the roles of the key actors. b. Present why/ why not the latest stage of the knwoledge economy applies? 3. Group discussion: what is urban management? a. Groups represent urban policy makers, private sector, NGO s and residents. Eah group needs to identify objectives and expectations of urban managers for Tirana from the perspective of the stakeholder b. In a plenary session identify common interests and differences of stakeholders. FINAL PAPER Write a paper of 3,000 words analysing your own city. In the paper you should describe the following: 1. Introduction: briefly describe your city 2. City life cycle: describe the stage of your city and explain why that is the stage 3. Urban competitiveness: describe the competitiveness of your city and compare this to two competing cities. You may apply Kitson s capitals, Porter s diamond and/or thye approach of the Global Competitiveness Report. 4. City Development Strategy: recommend how best to improve urban competitiveness in your city. 2
5. Methodology Week 1 combines lectures to brief participants on the latest concepts and group exercises to appreciate the concepts. Week 2 applies the theories to Albanian cities. Finally, participants write a report to relate theory to their own city and/or working environment. WEEK 1 1. 13 May, 12:30 13:00 Oppening the course 2. 13 May, 13.00 16.00 Lecture: city competitiveness 3. 13 May, 16:00 18:00 Exercise: analyse competitiveness of Tirana based on Global Competitiveness Report and theory 4. 14 May, 09:00 12:30 Lecture: urban life cycle and the transition towards knowledge economy 5. 15 May, 13:30 17:00 Exercise: Tirana as a transition economy 6. 14 May, 09:00 12:30 Development theory: role of the actors Debate: role of the actors 7. 15 May, 13:30 17:00 Locality development: urban planning and management Case study: Rotterdam WEEK 2 During week 2, lessons learned of week 1 are worked out in group exercises. 6. Evaluation* Evaluation and Grading Percentage of Final Grade 1 Assignment 30% 2 Exam: final paper 50% 3 Participation in Class 10% 4 Attendance 10% *the weight for each element is to be indicated by the lecturer *the above table may be subject to different evaluation criteria or a more detailed distribution according to the course specifics 7. Workshop Literature Obligatory literature for each topic is as follows: Competitiveness (session 1 and 2) 3
Kitson, M, Martin, R & Tyler, P. 2004. Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet key concept. Regional Studies, 38, (9), 991-999 Porter, M. 2003. The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies, 37, 6&7, 549-578. BEGG, I., 1999. Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36(5-6), pp. 795-809. City Life cycle (seesion 3 and 4) Berg, L. van den, 1999, Ch. 17 "The Urban Life Cycle and the Role of a Market Oriented Revitalisation Policy in Western Europe", in: Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe, A. A. Summers, P. Cheshire and L. Senn (eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington. Knowledge economy (session 3 and 4) COOKE, P., 2001. Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy. Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), pp. 945-974. Development theory (session 5) Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1998), Towards a new paradigm for development: strategies, policies and processes, Prebisch Lecture, October 19, 1998. Locality development (session 6) Kearns and Paddison (2000), New challenges for urban goverance, in: Urban Studies, Vol. 37, No 56: 845 850. Hinson and Meyer Stamer (2007), local business environment and local economic development: comparing approaches, Duisburg: Mesopartner. Recommended literature is as follows: AMIN, A. and GRAHAM, S., 1997. The Ordinary City. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4), pp. 411. BENNETT, R.R.J., 1990. DECENTRALIZATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND MARKETS: IS THERE A POST-WELFARE AGENDA IN PLANNED AND MARKET ECONOMIES?1. Policy studies journal, 18(3), pp. 683-701. BOSCHMA, R., 2004. Competitiveness of Regions from an Evolutionary Perspective. Regional Studies, 38(9), pp. 1001-1014. Berg, L. van den et al (2004), European Cities in the Knowledge Economy, EURICUR, Rotterdam, Chapter 1. COOKE, P., 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation. Research policy, 34(8), pp. 1128-1149. NELSON, R.R., 2002. Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research policy, 31(2), pp. 265. 4
NELSON, R.R.R., 1994. The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions. Industrial and corporate change, 3(1), pp. 47-63. Porter,M. (1998)" Clusters and the new economics of competition" Harvard Business Review, November -December, pp 77-90 RACO, M., 1999. Competition, collaboration and the new industrial districts: Examining the institutional turn in local economic development. Urban Studies, 36(5/6), pp. 951. RAFIQUI, P.S., 2009. Evolving economic landscapes: why new institutional economics matters for economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(3), pp. 329. SCOTT, A. and STORPER, M., 2007. Regions, Globalization, Development. Regional Studies, 41(1), pp. 191. Steinberg, F. (2005) Strategic urban planning in Latin America: experiences of building and managing the future. Habitat International, 29, 69-93. NI, P. and KRESL, P.K., 2010. The Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2010. Cheltenham:UK: Edward Elgar. Martinelli, F. 1999. Strategic Planning Manual. Pages 1-11. Downloadable from: www.uwex.edu/li/learner/spmanual.pdf 5