打印

作者

Cristina Temenos;John Lauermann

来源

URBAN GEOGRAPHY,Vol.41,Issue9,P.1109-1118

语言

英文

关键字

Policy failure,policy mobilities,urban politics,entrepreneurial city,urban experiments

作者单位

Department of Geography , University of Manchester , Manchester, UK

摘要

Growing attention to the urban politics of policy failure focuses on the ways in which policymaking is politicized before, during, and after moments of failure, and the effects of policy failure in urban political process. We argue three trends are apparent: (1) Policy failure is arelational process rather than an end state, emerging from long term interactions between political actors and governance institutions. (2) In urban politics the definitions of “failure” and “success” can be fluid, and rhetorically weaponized for political gain. (3) Policy failures can have generative effects after apolicy fails, for instance, by catalyzing funding or establishing institutional path dependencies. This collection contributes to urban geography by establishing avocabulary and set of analytical techniques for researching spatial aspects of policy failure. The authors in this special issue build an empirical and theoretical baseline for future research, illustrating diverse mechanisms and outcomes of urban policy failure. KEYWORDS: Policy failurepolicy mobilitiesurban politicsentrepreneurial cityurban experiments Introduction Much attention has been paid to urban governance success stories in recent years. Policymakers – and the scholars who analyze them – go to great lengths to emulate these success stories by importing models from elsewhere, experimenting with pilot programs, or implementing best practices. Yet stories of failure are at least as common as those of success. Indeed, the history of urban studies is littered with tales of “unurban urbanization” (Jacobs, 1961), “urban crisis” (Harvey, 1978), “great planning disasters” (Hall, 1980), “splintered” landscapes (Graham & Marvin, 2001), “dysfunctional urbanism” (McNeill, 2005), or the many reminders for policymakers to pay careful attention to “actually existing” urban conditions – including not only the success stories but also evidence of policy ineffectiveness and failure (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Clarke, 2012; Eizenberg, 2012; Krueger & Agyeman, 2005; Shatkin, 2011; Shelton et al., 2015). This special issue examines the urban politics of policy failure through the lens of geography and urban studies. This is an emerging literature drawing on a constellation of inter-related terms, including “differentiation, mutation, fragility, unraveling, instability, emergence, detour, redirection, reaction, rejection, de-activation, and absence” (Baker & McCann, This Issue, p. 7). In this literature, the term “policy failure” typically refers to policies that fail to launch: policies that were thwarted, canceled, stalled, or otherwise prevented from reaching full implementation. But the term can include other forms of failure as well, for instance, policies that “have failed to deliver on their promises,” policies that produce “deleterious social outcomes,” or instances in which “policy failure has not stymied policy mobility” (Davidson, This Issue, pp. 5–6). This special issue takes an eclectic approach to definitions. Indeed, the following articles work across many of the abovementioned definitions of failure. Our interest, rather, is analyzing the urban politics which surround policy failures in their diverse spatialities: the ways in which policymaking is politicized before, during, and after a moment of failure, and the effects of policy failure in the urban political process. This collection contributes to urban geography by establishing a vocabulary and set of analytical approaches for researching policy failure. Collectively, the authors build an empirical baseline for future research, illustrating the mechanisms and outcomes of urban policy failure. They also identify key theoretical properties which inform spatial and spatio-temporal analysis of policy failure, properties which our introductory essay synthesizes in the following section. Politicizing urban policy failure In the urban geography literature, there is a growing sense that “failure matters” (Chang, 2017) in the analysis of urban space, its production, and its politics. Indeed, there is strong evidence that policy failure is endemic to urban governance in late capitalism, a form of creative destruction which facilitates entrepreneurial forms of governance. As Brenner et al. (2010, p. 333) put it, policy failure is not only central to the exploratory modus operandi of neoliberalization processes; it provides a further, powerful impetus for their accelerating proliferation and continual reinvention across sites and scales. Crucially, then, endemic policy failure has actually tended to spur further rounds of reform within broadly neoliberalized political and institutional parameters: it triggers the continuous reinvention of neoliberal policy repertoires rather than their abandonment. In this sense, failure is dialectically entwined with urban governance. As studies in this special issue suggest, it is an obvious, yet under-researched, component of the process of trial and error through which policy is made. Just as importantly for our purposes, policy failure is a highly politicized aspect of policymaking: a cautionary tale, a means of subversion, a form of protest, an opportunity to advance alternative agendas. Several urban geography sub-literatures have begun to explore the systemic role of policy failure in capitalist urban governance. Entrepreneurial city researchers have pointed out that, by definition, entrepreneurial urban governance involves risk-taking investment by municipalities. Failed investments are an obvious potential outcome of such behavior, especially as cities involve themselves in complicated, speculative forms of financialization (Akers, 2015; Weber, 2015). Impacts which follow from failed entrepreneurial investments include municipal bankruptcy (Peck, 2014), municipal austerity (Fuller, 2018), and “degrowth” politics (Béal et al., 2019; Schindler, 2016). A similar surge in policy failure research is taking place in the policy mobilities literature. Researchers have highlighted the significance of “policy immobilities”, cases in which a policy fails to move despite efforts at policy transfer (Malone, 2019; Müller, 2015; Wood, 2019). They have also identified examples of “policy failure mobilities” (Lovell, 2019) in which negative case studies travel across cities as cautionary tales of worst practice to avoid. Indeed these forms of failure play an important role in policy learning, as supplements to the “success stories” which motivate policy circulation (Stein et al., 2017). Finally, research on experimental urban governance – and related conversations in urban science and technology studies – highlights that failure is a clear possibility in any experiment’s design (Evans et al., 2016). Indeed, the potential for failure is part of the appeal in this trial-and-error form of governance (Evans, 2016), though failed experiments may lumber forward as a form of “Frankenstein urbanism” (Cugurullo, 2018) despite failing to pass their own experimental standards. Three dimensions stand out in the analysis of urban policy failures, which we synthesize here and which the remaining articles of the issue analyze in detail. First, policy failure is a relational process, emerging from long term interactions between political actors and institutions. Any policymaking process contains definitive moments when a policy may fail, yet “the making of a policy may fail temporarily, repeatedly, or permanently. What demands attention is not the end product of botched governance efforts but the actual practices and conditional forces that create these moments of policyfailing.” (Wells, 2014, p. 475). Full stop failure is only one of several possible outcomes in a policymaking process, as urban governance proceeds in stops and starts through parallel and overlapping forms of trial and error. The leadership and funding of political institutions matter greatly in the failure process, as do moments of institutional change associated with elections, legislation, and political or economic crises. Several authors in this special issue explore the process of failure; how it is actually experienced and implemented. They analyze realities of failure across diverse geographic contexts and considers conceptual potentials and limits of different approaches. Wells (This Issue) analyses the ways in which policies are made to fail through a repealed “right to shelter” law in Washington D.C. She details the deliberate choices made in the process of ensuring that this policy would not realize its goals and argues that such actions and inactions expose the political nature of policy-making in ways that contradict established thinking on urban governance. She notes how: “The failing of the right to shelter was a protracted, laborious, and multi-sited political-geographic process. … empirical data does not reveal a singular moment, site, or mechanism by which the right to shelter was made to fail. Instead the failing of the right to shelter emerged from an array of places of power, including the judiciary, the local executive and legislative branches, the media, and the streets.” (pp 14–15) Likewise, Davidson (This Issue) analyzes the politics of municipal bankruptcy with a study of bankruptcy proceedings in Vallejo, California. He utilizes two different epistemological approaches, critical political economy and public policy, demonstrating that while failure is apparent in both analyses, explanatory functions are not always commensurable, and the stories told are shaped by preexisting understandings of failure. In a different vein, Bok (This Issue) explores the notion of failure by charting the failure of the previously proven Singapore model in China over time, highlighting the importance of state structures and political histories in how policy models are implemented in the present. Second, in urban politics the definitions of “failure” and “success” are not fixed, and can be rhetorically weaponized for political gain. Writing on intellectual dualisms belying the policy mobilities literature, McCann and Ward (2015, p. 1) argue that failure/success is a particularly insidious construct, because neither success nor failure is absolute. One does not make sense without the other. Rather, success and failure are relationally constituted in politics and in policymaking. Studies of urban policy mobilities should, then, reflect critically on approaches to success/failure and their relational constitution, even as they simultaneously study the effects of their empirical separation and their reification in policymaking. Similarly, Stein et al. (2017) highlight a “success bias” in urban politics (and urban scholarship), in the sense that success stories are touted widely while failures are ignored and forgotten. As rhetorical categories in urban politics, failure and success can be strategically leveraged depending on audience and agenda. The fickle nature of political opinion about development projects for example, demonstrates the shifting category of success and failure (Mattissek & Sturm, 2017). In their discussion of mega-projects, Holden et al. (2015, p. 451) note: “what counts as failure and as success in the work of city-building will shift, depending on what actors do and how they talk about it, and on how well these actions and justifications hold up to public challenges about the true character of a successful city.” This ambiguity does significant political work to support or attack policy. Nonetheless, it presents analytical challenges for policy failure researchers, who must interpret the positionality of policy and policy actors vis-à-vis the “failure”. In this special issue, Moore-Cherry and Bonnin (This Issue) argue that definitions of success and failure vary based on multiple, competing temporalities. In their study of the Moore Street Market, the oldest surviving street market in Dublin, they demonstrate that temporal framings and competing timelines can shift the definitions of failure and success within urban governance and planning processes. “Whether the recent past and future of Moore Street will be seen as a ‘success’ or ‘failure’ depends on the temporal framings we privilege. Whether we frame our interpretation through the eyes of the traders, campaigners, central government, local authority planners, or developers in the short, medium or long-term will provide a very different reading of the street.” (17–18) Furthermore, they show how planning initiatives are also often powerless at times in dictating the timeframes within which development can occur. Likewise, Baker and McCann (This Issue), in their study of repeatedly failed policy proposals to institute a supervised consumption site for people using illicit drugs in Melbourne, demonstrate the value of a longitudinal view in evaluating success and failure. It shifts focus to definitions of how failure is constituted, and whether potential “successes” such as network building and subject literacy might be found out of policy failures. Such successes however are always in flux. Nciri and Levenda (This Issue) demonstrate that lesson-drawing often only happens when policy lessons are rendered ideologically legible, based on their analysis of the failure of district heating, a low-carbon technology, to catch on in the Calgary Metropolitan Region. The importance of discursive strategies has long been a focus of policy mobilities work (Temenos & McCann, 2012). Nciri and Levanda build on this work by analyzing the strategies that politicians and policy makers used to ensure that the district heating scheme, which was successful in meeting its sustainability targets, was nonetheless constructed as a failure through its challenge to profit margins of private development. They note how the “politics of urban experiments are deeply intertwined with the social and power-laden construction of success and failure (and who defines them as such) … actors can mobilize lessons from experimentation to slow down or block sustainable transition.” (2) Similarly, Bok (This Issue) highlights the role that geopolitical anxiety over sovereignty plays in the interpretations of the failure of the Singapore model in Chinese cities. She notes “The instances of ‘failure’ experienced by Singaporean officials in the SSTEC [Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city] capture not only the ambivalence of ‘success’ itself but, more significantly, how what is considered as ‘failure’ transcends individual projects and is in reality reflective of broader (geo)political circumstances, culminating in the ‘hollowing out’ of a signifier of success.” (21) Third, there is ample evidence that policy failures can have generative effects after a policy fails. Chang (2017) shows, for instance, that repeated failures to build eco-cities in China generate path dependencies in urban policy despite their failure, by establishing planning procedures and repeatedly hiring particular groups of consultants. Lauermann (2016) shows, likewise, that cities’ failed bids to host mega-events often contribute to infrastructure investment, as more viable sub-components of the plans are pushed forward even though the grand plan is abandoned. Tracing these generative effects often requires digging into the empirical details of contracts, intra-institutional decision-making, and the career trajectories of political and policy actors. Even with detailed data, establishing clear causal relationships between a policy failure and a generative effect may be difficult, given loss of institutional memory over time and the political recriminations that may follow from failures. Nonetheless, it is clear that failures shape institutional and political decisions in subtle-yet-profound ways. In the special issue, Baker and McCann (This Issue) trace the multiple ways in which the geography of absence was still able to alter the parameters of political debates. In their longitudinal study of the repeated attempts to open a supervised drug consumption site in Melbourne, their work traces the series of failures through digging into old reports, proposals and interviews with advocates and medical doctors involved in the attempts. Despite the opposition of local government to establishing the health service they argue that “failure was also generative. It influenced the individual careers of harm reduction advocates and experts, and supported the further development of local, national, and global networks of policy and activism knowledge and a longstanding commitment to the cause of harm reduction that has influenced the character and practice of drug policy, drug treatment, and drug activism more generally.” (15) They go on to show that this had effects that went beyond the urban site, contributing to drug policy literacy at regional, national, and international scales. Failure in this sense was not absolute; rather, it co-produced other forms of policy action across multiple spatialities. Next steps The question of “why study failure?” is one that Davidson (This Issue) explicitly addresses in this special issue, and it is a question that pervades all the articles herein. In looking forward, it is instructive to look at the present. We write this introduction in the midst of a global lockdown intended to stem the spread of COVID-19. We find ourselves in this position due to a series of failures. Failure of individual actors to heed the warnings of experts, failure of governments at all levels to act quickly to implement appropriate testing and isolation measures, failure of governments and markets to address critical shortages of appropriate protective gear and medical equipment. These failures matter because they have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, they matter because domestic violence rates have doubled since the outbreak (Townsend, 2020), they matter because livelihoods have been destroyed. Furthermore, the multiple failures leading up to and ongoing within the pandemic serve to expose long-standing policy failures: structural racism, housing precarity, environmental degradation, entrenched poverty, and precarious work among many others. A critical attention to the politics of failure, then, works to re-center power within analyses of urban policy, laying bare the multiple and ongoing failures in ways that can help us to imagine alternative policy interventions and, more radically, alternate forms of governance, some of which may prioritize social reproduction over or alongside financialization and economic growth. In geography, analysis of policy failure is more likely to be interpretive than diagnostic. This contrasts with the policy failure literature in political science and public policy, which tends to focus on diagnosing the factors that contribute to success and failure (Dunlop, 2017; Howlett et al., 2015; McConnell, 2010). In a burgeoning literature like that on policy failures, there is ample room for discipline-specific specialization. Nonetheless, as Davidson (This Issue, p. 7) argues, geographers must “face the question of what we want to know about policy failures.” In much of the urban geography literature on the topic, the answer thus far seems to be interpretive insight into broader political economic processes shaping urban governance. That is, policy failure reveals. Analyzing episodes of failure can help explain the often inscrutable gap between what policy actors say and what they actually do, telling us much about the internal dynamics and dysfunctions of governing institutions. But future research can expand the scope of analysis to consider a number of factors, including temporality, relationality, and generative effects. Temporality, as several authors in this collection have highlighted, is a key area for critical geographies of failure. Longitudinal or historic methods are often necessary to track the impact of policy failure. Processes, decisions, policy implementation and effect necessarily play out over various time scales. The relationship of time to the geographies of failure can serve to demonstrate how prior failures become enmeshed in building urban futures. Furthermore, analysis of how temporality affects urban geographies of policy failure expands the horizon of this field beyond attention to neoliberal “fast policy” mobility (Peck & Theodore, 2015). Whether through their incorporation into new policy objectives, shaping the discourses of new perceptions of possibility, foreclosure of previous debates, or allocation of funds, policy failures are felt materially through the urban built environment ranging from iconic architectures of grandiose yet misguided initiatives to mundane and dysfunctional infrastructures that are quietly built into the fabric of the city. The argument for a temporal turn is also an argument for a relational one (Massey, 2005). The relational turn in urban geography is not new, yet the renewed interest in this epistemological thread brings new actors into debates and analyses of urban policy failure, not only focusing on policy makers (McCann & Ward, 2011; Ward, 2018), but also activists (Temenos, 2017; Lauermann & Vogelpohl, 2019), everyday actors (Baker et al., 2020; Jacobs & Lees, 2013), and planners and consultants (Colven, 2020; Larner & Laurie, 2010; Rapoport, 2015; Vogelpohl, 2018). Expanding the scope of study to encompass new relationships can broaden and enrich the spatial analysis of urban geographies of policy, taking into account different power structures that make up local contexts and expanding the scope of possibility for urban politics. Finally, the generative effects of failed policy are an important area of further research. Looking to what comes after failure is a useful way to understand urban politics, whether it be to understand the persistence of neoliberal policies that exacerbate inequality (Wells, This Issue; Peck, 2014), or to think though progressive or even radical urban futures (Baker & McCann, This Issue; Russell, 2019; Sutton, 2019). New municipalism, for example, is a governance movement rising in resistance to austerity urbanism and the failures of the state to work within the existing social contract (Russell, 2019; Thompson, 2020). Widening inequality, increasing poverty, housing and labor insecurity, negative health outcomes: these are all areas where urban governments have failed to achieve meaningful change and the new municipalism movement looks to use urban governance as a strategic space for progressive or transformative politics. The afterlives of failed policies and their transformative political effects then have the potential to provide answersto Davidson’s (This Issue) question of the utility of studying the urban politics of policy failure. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all participants in the 2017 AAG conference sessions on the Urban Politics of Policy Failure which inspired this Special Issue.  Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Akers, J. (2015). Emerging market city. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space , 47(9), 1842–1858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15604969  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Baker, T. , & McCann, E. (This Issue). Beyond failure: The generative effects of unsuccessful proposals for supervised drug consumption sites (SCS) in Melbourne, Australia. Urban Geography . http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1500254  [Google Scholar] Baker, T. , McCann, E. , & Temenos, C. (2020). Into the ordinary: Non-elite actors and the mobility of harm reduction policies. Policy and Society , 39(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1626079  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Béal, V. , Fol, S. , Miot, Y. , & Rousseau, M. (2019). Varieties of right-sizing strategies: Comparing degrowth coalitions in French shrinking cities. Urban Geography , 40(2), 192–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1332927  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Brenner, N. , Peck, J. , & Theodore, N. (2010). After neoliberalization? Globalizations , 7(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731003669669  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Brenner, N. , & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode , 34(3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00246  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Chang, I.-C. C. (2017). Failure matters: Reassembling eco-urbanism in a globalizing China. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space , 49(8), 1719–1742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16685092  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Clarke, N. (2012). Actually existing comparative urbanism: Imitation and cosmopolitanism in North-south interurban partnerships. Urban Geography , 33(6), 796–815. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.6.796  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Colven, E. (2020). Thinking beyond success and failure: Dutch water expertise and friction in postcolonial Jakarta. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(6): 961-979. 2399654420911947. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420911947  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Cugurullo, F. (2018). Exposing smart cities and eco-cities: Frankenstein urbanism and the sustainability challenges of the experimental city. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space , 50(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17738535  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Davidson, M. (This Issue). Going bust two ways? Epistemic communities and the study of urban policy failure. Urban Geography . http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1621122  [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Dunlop, C. A. (2017). Policy learning and policy failure: Definitions, dimensions and intersections. Policy & Politics , 45(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14824871742750  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Eizenberg, E. (2012). Actually existing commons: Three moments of space of community gardens in New York City. Antipode , 44(3), 764–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00892.x  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Evans, J. (2016). Trials and tribulations: Problematizing the city through/as urban experimentation. Geography Compass , 10(10), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12280  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Evans, J. , Karvonen, A. , & Raven, R. (Eds.). (2016). The experimental city . Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Fuller, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial urbanism, austerity and economic governance. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society , 11(3), 565–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy023  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Graham, S. , & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition . Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Hall, P. (1980). Great planning disasters . University of California Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Harvey, D. (1978). The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 2(1–3), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1978.tb00738.x  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Holden, M. , Scerri, A. , & Esfahani, A. H. (2015). Justifying redevelopment ‘failures’ within urban ‘success stories’: Dispute, compromise, and a new test of urbanity. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 39(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12182  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Howlett, M. , Ramesh, M. , & Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration , 30(3–4), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715593139  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities . Vintage Books. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Jacobs, J. M. , & Lees, L. (2013). Defensible space on the move: Revisiting the urban geography of Alice Coleman. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 37(5), 1559–1583. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12047  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Krueger, R. , & Agyeman, J. (2005). Sustainability schizophrenia or “actually existing sustainabilities?” toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US. Geoforum , 36(4), 410–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.005  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Larner, W. , & Laurie, N. (2010). Travelling technocrats, embodied knowledges: Globalising privatisation in telecoms and water. Geoforum , 41(2), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.11.005  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lauermann, J. (2016). Temporary projects, durable outcomes: Urban development through failed Olympic bids? Urban Studies , 53(9), 1885–1901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098015585460  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lauermann, J. , & Vogelpohl, A. (2019). Fast activism: Resisting mobile policies. Antipode , 51(4), 1231–1250. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12538  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lovell, H. (2019). Policy failure mobilities. Progress in Human Geography , 43(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517734074  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Malone, A. (2019). (Im)mobile and (Un)successful? A policy mobilities approach to New Orleans’s residential security taxing districts. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space , 37(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418779822  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Massey, D. (2005). For space . Sage. [Google Scholar] Mattissek, A. , & Sturm, C. (2017). How to make them walk the talk: Governing the implementation of energy and climate policies into local practices. Geographica Helvetica , 72(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-72-123-2017  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] McCann, E. , & Ward, K. (Eds.). (2011). Mobile urbanism: Cities and policymaking in the global age (Vol. 17). U of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar] McCann, E. , & Ward, K. (2015). Thinking through dualisms in urban policy mobilities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 39(4), 828–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12254  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy , 30(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X10000152  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] McNeill, D. (2005). Dysfunctional urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 29(1), 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00579_2.x  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Moore-Cherry, N. , & Bonnin, C. (This Issue). Playing with time in Moore Street, Dublin: Urban redevelopment, temporal politics and the governance of space-time. Urban Geography . http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1429767  [Google Scholar] Müller, M. (2015). (Im-)mobile policies: Why sustainability went wrong in the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. European Urban and Regional Studies , 22(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776414523801  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Nciri, A. , & Levenda, A. (This Issue). Urban policy (im) mobilities and refractory policy lessons: Experimenting with the sustainability fix. Urban Geography . http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1575154  [Google Scholar] Peck, J. (2014). Pushing austerity: State failure, municipal bankruptcy and the crises of fiscal federalism in the USA. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society , 7(1), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rst018  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Peck, J. , & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism . U of Minnesota Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Rapoport, E. (2015). Globalising sustainable urbanism: The role of international masterplanners. Area , 47(2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12079  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Russell, B. (2019). Beyond the local trap: New municipalism and the rise of the fearless cities. Antipode , 51(3), 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12520  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Schindler, S. (2016). Detroit after bankruptcy: A case of degrowth machine politics. Urban Studies , 53(4), 818–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014563485  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Shatkin, G. (2011). Coping with actually existing urbanisms: The real politics of planning in the global era. Planning Theory , 10(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210386068  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Shelton, T. , Zook, M. , & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘actually existing smart city’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society , 8(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu026  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Stein, C. , Michel, B. , Glasze, G. , & Pütz, R. (2017). Learning from failed policy mobilities: Contradictions, resistances and unintended outcomes in the transfer of “Business Improvement Districts” to Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies , 24(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415596797  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Sutton, S. A. (2019). Cooperative cities: Municipal support for worker cooperatives in the United States. Journal of Urban Affairs , 41(8), 1081–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1584531  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Temenos, C. (2017). Everyday proper politics: Rereading the post‐political through mobilities of drug policy activism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , 42(4), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12192  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Temenos, C. , & McCann, E. (2012). The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment and Planning A , 44(6), 1389–1406. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44314  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Thompson, M. (2020). What’s so new about New Municipalism? Progress in Human Geography , 030913252090948. http://dx.doi.org/0309132520909480  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Townsend, M. 12 April 2020, Revealed: Surge in domestic violence during Covid-19 crisis . The Guardian. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/12/domestic-violence-surges-seven-hundred-per-cent-uk-coronavirus  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Vogelpohl, A. (2018). Consulting as a threat to local democracy? Flexible management consultants, pacified citizens, and political tactics of strategic development in German cities. Urban Geography , 39(9), 1345–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1452872  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Ward, K. (2018). Urban redevelopment policies on the move: Rethinking the geographies of comparison, exchange and learning. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 42(4), 666–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12604  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Weber, R. (2015). From boom to bubble: how finance built the New Chicago . University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Wells, K. (2014). Policyfailing: The case of public property disposal in Washington, D.C. ACME , 13(3), 473–494. [Google Scholar] Wells, K. J. (This Issue). Policy-failing: A repealed right to shelter. Urban Geography , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1598733  [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Wood, A. (2019). Circulating planning ideas from the metropole to the colonies: Understanding South Africa’s segregated cities through policy mobilities. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography , 40(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12273  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]