![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Since the 1990s, the EU Urban policy has provided several opportunities to explore innovation at local level. This policy is based on the so-called Integrated Sustainable Urban Development (ISUD) approach. This paper explores to what extent the URBANA programme, launched by the Spanish government in the frame of the EU Cohesion Policy 2007–2013, has promoted a ‘new way of doing things’ in local administrations. The research addresses three main objectives. Firstly, to identify which abilities are linked to the ISUD approach. Secondly, to understand how urban managers’ capacity has been developed within local administrations in the frame of the URBANA programme. Finally, to assess the effect of URBANA Institutional Capacity (IC) on the local administration. The information has been obtained from the analysis of EU and Spanish official documents, in-depth interviews and a questionnaire targeted to the local technicians. The general conclusion is that there is evidence of an urban Europeanisation in Spain. The mainstream of the ISUD approach is clear at formal level, but also in the level of acceptance of these requirements by the Spanish municipalities. The ISUD approach remains as a ‘way of doing’, even if proposals are not co-funded by EU funds.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 VI Plenary of the Urban Initiatives -Network Red de Iniciativas Urbanas- (3–4 November 2016).
2 According to Gruening (Citation2001, p. 2), some of the NPMs’ undisputed characteristics are related to budget cuts, accountability for performance, performance auditing, strategic planning and management, competition, performance measurement, contracting out, and personnel management (incentives), etc.’
3 In the period 2014-2020, the ISUD approach becomes an obligation to access to the ERDF funding (before it was an option).
4 In relation with hard and soft(er) issues, see the work of Groth and Corjin (Citation2005).
5 In this regard, see the article by Jordan and Lenschow (Citation2010) about the influence of the principles of sustainable development from the 1990s as a political response and unconnected objectives related with economic development, social development, and environmental protection.
6 In this regard, the article by Atkinson (Citation2001) analyses how the European perspective on territorial development has gradually penetrated the European urban agenda, giving territorial meaning to city policies.
7 Question 4: ‘P4. On a rating scale from 0 to 5, where 0 is the minimum valuation and 5 the maximum, indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements in relation to the Human Resources involved in the implementation of the program’. Answer (item): An effort has been made in the recruitment of adequate personnel.
8 Answer (ítem): An effort has been made for specific training for staff training.
9 More information: http://www.rediniciativasurbanas.es/
10 It is composed by the following institutions: Ministry of Finance and Public Administration (SG of Territorial Programming and Evaluation of Community Programs, SG of Administration of the European Regional Development Fund and SG of Local Cooperation), Ministry of Development (SG Policy of Soil), Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism (IDAE), Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Secretariat of the Network of Environmental Authorities), Administrative Unit of the European Social Fund (UAFSE), and Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP).
11 In 2012, the DG Region changed its name. The current name is ‘Directorate-General of Regional and Urban policy’.
12 P8 On a rating scale from 0 to 5, where 0 is the minimum valuation and 5 the maximum, indicate to what extent you consider that the implementation of the URBANA program has meant a substantial improvement in the management of the MUNICIPAL AREA in which you carry out your work.
P9 On a rating scale from 0 to 5, where 0 is the minimum valuation and 5 the maximum, indicate to what extent you consider that the implementation of the URBANA program has meant a substantial improvement in management in the SET OF YOUR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
P10 On a rating scale from 0 to 5, where 0 is the minimum valuation and 5 the maximum, indicate to what extent you consider that the accumulated experience through the implementation of the URBANA program will be useful for the implementation in the future of other ACTIONS, NOT FINANCED with European funds.
13 This document, even if not specifically cited by URBANA, is relevant in order to understand the management requirements of the Cohesion Policy: ‘Council decision of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion’ (2006/702/EC).