New Urban Sustainability Policies: Deleuze and Local Innovation Versus Policy Mobility

Recent scholarship on how cities come to adopt new policies has focused on the notion of mobile policy. This incorporates the idea that policy actors create mental maps of ‘best cities’ (McCann & Ward, 2011, xiv) or “powerful centres” (Peck & Theodore, 2015, 23) for the latest policies to inform future strategies, which are then converted into locally appropriate solutions. This scholarship recognises that policies thus identified will need to be adjusted to make them work in new locations (McCann & Ward, 2011, xiv). The overall picture is of an urban policy landscape of sporadic new policies that offer new approaches to urban problems and that are then picked up by cities around the globe and incorporated in their strategies.

This scholarship suggests that most really innovative urban policies are borrowed by cities rather than developed locally across a range of urban areas. Mobile policies have assumed prominence in an era of heightened inter-city competition amidst social and environmental challenges. The mobility of policies is further intensified through the existence of international networks of scholars and policy-makers that transmit knowledge of initiatives that have proven successful somewhere in meeting these challenges. Nevertheless, existing scholarship does not adequately interrogate the ways in which innovative new urban policies are generated in the first place. What kinds of factors should we look for to explain the emergence of such policies? Are there certain kinds of policy challenges that are less susceptible to being adopted from somewhere else and that are more likely to need local innovation? This short paper attempts to open debate on these questions. In doing so, we draw on a recent survey of innovative urban sustainability policies implemented across the globe after developing insights suggested by the theoretical concepts of Deleuze. The particular Deleuzian concepts we draw on start with the notion of the rhizome, and the way it can be used to understand how new policies emerge. Next, Deleuze’s emphasis on the importance of context and contingency is used in conjunction with his concept of multiplicity to understand the characteristics that new policies might have. In addition, Deleuze’s concept of the fold is drawn on to understand how a sustainability challenge such as global warming requires common underlying policy principles across all locations, but also requires contextually specific policy responses to the different ways in which local environments produce global warming.

Theorizing the Formation of Urban Sustainability Policies

New policies do not emerge full-blown from a blank canvas. Rather, they emerge from assemblages of institutions, organisations, bodies, practices and habits (Ward & McCann, 2011, p. 168) that are geographically contextualized. These assemblages produce understandings and knowledge that can be re-territorialised, sometimes in a non-linear, rhizomatic fashion (Ward & McCann, 2011, p. 168). To a significant extent, we might see the adoption of new policies across space as a policy assemblage spectrum. At one end of this spectrum, initial policies derived from specific assemblages of influences migrate to new locales virtually unchanged by further assemblages. At the other end lie new policies that have been developed from local assemblages and drawn on wider assemblage influences via prevailing knowledge paradigms – about sustainable practice, for example.

Incorporating the Deleuzian concept of rhizomic emergence of new practices (Deleuze & Guattari, 1981, cited in Rowe, 2009, pp. 334–336) can prospectively enrich our understanding of urban policy adoption. Rhizomes are a network with properties similar to lattices rather than trees (Guattari, 2011, p. 171). This concept provides a conceptually productive frame to consider the nature of the genesis of new urban policies and their relationship to existing policies, practices and knowledge. Rather than knowledge coming from one central source, rhizomic information flow moves more haphazardly across a network (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 3–26). Viewing the emergence of new urban policies rhizomatically allows the process of their development to be open to “new connections, creative and novel becomings that will give … [a practitioner] new patterns and triggers of behaviour” (Bonta & Protevi, 2004, pp. 62–63, cited by Rowe, 2009, pp. 348).

Thus, the emergence of a policy at a particular site might have a simple connection with a particular policy elsewhere. Or it might be only loosely linked through a multitude of connections to broad knowledge elsewhere. The former could describe mobile policies that retain their core idea, but that undergo adaptation, as they emerge at a new site. The latter would describe policies that essentially involve a new concept that has been generated drawing from a knowledge foundation produced by diffuse connections that embody the potential for something different to emerge. In this sense, such policies would be “new” rather than “mobile.”

What characteristics might such “new” policies have? Two Deleuzian lines of thought can be considered in this. The first is the importance of contingency and context in the development of new policy possibilities (Hillier, 2007, passim.). The more distinctive and spatially contingent the local context for policy, the greater the need to draw on a wide network of knowledge connections to reflect the imperative for a distinctive policy response. Another Deleuzian concept, that of multiplicity (drawing on Rowe, 2009, p. 331), is also suggestive. A policy that embodies multiplicity in Deleuzian terms would contain elements that are distinct, heterogeneous, and yet not separable (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, pp. 15–20). Again, policies embodying greater multiplicity would increase the need to draw on a broad network of knowledge possibilities.

The concept of sustainable developmentcan be viewed in terms of these characteristics, with properties that suggest sustainable development policies will be more likely developed de novo in each local context and less likely to become mobile.

With sustainable development having the status of a master signifier (Gunder & Hillier, 2009, p. 136) incorporating a multiplicity of understandings as well as challenges – underscored by its tripartite economic, social and environmental nature – that vary contextually, specific sustainable development policies will reflect this plethora of different contexts. The uniqueness of natural environments in each place underscores this. Individual sustainable development policies will draw selectively on the vast network of knowledge and understandings to respond to distinctive local issues.

This necessarily contextual nature of sustainable development policies in the face of common global challenges and understandings is illustrated by a further Deleuzian concept, that of the fold (Deleuze, 1993). Deleuze sees the universe as a process of folding and unfolding the outside plane of potential, creating repeated interiors that are each differentiated. This can be illustrated by the idea of global warming, one of the underpinnings of the need for such policies. At one level, global warming is imprinted and incorporated, or “folded,” through all locations and their environments, and backgrounds all policies. At another level, global warming is folded within itself to produce many “possible worlds,” or possible environmental manifestations.

These insights from Deleuze suggest ways in which existing understandings of policy mobility might be expanded. They point to the need to give greater emphasis to the way in which policies such as those involving urban sustainability are more likely to draw on wider knowledge and understandings to develop contextually unique responses than they are to be centred on mobile policies. By contrast, while the mobile policy literature acknowledges that ‘teritorialisation’ and transformation of policies can occur, this is subordinate to the uprooting, mobilization and circulation of policies across space (Ward & McCann, 2011, p. 170). We now overview a number of urban sustainability policies from around the world that embody significant innovation to test this argument. We show that while some of them can be seen as mobile policies in the McCann/Ward and Peck/Theodore sense, most have been developed in situ with only diffuse connections to policies elsewhere or via innovatively combining selected aspects of several extant policies from elsewhere. Thus our evidence is broadly in accord with the Deleuzian concepts noted above suggesting a greater likelihood that sustainability policies will involve more local, contextual development.

Urban Sustainability Policies in Practice

The survey of twelve innovative urban sustainability policies (Darchen & Searle, 2019) indicated two types of urban sustainability policies: (1) Mobile policies undergoing adaptation; (2) New sustainability policies produced by innovative responses to local contexts that draw on diffuse rhizomic connections to existing knowledge. The twelve case studies were selected to cover the three pillars of sustainability: social, environmental and urban economic sustainability. Outstanding examples of sustainability solutions for each pillar were selected across the world. The aim was also to cover different geographic contexts: Europe, Latin America, Asia and India in order to determine if these new sustainability policies were the outcome of policy mobility or the outcome of local innovation.

The first type describes mobile policies that retain their core idea, but that undergo adaptation, as they emerge at a new site. The second describes policies that essentially involve a new concept that has been generated drawing from a knowledge foundation produced by diffuse connections that embody the potential for something different to emerge. In this sense, such policies would be “new” rather than “mobile.” Nevertheless this distinction between different urban sustainability policies is not necessarily sharp. As we argued above, the two types can be seen as sitting at each end of a spectrum, with various policies having mixes of the two types. In the policies summarized below, for example, the Freiburg case is classified as belonging to the second type, but it incorporates a number of innovative sustainability precepts that were globally circulated as de facto mobile policies. Similarly, the general idea of reclaiming the city from the car in the Seoul case no doubt drew on contemporary international success stories.

Policies Incorporating Mobile Practices

The cases of Seville and Helsinki illustrate sustainability initiatives in which mobile characteristics are prevalent.

In Helsinki, Public Participation GIS (PPGIS), a widespread approach to promote public involvement in planning, was applied on a grand scale. The innovation was to have applied the approach to planning for higher density, for which social acceptance is generally not straightforward (Kyttä et al., 2019, p. 27). Citizens were able to nominate, using PPGIS, which areas they would prefer to be developed to higher densities. In this, Helsinki fitted the idea of adaptation of an existing policy, with its use on a city-wide scale being innovative.

The case of Seville is similar, with an existing policy idea being innovatively implemented on a large scale. According to Calvo-Salazar and Marques (2019, p. 107), the City of Seville managed to multiply urban cycling mobility by six in just 5 years. A theoretically separated cycle path network developed for the City Master Plan was optimised taking account of space constraints and opportunities along different streets. In both of these case studies an existing practice became mobile via adaptation involving scaling up the practice in new local contexts.

New Policies Drawing on Rhizomatic Knowledge

Five case studies illustrate the second type of policy where sustainability policies involve a new approach being generated, drawing from a knowledge foundation produced by diffuse connections (rhizomatic structure) and responding to a specific local sustainability challenge.

Freiburg’s reputation as a sustainable city incorporates a suite of policies that innovatively integrate assemblages of diverse sustainability thinking and understandings. The strategic concepts driving the urban sustainability policy are fairly straight forward and could be applied anywhere: a compact city, a mix of social classes, and a climate-responsive city. Policies applying these concepts have drawn from European-wide knowledge and thinking, in rhizomatic fashion. However, there are local characteristics in Freiburg that have enabled the unique scope of policies that have emanated from this mix of sustainability objectives. According to Schuetze (2019, p. 84), the drivers in Freiburg are: (1) Leadership personalities who promoted various projects and processes; (2) The municipality’s shareholdings in service providers that could implement new sustainability policies; (3) Local scientific competency and institutions, and the composition of Freiburg’s society that supported new sustainability policies. The unique policy scope developed in Freiburg is thus the result of local assemblages of different sustainability approaches that might have been used elsewhere (although their application in Freiburg usually incorporated the most advanced standards) as well as approaches developed from new ways of applying emerging understandings about how sustainability might be addressed.

Medellin illustrates well the rhizomatic foundation of the development of an innovative policy response to a complex sustainability challenge. The initial idea of ‘social urbanism’ would trigger new behaviours to foster security in local communities in response to extreme levels of crime and violence. This drew on a strategy that worked in Cali and Bogota, the development of coalitions to promote a multi-sectoral approach in the transformation of the city, but the solution developed for Medellin was unique. The city government used integrated urban projects – area-based planning instruments – to address unequal distribution of urban infrastructure. Local government used these to respond to the specific circumstances and needs of individual problem areas. Symbolic components were also added such as new architectural projects in violent precincts to demonstrate new action to address existing problems (Sanín et al., 2009). Thus a rhizomatic process operated to draw on the initial idea of social urbanism to be applied to different areas for local planning and became a “leitmotiv” for local government action in Medellin.

The last two case studies, Seoul and Yogyakarta, involve new thinking by locals to address the sustainability problem. For Seoul, a network of stakeholders was created to innovatively respond to distinctive local sustainability challenges. The idea of demolishing a highway built over a waterway, that generated pollution and urban heat, and restoring the stream first emerged in the late 1990s through a research forum made up of engineers and professors. The mayor then proposed the restoration project in 2002. It was a way to solve many sustainability challenges for the city centre: a transition to a pedestrian-friendly city, and an increase in economic and environmental competitiveness and sustainability. The project also catalysed the economic revitalisation of the old city centre. The project was successful because of three factors: strong political leadership associated with strong financial resources, an evidence-based approach based on institutional research, and finally, strong citizen involvement. The consultation of different experts (including academics) and the community enabled the development of a unique response. In that case, the rhizome analogy is demonstrably appropriate, describing a policy that essentially involved a new project idea generated from a knowledge foundation (potentially including awareness of international city “car reclamation” examples) produced by diffuse connections that embodied the potential for something different to emerge. The case study of Yogyakarta in Indonesia is similar. It illustrates a new sustainability solution, involving an outstanding local leader who would apply the triple bottom line concept in a holistically innovative fashion. Plastic and other waste that was polluting fields and public spaces was recycled for compost or other new uses using a cooperative financing model (Rahmani et al., 2019, p. 103). As for the Medellin case study, the participation of the community was essential, and one or more leaders acted as agents of change.

Conclusion: Rebalancing Mobile Urban Policies Discourse

This paper has set out to open up debate around mobile urban policy discourse by addressing pertinent questions about the ways in which innovative new urban policies are generated. The first of these concerned identification of the kinds of factors that might explain the emergence of new policies. The paper also set out to address the related question of whether there were certain types of policy challenges that are less susceptible to adoption from elsewhere and more likely to need local innovation. We have used the urban sustainability policy domain to conclude in response that there needs to be greater attention to the distinctiveness of local policy-relevant assemblages. The need for new policies that do not draw significantly on existing policies elsewhere will be greater where the local policy-related issues and challenges are more distinct or unique. In turn, the opportunity to generate new policies directed to these issues is also greater where spatially uneven enabling factors that can respond to the local distinctiveness of the policy issues are present, such as local leadership.

More generally, the paper has attempted to rebalance current discourse on mobile urban policies. Instead of emphasising the predominance of “best cities” or “powerful centres” as the driving forces of policy innovation, we have attempted to show that in the case of sustainability policies, there are characteristics suggesting mobile policy adoption may be less frequent than the mobile policy literature might suggest. We have drawn on several Deleuzian concepts to make this argument, and used a number of global case studies to test its veracity. This is not an argument against the concept of policy mobility. Rather, it is an argument that we need a more fluid understanding of policy elements that travel and those that emerge in situ, and the nature of the assemblages that shape these outcomes.

These observations point to a wider need for planning researchers and practitioners to exercise caution in applying global paradigms to local situations. Conversely, they emphasise the importance of “actually existing” planning and of developing grounded planning theories. In this, the continuing potential for drawing on insights from theories in cognate disciplines to make sense of a range of heterogeneous planning outcomes remains critical.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Glen Searle

Glen Searle is Honorary Associate Professor in the Planning Programs at the University of Sydney and University of Queensland. His research focuses on strategic spatial planning and related urban governance. He held urban policy and planning positions in UK and New South Wales government agencies before life as a planning academic.

Sébastien Darchen

Sébastien Darchen studies the political economy of the built environment with a focus on regeneration strategies in different city contexts. Recently, he studied the evolution of music scenes in cities. He is the main editor for Electronic Cities published with Palgrave McMillan in 2021 and for Global Planning Innovations for Urban Sustainability with Routledge in 2019.