Speaker
Description
Metropolises are increasingly spaces of stark inequalities, characterized by significant disparities in access to resources, housing, and opportunities. While traditional academic literature highlights the positive impacts of the metropolitan scale in fostering economic growth through agglomeration effects (Scott & Storper, 2015; Glaeser, 2011), recent scholarship identifies a critical gap: the lack or weakness of redistributive governance mechanisms in metropolitan areas as a major driver of growing urban inequalities (Brenner, 2019; Moore-Cherry et al., 2021). These inequalities are particularly pronounced in housing, where access to adequate and affordable living conditions remains a pressing challenge (Rolnik, 2019).
This study argues that the redistributive capacity of metropolitan entities is significantly influenced by their governance structures. Specifically, the balance between metropolitan leadership and municipal autonomy, alongside the interplay between public and private actors, determines the potential for addressing inequalities through urban policies and initiatives. To explore these dynamics, a comparative analysis of two prominent metropolitan regions—Barcelona and London—was conducted. These cities offer distinct governance models and policy frameworks, providing valuable insights into how metropolitan governance can advance a more just approach to housing retrofits and regeneration.
The analysis focuses on the scope of metropolitan plans and policies in promoting equitable housing retrofits, particularly through the lenses of redistributive justice and sustainability. Housing retrofits—upgrading existing residential buildings to improve energy efficiency, affordability, and livability—represent a critical intersection of environmental, social, and economic goals (Sovacool, 2021). Using qualitative methods, including policy document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders, the study examines how governance structures in Barcelona and London enable or constrain the pursuit of ambitious and redistributive retrofit agendas.
Findings reveal that metropolitan governments play a pivotal role in supporting municipal administrative units within their jurisdiction by acting as coordinators that provide technical and financial resources while setting broader strategic priorities. Both Barcelona and London demonstrate the capacity of metropolitan entities to establish ambitious retrofit policies addressing housing inequalities. However, key differences between the two cases underscore how governance dimensions shape policy outcomes.
In Barcelona, the metropolitan governance model, while claiming municipal subsidiarity (Blanco et al., 2019), operates through a high degree of centralization in decision-making and implementation, advancing overarching redistributive goals in practice. Conversely, London’s governance model emphasizes metropolitan leadership while relying on strong municipal subsidiarity for policy implementation. Additionally, the role and responsibility of non-government actors in retrofit implementation vary significantly, with London granting a more substantial role to private entities. These differences highlight tensions between subsidiarity and metropolitan authority, the recalibration of municipal needs, and the negotiation of roles between public and private sectors in delivering housing retrofits (Perry & Harding, 2002).
The study concludes that metropolitan governance is crucial for setting equitable housing agendas. However, its effectiveness hinges on balancing local and metropolitan priorities, fostering inclusive partnerships, and addressing structural power dynamics. Understanding these governance dimensions is essential for designing metropolitan policies that reduce inequalities and promote sustainable urban development.
References
Blanco, I., Salazar, Y., & Bianchi, I. (2019). Urban governance and political change under a radical left government: The case of Barcelona. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 1–19.
Brenner, N. (2019). New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question. Oxford University Press.
Glaeser, E. L. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Press.
Moore-Cherry, N., O’Connell, C., & Tomaney, J. (2021). Metropolitan inequalities: Reflections from Europe and North America. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 45(5), 855–869.
Perry, B., & Harding, A. (2002). Metropolitan Governance in the 21st Century: Capacity, Democracy, and the Dynamics of Place. Routledge.
Rolnik, R. (2019). Urban Warfare: Housing Under the Empire of Finance. Verso Books.
Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2015). The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 1–15.
Sovacool, B. K. (2021). Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101916.
| Keywords | metropolis; metropolitan governance; housing retrofit; redistribution; metropolitan inequalities |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
