Coping with Complexity and Urban Inequality: Dilemmas of Democratic Mega-city Governance

该项目应对三个全球性挑战：不平等的城市化、日益复杂的治理体系以及对民主的信任危机。目前有一半以上的世界人口居住在城市，这一比例预计还会增加。现代城市地区高度不平等，很大一部分人口生活在贫困中，难以获得城市服务(汤基斯，2018年)。治理系统日益复杂，导致越来越多的非国家行为者不受民主问责，其行为难以控制或管制(Jervis，1997)。最后，随着对民主治理信任度的下降，民粹主义的支持率上升，对威权做法的接受度也越来越高(Foa和Munk，2016)。由于这些挑战的全球性影响和相互关联的性质，对这些问题的任何社会科学回应都不能单独对待。现有的跨学科研究往往侧重于其中一些挑战的解决方案，而往往没有认识到其更广泛的影响。例如，关于治理复杂的城市政治的研究侧重于自上而下和技术官僚工具，这加剧了民主危机和进一步的不平等(例如Kubler和Lefevre 2017)。反过来，民主和参与式的城市不平等解决方案往往依赖于自下而上的社区和面对面的决策，而忽视了城市决策的更广泛的复杂性。最后，对民主控制复杂治理的可能性的研究忽略了它可能产生的不平等问题。因此，为了应对这三个挑战，需要新的、更综合的解决方案。我正在申请ESRC奖学金，以提出这样一个综合解决方案。我的项目《应对复杂性和城市不平等：民主超大城市治理的两难困境》研究了在复杂条件下实现民主理想并导致更平等的城市社会的城市治理战略。它借鉴了我之前在政治理论方面的博士研究，并以一个实证案例--伦敦民主治理的制约因素研究--作为补充，以便出版一本专著。伦敦等特大城市因其在全球人口中所占的比例以及预计的持续增长，将成为全球一体化应对民主治理信任危机、管理日益复杂的治理以及应对不平等城市化后果的关键因素。伦敦是一个关键的案例研究，因为它的不平等，由地方、国家和国家内部机构组成的复杂治理，以及其民主政治制度。该项目采用跨学科、创新的研究设计，植根于应用的政治哲学和定性案例研究。应用政治哲学有助于分析民主、平等的城市治理的理论可能性。此外，它还有助于根据现实生活环境的限制(在伦敦)重新塑造哲学概念。定性方法的应用--对城市从业人员、城市非政府组织、市议会成员、居民协会的一系列采访--提供了有关伦敦民主、平等治理发展的制约因素和机会的信息。这一分析构成了适用于具体案例研究之外的政策建议的基础。此外，计划举办的讲习班有城市从业人员、城市非政府组织、居民城市委员会和选定的邻里协会的代表参加。为了找出解决特定城市问题的办法，讲习班将应用一种名为“三个地平线框架”的管理工具(夏普2016)。这种混合方法的研究设计结合了政治哲学和定性方法，为哲学上知情的城市政策提供了基础，构成了一种方法论创新。

This project responds to three global challenges: unequal urbanisation, growing complexity of the governance systems and a crisis of trust in democracy. More than half of the world population currently live in cities and this share is expected to increase. Modern urban areas are highly unequal, with vast shares of the population living in poverty and struggling to access city-services (Tonkiss 2018). The growing complexity of governance systems leads to an increased number of non-state actors who are not held democratically accountable and whose actions are difficult to control or regulate (Jervis 1997). Finally, along dropping trust in democratic governance, there is rising support for populism and growing acceptance for authoritarian practices (Foa and Mounk 2016). Due to the global impact and interconnected nature of these challenges, any social-scientific response to these problems cannot treat them separately. Existing interdisciplinary research tends to focus on solutions to some of these challenges, often without acknowledging its broader impact. For example, research on governing complex urban polities is focused on top-down and technocratic tools, which contributes to the deepening of the democratic crisis and further inequality (e.g. Kubler and Lefevre 2017). In turn, democratic and participatory solutions to urban inequality often rely on bottom-up communities and face-to-face decision-making, while ignoring the wider complexity of urban decision-making. Finally, research on the possibilities of democratic control over the complex governance ignores the questions of inequality it can produce. As a result, to respond to these three challenges, new, more integrated solutions are necessary.I am applying for ESRC Fellowship to propose such an integrated solution. My project 'Coping with Complexity and Urban Inequality: Dilemmas of Democratic Mega-city Governance' investigates strategies of urban governance, in conditions of complexity, to realise democratic ideals and lead to more equal urban societies. It draws on my previous PhD research in political theory, complements it with an empirical case-study of constraints of democratic governance in London in order to produce a monograph. Big mega-cities, such as London, due to their global population share and projected continued growth will be vital actors in an integrated global response to the crisis of trust to democratic governance, managing the growing complexity of governance and to responding to consequences of unequal urbanisation. London is a critical case study, due to its inequalities, complex governance consisting of local, national and intra-national bodies and its democratic political system.This project employs a cross-disciplinary, innovative research design that is rooted in applied political philosophy and qualitative case studies. Employment of applied political philosophy facilitates analysis of theoretical possibilities of democratic, equalising urban governance. Further, it facilitates re-shaping of the philosophical concepts according to the constraints of real-life circumstances (in London). Application of qualitative methods - a series of interviews with urban practitioners, urban NGO's, city council members, inhabitants' associations - provides information on constraints and opportunities for the development of democratic, equalising governance in London. This analysis constitutes a basis for policy-recommendation applicable beyond the specific case studies. Further, a planned workshop engages urban practitioners, urban NGO's, representatives of inhabitants' urban council and selected neighbourhood association. To identify solutions to given urban problems, the workshops will apply a management tool called Three Horizons' Framework (Sharpe 2016). Such mixed-methods research design combining political philosophy and qualitative methods provides a basis for philosophically informed urban policy and constitutes a methodological innovation.