New trends in urban policies in Europe: evidence from the Netherlands and Denmark

Current social dynamics have aggravated social inequalities in most European countries during the last two decades. The changes have accelerated differences in living conditions between groups in the cities and between neighbourhoods within cities. Along with increasing social polarization, there are clear signs of a spatial dimension to this process. The past gives clear indications that universal programmes and urban polices of regeneration have been unable to cope with the problem of polarization. Cities and national governments seem to be aware of this, as they have developed new ways of organizing urban policy. There are many similarities in the changes of urban policy from country to country, although no coordinating authority has influenced this. First, the new urban policy is organized differently: it now involves partners other than public authorities, often including (parts of) the population of the areas in question. There seems to be a shift from government to governance. The greater openness to the public is of decisive importance. Second, citizens have been invited into the process of urban improvements; empowerment labels attempt to generate social capital in marginalized neighbourhoods. Third, the new urban policy is being targeted to bounded areas. Fourth, a move from sectoral to more integrative policies can be discerned. And finally, at least in some countries, policies are taking the form of contracts or covenants. All of the above changes are made in order to maximize the efficiency of public policy. This paper discusses these now widely used aspects of urban policy. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the effort to broaden the sphere of stakeholders? What are the benefits of a shift from a universalist to targeted strategies and of a shift from sectoral to more integrative policies? What are the problems and consequences of the increasing use of governance?