The CDS wheel of Urban Development
3.5. The impact of city-to-city learning on strategic planning practice
67
68
South Africa is used in the development of town development visions and strategies in the Namibian and Malawian towns and city contexts.
The Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) study was important at that time as it recognized that policy transfer studies accepted that such transfer processes led to or will lead to the successful implementation of the respective policies. Dolowitz and Marsh (2000: 6) noted, however:
…it is becoming increasingly apparent that policy transfer can, and often does, lead to policy failure. So, there is a need to explore the relationship between transfer and policy success or failure.
More than this groundbreaking observation, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) offered a conceptual framework that has since been used by numerous other researchers. Essentially, as part of the framework they pose six important questions which are repeated here (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000:
8):
Why do actors engage in policy transfer?
Who are the key actors involved in the policy transfer process?
What is transferred?
From where are lessons drawn?
What are the different degrees of transfer?
What restricts or facilitates the policy transfer process?
These are all important questions that will be useful to bear in mind in the case study in thinking about the process of city-to-city learning and the knowledge transfer process.
It is interesting, however, that in a more recent publication Fawcett and Marsh (2012: 162) have again acknowledged that the relationship between the process of policy transfer and its actual outcomes is not only of growing importance, but is also still a very under-researched area. In particular they apply their minds to the vexed question of what exactly are those factors that affect the success, or otherwise, of policy transfer, given the poor outcomes of policy transfer.
69
Closer to home, De Villiers (2009: 150) who conducted a comprehensive study of all 285 municipalities in South Africa in 2005 makes the claim that most city-to-city partnerships actually fail, quoting a study conducted within South Africa as an example, where only 13% were rated as highly successful. More alarming, however, is that a subsequent study showed that an estimated 51% of the partnerships identified in 2004 were abandoned by 2006, and only 7 of the 50 investigated were worthy of being emulated (De Villiers, 2009: 150).
Using these South African insights and drawing from research done in US cities, De Villiers (2009) identified some key factors in successful and sustainable city relationships. What is most useful about De Villiers’ (2009) contribution is the development of a planning and management framework which built into it a range of critical success factors. Whilst the entire framework will not be described here, an attempt is made to isolate the key success factors as identified by De Villiers (2009: 150-151). This is done in order to correlate these factors with a set of related questions that can be applied to the UCLG case study. The intention is to create a broad framework for assessing the effectiveness of city-to-city learning, as reflected in Table 3.4 below. What stands out from the table is the importance of the early creation of an enabling environment to support the partnership, the establishment of organizational and institutional mechanisms such as staff structures and agreements as well as softer but equally important issues of leadership, attitudes and values.
70
Table 3.4 Extrapolation of success factors in learning (adapted from De Villiers, 2009: 150) De Villiers (2009) Success Factors Key issues related to the UCLG Case Study 1. Enabling environment to facilitate
partnership: role of governmental and other agencies
1. Who was responsible for initiating the partnership and how well supported is it by spheres of
government and governmental agencies?
2. Partnership selection 2. Who matched the mentor and mentees and how well was this done?
3. Municipal council support and management commitment
3. Does the Council support the initiative and is the management aware and behind the program?
4. Broad-based community involvement and participation, including sub-alliances between institutions
4. Are the citizens in the respective cities involved or aware of the processes underway?
5. Quality of the management of the partnership
5. Who manages the entire process and how?
6. Strong committed leadership 6. Who leads the process over time? Is there continuity from a political and community perspective?
7. Effective and permanent organizational structures and staff
7. Who is responsible for the partnership on an on- going basis, and are there organizational structures and staff in place to oversee the partnership?
8. Institutional agreements governing the relationship
8. Is there a long-term Memorandum of
Understanding that is signed between the parties?
9. Relationship maintenance through reliable communication media
9. How often is the relationship maintained and how?
10. Regular exchanges and relationship building with similar personalities on both sides
10. How often do the cities meet and who are the personalities on each side that maintain the relationships?
11. Attitudes and values of trust,
reciprocity, commitment, understanding, cultural sensitivity, positive attitude towards risk, and flexibility
11. Is there mutual trust and reciprocity on both sides?
12. Ability to access on-going financial resources
12. How does the project ensure financial sustainability and does this jeopardize the relationship?
13. Regular evaluation and revision of terms of agreement and relationship
13. Is the partnership monitored and evaluated on an on-going basis?
71
In particular, De Villiers (2009: 155) identifies three key areas of “alliance capability, institutional support and alliance lifecycle” which provide a useful starting point for developing a more detailed assessment framework. It is interesting to note too that De Villiers (2009: 155) acknowledges that more research is required in establishing the context in which the framework can be applied, accepting the differences due to “geographical orientation of relationships, city size, resources applied and the size of the relationship portfolio”. These are important considerations that will be drawn on as the study is amongst eThekwini Municipality, a large well-resourced metropolitan authority in South Africa, and smaller, less- resourced municipalities in Namibia and Malawi.
Beyond the size and complexity, each operates in unique development and planning contexts.