142 Reviews and information Irena BAČLIJA A reconceptualisation of urban management (reflections on the book A reconceptualisation of urban management: The administration of cities, their services, and their growth) Title: A reconceptualisation of urban management: The administration of cities, their services, and their growth Author: Irena Bačlija Publisher: The Edwin Mellen Press Place and year of publication: Lewiston, New York, 2014 Number of pages: 267 [ISBN: 978-0-7734-4310-5] Introduction The readers of Urbani izziv are well informed on various aspects of urban problems that are closely related to both the high number and density of the population in cities. My book A reconceptualisation of urban manage­ment: The administration of cities, their services, and their growth focuses on how these numerous problems are to be re­solved. Douglas Yates (1977: 6) believes that urban problems are almost unsolv­able because “the city is too decentral­ised to permit coherent planning and policy making” and is too centralised to support a responsive, flexible relation­ship between the city administration and citizens. The city administration’s task of providing urban services for such densely populated and heterogene­ous areas is extremely demanding, espe­cially taking into account that citizens’ needs differ, that issues of marginalised and poor groups should be addressed and that an environment attractive to investors should be created at the same time. Shabbir Cheema (1993) believes there are only two possible answers to urban problems: to reduce immigra­tion pressures or to improve urban management. Urban management is often described as an approach towards solving complex urban problems (see, e.g., Cheema, 1993; Bramezza, 1996; McGill, 1996; Werna, 1995; Van Dijk, 2006 etc.); however, this concept lacks a clear definition and a context. Thus the chief goal of my book is to enrich the urban management concept in meaning and empower it with tools. What is urban management? Urban management is closely connect­ed to the new role of city governments in the neoliberal era (Davey et al. 1996). Edmundo Werna (1995) highlights changes in the political and economic framework of society that have influ­enced the development of urban man­agement. He points out how the modes of production prevailing throughout the world were restructured, with asso­ciated changes in the regime of accumu­lation, an emphasis on the locality, and the increasing complexity and fragmen­tation of society. In addition, one has to consider welfare-state crises, as well as the wave of decentralisation and rising competitiveness between cities. These global changes have dramatically influ­enced urban development and, with it, the development of urban management. Urban management theory has its roots in local government reform and the geo­graphical concepts of “urban manageri­alism” from the 1970s, but it “flourished as an institutionalised concept in the mid-1980s, when it was championed by a number of key international do­nor agencies for the developing world” ( Jenkins 2000: 137). In the 1970s, when discussion on ur­ban managerialism was dominated by Ray E. Pahl, Simon Leonard and Pe­ter Williams, the concept was mainly discussed within the framework of ur­ban sociology. This changed over time, moving urban management into a more interdisciplinary area. Because of its elu­sive nature, “urban management” was claimed by a number of disciplines (ar­chitecture, sociology, urban sociology, urbanism, political science etc.), each of which understood and defined the concept differently. Numerous authors have tried to define urban manage­ment (e.g., Stren, 1993; Dillinger, 1994; Davey, 1993; Mattingly, 1994; McGill, 1998 etc.), but a unified definition has yet to be achieved. Richard E. Stren (1993) suggests that, in fact, arriving at a concise definition of urban manage­ment has never really been attempted, in spite of comparative and analytical work in this area. According to Michael Mattingly (1994), a clearer notion of what comprises urban management is necessary for its further development. Aside from the interdisciplinary and Urbani izziv, volume 25, no. 1, 2014 Reviews and information multidisciplinary approach, the lack of a definition of convergence has also resulted from confusing the term ur­ban management with other related terms. Some authors (e.g., Churchill, 1985; Cheema, 1993; Bramezza, 1996; Clarke, 1991) equate the term urban management with urban governance. Pieter Meine Van Dijk (2006: 10) es­pecially warns that urban management is not urban governance because “the first refers to the officials executing the policies, while governance in the case of local governments refers to more.” In this context, Nirmala Rao (2007: 4) especially emphasises that “cities are governed and managed.” In this book I argue that the term urban management should be preserved and given substance. Because it has been on the academic agenda for decades, it would be unwise to let it die “within the rapidly changing international mar­ketplace of development ideas” (Stren 1993: 137). Ideas like new city manage­ment (Hambleton, 2004), integrated ur­ban management (Chakrabarty, 2001), project management (Mattingly 1994), development or growth management (Mattingly 1994) and so on could be all incorporated into this umbrella term. I also argue that urban management should be distinguished from New Public Management reforms because city administrations are under different constraints than state administrations. Calls for a leaner state have caused a decentralisation of numerous tasks that are now within the authority of the lo­cal (city) government. Providing local services demands financial resources that cities must raise. Intergovernmen­tal transfers are mostly insufficient, and so cities have to compete in the market, which brings cities closer to a business environment. The prevailing argument of this book is that urban management is the required modern reform move­ment for city administration, and that its principles are different from other public administration reforms. Reconceptualisation of urban management (Re)conceptualisation should be un­derstood as a modern approach to­wards city administration proactive functioning and, illustratively, urban management is presented as a balanc­ing scale. Its chief concern is to main­tain a balance between the stakehold­ers (the citizens) and the shareholders (the investors), protecting and giving voice to citizens while at the same time providing opportunities for investors. The basic balance between social and economic development should be pur­sued. To attract investors to the city, a specialised labour force and an efficient infrastructure should be provided; the labour force is mostly attracted by job availability and a high standard of liv­ing. Consequently, in order to attract investors, the labour force also has to be attracted, and vice versa. The reader may wonder why I em-phasise the proactive role of city ad-ministration/management because in modern democratic local government systems the local government holds legitimate power to adopt public poli­cies and strategies for city development. Although I am neither challenging the democratic polity nor proposing tech­nocracy in the city, I do argue that city administration/management should be given special attention and more power. The reason is that city administration plays a key role in city performance. Some cities perform better than others, and some suggest that the credit for suc­cess of the city should not be given only to politicians. Studies (see, e.g., Mour­itzen & Svara 2002) show that cities with a more autonomous urban man­ager (the highest-ranking civil servant in the city administration organisation) perform better than others. Jordi Borja (1996) states that allowing the urban manager more autonomy will result in more successful and effective city lead­ership. As Walter Rauch (1998) and James H. Svara (2003) discovered, U.S. cities with more-powerful urban man­agers invest more in long-term projects. For a city to become more attractive to investors and to highly-skilled labour, it must invest in long-term projects, but these are often hampered by the length of political terms. This implies that city administrators should assume more ac­tivities related to city development and long-term goals. Outline of the book The opening discussion serves as an introduction. Chapter One presents theories on city administration and city management. The reader is intro­duced to understanding how the city is perceived in administrative science and how this perception differs from other disciplines’ conceptions. Also included in this chapter is argumentation on why studying city administration/man­agement is important. Chapter Two focuses on the city as a subject of man­agement: the static-structural approach toward the city and city polity. It identi­fies how legal provisions, structural lim­itations and system frameworks shape the subject of urban management and how an urban manager can define his scope of work. Chapter Three offers insight into the service provision func­tion of the city. The lean state paradigm has caused the decentralisation of many public service provisions to the local level (and thus also or even more so to the urban level). Coupled with extreme population density and pressures for economic performance, this presents city administrations with an extensive workload. The chapter also offers an overview of reform theory and political theory, their confrontation on the op­timal size of the city and how adminis­tration reform could help overcome the optimal size issue. Chapter Four docu­ments the process of concept evolution and divides it into three eras: the era of managerialism, the era of agencies and the era of governance, which help Urbani izziv, volume 25, no. 1, 2014 explain how and why the urban man­agement concept remains elusive. The chapter closes with an argument on why and how urban management, new pub­lic management and urban governance differ because this differentiation is cru­cial for understanding development of urban management. The chapter offers a conceptual framework of urban man­agement that is detached from empirical reality; the reader is presented with an illustrative model of the urban manage­ment concept that should be under­stood as a balancing scale. Although a conceptual framework is usually de­tached from empirical reality, the most persuasive basis for recommendations is empirical evidence. Therefore the last chapter presents an extensive study on urban management as an evaluation test of the proposed urban management concept. The conclusion tests whether, to what extent and how the proposed model holds merit. Irena Bačlija University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: irena.baclija@fdv.uni-lj.si References Borja, J. (1996) Cities: New roles and forms of governing. In: Cohen, M. A., Blair, R. A., Tulchin, J. S. & Garland, A. M. (eds.) Prepar­ing for the urban future: Global pressures and local forces, pp. 70–89. Washington, Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Bramezza, I. (1996) The competitiveness of the European city and the role of urban manage­ment in improving the city’s performance. The Hague, CIP-Data Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Chakrabarty, B. K. (2001) Urban management: Concepts, principles, techniques and educa­tion, Cities, 18(5), pp. 331–345. DOI: 10.1016/ S0264-2751(01)00026-9 Cheema, S. G. (1993) The challenge of urban management: Some issues. In: Cheema, S. G. & Ward, S. E. (eds.) Urban management policies and innovations in developing coun­tries, pp. 1–17. London, Praeger Westport. Churchill, A., Lea, S. G. & Courtney, J. M. (eds.) (1985) Cities in conflict: Studies in the planning and management of Asian cities. Washington, World Bank. Clarke, G. (1991) Urban management in developing countries: A critical role. Cit­ies, 8(2), pp. 93–107. DOI: 10.1016/0264­2751(91)90003-A Davey, K. (1993) Elements of urban man­agement. Washington, World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/0-8213-2424-1 Davey, K., Batley, R., Devas, N., Norris, M. & Pasteur, D. (1996) Urban management: The challenge of growth. Aldershot, Avebury. Dillinger, W. (1994) Decentralization and its implications for service delivery. Washington, World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/0-8213-2792-5 Hambleton, R. (2004) Beyond new public man­agement – city leadership, democratic renewal and the politics of place. Chicago, City Futures International Conference. Jenkins, P. (2000) Urban management, urban poverty and urban governance: planning and land management in Maputo. Environment and Urbanisation, 12(1), pp. 137–152. Mattingly, M. (1994) Meaning of urban man­agement. Cities, 11(3), pp. 201–205. DOI: 10.1016/0264-2751(94)90060-4 McGill, R. (1996) Institution building: A third world city management perspective. New York, Macmillan Press. McGill, R. (1998) Urban management in de­veloping countries. Cities, 15(6), pp. 463–471. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-2751(98)00041-9 Mouritzen, P. & Svara, J. (2002) Leadership at the apex. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh University Press. Rao, N. (2007) Cities in transition: Growth, change and governance in six metro­politan areas. London, Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.4324/9780203391150 Rauch, W. (1998) Problems of decision making for a sustainable development. Water Science Technology, 38(11), pp. 31–39. DOI: 10.1016/S0273-1223(98)00637-4 Stren, R. E. (1993) Urban management in development assistance: An elusive concept. Cities, 10(2), pp. 125–139. DOI: 10.1016/0264­2751(93)90044-J Svara, J. H. (2003) Effective mayoral leader­ship in council-manager cities: Reassessing the facilitative model. National Civic Review, 92(2), pp. 157–172. DOI: 10.1002/ncr.14 Van Dijk, P. M. (2006) Managing cities in developing countries: The theory and practice of urban management. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. Werna, E. (1995) The management of urban development, or the development of urban management? Problems and premises of an elusive concept. Cities, 12(5), pp. 353–359. DOI: 10.1016/0264-2751(95)00069-X Reviews and information Yates, D. (1977) The ungovernable city: The politics of urban problems and policy making. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Biography Irena Bačlija is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lju­bljana (Department of Policy Analysis and Public Administration). Her research areas are urban management, urban governance and local self-government systems. She has authored and coauthored several pub­lications. More information and her full CV are available at http://www.fdv.uni-lj.si/ob­vestila-in-informacije/imenik-sodelavcev/ pedagogi/kartica/irena-baclija/. Information The book’s internet site: https://mellenpress. com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=8928&pc=9 Urbani izziv, volume 25, no. 1, 2014