Transnational urban policies: ‘relocating’ Spanish and Brazilian models of urban planning in Buenos Aires

Abstract

This article examines the transnationalization of urban policies by analysing the adoption of two 'foreign' models of participatory urban planning in the city of Buenos Aires. Both schemes are modelled on internationally acclaimed experiments: Barcelona's Strategic Plan and Porto Alegre's Participatory Budget. In Buenos Aires, however, these policy transfers have failed to produce the remarkable results for which their Spanish and Brazilian exemplars have been internationally praised. Traditional accounts of policy transfers ponder on the institutional compatibility between imported schemes and host environments. The author argues that these works tend to overlook the significance of the stochastic conditions presiding over the adoption of particular policy models in different cities. She proposes to deviate from traditional approaches by seeking an explanation for the poor results of the schemes in Buenos Aires in (a) the contextual conditions framing their adoption in the Argentine capital, and (b) the circumstances surrounding their emergence in Barcelona and Porto Alegre.

Policy transfer routes: an evidence-based conceptual model to explain policy adoption

“…Following existing typologies (Rose 1991; Goldfinch and Roberts 2013), we distinguish between imitation, adaptation and inspiration as adoption mechanisms. Imitationalso referred to as copying, mimicking or harmonizationis considered a "quick fix" for policy-makers in urgent need of a solution and is associated with several forms of failed transfer (Toens and Landwehr 2009;Crot 2010). Adaptation refers to the incorporation of the basic model with changes and includes emulation along with the more recent terms of translation and assemblage.…”

Convergence and divergence in conceptualising and planning the sustainable city: an introduction

“…These exemplar city models suggest that the sustainable city can be pre‐defined and met by following key pathways of enshrined ‘best practice’ (Guy and Marvin ; Bulkeley ; McCann and Ward ; Hodson and Marvin ). Yet, on the other hand, mimesis invokes modification and change as imitation is attempted; copies are never perfect and imitation is often selective, thus it is possible to identify and highlight a tremendous divergence in how ‘sustainability’ is conceptualised (Howard [1898]; World Commission on Environment and Development ; Girardet ; Rydin ; Davidson ; Dobson ) and how so‐called ‘best practices’ have been adopted and adapted to specific urban contexts (Crot ; Harris and Moore ; Moore ). This simultaneous convergence and divergence is the process at the heart of this special section.…”

Planning Histories and Practices of Circulating Urban Knowledge

“…However, more institutional and geographically nuanced analyses are key too. Laurence Crot (: 120), for example, explores how models of participatory budgeting from Barcelona and Porto Alegre failed to be ‘relocated’ in Buenos Aires because of institutional incompatibility, the absence of popular calls for greater participation, and insufficient political will (see also de Jong, , on the difficulties of transferring US models of public transport management to London). Furthermore, it is important to recognize that policymaking and planning practice often suffer from poor and insufficient levels of resourcing, staffing, training and infrastructure (Sanyal, : 6).…”

“…The past decade has witnessed an upsurge in academic interest in the travel, transfer and flow of urban policy and planning models, ideas and techniques. This has involved coverage across a range of themes and spatial forms, including business improvement districts (Hoyt, ; Ward, ; Cook, ), revanchist urbanism (Swanson, ; Mountz and Curran, ), urban drug policy (McCann, ), participatory budgeting (Crot, ), new urbanism (Thompson‐Fawcett, ; Moore, ), urban transport (de Jong and Edelenbos, ) and creative cities (Wang, ; Peck, ; Luckman et al ., ; Prince, ). There has been a focus across an array of agents and actors: consultants, experts, gurus and other ‘urban policy entrepreneurs’ (Hoyt, ), international foundations and think‐tanks, all operating through a transfer infrastructure of conferences, publications, internet sites and study tours.…”