Problematizing and Politicizing Smart City-Regions: Is Devolution Smart?

Titolo Rivista TERRITORIO
Autori/Curatori Igor Calzada
Anno di pubblicazione 2018 Fascicolo 2017/83
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 11 P. 37-47 Dimensione file 480 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2017-083005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

This paper problematizes the meanings, governance implications, and techno-political shortcomings of ‘smart cities’ through pervasive transitions taking place in Europe by presenting a conceptual framework to politicize ‘smart city-regions’ as complex, transcalar, datadriven, multi-stakeholder-focused, experimental, and, supposedly, democratic techno-territorial assemblages. The momentum is particularly relevant given an increasing number of ongoing reforms of administrative borders and competences of local governments fuelled by devolution, as the four cases of Bristol and Glasgow (uk), and Barcelona and Bilbao (Spain), demonstrate. Hence, by blending governance with technological and territorial issues, this paper elucidates that devolution should be addressed in the implementation of smart strategies stemming from (i) transcalar overlaps and contradictions; (ii) data literacy, ownership, and management; (iii) multi-stakeholder complex urbanity; and (iv) democratic and digital citizenship

Questo articolo riflette su significati, governance e dimensione tecno-politica delle smart city attraverso l’osservazione di alcuni cambiamenti in corso, in Europa, presentando un framework concettuale in grado di definire politicamente le smart city-region come combinazioni tecno-territoriali complesse, transcalari, fondate sull’uso dei dati, multiattoriali, sperimentali e, presumibilmente, democratiche. Questa riflessione si inserisce in una profonda fase di riforme di competenze e confini amministrativi, come dimostrano i quattro casi di Bristol e Glasgow (Regno Unito) e di Barcellona e Bilbao (Spagna). Combinando il tema della governance con questioni tecnologiche e territoriali, l’articolo sostiene che la devolution potrebbe concretizzarsi attraverso strategie smart fondate su (i) sovrapposizioni e contraddizioni transcalari; (ii) proprietà, gestione e alfabetizzazione all’uso dei dati; (iii) approccio multiattoriale; (iv) cittadinanza democratica e digitale

Keywords:Smart city-region; devolution; tecno-politica dei dati

  1. Ache P., 2017, «Metropolitan visions: instant, concrete, and conflict free futures?». Territorio, 80: 7-14. DOI: 10.3280/TR2017-080001
  2. Albino V., Berardi U., Dangelico R.M., 2015, «Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives». Journal of Urban Technology, 22, 1: 3-21. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
  3. Batty M., 2015, «Data About Cities: Redefining Big, Recasting Small». In: Data and the City Workshop The Programmable City project. Maynooth: National University of Ireland.
  4. BCC (Bristol City Council), 2017, «Devolution and The West of England Combined Authority». www.bristol.gov.uk/policies-plans-strategies/the-west-of-england-devolution-deal (accessed on 10/08/2017).
  5. BITS, «Barcelona Initiative for Technological Sovereignty». https://bits.city (accessed on 10/11/2016).
  6. Blanco I., Salazar Y., Bianchi I., 2017, «Transforming Barcelona’s Urban Model? Limits and Potentials for Radical Change Under A Radical Radical Left Government». Urban Transformations, www.urbantransformations.ox.ac.uk/blog/2017/transforming-barcelonas-urban-model-limits-and-potentials-for-radical-change-under-a-radical-left-government (accessed on 10/07/2017).
  7. Brenner N., 2013, Implosions/Explosions. Towards a Study of Planetery Urbanization. Berlin: Jovis.
  8. Brenner N., Schmid C., 2015, «Towards a New Epistemology of the Urban? ». City, 19, 2-3: 151-182.
  9. Calzada I., 2015, «Benchmarking Future City-Regions Beyond Nation-States». Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2, 1: 351-362. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2015.1046908
  10. Calzada I., 2016a, «Cities Cannot Be Reduced to Just Big Data and IoT: Smart City Lessons From Yinchuan, China. Forbes». www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2016/09/19/engaging-citizens-or-just-managing-them-smart-city-lessons-from-china/#6a5a34392dda (accessed on 10/11/2016).
  11. Calzada I., 2016b, «Comparing Smart City-Regional Governance Strategies in Bristol, Glasgow, Bilbao, and Barcelona». Paper presented at the Conference ‘Oxford City Debates 2016’. University of Oxford, February.
  12. Calzada I., 2016c, «(Un)Plugging Smart Cities with Urban Transformations: Towards Multistakeholder City-Regional Complex Urbanity?». urbs, Revista de Estudios Urbanos y Ciencias Sociales, 6, 2: 25-45.
  13. Calzada I., 2017, «The Techno-Politics of Data and Smart Devolution in City-Regions: Comparing Glasgow, Bristol, Barcelona, and Bilbao». Systems, 5, 1: 1-18.
  14. Calzada I., 2017, «Metropolitan and City-Regional Politics of the Urban Age: Why Does ‘(Smart) Devolution’ Matter?». Palgrave Communications, 3, 17094.
  15. Calzada I., Cobo C., 2015, «Unplugging: Deconstructing the Smart City». Journal of Urban Technology, 22, 1: 23-43. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2014.971535
  16. Calzada I., Cowie P., 2017 (forthcoming), «Beyond Data-Driven Smart City-Regions? Rethinking Helix Strategies». Regions, 308.
  17. Caragliu A., Del Bo C., Nijkamp P., 2011, «Smart Cities in Europe». Journal of Urban Technology, 18, 2: 65-82. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601117
  18. Cardullo P., Kitchin R., 2017, «Being a ‘Citizen’ in the Smart City: Up and Down the Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation». The Programmable City, Maynooth.
  19. Carrington D., 2016, «Yinchuan: the smart city where your face is your credit card». http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/10/asia/yinchuan-smartcity-future/index.html (accessed on 20/12/2017)
  20. Casebourne J., 2017, «What’s Next for Devolution in England?». www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-devolution-england (accessed on 10/08/ 2017).
  21. Castro M., Martí M., 2017, «Cómo Comunalizar lo Público: la Oportunidad Municipalista». Revista Nous Horitzons, Barcelona: La Hidra Cooperativa.
  22. Clark G., 2016, «Cities, Global Cities and Glasgow: Some Reflections». ipp, 22 Glasgow.
  23. Clark G., Couturier J., Moir E., Moonen T., 2016, «Fiscal Devolution and Scotland’s Cities: ‘Double Devolution’ and Optimising Urban Investment». Fraser of Allander Economic Commentary, 40, 3: 36-50.
  24. Crivello S., Staricco L., 2017, «Institutionalizing Metropolitan Cities in Italy. Success and Limits of a Centralistic, Simplifying Approach». Urban Research & Practice, 10, 2: 228-238. DOI: 10.1080/17535069.2017.1307001
  25. Cruz H., Martínez R., Blanco I., 2017, «Crisis, Urban Segregation and Social Innovation in Catalonia». PArtecipazione e COnflicto PACO- The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies, 10, 1: 221-245.
  26. De Koning A., Jaffe R., Koster M., 2015, «Citizenship Agendas In and Beyond the Nation-State: (En)Countering Framings of the Good Citizen». Citizenship Studies, 19, 2: 121-127. DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2015.1005940
  27. Dierwechter Y., Herrschel T., Lintz G., 2017, «Smart City-Regional Governance for Sustainability?». Reflections Series, 20: 4. www.westminster.ac.uk/sites/default/files/smart-city-regional-governance.pdf (accessed on 1/08/2017).
  28. Eizaguirre S., 2016, «Comparing Social Innovation Initiatives in Barcelona and Bilbao. Looking at Associative Participation in the Governance of Citizens’ Rights». Revista Catalana de Sociologia, 31, 1: 19-33.
  29. European Commission, 2017, SCC1 Clustering Meeting Minutes. 24th March 2017, Nottingham.
  30. European Commission, 2016, Horizon 2020: Two Years On. Brussels.
  31. European Commission, UNHabitat, 2016, The State of European Cities 2016: Cities Leading the Way to a Better Future. Brussels.
  32. European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, 2014, Mapping smart cities in the eu. Brussels: European Commission.
  33. Evans J., Karvonen A., Raven R., 2016, The Experimental City. London and New York: Routledge.
  34. Fabbro M.D., 2017, «Lessons from Milan’s Emerging Metropolitan Debate ». http://citiscope.org/commentary/2017/06/lessons-milans-emerging-metropolitan-debate (accessed 11/08/2017).
  35. Finn E., 2017, What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing. London: The MIT Press.
  36. Fricke C., Gualini E., 2017, «Metropolitan Regions as Contested Spaces: The Discursive Construction of Metropolitan Space in Comparative Perspective». Territory, Politics, Governance,1-23. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2017.1351888
  37. Gardner N., Hespanhol L., 2017, «SMLXL: Scaling the smart city, from metropolis to individual». City, Culture and Society.
  38. Giordano B., Roller E., 2003, «A Comparison of City Region Dynamics in the uk, Spain and Italy: More Similarities than Differences?». Regional Studies, 37, 9: 911-927. DOI: 10.1080/0034340032000143913
  39. González S., 2004, «The Role of the Guggenheim Museum in the Development of Urban Entrepreneurial Practices in Bilbao». International Journal of Iberian Studies, 16, 3: 177-186.
  40. González S., 2011, «Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in Motion’. How Urban Regeneration ‘Models’ Travel and Mutate in the Global Flows of Policy Tourism». Urban Studies, 48, 7: 1397-1418. DOI: 10.1177/0042098010374510
  41. Habermas J., 2015, The lure of technocracy. London: Polity Press.
  42. Harari Y.N., 2015, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. London: Harvill-Secker.
  43. Harari Y.N., 2016, «Yuval Noah Harari on big data, Google and the end of free will». www.ft.com/content/50bb4830-6a4c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c (accessed on 10/11/2016).
  44. Henderson A., Jeffery C., Wincott D., Wyn Jones R., 2013, «Reflections on the ‘Devolution Paradox’: A Comparative Examination of Multilevel Citizenship». Regional Studies, 47, 3: 303-322. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.768764
  45. Herrschel T., Dierwechter Y., 2015, «Smart City-Regional Governance: A ‘Dual Transition’». Regions Magazine, 300, 1: 20-21. DOI: 10.1080/13673882.2015.11668693
  46. Joss S., Cook M., Dayot Y., 2017, «Smart Cities: Towards a New Citizenship Regime? A Discourse Analysis of the British Smart City Standard». Journal of Urban Technology, 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1336027
  47. Katz B., Bradley J., 2013, The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
  48. Keith M., Calzada, I., 2016, European Smart Citizens as Decision Makers Rather Thank Data Providers, Urban Transformations esrc report on 14/11/2016 Workshop (Un)Plugging Data in Smart City-Regions. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11175.14240
  49. Khanna P., 2014, «Dismantling Empires Through Devolution». www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/stronger-than-democracy/380774 (accessed on 10/08/2017).
  50. Khanna P., 2016, Connectography: Mapping the Global Network Revolution. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
  51. Kitchin R., 2015, «Smart Cities and The Politics of Urban Data». In: Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala A., McFarlane C., Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn? London: Routledge.
  52. Kitchin R., Coletta C., Evans L., Headphy L., Mac Donncha D., 2017, «Smart Cities, Urban Technocrats, Epistemic Communities and Advocacy Coalitions». Maynooth University, The Programmable City Working Paper, 26: 1-22. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RXK4
  53. Klinke A., 2016, «Dynamic Multilevel Governance for Sustainable Transformation as Postnational Configuration». Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30, 3: 323-349. DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2016.1205969
  54. Krivý M., 2016, «Towards a Critique of Cybernetic Urbanism: The Smart City and the Society of Control». Planning Theory, 1-23. DOI: 10.1177/1473095216645631
  55. LAT, 2017, «Laboratorio de Tecnopolíticas para el Bien Común» https://lat.barcelona/?lang=en_US (accessed on 14/08/2017).
  56. Lewontin R., 2000, The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard U.P.
  57. Leydesdorff L., Fritsch M., 2006, «Measuring the Knowledge Base of Regional Innovation Systems in Germany in Terms of a Triple Helix Dynamics». Research Policy, 35, 10: 1538-1553.
  58. Mariotti I., Pacchi C., Di Vita S., 2017, «Coworking Spaces in Milan: Location Patterns and Urban Effects». Journal of Urban Technology, 1-20. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556
  59. Morandi C., Rolando A., Di Vita S., 2016, From Smart City to Smart Region: Digital Services for an Internet of Places. Springer. Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology.
  60. Morozov E., 2014, «The rise of data and the death of politics». www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/20/rise-of-data-death-of-politics-evgeny-morozov-algorithmic-regulation (accessed on 10/11/2016).
  61. Morozov E., Harvey D., 2016, «Conversation between Evgeny Morozov and David Harvey». http://davidharvey.org/2016/11/video-conversation-between-david-harvey-evgeny-morozov-on-post-neoliberalism-trump-infrastructure-sharing-economy-smart-city/ (accessed on 10/11/2016).
  62. Morozov E., Bria F., 2017, «Roundtable Session – A New Deal on Data: What role for Cities? Smart City Expo World Congress». www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cakaaip2Vw (accessed on 01/02/2017).
  63. Morozov E., Eno B., 2017, «Debat. Brian Eno i Evgeny Morozov Una conversa sobre tecnologia i democràcia. CCCB». https://vimeo.com/206060710 (accessed on 28/02/2017).
  64. oecd, 2012, Redefining ‘Urban’: A New Way to Measure Metropolitan Areas. Paris: oecd.
  65. oecd, 2015, The Metropolitan Century. Understanding Urbanisation and its Consequences. Paris: oecd.
  66. oecd, 2016, oecd Regions at a Glance 2016. Paris: oecd.
  67. oecd/kipf, 2016, Fiscal Federalism 2016: Making Decentralisation Work. Paris: oecd.
  68. oecd, 2017a, Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD.
  69. odi, 2017, «Building Smart City Data Infrastructure: Recommendations for the REPLICATE Project». Bristol.
  70. Ortiz P., 2017, «Metropolitan Discipline». www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZQ-OmcK8KA (accessed on 13/08/2017).
  71. Ostrom E., 2010, «Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems». Transnational Corporations Review, 2, 2: 1-12. DOI: 10.1080/19186444.2010.11658229
  72. Reed M., Keech D., 2017, «Making the city smart from the grassroots up: The sustainable food networks of Bristol». City, Culture and Society. (In Press).
  73. Rodríguez-Pose A., Gill N., 2003, «The Global Trend towards Devolution and its Implications». Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21, 3: 333-351.
  74. Rossi U., 2016, «The Variegated Economics and the Potential Politics of the Smart City». Territory, Politics, Governance, 4, 3: 337-353. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2015.1036913
  75. Saunders T., Mulgan G., 2017. Governing with Collective Intelligence. London: Nesta
  76. Scott C., Copeland E., 2016, Smart Devolution: Why Smarter Use of Technology and Data are Vital to the Success of City Devolution, London: Policy Exchange.
  77. Scottish Cities Alliance, 2017, City Key Facts 2016. Edinburgh.
  78. Simon J., Bass T., Boelman V., Mulgan G., 2017, Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement, London: nesta.
  79. Soja E.W., 2000, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  80. Subirats J., 2012, «The Commons: Beyond the Market vs. State Dilemma ». Open Democracy. www.opendemocracy.net/joan-subirats/commons-beyond-market-vs-state-dilemma (accessed on 10/11/2016).
  81. Thomas V., Wang D., Mullagh L., Dunn N., 2016, «Where’s Wally? In Search of Citizen Perspectives on the Smart City». Sustainability, 8, 3: 207.
  82. Tomàs M., 2016, «Explaining Metropolitan Governance. The Case of Spain». Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 1-10.
  83. Torrisi G., Pike A., Tomaney J., Tselios V., 2015, «(Re-)Exploring the Link Between Decentralization and Regional Disparities in Italy». Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2, 1: 123-140.
  84. Travers T., 2017, The Power to the Regions: Why More Devolution Makes Sense. www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/feb/08/power-regions-more-devolution-cities-brexit?CMP=ema-1704&CMP (accessed on 01/08/2017).
  85. Uriarte P.L., 2015, El Concierto Económico Vasco: Una visión personal. Bilbao: Concierto Plus.

  • Emerging Digital Citizenship Regimes Igor Calzada, pp.23 (ISBN:978-1-80382-332-4)
  • Understanding Role of Digital Asset and LOSI for Rural Areas: An Evidence-based Study in Indian Context Harekrishna Misra, Shyam Singh, in International Journal of Rural Management /2024 pp.S12
    DOI: 10.1177/09730052241247895
  • IoT Technology Applications-Based Smart Cities: Research Analysis Mariana-Daniela González-Zamar, Emilio Abad-Segura, Esteban Vázquez-Cano, Eloy López-Meneses, in Electronics /2020 pp.1246
    DOI: 10.3390/electronics9081246

Igor Calzada, Problematizing and Politicizing Smart City-Regions: Is Devolution Smart? in "TERRITORIO" 83/2017, pp 37-47, DOI: 10.3280/TR2017-083005