Regional renaissance? New forms of governance in nonmetropolitan Australia

Everingham, Jo-Anne, Cheshire, Lynda and Lawrence, Geoffrey (2006) Regional renaissance? New forms of governance in nonmetropolitan Australia. Environment And Planning C-government And Policy, 24 1: 139-155. doi:10.1068/c47m

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Everingham, Jo-Anne
Cheshire, Lynda
Lawrence, Geoffrey
Title Regional renaissance? New forms of governance in nonmetropolitan Australia
Journal name Environment And Planning C-government And Policy   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0263-774X
1472-3425
Publication date 2006
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1068/c47m
Volume 24
Issue 1
Start page 139
End page 155
Total pages 17
Editor R.J. Bennett
J.S. Goss
A. jordan
K. Morgan
K. Mossberger
M. Rosenberg
C. Splash
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher Pion
Collection year 2006
Language eng
Subject 370401 Urban and Regional Studies
759999 Other social development and community services
370100 Sociology
Abstract Since the Second World War, Australian governments have adopted various approaches to governing nonmetropolitan Australia. The authors profile three distinct approaches to governance characterised as (1) state-centred regionalism; (2) new localism; and (3) new forms of multifaceted regionalism. Although recent policy initiatives have been justified by the argument that the region is the most suitable scale for planning and development in nonmetropolitan Australia, in practice the institutional landscape is a hybrid of overlapping local, regional, and national scales of action. The authors compare this new, multifaceted, regionalism with the so-called 'new regionalism currently being promoted in Western Europe and North America. It is argued that new regionalism differs in quite important ways from the regionalism currently being fostered in Australia. In Australia, the centrality of sustainability principles, and the attempt to foster interdependence amongst stakeholders from the state, market, and civil society, have produced a layer of networked governance that is different from that overseas. It is argued that there is a triple bottom-line 'promise' in the Australian approach which differs from the Western Europe/North American model, and which has the potential to deliver enhanced economic, social, and environmental outcomes.
Keyword Environmental Studies
Public Administration
Development Agencies
Globalization
England
Program
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 15 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 16 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 09:10:11 EST