Boelens imitating Einstein                              Boelens as Boelens
(source: www.urbanunlimited.nl)

'You’re better off without the government'

One of the thinkers behind ReUrbA is the Dutch planology professor, Luuk Boelens. In the year when the ReUrbA project comes to an end, the time is right for an interview. Especially because, a few years ago, Professor Boelens was the person who set out the broad outlines of what is now known as the ReUrbA method.
But the interview was completely different from what we expected.

'The ReUrbA project has not fulfilled my expectations. As far as I can see, certainly in the case of the Dutch partner in South Holland, people have not managed to make the step advocated in the ReUrbA method. ReUrbA has now proved redundant. I would go even further. With hindsight, I think that European projects of this kind – INTERREG for example – get in the way of successful and proper urban regeneration', says Luuk Boelens without a trace of hesitation. 'They result in lots of red tape, endless discussions and a financial merry-go-round. But not in innovative urban revitalisation, and not even in proper coordination or practical exchanges of experience.'
Luuk Boelens's assessment of ReUrbA is rooted in his thinking about the role of government in urban regeneration.
He is even more pessimistic, if that's possible, in this area: 'Even though there is no such thing as the government – there are so many different layers, scales and departments – urban regeneration runs up against the same factor, time and again: government. Despite all the grand words and intentions relating to development, the government doesn't get things going; it actually smothers new developments. Incidentally, that applies not only to urban regeneration but also to numerous other areas where government is involved. I know that is a tough thing to say, but everybody who takes a good look at how government works is bound to come to the same conclusion. The solution is not to reduce the number of government layers to a minimum, or to make changes to internal procedures. When it comes to many urban issues, government ideologies are simply outdated.'

Boelens claims that government authorities are not longer adequate as institutions. 'In general, these organisations are about 150 years old. As late as the immediate post-war years, they were very effective and efficient, but that time has gone. The institutions are no longer adequate to cope with modern issues. They think in the wrong ways, they ask the wrong questions, they adopt the wrong basic principles, they pick the wrong objectives. I do know that governments aren't just going to abolish themselves, but you could quite happily send away two-thirds of the government without causing any problems. On the contrary, a whole raft of opportunities would be created for improving the quality, inefficiency, support and sustainability of urban regeneration processes.'

Is this some sort of modern-day anarchist speaking? 'Certainly not. I'm not writing off government altogether. There are things that certain government layers or department can regulate better than other organisations. But unless they have land or property, and can therefore act as partners in consultations, it is better for governments to take a back seat. Numerous developments benefit from collaboration between companies, non-governmental organisations, lobby groups and committed members of the public. These are the real players, they know how you need to respond to opportunities, and they are focused on value and results. In terms of their ideology and approach, government authorities are more oriented towards plans, internal coordination and administrative legitimacy. The results of all these activities are simply less important for government. Governments think in terms of numbers, locations, regions and institutions. They don't think in terms of opportunities and possibilities. They don't know what to do with non-government actors and alliances between them. In essence, governments are terribly conservative. Admittedly, they can organise legal consistency and legal certainty. But they have no idea when it comes to encouraging dynamism and quality.'

One things stands out. Professor Boelen’s analysis is no stranger to the ReUrbA method. The method advocates 'governance' rather than 'government'. Doesn’t that fit in perfectly with Professor Boelens's analysis?
'That's right. I tried to encourage that sort of thinking at ReUrbA. But the way things have evolved means that the government is now the first port of call for a solution. When it comes to collaboration and alliances, people constantly think in terms of government, planning and ReUrbA. In other words: inside-out instead of outside-in. They want to get things sorted out before they 'come out', and that includes ReUrbA. But that's not how it works. Governance originally came from the corporate sector. Large transnational corporations with branches throughout the world started wondering how they could retain a single identity, how they could maintain a single corporate philosophy and unified commitment against the background of a wide variety of different cultures. This resulted in governance, a model that gives everybody complete freedom within a broad framework. At the same time, governance supplied a model for entering into joint ventures with other parties and other transnational corporations in very specific areas, creating highly effective and productive alliances. These ventures could be temporary or permanent, and were independent of competitive relationships in other areas. Recently, this concept has become fashionable in government circles and it is used any old how without understanding what it really means. Because government authorities are often unable or unwilling to do anything with the creativity required by governance, they are unable to cope with changing alliances and have no affinity at all with the enthusiasm needed to realise dreams. Governments think they do this. For example, public-private initiatives are on the agenda everywhere you look. But usually without any result. Governments cannot manage to think outside-in. They continue to reason inside-out and to crush even the best initiatives.'

Boelens provides a Dutch example in which ReUrbA is also involved: the plan for the Stedenbaan, a fine-meshed, high-frequency train network in combination with new stations and new building projects in the centre of the busiest part of the western Netherlands. 'What has happened here is that people have built up an enormous Christmas tree of steering, working and project groups in order to ensure the orchestration of all government layers and departments. From the very start, interested commercial parties have been kept on the outside with the excuse that the government needs to get its own house in order before it can start effective negotiations with the outside world. And when the realisation dawned that the result was an enormous juggernaut, as well as a drab compromise between compromises without any creativity or innovation, it was decided to set up a "Design Workshop" of their own with bureaucrats from their own organisation and other government authorities. But this is not a solution for the underlying problem. Once again, people have virtually completely failed to tap into assistance, creativity and innovation from circles outside the government. There is no more vision and there are just a few design ideas that don't mean much to anybody else. And so there is not a lot left of the enthusiasm and commitment of numerous parties. Committed project developers, associations, investors and other potentially decisive parties are pulling out. What is more, the government is often frustrating their proposals as result of internal political, or even bureaucratic, navel-gazing. The best thing the government can do now is to give the market much more room. At most, it should provide it with facilities or grants occasionally, but this is generally not necessary.'

Anybody who thinks that major innovation processes are impossible without government is wrong, says Luuk. He has no difficulty in listing all sorts of projects in the Netherlands from which the government was excluded as much as possible. 'We work with the business sector, with schools, groups of private individuals, project developers... in short, the people who really matter for the particular project. And that works just fine. And if there are hitches, it is the government's ideology and approach that turns out to be the problem time and again.'

Luuk Boelens thinks the problem is an international one. 'It is particularly common in the developed countries, but you can be sure that it will be emerging in developing countries within the foreseeable future. But a lot of people simply refuse to see it. Even though the importance of government is plummeting worldwide and the role of non-governmental organisations has been expanding dramatically for years now. Here in the Netherlands, the problem is perhaps even more acute; we are a victim of our own success. There is a "lock-in" in planology and urban planning. Governments in countries like the Netherlands still think that they have done a good job in the spatial planning field and that they are in the lead. They don't realise that their approach is now hopelessly outdated. But if you want to find examples of good governance these days, you have to go to Asia: to China and Japan. Or to America. In Europe, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia are the only countries where you can find innovation. But here too, there are innumerable promising initiatives on a smaller scale that work without the government. The most you can say is that the switch from "government to governance" has acquired a new dimension as a result of all the experience: "beyond the plan and beyond government".'

ReUrbA was set up at the time by Europe as a result of concerns about the development of the larger cities in Northwest Europe. Was that the wrong way to go? Professor Boelens answers: 'In part, yes. Problems such as environmental nuisance, spatial decline multicultural issues and so on are all often concentrated in major cities. On the other hand, no. In the global network and Internet community, the major cities are the new innovative centres for knowledge, culture and the economy. That is a paradox, but not one that you can sort out by centralising taxation at the national and European levels and then pumping back grants in a top-down approach. That creates red tape, and wastes creativity and money. So you need a different approach. You have to let towns and cities sort out their own problems. We should be following the example of the United States and working more and more with urban regimes, associative planning and associative democracy. As Europe, you should only tackle the things that it is better to tackle at the European level. For example, spatial planning in Europe benefits from good European aviation policy, a good network for high-speed trains, sound water management for rivers like the Rhine etc. You shouldn't leave these things to the free market; they should be regulated forcefully at the European level. And that is precisely what isn't happening. INTERREG should be concentrating much more on these issues, together with the sectors, companies and stakeholders in question. And be keeping well clear of other areas, including many of the current INTERREG issues.'

ReUrbA will probably be surprised by Professor Boelens's comments, but ReUrbA coordinator Mark Reede is not at all offended: ‘He makes it clear in a very direct way that things need to change in government. I just think we are more optimistic about the possibilities. But the difficulties he refers to are real and considerable. Anybody else might conclude that a project for change like ReUrbA should be expanded.’

>>> WEBSITE URBAN UNLIMITED (Professor Luuk Boelens)