Estimados/as colegas, un recordatorio sobre la fecha límite para presentar abstracts (11 de enero) al noveno ‘Diálogo Transatlántico’ de este año. Seguido de la información general, la descripción del ‘workshop’ que co-dirijo con George Julnes de la Universidad de Baltimore. Os animo a presentar propuestas. Un saludo, María Bustelo

9th TRANSATLANTIC DIALOGUE

June 12-15, 2013 Baltimore, Maryland

(RE)BUILDING CAPACITIES FOR URBAN GOVERNANCE

The College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore is proud to host  the 2013 TAD conference. Over the years, the TAD conference has established itself as a forum where high quality, cutting-edge research in the field of Public Administration is discussed. The goal of next year’s conference is to continue with this tradition in a format that maximizes the opportunity for meaningful exchange of ideas. Therefore, only a maximum of 80 participants from the US and Europe will be permitted to join the conference. All participants are expected to prepare and deliver a paper.

The Transatlantic Dialogue is a joint initiative of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA) and the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). The 9th Transatlantic Dialogue continues a successful series that has been hosted at the Catholic University Leuven (2005, 2006); the University of Delaware (2007);SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan; (2008), George Washington University (2009); the University of Siena (2010); Rutgers University, Newark (2011); and Radboud University, Nijmegen (2012).

ORGANIZING TEAM

Co-Chairs:

Patria de Lancer Julnes

University of Baltimore

Martin Laffin

Queen Mary University of London

Ellen Wayenberg

Ghent University, Belgium

Local organizing team:

George Julnes

Lawrence Miller

Stephen Percy

Kendra Stewart

CONFERENCE THEME

For the first time in human history more people across the world are living in urban than in rural areas. This massive urban concentration creates great opportunities for economic growth and social progress but also poses challenging questions over the capacities of existing urban governance structures. Most metropolitan areas face complex and inter-related problems ranging from urban decay and environmental disasters to protest movements and rising social disorder and crime. Despite these social problems and tightening fiscal pressures, many cities have been able to leverage innovations that promote economic growth and development that extend to their surrounding regions and countries.

The 9th Transatlantic Dialogue seeks to bring together scholars and practitioners from both sides of the Atlantic to exchange ideas about how to help city governments develop the capacity to manage contemporary problems and take advantage of opportunities in an increasingly globalized environment. Our host city, the City of Baltimore, is an ideal setting for this dialogue. While Baltimore has had its share of struggles, it is also an example of reinvention and revitalization that is ranked 25th in the United States and 90th worldwide as an innovation city.

WORKSHOPS

Detailed information about the workshops can be found on the website www.9tad.org

Workshop 1:

All politics is glocal: urban issues, solutions, and outcomes in a multi-leveled, networked globalized society

Workshop 2:

How Do We Know We’re “Improving” Governance?: Representing the Public Interest in Pluralistic, Urban Societies

Workshop 3:

Remaining competitive: managing performance for efficient and effective urban service delivery

Workshop 4:

Leveraging Urban Partnerships: Universities and other nongovernmental organizations as Change Agents in Urban Communities

Workshop 5:

Cities of the future: How can technology make urban living and governance smarter?

Workshop 6:

Do Pro-Business Policies Improve Urban Fiscal Health?: Revisiting the Orthodox View of Urban Public Finance by Improving Financial Management

CONFERENCE INFORMATIONSUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS

Participants are invited to submit an abstract of 400-700 words indicating the workshop and their full contact details. Abstracts must be submitted to the conference organization via email at: 9TADAbstracts@ubalt.edu by January 11, 2013.

Workshop 2:  How Do We Know We’re “Improving” Governance?:  Representing the Public Interest in Pluralistic, Urban Societies

American co-chair: George Julnes (University of Baltimore)-- gjulnes@ubalt.edu

European co-chair: Maria Bustelo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)-- mbustelo@cps.ucm.es

It is currently accepted that emphasizing accountability and evidence-based decision-making can improve governance.  Less agreement surrounds the issue of how public administrators are to discern what constitutes “improvement” regarding outcomes for those affected by government decisions.  This lack of consensus about improvement is complicated further in urban environments, with stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and circumstances embracing contrasting perspectives of what constitutes “better” public outcomes and “better” governance.  

For example, efforts to promote urban development are often guided by economic considerations, such as increasing property values, and hence the tax base, by promoting gentrification in targeted neighborhoods.  However, does gentrification truly advance the public interest?  Opponents to gentrification argue that economic values need to be balanced with other fundamental values, such as equality, human dignity, and community. If there are controversies about how we judge the value of alternatives, how are administrators to know if they are serving the public interest?  How is the public, with diverse values, to have confidence in the promise of improved governance? This workshop will address these questions in the context of urban public administration, guided by work in three overlapping areas: 

(1) What values are to be emphasized in valuing policy alternatives?  This includes issues in how to balance traditional prescriptive public values (efficiency, equality, community, security, liberty) but also concerns in giving voice to the values of people often neglected in policy debates.  Central to this area are the methods used in policy analysis for representing values held by the public and identified subgroups.  For example, while cities often use survey methods to assess citizen preferences, some believe that social deliberation better reveals citizen values and so argue that group discussions are needed to represent the public interest.

(2) Even accepting that public values can be properly identified, what are the strengths and weaknesses of our different approaches to combining these values into overall judgments of value regarding the public interest?  For example, benefit-cost analysis is often used to yield summative valuation judgments, but there is a growing literature critical of the assumptions of its underlying economic paradigm, as well as spirited controversies regarding different approaches to incorporating equality and other values.  And, of course, many advocate holistic, qualitative approaches to judging the value of public policies and programs, often with different visions of what constitutes a good society.  To move forward in these debates over appropriate valuing methodologies and provide actionable guidance for administrators, we need a critical understanding of their virtues and limitations in specific decision-contexts. 

(3) How can public officials be strategic in using multiple approaches to understanding the value of policy alternatives?  Given the different approaches to representing citizen values and different approaches to judging the value of public policies and programs, public administrators need guidance on how to combine, or sequence, available methods in ways that best serve the public interest.  Taking this further, can we recommend government policies that encourage this strategic approach to valuing?

In sum, with a mandate to serve the public-at-large, how are urban leaders to know how to promote the public interest in complex, pluralistic, and political contexts?