Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Urban Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Newman, P.
Right arrow Articles by Thornley, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Fragmentation and Centralisation in the Governance of London: Influencing the Urban Policy and Planning Agenda

Peter Newman

School of Urban Development and Planning, University of Westminster, London NW1 5LS, UK

Andy Thornley

Department of Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2 2AE, UK, A. THORNLEY{at}1se.ac.uk

The government of London has fragmented. Numerous quangos have taken over urban policy and planning roles. Recently further bodies have arisen in response to the government's urban expenditure competitions. This fragmentation has been accompanied by increasing centralisation, achieved through institutional reforms, central government appointments and financial controls. Government also encouraged a considerable role for the private sector. Whilst the boroughs are included in decision-making, primary objectives are set by the private sector and are concerned with London'sworld-city role. Through a unique 'partnership' with the public and private sectors, central government claims a mandate for its policies. The future of the governance of London is contested but central government is likely to continue playing a strong role.

Urban Studies, Vol. 34, No. 7, 967-988 (1997)
DOI: 10.1080/0042098975682
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban StudHome page
N.A. Phelps and N. Parsons
Edge Urban Geographies: Notes from the Margins of Europe's Capital Cities
Urban Stud, August 1, 2003; 40(9): 1725 - 1749.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban StudHome page
P. M. O'Neill and P. M'Guirk
Reconfiguring the CBD: Work and Discourses of Design in Sydney's Office Space
Urban Stud, August 1, 2003; 40(9): 1751 - 1767.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 European Urban and Regional StudiesHome page
M. Tewdwr-Jones and D. McNeill
The Politics of City-Region Planning and Governance: Reconciling the National, Regional and Urban in the Competing Voices of Institutional Restructuring
European Urban and Regional Studies, April 1, 2000; 7(2): 119 - 134.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
A. Thornley
Is Thatcherism Dead? The Impact of Political Ideology on British Planning
Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 1999; 19(2): 183 - 191.
[Abstract] [PDF]