Elements of a "policy-enabling space" for SHD

In order to explore how policy strategies and initiatives for SHD can be designed within a place-based and people-centred perspective three elements have to be recalled.

First, once again the CA is the starting point, as it represents ‘a broad normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual well­being and social arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about social change in society' (Robeyns, 2005, p.

Second, each territory is not a pre-determined or defined space. Rather, it is conceived of as a social construction built on interactions among locally embedded agents and organizations, which generate and manage conflicts, share knowledge and learn, implement initiatives and thus shape the overall evolution of the territory itself (Becattini, 2001). The territorial identity is therefore constructed in function and relation to the collective action of local agents (Becattini et al., 2003; Trigilia, 2009).

Third, the relevance of a place-based perspective on SHD is further rein­forced in policy terms, as the local level represents the dimension of social interactions where conditions of "conscious governance” can entail the higher and more sustainable leverage of SHD. If the design of policy strate­gies is not detached from the context, it is more feasible to foster the enhancement of social and economic systems enabling human flourishing at the local level, as ownership, commitment and sense of community would be potentially stronger (Dubois Migoya et al., 2011; Villalba et al., 2011; Dubois Migoya, 2013).

On the basis of these elements, what constitute a "policy-enabling space” for the enhancement of territorial enabling factors for human flourishing? Its dimensions and procedural elements are discussed in the following two sub-sections.

On horizontal and vertical articulation

The conceptual and interpretative framework advanced in this book points to the role played by a consistent horizontal and vertical articulation for SHD in terms of interrelations among local and extra-local strategic actors. New strategies for local development are required to conceive territories not in terms of centre-periphery relations among spaces, but rather as multi-scalar and multi-polar systems without hierarchal organization, characterized by complex trans-territorial relations (Barreiro Cavestany, 2007). Within similar systems, the identification of "key nodes” of governance and policy acti­vation assumes importance. In this regard, local governments are often regarded as the main strategic actors for pursuing SHD trajectories (Scott, 2006; UCLG, 2009; Caldera Ortega, 2012), depending on their ability to lead and horizontally coordinate the efforts and contribution of different stakeholders, that is, their capacity to act as a catalyst in the provision of local public goods and services. In other words, they represent strategic fac­tors within what Bellandi (2009, p. 719) calls ‘an appropriate locally-based governance of systemic conditions', when able to balance autonomy and embeddedness with respect to the interests and views of local economic agents (Bellandi and Di Tommaso, 2006).

It follows that local development policies and strategies do not simply coincide with public policies, involving an inter-institutional leadership where the catalysing role of local governments fundamentally shapes the complex governance architectures of LDSs to face the challenges of territo­rial development.

Moreover, the design of place-based policy strategies does not entail a localist vision of self-sufficiency regarding development issues, nor is it sufficient to "territorialise” central policies. Crucially, the application of the perspective of SHD at the local level requires the creation of a broader favourable environment, through sound macroeconomic policies (e.g. regarding trade, fiscal system, banking and finance, infrastructure devel­opment, national innovation systems, social protection, environmental pro­tection), coherent institutional and regulative frameworks and the provision of specific services by national governments. In addition, local governments cannot fully replace the central state in its role as the main coordinator, reg­ulator and protector of citizens' rights (such as the right to vote, access edu­cation, etc). Nor can it be equally responsible for the provision of trans-local services. However, according to Sepulveda and Amin (2006, p. 325), ‘nei­ther the national state nor the local state on their own [... ] can cope with the complexity associated with new governance demands.' Integrat­ing top-down and bottom-up policy assertions (Sepulveda and Amin, 2006; Crescenzi and Rodriguez-Pose, 2011) are required to valorize the articulation of resources, capacities, systemic position and knowledge endowment of institutional structures at each level, complementing horizontal with ver­tical networking (Helmsing, 2001).

In short, a "policy-enabling space” for SHD needs to recognize that local and national agencies and institutions⁹ can play important complementary and enabling roles for the expansion of individual and collective capabili­ties. In addition, place-based development trajectories are nowadays mostly pursued within a global space of relations, taking into account the position and positioning of LDSs within a global context.

How trans-territorial flows based on relations of proximity - cognitive, organizational, institutional and social, more than geographical - are directed to address SHD objectives and how global public goods (GPGs) are nationally and locally translated within a certain LDS represent two cen­tral policy domains decision-makers and strategic actors have to deal with. In other words, according to Helmsing (2001, p. 3), ‘new policies need not necessarily require more resources but seek to enhance "system's or sys­temic rationality” in the use of existing local and extra-local resources and programs', especially concerning the provision of GPGs, information flows and knowledge diffusion. Central for a "policy-enabling space” for SHD therefore is the search for a tailored balance between localized "untraded interdependencies” (Storper, 1997) and external connections at national and international level to link-up the territory within trans-territorial informa­tion, knowledge, service and commercial networks.

On the procedural elements

Three main procedural elements are identified here, which lie at the core of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of articulation, in order to constitute the "policy-enabling space” decision-makers and territorial stakeholders can build on to foster SHD at the local level.

The first element is centred on the place-based activation of policy mech­anisms for public deliberation, building on the recognition that processes of constructing change are collective: ‘policy change is the outcome of a polit­ical struggle in which different groups (and individuals) provide support for particular changes' (Stewart, 2013, p. 7).¹⁰ The relevance and merits of public participation and deliberation have been widely discussed in the literature (Ghai, 1990; Chambers, 1995; Dreze and Sen, 2002; Hickey and Mohan, 2005; Mayoux and Chambers, 2005; Gaventa, 2006; Deneulin, 2009; Clark et al., 2015, forthcoming), although it has to be emphasized that public debate and deliberation involve hidden or invisible power relationships (Frediani et al., 2015, forthcoming). Therefore, the less stakeholders' par­ticipation and democratic mechanisms reproduce power imbalances and horizontal inequalities, the more people can exercise their influence as an agent in the public arena (Deneulin, 2006 and 2008; Crocker, 2007), and the stronger is the possibility of collective action and shared policy strate­gies to expand the intrinsic and instrumental freedoms that people have reasons to value (Evans, 2002). In this respect, the enhancement of a cul­ture and space - both physical and in some cases virtual - of public debate and deliberation across groups on development visions, challenges and sce­narios represent the starting point for the construction of policy networks to spur territorial structural changes within evolutionary SHD paths.

Overall, the promotion of socially cohesive outcomes, including in eco­nomic terms, calls for a strategic prospective, which, according to Godet (1993, p. 3), ‘gives content to mobilization, maintains motivation (motives for action) and nourishes strategic will' (Godet, 1993, p. 3). In this regard, the following three components are identified by Godet (1993): anticipa­tion, relating to the enhancement of diffused pro-active attitudes towards the future of local society and the construction of a shared vision of what is meant by "development” (Pike et al., 2007); action, relating to the implemen­tation of development policies based on strategic, creative and participatory planning; and appropriation, relating to the width of social mobilization across groups and the degree of commitment of strategic actors to the ter­ritorial development objectives. This argument is also connected, as already discussed in Chapter 1, to the importance of a collective identification of the objects of value for policy design, evaluation and well-being assessment. Indeed, Sen (1992, p. 46) argues that ‘the capability approach begins with identifying a relevant space for evaluation, rather than arguing that every­thing that can be put into the format of that space must, for that reason, be important - not to mention, equally significant.'

The second element concerns the relevance of the institution-building pro­cesses underlying the opportunity to design and implement place-based policies for SHD, leading on from Sen's (1999) recognition that social arrangements should aim to expand people's capabilities.¹¹ The discussion in Chapter 1 relating to the role of institutions in mediating interactions between social structures and human agency (Sender, 2003; MacKinnon et al., 2009; Stewart, 2013) within a local SHD perspective has to be recalled:

by structuring, constraining and enabling individual behaviours, institu­tions have the power to mould the capacities and behaviour of agents in fundamental ways: they have a capacity to change aspirations instead of merely enabling or constraining them.

(Hodgson, 2006, p. 6)

It follows that the promotion of institutions (e.g. social norms, local and national state institutions) that enable the following conditions are central for widening the "policy enabling space” for SHD:

i) Mobilizing agents to establish new developmental paths (Martin and Sunley, 2006);

ii) Facilitating group formation for collective action (Ostrom, 1990 and 2000; Ghai, 1990; Evans, 2002; Bellanca, 2007) among less powerful and marginalized groups;

iii) Supporting behaviours underlying capability expansion (Stewart, 2013).¹²

For instance, transparency guarantees serve as both necessary conditions and elements of institution building processes for SHD, fostering the expan­sion of political freedom within territorial society (Chopra and Duraiappah, 2008), e.g. the case of several initiatives in the South of Italy against orga­nized criminal groups in order to foster transparency and social cohesion (Borgomeo, 2014). In addition, the consolidation of spaces and tools for open dialogue is itself an institution-building process, which requires atten­tion by territorial policymakers and stakeholders in order to avoid "piloting” several different initiatives for public deliberation without any long-term formalization. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the process of insti­tutional development is a groping, incremental and therefore evolutionary, characterized by temporal continuity and uncertainty, and strictly related to the evolution of firms and industries (Nelson and Winter, 1982, p. 404).

The third element recognizes that learning processes, particularly collec­tive learning, ‘should be included in a wider picture of the improvement of human capabilities' (Capriati, 2013, p. 15). This argument not only concerns individual capacities, resilience and well-being, but, more impor­tantly, it also relates to institutional and organizational processes at the local level, where collective learning through interaction among local actors (e.g. universities, public agencies and firms) and access to information flows affects the realm of policy planning, monitoring and evaluation. In other words, it refers to local governance for SHD. Thus, collective learning processes are not only central for maintaining and renewing local competencies but also shape the "policy-enabling space” by driving the evolutionary SHD trajectory of each LDS. These activities involve (i) assess­ing the inter-temporal appropriateness of the systemic trajectory for SHD; (ii) deriving useful lessons by exchanging and comparing information with other systems and external stakeholders; (iii) spotting signs of change (not only technological) and elaborating shared understandings of new infor­mation flows; (iv) creating local awareness regarding elements of novelty and their implications; (v) working out the implications of changing the system in order to prevent lock-in (especially cognitive) and resistance to change; and lastly, (vi) fostering responsiveness to mobilize resources to address emerging problems (Cooke and Morgan, 1998; Helmsing, 2001). All in all, collective learning processes shape community resilience con­ceived as ‘the ability to take intentional action to enhance the personal and collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to respond to, and influence the course of social and economic change' (Centre for Com­munity Enterprises, 2000, p. 5). In this regard, for instance, Hilhorst (1990) conceives planning as a "social learning process”, where local actors develop a common understanding of territorial development evolution, identify choices, and generate shared development priorities and strategies (Helmsing, 2001).¹³

As policymaking is not a cumulative process, it is important to understand which procedural elements are widening or restricting the "policy-enabling space” on which territorial stakeholders can build to pursue place-based SHD trajectories. Taking into account the horizontal and vertical dimensions of articulation, the relations of synergy, complementarity, compensation or hindrance between processes of public deliberation, institution-building and collective learning shape the policy procedures and actions within each LDS.¹⁴ In addition, these processes are respectively related to the main ele­ments shaping enabling/disabling factors for SHD in the STEHD framework (Figure 2.4): the internal nurturing of cooperation and conflict within the LDS; the centrality of institutions in relation to local resources and bar­riers; and the ability or capacity of the LDS to function. For instance, if deliberation mechanisms are not inclusive, systemic institutional causes hinder collective action¹⁵ and learning processes constrain recursive actor rationality, the systemic capacity to design appropriate policy strategies for SHD at the local level would be significantly hampered. Furthermore, this would spur involutionary feedback loops and trends, and could even lead to conflicting dynamics that result in horizontal inequalities, polarization of power and social unrest for the reclaim of policy spaces.¹⁶

Within this perspective, investments in expanding public deliberation, institution building and collective learning should not be conceived by policymakers and citizens simply as “costs”. Rather, their return will allow lower the magnitude and weight of transaction costs to construct a shared long-term development vision and to prevent disruptive con­flicts, especially when substantial social divisions characterize the local society.

All in all, these arguments contribute to pay ‘greater consideration to the political economy of policy decision-making processes and the ways in which conflicts and distributions of power are institutionalized' (Deneulin and McGregor, 2010, p. 501).

6.4