Abstract
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2021, VOL. 13, NO. 2, 174–186 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1855433 ARTICLE Can city-to-city cooperation facilitate sustainable development governance in the Global South? Lessons gleaned from seven North-South partnerships in Latin America a b Luara Mayer and Le Anh Nguyen Long Chair for International Relations and Sustainable Development, Institute for Political Science, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; University of Twente Faculty of Behavioral Management and Social Sciences, Department of Public Administration, Enschede, The Netherlands ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 March 2020 The search for mechanisms that can bolster sustainable development governance is Accepted 19 November 2020 underway. Bilateral city-to-city partnerships (C2C) have been put forward as platform through which cities can strengthen sustainable development in urban landscapes. Here, KEYWORDS we critically examine claims about the capacity of these international cooperative City-to-city partnerships; arrangements, originally designed and deployed as development aid delivery mechan- sustainable development; isms, to promote sustainable development. Our systematic examination of the extant latin America literature on bilateral North-South C2C in Latin America fails to provide sufficient evi- dence that C2C can deliver on its promise to promote robust governance, both generally and in the specific context of sustainable development. Instead, it seems that C2C is more likely to support than challenge entrenched practices which can weaken sustainable development governance. Identifying these tendencies is a first step in formulating strategies that may enhance C2Cs and other transnational partnerships aimed at improv- ing urban sustainable development in the Global South. Introduction urban sustainability governance instrument (Hakelberg 2014; Johnson 2018; Smeds and Acuto 2018; Shefer There is overwhelming evidence that unsustainable 2019). In its current use, however, the term C2C lacks practices are propelling us beyond the earth’s planetary specificity. C2C is a ‘portmanteau term to cover all pos- boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015; sible forms of relationship between local authorities at IPCC 2019). And yet few nation-states have shown any level in two or more countries which are collaborat- a necessary commitment to sustainability (Sneddon ing together over matters of mutual interest’ (UN Habitat et al. 2006; Quental et al. 2011; Smeds and Acuto 2018; 2001). Among the various forms it can take, bilateral C2C Le Nguyen Long and Krause 2020) generating a policy has been celebrated as a promising policy instrument for vacuum, which various political actors have tried to fill promoting sustainability governance (Kurniawan et al. with a patchwork of sustainable development instru- 2013; Yu et al. 2016; Fraundorfer 2017). Robust sustain- ments. Cities are becoming increasingly prominent ability governance addresses environmental challenges actors in this policy space (Bulkeley 2010; Krause 2012; by cultivating, sustaining, and leveraging responsibility Watts 2017; Johnson 2018; Haupt et al. 2020). Some of and resource sharing relationships between state, mar- these cities have attempted to tackle sustainability chal- ket, and civil society (Kooiman 2003; Meadowcroft 2007; lenges by leveraging peer-to-peer cooperation with McGuire and Agranoff 2011). Therefore, C2C has become cities across borders. a target of institutional support, e.g., through the City-to-city cooperation (hereafter C2C) has been named by policymakers and scholars as a promising European Union’s International Urban Cooperation CONTACT Le Anh Nguyen Long l.a.n.long@utwente.nl Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences Enschede, The Netherlands © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 175 programme. However, empirical evidence on the effi - the seven published cases that we examine in this article cacy of sustainability governance in C2C is scant. before outlining our main observations. In our conclu- Moreover, most of the existing evidence comes from sion, we summarise our observations and suggestions the extant literature on Transnational Municipal for future research. Networks (TMNs), one of the forms C2C can take. Studies focusing on TMNs suggest that while they C2C for sustainability governance? can promote policy innovation (Keiner and Kim 2007; Krause 2012; Bansard et al. 2017; Johnson 2018), city Sustainability’s complexity is well documented in the networks tend to be driven primarily by elite govern- literature. Sustainability closely touches on environmen- ance mechanisms that mainly benefit already well- tal, social, and economic concerns, thereby it involves resourced cities (Haupt and Coppola 2019), and can tensions and trade-offs between difficult to harmonise even heighten inequalities among cities (Kern and objectives (Connelly 2007; George 2007; Gupta and Bulkeley 2009; Fünfgeld 2015; Mocca 2018). When it Vegelin 2016). Furthermore, its causes and conse- comes to sustainability focused bilateral C2C, a few quences are often spatially and temporally separated studies have examined outputs like learning, knowl- (Elliott 2006), which has at least two implications. First, edge transfer, and institutional strengthening (Feiner unsustainable development patterns’ causes, and et al. 2002; Kurniawan et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2016; effects span numerous local, national, and transnational Beermann 2017; Shefer 2019) but neglect the wider layers (Meuleman and Niestroy 2015), requiring action question of governance. We address this knowledge across all of these levels and sectors. Additionally, sus- gap by focusing specifically on bilateral C2Cs involving tainability politics is subject to the interplay between Latin American cities and partners in the global North. short term and long-term change and encompass yet We contribute by critically assessing their potential as unknown socio-ecological conditions (Avelino and effective mechanisms for promoting sustainability in Rotmans 2011). One overarching implication of this the Global South. We are interested in addressing the complexity is that sustainability cannot be governed open question of whether C2Cs can dually handle sus- with conventional, top-down, governing approaches tainability governance and international cooperation, (Kemp and Martens 2007; van Zeijl-rozema et al. 2008; two objectives which can conflict (George and Reed Meuleman and Niestroy 2015). It instead needs to be 2017). To that end, we employ a qualitative content addressed collectively by actors who are motivated by analysis of seven published case studies of bilateral diverse, and at times conflicting, preferences, interests, C2Cs that link cities from Northern countries to cities and resources (Sørensen and Torfing 2005). in Latin America. Cities are at the frontline of sustainability governance. Latin America is pivotal for urban sustainability The causes, subjects of, and solutions to sustainability transitions (Irazábal and Angotti 2017; Nagendra problems are largely situated in cities (Ernstson et al. et al. 2018). It is the second most urbanised region in 2010; Loorbach et al. 2016). Not only is urbanisation the globe with 81% of population living in cities a key driver of most sustainability challenges, but cities (United Nations 2018). Sustainability governance in are also particularly vulnerable to ecological, socioeco- Latin American cities is highly sensitive to the influ - nomic, and political crises (Elmqvist 2013). Furthermore, ence of international peers and donor priorities (Kim cities are favourable places for innovation and experi- and Grafakos 2019). However, evidence is mounting mentation (Ernstson et al. 2010; Loorbach et al. 2016). that the replication of Northern cities’ models in Latin Scholars have argued that cities have relative advan- America without adequate adaptation is prone to fail- tages, compared to nation-states, when dealing with ure (e.g., Marchetti et al. (2019)). Indeed, the practices complex transnational problems such as climate change and outcomes documented in the seven cases that and sustainability transitions, including their ability to we examine suggest that the gains from bilateral C2C move more nimbly than national governments and to oftentimes befall a small, and specialised segment of be closer to citizens’ needs and provide vigilance the population, and can come at cost to inclusive and (Bansard et al. 2017; Johnson 2018). Cities’ experimenta- participatory decision-making. tion with bilateral and networked transnational colla- In what follows, we place C2C within the context of borative initiatives is often presented as meaningful urban sustainability governance before proceeding to examples of this claimed advantage (Keiner and Kim describe our analytical approach. We proceed to discuss 2007; Krause 2012; Bansard et al. 2017; Johnson 2018). 176 L. MAYER AND L. A. NGUYEN LONG Regarding bilateral C2C, empirical findings are mixed. support for programs especially if sustainability is On the one hand, C2C seems to be effective at institu- perceived as competing directly with other priorities. tional strengthening and policy innovation (Kurniawan Additionally, in collective decision-making forums et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2016). On the other, the benefits of bias is oftentimes mobilised to favour actors with policy learning in those arrangements seem to more power (Schattschneider 1960). Not only do be minute: Shefer (2019) finds that despite learning in technocrats and local elected officials have the the context of C2C, actual policy making, at least in the upper hand in formal, decision-making settings short run, seems to be unaffected. Furthermore, the where routines and rules are more familiar and set extant literature neglects the question of whether flex - in their favour, it is often the case that the concerns ibility and high levels of democratic responsiveness are of important but marginalised societal sectors are sustained in C2C, particularly the context of bilateral overlooked, co-opted, or excluded (Hamilton 1995; international cooperation. It is important to tackle these Cooke and Kothari 2001). This at least partially claims critically. explains the observation that C2C tends to prioritise Bilateral C2C cooperation tends to be structured as urban elites or private interests (Beermann 2017), or formal, long-term arrangements (Hafteck 2003; Fünfgeld the preference of donor cities in the North (Atkinson 2015), involving a long-standing partnership that is gra- 2001; Wilson and Johnson 2007). One solution often dually deepened and extended (van Lindert 2009; proposed is to get ‘all of the right players seats at the Bontenbal 2009a). Bilateral, North-South C2Cs typically table’ (Fung 2006; Reed 2008). Verba et al. (1995) find involve the transfer of monetary resources from the that those who abstain from civic and political life do Northern cities’ budgets and by non-public fundraising so because ‘they can’t, they don’t want to, or no one in Northern partner cities, or international donor-funded asked them.’ Thus, to become more inclusive, C2Cs programs (Bontenbal 2009a). Until very recently, its main should set strategies for lowering barriers to entry leitmotiv was oriented towards development aid (De (e.g. by providing childcare, scheduling meetings on Villiers et al. 2007; Tjandradewi and Marcotullio 2009; the weekend or evenings, or ensuring the presence Berse et al. 2011). However, cities are increasingly includ- of translators at discussions), or for targeted recruit- ing sustainability as a core goal of their international ment that might raise awareness among key actors partnerships (Beermann 2017; Shefer 2019). who may otherwise feel disengaged or be unaware C2C stands on two pillars: city governments and the of C2C initiatives and their impacts (Fung 2006). urban constituencies (Bontenbal and van Lindert 2008; Relatedly, sustainability governance in C2C must Bontenbal 2009a). In the first pillar, leading public sector acknowledge and account for the challenges inherent actors (e.g. mayors, councillors, and technical personnel) to transnational rulemaking, or the ‘process in which with similar responsibilities and tasks interact directly to non-state actors from more than one country generate exchange know-how and learn with each other behavioural prescriptions that are intended to apply (Tjandradewi and Marcotullio 2009; Berse et al. 2011). across national borders’ (Dingwerth and Pattberg 2009, The second pillar includes city residents, civil society p. 711). Establishing such rulemaking requires at the actors, the non-profit and private sectors in the munici- very least, that C2C partners arrive at a shared definition pality where action is being oriented. Actors situated in of the problems they tackle. A key challenge is prioritis- the second pillar are expected to actively participate and ing just, fair and equitable outcomes (Esquivel 2016). contribute to C2C projects (Hafteck 2003; van Lindert This is a clear juxtaposition from the priorities of past 2009; Bontenbal 2009c). In the context of sustainability, developmental projects that expected social justice the main question becomes whether participating gov- outcomes to ‘trickle down’ from investment in devel- ernments have the institutional capacity to successfully opment and growth priorities. Empirical evidence bridge actors in both pillars locally and internationally. belies these expectations: scholars have documented A number of factors may weaken one or both of multiple cases where social and environmental justice these pillars. First, it can be difficult to mobilise citi- have suffered and not benefitted from the prioritisa- zen interest and action around sustainability priori- tion of economy over other social concerns (Esquivel ties. Because sustainability challenges are not always 2016; Gupta and Vegelin 2016). It is becoming increas- immediately perceptible, especially when the causes ingly clear that prioritising justice over development is and impacts of unsustainable development are geo- what paves the way for sustainability transitions that graphically decoupled, it can be difficult to raise are not at constant risk of crisis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 177 It is an open question whether what is essentially Toronto (Canada) – São Paulo (Brazil) (Hewitt a rather circumscribed formal agreement between nego- 1996, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2001) tiating technocrats has the necessary flexibility to oper- Charlesbourg (Canada) – Ovalle (Chile) (Hewitt ate in communities where the dominant institutions are 2002, 2004) informal and place-based (George and Reed 2017). For Kitmat (Canada) – Riobamba (Ecuador) (Hewitt example, while some scholars who study C2C coopera- 2002) tion identify inadequate expertise in one city as one of Utrecht (Netherlands) – León (Nicaragua) the barriers which the partner city can address through (Bontenbal and van Lindert 2008; van Lindert knowledge transfer (De Villiers et al. 2007; Tjandradewi 2009; Bontenbal 2009b, 2013) and Marcotullio 2009), more critical voices observe that Treptow-Köpenick (Germany) – Cajamarca (Peru) public administrators in the South already tend to have (Bontenbal 2009c) a lot of the knowledge that is being transferred but they Lethbridge (Canada) – Ica (Peru) (Hewitt 1999b) oftentimes do not act on this knowledge because, ‘they Amstelveen (Netherlands) – Villa El Salvador had few, if any powers, to determine what to do’ (Peru) (Bontenbal 2009c, 2013) (Atkinson 2001, p. 275). In the face of these countervail- ing forces, a key challenge is to raise the legitimacy of The seven cases included in our study were launched sustainability action while providing sufficiently inclusive between 1983 − 1998, and focused their cooperation and collaborative participatory environments. No small around a number of areas (see Figure 1). The main focus feat, especially for resource strapped cities in the Global of these partnerships was on urban development and South. planning. Although it was not yet in vogue, three of our seven cases had partnerships oriented around sustain- ability adjacent issues like Environmental Management Material and methods (Cajamarca – Treptow-Köpenick, São Paulo – Toronto, This study examines seven cases as they are documented Villa El Salvador – Amstelveen), Water Management in published work on C2C programs involving Global (Cajamarca – Treptow-Köpenick, São Paulo – Toronto), North and Latin America. First, we performed keyword and Waste Management (São Paulo – Toronto, Villa El searches on different databases (Web of Science; Scopus; Salvador – Amstelveen). Google Scholar), using the following search stream: (‘city- to-city cooperation’ OR ‘international municipal coopera- C2C governance in Latin America: a view from tion’ OR ‘decentralized cooperation’ OR ‘town twinning’) seven case studies (1983–1998) AND (‘case study’ OR ‘study case’ OR ‘case analysis’ OR ‘case review’). We complemented our keyword searches Over the last 60 years, urbanisation has rapidly, some- with searches on reference lists. This yielded a sample times violently, swept through Latin America, leaving with 57 articles. Articles that failed to meet pre-set criteria environmental deterioration and social inequality in its were discarded, leaving 35 papers in our sample. The wake (Rodgers et al. 2011; UN Habitat 2012). Many cities criteria for inclusion are: a. C2C is the main phenomenon in the region initiated C2Cs to bolster their efforts to of interest; b. the C2C under study is bilateral and overcome these urbanisation challenges (Carrión 2016). involves a North-South partnership; c. the publication Overall, the C2Cs cases under investigation share two contains an in-depth case study; d. the text content is goals: first, to raise institutional capacity through the available. transfer and exchange of resources. Their secondary Following Gerring (2009), we selected ‘most-similar aim is to promote ‘good urban governance’ by bridging cases’ that matched along control variables (bilateral, the gap between these institutions and the people that North-South, in the same geographic region) any yet they serve (Bontenbal and van Lindert 2008), also known demonstrated different outcomes. To maximise repre- as the second pillar of C2C. With regard to the first aim, sentativeness, we decided to focus on the region with the studies suggest that international partners engaging the greater number of scholarly coverage: Latin in knowledge exchange and transfer did not always America (16 of the 35 articles). The seven case studies manage to adapt information to local needs and prio- that we included in this review were studied by Ted rities (Hewitt 1999b, 2002). When engaging in a ‘policy Hewitt, Marike Bontenbal and Paul van Lindert. Our tailoring process,’ competing priorities and trade-offs sample covers the following cases: need to be accounted for and managed. Bontenbal 178 L. MAYER AND L. A. NGUYEN LONG Waste Management Water Management Housing Financial Management Urban Development & Planning 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Leon-Utrecht Cajamarca- Treptow Köpernick Villa El Salvador - Amstelveen Ovalle - Charlseburg São Paulo - Toronto Riombaba - Kitimat Ica - Lethbridge Figure 1. C2C Focus Areas 2009a, Bontenbal 2009b, and Bontenbal 2013 observes Kothari 2001; Fung 2006; van Zeijl-rozema et al. 2008). that for the C2C between Villa El Salvador and This is especially a concern when and where the opa- Amstelveen, the partners needed to balance their coop- queness of urban governance enable manipulation by eration between local administrative affairs and commu- elites. These and other factors may explain why C2Cs nity-oriented initiatives. The C2C handled this by have been found to be useful for bolstering adminis- focusing primarily on technical exchanges (Bontenbal trative capacity but often fails to achieve adequate 2009b, 2013) even though a purely technocratic public participation and representation in these pro- approach poorly handles the notorious wickedness or cesses (Bontenbal and van Lindert 2008). urban environmental management (Termeer et al. 2015). We cannot find sufficient evidence to back up the Greater participation in this second pillar can claim that bilateral C2C has a ‘people-to-people’ improve sustainability governance, for example, by approach, with the potential of including a broader and increasing the pool of knowledge resources available more influential civil-society participation compared to for problem solving. It can also lead to collective learn- international cooperation initiatives backed by nation ing, which in turn may raise the capacity for collective states (Zelinsky 1991; Hafteck 2003; De Villiers et al. problem solving especially among diverse groups 2007; Tjandradewi and Marcotullio 2009). Across all (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011). The emphasis given to seven cases, it was observed that actors from the public the second pillar – citizens, civil society, and other sphere rarely participated in the initial negotiations public and private actors – in the literature on C2C which form the basis of the formal agreements on assumes that they create opportunities for citizen which C2C is founded. Hewitt’s work on C2C involving access to decisional processes. However, Table 1 Canadian cities reveals how even well-implemented shows that not all C2Cs actively sought public and initiatives can suffer when they are not sufficiently inclu- civil society participation. Three C2Cs (Riombaba – sive. In one example, Hewitt describes how the partner- Kitamat, São Paulo – Toronto, and Ica – Lethbridge) ship between Toronto (Canada) and São Paulo (Brazil) only involved municipal government actors. It is also was driven largely by dynamics between Canadian and worth noting that these are the three C2Cs that were Brazilian politicians, managers, and technocrats. Little plagued by issues of capacity, transparency, and cor- space was left for citizen participation which may have ruption. Persistent power imbalances, poorly designed helped this largely successful partnership to avoid tak- recruitment mechanisms, and long-standing conflicts ing controversial and much criticised decisions related to can upend inclusive processes in C2C (Cooke and its urban housing projects (Hewitt 1998, p. 423). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 179 Table 1. Case overviews. Cooperation activities in the Global Active partners (identified by Outcomes/conclusions (according to Southern city Northern city Time-range South respective authors) respective authors) ● ● León (Nicaragua) Utrecht (Netherlands) 1983 – unknown but Strategic development planning; Officials and administrative staff Only positive observations: ● ● program has closed. Community building for municipal from both municipalities; Stronger organisational capacity; ● ● representatives and citizens; Civil society partners, Enhanced civil society capacity; ● ● Training on leadership, time man- e.g. Asociacion Communitaria de Enhanced participatory systems. agement, and decision-making; Poetas (ACOPOE); ● ● Establishment of a rotating fund. Neighbourhood committees; Auditing organisations, e.g. the Municipal Development Committee (CDM). Cajamarca (Peru) Treptow-Köpenick 1998 – unknown but ● Workshops and internships (e.g. ● Officials and administrative staff Only positive observations: (Germany) program has closed. courses on urban environmental from both municipalities; Strengthened local officials’ capacity management); ● The Cajamarca water company for urban environmental ● Capacity building on water (SEDACAJ) ; management, and waste management. ● Berlin’s Water Treatment Plant; Improved capacity for ecological ● Local NGOs. efficiency, public participation, and consensus building. Villa El Salvador Amstelveen 2004–2007 ● Administrative reforms; ● Officials and administrative staff Positive observations: (Peru) (Netherlands) ● Updating municipal financial from both municipalities; Stronger local officials’ organisa- regulations; ● Villa El Salvador’s Environmental tional capacity. ● Technical training; Services Department; Negative observations: ● Environmental management ● Neighbourhood committees; Lack of funding and of professional and planning; ● Private waste collectors in Villa El knowledge ● Launched waste recycling Salvador. and separation incentive program. Ovalle (Chile) Charlesbourg (Canada) 1994 – ● ● Positive observations: Pilot projects on transportation, Officials and administrative staff ● Created an urban master plan while urban planning, welfare pro- from both municipalities; ● accounting for public sensibilities grammes, and administrative Local actors like a social worker and concerns. procedures; from Ovalle and an architect ● Negative observations: Creation of a Charlesbourg/Ovalle from Charlesbourg; ● ● Lack of financial resources. citizens’ association; Neighbourhood Centres Housing; Strategic development planning. (Continued) 180 L. MAYER AND L. A. NGUYEN LONG Table 1. (Continued). Cooperation activities in the Global Active partners (identified by Outcomes/conclusions (according to Southern city Northern city Time-range South respective authors) respective authors) ● ● São Paulo (Brazil) Toronto (Canada) 1987–2000 Property information and mapping Exclusively officials and adminis- Positive observations: systems; trative staff from both Knowledge transfer; ● ● Public health (e.g. campaign against municipalities. Enhanced civic participation; communicable disease, ambulance Improved services. response strategy); Negative observations: ● ● Parks and recreation facilities: Lack of transparency; ● ● Trade intensification between the Corruption; cities; Use of program for political ends. Decentralisation of power and public participation in government; Access to international financing for infrastructural projects; Other specific pilot projects (in transportation, public services, public shelters, libraries, garbage collection, policing, human resources, and culture). ● ● Riobamba Kitimat (Canada) 1995–1996 Developing a new purchasing Exclusively officials and adminis- Only negative observations: (Ecuador) records system; trative staff from both Limited scope. Training on a software to track the municipalities. purchasing and dispensation of municipal supplies and equipment. Ica (Peru) Lethbridge (Canada) 1990–1995 ● ● Only negative observations: Re-designing the tax billing system; Exclusively partner municipal- ● Mismanagement and implementa- Management of waste, transporta- ity’s administrative staff from tion failure: tion and water systems. both municipalities. Poor conflict management; Corruption scandals. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 181 The involvement of residents and civil society seems manageable entities and, in theory, closer to the to encourage a deepening of the C2C partnership. As people (Hafteck 2003), the dynamics documented Table 1 shows, with the exception of São Paulo – in Latin America reveals none, or at most weak ver- Toronto, the involvement of residents and civil society sions of accountability. The Kimitat-Riombaba C2C seems to encourage deepening relations in terms of lacked mechanisms to monitor and evaluate how number of activities pursued and duration of partner- partners were performing (Hewitt 2004). Likewise, ship, both signs of commitment and trust. Regarding the in Lethbridge–Ica partnership neither answerability attainment of commitment and trust, participatory plat- nor sanction was evident, as demonstrated by the forms where deliberation, aggregation, and negotiating lack of action taken in response to Ica’s Mayor prac- are integrated into the discursive process can cultivate tice of using the C2C favour private interests (Hewitt internal and external support. Three features have been 1999b). It is true that some C2Cs took some steps linked to deliberation, aggregation, and negotiating: fre- towards raising answerability. However, even in quent and routine contact, face-to-face communication, these cases, a persistent lack of transparency com- and clarity on desired outcomes of collaboration (Ansell bined with inadequate sanction mechanisms created and Gash 2007; Bryson et al. 2013). In C2C partnerships, challenges in terms of accountability. For instance, strong relationship ties based in regular and reliable even if the Toronto-São Paulo Operações Interligadas communication between stakeholders (De Villiers et al. program employed evaluation procedures, the infor- 2007; Tjandradewi and Marcotullio 2009). Generally, the mation disclosure practices were insufficient and governance structure which C2C adopts, peer-to-peer unclear. As a result, Hewitt (1998) claims that the agreements, may not be appropriate for building these program was sometimes used to further political commitments as the core problems may be dominated benefits at the cost of meeting the needs of the by place-based dynamics and require a stronger ‘self- city’s most vulnerable residents (Hewitt 2001). governance’ approach (Driessen et al. 2012; George and Furthermore, the C2C cases that did yield advance- Reed 2017) and a higher level of inclusiveness that C2C ments in terms of answerability – e.g. the has thus far been able to provide (Bontenbal and van Amstelveen and Villa El Salvador partnership insti- Lindert 2008). tuted more transparent systems for reporting of Operating in the transnational context also raises financial transactions (Bontenbal 2009b, 2013) – questions around the issue of accountability (Beisheim lacked mechanisms for imposing sanctions. Indeed, and Simon 2016; Bowen et al. 2017). Accountability while the case studies do document accountability in concerns the extent to which governments openly pro- and by Southern cities, none provide any insight into vide information on their decision-making and can be accountability mechanisms in Northern cities. held to task for their actions and choices (Lebel et al. It is worth noting that many of the fundamental 2006). Governance mechanisms, such as C2Cs, achieve disagreements about sustainability are based on proble- strong accountability to the extent that they have matic social inequalities within cities and between urban answerability – such that affected people can demand partners (Wilson and Johnson 2007; Bontenbal 2013; answers because they have access to clear, reliable, and Beermann 2017). Powerful cities from Northern states timely information – and can impose sanctions (Fox may leverage material and reputational resources to 2007). Accountability safeguards the legitimacy of pub- impose their preferences on Southern partners, some- lic good provision by placing checks on client politics times encouraging to take actions which are not appro- and corruption (Sobol 2008; Aidt 2011; Güney 2017). priate given realities on the ground. Additionally, Partnerships between geographically dispersed cities Northern partners may encourage action by Southern can create impenetrable and difficult to observe proce- city partners without taking equally necessary steps. dures and institutions. For example, how can residents Indeed, Northern partners can use their C2C investments in partner city A stay informed (and make meaningful to deflect responsibility for setting more stringent sus- evaluations) about how their resources are being tainability targets at home. invested in faraway partner city B? While it has been argued that C2Cs may have Discussion an advantage – compared to national governments – in addressing problems related to transparency Based on our observations, some key areas of concern and responsiveness because they are smaller, more can be identified in order to inform future praxis. While 182 L. MAYER AND L. A. NGUYEN LONG strategies to lower participation barriers and institutio- as a means to raise sustainability in the global South. nalise platforms for citizen participation are pivotal, With a few exceptions (see Atkinson 2001), the claims participation is a necessary but insufficient condition about C2Cs which may have in part motivated these for inclusivity. Even in participatory platforms, the investments have received much less attention. We design of institutions can dis-empower citizen stake- make a first step towards filling this gap by conducting holders, especially those who are the most marginalised a qualitative enquiry into past cases-studies of C2Cs’ (Fung 2006; Reed 2008). Furthermore, C2Cs generally between Northern and Latin American cities. Our critical have weak mechanisms of accountability. Citizens in review indicates that processes in C2C were largely hier- both partner cities require more reliable information archical, with decisions mainly made by partner govern- so that they can keep abreast of C2C activities and to ments with post hoc civil society consultations, to whom hold both partner cities accountable for negative very limited decision-making power is delegated. Still, impacts that C2Cs may have on local neighbourhoods. the institutionalisation of participation was positively Last, but not least, to set a strong policy base for SD associated with the deployment of other strategies to governance, C2C partners should design clear and solid lower participation barriers and with more satisfactory institutions to uphold social justice. governance outcomes. Our analysis of these case studies There has been inadequate participation by key part- further suggested that accountability systems (e.g. sys- ners like residents, civil society, and even local busi- tematic collection, reporting, and sharing of information nesses. The consequences of this lack of inclusiveness as well as monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms) can are manifold. First, C2Cs might reinforce inequalities be built into the C2C by design and can strengthen its between (Mocca 2018; Geldin 2019) and within cities performance. (Fastenrath et al. 2019). They may support an elite- While this present study provided insights into con- centric governance (Haupt et al. 2020) while requiring ditions which hinder sustainability governance in the the most vulnerable and marginalised urban residents to context of C2Cs, its critical limitations should be bear a disproportionate share of the burden for sustain- acknowledged. The study was based on tertiary ability. This in turn may lead to ‘lock-ins’ (e.g. mainte- sources that look at development and not sustainabil- nance of path dependencies of practices and ity. Thus, further empirical work is needed to examine institutions) that support the status quo (Acuto and the validity of claims that C2C partnerships are suitable Rayner 2016). Second, without alternative voices, C2Cs mechanisms to cope with sustainability governance may be ill-equipped to promote environment and envir- challenges, especially in terms of how C2Cs can safe- onmental justice. This mirrors what has been found in guard democratic institutions while dealing with diffi - North-North C2C partnerships. In examining cooperation cult trade-offs. However, this work does reveal the between French and British cities under the EU water systematic neglect of core dimensions associated with framework directive, Gambert (2010) finds that while ‘good governance’ (Gaventa 2002) in the extant litera- these C2Cs helped partners to overcome difficult con- ture which can be validated by future work in the field. flicts, the initiatives made negligible gains in terms of Future research could shed light on another issue their desired environmental impact. Another important beyond the scope of this current work, namely: the issue pertinent to North-South C2Cs concerns how democratic quality of international governance inequalities between the partners play out in the course arrangements (Sørensen and Torfing 2005). Clearly, of these agreements. North-South partnerships are governing transnationally adds a layer of opacity to known to reinforce problematic power dynamics governance. Such opacity coupled with the geographic (Atkinson 2001). For example, Mocca’s (2018) study of disarticulation of decision-making stand to threaten TMNs reveals that more well-resourced cities are able to the transparency, accountability, and responsiveness dominate and steer learning in city networks and part- of public officials and jeopardise the legitimacy of nerships. In our review of the literature, we find little these governance tools. Moreover, in transnational evidence that bilateral C2C is any different. multi-stakeholder-based initiatives, accountability is not ensured by an electoral system (Bäckstrand 2006). These concerns are especially robust in the case of Conclusion North-South partnerships where asymmetries in mate- In recent years, cities have been increasing their engage- rial, knowledge, and relational resources can give rise ment in bilateral North-South sustainability-focused C2C to problematic power dynamics. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 183 Today, unsustainable practices continue to push us studies policy emergence, learning, and innovation in the areas of environmental policy and politics, immigration, and outside our ‘safe operating space’ (Rockström et al. cyber security. Her most recent publications have appeared 2009). To minimise the impact that the consequences in Public Administration, Global Environmental Politics, Policy of these behaviours on our built and natural environ- Sciences, and Public Administration Review. ment as well as current and future generations, we need to invest heavily in sustainability governance instru- ments. Efforts in this direction can benefit from systema- ORCID tic assessments of these instruments’ potentialities. As Le Anh Nguyen Long http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6188-9646 C2C continues to gain a reputation as a useful policy instrument for sustainability, it is important to be sensi- tive to these concerns. In ignoring them the instigators of References C2C run the risk of (un)knowingly stifling social justice and democratic legitimacy (Sørensen and Torfing 2005). Acuto M, Rayner S. 2016. City networks. Breaking Gridlocks or To what extent can C2Cs for sustainability be democra- Forging (New) Lock-ins? International Affairs. 92:1147–1166. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12700 tically implemented? What factors make C2Cs for SD Aidt TS. 2011. Corruption and sustainable development. In: more or less participatory, accountable and transparent? Rose-Ackerman S, Søreide T, editors. International handbook These are just a few of the questions that remain open. on the economics of corruption: volume two (pp. 3–51). Cheltenham (U.K): Edward Elgar. Ansell C, Gash A. 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and Notes practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 18(4):543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 1. For example, this project successfully set up a city-wide Atkinson A. 2001. International cooperation in pursuit of sustainable school nutrition program in São Paulo (Hewitt (Hewitt cities. Dev Pract. 11(2–3):273–291. doi:10.1080/0961452012 1998, 1999a, 2001). 2. Established through Nicaragua’s administrative decen- Avelino F, Rotmans J. 2011. A dynamic conceptualization of tralisation law, CDM provides external advise on matters power for sustainability research. J Clean Prod. 19(8):796– related to municipal development planning. 804. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.012 3. https://www.bnamericas.com/en/company-profile/agua Bäckstrand K. 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustain- syresiduos/eps-sedacaj-sa-sedacaj. able development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Env. 16(5):290–306. doi:10.1002/eet.425 Bansard JS, Pattberg PH, Widerberg O. 2017. Cities to the rescue? Acknowledgements Assessing the performance of transnational municipal networks We would like to thank Doris Fuchs and our colleagues at her in global climate governance. Int Envir Agreem Polit Law Econ. Chair for International Relations and Sustainable Development at 17:229–246. English. doi:. doi:10.1007/s10784-016-9318-9 the University of Münster for their helpful comments. This work Beermann J 2017. Urban cooperation and climate governance. was partially supported by Evangelisches Studienwerk from the Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. ISBN: 978- Haus Villisgt Foundation, sponsored by the German Federal 3-658-17145-2. Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 851107). Beisheim M, Simon N 2016. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for implementing the 2030 agenda: improving accountability and transparency. Analytical Paper for the 2016 ECOSOC Disclosure statement Partnership Forum. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2767464. Berse K, Asami Y, Tjandradewi BI 2011. Building local disaster resi- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. lience through international municipal cooperation: experience from selected asian cities. In: International Institute for Infrastructure, Renewal and Reconstruction, editor. Annual Notes on contributors International Conference - International Conference on Building Resilience. Heritance Kandalama, Sri Lanka: IIIRR. Luara Mayer is a PhD Candidate at the Chair for International Bontenbal M 2009a. Cities as partners: the challenge to strengthen Relations and Sustainable Development, University of Münster, urban governance through North-South city partnerships/ in Germany. Her thesis work focuses on the democratic func- Marike Bontenbal. Delft: Eburon. 324 p. ISBN: 978-90-5972-313-9. tioning of North-South C2Cs for sustainability. Luara’s main lines Bontenbal M. 2009b. Strengthening urban governance in the of research are in international political economy, development South through city-to-city cooperation: towards an analytical cooperation and glocal dynamics in the areas of sustainability, framework. Habitat Int. 33(2):181–189. doi:10.1016/j.habita transportation, and energy. tint.2008.10.016 Le Anh Nguyen Longis an Assistant Professor of Public Bontenbal M. 2009c. Understanding North-South municipal Administration at the University of Twente, Netherlands. She partnership conditions for capacity development: A 184 L. MAYER AND L. A. NGUYEN LONG Dutch-Peruvian example. Habitat Int. 33(1):100–105. Fastenrath S, Coenen L, Davidson K. 2019. Urban resilience in action: the doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.05.003 resilient melbourne strategy as transformative urban innovation Bontenbal M. 2013. Differences in learning practices and values policy? Sustainability. 11(693):693. doi:10.3390/su11030693 in north-south city partnerships: towards a broader under- Feiner JP, Salmerón D, Joos E, Schmid WA. 2002. Priming sus- standing of mutuality. Public Admin Dev. 33(2):85–100. tainability: the kunming urban region development project. doi:10.1002/pad.1622 DISP. 151:59–67. Bontenbal M, van Lindert P. 2008. Bridging local institutions and Fox J. 2007. The uncertain relationship between transparency civil society in Latin America: can city-to-city cooperation and accountability. Dev Pract. 17(4–5):663–671. doi:10.1080/ make a difference?. Environment and Urbanization. 09614520701469955 20:465–481.English. doi:. 10.1177/0956247808096123 Fraundorfer M. 2017. The role of cities in shaping transnational Bowen KJ, Cradock-Henry NA, Koch F, Patterson J, Häyhä T, law in climate governance. Global Policy. 8(1):23–31. Vogt J, Barbi F. 2017. Implementing the “Sustainable devel- doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12365 opment goals”: towards addressing three key governance Fünfgeld H. 2015. Facilitating local climate change adaptation challenges—collective action, trade-offs, and accountability. through transnational municipal networks. Current Opinion in Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 26- Environmental Sustainability. 12:67–73. doi:10.1016/j.cosust. 27:90–96. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.002 2014.10.011 Bryson JM, Quick KS, Slotterback CS, Crosby BC. 2013. Designing Fung A. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. public participation processes. Public Admin Rev. 73(1):23–34. Public Adm Rev. 66(s1):66–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x 00667.x Bulkeley H. 2010. Cities and the governing of climate change. Gambert S. 2010. Territorial politics and the success of collabora- Annu Rev Environ Resour. 35(1):229–253. doi:10.1146/ tive environmental governance: local and regional partner- annurev-environ-072809-101747 ships compared. Local Environment. 15(5):467–480. Carrión F. 2016. La ciudad y su gobierno en América Latina. In: doi:10.1080/13549831003745865 Abramo P, Rodríguez Mancilla M, Erazo Espinosa J, editors. Gaventa J. 2002. Towards participatory local governance: six Procesos urbanos en acción. III. Buenos Aires: CLACSO; p. 45–80. propositions for discussion. Currents. 28:29–35. Connelly S. 2007. Mapping sustainable development as a contested Geldin S. 2019. Advancing urban adaptation where it counts: concept. Local Environment. 12(3):259–278. doi:10.1080/135498 reshaping unequal knowledge and resource diffusion in net- 30601183289 worked Indonesian cities. Environ Urban. 31(1):13–32. Cooke B, Kothari U. 2001. Participation, the new tyranny? doi:10.1177/0956247818776532 London:Zed. ISBN:9781856497947. George C. 2007. Sustainable development and global De Villiers JC, De Coning TJ, Smit EVDM. Villiers JC de, Coning TJ de, governance. The Journal of Environment & Development. Smit EVDM. 2007. Towards an understanding of the success 16(1):102–125. doi:10.1177/1070496506298147 factors in international twinning and sister-city relationships. George C, Reed MG. 2017. Operationalising just sustainability: South African Journal of Business Management. 38(1):1–10. towards a model for place-based governance. Local doi:10.4102/sajbm.v38i1.573 Environment. 22(9):1105–1123. doi:10.1080/13549839.20 Dingwerth K, Pattberg P. 2009. World politics and organizational 15.1101059 fields: the case of transnational sustainability governance. Gerlak AK, Heikkila T. 2011. Building a theory of learning in colla- European Journal of International Relations. 15(4):707–743. boratives: evidence from the everglades restoration program. doi:10.1177/1354066109345056 Environ Sci Policy. 21:619–644. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq089 Driessen PPJ, Dieperink C, Laerhoven F, Runhaar HAC, Gerring J. 2009. Case selection for case-study analysis. In: Box- Vermeulen WJV. 2012. Towards a conceptual framework for Steffensmeier JM, Brady HE, Collier D, Gerring J editors. The the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance - oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 645–684). experiences from the netherlands. Env Pol Gov. 22 Published Online. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (3):143–160. doi:10.1002/eet.1580 (vol. 1). Elliott JA. 2006. An introduction to sustainable development. 3rd Güney T. 2017. Governance and sustainable development. How ed. London: Routledge (Routledge perspectives on develop- Effective Is Governance? The Journal of International Trade & ment series. ISBN:0-415-33559-0. Economic Development. 26(3):316–335. doi:10.1080/ Elmqvist T. 2013. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: 09638199.2016.1249391 challenges and opportunities: a global assessment: a part of the Gupta J, Vegelin C. 2016. Sustainable development goals and Cities and Biodiversity Outlook Project/Thomas Elmqvist [and inclusive development. Int Environ Agreements. 16 ten others], editors. Dordrecht:Springer. ISBN:9789400770881. (3):433–448. doi:10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z Ernstson H, van der Leeuw SE, Redman CL, Meffert DJ, Davis G, Hafteck P. 2003. An introduction to decentralized cooperation: Alfsen C, Elmqvist T. 2010. Urban transitions: on urban resi- definitions, origins and conceptual mapping. Public Admin lience and human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio. 39 Dev. 23(4):333–345. doi:10.1002/pad.286 (8):531–545. eng. doi:. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9 Hakelberg L. 2014. Governance by diffusion: transnational muni- Esquivel V. 2016. Power and the sustainable development goals: a cipal networks and the spread of local climate strategies in feminist analysis. Gend Dev. 24(1):9–23. doi:10.1080/13552074. europe. Global Environmental Politics. 14:107–129. doi:10.11 2016.1147872 62/GLEP_a_00216 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 185 Hamilton JT. 1995. Testing for environmental racism: prejudice, Kern K, Bulkeley H. 2009. Cities, europeanization and multi-level profits, political power? J. Pol Anal Manage. 14(1):107. governance: governing climate change through transnational doi:10.2307/3325435 municipal networks. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. Haupt W, Chelleri L, van Herk S, Zevenbergen C. 2020. City-to- 47:309–332. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00806.x city learning within climate city networks: definition, signifi - Kim H, Grafakos S. 2019. Which are the factors influencing the cance, and challenges from a global perspective. integration of mitigation and adaptation in climate change International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development. plans in Latin American cities?. Environmental Research 12:143–159. doi:10.1080/19463138.2019.1691007 Letters. 14(105008). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab2f4c Haupt W, Coppola A. 2019. Climate governance in transnational Kooiman J. 2003. Governing As Governance. London: Sage municipal networks: advancing a potential agenda for analy- Publications. 1 online resource. ISBN:978-0761940364. sis and typology. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Krause RM. 2012. An assessment of the impact that participation Development. 11(2):123–140. doi:10.1080/19463138.2019. in local climate networks has on cities’ implementation of 1583235 climate, energy, and transportation policies. Review of Policy Hewitt WE. 1996. International municipal exchange as a catalyst Research. 29(5):585–604. doi:10.1111/j.1541- for south-north technology and information transfer: a case 1338.2012.00582.x study from the Americas. Can J Dev Stud. 17(2):293–311. Kurniawan TA, Puppim de Oliveira J, Premakumara DGJ, Nagaishi M. English. doi:. DOI: 10.1080/02255189.1996.9669656 2013. City-to-city level cooperation for generating urban Hewitt WE. 1998. The role of international municipal coopera- co-benefits: the case of technological cooperation in the waste tion in housing the developing world’s urban poor: the tor- sector between Surabaya (Indonesia) and Kitakyushu (Japan). onto-sao paulo example. Habitat Int. 22(4):411–427. J Clean Prod. 58:43–50. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.002 doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(98)00017-4 Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hewitt WE. 1999a. Cities working together to improve urban ser- Hughes TP, Wilson J. 2006. Governance and the capacity to vices in developing areas: the Toronto-Sao Paulo example. Stud manage resilience in regional social- Comp Int Dev. 34(1):27–44. English. doi:10.1007/BF02687603 ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 11(1): 19. [online] Hewitt WE. 1999b. The administrative impact of international http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/ municipal cooperation on Canadian cities and towns: an Loorbach D, Wittmayer JM, Shiroyama H, Fujino J, Mizuguchi S. assessment. Canadian Public Administration. 42(3):312–330. editors. 2016. Governance of urban sustainability transitions. English. doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.1999.tb01553.x Tokyo:Springer Japan (Theory and Practice of Urban Hewitt WE. 2001. Confronting the challenges of urban development Sustainability Transitions). ISBN: 978-4-431-55425-7 in Sao Paulo: the Operacoes Interligadas/Urbanas. Public Marchetti D, Oliveira R, Figueira AR. 2019. Are global north smart Administration & Development. 21(3):233–243. doi:10.1002/ city models capable to assess Latin American cities? A model pad.177 and indicators for a new context. Cities. 92:197–207. Hewitt WE. 2002. Partnership as Process: Municipal Co-operation doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.001 for International Development. Canadian Journal of McGuire M, Agranoff R. 2011. Networking in the Shadow of Development Studies. 23:225–247. doi:10.1080/ Bureaucracy. In: Durant RF, editor. The oxford handbook of 02255189.2002.9668864. american bureaucracy. III. New York: Oxford University Press; Hewitt WE. 2004. Improving citizen participation in local govern- p. 372–395. ment in Latin America through international cooperation: Meadowcroft J. 2007. Who is in charge here?: governance for A case study. Dev Pract. 14(5):619–632. English. doi:. DOI: sustainable development in a complex world*. Journal of 10.1080/0961452042000239779 Environmental Policy & Planning. 9(3–4):299–314. doi:10.1080/ IPCC. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5°C.: an IPCC Special Report on the 15239080701631544 impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels Meuleman L, Niestroy I. 2015. Common but differentiated govern- and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the ance: a metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. context of strengthening the global response to the threat of Sustainability. 7(9):12295–12321. doi:10.3390/su70912295 climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradi- Mocca E. 2018. All cities are equal, but some are more equal than cate poverty. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on others. Policy Mobility and Asymmetric Relations in Inter- Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ . urban Networks for Sustainability International Journal of Irazábal C, Angotti T. 2017. Planning latin american cities: hous- Urban Sustainable Development. 10:139–153. doi:10.1080/ ing and citizenship. Lat Am Perspect. 44(3):4–8. doi:10.1177/ 19463138.2018.1487444 0094582X16689558 Nagendra H, Bai X, Brondizio ES, Lwasa S. 2018. The urban south Johnson CA 2018. The power of cities in global climate politics. and the predicament of global sustainability. Nat Sustain. 1 London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 178 p. ISBN: 978-1-137-59468-6. (7):341–349. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0101-5 Keiner M, Kim A. 2007. Transnational City Networks for Nguyen Long LA, Krause RM. 2020. Managing policy-making in Sustainability. European Planning Studies. 15(10):1369–1395. the local climate governance landscape: the role of network doi:10.1080/09654310701550843 administrative organizations and member cities. Public Adm. Kemp R, Martens P. 2007. Sustainable development: how to doi:10.1111/padm.12684 manage something that is subjective and never can be Quental N, Lourenço JM, da Silva FN. 2011. Sustainable devel- achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy. 3:5–15. opment policy: goals, targets and political cycles. Sust Dev. 19 http://ejournal.nbii.org/ . (1):15–29. doi:10.1002/sd.416 186 L. MAYER AND L. A. NGUYEN LONG Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental Tjandradewi BI, Marcotullio PJ. 2009. City-to-city networks: asian management: A literature review. Biol Conserv. 141 perspectives on key elements and areas for success. Habitat (10):2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 Int. 33(2):165–172. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.021 Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, UN Habitat. 2001. City-to-City Cooperation: issues Arising from Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, et al. 2009. Experience. Nairobi:United Nations Centre for Human A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461(7263):472–475. Settlements. eng. doi:10.1038/461472a UN Habitat. 2012. State of Latin American and Caribbean cities. Rodgers D, Beall J, Kanbur R. 2011. Latin american urban develop- Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. ment into the twenty-first century: towards a renewed perspec- https://unhabitat.org/books/state-of-latin-american-and- tive on the city. The European Journal of Development Research. caribbean-cities-2/ . 23(4):550–568. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2011.18 United Nations. 2018. Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. Schattschneider EE. 1960. The semi sovereign people: A realists view of New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. democracy in America. S.l.:Holt. ISBN:978-0030133664. https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018- Shefer I. 2019. Policy transfer in city-to-city cooperation: implica- revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html . tions for urban climate governance learning. Journal of van Lindert P. 2009. Transnational linking of local govern- Environmental Policy and Planning. 21(1):61–75. doi:10.10 ments: the consolidation of the Utrecht–León municipal 80/1523908X.2018.1562668 partnership. Habitat Int. 33(2):173–180. doi:10.1016/j. Smeds E, Acuto M. 2018. Networking cities after paris: weighing habitatint.2008.10.015 the ambition of urban climate change experimentation. Glob van Zeijl-rozema A, Cörvers R, Kemp R, Martens P. 2008. Policy. 9(4):549–559. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12587 Governance for sustainable development: A framework. Sneddon C, Howarth RB, Norgaard RB. 2006. Sustainable devel- Sust Dev. 16(6):410–421. doi:10.1002/sd.367 opment in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics. 57 Verba S, Brady SVKLSHE, Schlozman KL, Brady HE. 1995. Voice (2):253–268. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.013 and Equality: civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Sobol A. 2008. Governance barriers to local sustainable devel- Cambridge:Harvard University Press. ISBN:9780674942936. opment in Poland. Management of Environmental Quality. 19 Watts M. 2017. Cities spearhead climate action. Nat Clim Chang. (2):194–203. doi:10.1108/14777830810856573 7(8):537–538. doi:10.1038/nclimate3358 Sørensen E, Torfing J. 2005. The democratic anchorage of govern- Wilson G, Johnson H. 2007. Knowledge, learning and practice in ance networks. Scan Polit Stud. 28(3):195–218. doi:10.1111/ North-South practitioner-to-practitioner municipal partnerships. j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x Local Gov Stud. 33(2):253–269. English. doi:10.1080/03003930 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, 701200544 Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Vries WD, Wit CAD, et al. Yu I, Jo Y, Sohn S, Kim D. 2016. City-to-city cooperation in 2015. Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human environmental infrastructure installation. IJSSH. 6(8):623– development on a changing planet. Science. 347 627. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.722 (6223):1259855. eng. doi:10.1126/science.1259855 Zelinsky W. 1991. The twinning of the world: sister cities in Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Breeman G, Stiller SJ. 2015. Governance geographic and historical perspective. Ann Assoc Am capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Adm Soc. Geogr. 81(1):1–31. English. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1991. 47(6):680–710. doi:10.1177/0095399712469195 tb01676.x
Journal
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development
– Taylor & Francis
Published: May 4, 2021
Keywords: City-to-city partnerships; sustainable development; latin America
