Polycentric Networks

A polycentric network in regards to public policy is a network of communities, municipalities, regions, nations, etc. who join together for a shared or common goal. The common goals as Kramer and Kadi express typically revolve around environmental protection policies but is not limited to the environment exclusively. The goals can be social, political, or industrial depending on the context and framework used. As it was elaborated to earlier, these networks can cross borders and create a more connected global community as Meijer claims. Scholars have found a direct relationship between connected cities and the policies they choose to implement on a micro, meso and macro scale.

With globalization has come the increased interconnectedness of world cities. This interconnectedness, Romolini and Grove argue, creates more dynamic and well-rounded policies hitting the forefront of everyday life. They can be flexible as well as adaptive to changing contemporary issues allowing the participants in the network greater output from the given policy. The synergy created through these networks allows domestic-based enterprises, which can include but are not limited to international airports, big business centres, cultural centres, as well as tourist areas to form, as Hall and Pain state in their book The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe.

The following subsections will bring insight into what scholars are currently finding in regards to polycentric networks. These include the European context, the American context, the rural and urban context, micro/macro/meso levels of polycentric networks, polycentric networks in metropolitan areas and the potential future for polycentric networks in the growing globalized world. As well, other scholarly work on dynamic polycentric networks, ones where change is constantly happening, will be introduced through contemporary examples.

European context

In the European context, it is also apparent that cities fairly close to one another, in different countries such as the so-called “Pentagon” cities, which comprise Birmingham, Paris, Milan, Hamburg and Amsterdam. These countries have expanded in such a way with globalization that they are more connected through the information that each nation is sharing with one another. This close proximity has led to the European Union Ministers of planning to propose a “central policy objective of polycentrism” in Potsdam, 1999.

It is apparent that polycentric networks, in today's age, typically work to coordinate services between cities and nations due to service policies directly affecting a city's economy and output. Four distinct areas of services have been identified to be core features of the policy, including:

“Finance and Business services: including banking and insurance, commercial business services such as law, accountancy, advertising and public relations, and design services including architecture, civil engineering, industrial design and fashion

Power and influence (or command and control): National government, supranational organizations like United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and headquarters of major organizations including transnational corporations

Creative and Cultural industries: Including live performing arts (theatre, opera, ballet, concerts), museums and galleries and exhibitions, print and electronic media

Tourism: Including both business and leisure tourism and embracing hotels, restaurants, bars, entertainment, and transportation services.”.

The European context of polycentric networks can be seen in relation to transportation services offered throughout Europe. As Kathy Pain et al. explain in The Polycentric Metropolis it is clear that polycentric networks rule the European context. In their analysis of transportation routes, it is clear that more connected cities see the greater number of flights to and from. The same can be said about rail transportation as well. Owing to Europe being a fairly small landmass, travel is expedited from one end to the next, so many travellers simply take direct routes to their destination rather than non-direct routes. Without the connectivity of the different regions working in sync, this type of cross-national border travel would not be as easy and seamless.

American context

The American context of polycentric networks is one not shrouded with international relations and services. In one study, done by the University of Vermont, linked Baltimore and Seattle’s environmental policies. The study found support for the connection that successful natural resource management efforts typically rely on high amounts of collaboration between organizational networks. This completely depends on the structure of the organizations and as the Vermont study claims, a higher amount of synergy can be made through organizations working together, but there is still a lack of research on the impact these efforts have on social and ecological outcomes both spatially and temporarily.

In the study, they outline three main resources that are vital to inter-organizational networks success, these resources include Information/knowledge, financial, and human (staff, volunteers). The study specifically looked at how these networks work and flow in Baltimore and Seattle's context, two cities on opposite ends of the USA. The methodology behind why these two cities include that their populations are relatively similar as well as the land area each city covers being fairly similar in size. This study used snowball sampling to develop its list of organizations working with natural resource management as well the study breaks these organizations down into organizational attributes, relationships, and geographical scope of work. With data gathered the study hopes to see how things have changed in the two cities with different policies being implemented and how this ultimately affects the greater metropolitan.

Rural and urban context

Rural polycentric networks are nearly non-existent due to what polycentric networks entail. Urban polycentric networks draw heavily on economic network theories in respect to how polycentric networks should function. The assumption made is that “individual cities in these collections of distinct but proximally-located cities relate to each other in a synergetic way, making the whole network of cities more than the sum of its parts”. The interest in urban polycentric regions has increased dramatically in the last decade. As Meijers claims, even with the greater interest in these networks much more research is needed.

"In the literature, polycentric urban regions are often defined as collections of historically distinct and both administratively and politically independent cities located in close proximity and well connected through infrastructure (see Kloosterman and Lambregts, 2001). However, as the literature on polycentric urban regions is still limited and therefore rather unconsolidated (Bailey and Turok, 2001), a diversity of concepts are applied, which are largely synonymous with the polycentric urban region concept used here.".

Meijer notes that an increasing amount of interest has sparked politicians and urban planners to follow the trend, and this is apparent in the European context where they have very synergetic international cities.

Micro/Macro/Meso level polycentric networks

Polycentric networks are discussed on different spatial characteristics, reflecting a micro, meso, or macro-level of polycentric networks in a given region.

“– micro level: intra-urban or intra-regional aspects within a certain city region. The emphasis at this level is “urban functional and economic complementarities” which make “cooperation and improved links” major engines of regional economic performance and “promote integrated spatial development strategies for city clusters”

– meso level: inter-metropolitan issues within a delimited area. The emphasis at this level is very similar to the micro-level, but at the meso level cities begin to specialize and this leads into the macro level.

– macro level: inter-metropolitan issues on a European or global scale. At the European (macro) level polycentricity is considered to be “a useful alternative model to enhance regional development more evenly across the European territory””.

These different levels of measure show the underlying normative dimensions of the polycentric networks which allow them to be flexible and convertible for spatial planning in complex regions and systems.

Polycentric networks in metropolitan areas

In metropolitan areas, the scale and intensity of collaboration is key determinant of whether or not polycentric networks function properly. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have given researchers a unique opportunity to study the scale and intensity of collaboration in these areas. In a study conducted by researchers from the University of Vermont as well as the University of La Verne, using a 2009 Government Accountability Office survey of all 381 MPOs, they found a direct link to the scale of the MPO and the performance seen. The study concluded that higher intensity of collaboration of MPOs across vertical as well as horizontal stakeholders generates a greater sense of good performance. The study found that MPOs who focus more on vertical collaboration (between the federal state and higher up agencies) saw a decrease in their perceived performance. The study looked at 15 indicators to determine its findings, these indicators include: condition of transportation network, mobility for disadvantaged populations, air quality, level of highway congestion, a measure of public participation, extent of coordination and stakeholder involvement, satisfaction among general public, satisfaction among local stakeholders, compliance with federal and state rules, transportation systems security, transportation systems accessibility, transportation systems reliability, transportation systems safety, travel demand model accuracy and project implementation.

The implications of this study have yet to be confirmed but Asim Zia et al. believes challenges will arise for nation-states once they are displaced as the central actor in the region. Once these more integrated organizations start to act for themselves, Asim Zia et al., believe we will see a new outlook on global governance.

Future for polycentric networks

The future for polycentric networks can be found in sustainability efforts seen around the globe. Perry Pei-Ju Yang conducted research in Singapore around the cities push for greater sustainability in relation to ecology. With globalization and the separation of land comes split ecosystems and habitats that get manipulated to form infrastructure, for human development. A big issue for the future of sustainability is how to minimize our environmental impact but continue to thrive as a species.

In Yang’s research, they explored Singapore throughout different time periods. Starting in 1986 it is apparent that by 1994 and again to 2002 that much of the growth in Singapore revolves around areas of industrial development, even though these areas were spread out all throughout the island. Yang noted that most of this growth revolves around the mass-rapid transit (MRT) which connects areas of the Island. The general shift seen in Singapore can be seen as the impact of polycentric networks throughout the island with the implementation of rezoning policies. From 1986 to 1994 a mass amount of rezoning occurred due to a change in policy which switched what desirable land use was in Singapore.

The transformation that Singapore experienced can be used as a marker for future growth. The research found that transit, as well as raw material, are central places for growth to occur in areas of quick development. Yang argues that Singapore is a good example of a polycentric urban form, however, it may not be strong enough to establish an urban sustainability model.