An urban take on sustainable development policies and corresponding positioning strategies

Cities have become central actors in global sustainable development (SD), often exceeding national policies in their depth and innovativeness. This article uses the multi-level governance (MLG) framework to investigate the complex interactions between cities and national states in SD policy-making. The study challenges the notion that urban SD policy-making is de-politicized and uncontested, highlighting potential conflicts and negotiation strategies between different levels of government. The research employs twelve case study vignettes from European cities, focusing on specific policy measures rather than entire policy programs. These vignettes, selected for their high visibility and coverage in academic literature or through international city networks, were supplemented by semi-structured interviews with sixteen experts involved in policy implementation. The interviews aimed to understand the nuances and dynamics of each case, particularly concerning the cooperation and positioning strategies employed by cities to advance their agendas.

The study draws upon existing literature on multi-level governance (MLG) in political science, recognizing the manifold interactions between state and non-state actors across various scales. The MLG framework challenges state-centric power distributions, acknowledging negotiation and policy disputes among actors at different levels. The authors also acknowledge prior work on multi-level processes in the sustainability transitions literature, but focus specifically on national-urban policy relationships. Existing research often suggests a certain degree of alignment between urban and national sustainability goals; however, this paper intends to highlight areas of conflict and explore the strategies cities use to navigate these conflicts.

The research utilized a mixed-methods approach combining a literature review and semi-structured interviews. Twelve case studies, selected for their high visibility and thematic diversity (environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainability), were chosen. The literature review provided a foundation for understanding each case, and semi-structured interviews with sixteen experts involved in policy implementation provided deeper insights into the nuances and dynamics of each case study. The interviews, conducted using a standardized questionnaire (see Supplementary Table 2), aimed to understand policy processes, cooperation strategies, and positioning strategies employed by cities. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and were conducted via videoconference or phone, with interview protocols recorded. Both the interview protocols and the literature review were thematically coded and analyzed to identify patterns and categorize the cases. The analysis focused on identifying commonalities in the policy measures and comparing them based on two dimensions: (1) the congruence between national and urban policy agendas, and (2) the scale of the policy issue (global or urban). This led to the identification of four ideal types of urban sustainable development policies and their corresponding positioning strategies.

The analysis resulted in a framework categorizing urban sustainable development policies based on two dimensions: national-urban policy congruence and the scale of the policy issue. This framework yielded four ideal types of urban SD policies: 1. **Policy alignment with global focus ('Best practices'):** Policies aligned with national and international agendas (e.g., climate-positive cities, circular economy). Cities utilize cooperation at multiple scales (metropolitan, national, and international) to position themselves as champions, showcasing best practices to gain visibility and funding. 2. **Policy alignment with urban focus ('First practices'):** Policies addressing mainly urban-level issues and not directly conflicting with national agendas (e.g., social innovation, 24-hour city policies). Cities focus on local-level cooperation for implementation and knowledge exchange with other cities at national and international levels, positioning themselves as pioneers. 3. **Policy divergence with global focus ('Defiant practices'):** Policies directly challenging national agendas on global issues (e.g., urban asylum policies, support for irregular migrants). Cities use international networks to build pressure and circumvent national limitations, employing defiant practices to push their agendas despite national opposition. 4. **Policy divergence with urban focus ('Dodging practices'):** Policies addressing urban issues that indirectly conflict with national agendas (e.g., community wealth building, regulation of public spaces). Cities prioritize local partnerships and knowledge exchange with other cities, focusing on local autonomy to circumvent conflicting national policies. The study found that cities employ different cooperation strategies depending on their policy type. When policies align with national agendas, cooperation across different scales (local, national, international) is crucial. When policies diverge, cities often build alliances with other cities to bypass the national level, creating pressure or seeking autonomy. The table below summarizes the key findings: | Policy Type | Positioning Strategy | Cooperation Strategies (by Partner) | |-----------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Policy alignment with global focus | Best practices | **Metropolitan area**, Cities national, Cities international, National state | | Policy alignment with urban focus | First practices | Metropolitan area, Cities national, **Cities international** | | Policy divergence with global focus | Defiant practices | Metropolitan area, **Cities national**, **Cities international** | | Policy divergence with urban focus | Dodging practices | **Metropolitan area**, Cities national, Cities international | **Note:** Boldface indicates the most important cooperation strategy for each policy type.

The findings highlight the diverse strategies cities employ to navigate multi-level governance in sustainable development. The study demonstrates that the context, particularly the alignment of urban policies with national agendas and the scale of the issue, significantly influences the positioning and cooperation strategies adopted by cities. Cities often use scale-jumping strategies when their policies diverge from national ones, forging international alliances to bypass national-level limitations. Conversely, when policies are aligned, collaboration across all scales proves most effective. The study acknowledges the limitations of its ideal types, recognizing the complexities of real-world policy-making. It also points out that the identified positioning strategies relate to specific policy measures, not necessarily the overall positioning of a city. This nuanced approach is essential for understanding how cities contribute to and shape global sustainable development agendas.

This research demonstrates the existence of distinct 'urban takes' on sustainable development that may challenge or contradict national and international agendas, particularly in areas like migration policy or community wealth building. Cities are not merely implementers of broader policy directives; they are active policy-makers and influencers, employing diverse strategies to advance their goals across multiple governance scales. Further research should explore the roles of local communities, social movements, and epistemic communities, as well as variations across different legal systems and governance structures, and examine a broader range of cities beyond the high-visibility European cases included in this study.

The study focuses primarily on high-visibility European cities and may not fully represent the experiences of smaller or less-known cities globally. The analysis focuses mainly on the relationship between local and national governments, potentially overlooking the influence of other actors (local communities, social movements, epistemic communities) in shaping SD policies. The framework's ideal types, while useful for analysis, simplify the complexities of real-world interactions. The findings are based on self-reported data from interviews and may not capture the full range of influencing factors.