An urban take on sustainable development policies and corresponding positioning strategies

The study investigates how cities, as increasingly central actors in sustainable development (SD), formulate and advance urban sustainable development (USD) policies within multi-level governance (MLG) systems where national primacy is challenged. It asks how specific urban SD policy measures align with or diverge from national agendas and how cities position themselves across governance scales to implement and promote these measures. Drawing on MLG, the authors emphasize interactions among state and non-state actors across scales without a single structuring authority, highlighting both cooperation and contestation. The paper broadens focus beyond single policy domains by examining diverse environmental, social, and economic urban measures, and explores when urban and national policies align and when they conflict, prompting cities to adopt strategies to legitimize, gain visibility, scale, or circumvent higher-level agendas.

The paper situates its framework within multi-level governance and urban sustainability transitions literatures. It references work on cities as central to global SD agendas and climate governance; scholarship on MLG that challenges hierarchical, state-centric models and emphasizes cross-scale, multi-actor negotiation and conflict; and research on urban sustainability transitions. It also draws on studies of municipal contestation and divergent local strategies in migration governance (e.g., defiance and dodging), as well as literature on social innovation, community wealth building, and urban economic and spatial transformations (e.g., financialization, nighttime economies). These strands inform the two-dimensional framework (national-urban policy congruence; scale of policy issue) and the identification of corresponding positioning strategies.

Design: Comparative qualitative analysis of 12 illustrative case study vignettes from 11 European cities covering environmental, social, and economic USD measures. Case selection was purposive, focusing on high-visibility policy measures discussed in academic literature and/or highlighted by international city networks. Data collection: Frontloaded desk research (academic and grey literature) followed by 16 semi-structured elite interviews (30–90 minutes, mostly via videoconference) with experts involved in policy implementation. Interviews followed a common guide covering policy design, implementation, cooperation, and positioning strategies. Interviews were recorded with consent and summarized in protocols. Analysis: Thematic coding of interview protocols and collected documents. Authors jointly discussed and interpreted patterns. Cases were grouped along two emergent dimensions: (1) national-urban policy congruence (alignment vs divergence) and (2) scale of policy issue (global vs urban). This yielded a 2×2 typology of USD policy types. Within each type, the team identified ideal-typical positioning and cooperation strategies; while multiple cooperation scales often coexist, the most central cooperation partners/levels were highlighted. Findings are summarized in two tables: policy types with examples (Table 1) and positioning/cooperation strategies (Table 2).

• Developed a 2×2 framework categorizing USD policies by (a) national-urban policy congruence and (b) scale of the policy issue, yielding four ideal types linked to distinct positioning strategies and cooperation patterns.
• Policy alignment with global focus → Best practices: Cities position as champions, showcase and scale aligned environmental policies via national/international networks, often securing funding and visibility. Examples: climate-positive districts and CO2-neutral goals (Stockholm, Sønderborg); circular economy in construction/waste (Berlin, Capital Region of Denmark). Cooperation emphasizes international city networks (e.g., C40, ICLEI/Cityloops), national support/funding, and local implementation partners.
• Policy alignment with urban focus → First practices: Cities pioneer innovative, locally grounded policies addressing primarily urban issues without national conflict, building local cross-sector coalitions and sharing knowledge with peers. Examples: social innovation platforms (Vienna, Newcastle upon Tyne); 24-hour city policy (London). Cooperation centers on metropolitan/local partnerships; national/international networks for knowledge exchange and recognition.
• Policy divergence with global focus → Defiant practices: Cities openly contest national migration/asylum policies, build alliances with other cities, and sometimes engage EU institutions to leapfrog national states. Examples: Barcelona’s City of Refuge approach; Amsterdam’s 24h reception for undocumented migrants. Cooperation stresses inter-city alliances nationally and internationally; relations with national governments are antagonistic; outcomes may include negotiated compromises while leveraging local discretion.
• Policy divergence with urban focus → Dodging practices: Cities address specifically urban problems (e.g., austerity impacts, privatization of public space) through locally embedded, interventionist measures that circumvent national policy thrusts without direct confrontation. Examples: community wealth building (Preston); regulation/reclamation of public space and active mobility (London, Milan). Cooperation focuses on metropolitan partnerships for implementation; national engagement is marginal but can be instrumental for legal/regulatory adjustments (e.g., national support for Milan’s cycling infrastructure).
• Cross-cutting pattern: When diverging from national agendas, cities often ‘jump scales’ by mobilizing horizontal (inter-city) networks and supranational venues; when aligned, cities ‘bridge scales’ along formal vertical lines, leveraging mutual benefits and funding.
• Empirical scope: 12 vignettes across 11 European cities; 16 expert interviews inform the analysis.

The framework demonstrates how urban policy measures interact with national agendas and how cities strategically position themselves within MLG to legitimize, scale, or protect USD policies. It shows that alignment encourages vertical bridging and resource access, whereas divergence fosters horizontal alliances and scale-jumping to exert pressure or expand local autonomy. These dynamics illuminate cities’ proactive roles as policy-makers and influencers rather than mere implementers of national or global SD agendas. While the ideal types clarify typical patterns, real-world cases can straddle categories and employ multiple strategies simultaneously. The findings underscore the political nature of USD across environmental, social, and economic domains and illustrate how urban strategies can shape broader SD agendas.

The study introduces a two-dimensional framework of national-urban relations in USD, yielding four ideal policy types—alignment/divergence crossed with global/urban scale—and corresponding positioning strategies: best, first, defiant, and dodging practices. The framework clarifies how cities take ownership of SD issues, collaborate across scales, and respond to or contest national agendas. It highlights that divergent social and economic urban policies (e.g., migration, community wealth building) are crucial for expanding the prevailing environmental focus of SD debates and for advancing more inclusive visions of sustainability. Future research should test and refine the framework beyond Europe, include smaller/less-visible cities, incorporate the roles of local communities, social movements, and epistemic communities, and account for legal/governance system differences.

• Ideal types simplify complex realities; categories can overlap and differences may be marginal in practice.
• Positioning strategies are linked to specific measures and may not reflect a city’s overall stance across policy domains.
• Empirical focus on high-visibility European cases limits generalizability; smaller and non-European cities are underrepresented.
• Analysis primarily examines local–national relations, giving less attention to the roles of local communities, social movements, epistemic communities, and variations in legal/governance systems.
• Cooperation strategies often co-occur across scales; emphasis on the most salient partners may understate others’ importance.