While there continue to be discrepancies between the intended and actual significance of action plans in the implementation of Socially Integrative City, the blueprints certainly fulfil important functions - albeit to varying degrees. They assist decision-making procedures and controlling for Land authorities entrusted with distributing funds, and in the best-case scenario they have numerous positive impacts on the programme implementation process:
The question posed in the survey, "What are your experiences with your integrated action plan and its implementation and what is your opinion of the plan as a tool?"(2) reveals a unambiguously positive verdict on the benefit of plans in around two thirds of programme districts. The responses tended to agree more with concrete and positive statements on the plans than with sceptical and negative judgements. Almost one fifth of districts were not yet in a position to judge their plan's effectiveness (see Table 11).
Table 11: Evaluation of Integrated Action Plans as a tool (n=222). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
||
|
Evaluation |
Approval |
|
Districts |
% |
|
The action plan is essential as a basis for programme implementation. |
148 |
66.7 |
Local residents should participate in developing the action plan. |
147 |
66.2 |
Developing and updating the action plan benefit intra-district communication. |
143 |
64.4 |
The action plan promotes cooperative thinking and action in local government. |
140 |
63.1 |
The action plan facilitates integrative use of funding and enables coordination of resources. |
112 |
50.4 |
The action plan's function has been insufficiently defined so far. |
58 |
26.1 |
Reaching a consensus on the action plan would be too costly. |
39 |
17.6 |
The action plan's cost-benefit ratio is unfavourable. |
21 |
9.5 |
Other |
7 |
3.1 |
The action plan cannot be judged as a tool on the basis of our experience. |
41 |
18.5 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||
Those districts who deemed the action plan to be the basis of programme implementation predominantly argued that the process of drafting concepts promoted holistic approaches and deeper consideration of objectives. Those who felt the action plan was as yet insufficiently honed as a tool primarily bemoaned the absence of substantive and structural standards.
The exchange of views during the impulse congress and other Socially Integrative City events and experiences with onsite programme support have highlighted the importance of local council involvement and clear policies for securing personal commitment and the backing needed to take on new responsibilities. Politicians in the 16 pilot districts are still reluctant to provide the necessary guarantees. Only six of the eleven action plans were supported by concrete political resolutions in the first half of 2002. Gelsenkirchen, Hamburg and Cottbus have declared their allegiance to their action plans through a "self-binding order"(3), while the councils in Leipzig, Ludwigshafen and Kassel have, while imposing some restrictions, formally recognized the plans.
The nationwide survey results at least demonstrate the quantitative progress made: 119 action plans (64%) have concrete political backing, and 31 plans (17%) have been endorsed by local councils. A further twelve plans (6%) have the joint recognition of both a political decision and council recognition. Alongside formal local council involvement, the project-related participation of all political parties in the city plays a particular role in making sure the district's voice is heard and in sharpening awareness of its problems and potential.(4)
Survey evaluation and onsite programme-support experiences alone do not enable us to draw anything but preliminary conclusions on the quality of integrated action plans. Detailed qualitative analysis would require further up-to-date case studies and additional methodology steps. The scope of action plans continues to be highly varied: some incorporate somewhat outdated preparatory investigation results posing as a stocktake and problem analysis with annotated project outlines, while others are dominated by an urban construction framework honed by social measures or even encompass comprehensive integrative concepts based on citywide microspatial analyses with elaborated visions and detailed implementation proposals. The level of participation among local residents and players varies considerably. While existing top-down strategies put responsibility for drafting concepts firmly in the hands of local government, some schemes attempt partial civic involvement, and certain special offers such as future workshops, roundtables and popular expertises go even further.
Local administrators in some pilot districts fiercely dispute the ability of action plans to play a steering role.(5) One reason are plans' flexibility and malleability, designed to enhance their adaptability. More significant factors include excessive detachment from everyday issues, unrealistic ideals and targets and over-abstract concepts. In spite of increasing acceptance in municipalities and among other Socially Integrative City participants, scepticism and restraint still abound with regard to the action plans' significance, effectiveness and steering capability. These doubts are fed by the incomprehensibility of academic, abstract concepts which fail to go beyond the stage of well-meaning maxims and declarations of intent and are stuffed full of project proposals whose problem-solving capacity is not explained. The drafting of integrated action plans is "always a tight-rope walk between the concrete and the abstract"(6). Plans must assert themselves amid the "pressure of authorities' requirements for planning and procedural security and citizens' demands for flexibility."(7)
The success of all aspects of action plans – drafting, approval and expanding – hinges on their ability to unite local players and network them in actual projects. This requires more readiness to leave the beaten track and participate in open discourse and ongoing learning processes.
(1) Malte Krugmann, Hamburg Senate, in the report of the Working Group No. 6 "Integrierte Handlungskonzepte und das neue Steuerungsmodell", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln, p. 211.
(2) Although the question addressed all participants, answers were primarily provided by districts either already using or developing an action plan.
(3) Thomas Knorr-Siedow, Kerstin Jahnke and Britta Trostorff, Programmbegleitung vor Ort Sachsendorf-Madlow. Endbericht, Erkner 2002, p. 33.
(4) For more information cf. Susanne Ritter, "Einbindung der Politik. Impulsreferat in der Arbeitsgruppe 2", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln, p. 82: "Two aspects of this are that opportunities to participate in district projects must be seized by the horns, and that politicians must jump on the bandwagon."
(5) Andreas Jacob, Sabine Herz, Sonja Mazak and Martina Pauly, Programmbegleitung vor Ort im Modellgebiet "Innenstadt Neunkirchen". Endbericht , Kaiserslautern 2002, p. 45.
(6) Breckner/Herrmann/Gonzalez/Läpple, p. 83.
(7) Löhr, Qualitätskriterien, p. 174.
Translated from: Soziale Stadt - Strategien für die Soziale Stadt, Erfahrungen und Perspektiven – Umsetzung des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik 2003
