Mahesti Okitasari


In many ways international circulation of urban policies is indispensable to the spread of planning regimes. Contemporary cities in the Global South are sensitive to global, local, relational and territorial geographies, flows and fixity and the increasingly diverse stakeholders. The gradual integration of major international references associated with sustainable urbanism into local interventions combining social, economic and environmental prevention exemplifies the pervasiveness of global approaches. On the other hand, the production of cities is seasoned by the complex state-society relations as the planning practice struggles to respond to the hegemonic urban planning that are time, scale and geographically specific.  Building on this background, this paper revisits the notion of the New Urban Agenda within the international circulation of urban policies, practices and models from the standpoint of cities in the Global South. It examines the push and pull in the global process for the inclusion of initiatives that respond to the needs of Southern cities. This paper sets to explore the New Urban Agenda within the current borrowing, adaptation and hybridization of planning practices and how it can contribute to the debate of localizing the Agenda towards humane urban policies fitting to the needs of the people. This paper identifies impediments to the attainment of the New Urban Agenda as it is circulated, sets to be adapted and taken up, and mutates. This paper contributes to two conversations within planning academics on the implication of the New Urban Agenda: to the international circulation of urban policies and the making of contemporary cities in the Global South and to the struggle facing cities towards a humane urbanism.



The New Urban Agenda; Urban Policy Circulation; Humane Urbanism

Full Text:



Adell, G. (1999), Theories and models of the peri-urban interface: A changing conceptual landscape (draft for discussion), Strategic environmental Planning and Management for the Peri-urban Interface, University College London. Barsh, R.L. (1991), The right to development as a human right: Result of the Global Consultation, Human Rights Quarterly, 13(August), 322-338, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bulkeley, H. (2005), Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks, Political Geography, 24, 875-902. Campbell, S. (1996), Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development, American Planning Association, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312, ProQuest Central.

Clos, J. (2016), The opportunity to build tomorrow’s cities, World Economic Forum.

Cochrane, A. (2011), “Making up urban policies: The role of global institutions”, in G. Bridge and Watson, S. (eds), The New Blackwell Companion to the City, 738-746, Blackwell, Oxford.

Cochrane, A. and Ward, K. (eds) (2012), Theme issue: Researching policy mobilities: Reflections on method, Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 1-19.

Davidoff, P. (1965), Advocacy and pluralism in planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.

Debord, G-E. (1955), Introduction to a critique of urban geography, Les Lèvres Nues, 6 (September 1955).

Dupuy, R-J. (1980), The Right to Development at the International Level, Springer Netherlands

Healey, P. (1997), Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, Macmillan, London.

Howard, E. (1898), Garden cities of to-morrow, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., London.

Huxham, C. (1996), “Advantage or inertia: Making collaboration work,” in R. Paton, G. Clark, G. Jones and P. Quintas (eds), The new management reader, 238-254, Routledge, London.

Jacobs, J. (1961), The death and life of great American cities, Random House, New York.

Karshenas, M. (1997), Dynamic economies and the critique of urban bias, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 24.

Lefebvre, H. (1974), The production of space, Blackwell, London

M'baye, K. (1972), Le Droit du Developpement comme un Droit de l'Homme, Revue des Droits de l'Homme, 5, 503-534.

McCann, E. (2008), Expertise, truth, and urban policy mobilities: Global circuits of knowledge in the development of Vancouver, Canada‟s „four pollar‟ drug strategy, Environment and Planning A, 40(4), 885-904. McCann, E. (2011), Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda, Annals of the Association of Americal Geographers, 101(1), 107-130.

Miraftab, F. (2009), Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the Global South, Planning Theory, 8(1), 21-50, SAGE Publications.

Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2010), Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations, Geoforum, 41(2), 169-174.

Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2012), Follow the policy: A distended case approach, Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 21-30.

Sabatier, P.A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988), An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129-168.

Schechla, J. (2015), Fractured continuity: Moving from Habitat II to Habitat III, Citiscope commentary, 7 August 2015.

Temenos, C. and McCann, E. (2013), Geographies of policy mobilities, Geography Compass, 7(5), 344-357.

UNGA (1976), A/RES/32/162, International arrangements for international cooperation in the field of human settlements.

UNGA (1986), A/RES/41/120, Declaration on the Right to Development. UNDESA, Population Division (2015), World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, ST/ESA/SER.A/366.

Ward, K. (2006), „Policies in motion,‟ urban management and state restructuring: The trans-local expansion of business improvement districts, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 54-75.



  • There are currently no refbacks.


Indexing and Abstracting :



Journal of Architecture&ENVIRONMENT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License


View JoAE Stats