Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
In this paper, we explore how state-led regulatory planning is utilised to push for delivery of an urban megaproject (UMP) in the specific context of post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Our focus is on the large-scale brownfield redevelopment project ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ under implementation in the Serbian capital, a joint venture between the Republic of Serbia and Abu Dhabi-based investor Eagle Hills. We show this UMP to be an extreme example of state-led regulatory intervention, characterised by lack of transparency and haste in decision-making processes, all of which serve to prioritise private investors’ interests in project delivery above the principles of representative democracy. Through analysis of legislative and planning documents, expert reports and media coverage from the period between 2012 and 2017, we explore the legislative mechanisms, contractual strategies and modes of governance involved in the project’s delivery. This provides two insights: first, it reveals that, in contrast with the active role of local governments in conceiving entrepreneurial strategies that is often assumed today, in the case of Belgrade Waterfront, the national government has instead played the decisive role; second, it shows how modifications to national law were instrumental in defining public interest, in enabling certain types of contracts to become technically legal, and in minimising risks for the private investor. We conclude by highlighting the need to further conceptualise nation-state politics and autocratic rule as driving forces of urban development processes.
本文探讨了在后社会主义中东欧的特定背景中，国家主导的监管规划如何被利用来推动城市大型项目的交付。我们的重点是塞尔维亚共和国与阿布扎比投资者鹰山公司合资在塞尔维亚首都实施的大规模棕地重建项目“贝尔格莱德海滨”。我们展示的这个城市大型项目是国家主导的监管干预的一个极端例子，其特点是决策过程仓促而缺乏透明度，造成了在项目交付中优先考虑私人投资者的利益而牺牲代议制民主的原则。通过分析 2012 年至 2017 年期间的立法和规划文件、专家报告和媒体报道，我们探讨了项目交付涉及的立法机制、合同战略和治理模式。我们得出了两点见解：首先，当今通常以为地方政府在构思企业家战略中发挥积极作用，但在贝尔格莱德海滨的例子中，分析表明反而是国家政府发挥了决定性的作用；其次，分析表明了国家法律的修订如何有助于界定公共利益，从而使某些类型的合同变得在技术上合法，并最大限度地降低私人投资者的风险。最后，我们强调需要进一步将民族国家政治和专制统治理解为城市发展进程的驱动力。