Business privilege and the strategic planning agenda of the Greater London Authority

The establishment of the Greater London Authority (GLA) in 2000 brought a new form of politics to London and new powers to formulate strategic policy. Through an investigation of the access of business interests in the formulation of London's strategic agenda, this article illuminates one aspect of the pressures on city government. It uses the urban regime approach as a framework for analysing the co-operation between the Mayor and business interests in shaping strategic priorities. Although there was a surrounding rhetoric that pointed towards a greater consensus-seeking approach, the business sector was very active in maintaining its privileged access. Strategic priorities were established in the GLA's first year and were then subsequently embodied in the London Plan. Our analysis is based on a detailed examination of this agenda-setting period using material from meetings, written reports and interviews with key actors. © 2005 The Editors of Urban Studies.

The 'law of requisite variety' may assist climate change negotiations:a review of the Kyoto and Durban meetings

Ashby wrote about cybernetics, during which discourse he described a Law that attempts to resolve difficulties arising in complex situations – he suggested using variety to combat complexity. In this paper, we note that the delegates to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Kyoto, 1997, were offered a ‘simplifying solution’ to cope with the complexity of discussing multiple pollutants allegedly contributing to ‘climate change’. We assert that the adoption of CO2eq has resulted in imprecise thinking regarding the ‘carbon footprint’ – that is, ‘CO2’ – to the exclusion of other pollutants. We propose, as Ashby might have done, that the CO2eq and other factors within the ‘climate change’ negotiations be disaggregated to allow careful and specific individual solutions to be agreed on each factor. We propose a new permanent and transparent ‘action group’ be in charge of agenda setting and to manage the messy annual meetings. This body would be responsible for achieving accords at these annual meetings, rather than forcing this task on national hosts. We acknowledge the task is daunting and we recommend moving on from Ashby's Law to Beer's Viable Systems approach.