Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, overcoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives. City and government actors are simultaneously engaging with financial actors, the financialisation of the built environment, the enduring and integral position of the state in infrastructure given its particular characteristics, the transformation of infrastructure from a public good into an asset class through the agency of private and state interests, and what relationships, if any, exist between ‘effective’ urban governance systems and improved economic performance. Contributing to theoretical debates about the apparent ‘ungovernability’ of global cities and city-regions, this paper presents analysis and findings from new research examining the financialisation and governance of transport infrastructure in the London global city-region. The continued rise in London’s population is placing significant demands upon existing infrastructure assets and systems and provoking debates about the extent and nature of growth in the UK’s capital, the development of and relationship between urban and sub-urban built environments, and the ability of national, sub-national and local actors to plan infrastructure renewal and investment both within London’s formal administrative boundary and wider city-region. Combining aspects of urban entrepreneurialism and managerialism amidst the challenges of governing a global city-region, the search for new infrastructure investment by state actors is leading to the revival of specific funding and financing mechanisms and practices. The mixing of existing and new funding and financing techniques as well as governance arrangements in distinct and, at times, hybrid ways, is amplifying the novel challenges facing actors and institutions responsible for London’s governance.

中文翻译：

---

治理“无法治理”？伦敦“全球城市区域”的金融化和交通基础设施治理

摘要 城市-区域规模的基础设施融资和融资治理是继续寻求将投资引入城市景观的机制的关键方面。在全球金融危机、紧缩和不平衡增长的背景下，国家、次国家和地方国家行为体被迫采用城市创业主义日益投机的活动来吸引新资本，开发“创新”金融工具和模式，以及为城市基础设施治理建立新的或改革现有的制度安排。在担心“全球”城市和城市区域声称“无法治理”的情况下，管理城市基础设施资金和融资已成为一个紧迫的问题。基础设施更新和发展被解释为城市发展不可或缺的一部分，尤其是支撑大城市的规模和规模及其在国民经济中的重要贡献。然而，克服分散的地方司法管辖区以改善主要大都市区的治理和经济、社会和环境发展仍然是一项挑战。复杂的、有时是相互冲突和有争议的相互关系引发了关于国家在与企业家和管理主义治理要求搏斗中的作用的重要问题。城市和政府行为者同时与金融行为者、建筑环境的金融化、国家在基础设施中的持久和整体地位（鉴于其特殊特征）打交道，通过私人和国家利益的代理，将基础设施从公共产品转变为资产类别，以及“有效”的城市治理系统与改善的经济绩效之间存在哪些关系（如果有的话）。这篇论文为关于全球城市和城市区域明显“不可治理性”的理论辩论做出贡献，介绍了新研究的分析和结果，这些研究审查了伦敦全球城市区域交通基础设施的金融化和治理。伦敦人口的持续增长对现有的基础设施资产和系统提出了很高的要求，并引发了关于英国首都增长的程度和性质、城市和郊区建筑环境的发展和关系以及国家能力的辩论。 , 次国家和地方参与者在伦敦的正式行政边界和更广泛的城市区域内规划基础设施更新和投资。在治理全球城市区域的挑战中结合城市创业主义和管理主义的各个方面，国家行为者寻求新的基础设施投资正在导致特定资金和融资机制和实践的复兴。现有和新的资金和融资技术以及治理安排以不同的、有时是混合的方式混合在一起，正在加剧负责伦敦治理的参与者和机构所面临的新挑战。在治理全球城市区域的挑战中结合城市创业主义和管理主义的各个方面，国家行为者寻求新的基础设施投资正在导致特定资金和融资机制和实践的复兴。现有和新的资金和融资技术以及治理安排以不同的、有时是混合的方式混合在一起，正在加剧负责伦敦治理的参与者和机构所面临的新挑战。在治理全球城市区域的挑战中结合城市创业主义和管理主义的各个方面，国家行为者寻求新的基础设施投资正在导致特定资金和融资机制和实践的复兴。现有和新的资金和融资技术以及治理安排以不同的、有时是混合的方式混合在一起，正在加剧负责伦敦治理的参与者和机构所面临的新挑战。