The Policy Interactions Framework: Interactions between economic development, housing, and public transport policies and the mobility experience of workers in Greater City

David López-García, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, Urban Studies Department, Queens College – CUNY Visiting Research Scholar, Observatory on (OLA), The New School

Paper prepared for the 5th International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP5), Barcelona, July 5-9, 2021

(4,321 words)

DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Abstract

Contemporary urban policy analysis is by and large based on a sectorial approach that subdivides urban dynamics into individual silos. The silos approach to urban policy analysis is problematic as it leads researchers and practitioners to retreat into narrow areas of expertise and makes it difficult to identify the policy interactions likely to produce unintended urban outcomes. Aiming to get pass the silos approach, this article seeks to contribute analytical and methodological tools for the empirical investigation of policy interactions in urban policy analysis. To do so, the Policy Interactions Framework (PIF) is developed and applied. The article presents the assumptions, concepts, propositions, causal drivers, and the categories of analysis of the PIF. The PIF is then applied to the study of the mobility experience of workers in Greater . By applying the PIF, this article demonstrates that the highly unequal mobility experience of workers is the result of the interaction between three urban policy areas that often work at cross- purposes: economic development, housing, and transportation.

1 Introduction

Contemporary urban policy analysis is by and large based on a sectorial approach that subdivides urban dynamics into individual silos (Cohen, 2016; Crawford, 2018; OECD, 2010; Pettit et al., 2019). Within this approach, scholars and practitioners have traditionally divided reality into subsectors to analyze it, understand it, and deal with it. For example, in the field of international assistance for urban development and the road towards the Habitat III agenda, much of the urban policy debate remained in silos. As it has been pointed out by observers of the Habitat III conference, “most proposed analysis of issues of human settlements was within disciplines and not cross-disciplines” (Cohen, 2016: p. 41).

The silos approach in urban policy analysis is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the approach has led researchers and practitioners to retreat into narrow areas of expertise which has led to a failure to link together important subfields of investigation (Duranton & Guerra, 2016). For example, as Duranton and Guerra (2016) have pointed out, within this approach the land use specialists traditionally deal exclusively with land use issues, transportation planners focus only on transportation, and housing scholars think only about shelter. Second, by directing scholars’ and policymakers’ attention to a specific policy area, the silos approach makes it difficult to acknowledge the interactions between silos which produce unintended consequences.

This is not to say that the inquiry about policy interactions has been completely absent from academic debates. There are several efforts to develop analytical frameworks useful for the assessment of policy interactions (Bason, 2014; Fuller & Vu, 2011; Nilsson et al., 2012, 2016; Pettit et al., 2019). However, most of the analytical frameworks hitherto developed are primarily concerned with achieving policy coherence and complementarities in policy design. Much less is known about the long-term outcomes of existing policy interactions and the ways in which

2 such interactions have operated to produce inequitable urban outcomes over the long-term.

Aiming to get pass the policy silos approach, this article seeks to contribute analytical and methodological tools for the empirical investigation of policy interactions in urban policy analysis. To do so, the Policy Interactions Framework (PIF) is developed and applied. The PIF provides analytical lens to explore the possibility that urban outcomes are better understood as the result of the dynamics of interactions between policies from different policy domains than from any single policy silo. The interaction between policy domains is placed as the locus of study. Epistemologically, it is in the study of such interaction where new knowledge about the causality between urban policy and the urban experience is produced.

The PIF builds on two influential theories of the policy process: urban political economy (Nevarez, 2015) and policy feedback theory (Mettler & Sorelle, 2017). The field of urban political economy examines how urban development shapes, and is shaped by decisions and activities from economic, social, and governmental actors (Nevarez, 2015). Policy feedback theory holds that policies, once operating, restructure subsequent political processes by becoming an additional layer to the institutional setting within which the policy process takes place (Mettler, 2016; Mettler & Sorelle, 2017; Skocpol, 1992). The PIF, then, is designed to explore the possibility that the political economy within a specific policy domain can produce outcomes that loop back as an input into the political economy within a distinct policy domain.

The PIF is applied to the study of the policy interactions that have shaped the mobility experience of Workers in Greater Mexico City. Based on 64 semi- structured interviews with key informants and 4 focus groups, this research identified a policy interaction contributing to shape the mobility experience of workers. Housing policies have consistently pushed workers towards the urban periphery and further away from existing employment subcenters. Economic

3 development policies have concentrated formal jobs towards the urban center. Public transit policy has been decisively influenced the political engagement of private providers of public transport who have achieved to commodify public transport. When interacting, housing, economic development, and housing policies have contributed to produce inequalities in the mobility experience for workers in Greater Mexico City.

The article is organized as follows. The next section presents a literature review, where I put forward the rationale for the development of the PIF, I explain the theories that inform the framework, and present its main categories of analysis. Then, the PIF is formally presented and a step-by-step guide of how to apply the framework is provided. The PIF is then applied to the empirical study of the long- term policy interactions that have contributed to shape the unequal mobility experience of workers in Greater Mexico City. Finally, the concluding section points out to the potential research avenues opened by the PIF.

Literature review

In the second edition of the influential book Theories of the Policy Process, Sabatier (2007) made a lucid argument about the need for better analytical frameworks in public policy analysis. Given the staggering complexity of the policy process, “the analyst must find some way of simplifying the situation in order to have any chance of understanding it” (Sabatier, 2007: 4). To Sabatier (2007), the scientific method provides such a strategy, given that its fundamental ontological assumption is that a smaller set of critical relationships underlies the bewildering complexity of the phenomena under study.

The challenge then lies in crafting the analytical lens, which is able to visualize and better-understand the specific set of relationships under study. The question is, amidst the complexity of urban phenomena, which specific relationships should the policy analyst look at? The development of conceptual frameworks provides a

4 fruitful entry point (Ostrom, 2007). Following Ostrom (2007), the role of conceptual frameworks is to provide a list of elements that should be considered to analyze a policy process, and points out the relationships among these elements that the policy analyst should consider. Frameworks, then, “attempt to identify the universal elements that any theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena would need to include” (Ostrom, 2007: 25).

Until now, the available frameworks for the study of the policy process lack guidance on how to conduct empirical research about policy interactions (Sabatier, 2007b; Weible & Sabatier, 2018). From rational choice-based frameworks such as the policy stages heuristic (Brewer, 1974; Lasswell, 1971) and the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (Kiser & Ostrom, 1982; Ostrom, 2007), to post-Weberian frameworks like the Multiple Streams (Herweg et al., 2018; Kingdon, 1984), Punctuated Equilibrium (Baumgartner, 1993; Baumgartner & Jones, 1991), Advocacy Coalition (Sabatier, 1987; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), and Policy Feedback (Mettler, 2016; Skocpol, 1992), to postpositivist frameworks such as Policy Narratives (Jones & Mcbeth, 2010), frameworks have been developed and applied for the study of individual policy domains. Equipped with existing analytical frameworks, scholars and practitioners will inevitably fall short to fully grasp the complex ways in which policies interact with each other. The literature on the policy process would surely benefit from developing an analytical framework specifically designed for the study of long-term policy interactions.

This article aims at providing such analytical lenses. However, designing an analytical framework for the study of policy interactions is by no means an easy task. Scholars in the field of the policy process agree that frameworks must meet the criteria of scientific theory: a) specify the set of assumptions and conditions under which the framework applies, b) the concepts and propositions must be clear and internally consistent, c) identify clear causal drivers, d) give rise to falsifiable hypothesis, e) and must be fairly broad in scope (Sabatier, 2007a; Weible, 2018).

5 In what follows, I lay out the PIF and show how the framework meets the criteria pointed out by Sabatier (2007a) and Weible (2018).

The PIF builds on two influential theories of the policy process: urban political economy1 and policy feedback theory (Mettler & Sorelle, 2017). The field of urban political economy examines how urban development shapes, and is shaped by decisions and activities from economic, social, and governmental actors (Nevarez, 2015). Urban political economy assumes that “the city’s form, economy, and political structures comprise a dynamic, contradictory mechanism for the appropriation of wealth” (Nevarez, 2015: p. 1). Thus, from the lens of urban political economy, urban policies are the outcome of negotiation and compromise between economic, social, and governmental actors participating in the policy process. The PIF builds on some of the most influential works in the literature of urban political economy. For instance, the theory of the city as a growth machine (Logan & Molotch, 1987), which holds that a territorially based coalition of urban elites from public, private, and civil sectors will advance their common interests in the policy process in order to intensify land-based rents (Logan & Molotch, 1987; Nevarez, 2015).

The literature on the urban commons provides additional lens from urban political economy (Chatterton, 2010; Harvey, 2013; Ho, 2019; Huron, 2015). Following Nikolaeva et al (2018), the notion of the urban commons has been primarily engaged through two academic discussions. The first relates to the management of common pool resources beyond the state and the market. This discussion remains focused on infrastructure management to increase the provision of urban public goods and common pool resources (Frischmann, 2012). The second discussion calls to look beyond the simple physical attributes of infrastructures and see the “commons as complex social and political ecologies which articulate particular socio-spatial practices, social relationships, and forms of

1 For a comprehensive overview of the field and the most influential literature in urban political economy, see Nevarez (2015).

6 governance that underpin them to produce and reproduce them” (Chatterton, 2010: p. 626). The urban commons, then, are made real through political engagement and the practice of commoning (Chatterton, 2010; Huron, 2015).

Policy feedback theory (Mettler & Sorelle, 2017), on the other hand, holds that policies, once operating, restructure subsequent political processes by becoming an additional layer to the institutional setting within which policymaking takes place (Mettler, 2016; Mettler & Sorelle, 2017; Skocpol, 1992). This scholarship holds that policies have feedback effects which can reshape the attitudes and behavior of actors within a policy subsystem and affect the evolution of policymaking institutions and interest groups. Once institutionalized, every new policy adds an additional layer to the thousands of norms, rules, and practices navigated by policy professionals, interest groups, and clienteles (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2014). In this way, policies enacted in time A can potentially affect the policy process in time B (Mettler & Soss, 2004; Pierson, 1993).

According to Mettler and Sorelle (2017), scholars in the field of policy feedback have focused on examining four major streams of policy feedback inquiry. First, policies in time A can affect political agendas and the definition of policy problems in time B. Policies created in earlier points can affect which problems are worthy of public attention and government action, and how such problems are understood and defined. Second, policies in time A might affect the forms of governance that are feasible in time B. Once established, policies may shape the policy alternatives available to policy makers, the type of institutional arrangements assigned to new policies, and even the parameters of government action. Third, policies may influence the power of groups. As public policies provide resources and have distribution effects, policies themselves can shape which kinds of groups will form and grow and which will fail to coalesce. The fourth stream of inquiry extends the reach of policy feedback to examining how policies shape the meaning of citizenship, defined broadly as “the rights, duties, and obligations imposed by

7 governments as well as citizens’ responses to them, including their political attitudes and participation” (Mettler & Sorelle, 2017: p. 113).

In addition to the above mentioned streams of inquiry, scholars in the field of policy feedback theory have proposed two feedback mechanisms through which policies in time A produce a variety of effects over policy processes in time B: resources effects and interpretive effects (Mettler & Sorelle, 2017). Resources effects refer to the ability of policies to distribute resources among actors. Many public policies offer citizens payments, goods, or services. Other policies take resources away from citizens, like in the case of collecting taxes or imposing fines. The distributional effects of policies may increase political participation by providing individuals and organizations with incentives to mobilize and advocate in their defense. Public policies also impose rules and procedures on citizens which may be the source of interpretive effects, also called ‘cognitive’ or ‘learning effects’. Interpretive effects refer to the ability of public policies to shape, norms, values, and attitudes, which can be fostered through the impact of resources or directly through features of policy design and implementation (Mettler & Sorelle, 2017). Interpretive effects convey messages to people about the government and their relationship to it, and the status of other citizens which, in turn, will shape subsequent political engagement.

The policy interactions framework

The Policy Interactions Framework (PIF) is designed to step out of the traditional silos approach aiming to investigate the long-term interactions between policies from different policy domains in the production of urban outcomes. The PIF is based on three assumptions. First, that urban outcomes are the result of the interactions between policies from different policy domains, rather than the result of policies from a single policy silo. Second, that urban policies are inevitably embedded within urban political economy. That is, urban policies shape, and are shaped by, the decisions an activity of economic and political actors seeking the appropriation of urban wealth. And third, that the political economy within a policy

8 domain can sometimes produce outputs that become inputs for the political economy processes within a distinct policy domain.

The PIF is presented in Figure 1. Applying the PIF consists of a series of steps that are taken in distinct phases of a research project. The PIF begins in the research design phase by selecting the policy domains that will be traced and investigated. The selection of the policy domains must be based on a literature review about the issue under study. There is no limit on the number of policy domains that could be traced, but the analyst must consider that increasing the number of policy domains will proportionally complicate the empirical research. Then, a period for the analysis must be selected. In Figure 1, the time frame for the study is depicted as the period between time A and time B. The PIF is designed for the study of long-term policy interactions. For that reason, the time frame should not be too short.

Figure 1. The Policy Interactions Framework

Time A Time B

Policy domain 1

Policy domain 2

Policy Domain n

Urban Urban Urban outcome 1 outcome 2 outcome n

= Policy silo = Urban Policy = Feedback effect = Outcome

9 The following step in the PIF is to identify the specific policies in each policy domain likely to be interacting to produce specific urban outcomes. Identifying such policies is not a simple task. Sometimes, the policy analyst has enough a priori knowledge about the urban outcome under study that is able to select a priori the policies to be analyzed. In this case, selecting the policies under study can be done in the research design phase. However, when such a priori knowledge is not at hand, the analyst can resort to a couple of empirical strategies. Sometimes preliminary research can point out to the urban policies that ought to be included in the study. Other times, the potential urban policies to be included in the study may be identified during the data collection phase.

The fourth step of the framework consists in identifying and characterizing the relevant feedback effects between policy domains. This step can only be done during the data collection phase. Regardless of the data collection method being used, the analyst should make sure that the data collection instruments include the analytical categories proposed by the PIF. The purpose of the analysis is to identify specific urban policy outputs within a policy domain that then become inputs in the political economy of a distinct policy area.

The last step of the framework takes place during the data analysis phase. The data collected should be analyzed aiming to identify the ways in which urban policies from distinct policy domains have interacted to produce specific urban outcomes across the period under study. As the period under study can be potentially long, ranging from twenty to fifty years or more, it is possible to identify several urban outcomes in different points in time.

10 Applying the Policy Interactions Framework

I apply the PIF to the study of the long-term policy interactions that have shaped the mobility experience of workers2 in Greater Mexico City.3 The data for the study was collected in three field immersions between August of 2018 and July of 2019. In addition to investigating the overall mobility experience of workers in the Mexico City Metropolitan Zone (MCMZ), the scope of the study was narrowed down to the policy interactions that have shaped the mobility experience in the eastern part of the Metropolitan region (Eastern-MCMZ). The Eastern-MCMZ provides a useful research setting as it is a well-regarded geography of low accessibility to jobs configured over the years as a dormitory city (Hiernaux & Lindón, 2004; Quiroz, 2013). As shown in Map 1, residents of Eastern-MCMZ have some of the highest commuting times and distances in the journey to work across the urban region (López-García, 2021).

The findings of this research are based on 64 semi-structured interviews with key informants and 4 focus groups which totaled 30 residents from the area of study. The in-depth interviews were conducted with two groups of key informants. The first group comprised of 34 policy-related key informants from urban development and transportation experts, government officials, civil society organizations, and academia. The second group of interviewees comprised of 30 residents of Eastern-MCMZ, the area of study. The sampling strategy for the semi- structured interviews consisted of a snowballing strategy, in which initial

2 In the literature about the journey to work, the term mobility has been traditionally associated with the physical movement of entities from an origin to a destination along an specific trajectory described in terms of space and time (Kaufmann et al., 2004). The word experience is a polysemic term, but in this article, experience is defined as something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through. I define the term mobility experience of workers as the way in which workers live through the physical movement from their place of residence to their place of work in terms of space and time.

3 Greater Mexico City is comprised of 76 municipalities spread over a tri-state area, with 16 municipalities located in Mexico City (Ciudad de México, formerly known as the Federal District, or DF), 59 municipalities found in the (Estado de México), and 1 municipality located in the State of .

11 participants of the study recommended other potential participants. The snowballing strategy continued to recruit participants until a saturation point was reached. The focus groups were conducted with residents from the mayoralty of in Mexico City, and municipalities of Nezahualcóyotl, Chimalhuacán, and in the metropolitan neighboring State of Mexico. The audio recordings from each interview and the focus groups were transcribed and analyzed deductively through a coding strategy based on the analytical categories from the PIF.

In what follows, I present one of the main long-term policy interactions contributing to shape the mobility experience of workers in Eastern-MCMZ: the interaction between intense urbanization, the workers’ growing transportation needs, and the politics of commodifying public transport. As context to readers not familiar with Greater Mexico City, Map 1 shows the area of study along with an analysis of average time in the journey to work in the metropolitan region.

The policy interaction identified by the study can be summarized as follows. Since the late 1940s, and ongoing in several waves until today, Eastern-MCMZ has seen intense urbanization accompanied with considerable production of housing stock. Formal employment, nevertheless, continues to concentrate towards the center, west, and northwest of the metropolitan region. The rapid urbanization has created a new kind of wealth springing from workers’ increasing transportation needs. In the absence of the state providing public transport as a public good, the wealth produced by workers’ transportation needs remained attainable to private providers of public transport. Over time, private providers of public transport have constituted themselves as powerful political actors, with important veto power, and have become important players in the policy subsystem of public transport.

12

Map 1. Average travel time in the journey to work. Greater Mexico City, 2017.

Chimalhuacán Nezahualcoyotl Chicoloapan Iztapalapa La Paz Ixtapaluca

Source: López-García, 2021.

Unpacking this policy interaction needs a closer look at housing, economic development, and public transport policies. As per housing policies, the Eastern- MCMZ has been consistently urbanizing in several waves since the 1950s. First, rural migrant workers in the 1950s and 1960s who were determined to acquire a piece of land in Nezahualcóyotl for self-construction (Schteingart, 1989). Then, since the 1970s, the second and third generations of Nezahualcóyotl settlers started to unfold further east into Chimalhuacán and La Paz. A third wave started

13 in the 1980s, when social movements such as Movimiento Antorchista mobilized the urban poor into the social production of habitat in places like Chimalhuacán, Chicoloapan, and Ixtapaluca (Lina & Rodríguez, 2003). A fourth and most recent wave started in the 1990s, when the national housing policy produced thousands of new social housing developments for the working class in Ixtapaluca and Chicoloapan (Jacquin, 2012).

Regarding economic development, policies have contributed to concentrate formal employment towards the center, west, and northwest of the metropolitan region. The rapid industrialization during the Mexican economic miracle of 1940- 1960 laid the foundations for the current concentration of jobs towards the central areas of Mexico City and the northwest of the State of Mexico. In the thorough account of Cruz (2015), the preexisting availability of productive infrastructure such as railway stations and oil infrastructures attracted industry towards the northwest of Mexico City (Cruz, 2015; Garza, 1985, 2013; Schteingart & Ibarra, 2016).

There is consensus among scholars that the MCMZ is undergoing a process of de-industrialization and a reconfiguration towards the service economy that started around the 1980s (Carrillo & Cadena, 2019; Cruz, 2015; Garza, 2000, 2006, 2011). Researchers have made important efforts to understand how this economic reconfiguration is changing the urban form of MCMZ. Since the beginning of the Mexican economic miracle in the 1940s and until 1960, the MCMZ showed a monocentric urban form with 83.8% of the service economy located within three central delegations (Garza, 2020). Eastern-MCMZ has failed to ride the wave of economic reconfiguration and has not been able to produce any service sector employment subcenters.

As per public transit policies, there is a general perception among interviewees that public transit in Eastern-MCMZ is ungovernable, and that local authorities lack the capacity to implement the policies that they plan. However, this generalized perception was complemented by interviewees with an explanation

14 about the role of the private providers of public transport and their organizations who, over time, have constituted into powerful political actors. Known as transportistas [transporters], these groups have achieved considerable influence in the transport policy subsystem along with important veto power.

According to the interviewees, the transportistas have achieved such political power by assembling both an electoral machine and a system of material incentives. Over the years, politicians running for local government and the leadership of the transportistas have agreed to exchange public transport concessions for the organizations’ votes. The number of people behind each organization of the transportistas could reach several hundred, or even thousands. In exchange for the organization’s votes, politicians would agree to lobby for more bus route concessions and to protect the transportistas territory by not allowing the entry of other public transport providers outside of the organization. Once in office, and according to the interviewees, politicians receive a small share of the transportistas profits as an arrangement that would keep the partnership in place. This system of material incentives is only possible due to the commodification of the population’s transport needs. As such, the preferred transport policy solution by the State of Mexico local government has historically been a concessions system, in which public transport is privately owned and privately managed.

When interacting, housing, economic development, and housing policies have contributed to produce an unbearable mobility experience for workers in Eastern-MCMZ. Housing policies have consistently pushed workers towards the urban periphery and further away from existing employment subcenters. Economic development policies have concentrated formal jobs towards the center, west, and northwest of the metropolitan region. Public transit policy has been decisively influenced the political engagement of the transportistas, who have successfully achieved to commodify public transport.

15 Conclusions

The PIF constitutes an original approach to urban policy analysis designed to explore the possibility that urban outcomes are better understood as the result of the dynamics of interactions between policies from different policy domains than from any single policy silo. The interaction between policy domains is placed as the locus of the framework. Epistemologically, it is in the study of such interaction where new knowledge about the causality between urban policy and the urban experience is produced.

By developing and applying the PIF, this article has offered an approach to urban policy analysis that goes beyond individual silos. I have also contributed analytical and methodological tools to study policy interactions in a particular case. Finally, I demonstrate how three policy domains have interacted over time to produce unequitable urban outcomes. This article then demonstrates that the highly unequal mobility experience of workers is the result of the interaction between three urban policy areas that often work at cross-purposes: economic development, housing, and transportation.

The PIF holds the potential to unpack other kinds of urban policy interactions. While the study presented in this article focused on the policy interactions that have shaped the mobility experience of workers, the PIF can be easily adapted for the study of other several urban outcomes. In doing so, the PIF contributes to get pass the silos approach in urban policy analysis. In this way, scholars and practitioners will be better equipped to identify the policy interactions between policy domains that can potentially produce unequitable urban outcomes.

References

Bason, C. (2014). Introduction: The design for policy nexus. In C. Bason & R. Cooper (Eds.), Design for policy. Taylor & Francis Group.

16 Baumgartner, F. R. (1993). Agendas and instability in American Politcis. University of Press.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53, 1044–1074.

Brewer, G. D. (1974). The policy sicences emerge: to nurture and structure a discipline. Policy Sciences, 5(3), 239–244.

Carrillo, B., & Cadena, E. (2019). Terciarización y configuración espacial en México Tertiarization and spatial configuration in Mexico Resumen. Acta Universitaria, 29, 1–21.

Chatterton, P. (2010). Seeking the urban common: Furthering the debate on spatial justice. City, 14(6), 625–628.

Cohen, M. A. (2016). From Habitat II to Pachamama: a growing agenda and diminishing expectations for Habitat III. Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), 35–48.

Crawford, M. (2018). Abandoning Silos. In Mowat Research (Vol. 178, Issue December).

Cruz, F. (2015). Configuración espacial de la industria en la Ciudad de México. El Colegio de México.

Duranton, G., & Guerra, E. (2016). Developing a common narrative on urban accessibility: An urban planning perspective. In Brookings: moving to access. https://tinyurl.com/h4f9evd

Frischmann, B. M. (2012). Infrastructure: The social value of shared resources. Oxford University Press.

Fuller, B. W., & Vu, K. M. (2011). Exploring the dynamics of policy interaction: Feedback among and impacts from multiple, concurrently applied policy approaches for promoting collaboration. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(2), 359–380.

Garza, G. (1985). El proceso de Industrialización de la Ciudad de México, 1821‑1970. El Colegio de México.

Garza, G. (2000). Superconcentración, crisis y globalización del sector industrial, 1930-1998. In G. Garza (Ed.), La Ciudad de México en el fin del segundo milenio. El Colegio de México, Gobierno del Distrito Federal.

Garza, G. (2006). La organización espacial del sector servicios en México. El Colegio de México.

17 Garza, G. (2011). Visión comprensiva de la distribución territorial del sector servicios en México. El Colegio de México.

Garza, G. (2013). Teoría de las condiciones y los servicios generales de la producción. El Colegio de México.

Garza, G. (2020). Economía política de la estructuración del comercio y los servicios en la Ciudad de México. ePromethium Ediciones Digitales.

Harvey, D. (2013). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.

Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Fourth Edition. Westview Press.

Hiernaux, D., & Lindón, A. (2004). La periferia: Voz y sentido en los estudios urbanos. Papeles de Población, 10(42), 101–123.

Ho, S. (2019). Thirsty cities: Social contracts and public goods provision in China and India. Cambridge University Press.

Huron, A. (2015). Working with Strangers in Saturated Space: Reclaiming and Maintaining the Urban Commons. Antipode, 47(4), 963–979.

Jacquin, C. (2012). Producir y habitar la periferia. Los nuevos conjuntos de vivienda de bajo costo en México (ZMVM). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’études Andines, 41(3), 389–415.

Jones, M. D., & Mcbeth, M. K. (2010). Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to be Wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353.

Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M. M., & Joye, D. (2004). Motility: Mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 745–756.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Pearson.

Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheorical synthesis of institutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies in Political Inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2014). Sociología de la acción pública. El Colegio de México.

Lasswell, H. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. American Alsevier.

18 Lina, P., & Rodríguez, H. (2003). El espacio social de la ciudad de Ixtapaluca: Proceso de periurbanización de la Ciudad de México. Scripta Nova: Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, VII(146(042)).

Logan, J., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. University of California Press.

López-García, D. (2021). Interactions between economic development, housing, and transit policies and the mobility experience of workers in Greater Mexico City. Doctoral Dissertation presented at The New School.

Mettler, S. (2016). The policyscape and the challenges of contemporary politics to policy maintenance. Perspectives on Politics, 14(2).

Mettler, S., & Sorelle, M. (2017). Policy feedback theory. In C. M. Weible & P. Sabatie (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Fourth Edition. Westview Press.

Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The conseequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 55–73.

Nevarez, L. (2015). Urban political economy. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Nikolaeva, A., Adey, P., Cresswell, T., Lee, J. Y., Nóvoa, A., & Temenos, C. (2018). Commoning mobility: Towards a new politics of mobility transitions. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers Published, 44, 346–360.

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534, 320–322.

Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., & Mcguinn, J. (2012). Understanding Policy Coherence: Analytical Framework and Examples of Sector-Environment Policy Interactions in the EU. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(6), 395–423.

OECD. (2010). Breaking out of policy silos: Doing more with less. Local Economic and Employment Devleopment (LEED), OECD Publishing.

Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Second Edition. Westview Press.

19 Pettit, C., Hawken, S., Ticzon, C., Leao, S., Afrooz, A., Lieske, S., Canfield, T., Ballal, H., & Steinitz, C. (2019). Breaking down the silos through geodesign - Envisioning Sydney’s urban future. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(8), 1387–1404.

Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.

Quiroz, H. (2013). Elementos para una teoría de la ciudad mexicana contemporánea desde la práctica urbanística. Andamios, Revista de Investigación Social, 10(22), 113.

Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: an Advocacy Coalitions Framework. Knowledge: Creation, Difussion, Utilization, 8(4), 649–692.

Sabatier, P. A. (2007a). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Second Edition. Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. (2007b). Theories of the policy process, Second Edition. Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.

Schteingart, M. (1989). Los productores del espacio habitable: Estado, empresa y sociedad en la Ciudad de México. El Colegio de México.

Schteingart, M., & Ibarra, V. (2016). Desarrollo urbano-ambiental y movilidad en la Ciudad de México: Evaluación histórica, cambios recientes y políticas públicas. El Colegio de México.

Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Belkman Press of Harvard University Press.

Weible, C. M. (2018). Introduction: The scope and focus of policy process research and theory. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Fourth Edition. Westview Press.

Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2018). Theories of the policy process. Westview Press.

20