This chapter identifies seven critical enablers that underpin the design and delivery of inclusive growth in cities. These include: strategic approaches to inclusive growth that operate across levels of government; participatory policy design; the use of granular data to identify, target and monitor inclusive growth in cities; sustainable financing and funding mechanisms to close inclusive growth investment gaps; stronger local capacity to turn inclusive growth strategies into action; robust systems for monitoring, evaluation and adaptive policymaking; and communication and durable political support. The chapter illustrates how these enablers are applied in practice and how they shape the effectiveness, scalability and sustainability of inclusive growth policy action.
What Works for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Abstract
Inclusive growth strategies and initiatives rely on cities’ ability to co-ordinate and deliver across local policy departments. Given that many policies influencing inclusive growth outcomes come from higher levels of government, vertical alignment across levels of government is also typically needed. Active engagement with local partners (employers, communities and service providers) can improve the design and delivery of inclusive growth policies.
Participatory approaches can strengthen inclusive growth when embedded into the policy cycle rather than confined to one-off consultations. Engaging residents, with a focus on those hardest to reach – in diagnosis, design and monitoring – improves targeting, builds trust and strengthens legitimacy.
Granular, disaggregated data are essential for identifying inequalities, targeting interventions and tracking outcomes. Cities increasingly use spatial, socio-economic and participatory data to identify where disadvantages overlap, allocate resources more effectively and support adaptive policymaking, though many still face challenges related to data integration and technical capacity.
Long-term and diversified financing is critical to sustain inclusive growth investments. Combining local, national and European Union (EU) funding with innovative instruments including land value capture, co-operative models and impact-oriented finance can unlock additional resources.
Strong delivery capacity is crucial to translate inclusive growth strategies into implementation. Dedicated cross-sectoral teams, partnerships with anchor institutions and a culture of experimentation and learning help cities move from isolated initiatives towards systematic and sustained change.
Monitoring and evaluation helps track inclusive growth progress across economic, social and environmental dimensions – disaggregated by group and place – to enable cities to adjust course, strengthen transparency and identify what works.
Building durable coalitions across parties, levels of government and civil society, underpinned by transparent reporting and clear narratives linking policy to visible results helps protect inclusive growth strategies from electoral disruptions and sustain momentum over time.
Delivering inclusive growth in cities depends not only on the policies cities pursue but also on the institutional, financial and governance conditions that enable those policies to succeed. Even well‑designed interventions can struggle to achieve impact when responsibilities are fragmented across levels of government, financing is short-term or insufficient, data and technical capacity are limited or implementation lacks co-ordination and public support.
This chapter therefore focuses on seven key enabling factors that help cities design, deliver and sustain inclusive growth strategies over time. These include: strategic co-ordination across levels of government and stakeholders; participatory policy design; the generation and use of granular data; long-term and diversified financing; strengthening local delivery capacity; monitoring, evaluation and adaptive learning; and building durable political and civic support. Together, these enabling factors help cities to move from isolated projects towards more coherent and systemic approaches to inclusive growth. Rather than treating inclusive growth as a single policy area, the chapter highlights how governance arrangements, institutional capabilities and financing structures shape cities’ ability to align economic, social and environmental objectives and translate ambition into sustained outcomes.
Strategic multilevel governance refers to the co-ordination of policies, actors and resources across different levels of government (local, regional, national and supranational) and across sectors to achieve shared objectives. In the context of inclusive growth, it is a critical enabler of policies, as inequalities are shaped by interconnected systems, such as housing, labour markets, education or infrastructure, that span administrative boundaries and policy domains. Well-functioning multilevel governance helps align priorities and pool resources so that inclusive growth strategies are coherent, adequately funded and responsive to local needs, while benefitting from national frameworks and broader investment strategies.
A shared strategic vision for inclusive growth aligns action, reduces fragmentation and builds accountability
The concept of inclusive growth can be used ambiguously and suffer from being a “fuzzy concept” (Lee, 2018[1]). In practice, this lack of clarity can translate into fragmented or inconsistent policy approaches. Evidence from the 2024 OECD/EC Survey on Inclusive Growth in Cities (hereafter the OECD/EC survey) highlights how cities are addressing this challenge by adopting more structured and strategic approaches: 58% of the 72 respondent cities report having a dedicated inclusive growth strategy, with uptake increasing just after the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (Annex A).
A long-term, citywide vision for inclusive growth therefore provides a guiding star for action across municipal departments, aligning individual initiatives under a shared purpose, establishing a roadmap for implementation and creating policy coherence over time. A clear and strategic vision enables cities to anticipate and manage the short-term trade-offs that can accompany policy interventions, for example between urban regeneration and housing affordability, or between economic development and environmental sustainability. By clarifying priorities and desired outcomes, such a vision supports more effective targeting of public investment, reduces duplication of efforts and minimises inefficient spending. On the other hand, cities without a strategy can struggle to advance inclusive growth due to fragmented policies. For example, housing policies aimed at increasing affordability may be designed independently of transport planning, meaning that new affordable housing development are located in poorly connected areas with limited access to jobs or services.
Barcelona’s Strategy on Inclusion and the Reduction of Social Inequality in Barcelona 2017-2027 provides a strong example of how cities can operationalise inclusive growth through an integrated, participatory framework. One of the earliest cities in the OECD/EC survey to adopt a strategy for inclusive growth (Annex A), it was developed building on over 1 200 workshops and working sessions with citizens and stakeholders (Barcelona City Hall, 2017[2]). The strategy is legally binding and promotes continuity across political cycles. It identifies 5 strategic areas, including reducing structural inequality and strengthening social cohesion, and translates these into 42 specific objectives linked to indicators and progress milestones. To deliver the strategy, a cross-departmental steering body co-ordinates and monitors for accountability. Meanwhile, dedicated multiyear funding and annual progress reports maintain momentum and build public trust.
Embedding inclusion into citywide economic and infrastructure strategies also helps benefits extend beyond targeted interventions. In Austria, Vienna’s long-standing housing policy is a core example. Through inclusionary zoning, public-private partnerships with clear affordability requirements and permanent tenure protections, the city has maintained high-quality, affordable housing across income groups (Marquardt and Glaser, 2020[3]). Crucially, this approach is not implemented in isolation. Housing investment is explicitly linked with public transport expansion and access to schools, reducing spatial segregation and supporting labour market participation. Such a strategy addresses disparities not only at the individual and household levels but also embeds inclusion within the city’s broader economic development frameworks. Montreal, Canada, for example, embeds equal opportunity considerations across all municipal functions and services (Box 4.1).
What are the objectives?
The Montreal Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) and Anti-Racism Strategy aims at addressing discrimination in its multiple forms, by restructuring internal governance practices, decision-making processes and service delivery.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: The policy is grounded in a diagnosis of systemic discrimination within municipal structures and service provision. The 2023-2027 strategic plan identifies persistent inequalities linked to race, ethnicity and other axes of exclusion.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: The city of Montreal defines a set of priority intervention areas: fostering an inclusive organisational culture, ensuring equitable employment practices, improving accessibility and inclusiveness of municipal services, and promoting inclusive participation.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: The policy is translated into action through a layered governance architecture, combining a high-level policy framework with the 2023-2027 EDI strategic plan and complementary programmes.
Stage 4 – Implement: Implementation is characterised by a mainstreaming approach, whereby responsibility for EDI and anti-racism is distributed across all municipal services and boroughs. Staff, and particularly managers, are expected to integrate EDI principles into their daily practices, embedding them into organisational routines and decision-making processes.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: The policy includes a formal performance measurement framework, comprising expected results, indicators and targets, designed to promote accountability and support continuous improvement.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Establish co-ordinated delivery structures: By embedding EDI and anti-racism across the entire municipal administration, Montreal’s approach demonstrates how a transversal policy can reorient organisational practices.
Maintain stakeholder engagement and transparency: Montreal’s approach engages staff by empowering them to make a difference and hold them accountable for the inclusive nature of their actions, as organisational change requires distributed accountability.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
Mission-oriented approaches translate inclusive growth ambition into measurable, cross-sectoral goals
Mission-oriented approaches to government can offer a structured framework for cities to pursue inclusive growth by translating overarching ambition into bold, outcome-driven goals that mobilise cross-sectoral action. By breaking down complex challenges into actionable priorities, missions align production, distribution and innovation systems toward shared outcomes (Mazzucato, 2019[4]). Missions are defined as concrete goals that should meet the following principles:
Be bold, inspirational and resonant with all citizens.
Be clear in setting a direction with a measurable goal, such that it is evident if the mission has been achieved or not.
Be ambitious while realistic, leveraging and transforming existing capacity.
Be cross-sectoral, inter-disciplinary and cross-ministerial, engaging a wide array of actors to contribute to solutions.
Be conducive to driving multiple bottom-up solutions, enabling new ideas and collaborations to emerge.
A mission-oriented approach can be applied across different levels of government and policy domains, demonstrating their flexibility as a governance tool for inclusive growth. In practice, this means setting clear, measurable societal goals – such as reducing poverty, improving public health or ensuring access to essential services – and using these to co-ordinate action across sectors and institutions. For example, missions can simultaneously address environmental sustainability, social inclusion and economic opportunity, while embedding concrete targets (e.g. reductions in poverty or improved access to food, housing or employment) that enable monitoring and accountability over time.
At the local level, mission-oriented approaches can be particularly effective for tackling place-based inequalities and supporting vulnerable population groups. The London Borough of Camden, the United Kingdom, provides a concrete example where a set of long-term, time-bound missions have been used to address income inequality and deprivation through clearly defined outcomes. These include: ensuring that every young person has access to economic opportunities that enable them to be safe and secure (by 2025); increasing diversity in positions of power to better reflect the local community (by 2030); guaranteeing that all residents can access nutritious, affordable and sustainable food (by 2030); and improving the health and sustainability of public housing estates and their surrounding neighbourhoods (by 2030). By linking high-level ambition with clearly defined outcomes and timelines, mission-oriented approaches help operationalise inclusive growth strategies and support efforts across government that are aligned and focused on delivering tangible improvements in people’s life.
Co-ordinating inclusive growth policies across departments, levels of government and city boundaries
Effective inclusive growth strategies depend on strong co-ordination both vertically (across levels of government) and horizontally (across a city’s policy departments). This is particularly important because economic growth and inclusion are often treated as separate policy domains, managed by different institutions and objectives. In cities, economic development strategies are typically led by economic or planning departments, while inequality is addressed through social services. This institutional separation can lead to fragmented policies, missed synergies and, in some cases, unintended negative outcomes. For example, urban regeneration or business attraction strategies can exacerbate inequalities through rising housing costs or labour market polarisation, while social policies may struggle to deliver lasting improvements in living standards without complementary economic opportunities. Overcoming these silos through co-ordinated action helps to align growth and inclusion objectives and minimise trade-offs between them.
Cities can leverage their direct policy powers to foster inclusive growth. For example, they can use local planning and developers’ obligations to require affordable housing in new developments, co-design skills programmes with local employers to address unemployment, or adopt socially responsible procurement to improve wages of the lowest paid to directly reduce inequalities. The extent of these powers, however, varies significantly across national and institutional contexts. In some countries, cities have substantial autonomy over procurement, planning, housing or labour market initiatives, while in others the areas are more tightly regulated or determined by higher levels of government, shaping the degree of influence cities can exercise over inclusive growth outcomes. Through their competencies in transport and public service delivery for instance, they can also shape transport systems and public service provision to improve access to jobs, education and essential services, helping to connect people to opportunities and support more inclusive urban development. This role can be significant – across OECD countries, subnational governments account for around 40% of total public expenditure and around 55-58% of total public investment, including a majority share of infrastructure investment (OECD, 2020[5]; OECD, 2022[6]). This highlights the central role cities and regions play in shaping infrastructure and service delivery outcomes that underpin inclusive growth.
However, some the most critical elements for inclusive growth, such as universal healthcare provision, national-scale education programmes and major transport or digital infrastructure projects are largely shaped at the regional, national or supranational level. Aligning local priorities with higher-level frameworks, such as the EU Cohesion Policy, national housing policies, education and skills strategies, transport and infrastructure investment plans, or climate and energy transition frameworks, this can support policy coherence and open access to dedicated funding streams or technical support (Box 4.2). This reflects a broader international trend towards integrating economic competitiveness and social inclusion within shared strategic frameworks. In the European Union, initiatives such as the European Pillar of Social Rights, the European Green Deal and Cohesion Policy increasingly seek to combine economic, social and territorial objectives (Box 4.2).
At a national level, Canada’s Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), introduced by the federal government in 2023, is a particularly innovative form of multi-level co-ordination. The programme uses conditional federal funding to incentivise municipalities to accelerate housing supply and reform local planning systems. Rather than directly delivering housing, the HAF links financial support to measurable local commitments such as upzoning near transit, legalising higher-density and “missing middle” housing, reducing parking minimums, streamlining permitting processes and modernising planning systems. Municipalities are required to submit action plans with quantified housing targets and implementation milestones, with funding tied to demonstrated progress. The programme illustrates how higher levels of government can use fiscal incentives and performance-based agreements to align local planning, infrastructure investment and housing objectives around broader inclusive growth goals. It also highlights the growing international interest in linking infrastructure and development funding to outcomes such as affordability, accessibility and sustainable urban density, while strengthening accountability and co-ordination across levels of government.
European Union-level frameworks play a key role in enabling co-ordination across levels of government, providing a shared direction for inclusive growth while aligning national and local policy action. The 2017 European Pillar of Social Rights (hereafter the Pillar) sets a framework of 20 common principles for equal opportunities, access to the labour market, fair working conditions, social protection and inclusion, to be delivered jointly by EU institutions, national, regional and local authorities, social partners and civil society. Its accompanying action plan put forward concrete initiatives to turn the Pillar into reality and proposed EU targets by 2030 for employment, training and poverty reduction.
The Pillar is embedded across key EU policy instruments and funding frameworks, including the Cohesion Policy, helping to align priorities across levels of government, reduce regional disparities and strengthen economic, territorial and social cohesion. More recently, the European Green Deal has further integrated inclusive growth objectives through mechanisms, such as the EU Just Transition Fund and Social Climate Fund, which aim to provide safeguards so that the shift to climate neutrality does not deepen social divides.
However, translating these high-level commitments into effective action at the city and neighbourhood level remains a persistent challenge. While EU legislation and strategies provide strong principles on inclusion, non-discrimination and equity, they do not always translate into integrated, place-based approaches on the ground. This can reflect misalignment between EU priorities, national frameworks and local implementation capacities, as well as administrative and financial barriers to accessing funding. Moving from reactive compliance towards proactive design of inclusive environments requires stronger alignment between EU policy objectives, funding mechanisms and local delivery systems, alongside greater technical capacity at the local level.
From a territorial perspective, EU strategic documents like the Territorial Agenda 2030 and the Ljubljana Agreement emphasise the importance of multilevel governance and cross-border co-operation in achieving balanced development, crucial elements to fostering inclusive growth across EU regions, territories and cities. More recently, the EU Agenda for Cities has further reaffirmed the central role of cities in delivering EU priorities through stronger multi-level governance, place-based approaches and improved policy co-ordination across levels of government. The agenda recognises cities as key partners in addressing interconnected challenges related to competitiveness, inclusion, housing, climate transition and service provision, while calling for greater alignment between EU funding, regulation and local implementation capacities. The 2024 Letta Report calls on member states to guarantee that their citizens have the Right to Stay where they choose, through investing in measures to address a lack of access to public services and improve economic opportunities, in particular for regions most affected by structural transformations. Meanwhile, the 2024 Draghi report on EU competitiveness called for deeper economic integration and investments in human capital so that growth translates into tangible improvements in the quality of life of all citizens. Recognising the need for greater integration of the objectives of economic growth and inclusion, the Draghi report highlights how productivity growth and social inclusion must be addressed in combination.
Sources: European Commission (2024[7]), Ninth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, https://doi.org/10.2776/264833; Letta, E. (2024[8]), Much More Than a Market, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/ny3j24sm/much-more-than-a-market-report-by-enrico-letta.pdf.
Contractual frameworks across levels of government can strengthen policy alignment and provide stable financing for inclusive growth
Where priorities diverge across levels of government, negotiation may be required, local strategies adapted or governance mechanisms made more flexible to reconcile different objectives. Contractualisation can help bridge this gap in policy coherence: rather than relying on top-down mandates, contractual arrangements can be used to support multilevel governance such as Australia’s City Deals, Finland’s land use, housing and transport (MAL) agreements or France’s Contrats de plan État-Région. These contracts create a negotiated framework which facilitates the allocation of competencies in a clear way that enables resources sharing and agreement on outcomes, objectives and targets (OECD, 2026[9]). These approaches can help cities secure the multiyear fiscal stability needed for long-term inclusion strategies while allowing national governments to align local investments with broader objectives like the EU Cohesion Policy, housing supply, infrastructure modernisation or national climate transitions.
An example of supranational-national-local alignment is in Turin, Italy. The city’s Transforming Turin (Torino Cambia) strategy, launched in 2021, outlines over 300 projects and interventions from public transport extensions in underserved neighbourhoods, to energy retrofits in public housing, and the redevelopment of school facilities (City of Turin, 2021[10]). The strategy is explicitly integrated into Italy’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza, PNRR) and the National Plan for Complementary Investments. In turn, the PNRR is Italy’s implementation of the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility, a key component of the post-pandemic NextGenerationEU initiative. This alignment facilitates projects that are eligible for targeted EU and national funding streams, including EUR 81.9 million from the Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU) earmarked for green and social infrastructure. Crucially, the city uses integrated project pipelines – a structured portfolio of projects across transport, housing and skills focused on the same disadvantaged districts. This helps to maximise local impact and meet multiple objectives under the PNRR’s missions for digitalisation, ecological transition and social inclusion (City of Turin, 2021[10]).
Where decentralisation is paired with multiyear funding commitments, as in Finland’s Urban Growth Agreements, cities can plan and deliver long-term inclusion strategies with stability (OECD, 2017[11]). Central to it are the MAL agreements – multiyear contracts between the national government and the largest urban regions, including Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Lahti, Oulu, Tampere and Turku. Operating on a 12-year horizon and updated every 4 years, these agreements have, since 2011, driven inclusive growth through co-financing of urban transport systems, efforts to combat segregation and homelessness and the integration of land-use, housing and transport planning. The current 2024-2035 cycle focuses on urban densification, housing supply, sustainable mobility and climate objectives (OECD, 2017[11]; Spanish Ministry of the Environment, 2025[12]). Complementing these technical contracts, the Strategic Alliance between the national government and Finland’s six largest cities – established in 2023 and formalised in 2024 – functions as a high-level forum chaired by the prime minister. It enables regular dialogue on discussions too complex for either cities or national government to address alone, including labour shortages, segregation, childcare and digitalisation, supported by a joint secretariat that meets multiple times per month (Eurocities, 2025[13]). Together, these instruments demonstrate how contractual, strategic and planning approaches can strengthen vertical and horizontal co-ordination, providing predictability to city investments while integrating local and national objectives.
Inter-municipal co-operation is a tool to address the spatial disparities in access to services
When administrative boundaries do not align with a city’s functional economic footprint, policies risk being fragmented. Addressing this requires co-ordination both vertically across levels of government and horizontally across policy sectors, as well as across municipalities within the wider functional urban area (FUA). FUA-level governance structures can therefore play a key role in ensuring policy coherence across space and across sectors, helping to overcome fragmented service delivery and investment decisions.
France’s experience with the 2014 MAPTAM Law on the modernisation of local public action and the affirmation of metropolises and the 2015 NOTRe Law on the new territorial organization of the republic illustrates this shift toward integrated governance. These laws led to the creation of 22 metropolitan areas (métropoles), transforming inter-municipal co-operation into formal entities for urban areas exceeding 650 000 inhabitants (OECD, 2025[14]). This represented a move towards institutionalised co-ordination, where key competencies such as strategic planning, taxation, housing and transport are held at the metropolitan scale rather than solely by individual communes. A central feature of these arrangements is their ability to strengthen horizontal co-ordination across policy domains. For instance, the Métropole de Lyon, created in 2015, covers 58 municipalities and 1.4 million residents. It overcomes the challenge of fragmented governance by integrating housing, transport, education and economic planning at the metropolitan scale, underpinning stronger horizontal co-ordination between policy sectors. Instruments include integrated land-use and mobility plans to support new social housing developments being connected to frequent, affordable public transport; and metropolitan-level social services, which align eligibility criteria and reduce gaps in provision between the municipalities. These arrangements help create broadly shared prosperity across the wider FUA of Lyon and prevents the concentration of disadvantage in poorly connected, deprived neighbourhoods.
Beyond formal institutional arrangements, strategic partnerships between cities provide a framework for collaboration on issues that cut across administrative boundaries. While some partnerships are legally required, such as the French établissements publics de coopération intercommunale (EPCI), others are voluntary alliances formed to achieve economies of scale. Effective inclusive growth requires partnerships that first prioritise sectoral integration, for example by ensuring that labour market interventions are not designed in isolation from the childcare services that can support more parents to access jobs.
Strengthening inter-municipal co-operation and cross-sectoral governance can improve the efficiency of public spending, support economies of scale and promote more coherent and effective responses to shared challenges. The experience of the Ruhr region in Germany demonstrates the value of such co-ordinated approaches. Following industrial decline, the transformation of the Ruhr Valley was supported by regional co-operation mechanisms, led by the Ruhr Regional Association (Regionalverband Ruhr), a 100-year-old association representing 11 cities including Bochum, Dortmund, Duisburg and Essen (OECD, 2006[15]). This co-ordinated approach explicitly linked environmental restoration with economic restructuring and social objectives, illustrating how integrated governance can support inclusive green transitions (Regionalverband Ruhr, n.d.[16]). It has also enabled joint action on other cross-boundary issues such as air quality, water management and biodiversity at the appropriate functional scale (Zimmermann and Lee, 2021[17]).
Similarly, in the Netherlands, the Randstad conurbation’s four largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, and The Hague) co-ordinate formally through joint planning bodies and informally via mayoral networks. They share regional transport investment plans and align economic specialisation strategies, for example linking Rotterdam’s logistics hubs with Amsterdam’s creative economy and Utrecht’s life sciences sector (Nadin and Zonneveld, 2020[18]). This co-operation is increasingly complemented by efforts to strengthen cross-sectoral alignment including shared approaches to innovation policy and higher education systems designed to broaden access to under-represented groups, thereby reinforcing inclusive growth objectives across the metropolitan region.
Analysis of inclusive growth patterns across cities shows that inequalities are unevenly distributed across both people and places, and that different groups face distinct and often overlapping barriers to opportunity. Addressing these disparities therefore depends not only on what policies cities implement, but how they design and deliver them. Effective inclusive growth strategies are characterised by approaches which are people-based, place-based and participatory throughout the policy cycle. Participatory approaches that embed citizen engagement throughout the policy cycle can significantly enhance both the effectiveness and equity of inclusive growth interventions.
How structured participation can foster more inclusive policy outcomes
Participatory approaches play a critical role in strengthening inclusive growth policies by ensuring they are grounded in the lived experiences of residents. The OECD/EC survey indicates that 86% of respondent cities involve local communities in strategy design, most commonly through consultations and focus groups (82%) (Annex A). While such approaches are widespread, moving towards structured and ongoing citizen participation throughout the policy lifecycle can further improve the legitimacy, policy relevance and effectiveness of inclusive growth policies, particularly in cities where groups of city residents experience policies in different ways. According to the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, participation can take multiple forms, ranging from information and consultation to co-creation and co‑decision (OECD, 2022[19]). More intensive forms of participation such as deliberative assemblies or co‑design processes can be particularly valuable for complex policy challenges like inclusive growth where trade-offs need to be negotiated and local knowledge is essential.
In the Netherlands, Utrecht’s Peaceable School programme provides an example of participatory approaches embedded at the neighbourhood level. Schools run structured student assemblies where pupils identify local issues, ranging from playground safety to intercultural events, and work with municipal staff to implement solutions. This not only guarantees that investments reflect community priorities but also helps build civic skills from an early age.
A large and growing number of cities have introduced participatory budgeting programmes, allowing residents to directly propose and vote on how portions of municipal budgets are sent. This approach has been adopted in cities including Helsinki in Finland, Paris, France and Porto, Portugal. In Tallinn, Estonia, A City Created Together aims to strengthen civic engagement, enhance transparency and promote more inclusive decision making (Box 4.3). The city enables residents to propose and vote on projects that improve public spaces across all districts, supported by digital platforms and public discussions to broaden participation. By giving communities a direct role in shaping their environment, the programme contributes to reducing inequalities between districts, fostering trust in local governance and generating lasting improvements that reflect local needs and priorities.
What are the objectives?
The initiative aims to increase civic engagement by giving residents of Tallinn a direct role in shaping their local environment, while enhancing transparency and trust in municipal decision making. It promotes inclusive growth by supporting equal opportunities across districts and ensuring that public investments better reflect local needs and priorities.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: Participatory budgeting responds to the need for more inclusive decision making, ensuring that investments reflect local priorities and helps address inequalities between different districts of the city.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: Tallinn’s participatory budgeting prioritises giving residents a direct role in shaping their local environment, to enhance transparency and trust in municipal decision making.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: The participatory budget process is co-ordinated by the Tallinn Urban Environment and Public Works Department. Voting is open to all individuals aged 14 and whose registered place of residence is in Tallinn.
Stage 4 – Implement: For the 2025 participatory budget A City Created Together, a commission of experts, in co-operation with district governments and councils, selected 166 proposals for a total of EUR 1 million.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: The programme has increased civic engagement, with thousands of residents participating in idea submission and voting, and has delivered visible improvements in public spaces through 30 projects such as playgrounds, outdoor gyms and green areas.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Monitoring, adapting and expanding participation can increase inclusion: By critically assessing the participatory budgeting process each year, Tallinn has continuously identified ways to increase participation among vulnerable or under-represented groups, leading to spending that reflects all citizens’ preferences.
Participatory budgets can build trust with residents: By giving residents a direct role in proposing, selecting and monitoring local projects, the programme increases transparency and accountability in decision making, thereby strengthening trust between citizens and the city administration.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
Similarly, publishing open and accessible datasets empowers residents, researchers and civil society to be a part of inclusive growth solutions. Survey results indicate that this is the least common form of stakeholder engagement among respondents, used in just 37% of cities (Annex A). Open data platforms can enhance democratic accountability and strengthen community trust. In Helsinki, the city has invested in real-time data infrastructure across housing, mobility and environmental systems, enabling residents to monitor and engage with service delivery. In Terrassa, Spain, the Gobierto Presupuestos Municipales municipal budget platform provides interactive dashboards with social spending, income and amounts per inhabitant fostering greater public scrutiny and collaboration between government and civil society (Ajuntament de Terrassa, n.d.[20]).
Reaching those whose voices are hardest to hear and protecting against participation capture
Cities must actively address the risk of “participation bias” or “participation capture” where more vocal or empowered groups dominate processes (OECD, 2016[21]). The city of Madrid, Spain, complements open digital participatory platforms with targeted outreach and capacity building for under-represented communities, including migrants, youth and low-income residents (Royo, Pina and Garcia-Rayado, 2020[22]; OECD, 2025[23]). This helps to broaden the representativeness of inclusive growth interventions and to reduce the risk that participatory processes do not inadvertently reinforce inequalities. Turku, Finland, directly target youth to enable broad-based participation in climate policies (Box 4.4). More generally, to avoid participation biases, cities can meet people “where they are” by reaching out to and engaging with underrepresented groups in more informal or familiar places such as schools, flexible times or in conjunction with community leaders.
What are the objectives?
The Youth-led Climate Projects in Turku aim to actively engage young people aged 15 to 24 in climate action by supporting initiatives that are designed, implemented and managed by young people themselves. By providing dedicated funding and a structured framework for participation, the programme seeks to empower youth as key contributors to the city’s climate transition.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: Turku’s policy builds on a demographic context characterised by a high concentration of young people, around one in four residents is a student. At the same time, the city faces ambitious climate objectives, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 and becoming climate positive thereafter.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: Turku has positioned children and youth as a strategic priority within its climate and sustainability agenda, recognising them as key actors in shaping long-term environmental outcomes.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: The city has mobilised a broad ecosystem of stakeholders to support youth participation in climate action. This includes strong collaboration between municipal departments, particularly the Green Transition and Youth Services, as well as partnerships with universities and educational institutions.
Stage 4 – Implement: Groups of young people aged 15 to 24, living or studying in Turku, are eligible to apply for project funding, which is channelled through registered organisations, such as associations. The programme offers grants (from EUR 1 000 to EUR 4 500), allowing projects of varying scale and ambition to be implemented.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: Monitoring of the initiative is embedded in the city’s internal project management system, which tracks progress, timelines and outputs across supported projects. This is complemented by systematic feedback collection from participants.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Align youth engagement with tangible personal benefits: Participation must deliver clear and immediate value beyond climate action alone. Linking projects to existing youth structures, such as schools, clubs or associations, can significantly improve uptake and continuity. Providing concrete benefits, including skills development (e.g. project management, communication, teamwork) or academic recognition, helps sustain long-term engagement.
Adopt an enabling, partnership-based approach: Moving from a top-down model to one based on equal collaboration increases motivation, ownership and impact, and by acting as an enabler, providing resources, guidance and a supportive framework, cities can empower young people to design and implement their own initiatives.
Embed continuous feedback and adaptive learning: Effective programmes evolve over time. Turku’s experience shows the importance of systematically collecting feedback and adjusting implementation accordingly.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
Failing to engage citizens meaningfully can lead to policies that are poorly targeted, lack legitimacy or face resistance during implementation. More centrally driven, top-down approaches to inclusive growth risk overlooking key social dimensions and citizens’ need for a genuine sense of agency, weakening local ownership and reducing the capacity of communities to drive change based on their own knowledge and initiatives (McCann and Stierna, 2026[24]). Evidence from across the European Union shows that even where strategic priorities are set at higher levels, their success ultimately depends on alignment with local incentives, strong local ownership and active civic engagement (McCann, Janssen and Stierna, 2024[25]).
In Germany, Düsseldorf’s Zukunft Quartier programme exemplifies what is possible when people-based and place-based approaches are combined with strong participatory design. Operating in disadvantaged areas, it takes a participatory approach to designing housing renewal, employment services, education support and public space improvements focused on the people who live there. Instruments include annual neighbourhood conferences to set local priorities, participatory mapping of needs and opportunities, and direct funding for community-led projects. By combining services at the local level and empowering residents to co-manage interventions, the programme strengthens both economic opportunities and social cohesion.
Formalised frameworks can help embed participation
In France, the Parisian Pact Against Social Exclusion (Pacte parisien de lutte contre l'exclusion) is a co‑ordination-driven policy framework aimed at addressing multidimensional social exclusion through strengthened collaboration among public, private and civil society actors (Box 4.5). The pact mobilises a broad and integrated action plan spanning multiple sectors, including housing, health and employment.
What are the objectives?
The Parisian Pact Against Social Exclusion (2022-2026) (hereafter the Pact) aims to improve co-ordination of social actions across the city, enhancing efficiency and reducing duplication. It also seeks to expand partnerships, building new forms of co-operation with a broader set of stakeholders. Finally, it emphasises the need to make both actions and excluded populations more visible, echoing a wish to change perceptions of exclusion.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: The Pact is based on a recognition of persistent and multidimensional forms of exclusion in Paris, affecting access to housing, health, employment and social participation. It also identifies the need for better co-ordination among fragmented actors.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: The Pact’s priorities include improving access to essential services (housing, health, employment), strengthening social support infrastructures and increasing the visibility of vulnerable populations. More recently, the policy has been adapted to prioritise health, ageing populations and employment.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: The Pact is operationalised through a comprehensive action plan bringing together stakeholders across sectors. Its design emphasises partnership-based governance, involving local government, non-governmental organisations, private actors and citizen groups.
Stage 4 – Implement: Implementation relies on collective action across multiple actors, with responsibilities shared between the city of Paris and its partners. Concrete outputs include the development of new infrastructures and initiatives, such as solidarity events (e.g. a citywide solidarity week) and six new storage facilities for use by people experiencing homelessness.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: Monitoring and evaluation are not formalised, with difficulties linked to the large number of actions and the multistakeholder nature of the Pact. Nevertheless, the policy is regularly adapted, with the reinforcement of co-operation in specific priority areas (health, ageing, employment) in 2025.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Identify and tailor high-impact policy pillars: The recent prioritisation of health, ageing and employment reflect a wish to focus efforts on pressing issues, within a broad and complex policy agenda.
Design integrated intervention packages: The Pact brings together a wide range of actions across sectors, reflecting an integrated approach to tackling multidimensional exclusion.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
Harnessing data effectively is a key enabler of inclusive growth in cities. Disaggregated and spatialised data allow policymakers to identify where inequalities are most pronounced, who is most affected and which policy instruments are likely to be most effective.
To support inclusive growth, data play several interrelated functions. First, they serve to diagnose and target interventions as well as identify needs and priority groups. Second, they enable monitoring and accountability to track progress and outcomes over time. They are also used for learning and adaptation to inform policy adjustments and improve effectiveness. While data are a core enabler of inclusive growth, many cities face persistent challenges in fulfilling these functions, including from limited technical capacity to collect and interpret quality data, fragmented data systems and insufficient integration of data into decision-making processes. This is reflected in survey results, which find that only 37% of cities currently use data and assessments of needs to support vulnerable groups – suggesting a significant area for potential improvement (Annex A).
Beyond improving targeting, effective use of data helps build the evidence base for action. By quantifying the economic and social costs of inequality, as well as quantifying the returns to inclusive growth policies, data can strengthen the case for investment and support more transparent, evidence-based decision making.
At the same time, many cities face challenges in generating and using data to inform inclusive growth strategies. Local administrations may lack the resources or technical capacities to gather timely, disaggregated data, while fragmented data systems often limit comparability across sectors or neighbourhoods. Even where data exist, they are not always shared or applied systematically in decision making. Building stronger data ecosystems therefore requires investments in collection, integration, analysis and dissemination alongside clear governance mechanisms that promote accountability and trust.
From data to decision making: targeting resources where they are most needed
By combining spatial and socio-economic indicators, cities can identify not only where inequalities are concentrated but also which groups are most affected and why. In Syracuse, the United States, the city used data analysis to focus its work on housing stability. By examining local mobility statistics, the team identified that 25% of their residents moved within a 12-month period with some neighbourhoods experiencing rates as high as 35%, nearly double the national average. This evidence revealed the urgency of the challenge and clarified who was most affected. Further analysis highlighted the social costs of instability: disrupted access to food and healthcare, and negative effects on children’s education due to frequent school changes and absenteeism. By aligning partners around a clear “what, who and why”, data enabled Syracuse to target resources more effectively and build consensus for action (Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation, 2024[26]).
Developing indicators that reflect the multiple dimensions of inequality allows cities to monitor how different groups fare and adapt interventions to target where they are most needed. In Leeds, the United Kingdom, an economic dashboard and a social monitoring index provide policymakers and residents with up-to-date information on economic performance and social well-being, disaggregating data for population groups including children, youth and the self-employed (OECD, 2025[27]). Meanwhile, in Poland, Poznan’s 2020+ Strategy uses a series of social indicators such as demographics or residents’ attachment to the city to underpin the strategy (City of Poznan, 2017[28]). Establishing baselines, setting quantitative and qualitative targets and embedding monitoring mechanisms helps cities clearly define a shared vision of inclusive growth and build transparent timelines for progress and accountability.
Partnerships and participatory data collection strengthen quality and trust
Effective data initiatives for inclusive growth are often the product of collaborations between government, research institutions, communities and the private sector. Such partnerships help overcome capacity constraints, improve data quality and enable more integrated action across sectors. In the Netherlands, the Opportunity Map (KansenKaart) combines socio-economic data with spatial information to visualise inequality across neighbourhoods, highlighting how the conditions in which Dutch people grew up influence outcomes in later life (Figure 4.1). Such data can be used to guide targeted interventions and inform dialogue between policymakers, researchers and residents (KansenKaart, n.d.[29]). The tool was developed in collaboration with universities, local authorities, a charitable foundation and a private mapping company.
Inclusive growth policies can also benefit from data generated and validated by residents themselves. Regular reporting and surveys allow city governments to track inclusive growth outcomes while involving citizens in developing the evidence base. Participatory approaches can improve accuracy, fill information gaps and strengthen trust by involving citizens directly in the evidence-building and diagnosis process. The Tallinn, Estonia, Accessibility Information System provides comprehensive information on the accessibility of public facilities for disabled individuals or their caregivers, elderly people, parents with children and residents more broadly. Crucially, the platform is regularly updated and allows users to “Add suggestions” if information is incorrect, enhancing both accuracy and ownership of the data (European Commission, n.d.[30]).
Finally, inclusive growth requires not only more granular, local data but also more inclusive approaches to how data are produced and used. Disaggregation by sex, age, income or race or ethnic origin, disability, religion or belief can help uncover hidden inequalities. However, inclusion also depends on how data are interpreted and applied, as certain groups may be under-represented in datasets, reinforcing existing biases. An inclusive approach to data therefore involves actively questioning representation, addressing gaps in data coverage and incorporating diverse perspectives into analysis and interpretation. This can help safeguard that data-driven policymaking does not inadvertently reinforce inequalities but instead reflects real conditions on the ground and supports more equitable and trusted outcomes (Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation, 2024[26]).
Source: KansenKaart (n.d.[29]), “About the KansenKaart”, https://kansenkaart.nl/uitleg.
Budgetary austerity following the 2008 financial crisis led to a prolonged decline in public investment at the city level, particularly in infrastructure and social services (CEB, 2018[31]), hollowing out key foundations for future inclusive growth. In the EU context, cities in Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain saw sharp declines in municipal spending. In recent years subnational investment in the European Union reached 1.9% of total GDP in 2023 and continued to grow in 2024 (EIB, 2025[32]). Investment growth has been particularly strong in Central and Eastern Europe, but Southern Europe has also experienced a rebound after years of depressed investment (EIB, 2025[32]). However, significant financing gaps remain, particularly in areas which drive inclusive growth such as affordable housing, education, sustainable transport and neighbourhood regeneration. For affordable housing alone, the European Investment Bank (EIB) estimates around EUR 57 billion per year is needed to address the affordable housing investment gap in the European Union (Fransen, del Bufalo and Reviglio, 2018[33]). Addressing these gaps requires cities to move beyond traditional sources and adopt more diversified and innovative financing approaches.
Both OECD and external evidence point to the growing importance of multilevel financing frameworks that combine municipal, regional, national and EU funding sources (Box 4.6). According to the OECD/EC survey, cities rely on a broad mix of funding streams: 85% of respondent cities use local budgets to fund inclusive growth, 77% use national budgets, while 63% report using EU funding (Annex A). This is consistent with the 2024 EIB Municipalities Survey which highlights increasing reliance on EU grants and intergovernmental transfers: 83% of municipalities plan to use EU grants, 74% transfers from central or regional governments and 60% EU financial instruments, up from 40% in 2022 (EIB, 2025[34]). These instruments can include EU guarantees for other financing, which can help to attract higher levels of funding from banks or other organisations. Together these results underline the central role of national government and intergovernmental transfers, such as NextGenerationEU or Cohesion Policy funds, to enable cities to finance large-scale investments for inclusive growth (EIB, 2025[32]). However, access to market-based finance remains uneven. Only around one-third of municipalities use loans or bonds, primarily larger or wealthier cities, while those in less developed regions continue to rely more heavily on grants or project-based transfers (EIB, 2025[32]). This highlights persistent constraints in access to credit, which can reinforce the importance of blended finance approaches or external support mechanisms.
EU Cohesion Policy funds support national, regional and local efforts in strengthening equal access to quality and inclusive services and providing equal opportunities, with a particular focus on supporting vulnerable groups, less developed regions and disadvantaged territories. In 2021-2027, the Cohesion Policy has a dedicated policy objective: “A more social and inclusive Europe, implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights”. Under this objective, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) supports human capital investments, including skills development and social inclusion, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) supports infrastructure and equipment interventions in the areas of employment, education, skills, social inclusion, healthcare, culture and sustainable tourism. As a response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and its socio-economic fallout, the Resilience and Recovery Facility contributes to the implementation of the pillar by supporting investments and reforms that improve social resilience, including in accessible health and long-term care, quality education, social support and access to the labour market. Other EU funding programmes also contribute to the implementation of the pillar such as the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values and Erasmus+ programmes.
Embedding inclusion into municipal budgets, land markets and co-operative finance
Cities are therefore increasingly seeking to mobilise additional resources for inclusive growth through a range of complementary instruments. One approach is integrating inclusion directly into annual budgets: meaning that inclusive growth is not treated as an add-on but is built into the fiscal framework of city governments. For example, Gijón, Spain, allocates EUR 0.7 million annually to gender equality measures (Inclusive Cities for All, 2020[35]), while Lille, France, dedicates around EUR 65 million per year to support access to housing in the city as part of its Local Housing Plan 2021-2026 (Inclusive Cities for All, 2019[36]). This funding focuses on providing decent and affordable housing for all, and to particularly support the most fragile and poorest households. These targeted commitments give continuity to inclusive policies and signal political prioritisation.
Another approach involves leveraging land and property markets through land-value capture and asset-based financing. These instruments enable municipalities to reinvest gains from rising land and property values into broader social priorities. Tools include infrastructure levies, developer obligations, charges for development rights, land readjustment and strategic land management (OECD/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, PKU-Lincoln Institute Center, 2022[37]). In Melbourne, Australia, developers pay the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution which contributes toward investment in essential infrastructure in Melbourne’s growth areas. Reykjavik, Iceland, meanwhile uses building-rights charges to increase the supply of affordable housing, generating roughly EUR 26 million-32 million (2017-2021) (OECD/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, PKU-Lincoln Institute Center, 2022[37]). These approaches demonstrate how cities can use existing local assets to generate new revenue streams for inclusive growth.
Cities are also turning to co-operative structures to finance inclusive growth initiatives. Co-operatives in housing, energy and social services allow residents to pool capital, co-own assets and reinvest surpluses into local priorities. In Vienna, Austria, 21% of the city’s affordable housing stock is managed by co‑operative housing schemes, which demonstrate how public-community partnerships can expand affordable housing without fully relying on subsidies. To promote new affordable housing, the city offers co‑operatives long-term, low-interest loans covering 20-60% of constructions costs. In return, co‑operatives must offer cost-based rental units and are subject to capped profits and a requirement for all assets to be reinvested into the housing sector (Co-operative Housing International, n.d.[38]). Similarly, citizen-owned wind co-operatives off the coast of Copenhagen, Denmark, mobilised local capital to finance clean energy transitions while ensuring that benefits remain within the community (Martin, 2017[39]). Co‑operative financial institutions, such as credit unions, also expand access to finance in regions where municipal borrowing is limited, providing a solidarity-based mechanism to channel local savings into inclusive projects. These models show how co-operative ownership can complement municipal finance, strengthen accountability and embed inclusion directly into the financing structure itself.
Impact-oriented finance: opportunities and limits
Cities are also exploring alternative and impact-oriented financing models, such as social impact bonds (SIBs) and Pay for Success (PFS) contracts. The instruments link investor returns to the achievement of measurable results and are gaining traction as a way to de-risk social investment and align government, investor and service provider incentives. In the European Union, one of the earliest SIBs was launched in 2014 by Actiris, the Brussels-Capital Region employment agency, targeting youth unemployment among people with a migrant background, with investor remuneration tied to re-employment outcomes (Misheva, 2024[40]).
In the Netherlands, Rotterdam’s Impact Investing Programme has further demonstrated the potential of place-based approaches to mobilise private capital for social innovation (Box 4.7). Launched in 2013, Salt Lake County, the United States, used a PFS bond to expand pre-kindergarten access for disadvantaged children (OECD, 2016[21]). While the initiative is often cited as a pioneering success which helped 110 high‑risk children avoid special education services, important lessons and cautions arise from subsequent reviews. Although the model generated measurable cost savings, its implementation demanded strong political commitment, cross-sector co-ordination, reliable baseline data and rigorous independent evaluation (Warrier, 2017[41]). These examples show that SIB and PFS instruments can help shift financial risk away from public budgets while incentivising performance; however, they require substantial administrative capacity, transparent evaluation protocols and careful attention to unintended consequences or gaming of outcomes (Lowe et al., 2019[42]).
What are the objectives?
The initiative aims to support the development of an impact economy in Rotterdam by fostering impact entrepreneurship and enabling businesses that generate both economic value and social benefits. A key objective is to reduce the number of people relying on welfare or public assistance by supporting pathways into employment and participation, particularly for vulnerable groups.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: The city identifies the need to transition towards an “impact economy” that combines financial returns with positive social and environmental outcomes. This diagnosis is informed by persistent inequalities in the city, where a significant share of residents face barriers to full participation in society, including distance from the labour market.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: Impact entrepreneurs are seen as key actors in delivering inclusive growth capable of expanding economic opportunities by directly engaging vulnerable populations in producing goods and services.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: Delivery is based on a place-based impact investing model structured as a public-private partnership. Each partner, including the municipality, private actors and other stakeholders, contributes to shared objectives while maintaining their own roles, responsibilities and funding sources (including ERDF resources).
Stage 4 – Implement: Implementation focuses on supporting and scaling impact entrepreneurship within the city, through financing and supporting social enterprises that combine employment for vulnerable groups.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: The city tracks indicative trends, including the number of impact entrepreneurs, levels of welfare dependency and the degree of engagement among civil servants. A reduction in the number of people receiving welfare or public assistance serves as a proxy indicator to assess progress.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Promote economic inclusion through entrepreneurship: By linking business activity with social objectives, this approach helps address underlying drivers of welfare dependency and supports more inclusive local growth.
Leverage public-private collaboration to drive systemic change: Combining public tools such as procurement and subsidies with private investment can unlock new resources and scale impact-oriented initiatives. A co-ordinated ecosystem approach helps align economic, social and environmental objectives, generating co-benefits across sectors.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
Multilateral development banks and EU institutions play a critical role in addressing financing constraints. Institutions such as the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) has supported cities like Vilnius, Lithuania, with a EUR 35 million loan to implement its integrated territorial development programme, and Łódź, Poland, with EUR 50 million for a cultural-led urban renewal strategy (CEB, 2018[31]). Similarly, the EIB provides both financing and technical support, with recent surveys showing municipalities are increasingly optimistic about closing investment gaps thanks to EU-backed instruments (EIB, 2025[32]). These instruments can help de-risk investments and unlock additional financing, particularly in smaller cities or those further from financial markets.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) provide another mechanism to mobilise resources and expertise. In Bristol, the United Kingdom, the City Funds initiative pools philanthropic and private capital for social priorities including economic inclusion, community initiatives, environmental transformation and reducing food poverty (Power to Change, n.d.[43]). Meanwhile in Poznan, Poland, PPPs have been used to support urban regeneration efforts, combining public oversight with private investment to revitalise disadvantaged areas and improve local infrastructure (OECD, 2025[27]).
France’s “1 jeune, 1 mentor” programme offers access to mentoring for young people aged 5-30, particularly those facing social, educational or labour market barriers, by connecting them with volunteer mentors who provide personalised guidance and support (Box 4.8). By combining public funding and partnerships with civil society organisations, a wide range of mentoring programmes are enabled, combining educational support, career orientation and professional integration.
What are the objectives?
The “1 jeune, 1 mentor” mentoring programme aims to expand access to mentoring in order to support children and young people in their educational pathways, career orientation and transition into the labour market. It is primarily targeted at young people facing various forms of vulnerability, including those living in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods, rural areas and overseas territories. It is primarily funded through a mixed financing model, combining substantial public subsidies with private and voluntary contributions.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: The programme responds to persistent inequalities in educational pathways, career guidance and labour market access among children and young people in France, while recognising that transitions through school, higher education and employment are increasingly demanding and difficult to navigate, especially for those with limited support.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: The programme prioritises tackling inequality of opportunity across childhood and youth by expanding access to individualised support for young people aged 5 to 30. It is particularly targeted towards children and youth from less advantaged backgrounds or those facing difficulties in school, orientation or labour market insertion.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: The programme is jointly led by the French Ministries of Sports, Youth and Voluntary Life and of Labour, Health, Solidarity and Families and relies on a broad ecosystem of mentoring organisations for delivery. On average, the programme itself covers around 50% of mentoring associations’ costs (EUR 700 per participant in average), while total public funding (including local authorities, the National Agency for Territorial Cohesion, and other public sources) accounts for approximately 73% of overall mentoring programme financing. Private philanthropy and corporate sponsorship contribute around 16%, while donations and membership fees represent the remaining 11%.
Stage 4 – Implement: Supported associations provide mentoring through two models: one focused on schooling and educational support, often targeting younger and socially disadvantaged minors, and another centred on the transition to higher education or employment, more often aimed at young adults. Volunteer engagement also plays a critical financial role: for around 40% of participating organisations, in-kind volunteer contributions are valued at an amount equivalent to roughly 80% of the programme’s direct monetary costs.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: An evaluation framework was co-ordinated by the National Institute of Youth and Non-Formal Education (INJEP) over a two-year period around surveys and fieldwork with supported organisations, surveys of mentor-mentee pairs and a randomised controlled evaluation to measure the causal impact of the programme. The evaluation points to the relatively low cost of mentoring and confirms that the programme has broadly reached its priority target groups.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Ensure diversified and sustainable financing models: The programme underscores the importance of combining public funding with private philanthropy, corporate partnerships and volunteer contributions to support large-scale mentoring initiatives. Reducing overreliance on short-term public funding is essential to sustain programme continuity, strengthen organisational capacity and enable long-term planning.
Address unmet demand for personalised support among vulnerable youth: The programme highlights the strong need for individualised, sustained support among young people facing social, educational or labour market barriers. Mentoring can effectively complement existing policies by providing guidance, confidence and access to networks.
Leverage cross-sectoral and multilevel partnerships: The initiative demonstrates the importance of strong co-ordination across government levels and sectors, as well as the central role of civil society organisations in delivery. A dynamic and well-structured associative ecosystem can significantly enhance outreach.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
So that financing translates into inclusive outcomes, cities must complement financial innovation with strong institutional capacity and governance practices. This includes the capacity to negotiate and manage complex financial partnerships which requires specialist skills that may not exist within smaller and medium-sized cities. To address this, training and technical support from national governments, EU institutions or multilateral banks can provide support for implementing and monitoring financing agreements. Alongside internal capacity, effective governance and transparency are essential so that financing mechanisms deliver on their intended goals. This includes rigorous evaluations that can help build public trust and promote financing instruments that deliver genuinely inclusive outcomes. Regular reporting, citizen oversight and independent assessments can all be used to verify whether financing strategies meet their stated objectives. Together, these elements help guarantee that financing strategies are not only effective in mobilising resources, but also equitable, accountable and aligned with long-term development goals.
Dedicated teams and cross-sectoral units as the engine of delivery
The ability of cities to deliver on inclusive growth ambitions depends critically on their technical and organisational capacities. Even when financial resources are available, weak delivery capacity can undermine the coherence, accountability or long-term sustainability of local initiatives. At the same time, local capacity is not developed in isolation: it is shaped by the resources, regulatory frameworks and support provided by higher levels of government, which can enable or constrain effective implementation. Cities that have advanced inclusive growth successfully often combine local investment in technical and organisational capacities, with effective use of national and regional support systems, ensuring that ambitious goals translate into meaningful outcomes. Strengthening the technical capacities of local administrations involves moving from siloed or ad hoc approaches to inclusive growth and institutionalised and professionalised delivery models. This involves several complementary dimensions: dedicated teams or cross-sectoral units with a clear mandate for inclusive growth which are diverse and reflect a city’s population; development of internal capacity through training and skills development; and embedding a culture of co-operation, innovation and experimentation in a city.
Delivery capacity is often strengthened when cities establish dedicated units or cross-sectoral teams to co-ordinate across policy silos, set clear accountability and sustain momentum over time. Survey evidence suggests that cities with dedicated strategies are more likely to establish formal delivery arrangement: 75% report having a specific implementation team (Annex A). In 60% of cases, responsibility is located in a single department, while in 40% its shared across multiple departments, reflecting the cross-cutting nature of inclusive growth. Dedicated units or cross-sectoral teams can help co-ordinate action across policy silos, clarifying accountability and sustaining momentum over time. In Canada, Toronto’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Office, created in 2015, provides a strong example: it works across housing, labour and public health departments, with a mandate to integrate equity considerations into city budgeting and service delivery (City of Toronto, 2025[44]). Similarly, Vienna, Austria, has embedded inclusive growth objectives into its Municipal Department for Integration and Diversity, which co-ordinates across sectors while engaging closely with migrant communities (Eurocities, 2024[45]).
Mobilising anchor institutions to extend inclusive growth beyond the municipality
Some cities are moving beyond internal administrative reforms to strengthen delivery capacity by mobilising a broader ecosystem of local actors. In particular approaches that engage large, locally rooted institutions (often known as “anchor institutions”), such as in Leeds, the United Kingdom, demonstrate how inclusive growth can be embedded not only in municipal administrations but across the wider city economy (Box 4.9). By aligning employment practices, procurement, service delivery and asset management with inclusive growth objectives, these approaches extend the reach of city policy and create cumulative, citywide impact.
What are the objectives?
The Leeds Anchor Network’s objective is to build a long-term partnership of large, locally rooted organisations that embed “anchor practice” into their strategies and day-to-day operations and then collaborate to amplify citywide impact on poverty reduction, inequality and place outcomes.
How does it work in practice? Understanding the good practice through the lens of the Roadmap for Inclusive Growth in Cities
Stage 1 – Diagnose: Leeds’s anchor approach starts from the diagnosis that large, locally rooted organisations have outsized influence over inclusive growth outcomes because they employ many people, spend substantial sums, manage land and assets and deliver essential services.
Stage 2 – Prioritise: Leeds prioritises a small set of high-leverage institutional “action areas” through the Business Anchors Progression Framework, which structures anchor action across five dimensions and sets out a four-level pathway from basic practice to best practice.
Stage 3 – Design and mobilise: Delivery is organised as a multi-actor partnership. Leeds City Council helps convene major anchors, while the partnership itself is designed to operate through peer learning, shared frameworks and collaboration rather than a single programme owner “delivering” a service.
Stage 4 – Implement: Within each organisation, members use the Progression Framework to self-assess and then improve policies and practices, such as workforce standards, so “anchor practice” becomes embedded over time. Then, across the network, members collaborate to extend impact through shared initiatives, including supplier-facing activity, shared learning on climate plans and net zero, and co-ordinated work to strengthen local employment pathways.
Stage 5 – Monitor, learn and adapt: The Progression Framework self-assessment provides qualitative scoring and benchmarking across the network over time and supports structured reflection on organisational change. The second measurement mechanism is the collection of core metrics on workforce profile and local spend to evidence collective impact.
What can other communities learn from this example?
Engage partnerships and stakeholders: Leeds shows how anchor partnerships move from co-ordination to collective impact when members actively collaborate on shared priorities, such as improving supplier engagement and tender readiness, and benchmarking climate plans so the networks can deliver outcomes that single organisations would struggle to achieve alone.
Define measurable priorities and accountability: Leeds translates inclusive growth ambition into a small set of high-leverage institutional “anchor levers” focusing on employment, procurement, environment and assets, service delivery and corporate and civic behaviours, so that partners can focus effort where they can materially shift outcomes.
Note: See Step 2 of the OECD/EC survey in Annex A.
Diverse, skilled workforces at the core of inclusive policy design
Underpinning effective inclusive growth policies are teams that reflect the city’s population. Such profiles are better placed to design policies that respond to the lived experiences of residents, while also driving higher levels of trust and public sector innovation (OECD, 2016[46]). In Lyon, France, internal workplace policies have been adapted to create a more inclusive environment for employees. This includes piloting increased teleworking and enhancing flexibility in working hours: since 2023, half of the city’s 9 600 employees have been offered the option to compress hours into 4 days a week, instead of 5 (RFI, 2023[47]), with the scheme intended in part to benefit working mothers, who often take part-time positions to manage childcare.
Cities are increasingly investing in skills development and innovation capabilities within their administrations. In South Bend, the United States, the Innovation Office provides municipal staff training in design thinking and experimentation, equipping them to develop and test new approaches to improve housing, mobility and public services. This highlights that building technical capacity is not only about staffing but equipping public servants with the tools and mindsets needed to address complex, cross‑cutting challenges.
Strengthening inclusive growth delivery systems through innovation and collaboration
Strong delivery depends on a city’s ability to innovate, test and adapt. Mechanisms such as urban labs, sandboxes and testbeds provide structured ways to experiment, gather feedback and manage risk. In Seoul, Korea, the Seoul Innovation Bureau institutionalises experimentation across departments, supporting citizen-driven ideas through micro grants and integrating successful pilots into mainstream policy (GMF, n.d.[48]). Similarly, Singapore’s use of regulatory sandboxes has allowed experimentation in areas such as mobility, energy and health technologies, with potential implications for improving access to services, affordability and quality of life (Tech for Good Institute, 2024[49]). These examples show that innovation capacity is not simply about generating pilots but about institutionalising the conditions for learning including risk appetite, feedback loops and managerial autonomy.
Finally, technical capacity can be strengthened through peer learning and collaboration across cities and stakeholders. Structured exchange platforms allow cities to share experiences, develop common tools and build collective expertise. The Urban Agenda for the EU partnerships, including the Thematic Partnership on Cities of Equality, and the European Initiative’s capacity building offer demonstrate how peer learning and joint problem-solving across cities can raise collective capacity, improve the regulatory and funding environment at all levels of governance, and foster more granular knowledge on inclusive growth in cities. Similarly, programmes such as URBACT, funded by the ERDF, support cities in co-developing solutions and transferring knowledge across contexts. Beyond inter-city learning, initiatives such as the Inclusive Cities for All campaign show how structured co-operation between municipal administrations and civil society creates shared ownership of inclusive goals, making them more durable and impactful.
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is essential to identify whether inclusive growth policies deliver on their objectives and remain relevant in the face of evolving urban challenges. Surveyed cities report high levels of engagement in M&E, with 94% indicating that they monitor and evaluate their initiatives. However, these efforts are predominantly based on internal mechanisms (80%), with more limited use of external or independent evaluations (23%) (Annex A). By embedding inclusive metrics into strategy frameworks, institutionalising learning loops and applying adaptive approaches, cities can safeguard that policies do not remain static but instead evolve in response to evidence, resident feedback and changing socio-economic conditions.
Well-designed M&E performs three critical functions:
Accountability: clarifying whether policies deliver on stated objectives, including reducing inequalities.
Learning: generating insights that inform adjustments and policy redesign.
Legitimacy: building public and political trust in inclusive growth strategies through transparency and responsiveness.
Setting multidimensional targets and tracking progress across people and places
Cities that anchor their inclusive growth goals in existing planning frameworks can benefit from more systematic measurement and reporting. Indicators should go beyond gross domestic product and employment to capture dimensions such as access to housing, quality of services, air quality, educational outcomes and perceptions of fairness. In Tallinn, Estonia, the city publishes annual reports tracking progress against their 2035 strategy, using social, environmental and economic indicators disaggregated by gender, age and income to monitor inclusion. This includes monitoring the share of residents for whom most journey include travelling through green spaces, the share of adults (25-64-year-olds) engaged in lifelong learning and the share of the cost of services (e.g. transport, housing) compared to overall expenditure. Progress on indicators is measured against a 2020 baseline and compared to a 2035 target level, allowing citizens to hold city hall accountable and giving policymakers clear goals to work towards (City of Tallinn, 2025[50]). In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, the city uses the Dutch well-being framework (Monitor Brede Welvaart) to track progress across economic, social and environmental dimensions of inclusive growth. The monitor is embedded into the city’s policy cycle, informing budgetary decision and strategic priorities linked to outcomes such as housing affordability, health, education, environmental quality and subjective well-being. By linking indicators to policy action, Amsterdam enables monitoring to feed directly into policy adjustment and prioritisation, helping the city respond to emerging inequalities and trade-offs over time.
Other cities have adopted clear and measurable targets to help drive the implementation of a city’s strategic vision of inclusive growth. In the case of Barcelona, Spain, these can range from targets to reduce school absenteeism and dropout rates to increasing social housing supply, narrowing health disparities and improving access to quality jobs for youth and migrants. While in Finland, Helsinki’s A Place of Growth: City Strategy 2021‑2025 (City of Helsinki, 2021[51]) sets out clear goals, including being the most equitable and effective place to learn, underpinned by objectives such as increasing the participation rate in early childhood education, particularly among foreign-language speakers (City of Helsinki, 2025[52]).
Learning what works for inclusive growth and scaling impact
Inclusive growth is best advanced through iterative policymaking, where M&E directly inform adjustments to policy design. Institutionalising these “learning loops” ensures that evidence is not simply collected but acted upon in a structured way. In Czeladź, Poland, the social policy strategy is redesigned after evaluating implementation outcomes, shifting resources toward measures with stronger impact on vulnerable groups (OECD, 2025[27]). Similarly, between 2019 and 2021, Vantaa, Finland, applied agile testing methods to develop and refine their Growth and Social Investment Pacts (GISPs) for local companies. The project was focused on stimulating growth in local companies, alongside improving low-educated and unemployed individual’s capacities for lifelong learning. To establish the most effective approach, the city designed, ran and tested 3 different versions of GISPs in 5 companies; it then piloted them in 60 companies to gather data on programme effectiveness. This allowed Vantaa to understand which form of GISP was most effective for supporting business growth and improving social outcomes (UIA, 2020[53]).
Cities increasingly deploy experimental approaches, such as policy sandboxes and digital feedback tools, to engage with stakeholders, trial new solutions, collect evidence and modify policies based on results. Adaptive frameworks enable flexibility, helping cities remain responsive to shifting challenges while avoiding lock-in to ineffective policies. In Tsukuba, Japan, the municipal government has begun using generative artificial intelligence to capture, analyse and visualise various opinions from residents, enabling faster and more systematic integration of citizen feedback into policymaking (OECD, 2025[27]). This approach aims to incorporate near real-time insights into policymaking, enabling continuous adaptation of local services and policies to resident needs.
Clear objectives and measurable indicators: Defining outcomes from the outset enables meaningful tracking of progress and impact.
Technical and analytical capacity: Skilled staff and robust methodologies are essential to design metrics, conduct evaluations and interpret results.
Integration into budgeting and planning: Linking evaluation findings to planning and resource allocation translates lessons learnt into action.
Resident and stakeholder engagement: Involving residents and partners enhances the relevance of indicators and improves trust in results.
Culture of learning and adaptation: Involving residents and partners improves the relevance, legitimacy and uptake of findings.
Political will and leadership: Sustained support from elected officials helps embed M&E in policy cycles and prevents findings from being disregarded.
Sources: Adapted from UK Government (2026[54]), The Magenta Book, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1ee976b95db968c8f3bd9b/CCS0126982978-001_PN10541411_Magenta_Book_Update_V2_Accessible__1_.pdf; What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (2022[55]), “How to Evaluate”, https://whatworksgrowth.org/resource-library/how-to-evaluate/.
Inclusive growth strategies succeed when they are not only technically sound, but also politically and socially supported. Sustained momentum requires that cities mobilise diverse actors around a shared vision, explain why inclusive growth matters and demonstrate tangible progress. Communication is not just about dissemination but is a core governance function that helps build legitimacy, trust and a coalition for long-term change. To do so, cities rely on a combination of tools, including data visualisation platforms like dashboards, participatory processes, targeted campaigns and strategic narratives, which together help translate complex policy agendas into accessible and actionable messages for different audiences.
Narrative and storytelling as governance tools not just communications
Storytelling can be a powerful tool for cities to generate political and societal support for inclusive growth. While data and indicators are essential to measure progress, they often fail to inspire action on their own. A compelling narrative transforms technical information into material that is accessible, memorable and actionable (Box 4.11). By linking inclusive growth interventions to concrete outcomes, such as improved access to affordable childcare, quality jobs or better housing, storytelling can support a shared understanding of why inclusion matters and how policies affect everyday life. In this way, narratives can help align city administrations, political leaders, businesses and residents around common priorities.
However, storytelling also requires careful use. There is a risk that narratives oversimplify complex challenges, rely on selective framing of evidence or prioritise compelling messages over robust analysis. In some cases, storytelling may be used instrumentally to build support without fully reflecting trade-offs or distributional impacts (Moore, 2013[56]). To remain credible and effective, communication strategies should therefore be grounded in evidence, transparent about uncertainties and complemented by robust data and evaluation frameworks.
Storytelling that highlights the “why” of inclusive growth, emphasising its importance for shared prosperity, fairness and long-term resilience, to develop messages that are compelling, consistent and accessible to a wide range of audiences. Effective storytelling for inclusive growth in cities involves several elements:
Think “audience first”: Identifying audiences is central to designing impactful narratives. Policymakers, residents, businesses and local organisations may each require different framing and levels of technical detail. Audience mapping can help cities tailor their messages so that inclusive growth stories resonate with the people whose support and engagement are needed.
Focus on one essential idea: Successful stories are simple, memorable and repeatable. Cities should centre communication around a clear core message, such as Helsinki’s “Great schools, spread across the city”, so that audiences can easily recall and share the main takeaway.
Draw on classic storytelling elements: Setting context, highlighting a challenge or conflict, and providing concrete human examples can help audiences connect with abstract policy concepts. Sharing the story of how a new housing, transport or labour market initiative changed lives in a particular neighbourhood can make inclusive growth tangible and relatable.
Use visuals to better illustrate messages: Dashboards, infographics, interactive maps, short videos or even memes (widely shared online images or graphics conveying a message in a simple and engaging way) can help explain complex ideas in accessible ways. Visuals that answer common public questions, such as “who benefits?” or “what has changed in my community?” can help strengthen engagement and broaden ownership.
Sources: Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation (2024[26]), Path to Public Innovation Playbook, https://4273298.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/4273298/BCPI_Curriculum%E2%80%93PTPI-Toolkit/BCPI_JHU_Path%20to%20Public%20Innovation%20Playbook_Fall%202024.pdf; Arora, A. (2025[57]), “Data meets drama: 5 smart ways to tell better stories with stats”, https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/data-meets-drama-5-smart-ways-to-tell-better-stories-with-stats?utm_campaign=Weekly%20briefing%20%E2%80%94%20Platform&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--eZqjUqGnvd_CCRBOsjo-F76YkWHwtpdMmif4VfpyzT6QhjdCoJYuIirOdwRGF.
Beyond communication, sustaining political support for inclusive growth strategies requires embedding it into governance practices and building broad-based coalitions that can endure beyond electoral cycles. This goes beyond articulating a strategic vision, and instead focuses on maintaining commitment, aligning incentives and ensuring continuity in implementation.
Political leadership plays a key role in maintaining visibility and prioritisation of inclusive growth objectives, including through regular reporting, cross-departmental co-ordination and engagement with external stakeholders. For example, Barcelona, Spain, has explicitly enshrined social rights and equality in its municipal action plan, with the mayor presenting annual progress reports to the city council to maintain accountability. Similarly, Malmö, Sweden, has maintained a long-standing political consensus on its social sustainability strategy, allowing successive administrations to build on prior initiatives rather than restart efforts.
Embedding inclusion across political cycles: coalitions, continuity and accountability
Sustained support depends on building coalitions across political parties, levels of government and societal actors. This helps reduce the vulnerability of inclusive growth strategies to political cycles and strengthens their implementation capacity. In practice, this often involves aligning local priorities with national frameworks and ensuring that local actors retain sufficient ownership to adapt policies to their context. Yet, maintaining political support requires demonstrating results and managing trade-offs transparently. Clear communication of achievements and challenges helps build trust and reduces the risk of backlash, especially when policies involve long-term investments or prioritising action.
References
[20] Ajuntament de Terrassa (n.d.), Presupeustos, https://pressupostos.terrassa.cat/presupuestos/partidas/2025/economic/I?locale=es&utm.
[57] Arora, A. (2025), “Data meets drama: 5 smart ways to tell better stories with stats”, apolitical, https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/data-meets-drama-5-smart-ways-to-tell-better-stories-with-stats?utm_campaign=Weekly%20briefing%20%E2%80%94%20Platform&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--eZqjUqGnvd_CCRBOsjo-F76YkWHwtpdMmif4VfpyzT6QhjdCoJYuIirOdwRGF.
[2] Barcelona City Hall (2017), 2017-2027 Strategy for Inclusion and Reducing Social Inequality in Barcelona. 2017, https://www.barcelona.cat/barcelonainclusiva/ca/2018/4/estrategia_inclusio_2017_2020.pdf.
[26] Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation (2024), Path to Public Innovation Playbook, https://4273298.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/4273298/BCPI_Curriculum%E2%80%93PTPI-Toolkit/BCPI_JHU_Path%20to%20Public%20Innovation%20Playbook_Fall%202024.pdf.
[31] CEB (2018), Promoting Inclusive Growth in Cities, Council of Europe Development Bank, https://coebank.org/media/documents/Technical_Brief_4_Promoting_Inclusive_Growth_in_Cities.pdf.
[52] City of Helsinki (2025), Monitoring City Strategy and City Economy, https://www.hel.fi/en/decision-making/strategy-and-economy/monitoring-city-strategy-and-city-economy.
[51] City of Helsinki (2021), A Place of Growth: Helsinki City Strategy 2021-2025, https://www.hel.fi/static/kanslia/Julkaisut/2021/helsinki-city-strategy-2021-2025.pdf.
[28] City of Poznan (2017), “Development Strategy of the City of Poznań 2020+”, https://www.poznan.pl/mim/s8a/-,p,25151.html.
[50] City of Tallinn (2025), “Tallinn 2035 development strategy: Follow the Progress”, https://strateegia.tallinn.ee/en/follow.
[44] City of Toronto (2025), “2025 Operating Budget Briefing Note”, https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/bu/bgrd/backgroundfile-252069.pdf.
[10] City of Turin (2021), “Torino Cambia”, https://www.torinocambia.it/torinocambia.
[38] Co-operative Housing International (n.d.), “About Austria: Vienna’s model for cooperative housing”, https://www.housinginternational.coop/co-ops/austria/?cn-reloaded=1.
[34] EIB (2025), EIB Municipalities Survey 2024-2025, https://doi.org/10.2867/3529559.
[32] EIB (2025), The State of Local Infrastructure Investment in Europe: EIB Municipalities Survey 2024-2025, European Investment Bank, https://www.eib.org/attachments/lucalli/20250028_080425_municipalities_survey_en.pdf.
[13] Eurocities (2025), “Finland’s strategic city-government alliance is driving national growth”, https://eurocities.eu/stories/finlands-strategic-city-government-alliance-is-driving-national-growth/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20Finnish%20Government,between%20the%20state%20and%20cities.
[45] Eurocities (2024), “Urban Pioneers: Vienna’s Integration Officer”, https://eurocities.eu/latest/urban-pioneers-viennas-integration-officer/.
[7] European Commission (2024), Ninth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, https://doi.org/10.2776/264833.
[30] European Commission (n.d.), “Accessible EU: Tallinn Accessibility Information System - Estonia”, https://accessible-eu-centre.ec.europa.eu/tallinna-ligipaasetavuse-infosusteem-tallinn-accessibility-information-system-estonia_en?prefLang=pt.
[33] Fransen, L., G. del Bufalo and E. Reviglio (2018), “Boosting Investment in Social Infrastructure in Europe”, Discussion Paper, No. 074, https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/boosting-investment-social-infrastructure-europe_en.
[48] GMF (n.d.), “Building a Culture of Citizen-Led Governance: the Seoul Innovation Bureau”, German Marshall Fund, https://www.gmfus.org/gmf-cities/democracy-actions-cities/building-culture-citizen-led-governance-seoul-innovation-bureau.
[35] Inclusive Cities for All (2020), “Pledge 36 - Gijon”, https://inclusivecities4all.eu/pledges/pledge-36-gijon/.
[36] Inclusive Cities for All (2019), “Lille Metropole’s pledge to the European Pillar of Social Rights Commitment to principle 19 on housing and homelessness”, https://inclusivecities4all.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Lille_pledge-principle-19.pdf.
[29] KansenKaart (n.d.), “About the KansenKaart”, https://kansenkaart.nl/uitleg.
[1] Lee, N. (2018), “Inclusive Growth in cities: a sympathetic critique”, Regional Studies, Vol. 53/3, pp. 424-434, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1476753.
[8] Letta, E. (2024), Much More Than a Market, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/ny3j24sm/much-more-than-a-market-report-by-enrico-letta.pdf.
[42] Lowe, L. et al. (2019), “The institutional work of creating and implementing Social Impact Bonds”, Policy and Politics, Vol. 47/2, pp. 353-369, https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318x15333032765154.
[3] Marquardt, S. and D. Glaser (2020), “How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna”, German Politics, Vol. 32/2, pp. 361-380, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696.
[39] Martin, B. (2017), “Communal ownership drives Denmark’s wind revolution”, Tracking Transition, https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/news-and-resources/people-power-denmarks-energy-cooperatives.
[4] Mazzucato, M. (2019), “Missions: A beginner’s guide”, IIPP Policy Brief Series, No. IIPP PB 09, UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2019/dec/missions-beginners-guide.
[25] McCann, P., M. Janssen and J. Stierna (2024), “Can ‘local missions’ play a role in linking climate change mitigation and Cohesion policies?”, JRC working paper series For a Fair, Innovative and Sustainable Economy, No. JRC139535, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC139535.
[24] McCann, P. and J. Stierna (2026), “The Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness: challenges of participation, engagement and economic geography”, Regional Studies, Vol. 60/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2026.2625764.
[40] Misheva, G. (2024), “DUO for a JOB - Belgium, France and the Netherlands”, https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/inspiration/good-practices/duo-job-belgium-france-netherlands.
[56] Moore, S. (2013), “What’s Wrong with Best Practice? Questioning the Typification of New Urbanism”, Urban Studies, Vol. 50/11, pp. 2371-2387, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013478231.
[18] Nadin, V. and W. Zonneveld (2020), “Introducing the Randstad”, in The Randstad, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203383346-2.
[9] OECD (2026), “From agreement to action: Supporting regional development through contracts across levels of government”, OECD, Paris.
[23] OECD (2025), “Decide Madrid - Case Study”, Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/decide-madrid/.
[27] OECD (2025), “Inclusive Growth in Cities Survey”, OECD, Paris, https://survey.oecd.org/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=954736&lang=en.
[14] OECD (2025), National Urban Policy Review of Morocco, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af7ee02f-en.
[6] OECD (2022), Aligning Regional and Local Budgets with Green Objectives: Subnational Green Budgeting Practices and Guidelines, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/93b4036f-en.
[19] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[5] OECD (2020), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/959d5ba0-en.
[11] OECD (2017), National Urban Policy in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264271906-en.
[21] OECD (2016), Making Cities Work for All: Data and Actions for Inclusive Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264263260-en.
[46] OECD (2016), The Governance of Inclusive Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257993-en.
[15] OECD (2006), Competitive Cities in the Global Economy, OECD Territorial Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264027091-en.
[37] OECD/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, PKU-Lincoln Institute Center (2022), Global Compendium of Land Value Capture Policies, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f9559ee-en.
[43] Power to Change (n.d.), “Bristol City Funds”, https://www.powertochange.org.uk/evidence-and-ideas/case-studies/bristol-city-funds/.
[16] Regionalverband Ruhr (n.d.), “Ruhr Regional Association”, https://www.rvr.ruhr/en/.
[47] RFI (2023), “French city of Lyon tests out four-day work week for public employees”, Radio France Internationale, https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20230910-french-city-of-lyon-tests-out-four-day-work-week-for-public-employees.
[22] Royo, S., V. Pina and J. Garcia-Rayado (2020), “Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative”, Sustainability, Vol. 12/4, p. 1674, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674.
[12] Spanish Ministry of the Environment (2025), “Land use, housing and transport agreements (MAL Agreements)”, https://agri.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2025-05/Anna-Leena%20Sepp%C3%A4l%C3%A4.pdf.
[49] Tech for Good Institute (2024), “Sandbox To Society: Fostering Innovation in Southeast Asia”, https://techforgoodinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Full-Report-Sandbox-to-Society.pdf.
[53] UIA (2020), Urban Growth-GSIP Vantaa - Growth and Social investment Pacts for Local Companies in City of Vantaa, Urban Innovative Actions, https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uia-cities/vantaa.
[54] UK Government (2026), The Magenta Book, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1ee976b95db968c8f3bd9b/CCS0126982978-001_PN10541411_Magenta_Book_Update_V2_Accessible__1_.pdf.
[41] Warrier, A. (2017), “Pay for Success: Lessons Learned from Salt Lake and NC”, Duke University, Durham, NC.
[55] What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (2022), “How to Evaluate”, https://whatworksgrowth.org/resource-library/how-to-evaluate/.
[17] Zimmermann, K. and D. Lee (2021), “Environmental Justice and Green Infrastructure in the Ruhr. From Distributive to Institutional Conceptions of Justice”, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, Vol. 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.670190.