Two key lessons from our work in the Mayors for Economic Growth project, in collaboration with UNDP: 1) Innovation needs to occur at multiple levels and 2) If we’re to be effective, we must remain humble.

Written in partnership with Demos Helsinki

The increasingly complex challenges of urban development require us to think ever more innovatively. Demos Helsinki has been proud to support the joint EU & UNDP Mayors for Economic Growth (M4EG) initiative, working with cities in the Eastern Partnership region to provide new ways to deliver sustainable and inclusive growth.

Over the course of the project, Demos Helsinki partnered with UNDP and engaged with eight highly motivated M4EG’s network cities to help find innovative solutions to urban development issues, offering tools to ideate (create), iterate (improve), and scale solutions that align with their local goals. A key component of this effort was the use of dynamic portfolio management (DPM) — a methodology that redefines how urban development missions are performed at various levels.

The key to DPM lies in its emphasis on experimentation: By breaking out of policy-specific areas, cities are encouraged to test different approaches, reflect on the results, and refine them in an iterative process. This experimentation allows cities to work iteratively towards their overarching goals while adapting to new challenges and lessons learned.

Based on the insights gained from the M4EG project, Demos Helsinki and UNDP partnered to deliver the report: Urban Development Beyond Growth, further pushing the boundaries of innovation by exploring how post-growth approaches might inform the next evolution of development practice. 

This blog outlines two key lessons we have taken from the work.

Lesson 1: Innovation needs to occur at multiple levels

Innovation can mean many different things depending on context. However, to be most effective, we need to move beyond innovating in siloes and consider how we can innovate at multiple levels, often all at once. Achieving a paradigm shift in urban development requires (at least) the following types of innovation:

Conceptual innovation

We need to ask ourselves, what is urban development, and what is it for? While economic growth is usually linked to improving living standards, it has begun to be treated as an end in itself rather than as a means to improving wellbeing. Couple this with the mounting scientific evidence on the ecological and social harm the growth paradigm is doing to the planet, and the need to explore alternatives becomes clear. 

Instead of focusing on endless growth, which often fails to concretely improve people’s lives, innovations in the concept of urban development might instead focus on novel ways of fostering wellbeing and sustainability. Models like the Wellbeing Economy, popularised by Katherine Trebeck and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, and the Doughnut Economy, introduced by Kate Raworth, can expand the imaginations of policymakers and decision makers, widening their toolkits, whether growth is still needed or not. 

Methodological innovation

The dynamic portfolio management approach represents a shift toward adaptive, experimental urban development. As cities face increasingly complex challenges, they need innovative new methods to address them effectively. DPM empowers cities to confront uncertainty head-on while working toward their long-term goals by learning, reflecting, and adjusting their strategies in real time.

Institutional innovation

For new methods to persist beyond their use in individual projects, they must be embedded within the city’s institutional structures. In Ceadir-Lunga, Moldova, for example, Demos Helsinki worked on integrating the portfolio approach into the city’s broader governance framework, starting a conversation about how new methods might form part of wider institutional innovations. 

Leadership and culture

Any attempt at innovation will falter without leadership buy-in. Empowering local leaders and municipal staffto think differently, experiment, and embrace failure is essential for experimental methods and institutions to be successful. Leaders must create space for creativity, pave the way for a supportive culture and encourage a shift in how governance is approached.

Through leadership commitment and the resulting cultural shift, a key success of the M4EG initiative has been its ability to foster collaboration within communities by creating opportunities for new stakeholders to come together. 

As revealed during the survey phase that shaped the Urban Development Beyond Growth report, in Ceadir-Lunga, a local resident shared that “municipal activities have significantly improved cohesion and relationships between city residents.” 

Similarly in the Armenian city of Areni, a participant noted that “thanks to the programs organised by the municipality, I have also become more active in the community, and I strive not only to wait for the events organised by the community, but also to contribute to the implementation of the programs held here.” 

Lesson 2: If we’re to be effective, we must remain humble

Successful innovation in urban development requires more than just new concepts, methods and institutions — it demands humility in how we approach the realities of local contexts. This is particularly true for outside experts who may be engaging with these new settings for the first time.

Changes will not be immediate and sweeping, and the very best ideas may struggle when they confront the realities on the ground. Cities face complex constraints and challenges, and outside experts must engage with these realities in ways that respect local knowledge and circumstances. 

Cities often find themselves constrained by national agendas and external investment priorities, typically lack autonomy in critical policy domains like health and education, which are predominantly determined at national levels. This dependence creates a cautious administrative environment where city leaders must carefully navigate political landscapes, prioritising strategies that align with broader governmental expectations to secure necessary funding and support. Expecting path-breaking radicalism to emerge overnight is neither fair nor realistic.

In this sense, the process of learning and iteration should apply just as much to us as experts as it should to cities themselves. As we work alongside cities to navigate complex and uncertain realities, we too must be open to adapting our approaches, learning from each experience, and continuing to evolve.

Conclusion

The lessons from M4EG serve as a reminder that innovation in urban development is not a destination but an ongoing process: one that demands creativity, adaptability, and, above all, humility. The work is far from over, but if there is one certainty, it is that the future of urban development belongs to those willing to challenge convention, reimagine possibilities, and learn alongside the cities they serve.