Introduction

Various cities across the globe see a possibility to address challenges by adopting the ‘smart city’ (SC) concept (Allwinkle and Cruickshank, 2011). However, the label SC is a fuzzy concept (cf. Appendix 1 for a selection of various SC definitions) and the absence of a commonly accepted SC definition (e.g., Albino, Berardi, and Dangelico (2015); Alkandari, Alnasheet, and Alshekhly (2012), Chourabi et al. (2012), Gil-Garcia, Pardo, and Nam (2015)) makes implementing and governing SC programs difficult. For the purpose of this paper, the working definition of SC is as follows: smart cities are a multi-dimensional “mix of human (e.g., skilled labor), infrastructural (e.g., high-tech […] facilities), social (e.g., […] open network linkages) and entrepreneurial capital (e.g., creative […] business activities)” (Kourtit and Nijkamp, 2012), that are “merged, coordinated and integrated [“into the fabrics of the city” (Kitchin, 2014)] using new technologies” (Batty et al., 2012), to “address social, economic and environmental problems” (Townsend, 2013), involving “multi-actor, multi-sector and multi-level perspectives” (Paskaleva, 2009). Such a holistic definition (Mora, Bolici, and Deakin, 2017) is in contrast to a solely techno-centric focused interpretation as used by Dirks and Keeling (2009), or as criticized in Söderström, Paasche, and Klausur (2014), Greenfield (2013) or McFarlane and Söderström (2017). Despite the substantial potential of the SC concept, associated organizational, strategic and technical challenges have made it difficult for cities to capture the promising benefits. Therefore, both researchers and practitioners have argued that many of the challenges for cities to become or to be smart exceed the scope and capabilities of their current organizations, institutional arrangements and governance structures (e.g., Bolívar (2016), Gil-Garcia et al. (2015), Caragliu and Del Bo (2012)). Consequently, much attention has rightly been paid, for example, on governance implications of SC investments. Partly, this focus can be seen as a direct consequence of “the perceived failures or lack of impact resulting from SC investments to date” (Barns, 2017). Although several researchers highlight the importance of a structured, all-encompassing and practical governance framework for the realization of smart cities (e.g., Dameri and Benevolo (2016), Chourabi et al. (2012), Nam and Pardo (2011a), Hollands (2008), Giffinger et al. (2007)) there continues to be an open discussion regarding what smart city governance (SCG) entails and how it is to be defined (cf. Appendix 2 for a selection of broad SCG definitions). Therefore, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to collect, analyze and outline dimensions for SCG. The lack of appropriate governance arrangements for the majority of cities appears to constitute the most serious obstacle for their effective transformation into being smart (e.g., Manville, Cochrane, Cave, Millard, Pederson, Thaarup, Liebe, Wissner, Massink, and Kotterink (2014), Praharaj, Han, and Hawken (2018)). Moreover, technologydriven developments (e.g., ICT) are affecting all cities across the globe, “irrespective of whether they choose to invest in or incorporate the SC concept into their governance agenda”, as highlighted by Cosgrave, Doody, and Walt (2014). Consequently, of all the possibilities, SCG and its comprehension, analysis and potential modification appears to be among the most beneficial levers at the cities’ disposal.