Empowering Metropolitan Regions Through New Forms of Cooperation

Alexander Otgaar, Leo van den Berg, Carolien Speller

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317144182
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze fisiche
• Subtopic: Geografia

This insightful book analyzes the development of cross-border and cross-sector partnerships in a number of European cities and regions. Including, amongst others, Copenhagen, Budapest, Helsinki, Munich and Catalonia, these case studies shed light on the factors determining the success or failure of the coalition-forming process. Over the course of the nine case studies, the following questions are addressed: - What forms of metropolitan and/or regional partnerships can be found? -

Chapter 1

Introduction

1 Challenges for European Cities and Regions

The need for competitiveness

European cities and metropolitan regions operate in an increasingly complex and competitive environment. Today, cities and their regions are challenged to become and remain attractive towards citizens, business companies, visitors and investors, who put ever higher demands on the quality of the living and location environment. Local governments make an all-out effort to find a balance between economic growth, preservation of the environment and social inclusion. Being aware of the transition to a knowledge and information economy, cities are eagerly trying to become hubs of importance in the new European hierarchy. To that end, governments stimulate the development of high-potential clusters such as tourism, leisure, health, ict and the media (also see Van den Berg et al. 2001). The development of these clusters is expected to depend on the attractiveness of cities in the broadest sense of the word. To become or remain competitive in the knowledge and information economy, cities need to invest in their quality of life (including security and the environment), their internal and external accessibility, the quality of public services (including education and health) and their image and identity (place marketing).

Competitive metropolitan regions are increasingly considered to be of great importance for the future of Europe. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) argues that well-organized metropolitan regions can make valuable contributions to the realization of the Lisbon Strategy, which aims to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic region of the world, finding a balance between economic growth, social and environmental renewal, and sustainability. Considering the fact that many challenges cross the borders of administrative units, it is advised to exchange knowledge between European regions on how coalitions between public and private bodies can tackle these challenges (EESC 2004).

Although the abovementioned phenomena are characteristic of metropolitan areas, there are substantial differences in the way individual regions handle them. There are outstanding examples in which the regional government, as a rule supported by the national government, together with the private sector and organized civil society, are changing the course of events and are creating a new pattern for the future. In realizing such policies the social and economic conditions are improving and such regions are visibly becoming more competitive. The European Union should capitalize on such examples by setting up consultation rounds to identify best practices and discuss how the Union can use the means at its disposal for improvement (EESC 2004).

The need for a regional approach

Many agree that most issues related to competitiveness cross the borders of cities. A lack of coordination between municipalities in a region is considered to result in sub-optimal outcomes, such as unwanted competition between local governments trying to attract inward investment, or contradictory policies in the development of infrastructure and business locations. In general, policy efforts in Europe are highly fragmented within urban regions (Van Winden and Van den Berg 2004). Furthermore, it is obvious that the competitiveness and attractiveness of locations (municipalities) within one metropolitan region are strongly interrelated. The city needs the region and the other way around.

The need for a regional approach is even more apparent in so-called polycentric urban regions: regions with several cores of economic importance. Such polycentric structures evolve in at least two ways. First, it appears that many city agglomerations are developing into multi-core metropolitan areas as a consequence of urban sprawl (a deconcentration of population and economic activities). This type of polycentric region includes the city centre of the core city, the city centres of surrounding municipalities, and newly developed business locations (for instance near important train stations and airports). In the literature, these polycentric structures are referred to as ‘intra-regional polycentric’. Second, we observe the development of so-called inter-regional polycentric structures, where two or more large cities constitute one conurbation that more or less acts as one economic area. Well-known examples are the Dutch Randstad (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht) and the German Ruhr Area. Thanks to European integration, we now also see inter-regional polycentric structures (and in fact, also intra-regional polycentric structures) that cross the boundaries of the member states. A good example is the conglomeration of Copenhagen and Malmö. Internal accessibility is of great importance in polycentric regions. Good infrastructure is needed to facilitate the interactions between locations (e.g. home-work traffic, business-to-business relations, etc.). The new bridge that connects Copenhagen and Malmö can even be considered an essential precondition for the actual creation of a polycentric conurbation in this cross-border region.

The development of inter- and intra-regional polycentric structures goes together with an increasing need for regional coordination. As economic cores become more dependent on one another (for instance because of improved accessibility), coordination between policies seems desirable. This particularly applies to situations in which the various cores are complementary to one another (instead of being substitutes).

The need for cross-sector partnerships

The competitiveness of cities and regions is not only a concern of local governments. First of all, also national governments and the European Union are beginning to recognize the importance of cities as engines of economic growth. The national and European urban policies that result from this awareness could have a considerable impact on the development of cities and metropolitan regions in the member states. Several cities in transition (particularly cities with an industrial heritage) have already benefited from the financial support of higher-level governments. Secondly, also the private sector and the non-profit sector (non-governmental organizations) have an interest in competitive urban areas. Business companies have a stake an in attractive and well-organized environment, as they benefit from good access to production factors (labour, capital, land, information). Furthermore, firms are able to affect the development of cities through their spatial behaviour (location and investment decisions). Non-profit or non-governmental organizations usually have an interest in a specific part of the city or the region, or a specific aspect of competitiveness. Their spatial behaviour also affects the development of cities and regions.

As the private and non-profit sectors are important stakeholders in city development, coordination between the sectors seems wise: successful regional economies are ‘associational economies’ (Cooke and Morgan 1998). Several scholars emphasize the importance of cross-sector collaboration: public-private partnerships and institutional flexibility are important strategic determinants of city competitiveness (Kresl 1995); the knowledge economy is a network economy (Van Winden and Van den Berg 2004); governance relations are no longer structured through bureaucratic hierarchies but through a series of overlapping networks (La Galès 2002; Amin and Hausner 1997; Jessop 1997); and metropolitan regions need to invest in their ‘social capital’ (Putnam 1993; 2000) or their ‘metropolitan organizing capacity’ (Van den Berg et al 1997) in order to become or remain competitive.

The need for new forms of cooperation

The three challenges identified above (the need for competitiveness, the need for a regional approach, and the need for cross-sector partnerships) have important consequences for the governance of metropolitan regions. European cities and their regions are looking for adequate organizational models that are able to cope with the three challenges. Moreover, it can be argued that, from a European Union point of view, effective governance at the metropolitan level is needed to stick to the principle of subsidiarity. Without effective metropolitan governance the populations of metropolitan areas are unable to influence some of the key issues affecting their future and its sustainability.1 One option is to set up formal metropolitan governments like the communautés urbaines in France. However, in several other European countries (including the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands) similar attempts have been less successful for various reasons. One of the problems has been the lack of social and political support in particular on behalf of the surrounding municipalities, and the fear of more bureaucracy with the creation of an extra government level. As a consequence, European cities and regions are looking for new forms of cooperation. These new forms are not necessarily restricted to collaboration between municipalities, but may also include involvement of the private and non-profit sectors. They are looking for adequate models of metropolitan governance rather than metropolitan government. Governance encompasses more than city or county governments; it includes voluntary, not-for-profit, and private organizations as well as intergovernmental linkages (Feiock 2004). The growing attention to new governance structures is often associated with the development of the ‘new regionalism’ (Savitch and Vogel 2000), which recognizes that metropolitan areas are able to create governance structures not tied to a single, dominant unit of metropolitan government.

2 Research Questions

Objective of the research and research questions

As metropolitan regions in Europe clearly need new governance structures, the question is how to create them in a successful way. The objective of this book is to gain insight into the factors of failure and success of the coalition-forming process by comparing various attempts in European regions. Some relevant questions to answer are: 1) What forms of metropolitan and/or regional partnerships (local cooperation, regional-local cooperation) can be found?; 2) What are motives for establishing such partnerships?; 3) What factors contribute to or obstruct cooperation on the metropolitan level? 4) How to measure the performance of partnership models?; and 5) How to explain success and failure?

Forms of metropolitan and/or regional partnerships

We expect to find different forms of partnerships (partnership models). In order to make a good comparison and to assess their effectiveness, a categorization of governance structures is needed. Criteria that will be used are:

Scope of the partnership The scope of a partnership can range from very broad to very narrow. The scope can be defined from two points of view: the aims (mission) and the role of the partnership. The aims can range from sustainable urban/regional development (economic, social, environmental, etc.) via economic development to sector-specific development (like tourism or manufacturing industry). The role of the partnership (its tasks) can range from investor, initiator and coordinator (broad) to one role only (like only coordinating the activities of others).

Geographic scale In general, consensus about the borders of ‘a relevant metropolitan region’ is lacking; this is quite logical, taking into account the assumption that ‘functional urban regions’ depend on the function in question (e.g. compare a commuter region with a shopping region); no surprise then, that also regional structures use different definitions of the metropolitan region. The relevant geographic scale can be defined by looking at the aims of the partnership, the actual work area of the partnership or the actors involved.

Actors in the partnership A distinction has to be made between bodies or institutions that are mainly public (governments, quangos2), mainly private (private limited companies), a mix between public and private (public private partnerships), or so-called triple helix constructions (public, private, knowledge institutions).

Degree of formality Structures can range from highly formal (e.g. an official body with written agreements on desired outcomes and task divisions) to highly informal (e.g. people meet each other occasionally). As a rule, a high degree of formality can be found in (administrative) entities with legal decision-making power or public-investment making power. In practice, we might also find examples of structures with a moderate degree of formality (like formal organizations with limited legal power). To summarize: the degree of formality can be assessed by looking at the organizational structure (institutionalization, governance) and the legal decision-making and public-investment making power.

Degree of political influence Another aspect to take into account is the degree to which politicians (e.g. councillors) are able to control governance structures and the degree to which governance structures are able to influence political decision-making processes. Arms-length bodies (at some distance of political powers) might have more room to move, but sometimes at the expense of democracy (see democratic content). The degree to which a partnership is able to influence political decision-making depends on its formal and legal status.

Democratic content This dimension particularly applies to legal/formal arrangements. The democratic content depends on the distance between the voters and the partnership in question. To what extent are the voters (the people) able to steer the partnership, directly or indirectly (e.g. via the councillors they voted for)? For less formal arrangements, the democratic content has more to do with the accessibility and intelligibility to citizens, which can be assessed by looking at the transparency of the organization, its openness to society, its assignment of responsibility, and so on.

Financial power The financial power is a very relevant dimension. It depends on the budget of an organization, but also on its freedom of spending and the ability to attract or mobilize other financial sources (leverage). Presumably, the financial power of a partnership depends on the financial power of the actors involved, the legal public-investment power, the financial dependence on other entities (e.g. a higher-level government) and the ability to mobilize other public investment sources.

Leading stakeholder Previous studies on organizing capacity revealed that leadership is needed to build successful coalitions; in the case of regional governance structures, the initiative can be taken by one or more cities, a regional body, the chamber of commerce, or any other institution or individual.

Internal organization Another very important factor to consider, is the internal organization of a governance structure (e.g. in business units or divisions); it is particularly interesting to see how actors get involved in the process for instance through panels, task groups, boards, etc.

Motives for establishing partnerships

The principle motive to create regional partnerships is the assumption that cooperation and coordination produce added value to the region, and the participating actors. This added value can result from economies of scale (critical mass), economies of scope (synergies between complementary functions), or economies of skill (the exchange of knowledge and expertise). Furthermore it can be argued that cooperation and coordination help to prevent (undesired) intraregional competition. In addition, partnerships can generate external resources (for instance subsidies from national governments or the European Union) which otherwise might not have been made available to any individual partner, partners can learn from one another about the nature of the problems and their potential role in that respect, and consider new ways to solve them (Miller 1998). In our introduction, we have already touched upon the various challenges for European cities and regions, leading to the assumption that new forms of cooperation are needed to survive in the world-wide battle between metropolitan regions. The underlying idea is that knowledge and power need to be shared because no single organization (public or private) can identify and solve all social and economic problems in a metropolitan region.

The idea of ‘power sharing’ corresponds with Clarence Stone’s regime theory, according to which individual actors lack sufficient levels of power to generate and implement an overarching agenda for the urban system (Harding 1994, 359-360). Regime theorists accept that liberal democracies have two interdependent systems of authority: one based on popular control (i.e. the various organs of representative government) and the ...