Governance of Europe's City Regions

Planning, Policy & Politics

Tassilo Herrschel, Peter Newman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN:
  9780415187701
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134661046
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Governance of Europe's City Regions considers the changing role of the European Union in regional issues, explores how national governments have become increasingly involved at the regional scale and examines the constitutional and political contexts in which regional and local governments operate. Detailed case studies of regionals in Germany and England illustrate contrasts in European approaches to the scale of government, and the complex interactions of international, national, regional and local scales of policy intervention. The book offers a unique perspective, which links together an analysis of both regional Europe and the local economic and political factors that shape successful regions.

1
Governance and planning of city regions

Introduction

The ‘city region’ has increasingly become a buzzword in debates on urban and regional development and, especially, in debates about competitiveness and processes of globalization. But what is a city region? How does it relate to the now almost ubiquitous claim of the emergence of ‘new regionalism’? How is it managed and governed, and what is its role in a state structure? Such questions have become increasingly more urgent in the wake of the general resurgence, one might also say, rehabilitation, of the ‘region’ after its demise during the 1980s in favour of the ‘locality’. What have been the reasons for this change, and how have these changes occurred under different national conditions? These include constitutional arrangements for regions and their position against local and national tiers of government, but also established attitudes to, and practices in the governance of, regions. It is these issues that this book sets out to explore and to shed some light on the intrinsically intertwined, yet also often divided, factors that affect city-regional governance. Different types of cities, their importance within ‘their’ regions and towards each other, all add to the complexity and the different possibilities of governing ‘regions’. They can be mere territorial containers of policies defined elsewhere, or they can represent distinct identities and regional awareness. Whether this can lead to policy-making autonomy depends on the national constitutional framework and the position afforded to regions in the state hierarchy. Only by looking at individual examples of city-regional governance can difference, unique features and similarities be identified, and the relevance of the specific circumstances – external and internal – be assessed. This book has thus adopted the approach of comparative government and policy studies. Only in this way does it seem possible to study the nature and workings of city regions under different conditions and evaluate the relative importance of (a) the general constitutional provisions for ‘regions’, institutional practices and arrangements as ‘external factors’, and (b) the relationship between cities, and cities and ‘their’ region.

Addressing the first level of comparison, examples from across (western) Europe have been studied, embracing states with differing degrees of centralization: unitary states with continued strong emphasis on central control (e.g. England, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands), unitary states with some signs of devolution to the regional level (e.g. France, Italy, Spain), and fully devolved federal states, such as Germany. The comparison uses a review of a number of recent case studies of regionalization in metropolitan areas as reported in the literature from across western Europe. The second part of the comparison concentrates on the two ‘extreme’ examples of opposite state structures, Britain and Germany. Here, two types of regions are being investigated in each country, one dominated by a large metropolis, such as London and Berlin, and one containing several smaller, competing cities. The four detailed examples thus illustrate the fundamental distinction made here between monocentric and polycentric regions. In the former case, the one major city reduces the region effectively to its functional hinterland. In the latter case, competing cities create a more complex system of territorial regionalism.

‘City region’, by its very terminology, means a combination of city and regional qualities both in functional and institutional-governmental terms. At first sight, monocentric city regions may suggest a greater emphasis on the local dimension through the influence of the dominant core city. Polycentric regions, by contrast, suggest more of a regional emphasis, because of the rivalry between the smaller cities across the region.

This book sets out to explore the evidence of ‘new regionalism’ from across the EU, so that different institutional and cultural-political circumstances can be taken into account in their impact on regionalization processes. Beginning with an overview of the main debates on, and explanations of, the emergence, nature and operation of regions, looking in particular at the respective consideration of territory and institutional governance, the following chapters explore increasingly more detailed examples of city-regional structures, governance and territoriality. These reach from a sweep across the EU, looking at examples of regionalization in different national contexts, to detailed analyses, from an international to intraregional perspective.

Chapter 2 introduces the main theoretical argumentation around city regions and regionalization, especially their characteristics and forms of governance. Much of the current debate focuses on the relationship between the fundamental societal-economic changes, seen as largely triggered by globalization, the subsequently increased interterritorial competition, and the demand for responsive and ‘appropriate’ governmental-institutional arrangements. This includes the mechanisms employed for designing and implementing region-focused responses, and in this the importance of relationships between different actors within or without government. Attention also focuses on the role of territory in these interrelationships both in terms of perceived common interests and policy-making capacity. The territorial boundedness of jurisdictional (or policy) areas fundamentally impacts on the scope for defining relevant and effective policies. This affects the relationship between planning and its traditionally fixed areas, and policy which is issue driven and rests on a collaboration between localities, creating ‘regions’ of various constellations and duration. In an ideal scenario, both would be completely congruent, but in reality this is not likely. Thus, long-term spatially based policies may achieve little more than ‘hit and miss’. Scale matters here, because it will affect the likelihood of achieving good congruence between planning and policy-making region. There are differences in the ways in which inter-actor and inter-institutional relationships are formed between formal, usually hierarchical, structures and informal, non-institutionalized arrangements. This difference is also referred to as a contrast between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ forms of regional organizational structures (Danielzyk, 1999; Priebs, 1999). The ‘softer’ the institutionalization, the more flexible the system becomes. It is this difference in the degree of institutionalization which is among the recurrent themes in this book, because of its central importance in the debate on ‘new regionalism’. The nature of informal linkages is discussed here in the light of their contribution to the regionalization and operation of city regions.

Chapter 2 suggests a two-fold division of the main theoretical arguments: territorial (economic) and governmental-institutional respectively. The first group comprises those explanations with a distinct focus on the territorial impacts of economic change, i.e. essentially economic geography, and on the development of strategies and institutional responses within those territories. These perspectives shifted over time, with, from the mid-1980s onwards, a growing awareness of the impacts of changes in economic and industrial organization. The shifts were encouraged by the emergence of ideas of more flexible processes of production, and show a focus on how the specific qualities of places, including institutional networks, generate competitive advantage. Regions are thus seen largely as territorial containers for an, ideally, well integrated (but seemingly almost closed) system of economic and political actors, and relevant policies. The second group examines city and regional issues from a political and institutional perspective. Arguments here seek to clarify the complex relations between the three main arenas of government, nation, region and locality, and the changing relationships between public and private sectors in managing cities and regions. There is some evidence, as outlined in Chapter 2, that theoretical debates are moving from space to the wider concept of ‘scale’, with space merely one of the variables, and societal and political structures, the other. It is at this point that the more one-dimensional territorial debate has been broadened to also include the scale of operation of institutions. This goes beyond a merely geographic perspective and includes its internal arrangements, degree of institutional representation and visibility, linkages to within and without the government hierarchy, including vertical and horizontal interaction.

Chapter 3 examines the outcomes of changing European policies and funding regimes on cities and regions. Using the European scale, this chapter explores two main themes. First, evidence of spatial economic dynamism, in particular the changing role of city regions in the European space economy. Following the arguments discussed in the previous chapter, such changes, especially if placing greater emphasis on city regions as active economic cores, should also lead to relevant policy shifts, if policies are to remain relevant. Attention will be given to the changing nature of regions from mere centrally directed policy containers, a role traditionally associated with EU regions, to a more active role of regions as economic entities with specific indigenous development potential and a greater emphasis on cities as growth centres. The second theme is, consequently, the nature of policy responses by the EU, i.e. evidence of a greater concern with encouraging indigenous economic competitiveness of city regions, rather than merely seeking to redistribute growth. Such changes have been evident in institutional arrangements. Regions have gained a much increased presence and recognition through the Committee of the Regions, giving regions and cities a consultative role in Commission projects. The other change has been an encouragement of cross-sector partnerships, and has also had implications for national debates on regions and regionalization, with a distinct view on competitiveness in an international context.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of various examples of national responses to the raised profile of debates on regions and city-regional government. Many of the regional structures and discussions in Europe have been shaped by the impact of EU regional policy through the Structural and Social Funds. This has given national government the incentive to establish regional structures, e.g. in England, so that scope for drawing down EU funds can be improved. As a result, the picture is now more uneven in terms of the nature of regions as merely containers of centrally directed policies, or entities of self-representation and indigenous policy-making capacity. Overall, a steady move towards greater regional self-determination in (economic) policy making can be detected. While this shift was initially strongly driven by arguments about maximizing indigenous development by encouraging region-based policy making from within the regions, this has shifted somewhat to include wider issues of representation and identity, including those outside the government sphere. The result has been varied, with regions emerging as simply yet another territorial layer, while also giving much greater acknowledgement to the role of urban centres as growth areas across the EU. Government attention has shifted to city-regional relationships in the main conurbations. Traditional regional policies have been re-targeted to more urban problems, acknowledging the close interrelationship between the two. City regions, whose geographic distribution allows the identification of growth corridors across Europe, have induced new regional qualities. This, it is argued, has put pressure on existing governments, national to local, to respond to these shifts and accommodate the new city-regional functional territoriality.

The examples of regionalization in western Europe illustrate the importance of formal differences, but also point to the need to look beyond them when assessing the status of regions within the governmental hierarchies. Also, the varying objectives of regionalization become visible, reflecting the differing territorial scope of urban-regional governments and their powers available to formulate and implement regional political goals. The German city states are at one end of the scale, and the Lisbon Metropolitan Authority without independent funding, at the other. There are, however, general trends towards recognizing a greater role for regions, and this does include changes to constitutional arrangements. The main challenge, however, seems to be the boundedness of the city regions, with only a few cases where administrative boundaries and functional city regions coincide. There is considerable variation in the background to regionalization. Thus, Finland’s regions emerged from EU-based policy considerations, Denmark’s from competitive pressures from neighbouring Sweden, in the joint Øresund region while in France emerging regional identities (e.g. Corsica) have encouraged challenges to the centralized state structure and demanded recognized political status, including, in particular, adequate financial provisions. These challenges contrast with the case of England (although there is some similarity with Scottish and Welsh claims to independence), where no political regionalism has emerged, and the newly established structures are the outcome of a top-down policy. The importance of national identities is particularly obvious for Belgium, where cultural regional divisions threaten the state’s existence. At the same time, there is ‘new regionalism’ emerging in the main city regions, albeit separated between Flanders and Wallonia. Thus, Brussels has, somewhat reminiscent of London and Berlin, become separated from its wider hinterland, but seeks to bridge this separation by joining less formalized city-regional alliances, e.g. with Ghent and Antwerp. This form of participation in more than one region seems a specific feature of ‘new regionalism’, as the examples in this book demonstrate. Germany’s Ruhr is another example of multilayered and multiscaled regionalization, and a polycentric region. The Randstad in the Netherlands is another example of a polycentric city-based regionalization process, albeit encouraged by the state. The latter may be one of the reasons for the quite different responses to regionalization in the Ruhr.

The forming of such city regions can be stimulated by particular events, or challenges, such as in the case of Barcelona (Olympic Games), because it reinforces local–regional identity, but it can be also facilitated by the central state to encourage nationally relevant initiatives/projects. In Portugal conditions are similar to England, where weak regional tradition encourages top-down policy implementation.

Two of the most contrasting examples of institutional and practical arrangements for regions and regionalization are provided by the unitary and federal states of England and Germany respectively. Discussed in detail in Chapter 6, they illustrate a top-down controlled form of regionalism, with all strings being held by the national government in London on the one hand, and a decentralized, inherently more regionally oriented form of federalism, on the other. With national governments being the ultimate democratic force in all countries, the main difference rests with the position of subnational government and, for city regions, the representation of local and regional interests, and its scope to reach into the region they are part of to advance local–regional interests. The balancing of local and regional interests requires particular fine tuning and may be the reason for some antagonism at this scale.

Chapter 5 sets the scene for the detailed comparison of the two very different examples of national provisions for, and recognition of, regions as part of the formal government system. In England, where a highly centralized state structure exists, with all powers resting ultimately with Parliament, from the local to the national level, there has been an interesting emphasis on informal, non-state arrangements as part of engaging the private sector. Administrative regions, essentially confronting local and national democracy, and the plethora of quangos dealing with urban-regional matters may be seen as a substitute for more genuinely devolved democratic control. Regions have not featured in England as part of the government hierarchy at any time in its history, and only the recent devolution to Wales and Scotland shows a recognition of their national identities and a step back from the centralization of the United Kingdom. At the practical level, regional considerations have some recognition in the shape of the counties as upper tier of local government, but this is very limited. Otherwise, regions have not been more than containers of centrally defined and implemented policies, whether based on Keynesian ideas of the 1960s, or the more recent paradigm of globalization as all-embracing parameter of societal and state activity, enforcing territorial competitiveness. Except for London, there is no democratic representation at the regional level, and no regional government. The emphasis is on private sector style, marketing oriented Regional Development Agencies as the ‘face’ of the regions, operating primarily under central government control and having only very limited region-based legitimacy. Their backbone is central government, through its regional offices not the regions.

This situation contrasts sharply with that in Germany with its federal constitution, and devolution of most home affairs to the regional states, the Länder. They act statutorily as central governments. This empowered regional status is accompanied by a complex, hierarchically and highly formally organized state structure and distribution of responsibilities. Also, there is a dual hierarchy of policy responsibilities and territorial planning. The latter enjoys a central role in public administration and government. Territorial planning for regions operates at two levels, the Länder, and the planning regions at sub-Land level. They are administratively created ‘containers’ of Land originating policies, and subdivide the larger democratically controlled Länder. This, and a detailed provision and regulation of policy making and responsibilities, adds to a lack of complexity and claims of lacking flexibility and responsiveness. Competing responsibilities add further to a sense of separateness. Reflecting differing values and traditions, each Land placed its own emphasis on more centrally or locally arranged planning regions, but there is a growing recognition that bottom-up regionalization allows better response to economic geography and greater responsiveness per se. This experience is beginning to feed back into the strictly formalized state-administrative structure. There seems an interesting parallel shift towards more flexible forms of regionalization, away from territorially fixed, institutionalized arrangements to more informal, non-institutional and inherently more dynamic approaches. While in England such a move has resulted from continued central control and little practical devolution, in Germany, the driving force has been too much, often obstructive, and rigid institutionalism.

Chapter 6 investigates the evidence of the impact of these differences on regionalization processes in city regions in more detail. This includes, in particular, evidence of a positive relationship between the degree of centralism and absence of regional self-determination in policy making. Does such a relationship entail a more coherent ‘streamlined’ relationship between spatial tiers of government at the expense of individuality? Is decentralized government ‘more messy’? More detailed evidence suggests a more varied picture. Approaches to regions and, especially, regional policy, depend on particular local circumstances, including personalities and established practices, established ‘divisions of responsibility and power’ both institutionally and territorially, and democratic control and credibility of institutions and actors. Also important are established attitudes to the desirability, and thus importance, of regionalization of state power and governance both from a local and national perspective (as well as from the region). Thus, in Germany, regions are an inherent statutory and cultural-historic part of state consciousness, while challenged by the federal and strong local level of government. Also, there is a strong tradition of hierarchical spatial planning with a clear allocation of powers and responsibility to different tiers of government, providing the ‘backbone’ to the inter-operation between government scales. Nevertheless, the system is complex, and competing hierarchies of policy making and territorial planning may emerge, each claiming greater constitutional legitimacy and importance.

In England, all forms of governance are ultimately controlled by the central state, issuing guidelines and finance for policies and thus establishing how much regionalism there is at any one time and how it is to be applied. This may include establishing new players such as the Government Offices in 1994 or Regional Development Agencies in 1999 and engagement with EU institutions. Nevertheless, regions and city regions in both countries are seeking direct representation in Brussels and inter-regional collaboration in lobbying may transgress national divisions. In both countries there have been interesting similarities in discussions on regionalization especially the relationship between cities and their wider hinterland region. There is also the issue of boundedness, i.e. the appropriateness of territorial delimitation of regions for their tasks, and the growing number of non-institutionalized policy territories such as employment offices, chambers of commerce and single purpose local government associations (lobbying groups) add to the complexity and potential obstructionism (institutional inertia) which exist already through a plethora of layers of (non-congruent) government territories. In Germany, for instance, there are planning regions within each Land, themselves also referred to as ‘regions’ from an international (EU) perspective. The planning regions are not part of the government hierarchy and may be established top-down by a Land or bottom-up through local cooperation.

Against the background of distinct (and considerable) differences in provisions for regionalization in England and Germany, there are strong indications that regionalization in both countries can operate through different (vertically and/or horizontally parallel) avenues of region building: directed and controlled ‘from above’, and shaped and utilized ‘...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 Governance and planning of city regions: introduction
• 2 Theoretical explanations of city regions: territory, institutions, networks
• 3 European regions and regional policy
• 4 Governing mono- and polycentric city regions in Europe
• 5 Formal regions and regional governance in England and Germany: centralized and decentralized regionalism
• 6 Monocentric city regions in unitary and federal states: experiences of regionalization in England and Germany
• 7 Polycentric city regions: between competitive localism and ‘marriages of convenience’
• 8 City-regional government and governance
• Glossary
• References
• Index