The European URBAN Experience –
Seen from the Academic Perspective
Study Report
study project funded by the URBACT programme
Presented by the Humboldt Study Team
Prof. Dr. Susanne Frank (project leader)
Dr. Andrej Holm (principal investigator)
Hannah Kreinsen (student assistant)
Tim Birkholz (student intern)
contact:
Institute of Social Sciences
Humboldt University
Unter den Linden 6
10099 Berlin
Germany
http://www.sowi.hu-berlin.de/lehrbereiche/stadtsoz/
[email protected]
Project partners
Prof. Franz Brunner, Karl-Franzens-University Graz
Thea Dukes, University of Amsterdam
Carla Tedesco, Politecnico di Bari
Associated partners
Ioannis Chorianopoulos, University of the Aegean, Mytilène
Simon Güntner, Technical University Berlin
Charlotte Halpern, CEVIPOF Paris
Charalampos Koutalakis, Free University Berlin
Laura Mattiucci, Bauhaus University Weimar
Giulia Longo, Politecnico of Milan
Florian Wukovitsch, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
The Humboldt Study Team wishes to thank all partners as well as Angelika Pentsi and Cornelia Weigt
(Berlin) for their encouragement and support.
September 2006
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Contents
1. Introduction: About the Project.............................................................................................. 4
1.1 The Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 4
1.2 The Study Report ............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.1 URBAN and Governance.......................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 URBAN and Local Empowerment ........................................................................... 6
1.2.3 URBAN as a Transnational Programme ................................................................... 6
1.3 Networking and Exchange ............................................................................................... 7
1.4 Communication of Research Findings ............................................................................. 7
2. URBAN in Selected Countries............................................................................................... 9
2.1 Austria .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Main Issues of the Debate ....................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Selected Case Study ................................................................................................ 14
2.1.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 22
2.2 France ............................................................................................................................. 24
2.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 24
2.2.2 Main Issues of the Debate ....................................................................................... 26
2.2.3 Selected Case Studies.............................................................................................. 29
2.2.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 41
2.3 Germany ......................................................................................................................... 43
2.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 44
2.3.2 Main Issues of the Debate ....................................................................................... 45
2.3.3 Selected Case Studies: Berlin.................................................................................. 55
2.3.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 63
2.4 Greece............................................................................................................................. 65
2.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 65
2.4.2 Starting Point / Initial Situation (National Context)................................................ 66
2.4.3 URBAN I................................................................................................................. 67
2.4.4 URBAN II: Learning Processes .............................................................................. 70
2.4.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 73
2.5 Italy................................................................................................................................. 75
1
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 76
2.5.2 Starting Point / Initial Situation (National Context)................................................ 77
2.5.3 URBANITALIA...................................................................................................... 81
2.5.4 Peculiarities of the Italian Situation / Discussion.................................................... 81
2.5.5 Local Experiences with URBAN – Case Studies.................................................... 83
2.5.6 Upshot: Italy in/and Europe .................................................................................... 91
2.6 Netherlands..................................................................................................................... 93
2.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 93
2.6.2 Amsterdam Bijlmermeer ......................................................................................... 93
2.6.3 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 97
2.7 Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................. 99
2.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 99
2.7.2 Main Issues of the Debate ..................................................................................... 100
2.7.3 Selected Studies..................................................................................................... 103
2.7.4 Problems of Evaluating the URBAN Programmes in Northern Ireland ............... 110
2.8 United Kingdom........................................................................................................... 112
2.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 113
2.8.2 Main Topics of the Debate .................................................................................... 115
2.8.3 Selected Studies..................................................................................................... 118
2.8.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 124
2.9 Comparative Studies .................................................................................................... 126
2.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 127
2.9.2 Main Topics of the Debate .................................................................................... 128
2.9.3 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 131
3. Governance in URBAN Research...................................................................................... 132
3.1 Understanding of Governance...................................................................................... 132
3.2 Influence of URBAN on Domestic Urban Policy........................................................ 138
3.2.1 Horizontal Governance Effects ............................................................................. 139
3.2.2 Vertical Governance Effects and Multi-Level Governance.................................. 145
3.3 URBAN as a Vehicle and Catalyst of Europeanisation ............................................... 147
3.3.1 Download Europeanisation through URBAN....................................................... 148
3.3.2 Upload Europeanisation through URBAN............................................................ 153
3.4 URBAN as a Stimulus to Urban Policy in the Member States .................................... 155
2
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
3.5 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 158
4. URBAN, Participation, and Local Empowerment ............................................................. 161
4.1. Perceptions of Participation and Empowerment in URBAN Research ...................... 161
4.2. Challenges and Limits of Implementing URBAN Participation................................. 162
4.2.1. Target Groups of Participation............................................................................. 163
4.2.2. The Problem of Representativeness ..................................................................... 164
4.2.3. The Institutionalisation of Participation Processes .............................................. 165
4.2.4 Methods and Procedures of Participation.............................................................. 166
4.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 169
5. Policy Learning and Transnational Policy Transfer........................................................... 170
5.1 Understanding of Policy Learning and Transnational Policy Transfer........................ 170
5.2 Policy Learning in the URBAN Context...................................................................... 171
5.3 Trans-National Policy Transfer.................................................................................... 174
5.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 177
6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 179
6.1 Common Insights of Scientific URBAN Research ...................................................... 179
6.2 Special Issues ............................................................................................................... 180
6.2.1 URBAN in Big, Small, and Medium-Sized Towns and Cities ............................. 180
6.2.2 North-South Dimension of URBAN ..................................................................... 183
6.2.3 Significance of Committed Staff for URBAN Processes...................................... 188
6.2.4 URBAN in Divided Cities..................................................................................... 189
6.3 Future URBAN Research............................................................................................. 191
References .............................................................................................................................. 193
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 202
Workshop „The European URBAN Experience“: Schedule ............................................. 202
Bibliography of URBAN I and II Literature...................................................................... 204
List in Alphabetical Order.............................................................................................. 204
List by Mode of Publication........................................................................................... 220
List by National Focus ................................................................................................... 227
List of Comparative Studies........................................................................................... 238
3
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
1. Introduction: About the Project
The here presented study report aims at introducing and resuming recent and current academic
research on the implementation of URBAN I & II programmes in different European cities
and countries. The study project was prompted by the observation that, on the one hand, there
is quite a number of (mostly young) researchers from different fields of study (political and
administrative sciences, sociology, urban planning, geography etc.) interested in the topics of
“European urban policy” (EUP) in general and the URBAN Community Initiative in
particular. On the other hand, their studies are not well known: the bulk of research work is
not published officially. The URBAN literature is predominantly made up of grey literature:
unpublished dissertations, diploma papers (Degree and Master theses), expert reports and
conference papers, some scattered articles. Grey literature is not easily researchable and not
widely circulated and therefore difficult to get knowledge of and to obtain. In other words, in
this research area there was a lack of systematic recording of available literature and a lack of
communication or networking among the researchers.
The research project starts out from these deficits. Primarily it pursued four objectives:
ƒ
the compilation of a comprehensive bibliography of URBAN academic literature written
in English, French or German,
ƒ
the provision of a study report presenting, analysing and discussing available literature,
ƒ
support of networking and exchange between the URBAN researchers,
ƒ
communication of research findings to urban actors, decision-makers, professionals,
experts, etc., especially URBAN/URBACT programme actors.
1.1 The Bibliography
The compilation of the bibliography turned out to be a labour-intensive and time-consuming
enterprise. We began our search for URBAN literature and researchers from four starting
points: Firstly, we asked our project partners to send us their reference lists. Secondly, we
asked our partners’ help in finding contact to EUP and URBAN researchers especially in
those European countries from where we had only little information so far. Thirdly, we
contacted the people in charge of each URBAN project in these countries to ask if they had
been subject of academic inquiries and research. And fourthly, we contacted well-known
4
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
urban researchers in the aforesaid countries and asked for support. All in all, this research
strategy was quite effective:1 as of today, the bibliography includes 88 references.
As a result, we now have a quite good overview of academic URBAN discussions in Greece,
Italy, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Great Britain and France. However, Spain, Portugal,
Denmark and Sweden remain our blind spots. After having been convinced for some months
that this had to be due to a wrong research strategy, we now carefully tend to consider that in
these countries there simply might not be any systematic academic research and debate which
was specifically centred on the implementation of URBAN.
The bibliography can be found in the annex of this report. For the sake of user-friendliness we
provide it in four different versions:
ƒ
in alphabetical order,
ƒ
by mode of publication,
ƒ
by national focus,
ƒ
comparative studies.
The bibliographies are presented on the study project’s mini-site at the URBACT homepage.
They can be updated there continuously in case we find or receive information about new
publications.
1.2 The Study Report
The second objective was a summarising description and analysis of existent literature. To
begin with, some remarks on the choice of titles:
To know about the existence of research work does not at all mean to hold anything in one’s
hands. Sometimes we had to beg and wait for long periods until we really had the texts we
were looking for in black and white. Taken into consideration were those works which had
arrived until June, 1st, 2006. Those works which we recieved after this date are of course
included into the bibliography. Another criterion for our choice was language: only works
written in English, French, or German were included into the evaluation. Finally, the report
1
However, this is less true for the third way of proceeding: if we got an answer at all, we were generally pointed
to the official homepages. In some cases names of URBAN researchers were indicated – but most of them were
our project partners, so that instead of activating a snow ball system, as we had hoped, we found ourselves in a
circular system.
5
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
focuses on works on the implementation of URBAN. Works dealing with EUP or URBAN in
general are also mentioned in the bibliography, but the focus of evaluation is on the
experiences with and assessments/estimations of concrete URBAN programmes. In particular,
we asked three sets of questions:
1.2.1 URBAN and Governance
What is the impact of URBAN on (national, regional and) local governance structures and
dynamics? What is its impact on domestic policy traditions and institutional and
administrative local structures? What are the responses of domestic actors at all tiers of
government to pressure emanating from URBAN to adjust existing urban policy contents,
patterns and instruments to EU requirements? How are EU norms and requirements translated
into the local context? Which conflicts and bargaining processes between different actors and
interest groups emerge?
1.2.2 URBAN and Local Empowerment
In how far has URBAN the potential to empower the subnational level and local actors? In
how far does URBAN encourage local experimentation with innovative policy approaches? Is
URBAN a potential opportunity for local residents to become involved in urban
development?
1.2.3 URBAN as a Transnational Programme
What is the importance of exchange and policy learning offered through the transnational
dimension of URBAN (and URBACT)? Are there differences in URBAN experiences
between ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ Europe? Between countries and cities with longer
experience in decentralised and integrated urban policy making and those with centralised,
authoritative and top-down policy traditions? Between different cities in one country? Are
there „learning processes“ discernable from URBAN I to URBAN II?
It is immediately evident that the question of the local implementation of URBAN strongly
depends on the specific prevailing national, political, legal, social, and cultural conditions.
Thus, for all cases, when we had more than five titles available, we wrote national reports
where each characteristic of the implementation of and experiences with URBAN is described
while looking at the national context in particular.
6
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
1.3 Networking and Exchange
Given the, for the time being, relatively low level of communication and exchange between
URBAN researchers across and within countries and disciplines, one of the project’s main
objectives was to bring the researchers together and to initiate a process of international and
interdisciplinary debate and exchange. For these purposes, on April 7th and 8th, 2006, about 30
European urban policy researchers from political science, sociology, geography, urban
planning, architecture and economics, coming from seven European countries, met at the
Institute of Social Sciences of Humboldt University Berlin, to present and debate completed
and ongoing academic research on the implementation and outcomes of the EU URBAN
Community Initiative in the very different European cities and countries. Most of the
presentations can be found on the project’s mini site.
All participants agreed that the workshop had been an extraordinarily successful event. After
every presentation, lively and hardly stoppable discussions ensued that underlined the
participants’ eagerness and enthusiasm to learn about and from their colleagues’ research
questions, approaches and results. In particular, the comparison of URBAN experiences
across countries and cities stimulated the debates and helped to better grasp the very different
local and national interpretations of the same European programme. Moreover, the interaction
between researchers from the different academic and national backgrounds generated many
new ideas for future interdisciplinary collaborations for a better understanding of the URBAN
initiatives. Thus, the URBACT programme has successfully contributed to the dissemination
of academic knowledge and to the creation of a vibrant and stable international and
interdisciplinary network of young URBAN experts who are keen to maintain and deepen
their contacts also after the end of the funding period.2
1.4 Communication of Research Findings
Already during its runtime, the study project effectively contributed to the dissemination of
information and knowledge. It has brought in contact numerous URBAN academic
2
Another networking and exchange activity is worth mentioning: Members of this informal Network of
European URBAN Policy and URBAN Researchers made up the main part of presenters and discussants at a
Panel of the 3rd ECPR Conference in Budapest, 8-10 September 2005, debating the question of "The EU and the
European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (New?) Policy Instruments". The Budapest conference was
not planned to be a network activity, but in the process became one. This resulted from the fact that the most
interesting proposals were submitted by network members (of course the Call for Papers was circulated via the
study project’s mailing list). In Budapest, then, this very successful panel was also used for publicising the study
project and furthering networking among EUP and URBAN researchers. The Budapest papers can be found on
the study project’s mini-site at the URBACT homepage.
7
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
researchers as well as researchers and practitioners which before had not known each other
and of each other’s work.
Furthermore, the study project gained some fame among interested people: we receive an
increasing number of inquiries from people outside the project. Thus, the leading partner’s
address already functions as a centre of information and dissemination of knowledge for
interested people throughout Europe.
Due to the fact that the beginning stages of the project faced various and difficult bureaucratic
and administrative problems and due to unfavourable circumstances, unfortunately one of the
intended objectives could not be reached satisfactorily: to communicate the research findings
to URBAN/URBACT programme actors. Although project members contributed to the
European URBAN/URBACT-Conference “URBAN Future. EU cohesion policy and
integrated urban development – concepts, perspectives, networks” held in Sarrebruck,
Germany, in June 2005 (one plenary presentation by Susanne Frank, animation of two
workshops and summary of results by Thea Dukes and Simon Güntner), the intended
contribution to the 2nd URBACT annual meeting in Liverpool in November, 2005, however,
did not happen. But there will be other opportunities – if there is interest, the project members
will of course be glad to introduce the results of the project in the context of an URBACT
meeting at any time.
8
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2. URBAN in Selected Countries
2.1 Austria
Bibliography
Ferstl, Alexander (2004) URBAN Graz. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung 1996-2006. Die EUGemeinschaftsinitiativen URBAN und URBAN II als Instrumente der Stadtentwicklung. PhD Thesis,
Faculty of natural sciences Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.
Krammer, Andreas (2003): URBAN Wien Gürtel Plus: Soziale und organisatorische Innovation in
der Wiener Stadtentwicklung, Thesis, Institut für Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung an der UW Wien.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities. Experiences, Motivations and Effects on
Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU
and the European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance an (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR
European Consortium for Political Research Conference Budapest, 8-10 September 2005.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities. Experiences, motivations and effects on
local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund & Hamburg. In: Eugen
Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities
in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
2.1.1 Introduction
Literature on URBAN in Austria foremost comprises reports written by actors involved in the
implementation process of the programme. Only three academic studies are included in the
bibliography on URBAN in Austria applying different focuses.
Krammer’s study on URBAN in Austria is a diploma thesis adopting a political-economic
perspective. According to this perspective, the study applies the innovation approach, which
understands innovation as a motor of economic development that can be enhanced by cooperation between different actors, in the framework of Private Public Partnership for
instance. According to this approach, social innovation is defined as modes of democratic
participation widening the opportunities of participation for deprived social groups (Krammer
2003). Even though Krammer does not provide evidence for any lasting structural changes
resulting from URBAN, he suggests that the projects were successful in pointing to a multi9
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
dimensional process of revaluation, which did not lead to gentrification. According to
Krammer, the concentration of financial resources in one area was unusual for Vienna since it
would not correspond to the principle of equal allocation, i.e.: the concentration of financial
resources was, in the framework of domestic policy, considered unfair, which posed problems
for local politicians.
The second academic study, the PhD thesis of Ferstl, analyses the measures of URBAN in
Graz, mainly in the district Gries, their results and efficiency as well as processes of policy
learning enhanced by the projects. Since he is one of the actors participating in URBAN in
Graz, he adopts a local perspective. He also finds evidence for a successful URBAN
programme in Graz pointing to an increasing living standard and capacity building of the
local administration (Ferstl 2004).
The two studies of Wolffhardt et al. are dealing with the operationalisation of EU structural
funds, in particular with URBAN I and II (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a). However, their studies
are conceptualised as comparative case studies focussing on two cities in the United Kingdom
and in Austria, additionally in the second article also on two cities in Germany. The Austrian
case studies we are interested in here are on Vienna and Graz. The studies apply the concept
of Europeanisation elaborated by Adam Marshall (Marshall 2004). According to Marshall’s
definition, Europeanisation is a two-fold process comprising upload and download
Europeanisation (see below). Applying this concept enables Wolffhardt et al. to adopt two
perspectives: firstly, the top-down perspective which allows analysing governance effects of
EU programmes. In this respect they focus on cross-sectoral co-operation as well as on
community participation. Secondly there is the bottom-up perspective, which allows
scrutinising why and how cities get involved with Europe. For both processes of
Europeanisation, the size of the cities matters as it shapes the preconditioned structures for the
implementation of URBAN. In the following, the paper of Wolffhardt et al. presented to the
Panel “The EU and the European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance an (new?) Policy
Instruments” in September 2005, will be analysed in more detail.
Dominant methods adopted by the identified researchers are interviews with key actors at
different levels of governance as well as the analysis of documents concerning the
implementation of URBAN at the national and the local level.
10
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Austrian cities under scrutiny are Vienna (Krammer 2003, Wolffhardt 2005a, 2005b) and
Graz (Ferstl 2004, Wolffhardt 2005).
Cases
City
URBAN programmes
Studies
Graz
URBAN I and II
Krammer 2003
Wolffhardt et al. 2005a,
2005b
Vienna
URBAN I und II
Wolffhardt et al. 2005a,
2005b
2.1.2 Main Issues of the Debate
Governance
With regard to the issue of changing patterns of governance, all studies suggest that preexisting institutional arrangements matter. Wolffhardt et al. point out different impacts of EU
programmes in Vienna and Graz resulting from different pre-existing structures and political
cultures. In this respect they refer to policy fit and misfit as well as to institutional fit and
misfit.
First of all, Wolffhardt et al. find no evidence of significant changes with regard to vertical
governance. Following the authors, this is mainly due to the domestic principle of subsidiarity
and the constitutional delegation of competences concerning spatial development to the local
level. Given the legally binding multi-level intergovernmental agreement, the municipalities
were able to act as managing authorities. Therefore, Vienna and Graz were in the position to
implement EU programmes largely on their own, involvement of the federal authorities was
very limited.
Concerning horizontal governance, the findings of Wolffhardt et al. from Vienna and Graz
differ. According to Wolffhardt et al., Vienna represents the case of policy and institutional
misfit. The former led to a local resistance against proposed changes. The city is mainly
engaged with Europe in order to prevent EU regulation which is perceived as a threat to its
local policy tradition. Thus, EU programmes have never shaped the strategic orientation of
the administration. This becomes clear by the fact that Vienna operated the programmes
exclusively through already existing bodies. The researchers found no evidence for the
11
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
(URBAN-induced) creation of any institution outside the given administration. (Wolffhardt et
al. 2005a). Insofar in Vienna, EU programmes only had a weak impact on intra-administrative
structures and the development of “new governance” in Vienna remains questionable.
According to the authors, this results from a “statist” political culture and the predominance
of social democrats aiming to maintain a local welfare state.
In contrast to Vienna, the case of Graz illustrates that a misfit of governance structures and
EU requirements can lead to wide-ranging change. Following the different findings of the two
case studies, Wolffhardt et al. draw the conclusion, that EU programmes do not force cities to
Europeanisation; it is rather a matter of “Europeanisation by choice” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a:
43). In the case of Graz, the city shares the policy goals of the EU and therefore it uses the
institutional misfit to shape its government arrangements. In Graz EU programmes led to a
significant change of intra-administrative patterns, improving cross-departmental cooperation. Evidence provided by Wolffhardt et al. suggests that this is due to the relative
openness of administrative actors (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a). Another reason, following the
authors, is the incorporation of the department in charge of EU programmes in the urban
planning and development office. Even though the municipality maintains the strategic role,
tasks and duties are constantly re-defined between the managing authority, the programme
office and project carriers.
Although not explicitly referring to the patterns of governance in Vienna, Krammer touches
upon the issue analysing the power relations between the different actors involved in
URBAN. In this respect he emphasises the marginal role of the federal level. However, in
financial terms URBAN was implemented as a multi-level-project. The EU as well as the
federal level contributed to the salaries of the staff of the URBAN Council. Moreover he
points out that URBAN required a new administrational structure, which, according to
Krammer, had a sustainable impact on the modes of organisation and the city development
(Krammer 2003: 60). The local “Urban Development Plan”, published after URBAN was
launched, reveals, according to Kramer, a top-down perspective. Following Krammer this
suggests that URBAN did not enhance a significant change in patterns of governance.
Krammer also points out that beside infrastructural effects URBAN had no lasting visible
results (Krammer 2003).
12
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Concerning local patterns of governance, Ferstl emphasises that URBAN, for the first time,
enhanced cross-sectoral co-operation in Graz. Furthermore, the integrative approach allowed
for a participation of different actors in the decision-making process (Ferstl 2004).
Therefore, according to the reviewed literature, URBAN had no significant impact in Vienna,
whereas in Graz evidence for a sustainable change of patterns of governance enhanced by
URBAN is found.
Participation
Concerning the issue of community participation, Wolffhardt et al. suggest that in both cities
the goal of partnership was mainly framed as individual citizen participation. However,
Wolffhardt et al. again present different results for Vienna and Graz.
Under URBAN I Vienna established a comprehensive neighbourhood advisory council
deciding about all major projects and serving as a platform for the exchange of information.
The council was composed of representatives from public authorities and representatives from
the local residence. This is also mentioned by Krammer, who also emphasises the role of
Private Public Partnerships. However, given the structural arrangements elaborated above,
citizen participation in Vienna remained limited. Moreover, according to Wolffhardt et al.,
Vienna failed to translate this into the current URBAN II and Objective 2 programmes
situated in other parts of the city. Therefore, URBAN in Vienna did not contribute to
structures guaranteeing permanent citizen involvement.
In contrast to Vienna, in Graz Wolffhardt et al. find evidence for a wide-ranging consultation
process and a strong emphasis on communication during the implementation process.
Furthermore, small-scale projects put money into the hands of citizen initiatives providing
citizens with considerable decision-making power. These achievements were successfully
translated into URBAN II. In line with the results of Wolffhardt et al., Ferstl points to
increasing participation of different actors in Graz, even of those considered deprived social
groups (Ferstl 2004).
Trans-National Networks
Wolffhardt et al. refer to the issue of trans-national networks as one framework for policy
learning, in addition to local cross-sectoral networks. Such networks provide cities with the
13
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
opportunity to exchange information and best practice strategies. In this respect, the issue of
policy learning is of particular importance. While Krammer suggests, that teething troubles
due to the experiences in URBAN I should not occur under URBAN II, Wolffhardt et al.
point to the failure to translate structures of URBAN I into URBAN II.
Furthermore, Wolffhardt et al. point to trans-national networks as frameworks used by cities
to shape their position within the European urban system. The motivation of Vienna to
participate in INTERREG for example is shaped by its ambition to play a distinctive role visà-vis central and eastern European countries. Therefore, they characterise Vienna as a
“profiling, self-styled Euro-Player” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 39) defining itself as a leader of
European integration from below.
2.1.3 Selected Case Study
Wolffhardt, Alexander et al. (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities. Experiences,
Motivations and Effects on Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz.
The aim of the study of Wolffhardt et al. is to analyse the relationship between cities and the
EU, its effects, mechanisms and processes. In order to do so they apply the concept of
Europeanisation elaborated by Adam Marshall (Marshall 2004). Following his definition,
Europeanisation is a two-fowled process consisting of download and upload Europeanisation,
which is defined as follows (Marshall 2004a: 7):
“1. Download Europeanization: Changes in policies, practices, preferences or participants
within local systems of governance, arising from the negotiation and implementation of EU
programmes.”
“2. Upload Europeanization: “The transfers of innovative urban practices to the supranational arena, resulting in the incorporation of local initiatives in pan-European policies or
programmes”
According to this definition, the access to structural funds leads, on the one hand, to changes
in local governance structures from a hierarchical government to a more horizontal and
flexible form of governance (Marshall 2004). On the other hand, cities are able to make their
presence felt at the EU level through participation in trans-national organisations and
networks (Marshall 2004).
14
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Following Marshall, the engagement of cities with EU policies results in a four stage pattern
of interaction and adjustment elaborated by Green Cowles et al. 2001:
Europeanization (Structural Fund/Community Initiatives (UPP) →
Adaptational Pressures (degree of fit between EU/ domestic norms) →
Mediating Institutions (local, regional, national institutional context) →
Urban Structural Change (institutional shifts/governance changes)
This concept enables them to adopt two perspectives: Firstly, they address the dimension
“Europe in urban governance” focussing on the impact of European programmes on local
governance. Secondly, they address the dimension of “cities in European governance”
emphasising the involvement of cities with Europe (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 7).
As to the top-down perspective, they focus on changing patterns of governance and
community participation. In order to analyse the impact of EU programmes on urban
governance they adopt a generisable concept of urban change against which the Euopean
impact on the case studies are measured. The benchmark used here is the “new urban
governance” provided by contemporary urban studies. “New urban governance” is defined as
reorganisation of established networks and alliances in the cities as well as the reorganisation
of the public administrative system. Following this definition, they formulate 5 hypotheses:
ƒ
Horizontal Governance: Structural funds enhance or accelerate new horizontal forms of
urban governance
ƒ
Vertical Governance: Structural Funds enhance a shift towards a partnership-based policy
development and thus contribute to the development of new forms of multi-level
governance.
ƒ
Participation: EU programmes enhance new ways of participation incorporating civil
society through networks between different actors and therefore contributing to an
increasing access for citizens to the political-administrative system.
ƒ
Policy learning: EU programmes allow for an adaptation and testing of new policies.
Furthermore, they offer a framework for an exchange of best practices via trans-national
networks and thus also contribute to policy learning processes.
ƒ
Influence of the local and national context: The specific national and local context affects
EU programmes.
15
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
With regard to horizontal governance, EU regeneration programmes had different impacts in
Vienna and Graz. According to Wolffhardt et al., “new governance” in Vienna remains
questionable due to the lack of newly created institutions outside the administration.
Following the Austrian tripartite tradition, the Programme Steering Committee in Vienna was
composed by various departments of the administration and its arm’s length institutions.
Partnership requirements were largely interpreted as consultation with quasi-governmental
institutions. Hence Vienna operated the programmes through existing bodies.
Furthermore, EU programmes never shaped the strategic orientation of the administration
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005a). Therefore, in Vienna EU programmes had only a weak impact on
intra-administrative structures.
In contrast to Vienna, Wolffhardt et al. provide evidence for a fundamental shift of urban
policy in Graz. Due to the gatekeeping role of the department, EU programmes led to a
significant change of intra-administrative patterns, improving cross-departmental cooperation. One important factor for this, according to Wolffhardt et al., is the incorporation of
the department in charge of EU programmes in the urban planning and development office.
At least under URBAN II, network-centred decision-making was extended to programme
planning and implementation strategies. The Operational Programme based on a wide-ranging
consultation process. Even though the municipality maintains the strategic role, tasks and
duties are constantly re-defined between the managing authority, the programme office and
project carriers. Furthermore, a high budget for communication with citizens and small
project funds directed towards the needs and expectations of the voluntary sector. In addition,
Wolffhardt et al. find evidence for a high commitment of business actors in Graz.
Concerning vertical governance Wolffhardt et al. find no evidence of significant changes.
This is due to the domestic principle of subsidiarity and the constitutional delegation of
competences concerning spatial development to the local level. Given the legally binding
multi-level intergovernmental agreement, the municipalities were able to act as managing
authorities. Therefore, Vienna and Graz were in the position to implement EU programmes
largely on their own, involvement of the federal authorities was very limited.
However, concerning inner-city relationships, EU programmes represented the opportunity
for weaker districts to gain influence and funding resources. Thus EU programmes
16
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
contributed to the change of traditional renewal strategies which favoured districts according
to their political clout. In Graz Wolffhardt et al. find evidence for an increasing commitment
of the planning department to involve district authorities, especially under URBAN II.
With regard to community participation, Wolffhardt et al. suggest that both cities interpreted
the goal of partnership mainly as individual citizen participation. However, Wolffhardt et al.
present different results in the two case study areas.
Given the structural arrangements of EU programmes elaborated above, participation of
citizens in Vienna remained limited. Especially in current programmes the authors identify
severe problems. Under URBAN I Vienna established a comprehensive neighbourhood
advisory council deciding upon all major projects and serving as a platform for the exchange
of information. The council was composed of representatives from public authorities and
representatives from the local residence. Hence, the EU helped to create new networks
between different actors. Even though this new form of citizen involvement was carried over
in a non-EU financed project, the involved actors failed to translate this into the current
URBAN II and Objective 2 programmes situated in other parts of the city. The main reasons
for this, as explained by Wolffhardt et al., are a lack of understanding and commitment of
responsible actors. According to the authors, in Vienna permanent citizen involvement was
never envisaged by the administrative actors. However, in sum the area-based EU
programmes act as potential catalyst and opportunity for testing innovative participation
models.
In Graz Wolffhardt et al. find evidence for a wide-ranging consultation process and a strong
emphasis on communication during the implementation process. Furthermore, small-scale
projects put money into the hands of citizen initiatives providing citizens with considerable
decision-making power. The important know-how in terms of network-building gained under
URBAN I was successfully translated into URBAN II.
Due to these differences between Vienna and Graz, Wolffhardt et al. suggest that the extent of
community participation significantly depends on the inviting gestures of the local authorities
and the assertive behaviour towards public authorities.
17
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Furthermore, EU programmes provided cities with the opportunity to participate in transnational networks, which represent the framework of policy learning and a platform for
information exchange. Furthermore, such networks can be used to shape the city’s position
within the European urban system. Vienna, for example, makes use of ITERREG in order to
enhance cross-boarder regeneration development and co-operation. In this respect the goal of
the city is to play a distinctive role vis-à-vis central and eastern European countries.
Apart from trans-national networks as frameworks for policy learning, Wolffhardt et al.
provide evidence for policy learning in Graz resulting from the implementation of URBAN.
Urban policy in Graz before URBAN was mainly centred on planning based on individual
projects and concepts. URBAN created the incentive to start thinking in broader terms
enhancing the development of cross-sectoral partnerships. Furthermore the programme
provided Graz with the opportunity to participate in best practice exchanges via loose
networks of cities across Europe.
Even though the partnerships established under URBAN were not transferred into URBAN II,
Wolffhardt et al. provide evidence for policy learning in Vienna as well. Thanks to URBAN,
Vienna adopted a strategic and programmatic orientation in urban policy. However, with
regard to community participation, which was fostered by URBAN to an unprecedented
extent, Vienna failed to translate the new achievements into URBAN II. According to
Wolffhardt et al., this points to a lack of a systematic use of the new models provided by EU
programmes.
These differences between Vienna and Graz led Wolffhardt et al. to the conclusion that EU
programmes do not force cities to Europeanisation; it is rather a matter of “Europeanisation
by choice” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 43). In the case of Graz, the city shares the policy goals
of the EU and therefore it uses the institutional misfit to shape its government arrangements.
Hence, Graz illustrates that an institutional misfit of governance structures and EU
requirements can lead to a wide-ranging change. Vienna, in contrast to Graz, illustrates the
case of a policy and an institutional misfit which led to a vocal resistance against proposed
changes. Moreover, the city is engaged with Europe in order to prevent EU regulation
perceived as a threat to the policy tradition.
18
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Wolffhardt et al. identify several reasons for the differences between Graz and Vienna, which
can be summarized in the statement “the local context matters”. Local formal and informal
rules and norms determine the impact of EU programmes on urban governance. Wolffhardt et
al. point out that constitutional allocations of jurisdictional powers among tiers of governance
as well as organisational structures of municipal actors are the strongest formal determinants.
With regard to informal rules and norms, they emphasise the dominant political culture
influencing the extent and success of civil society participation.
With regard to Vienna, Wolffhardt et al. point out a “statist” local political culture
characterised by a social democratic dominance aiming to maintain a local welfare state
providing services and collective goods. Therefore, according to the authors, the
implementation of URBAN in Vienna is marked by neo-corporatist patterns characteristic for
the whole political system in Austria. In Graz however, the openness of decision-makers
within the administrative system and their support of the voluntary sector participation shaped
the modes of implementation significantly. This openness points to a political culture marked
by a notion of civic engagement and democratic transparency.
Additionally, Wolffhardt et al., emphasise the differences between large and medium-sized
cities comparing Vienna and Graz. While Vienna is a large European city with 1.550.000
inhabitants, Graz compromises only 225.000 inhabitants. Graz exemplifies resource-related
problems faced by medium-sized cities. A main difference in Graz in comparison to Vienna is
that the size of the programmes for the medium-sized city is relatively high (Wolffhardt et al.
2005a). Almost all efforts to support disadvantaged areas are channelled through EU
programmes.
Applying the concept of Europeanisation elaborated by Marshall, Wolffhardt et al. also
analyse the different modes of EU involvements of cities and the motivational factors behind
the EU engagement of the cities. Drawing from empirical evidence of the case studies,
Wolffhardt et al. differentiate between two sets of factors shaping EU engagement of cities:
ƒ
motivational factors referring to interests, preferences and objectives of the cities
ƒ
intermediate factors mediating effects on the motivational factors; this refers to structural
pre-conditions determining boundaries and opportunities for EU related actions.
19
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Wolffhardt et al. identify five motivational factors:
ƒ
According to the study the motivation of Graz was strongly shaped by Europe as a
“helping hand” providing financial and conceptual resources (Wolffhardt et al 2005a: 34).
Hence, Europe is considered a “…problem solver (…) [and] source of innovation”
providing support for socio-economic restructuring (Wolffhardt et al 2005a: 33). This,
however, is particularly important for restructuring industrial cities, while Vienna fully
bears out this underlying nexus.
ƒ
For Vienna a significant motivational factor was to reshape its profile within the European
urban system aiming to become an east-west turntable. The ambition of Graz to gain the
European Capital of Culture label is also categorised under this motivational factor
considering the EU “as means for profiling and identity building” (Wolffhardt et al.
2005a: 34).
ƒ
Cities such as Vienna with a strong tradition of public provision of municipal services
consider liberalising EU regulations as a threat for their local social delivery system. As a
reaction to this threat, Vienna is striving for a leading position among cities supporting the
anti-liberal stance.
ƒ
In the case of Austrian cities, EU programmes can be considered a compensation for the
lack of national urban policy. Wolffhardt et al. subsume this motivational factor under the
label of “Europe as alternative: EU engagement to overcome the domestic context”
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 36)
ƒ
Last but not least, cities are able to develop EU-related competences due to the
confrontation with EU norms and policies through domestic rules assigning to them codecision or implementation competences through the process of EU integration. Hence,
Europe can be considered a “duty”. In this case, cities are forced to develop capacities to
implement EU norms and regulations. This is most visible in Vienna due to its status as
federal province.
Additionally to the motivational factors, Wolffhardt et al. developed three intermediate
factors:
ƒ
Especially at the formative stage of EU related activities, key persons, so-called agencies,
play a distinctive role. In this respect, Wolffhardt et al refer to officials at the planning
department in Graz who recognized the potential of EU programmes early on. The same is
true for officials in Vienna using the opportunity of INTERREG cross-boarder cooperations. Based on their decisions, administrative structures capable to deal with EU
20
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
programmes are developed and “European awareness” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 38) is
build.
ƒ
Even more important in the Austrian case is the factor size shaping the cities’ EU
engagement. Wolffhardt et al. emphasise the importance of the size of a city, which is
reflected in the capacities of its political-administrative system determining the sort of EU
engagement of a city. Graz, a medium-sized city with only 225.000 inhabitants, envisaged
a considerable impact of URBAN since half of the funding directed to Austria was
available for Graz. For Vienna, the factor size worked the other way round. Given the
relatively small size of the programme, officials in Vienna treated the programme as sidethought of the overall urban agenda. Furthermore, the size of the city determines its
engagement within trans-national networks. Given the marginal impact of Graz as a
medium-sized city within the concert of large European cities, Graz decided to leave all
interest representation to the Austrian Association of Cities and the federal province of
Styria (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a).
ƒ
Moreover, the role or position of cities and municipalities within the domestic political
system significantly influence the city’s pattern of involvement with the EU. In this
respect, Wolffhardt et al. mainly refer to “constitutional (or quasi-constitutional)
arrangements, domestic laws and domestic politics” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 38). Vienna,
for instance, benefits from its role as a federal province, whereas Graz enjoys relatively
more autonomy within the Austrian federalism than cities in more unitary states.
Following their empirical findings, Wolffhardt et al. developed a “preliminary typology” of
Europeanised cities, which will be presented below. However, the ideal types are not
necessarily matched by the case study cities. The first type is the “profiling, self-styled EuroPlayer” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 39) defining itself as a leader of European integration from
below. Those cities are active in networks and aim to increase their influence on the EU level.
According to Wolffhardt et al., Vienna is the most obvious case of this type of city. For the
second type, the “restructuring client city” (Wolffhardt et al 2005a: 40), the support of EU
programmes is most important. However, none of the Austrian cities is characterised as client
city. Thirdly, the “policy experimenter” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 40) draws mainly from the
EU as a source of innovation and tool of modernisation. Therefore, they take full advantage of
EU norms such as partnership, which results in changing patterns of governance. According
to the authors, Graz can be considered a prototype for a policy experimenter.
21
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Concluding their study, Wolffhardt et al. raise the question of how far Europeanisation goes.
In order to analyse the extent of Europeanisation in the case studies, they adopt the
categorisation of Börtzel, who differentiates between inertia, absorption, accommodation and
transformation.
In the Austrian case studies URBAN led, according to the authors, to an absorption. This
means the cities incorporated EU requirements into their institutions and policies; hence, the
degree of change is relatively low.
Furthermore, in Vienna Wolffhardt et al. identify a process of accommodation defined as
adapting existing processes, policies and institutions without changing core features and
collective understandings. This has also only a modest impact, illustrated in Vienna by the
fact that EU norms failed to become part of the overall policy approach.
The term transformation refers to a replacement of existing policies, process and institutions
according to EU requirements. In this case the degree of urban change is high. Graz,
according to Wolffhardt et al. represents the only case of transformation.
According to Wolffhardt et al. national and local institutions and policy traditions shape the
implementation of EU programmes leading to a Europeanisation with national colours.
Hence, Europeanisation does not lead to a convergence across Europe.
2.1.4 Conclusion
Concerning success and failure, the reviewed literature provides different results.
Ferstl and Krammer point out economic and social successes of the projects. Ferstl finds
evidence for a successful implementation in Graz since URBAN contributed to an
amelioration of the living standard in the targeted area as well as beyond and created about
532 new jobs (Ferstl 2004: 279). Furthermore, according to him, it contributed to the creation
of a political consciousness concerning urban problems and mobilised significant financial
resources. Moreover, following Ferstl, URBAN contributed to a capacity building of the local
administration. As Ferstl, Krammer analysing URBAN in Vienna emphasises the
amelioration of the living standards in the targeted area stating that URBAN did not led to
gentrification but rather contributed to an incumbent upgrading carried by local actors.
22
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
However, Wolfhardt et al. are more critical about the implementation of URBAN, especially
in Vienna, focussing on the process of Europeanisation. The study of Wolffhardt et al.
suggests that not only the national, but also the local context matters. While URBAN played a
significant role in Graz, according to their study, in Vienna the effects of URBAN deflagrated
since they were not translated into URBAN II (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a). In this respect, they
stress the importance of the city’s size. Moreover, the findings in Graz provide evidence that
institutional misfit in combination with policy fit can lead to a wide-ranging change of
patterns of governance.
Hence, on the basis of the identified literature it is difficult to say how significant URBAN
was in Austria. The reviewed readings suggest that due to the high degree of autonomy of
cities within the federal system in Austria the local context has a more significant impact than
the national context.
23
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.2 France
Bibliography
Bourdellon, Bertille (2005): L'européanisation des systèmes d'action locale: la traduction du
programme d'initiative communautaire Urban sur le site de Clichy sous Bois Montfermeil. Mémoire
de fin d'études 2004-2005. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7
(last access 31.05.2006).
Gayton, Romain (2005): L’application du programme d’initiative communautaire URBAN I. Mater
II Mention Droit public et sciences politiques + Spécialité Droit public et politiques des
territoires, Faculté de droit, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne.
Godayer, Lucie (2002): Le Programme d'initiative communautaire Urban. Quand la politique de la
ville devient europèenne. Etude du Pic Urban de l'agglomération Grenobloise, Séminaire Habitat et
Société 2001-2002. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7
(last access 31.05.06).
Harburger, Sylvie (2002): Programme communautaire ‘Urban’. L'exception française? In: Revue
Urbanisme, No 326, 21-22.
Harburger, Sylvie (2004): L’Union européenne sur la voie du renouvellement urbain? In: Revue
Urbanisme, No 336, 20-22.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System,
Aldershot: Ashgate.
2.2.1 Introduction
We have identified six articles on URBAN in France. Two of them are conference reports
rather than academic articles written by an important urban actor involved in the
implementation process of URBAN (Harburger 2002, 2004) and published in the French
“Revue Urbanisme”. The other four titles are academic studies. The one by Tofarides is a
comparative case study, which scrutinises, among other things, URBAN in France and was
published as a monograph. The others are Master theses, one of them unpublished (Gayton
2005), analysing URBAN in Grenoble (Godayer 2002), in St. Etienne (Gayton 2005) and in
Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil (Bourdellon 2005).
24
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Methods
Since the studies focus on different issues, they apply different concepts and analytical
frames. Tofarides, focussing on governance structures and participation, adopts the concept of
“extended gatekeeping”. This concept, developed by Ian Bache (Bache 1996), mainly refers
to the attempt of national governments to maintain control over policy processes. Bache
adopted the concept of gatekeeping from Intergovernmentalism in order to conceptualise the
role of national central governments in the implementation of European policy measures. The
concept of “extended gatekeeping” aims to assess the role of central government at all
different stages of the process and levels of governance (Bache 1996). Additionally, Tofarides
adopts this concept in order to analyse the extent to which URBAN enhanced community
participation beyond the actors who were already involved in regeneration programmes.
Bourdellon applies the model of public policy organisation of March and Olsen, called
“Modele de la poubelle”, model of the bin, in order to scrutinise the organisational framework
of URBAN in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil (Bourdellon 2005: 95). This model is
composed of four elements: the problem, window of opportunity, the solution and the actors.
Conflicts emerge due to the fact that actors do not immediately know which role they have to
play within the process and due to the evolution of roles according to certain circumstances.
Gayton uses the concept of Europeanisation as an analytical framework in order to analyse
successes and failures of URBAN in St Etienne. He concentrates not only on patterns of
governance but, furthermore, scrutinises the social and economic effects of URBAN projects
in detail. He also touches upon the issue of community participation. As does Gayton,
Godayer uses the concept of Europeanisation to analyse the impact of the EU urban policy on
the domestic “Politique de la Ville” (Godayer 2002).
Besides the different objectives, concepts and analytical frameworks, the methodology of the
studies are similar. All of them scrutinise EU documents, local URBAN dossiers and
interviews with relevant local, national and EU actors.
The four academic studies will be elaborated in more detail below.
Cases
French cities under scrutiny are Grenoble (Godayer 2001/2002), Marseille (Tofarides 2003),
Paris (Bourdellon 2005) and St Etienne (Gayton 2005).
25
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
City
URBAN Programmes
Studies
Grenoble
URBAN II
Godayer 2002
Marseille
URBAN I
Tofarides 2003
Paris (Clichy-sous-Bois & Montfermeil)
URBAN I & II
Bourdellon 2005
St Etienne
URBAN I
Gayton 2005
(Enchirolle)
2.2.2 Main Issues of the Debate
In contrast to the academic research in other EU countries – in the UK for instance –, where
the debate is mainly focussed on the governance issue, it is not possible to identify one
dominant issue of URBAN research in France. The four academic studies reviewed are very
different. While Tofarides focuses on the patterns of implementation of URBAN I,
Bourdellon analyses the implementation of URBAN I and II in Clichy-sous-Bois and
Montfermeil, which allows him to scrutinise whether the local actors were able to translate
experiences from the first into the second URBAN programme. Gayton elaborates on the
concrete social and economic results of the programme and Godayer deals with the impact of
URBAN on domestic urban policy.
However, all of them present similar results concerning the issue of Europeanisation, which
will be elaborated on in the following.
Governance
Almost all studies explicitly or implicitly touch upon the issue of governance. Even though
adopting different perspectives, all researchers draw the conclusion that URBAN France
largely failed to enhance change of governance structures – from a hierarchical government to
a more horizontal pattern of governance – on the urban level. In this respect the authors of the
studies almost exclusively refer to the range of actors involved in URBAN. Only Tofarides
touches upon the issue of an integrative approach, stating that Marseille failed to realise an
integrative approach due to the fact that URBAN was carved up by different groups of
interest (Tofarides 2003).
In all case study areas URBAN was implemented through governance structures dominated
by the state while excluding local residents (Bourdellon 2005, Gayton 2005, Tofarides 2003).
Tofarides, focussing on participation as one aspect of the governance issue, finds evidence for
26
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
an extended gatekeeping role of the central government, affecting especially the selection
process for URBAN. In the following process of formulation and implementation of the
programme, the municipality was the dominant actor (Tofarides 2003). Several problems
arose from the fact that the district mayors of the URBAN areas belonged to another party and
had other ideas about urban policy than the mayor of the city of Marseille (Tofarides 2003).
In St Etienne, Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, the Prefecture, who is nominated by the
national government, dominated the URBAN programme (Bourdellon 2005, Gayton 2005).
Gayton shows that in St Etienne the whole programme was enhanced and controlled by more
or less one person, the Prefect of St Etienne (Gayton 2005). This operationalisation of
URBAN, described by local deputies as very efficient, did not correspond to the principles of
URBAN. In contrast to Tofarides, Gayton finds evidence for changing patterns of governance
in St Etienne at the end of URBAN I. However, he suggests that URBAN was only one factor
contributing to this change. More important were the elections of new deputes (see below).
Bourdellon is explicitly concerned with the issue of governance since, according to him, the
central idea of URBAN, its horizon and its conceptual framework, is governance. He defines
governance as a large partnership between the public and the private sector and the different
layers of power. Comparing URBAN I and II, he identifies an attempt to manage URBAN II
in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil in a more integrative and participatory manner.
However, the therefore created institutions did not manage to break with traditional structures
and the behaviour of local state actors. Since the state actors largely refused to cede power to
these newly created institutions, the latter could not play a significant role. Therefore, even
under URBAN II, the prefecture de facto held the power of decision.
Summarising, all studies suggest that URBAN largely failed to enhance changes in patterns of
governance in France, which might be due to the dominance of the French state. In this
respect the pre-existing urban programmes under the umbrella of the “Politique de la Ville”
seem to be of importance. All researchers emphasise that UBRAN was implemented upon the
pre-existing structures, representing an additional resource. Within the frame of the “Politique
de la Ville”, the French state played a dominant role. One reason for state dominance within
the URBAN programme in France was this pre-existing structure.
27
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Community Participation
Another issue touched upon by all studies is community participation. Some, like Tofarides
and Godayer, explicitly refer to community participation, Gayton only implicitly touches
upon this issue, emphasising the significant role of the Prefect for URBAN in St Etienne.
Furthermore, concerning the degree of community participation, the results of the studies
differ depending on their definition of participation. All authors define community as local
residents whereas the definition of participation differs. While Tofarides defines participation
as involvement in decision-making processes, Godayer refers to participation with respect to
issues of communication and transparency of political decisions.
Given the definition of participation as involvement in decision-making processes, Tofarides
suggests that URBAN in Marseille failed to provide community participation due to the fact
that URBAN was implemented through existing structures allowing for a gatekeeping role of
the state. The formal structures of the URBAN formulation as well as implementation process
excluded local residents. In this respect Tofarides points to the high percentage of immigrants
living in the target areas who are not allowed to vote. Given this, the implementation of
URBAN by the Municipality of Marseille is highly problematic because those who were
supposed to obtain URBAN were not able to participate in the democratic process, hence had
no influence on the whole programme (Tofarides 2003). The situation in the other case study
areas seems to be similar given the predominant role of the Prefecture referred to above
(Gayton 2005, Godayer 2002, Bourdellon 2005). Similar to Tofarides, Bourdellon emphasises
the fact that the main power rested in the hands of the bearer of democratic power.
According to Godayer’s analysis, URBAN in Grenoble enforced the principle of
participation, already existing within the domestic urban programme “Politique de la Ville”.
The difference between her analysis and those of the other researchers seems to arise from her
differing definition of participation. Participation is related to issues of communication and
transparency of political decisions. Furthermore, the studies explicitly referring to
participation also touch upon the problem of representation. In this context, Tofarides defines
the term “community gatekeeping” with respect to the case of Marseille. Already established
groups, “Comités d’interêt de Quartier (CIQ)”, claimed to represent the interests of the
neighbourhood. However, following Tofarides, there are problems of representation related to
the restrictive membership of CIQs, which is operated through a system of invitation and final
28
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
selection by existing members of each CIQ. Statements of local residents, according to which
a typical representative of a CIQ is white, European and middle aged, are confirmed by
officials involved at the grass roots level (Tofarides 2003: 232). Furthermore, established
groups enjoy recognition and financial resources allowing them to play an extended
gatekeeping role. There is no evidence that URBAN promoted wider participation among the
target groups of the programme.
Similar to Tofarides, Bourdellon differentiates between associations and local residents. He
identifies a dense structure of associations and an institutionalised co-operation between the
city and so-called semi-public associations in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil. As semipublic he defines long existing associations financed by the state. These associations were the
principal beneficiaries of the URBAN funds. However, besides projects for democracy,
participation and citizenship, there was no stable partnership with the inhabitants of the target
area. Moreover, there was no direct contact between the local residents and the elected
representatives of the local government (Bourdellon 2005).
2.2.3 Selected Case Studies
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper
System
Tofarides seeks to explore the growing involvement of the European Commission in urban
policy comparing US federal urban policy with EU urban programmes. The empirical part of
her study focuses on London and Marseille and emphasises the issue of community
participation. In the following, the focus will be on the French case study referring to
Marseille.
The focus of Tofarides’ study is the structural arrangement of the delivery of URBAN in
Marseille dealing with patterns of governance and community participation.
With regard to the patterns of governance she applies Bache’s notion of extended gatekeeping
to the role of the central authorities in the implementation process of URBAN in Marseille.
This notion refers to the role of the national government at all stages of the implementation
process across all levels of government. According to Tofarides, France remains a unitary
state and the central government played a significant role in the implementation of URBAN.
Therefore this concept is suitable to analyse the patterns of implementation of URBAN.
29
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Referring to fit and misfit between pre-existing structures and EU requirements, Tofarides
emphasises the existing arrangements of the “Contrat de Ville” determining the
implementation of URBAN. When the EU programme was launched in 1994, in France urban
policy was already integrated in a contractual system, the “Contrat de Ville” and the “Contrat
de Plan”. Marseille signed this contract for the first time in 1990. The main actors in this
contract were the state (national government) and the municipalities. The aim of the “Contrat
de Ville” was to promote citizenship. The principle of grassroots participation was supposed
to be realised through a project leader based in the targeted neighbourhood.
The administrative procedures for URBAN in France were largely based on the existing
structures of the “Contrat de Ville” which allowed the central government to play a
gatekeeping role. The patterns of implementation of URBAN are characterised by a
dominance of the French state. The selection process of URBAN projects was monopolised
by the central government due to the fact that the French state as chair of the Monitoring
Committee was responsible for the overall implementation of URBAN. Furthermore, during
the implementation of URBAN, central government departments played a gatekeeping role.
This was partly a result of the financial weakness of French regions, which led to a
dependence on the “Contrat de Ville” providing match-funding even within URBAN
programmes.
To a certain extent Marseille represents an exception because the empirical findings presented
by Tofarides suggest that Marseille’s bids for URBAN originated in grassroots. Project
leaders employed by the municipality contacted the DG XVI directly in order to promote their
application. However, the final negotiations, actually deciding about which cities were to be
awarded URBAN in France, took place between the Commission and the central government.
During the selection process several conflicts between the central government and local
authorities arose. While the state wanted to ensure that funds go to areas in which the French
state invested heavily, the Municipality and the Mayor of Marseille favoured the centre of the
city, which was in line with its strategy to make Marseille more attractive to potential tourists
and investors. Therefore, the state and the Commission joint an alliance supporting St
Mauront, an area most in need. Even though Mauront formed the basis of the bids bringing
URBAN to Marseille, the low political salience of the district resulted in the neglected
delivery of URBAN in the targeted area. In this respect Tofarides emphasises that URBAN in
Marseille fell victim to the presidential and municipal elections making the selection a
30
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
process of high political salience. The Mayor of Marseille with his councillors and officials
represented the City Marseille in the local delivery of URBAN.
The pre-dominant role of the French state was further strengthened due to the fact that the
Mayor of Marseille was also President of the Region Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur and
minister in the national government. Following Meńy, Tofarides points out that there are only
a few democratic countries where so much power is concentrated in the hands of only a few
individuals. Although local councillors considered these implementation structures efficient in
preventing conflicts between the region and the city, Tofarides emphasises the problems of
community participation resulting from these policy patterns.
The project leaders involved in the implementation of URBAN were under direct control of
the mayor. The Mayor of Marseille had a place on the Monitoring Committee; however, a
mayor who is also a leading national politician was unlikely to appear at such meetings in
person. The attendance at the Advisory Committee was generally delegated to one of the
technical services of the municipality and the MIPPE3, which briefed the councillors. Within
the implemented system the mayor or one of his councillors represented the residents of the
city as a whole. There was also little opportunity for opposition councillors to deflect a
programme from the line taken by the ruling majority. Furthermore, except for presenting
local demands to the central administration of the municipality, the district mayors based in
the targeted areas had no influence on the decision-making process. There was no dialogue
between the district mayors and the Commission. This is of particular importance in so far as
most of the district mayors did not belong to the governing majority.
According to Tofarides, the formal management and administration procedures of URBAN
excluded local residents and associations. They were not included in the formal partnerships
established for the delivery of URBAN. Any input would be through established channels of
local democracy and state interaction with interest groups. Given the high percentage of
immigrants unable to vote in the areas of URBAN, the pre-dominance of state authorities is
highly problematic. URBAN was aimed at deprived areas where certain parts of the
population were not able to participate in the democratic processes as they were not holding
French citizenship. Therefore Tofarides puts particular emphasis on the mechanisms and
3
Mission des programmes privés et européens (Department of the Municipality of Marseille with responsibility
for private and European programmes)
31
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
procedures through which local residents were able to channel their demands. Formal
procedures reveal several mechanisms by which residents and local associations could
channel their demands to the Mayor. However, a closer examination reveals problems of
reaching non-established groups. Consultation and participation was closely integrated into
the existing system for the national urban policy, which mostly centred on the work of the
project leaders. However, despite the initial consultation by the project leaders in order to
prepare the bid for URBAN, there is no evidence for any further discussion concerning
URBAN projects. The interaction was limited to the project leader who would then
communicate with the specialist services in the MIPPE. Since the latter was under control of
the Mayor’s entrusted officials, there was the possibility of filtering in order to adjust the
projects to the priorities of local politicians.
Notwithstanding the overall exclusion of the local community, according to Tofarides, the
phenomenon of community gatekeeping also occurred in Marseille. Already established
groups, Comites d’interet de Quartier (CIQ), claimed to represent the interests of the
neighbourhood. They consisted of local residents and associations, originally implemented by
the former Mayor of Marseille in order to improve the communication between residents and
elected officials. However, it is questionable to which extent these groups represented the
interests of the local residents. According to Tofarides, there are problems of representation
related to the restrictive membership of CIQs, which is operated through a system of
invitation and final selection by existing members of each CIQ. Statements of local residents,
according to which a typical representative of a CIQ is white, European and middle aged, are
confirmed by officials involved at the grassroots level (Tofarides 2003, 232). Hence, there is
evidence that the membership is not open to all members of the local community.
Furthermore, established groups enjoy recognition and financial resources allowing them to
play an extended gatekeeping role. There is no evidence that URBAN promoted wider
participation among targeted recipients of the programme.
With regard to community gatekeeping, Tofarides also refers to funding responsibilities that
excluded smaller organisations. Match-funding, emanating from partners involved in the
contractual process, would only be released by regional and local authorities following
deliberation and agreement in the respective regional and municipal councils. No allowance
was made to smaller CIs such as URBAN. Smaller organisations would have to seek bank
32
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
loans. There was no adjustment to facilitate the process for smaller organisations seeking
access to funding.
Besides hinting at the fact that the aim of participation was not achieved by URBAN in
Marseille, Tofarides also suggests that an integrative approach is lacking. Tofarides finds
evidence that URBAN was “carved up” by various parties to represent their own interests.
Furthermore, each actor was dealing with his or her own specific area.
The pre-exiting regeneration programmes caused further problems in so far as the different
schemes were not well co-ordinated. According to the Suer Report of 1998 quoted by
Tofarides, there is evidence for a confusion of the different approaches of the different
programmes.
In sum, according to Tofarides, there is no evidence for a Europeanisation of urban policy in
Marseille.
Gayton, Romain (2005): L’application du programme d’initiative communautaire URBAN I
Using the concept of Europeanisation as an analytical framework, Gayton analyses success
and failure of URBAN in St Etienne concentrating not only on patterns of governance but
also scrutinising the social and economic effects of URBAN projects.
Gayton focuses on URBAN I in St Etienne which is situated in the west of the region “RhoneAlpes”. Although it is situated within one of the most dynamic regions since the 1970s, St
Etienne faces an industrial decline going hand in hand with a shrinking population, suburbanisation and segregation within the city. Moreover, according to Gayton, the city seems
to be detached from the developments of the region. The district chosen to participate in
URBAN was Montreynaud, one of the greatest beneficiaries of national help during the last
ten years. Large parts of the population in this district came from Marais, a district that was
closed down in 1982. The population coming from Marais is dominated by a heterogeneous
immigrant population, which lost all structural elements due to the closing of their original
district. Therefore Montreynaud was an area in crisis from scratch. A further disadvantage of
the district lies in its distraction form the city centre as a result of an industrial area situated
in-between.
33
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In a first step, Gayton analyses the economic results such as credits and expenditures to draw
a statistical overview of the project realisation. According to his analysis, the budget of
URBAN in Montreynaud, compared to the other projects in France, is small (16, 7 millions in
comparison to Lyon with a budget of 26, 6 millions). Considering the small financial budget,
the outcomes to be expected from URBAN programmes are restricted. Furthermore, the
administrative level mostly affected, the region, contributed almost nothing, indicating a lack
of interest. Montreynaud joined URBAN in 1997; however, at the end of the year, no
initiative was launched – hence St Etienne demanded a reduction of the credits. Due to the
incapacity to use the whole available sums, the budget was reduced to 2/3. According to
Gayton, until the end of 2001, only 1/3 of the project had been realised.
In a second step, Gayton analyses the concrete social and economic results of the URBAN I
projects in St Etienne. Besides the failure to use the available sums, Gayton finds evidence for
some successful social and economic projects. A chief aspect of URBAN I in St Etienne is
city planning. However, some of the projects with a rather physical character had, according
to the author, social effects ameliorating the living conditions in the area. In this respect,
according to Gayton, URBAN I contributed to a shift in the image of the area. Moreover,
these projects signalised the local residents that the politicians are interested in their everyday
problems. The re-grouping of three textile enterprises led to a reconstruction of the industrial
facilities and a diversification of economic activity, which helped to create employment and
contributed to the continuity of the enterprise. Furthermore, some small-scale projects
encouraged inhabitants to set up their own small factories. All in all, URBAN I contributed to
the creation of 389 jobs (Gayton 2005: 60).
The third objective of Gayton’s analysis concerns the structures of implementation and the
patterns of participation of URBAN I. As to these issues, he suggests that URBAN I failed to
deliver European principles such as partnership and an integrative approach. URBAN I in St
Etienne was formulated only by one person, the prefect of the city. Neither the municipality
nor private or community actors were involved. Furthermore, URBAN was objective to a
high degree of departmentalism. The Prefect moderated between the different departments,
which enforced his position to control the whole process. The process of implementation
followed the same mode as the formulation process.
34
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
The role of the prefect was further enhanced due to the fact that he was the only one having
experiences with EU funding facilities. Besides the lack of knowledge and experience of
municipal actors with EU funding, according to Gayton, the existence of several national
regeneration programmes is another reason for the lack of interest of the municipality.
In addition, Gayton suggests a lack of co-ordination of URBAN with national policies, which
prevented the emergence of a consistent urban development strategy. Moreover, he finds
evidence for underdeveloped relations between urban actors.
Given these structures, the mechanisms of Europeanisation failed in St Etienne, which was
mainly due to the lack of actors participating in the project. URBAN I did not succeed in
changing these patterns. However, the end of URBAN I corresponds with significant changes
in the policy structure of St Etienne. According to Gayton, URBAN was only one factor
leading to these changes. More important, he suggests, were the elections of new deputes of
the municipality. They were able to distinguish themselves from the older deputies via urban
policy, which led to an increasing interest in urban issues. Furthermore, the awareness of the
lack of urban policy grew when St Etienne was rejected to participate in URBAN II. This
enforced the creation of a “Great Project of the City” (GPV), which represents a first step
towards partnership even though it is still limited to state services and other collectives; local
residents are not involved.
All in all, according to Gayton’s study, St Etienne – apart from a few social and economic
improvements – is an example for a failed URBAN programme.
Bourdellon, Bertille (2005): L’Europeanisation des systemes d’action locale : La traduction
du Programme d’Inititive Communautaire URBAN sur le site de Clichy-sous-Bois et
Montfermeil
Bourdellon analyses the implementation of URBAN I and II in Clichy-sous-Bois and
Montfermeil – situated in the east of Paris at the outskirts of the agglomeration – from the
perspective of political sociology. Since the area is surrounded by motorways, it is isolated
from the rest of the city. Furthermore, it is not directly connected to the Paris rail system
(RER), which increases its isolation. The district itself consists of many separate quarters
without connections. The two departments share similar economic and social problems and
they are connected by a huge housing complex. The reason for choosing these cases is the
35
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
participation of Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil in URBAN I and II. This enables
Bourdellon to analyse whether Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil were able to translate
experiences from URBAN I into URBAN II.
According to Bourdellon, the central idea of URBAN, its horizon and its conceptual
framework, is governance, which he defines as a large partnership between the public and the
private sector and the different layers of power. Therefore he scrutinises the organisational
framework of URBAN in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil. In order to do so, Bourdellon
applies the model of public policy organisation of March and Olsen, called “Modele de la
poubelle”, model of the bin (Bourdellon 2005: 95). This model is composed of four elements:
the problem, window of opportunity, the solution and the actors. Conflicts emerge due to the
fact that actors do not immediately know which role they have to play within the process and
due to the evolution of roles according to certain circumstances.
For the mode of implementation of URBAN in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montefermeil, the preexistence of domestic programmes was very important. The two areas were treated by
national politicians as examples for the “Politique de la Ville” to demonstrate their interest in
the so-called banlieus. Since this was also picked up by the media, Clichy-sous-Bois and
Montfereil gained nationwide attention. Given this situation, any local politician had to focus
on urban policy in order to succeed in local elections. The two local authorities profited from
the national attention gaining relatively more financial resources than other deprived areas in
France. Therefore local political actors already had their own ideas about urban policy, which
made it very difficult for non-state actors to propose projects to the local authorities.
According to Bourdellon, this is the reason why URBAN followed the path of the “Politique
de la Ville”, losing its particular European elements such as community partnership and an
integrative approach.
The prefecture was also responsible for the preparation and the instruction of the dossier, had
to reunify the programme committees and to organise the evaluation of the programme
(Bourdellon 2005, 82). The sous-prefecture, who controlled the operationalisation of the
programme, acted as a hinge between the territorial administration, represented in the
“Communaute d’Agglomeration“, and the state administration.
36
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Besides the differences between the French urban policies and URBAN, Bourdellon also hints
at important differences between URBAN I and II in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil. The
most important difference lay in the fact that URBAN I had been implemented as two
different projects in the two territories, while under URBAN II Clichy-sous-Bois and
Montfermeil were integrated into one target area. Since the 1960s the two districts share the
history of a big housing complex connecting them. Furthermore, they share the geographical,
economic and social exclusion. However, the attempts to merge the two areas were rare; only
at the end of the 1990s, the “Etablissement Public de Cooperation Intercommunale (EPCI)”
was set up. However, its competencies and resources were very limited. Even today the power
lies predominantly at the city level. The situation was even more intricate as the two mayors
were in conflict with each other. This led to a situation, in which the EPCI was used as an
intergovernmental level with each party maintaining control over its own territory. Bourdellon
emphasises the fact that the main power rested in the hands of the holder of democratic
power. This is one reason why the „Communauté d’Agglomeration” was not able to install
itself as an accountable body. The fact that the two local authorities launched the payment for
URBAN only in January 2004, even though they had the necessary money to finance
URBAN from the beginning, was another result from this competition.
However, following Bourdellon’s analysis, compared to URBAN I a development towards a
more European approach to URBAN II, with regard to the selection process for instance, can
be identified. Within the selection process for URBAN I, the „Communauté
d’Agglomeration” played only a marginal role since the elected engaged heavily in the
process. Due to these experiences, the URBAN actors demanded a competition-based process
of selection. However, even though the final selection formally lies in the hands of the
selection committee chaired by the Prefect of the region, according to Bourdellon, the
selection committee was rather a body to officially acknowledge what was already decided by
the sous-prefecture under the topic of eligibility.
Analysing the horizontal pattern of governance of URBAN in the case studies, Bourdellon
states that the European principle of partnership did not manage to give rise to a wider range
of actors involved in the programme with regard to the involvement of the private sector as
well as the participation of local residents. Given the small amount of money contributed by
private actors (2%in URBAN II, 10% in URBAN I), Bourdellons identifies a lack of private
37
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
engagement in the programme. The co-operation between the public and the private sector
was almost non-existing in the two territories, which was not improved under URBAN II.
With regard to community participation, Bourdellon differentiates between associations and
local residents. He identifies a dense structure of associations and an institutionalised cooperation between the city and so-called semi-public associations, which already exist for a
long time and which are financially supported by the state. Due to their structure, these
associations were able to develop a veritable European expertise and were the principal
beneficiaries of the URBAN funds. However, besides projects for democracy, participation
and citizenship, there was no stable partnership with the inhabitants of the target area.
Moreover, there was no direct contact between the local residents and the elected
representatives of the local government. Under URBAN II, two new associations were set up:
a secretariat of the community, in which the main co-financiers were reunified, and the
“groupe resource” uniting the different socio-economic actors. However, since these
associations were separated from the technical services, their role was very limited.
Furthermore, the association Urban France (Reseau Urban France), which represented a kind
of lever for the appropriation of European norms by acting as a platform for information and
exchange of experiences, was only accessible for the administrative staff. This exclusive
structure led to the situation that the sensitive modification of practises and values of actors,
identified by Bourdellon, are limited to the administrative staff involved in URBAN.
According to Bourdellon, URBAN enhanced new forms of co-operation between
municipalities, inter-community co-operation and regional departments. However, this new
mode of horizontal co-operation does not mean that the hierarchical structure is completely
absent.
Before the background of this participatory structure, Bourdellon summarises that the
Europeanisation of decision-making processes in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil is very
restricted.
Another obstacle to the URBAN programme was the introduction of the PRU, which
represents a great amount of money for Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil. This programme
also represents a turning point for the “Politique de la Ville”. The organisational framework
for this programme was much more centralised than the ones of URBAN and the “Politique
38
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
de la Ville”. The aspect of partnership and decentralisation was lost. Furthermore it
concentrated on housing issues. Therefore, a sectoral urban policy of the central state,
focussing on housing, seems to return. According to Bourdellon, this will re-organise the
services of the two cities with the objective “urban renovation” (Bourdellon 2005: 129).
Moreover, the programmes of GPV were abandoned in favour of the PRU. This also
perturbed URBAN since GPV was one element of the additional finances. Therefore the
financial framework of URBAN had to be modified.
Summarising the URBAN experience in Clichy-Sous-Bois and Montfermeil, Bourdellon
states that the programming of URBAN was very chaotic, the financial framework was
changed several times and the programme was confused by the implementation of PRU.
According to Bourdellon, the actors in the case study were largely driven by a strategy of
consuming funds (Bourdellon 2005: 144).
Godayer, Lucie (2002): Le Programme d’initiative communautaire URBAN: Quand la
politique de la ville devient européenne
The aim of Godayer’s study is to find out whether the European Union influences the French
urban policy via URBAN or whether the programme only represents an additional financial
resource for the French communes. In order to do so, she firstly elaborates on the objectives
and principles of the programme. In the second part of her study, Godayer analyses the
implementation of URBAN II in Grenoble. The URBAN territory of Grenoble is physically
disconnected from the rest of the agglomeration due to motorways. However, a relatively
good connection to the public transport system, its location close to the mountains and a few
parks are potential resources of the territory identified by Godayer. Another advantage,
according to the author, is the existence of a dense network of associations engaged culturally
and organising sportive events.
When URBAN was introduced in Grenoble, domestic urban policy programmes already
existed, which required to develop a territorial urban strategy tackling social and economic
exclusion. Some of the objectives of these projects can also be found in URBAN. Therefore,
local officers considered URBAN as complementing the already existing urban programmes.
One important difference between the European and the domestic programmes is that the
French projects concerned almost the whole city whereas URBAN required one specific area
to be selected. Furthermore the domestic programmes mainly supported projects focussing on
39
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the reconstruction of the public space and the renovation of accommodations. Given this
limitation of the pre-existing programmes, Godayer emphasises that the URBAN dossier
called SOLEIL (Solidarité, Egalité, Initiatives Locales) represented a new mode of urban
policy for France. In this respect, Godayer explicitly refers to the instrument of positive
discrimination in order to tackle social inequality between different social groups and the
involvement of the local residents. However, in contrast to other French URBAN areas, the
URBAN area in Grenoble, Enchirolles, is prominent for its principle of local democracy and
citizen involvement. In 1999 the municipality decided to establish a sustainable mode of
participation by introducing committees to match the life of the city (Comités de Concertation
de la Vie Locale (CCVL) institutionalising the dialogue between elected politicians,
associations and inhabitants. Therefore Godayer identifies a strong willingness of the
municipality to involve local residents. Due to the inspiration via URBAN, the “APUS Atelier
Public Urbain et Social” (mission for assistance and elaboration of urban and social projects)
was established. This organisation had no decision-making power but acted as a platform for
information: the inhabitants can inform themselves about URBAN projects, can get assistance
for the implementation of projects and have the possibility to formulate their demands and
desires concerning urban development.
The selection of the proposals for URBAN II in Grenoble was organised in a competitive
way. The municipality, acting as a contractor, was responsible for the selection.
Similar to Bourdellon, Godayer states that URBAN was integrated into the existing projects.
However, she does not speak of an infiltration of URBAN by the “Politique de la Ville”. In
contrast to other authors dealing with URBAN in France, Godayer emphasises that the
programme acted as a lever strengthening certain aspects of the “Politique de la Ville”, such
as the partnership principle, and widening the involvement of the public. Furthermore,
URBAN introduced new themes such as equality between men and women and the issue of
new information and communication technology. Another added value of URBAN in
Grenoble was, according to Godayer, the enlargement of the target area.
As the other authors dealing with URBAN in France, Godayer blames the central state for
being responsible for the fact that the French regions used only 12% of the funds accessible in
the period between 2000 and 2006 since the regions have no direct access to European
funding. This makes the procedure very complicated and long lasting discouraging local
40
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
actors to apply for EU funds. Since URBAN was the first European dossier of importance for
Grenoble, according to the author, it led to a better understanding of the functioning of the
EU. Furthermore it offered the opportunity for cross-border co-operation. Grenoble cooperated with Turin in Italy. Hence according to Godayer, URBAN was successful in
enhancing new developments.
Subsuming, Godayer stresses that URBAN was not only an additional financial resource but
had an added value for the “Politique de la Ville”.
2.2.4 Conclusion
Altogether, the identified academic studies on URBAN in France suggest that the EU
programme largely failed to promote change in patterns of urban governance. This situation
seems to be due to the mode of implementation following the existing structures of the
domestic urban policy programmes. Within the domestic framework of urban policy, the
French state plays a significant role, which led to a dominance of the state within URBAN. As
elaborated above, the reviewed literature suggests that the state dominance is one reason for
the lack of a change in the patterns of local governance. Since local state actors, as suggested
by the presented studies, did not attempt to involve a wider range of actors, the principle of
community participation was not achieved. However, as Godayer emphasised, URBAN in
Grenoble led to a more transparent mode of local policy, which she identifies as an added
value in comparison to the domestic “Politique de la Ville”. One main obstacle to the
distribution of European norms via URBAN in France was, that local actors largely
interpreted URBAN as an additional financial resource for the already existing domestic
programmes. This is why URBAN lacked its specific European principles (Bourdellon 2002,
Tofarides 2003).
However, besides the failure to change patterns of governance, Gayton finds evidence for
successful social and economic projects improving the quality of life within the target area
(Gayton 2005), which can be considered a positive outcome of URBAN.
Changes in the patterns of implementation of URBAN II were not far reaching enough to
promote substantial changes in the traditional structures and behaviours of local actors.
41
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
All in all, the reviewed literature suggests that the existence of the domestic urban policy
programmes in France represented an obstacle to the implementation of URBAN according to
its principles. On the one hand, the variety of urban programmes is one reason for the lack of
interest of local authorities visible in the relatively small part of the available sums used by
French local actors (Tofarides 2003, Gayton 2005). Furthermore, the implementation of
URBAN within the framework of the domestic programmes led to the fact, that URBAN lost
its European principles. Therefore URBAN did not lead to a distribution of European norms
and thus failed to enhance changes in patterns of urban governance.
42
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.3 Germany
Bibliography
Andree, Dörthe (2004): Europäische Stadtpolitik und lokale Maßarbeit. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung
im Rahmen Europäischer Strukturpolitik am Beispiel von Luckenwalde. Diplomarbeit am Institut für
Stadt- und Regionalplanung/ Institut für Soziologie der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Güntner, Simon (2002a): Reconciling Abstract and Lived Space? The Case of URBAN II in Berlin.
Paper presented at the EURA Conference “Urban and Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial
Government”, Turin, April 18-20, 2002.
Güntner, Simon (2002b): URBAN II in Berlin – Making Sense of Ambiguities. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon (2003): Managing Ambiguity and Contradictions – on the Mechanisms of the
Europeanisation of Local Governance. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon/ Charlotte Halpern (2006 forthcoming): From Urban Regeneration to
Neighbourhood Management – local policy change in Berlin and the role of the EU (1990-2004). In:
Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.): Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000b): La mise en œuvre du Programme d’Initiative Communitaire URBAN à
Berlin (1994-1999). Acteurs, Institutions et Processus: Trois niveaux d’analyse pour observer l’action
publique en marche. DEA sociologie politique et politiques publiques, Institut d’Etudes Politique de
Paris.
Halpern, Charlotte (2003): What is so Special about the European Integration? Focussing on the
Conditions for an External Innovation to Challenge Interests and Representations at the Local Level:
the Implementation of the Community Initiative URBAN in Berlin (1994-1999). In: Cahier Européen,
No.01/05, du pôle Ville/ métropolis/ cosmopolis, Centre d’Etudes Européennes de Sciences po
(Paris). URL: http://www.portedeurope.org/IMG/pdf/cahier_ville001.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Halpern, Charlotte (2005): Institutional change through innovation: URBAN Community Initiative
in Berlin, 1994-99. In: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol.23, 697-713.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN
at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Master Thesis in European Urbanistics,
Bauhaus University Weimar.
43
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Neuenfeldt, Henrike (2000): Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung. Eine empirische
Untersuchung zur Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der EU-Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN am
Beispiel von Bremen-Gröpelingen. Diplomarbeit, Universität Bremen.
Paulus, Sabine W. C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and
Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Social Policy,
London School of Economics and Political Science.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities. Experiences, motivations and effects on
local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen
Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities
in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
2.3.1 Introduction
Altogether we got hold of twelve articles by seven authors on URBAN in Germany. However,
only six cities were analysed: eight articles by three authors are dealing with the two URBAN
programmes in Berlin. It is conspicuous that there are nine studies written in English and only
two in German. Here, the internationality of the debate becomes particularly obvious.
The main focus of the studies is on the question which demands local and regional
administrations face with the implementation of the URBAN programme and what kind of
influences on policy approach and on governance structures result from this challenge. Some
studies also deal with the influence of the URBAN programme on national governance
(Güntner/Halpern 2004, Halpern 2003/2005, Mattiucci 2005, Paulus 2000). Another main
interest concerns the question of how cities manage URBAN requirements for community
participation (Andree 2004, Güntner 2003, Neuenfeld 2000, Mattiucci 2005, Paulus 2000,
Wolffhardt et al. 2005). Furthermore, some studies discuss the URBAN programme in
comparison to other programmes of urban renewal or the combination of both and, in this
context, raise the question in what way previous experiences with URBAN or other
programmes influenced the implementation of URBAN (Güntner/Halpern 2004, Neuenfeld
2000, Mattiucci 2005, Paulus 2000, Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
Corresponding to the pre-dominant emphasis on changing governance structures, one
analytical approach to analyse recent changes in Germany’s urban policy is that of multilevel-governance (Andree 2004, Paulus 2000, Wolffhardt et al. 2005). Paulus combines the
44
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
concept of multi-level governance with the concept of policy networks in order to analyse
participation in the context of partnerships. Neuenfeldt mainly focuses on the implementation
of participation demands (Neuenfeldt 2000). Mattiucci’s focus is on the long-term impacts
that URBAN has on local administrative processes and planning cultures (Mattiucci 2005).
Halpern bases her analysis on the dynamics resulting from the link between external
innovation and institutional change (Halpern 2003/2005). Güntner argues that the URBAN
programme is burdened with ambiguities and challenges and that their origin lies in the policy
field itself and in the programmes‘ funding logics (Güntner 2002a/b, 2003). Some authors
also relate to Kingdon’s window of opportunity concept. It argues that policy shifts emerge
from three different streams: a) problem stream, b) policy stream, and c) political stream
(Kingdon 1984, 1995) (Güntner/Halpern 2004, Halpern 2003/2005, Paulus 2000).
The predominant methods adopted are interviews with key actors at different levels of
governance as well as the analysis of documents concerning the implementation of URBAN
at the national and the local level. Halpern and Paulus also include the European level into
their analysis. Güntner’s findings are derived from a student project at Technical University
Berlin in the course of which passers-by in the programme area were also interviewed.
Cases
City
URBAN Programmes
Researcher(s)
Berlin
URBAN I & II
Güntner 2002a, 2002b, 2003
Güntner/Halpern (forthcoming)
Halpern 2000, 2003, 2005
Paulus 2000
Bremen
URBAN I
Neuenfeldt 2000
Dortmund
URBAN II
Wolffhardt et al 2005
Duisburg
URBAN I
Paulus 2000
Erfurt
URBAN I
Mattiucci 2005
Luckenwalde
URBAN II
Dörthe 2004
2.3.2 Main Issues of the Debate
Governance
One main issue of the debate on URBAN in Germany is the impact on local governance and
the dynamics resulting from EU funding regulations. At the early beginning there was
45
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
reservation towards the URBAN Initiative at the national level due to the lack of an explicit
EU mandate for urban regeneration policy which was perceived as an infringement of the
principles of subsidiarity and sovereignty. Nevertheless, the Bundesministerium für
Wirtschaft (Federal Ministry of Economy, BMWi) suggested to the federal states to draft
initial URBAN project proposals. From the fact that the management of URBAN was divided
between the BMWi – because of its expertise with ERDF-funds – and the Bundesministerium
für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau (Federal Ministry for Regional Planning,
Construction and Urban Development, BMBau) – due to its competency in urban
development – Paulus concludes that a successful cooperation and co-ordination within the
horizontal governance structures of the federal system took place.
The “Deutsches Seminar für Städtebau und Wirtschaft” (German Seminar for Urban
Development and the Economy, DSSW) – established in 1993 for the management of
economic regeneration of city centres in the New Länder – was also involved in the decisionmaking process at the national level and supplied technical support (especially for the New
Länder which were inexperienced with EU funding) for the development of the operational
programmes at the local level. Although the final approval of the URBAN programme
witnessed some delays – because of disagreements of some unsuccessful URBAN candidates
– the overall response towards the URBAN selection process at national level was positive.
As Paulus summarises: “The decision-making process was generally characterised by multilevel co-ordination and co-operation between the multiple actors in the BMWi, the DSSW,
the BMBau, the Länder and the cities”. Especially “personal commitment and close cooperation between the URBAN key actors on an informal basis overcame the often paralysing
departmentalism that she considers typical of the vertical and horizontal policy levels in
Germany. This, according to Paulus, may be considered a change in patterns of governance
(Paulus 2000: 155).
A common aspect dealt with in the studies concerns the fact that the implementation of
URBAN brought new aspects and challenges for the administrations involved. Although all
cities had experiences with urban renewal programmes, especially the demand for community
participation and the integrated approach caused problems as most of the actors were not
familiar with the required forms of co-operation, co-ordination, and participation. Exceptions
are the URBAN programmes in Duisburg (URBAN I) and Dortmund (URBAN II), both in
North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), where similar experiences were made with the regional
46
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Länder programme and (only in Dortmund) the Federal-Länder Programme “Soziale Stadt”
(“Socially Integrative City”), whereby these two cities gained advantages concerning the
demanded requirements (Paulus 2000, Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
All studies emphasise that particularly the co-operation in terms of vertical and horizontal
governance as demanded by URBAN as well as the inclusion of external actors, which came
along with it, was a new experience for most of the participating actors and was thus a real
challenge. In all cities, external experts were included into the implementation of the URBAN
programme in the form of reconstruction agencies, consulting organisations, or planning
offices. Most of the studies describe the establishing of regular (weekly to monthly) coordination meetings, where the organisational conditions for the implementation of URBAN
measures would be prepared, co-ordinated, and controlled. At the political level, these coordination groups were cross-department and cross-level and positions were occupied by
further participating actors, like business and social associations and external experts.
Citizens, however, were not included into these processes (Andree 2005, Wolffhardt et al.
2005, Neuenfeld 2000, Mattiucci 2005). Even if all studies describe initial co-ordinative,
communicative, and process-related difficulties, most of the cities understood co-operation to
be a positive experience. As Mattiucci emphasises for Erfurt: “The most important thing is the
learned cooperation among the players, at regional, administrative, and at local level”
(Mattiucci 2005: 92). The Berlin URBAN programmes constitute an exception in this respect.
With URBAN I, for instance, numerous problems inhibited the implementation of the
programme during the complete running time, in contrast to which many positive changes are
described for the implementation of URBAN II.
The study on Luckenwalde describes a speciality of decision-making structures in terms of
vertical governance. Both local actors and the external project manager count among the inner
circle of actors, but there is a grading towards the level of the federal state (Land). The project
applications are formulated by close co-operation of town and project manager and are then
handed in at the granting authority for a first check. This task is taken over by an external
consulting organisation acting on behalf of the State Ministry of Urban Development,
Housing, and Traffic which administers the funds. The granting authority works out a short
comment on the application “as a basis for approving or rejecting the application, which must
be done by the steering committee” (Andree 2004: 130). Andree elaborates that even if
representatives of the town of Luckenwalde and other actors take part in the meetings of the
47
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
steering committee, only the chairman of the administration of funds, a member of the
Ministry, as well as five state ministries have votes. In comparison to other URBAN
programmes, this keeping of decision-making competences at the state level appears very
uncommon. However, the study does not explicitly criticise this way of proceeding. The only
evaluation included concerns the establishing of the above described monthly co-ordination
meeting – called „jour fixe“ at Luckenwalde – which is considered a good measure for
making the process of application and granting more effective (Andree 2004). Andree in her
Luckenwalde study emphasises a special URBAN staff to be another particularity in terms of
local governance. She highlights that this institutional change of governance structures makes
clear how relevant the URBAN programme is for a small town. The staff, which at first had
three members, is directly attached to the mayor. Andree further explains that in the later
course of the programme the URBAN staff was also spatially removed from the
administration to the neighborhood office which had been established in the centre of the
town.
In Paulus’ study on Duisburg the advantage of prevailing experience is emphasised. Here,
URBAN was operationalised as an important but small part of the NRW action programme
“Stadtteilprojekt Marxloh” (Community Project Marxloh), “by adding economic, employment
and educational activities to the established project base” (Paulus 2000: 201).
Notwithstanding the delayed approval, the implementation of URBAN, according to Paulus,
was realised quickly and visibly. Thus, Duisburg was able to demonstrate best practice at an
early stage. This was achieved due to “personal commitment, interactive co-operation and
multi-level networking experience of the principal actors” (Paulus 2000: 221). The major
point – following Paulus‘ argumentation – was the decision by officials from the Ministerium
für Stadtentwicklung, Kultur und Sport des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Ministry for Urban
Development, Culture and Sports of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, MSKS) to propose
URBAN measures under a joint ERDF/ESF funding package in order to reduce bureaucratic
procedures. In terms of Paulus’ multi-level governance approach, the implementation of
URBAN was “characterized by the involvement of actors at Land, municipal and district
level, combined with an active community participation following a consolidated DuisburgMarxloh urban regeneration tradition” (Paulus 2000: 228). Paulus concludes that Duisburg
obviously benefited from its experience with European funding as an Objective 2 area and its
networks due to participation in the regional NRW federal state programme (Paulus 2000).
48
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Another example for the combination of two programmes is mentioned in the study on
URBAN I in Erfurt where funds from URBAN and from the promotion of urban regeneration,
(Städtebauförderung) were used together. Although this made co-ordination more difficult,
Erfurt benefited – according to Mattiucci – from this combination as the traditional approach
concentrated on physical regeneration, whereas URBAN fostered innovative measures with
social aspects (Mattiucci 2005: 91).
Wolffhardt et al. state that co-operation between the federal state and the city was also
appreciated in Dortmund, where stable relationships resulting from a long tradition with
European, national, and regional programmes could be used for the establishing of the
Monitoring Committee. Despite these experiences, delay problems occurred at the start of
some projects because of unclear responsibilities and competences between different
departments, possibly caused by the emergence of new partnerships and networks in the
URBAN area. However, Wolffhardt et al. still observed a prevalence of top-down decisionmaking, although some local stakeholders are involved in these processes.
But compared to the Objective 2 context (where the federal states’ influence is much higher)
in terms of vertical governance “URBAN II gives the city considerable scope for manoeuvre
to realise innovative projects autonomously” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 84). Therefore,
Wolffhardt et al. conclude that governance effects in German cities are strongly filtered by the
system of co-operative federalism and therefore the cities’ “influence on the shaping of EU
programmes is dependent on mutual understanding with the federal province and persistence
in joint policy formulation within various multi-level bodies” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 106).
Paulus also states that Duisburg suffered from differing perspectives of the Commission and
Land officials, whereas, just like Berlin, it benefited from its placement in the extended
Objective 1 and Objective 2 perspective. She summarises that the compared cities “developed
a variety of different strategies and measures” but that at the time of her survey it was not
possible to comment on the actual impact of URBAN (Paulus 2000: 233).
One of the most important features of the URBAN programmes was the establishing of
neighbourhood managements in order to be more present in the target area. In this vein, the
town of Luckenwalde considered this new way of connecting politics and citizens a good
possibility of „improving the identification of citizens with the programme, its contents, but
49
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
also with the town itself, as well as the image of the town towards the outside“ (Andree 2004:
114). Mattiucci also mentions the opening of five citizen centres and the establishing of a
“neighbourhood office” as an important characteristic of URBAN in Erfurt, although
nowadays the latter appears to be in a state of financial difficulties (Mattiucci 2005: 101). In
her study on Bremen, Neuenfeldt noted clear improvement in respect of a more
comprehensive and more efficient participation of citizens. Also for this the enhancement of
the image and thus improved identification with the URBAN programme and the district
played an important role. The same is true for the case of Dortmund, where four
neighbourhood managements were actually established, which are run by specific executive
organisations (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 88). These offices had the task “of building stable
networks within the URBAN II area as well as between the different quarters in this area and
the local political-administrative system” (ibid.: 89). This is highlighted by Wolffhardt et al.
as an important change towards sustained governance innovation.
Participation
Another main focus of almost all studies lies on the question of whether URBAN is able to
enforce community participation or not. However, the way of implementing the demands in
each city varies, and thus judgement, too, is different in the respective studies. All cities gave
up on direct participation of citizens in making the operational programme. All studies agree
on stating that considerable time pressure was the reason for this, but also that due to already
existing experience with reconstruction the wishes and ideas of the citizens had “indirectly”
been taken into consideration (Neuenfeldt 2000: 82). But even after the start of the URBAN
programme in some cities the ways of participation as planned by the operational programme
before were not implemented. As is stated in the presented study, responsible actors at
Luckenwalde explained this with a lack of expert knowledge among citizens. Furthermore, it
was said that such an organisational structure was inefficient for information and inclusion.
(Andree 2004: 115, 126). Paulus in her study emphasises that the local community in
Duisburg „was able to enter the decision-making process shortly after the project launch, due
to the action-orientated OP (Operational Programme) and flexible implementation framework.
It “allowed community contribution and subsequent co-decision in the actual sub-project
conceptualisations during later operationalisation phases” (Paulus 2000: 229).
As mentioned, the different studies identified further opportunities of participation through
the establishing of neighbourhood managements, which resulted in some interesting
50
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
developments and bottom-up ideas. One main aspect, which is highlighted in some studies, is
the idea of so called “quarter-budgets” in some cities, which provides minor sums for ideas
and projects developed by citizens of the community. This idea is, for example, found with
the Berlin URBAN programme under the name of “Little Urban Fund” with a volume of
50,000 Euros a year, after it had been developed in the context of the local programme of
“quarter management” first (details see paragraph 3: Selected Studies – The Berlin Case).
With the Dortmund URBAN II programme, too, an autonomously administered “quarter
budget” of 15,000 Euros a year is available for the citizens. Neuenfeldt in her work on
Bremen emphasises the project “Wir für Gröpelingen” (“We for Gröpelingen) which was
developed after the establishing of neighbourhood management and which addressed all
citizens of the neighbourhood by calling upon them to develop ideas and suggestions on
improving the current situation. Funds reached from 300 to 5,000 Euros. As this project was
very well received, it was supposed to be continued until 2001. However, Neuenfeldt qualifies
that this offer was mainly received by socially better-off people or by already existing
institutions, associations, and schools. However, she also points to the fact that in single cases
this project succeeded with addressing groups of the migrant community which otherwise
would have been rather disinterested in the URBAN programme (Neuenfeldt 2000).
The issue of including migrants in the implementation of the programme is also emphasised
in the studies on Duisburg and Dortmund. The local administration in Dortmund organised a
“Zukunftswerkstatt” (future workshop) and other project-related forms of participation, which
were mainly focused on activating migrants and socially disadvantaged people. Regular
‘neighbourhood fora’ (every four to six weeks) are highlighted in particular, as this
implementation “has resulted in a stronger involvement of citizens, even reaching members of
ethnic minorities”. Despite efforts like providing language courses, the URBAN I-programme
in Duisburg – following Paulus’ study – “did not specifically address the socio-economic
exclusion problems of its non-German residents. […] Existing language and communication
barriers with the German community remained unconsidered” (Paulus 2000: 224).
Nevertheless, Paulus points to some sub-projects where “Turkish and German business
advisors aimed to improve the economic situation of local businesses through the
development of new business and employment opportunities”, which facilitated co-operation
and integration of these communities (Paulus 2000: 202).
51
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Transnational-Networks
In the reviewed studies, the aspect of trans-national network-building is only dealt with
marginally, if at all. Wolffhardt et al. state that Dortmund participates actively in city
networks like “Eurocities” or “Cities of Tomorrow” and furthermore in the EU-funded project
SEEM (Services for Elders from Ethnic Minorities) and in the German-Austrian URBAN
network. The benefits of these networks are seen in the exchange of experiences, in finding
lobbying allies in European politics, and in communicating the image of Dortmund as a
modern and international city in Europe (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 93). Mattiucci states that
networking with other cities is important for Erfurt but only if these cities share similar
experiences (Mattiucci 2005: 100). Andree in her work, too, deals shortly with the transnational network-relationships of the town of Luckenwalde. She writes that, by way of
contributing to the German-Austrian URBAN network, the city benefits from the exchange of
technical and content information. The town is represented in a working group by external
project managers. Furthermore, in March 2002 one of the network meetings took place in
Luckenwalde. Here too, the network is used under the aspect of public relations, the town and
its network activities being introduced at the national and international level. Difficulties with
co-operation are seen as a result of different basic conditions and problems, of the other
network places. As a consequence, Luckenwalde does not participate in the trans-national
URBACT networks. As a main reason for this, restricted staff resources and very localspecific problems are given (Andree 2004). Paulus mentions that Duisburg was chosen to host
the URBAN Symposium in 1997, where sustainable urban development measures were
discussed among actors from different European cities (Paulus 2000: 222).
Policy Learning
A good deal of the debate on URBAN is also about its long-term effects on local modes of
governance. Findings for the single towns and cities are very different. As is reported for
Luckenwalde, the responsible actors consider the relation between financial investment and
short duration of the programme on the one hand and the administrative structures as required
for the programme as well as the transaction costs on the other hand rather inefficient.
Therefore those administrative structures developed in the course of the URBAN programme
– e. g. the URBAN staff – will be abandoned again. Thus, for Luckenwalde primarily new
insights and new contacts were named as policy learning effects (Andree 2004: 167). As far
as the sustainability of developed projects in Luckenwalde is concerned, Andree is sceptical,
too. She sees the greatest chances for a common initiative of different shop owners for
52
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
improving the appearance of the centre of the town. In the case of other projects “often the
planned duration of funding is not enough to create the necessary stabile foundation for selfsufficient institutions or for finding other fundings”, she criticises (Andree 2004: 163).
However, Andree also notes that the basic condition for successful co-operation is the actors’
readiness “to give up on their original institutional ties and their ways of acting in favour of
productive co-operation or to adapt to the latter, as well as the long-term and continuous
inclusion of actors, which must be considerd the precondition for transfering responsibilities”
(Andree 2004: 171). In her opinion this has only insufficiently been done at Luckenwalde, so
that “possibly [...] additional potentials in respect of continuous, activating contribution” were
given away (Andree 2004: 165).
Other studies also criticise the running time of funding for being too short and administrative
tasks for being too extended. In Duisburg key actors of the initiative named the limited time
frame of URBAN and short-term time perspectives as a problem for sustained project
realisation, particularly for ESF-supported measures (Paulus 2000: 223). Paulus identifies a
lower level of capacity building and community participation for Duisburg and Berlin through
the specific URBAN framework than in her comparative studies in the UK, something which
“challenges questions for its local community impact and future benefit” (Paulus 2000: 230).
And Neuenfeldt criticises that active participation by citizens cannot be “created by way of
administrative measures as late as when being needed”, as lasting success is based most of all
on long-term trust and learned skills (Neuenfeldt 2000: 96.) However, positive experiences
are predominant. Particularly in Bremen the “Wir für Gröpelingen” (“We for Gröpelingen”)
project, for example, triggered off ideas and initiated events (e. g. a city heat, neighbourhood
parties, and arts shows) which are known beyond the district and thus will probably exist
beyond URBAN.
Mattiucci highlights for the case of URBAN I in Erfurt that later the key actors of URBAN
worked for other similar programmes implemented in the city, like “Soziale Stadt” (“Socially
Integrative City”) and “LOS” (“Local Social Capital”). She concludes that “therefore, the
experience and the know-how has not been lost“ (Mattiucci 2005: 99f). New elements for
Erfurt have been the integrated approach, the search for citizen partnership, and the
development of a strategy to combine two different programmes at the same time in the same
area. “URBAN was the engine to start solving the situation of the quarter”, as Mattiucci
quotes the website of the city (Mattiucci 2005: 91). Following the NODE team, Dortmund’s
53
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
EU activities are mainly motivated by the prospect of support by the European ‘helping
hand’. However, he states that Dortmund also demonstrates “how to utilise EU programmes
for sustained innovation in urban governance” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 108). The former
approach of physical renewal has been combined with measures for social integration and
local economy, and the joint handling of different policy fields has successfully been fostered.
But as these efforts “built on earlier tradition of citizen involvement […], the EU programmes
did not act as the kick-starter for new participation structures” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 107).
However, Wolffhardt et al. identify endogenous policy learning through the introduction of
the ‘quarter budget’. The most important effects of policy learning in a city, however, can be
found by a long-term comparison of the two URBAN programmes in Berlin, which is why
they will be dealt with in more detail in paragraph 3.
The Impact on National Urban Policy
The URBAN influence on the national policy approach is highlighted by several authors
(Güntner/Halpern 2004, Halpern 2003/2005, and Mattiucci 2005). In 1999 the new coalition
between the SPD and the Green Party was quick to launch the above mentioned programme
„Die soziale Stadt: Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf“ (“The Socially Integrative
City: Districts with Special Development Needs”).
Some studies draw the attention to URBAN’s influence on this programme: ‘Die soziale
Stadt’ “was strongly influenced by the EU Community Initiative URBAN” (Güntner/Halpern
2004: 8). Or, as Mattiucci quotes an official from the Federal Office of Building and Spatial
Planning (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung): „This programme is even called by
some experts ‘the German URBAN’” (Mattiucci 2005: 61). Halpern exemplifies that although
the German State “never had the legitimacy to create a national framework for public action
towards cities, the Federal Ministry for Transports, Construction and Housing
(Bundesministerium für Verkehr Bau- und Wohnungswesen) had been watching the French
and the British experiences very carefully, hoping for an occasion to create a similar policy at
the federal level. The URBAN programme offered a perfect opportunity to network and to
coordinate all activities during the implementation process through the creation of the
“URBAN Netzwerk Deutschland in 1994” (Halpern 2005: 709). Halpern underlines her
argumentation by quoting a member of this Federal administration: “The European Union
lead the way for the creation of the federal programme “Soziale Stadt”. Similar experiences
had already been developed in other member states like France or Great Britain. We followed
54
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the European policy design in order to create a German program, since it allowed enough
autonomy to local authorities in order to define local needs” (Halpern 2003: 24).
Mattiucci underlines the importance of URBAN for the national context with further
statements by the already quoted Ministry official: “Programmes like […] Soziale Stadt,
Stadtumbau Ost and Stadtumbau West are national programmes which do have their roots
also in URBAN and in the European Structural Funds” (Mattiucci 2005: 59). The major
points of these URBAN-based national programmes are identified as the integrative and the
area-based approaches and „assistance from the beginning and during all phases of the
programme“ (Mattiucci 2005: 63). In a written survey by Mattiucci among German URBAN
cities many regional programmes were also named, which, according to the respondents, draw
on the URBAN approach. This way, the high significance of URBAN for the national context
becomes very clear. As a result, Mattiucci concludes that the “Federal Office of Building and
Spatial Planning is aware that the European Union played an important role in the changing of
the planning culture in Germany” and highlights that the Federal Office heads for another
national integrated programme which will display further improvements compared to ‘Soziale
Stadt’ (Mattiucci 2005: 66). And Halpern concludes that the URBAN programme “had
become an important driving force behind a major policy change that was institutionalised
[…] through […] a framework concerning urban areas […] at the federal level” (Halpern
2005: 709).
2.3.3 Selected Case Studies: Berlin
Introduction
Altogether, eight articles by three authors are dealing with the cases of URBAN I and II in
Berlin. Halpern and Paulus concentrate on URBAN I, whereas Güntner’s focus is on URBAN
II. In a joint article Güntner and Halpern discuss the role of the EU (especially URBAN I and
II) regarding the local policy change in Berlin from 1990 to 2004.
Halpern argues that any innovation needs to be translated by local actors and that it has the
capacity to create autonomous learning processes, and she identifies the dynamics resulting
from the misfit between traditional structures and EU requirements (Halpern 2002, 2003).
Paulus concentrates on the concept of multi-level governance, combined with the concept of
policy networks, in order to analyse participation in the frame of partnerships. Finally,
Güntner argues that the implementation is burdened with ambiguities and challenges lying in
55
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the policy field of urban regeneration itself and in the programmes’ funding logics. He
illustrates the institutional arrangements of local actors to balance these contradictions during
the URBAN II programme in Berlin. Güntner also discusses this case in the light of neoinstitutional theory and the debate of Europeanisation (Güntner 2003). Especially Güntner and
Halpern relate to Kingdon’s window of opportunity concept.
The Case of URBAN I
All studies emphasise that Berlin applied for the URBAN I programme during a problematic
political situation. Difficulties with East-West integration occurred, the Senate was politically
fragmented, and the financial and economic crisis gave the administration little scope for
action. Although some aspects of the URBAN approach had already been developed and
experienced in the 1970s in Berlin’s district of Kreuzberg, the main focus of urban
regeneration was still on physical renewal (Güntner/Halpern 2004, Halpern 2003/2005,
Paulus 2000).
According to Halpern (2003/2005) and Paulus (2000), the Senate considered URBAN an
opportunity to claim a leadership role in urban politics vis-à-vis the federal government and
the districts (Bezirke).
The chosen area was a political compromise, as it “cuts across communities and
neighbourhoods often by dividing streets and/or buildings irrationally from URBAN
programming” (Paulus 2000: 177). It was located in three different districts of the Eastern city
centre: Prenzlauer Berg, Friedrichshain, and Weissensee. “This decision clearly made it
impossible for any of these districts to claim legitimacy to monitor the URBAN programme at
their own, local level” (Halpern 2005: 705f). But conflicts between the different involved
Senate administrations emerged (Güntner/Halpern 2004: 6, Paulus 2000: 175f). In search of a
consensus, the mediation of the formulation phase was handed over to Beratungs- &
Servicegesellschaft Umwelt (Environmental Consultancy, B.&S.U.), a semi-private
consulting agency, experienced with European Structural Funds and environmental urban
planning. Paulus characterises the formulation of the URBAN programme as co-operative
networking within the administration, as almost all Senate departments were involved.
Contributions by districts and local community were missing in the OP (Paulus 2000: 184,
190).
56
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
URBAN was operationalised by B.&S.U. under the lead of the Senate Department for
Economy and Business matters (Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft und Betriebe, SenWi) and
the Senate Department for Employment, Vocational Training and Women (Senatsverwaltung
für Arbeit, Berufliche Bildung und Frauen, SenArbeit) "in close co-operation with the
involved Senate Administrations, district administrations and other local project partners"
(Paulus 2000: 206). A "Co-ordinating Committee" with involved stakeholders and key actors
also from the district level was established, while the final decision-making remained at the
Senate level. According to Paulus, the SenWi was chosen because of its competence with
ERDF-funding and the SenArbeit in regard to ESF management (Paulus 2000: 206). Against
the background of her misfit-thesis, Halpern, on the other hand, suggests that the SenWi was
put in charge of the URBAN programme as a political compromise because the design of the
project caused a strong competition for leadership within the Senate. She supports this
statement by quoting a member of this department: “[…] they should have entrusted this
programme to a more competent administration… maybe the Department for Construction
and Housing, or even the Department for Urban Planning and Environment. Because the
coordination between the two departments was quite difficult, we remained in charge of this
programme, which is totally absurd as we […] know nothing about urban development. In
fact, we just carry out a technical coordination, nothing else” (Halpern 2005: 706; interview in
February 2000).
All of the studies state that after the approval in November 1995, Berlin started to suffer from
a delayed project start and its rigid Operational Programme, as 90% of the project volume was
allocated to specific projects and Berlin was "unable to bridge the long approval negotiations
by sustaining developed sub-project concept, staff and co-matched funding." As a
consequence "parts of Berlin's initially proposed sub-project base collapsed" (Paulus 2000:
218). According to the studies, more problems occurred because of presumably arbitrary
boundaries of the selected area and difficulties with the ERDF/ESF multi-fund approach,
especially for small projects. Paulus summarises that "the project has to battle with
bureaucratic technicalities and strict funding regulations" (Paulus 2000: 219). But Paulus also
highlights – referring to a SenWi official – that "B.&S.U. was able to realise URBAN’s multisectoral approach by co-ordinating the different Senate Administrations, while providing
professional
expertise
in
EU
programming,
urban
regeneration,
and
analytical
documentation” and – according to a B.&S.U. official – that “the local B.&S.U. office within
the project area provided direct contact with, and access for the local communities" (Paulus
57
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2000: 220). However, she also mentions criticism by local actors concerning the quality of
B.&S.U.’s involvement and she states that "the Berlin URBAN project realisation was not
always a straightforward task for the SenWi and/or the B.&S.U." (Paulus 2000: 220)
Summarising, however, she states that the Berlin Senate managed to overcome theses
obstacles and threats and illustrated ”a progressive and successful URBAN project
realisation“ (Paulus 2000: 221). Concerning the participation issue, Paulus states that Berlin’s
rigid and project-focused operational programme “limited community participation to the
implementation of pre-determined sub-projects” (Paulus 2000: 229). Therefore, Paulus
identifies a lower level of capacity building and community participation in Berlin via the
specific URBAN framework than in her comparative studies in the UK, which raises
“challenging questions for its local community impact and future benefit” (Paulus 2000: 230).
In contrast to this rather positive evaluation, Güntner and Halpern argue that B.&S.U. failed
to become an active co-ordinator of the project. Following their argumentation, the Senate
and B.&S.U. remained outsiders in the districts and were blamed for lack of transparency, as
most local actors criticised the implementation as a top-down process (Güntner/Halpern:
2004: 7, Halpern 2003: 24f). Halpern observed that – as a consequence – several project
managers turned to the district administrations or started to reactivate local political networks
in order to build sustainable partnerships or to find other co-financing possibilities. By the end
of 1999 it was clear “that the project managers and Bezirke [had] adapted their own strategies
to the financial and political opportunities provided by the URBAN program” (Halpern 2003:
22). She substantiates this with the fact that “although URBAN-funded projects should have
remained within the borders of the URBAN area, 75% of them actually spread out” (Halpern
2005: 708). This was legitimated by their belonging to a “Kiez” (neighbourhood) (Halpern
2003: 22). Halpern concludes that “one of the original fears of the Senate had been realised:
the districts had gained enough political legitimacy to contest the leadership of the Senate
over the implementation of the URBAN programme” (Halpern 2005: 708). Therefore,
Güntner and Halpern summarise that URBAN I in Berlin was characterised by a high level of
political fragmentation and by B.&S.U.’s failure to overcome the emergence of a polycentric
network of actors organised around each district. However, the authors acknowledge that
URBAN I also “offered resources to actors, which were not part of the Senate’s traditional
’clientele’, and highlighted the mobilization capacity of the districts” (ibid. 2004: 7f).
58
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Thus, it may seem that Paulus, Güntner, and Halpern made different – or even contradictory –
findings on URBAN I. The reason for these contradictions seems to lie in the different
analytical approaches. While Paulus also observed some problems regarding the programme
implementation, her focus was still on the developments and dynamics of or within policy
networks, multi-level governance, and community participation, whereas Güntner and
Halpern concentrated on the dynamics resulting from the misfit between the URBAN and the
traditional approach for urban regeneration in Berlin.
These dynamics – following Güntner and Halpern – at the end of the 1990s resulted in many
changes at the national level and at the local level in the field of urban regeneration. As
mentioned above, in 1999 the Federal-Länder Programme “Die soziale Stadt” (“The Socially
Integrative City”) was launched at the national level. Additionally, in Berlin the ruling SPDCDU coalition introduced area-based strategies and “neighbourhood managements”
(“Quartiersmanagement”) to prevent deprived areas from further decline. As Halpern
concludes for Berlin, the ‘Neighbourhood Management Programme’ “is the outcome of a
hybridisation process between old and new features: an interesting mix between the pilot
projects developed in Kreuzberg during the 1970s, the ‘neighbourhood approach’ elaborated
in Hamburg in the early 1990s, and the Community Initiative URBAN” (Halpern 2005: 712).
She highlights that the URBAN programme “had become an important driving force behind a
major policy change that was institutionalised in Berlin through the Neighbourhood
Management Programme” (Halpern 2005: 709).
Güntner and Halpern exemplify a few more institutional shifts at the local level: after the
elections in 1999, Peter Strieder (SPD) – the Senator for Urban Planning and Environment –
merged the formerly competing Departments for Construction and Housing (CDU) and for
Urban Development and Environment (SPD) into a new “super-department” for Urban
Development. According to Güntner and Halpern, former critics of the traditional approach to
urban regeneration in Berlin benefited from these political changes and from the emergence of
the new policy approach through the URBAN community initiative. These actors “became an
important backbone of the Neighbourhood Management Programme as they provided the
skills and local knowledge to implement the scheme” (Güntner/Halpern 2004: 10). Halpern
highlights that the former “mismatch between the Community Initiative URBAN and the
Berlin approach towards social and spatial segregation led to the failure of the URBAN
programme. But its implementation also initiated a dynamic that led to an adjustment of the
59
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
interests and strategies of the actors who had been criticising the[se] objectives” (Halpern
2005: 711). She emphasises that URBAN “had created an autonomous learning process
within the local policy system” (Halpern 2003: 25) and assumes “that if the URBAN program
was not the major factor of policy change […], it influenced deeply the parameters of an
undergoing process of change” (Halpern 2003: 10). Therefore, Güntner and Halpern
summarise that these developments “emerged from three simultaneous streams which opened
a window of opportunity: a) new social and economic challenges, which could not be
overcome by a physical approach towards urban regeneration (problem stream), b) the
availability of co-funding possibilities at the national and the European levels within an
integrated and area-based approach towards urban social and spatial exclusion (policy
stream), c) a political change at the local level (political stream) (Kingdon, 1995)”
(Güntner/Halpern 2004: 12). The authors continue stating that the heterogeneous coalition of
actors, which had been criticising the traditional approach towards urban regeneration, made
use of this window of opportunity and managed to secure its leadership over this policy field”
(ibid.). In Halpern’s eyes this policy change in Berlin is “institutionalised through the creation
of the Senate Department for Urban Development and through a change in the balance of the
budget allocated to urban renewal programmes between the physical and the social
objectives” (Halpern 2005: 711).
The Case of URBAN II
Berlin also applied successfully for participation in URBAN II. Güntner and Halpern in their
article emphasise some of the differences between the two URBAN experiences: firstly, at the
Senate level, URBAN II is managed by the same unit which is also responsible for coordinating the programme “Die Soziale Stadt” (“The Socially Integrative City”) “and is seen
by the responsible officers as “breathing the same spirit” (Güntner/Halpern 2004: 11).
Secondly, this time “the implementation team was successful in integrating the local societal
institutions and it is run in a very open participatory way”. (ibid.) The co-ordinating structures
are a monitoring committee, a steering board, working groups, and a coordination group. A
local secretariat is run by a private company whose task it is to ensure the involvement of the
local community. “Co-funding is sought on a project-by-project basis. Although by 2003 most
of them were still in a preparatory stage, the mid-term evaluation acknowledges positively
Berlin’s intense participatory approach” (ibid.). This means that “project proposals can be
brought forward by all residents and local institutions and are discussed in working groups
consisting of members of public administrations, NGOs and residents” (ibid.). Residents also
60
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
participate in the final decisions, taken in the steering board. For the local programme of
“neighborhood management”, where the concept of „quarter funds“was developed, the same
proceeding applies. In the context of Berlin’s URBAN II this quarter fund was called „Little
URBAN Fund“ and with its volume of 50,000 Euros a year it gives evidence to the increased
significance of the idea of participation. Therefore, Güntner calls it a good example of a
successful bottom-up idea (Güntner 2003: 10). Although they state positive developments and
differences compared to URBAN I, Güntner and Halpern question the sustainability of the
processes initiated under URBAN II: “All projects are dependent on European funding, and
the deficits of the local authorities make the sustainable anchoring of these projects within
their budgets more than unlikely” (Güntner/Halpern 2004: 11).
However, Güntner analyses the URBAN II case in Berlin from a specific point of view. He
refers to the argument that “as a result of the multi-level process of policy-making in the EU,
European policies are burdened with ambiguities” and challenges (Güntner 2003: 1, relating
to: Gelli/Tedesco 2001; Walther/Güntner 2002). He states that “they have their origin in the
policy-field itself – urban regeneration – and, secondly, in the funding logics of the
Community Initiative” (Güntner 2003: 1). He explains that local administrations are
confronted with challenges which must be solved by developing local strategies. The change
in patterns of governance – which might occur during this process – “is itself a goal of EU
policies” (Güntner 2003: 1). Güntner illustrates this point for the case of URBAN II in Berlin.
As he refers only to the first three years of implementation (2001-2003), he focuses in his
articles “on the mechanisms of interaction and cannot give an assessment of longterm
outcomes of this process” (Güntner 2003: 1). Güntner identifies “at least five management
challenges which result from the nature of the policy and its implementation rules: – balance
gains between different groups of stakeholders – balance abstract and lived space – balance
investment in ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ – balance local needs and the principle of
additionality – balance participatory approach and indicative budgeting”. In his article he
concentrates on three aspects: “area design, project-based implementation and the local
governance structure” (Güntner 2003: 4).
The URBAN II area spans the two districts of Friedrichshain and Lichtenberg. It stretches
across four different neighbourhoods and “is physically, economically and socially
fragmented, and the programme’s aim is translated in Berlin’s operational programme as ‘To
Overcome Barriers’” (Güntner/Halpern 2004: 10). According to Güntner’s article, the area is
61
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
strategically tailored and does not reflect ‘lived space’, as “each of these neighbourhoods has
a strong individual identity” (Güntner 2003: 6). He argues that therefore “the area is
‘produced’ in order to meet the funding requirements of the Community Initiative” (ibid.: 5).
He concludes that “a tackling of the physical barriers will introduce changes to the residents’
life-worlds which have to be mediated, as these boundaries have traditionally guided their
spatial practices and enforced the evolving of particular local identities” (ibid.: 7).
As mentioned above, all projects depend on European funding. All projects demand new
forms of co-operation and co-ordination among participants and must be innovative and
extraordinary. Güntner points out that representatives of the involved administrations
“express the dilemma that the cross-sectoral logic of these projects is not compatible with
traditional departmental logics”, and that another ‘barrier’ – or misfit, as it is called by
Halpern for the case of URBAN I in Berlin – occurred: “the barrier between wanting and
ability” (Güntner 2003: 8). As a result, the implementation process is considered by Güntner
to be slow, as after 2.5 years only “the first signs of implementation are visible to the
residents” (Güntner 2003: 8). A further ‘tricky aspect’ is the Berlin-specific project-based cofinancing mechanism, meaning that for “each single project at least 25% of the costs have to
be brought in by the participating bodies” (Güntner 2003: 8). Güntner concludes that therefore
a couple of structures, resources, interests, and a high level of insecurity are involved at the
project level, as there are dependencies on different budgets and various interests to mediate.
However, as a conclusion, he highlights that “at the same time this procedure – as difficult,
challenging and inefficient as it is in terms of management – structurally provides high
commitment and is an effective way of integrating and anchoring the projects in the field”
(Güntner 2003: 8).
Güntner identifies a change in terms of governance among involved actors, as different policy
levels, external experts, institutions, and community members or groups are involved in the
URBAN II-programme in Berlin. Güntner highlights that “this partnership structure created
an effective organisational network for the area. […It] has led to an increasing information
flow not only related to the program”, as representatives of involved organisations use
contacts for other projects as well (Güntner 2003: 9). He concludes that “organisations
involved do have to alter their logic of action and bend administrative routines in order to
participate. These organisational changes […] can accordingly be interpreted as mechanisms
of Europeanisation” (Güntner 2003: 10).
62
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In the last chapter of his article, Güntner raises the question of how Europeanisation and these
changes in patterns of governance, respectively, happen. To answer his question, he discusses
the case of URBAN II in the light of neo-institutional theory by particularly referring to the
ideas of DiMaggio and Powell (1991). It is suggested that “European cities adapt to the
demands of EU-funding” on the one hand, but that, on the other hand, “the partnership
principle of ERDF leaves a certain room of discretion already in the programming period”
(Güntner 2003: 10). He argues that for example “’Participatory Governance’ is such a loose
prescription that it can and should take very different forms across the member states and
even within each country” (ibid.). Examples for bottom-up ideas – like the “little URBAN
fund” – bring new elements to URBAN “and not the other way round” (ibid.). However, as
pointed out, Güntner also found “evidence for organisational changes related to the
implementation of URBAN” (ibid.). Thus, with regard to his question, “HOW
Europeanisation happens, [he suggests] that it is by managing ambivalent and conflicting
prescriptions that the organisations involved – and the area itself – change. So, this is a
reflexive process by which local knowledge and experience is used in order to solve the
challenges and problems which occur in relation to EU policies and funding regulations.”
(ibid.)
2.3.4 Conclusion
All studies find evidence for Europeanisation processes and changes in modes of governance
in Germany’s urban policy stimulated by the misfit between the traditional approach and
European requirements. However, the outcome and long-term impact at the local level is
judged differently and depends on the local context. While in Luckenwalde, for instance,
those administrative structures as being established for the URBAN programme are disbanded
again, in Berlin a few years after the beginning of URBAN I the local programme of
neighborhood management was introduced. (Andree 2004, Güntner/Halpern 2004, Halpern
2003/2005). Due to the financial problems of the municipalities many cities increasingly
looked for EU funding (Güntner 2003, Güntner/Halpern 2004, Halpern 2003/2005,
Wolffhardt et al. 2005). Wolffhardt et al. confirm this thesis, suggesting that the motivation
for Dortmund to engage with Europe is mainly driven by “Europe as a helping hand”.
With regard to community participation most authors argue that participation of local actors
has actually increased while others criticise the efforts of the local administration as
insufficient. In this context, primarily the establishing of neighbourhood management proved
63
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
to be an effective measure for achieving more community participation. The development of
quarter budgets in some cities – which also gives evidence for upload Europeanisation – may
be considered a case in point (Güntner 2003, Neuenfeldt 2000, Wolffhard et al. 2005).
The main result of the research on URBAN is summarised by Güntner as follows: “The
outcome of this process in terms of organisational culture is not predictable but dependent on
the local circumstances” (Güntner 2003: 11). Wolffhardt et al. conclude that governance
effects in German cities are strongly filtered by the system of co-operative federalism and that
therefore the cities’ “influence on the shaping of EU programmes is dependent on mutual
understanding with the federal province and persistence in joint policy formulation within
various multi-level bodies” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 106).
The authors consider the influence and the significance of URBAN for the national context to
be very high: “It had become an important driving force behind a major policy change that
was institutionalised in Berlin through the Neighbourhood Management Programme
(Quartiersmanagement) and a framework concerning urban areas (soziale Stadt) at the federal
level” (Halpern 2005: 709).
64
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.4 Greece
Bibliography
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in
Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the 40th Congress of the European Regional
Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa
Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in
Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies, Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2004): The URBAN Community Initiative: The Greek experience. Paper
presented at the Regio OPEN DAYS Workshop Programme “Managing Regional Development”,
Workshop R12 “Urban Development”, Brussels, September 28-29, 2004.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2005): Tackling social exclusion in urban areas: a break with the past.
Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2006): The Case of Heraklion URBAN in Greece: regulatory responses to
EU challenges. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop,
Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Georgantas, Elias/ Panagiotis Getimis (2001): Too many stakes, a few holders, but no partners:
Governance failures, institutional inertia and the implementation of an URBAN community initiative
in Greece. Paper prepared for the 8th International Conference of the Regional Studies Association
Regional Transitions, Gdansk, September 15-18, 2001.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003a): Cities and the Structural Funds. The Domestic Impact of EU
Initiatives For Urban Development. Athens - Komotini: Ant.N.Sakkoulas Publishers.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2006): Partnership or Self-sufficiency? Assessing the Domestic Impact of
EU Urban Development Initiatives in Greece. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
2.4.1 Introduction
The number of authors who engage in the (Anglophone) academic discussion on URBAN in
Greece is small – all the more impressive, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively, is the
huge output of their URBAN research.
65
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Exploring the Greek discussion on URBAN is also particularly interesting insofar as the
changing tenor of the contributions on, as well as the changing attitude of the researchers
towards URBAN reflect the shift in the official dealing with URBAN in Greece that has taken
place over the years. This aspect will be dealt with in detail further below.
The extensive studies by Koutalakis and Chorianopoulos are designed comparatively:
Koutalakis compares the process and effects of the implementation of URBAN in three Greek
cities, whereas Chorianopoulos incorporates the case of Piraeus in his large North-South
comparative study on the implementation of URBAN in six different cities and countries,
respectively. Furthermore he examines the increasing influence of EU approaches for urban
interventions in Greece in an historical comparison of URBAN programmes (URBAN I in
Piraeus and URBAN II in Heraklion).
Cases
City
URBAN Programme
Studies
Piraeus
URBAN I
Chorianopoulos 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004;
Georgantas/Getimis 2001
Volos
URBAN I
Koutalakis 2003a, 2003b, 2006
Athens
URBAN I
Koutalakis 2003a, 2003b, 2006
Thessaloniki
URBAN I
Koutalakis 2003a, 2003b, 2006
Komotini
URBAN II
Chorianopoulos 2005
Heraklion
URBAN II
Chorianopoulos 2004, 2006
Official and grey literature is approximately equally represented.
2.4.2 Starting Point / Initial Situation (National Context)
What is especially striking when reading the contributions on Greece is that all the authors are
almost exclusively interested in governance issues: The focus of all papers is on the domestic
impact of EU programmes on the Greek local and national urban policy and governance
processes. There are no enquiries about the advancement or improvement of the social and
economic development in the URBAN areas (with the possible partial exception of
Chorianopoulos’ Komotini-Paper, 2005).
66
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
It is also remarkable that all the studies emphasise the same starting point, namely the
historically determined peculiarities of the Greek political system in general and of the Greek
urban (development) policy in particular, while assuming that these factors are opposed to a
successful implementation of URBAN.
Greece is the most centralised country in Europe; the sub-national authorities are extremely
weak. The communes have been underfunded for decades and politically controlled. To date,
they are extremely dependent on earmarked funds from the national level, which restricts the
possibilities for decision-making and realisation at the local level considerably.
An explicit urban policy does not exist to this day. The ‘urban policy’ agenda has been
dominated by land use planning concerns and physical infrastructure projects. The range of
social services provided by the Greek local authorities is very narrow, confined primarily to a
number of support schemes for the elderly.
In the local socio-political milieus, the local government is predominant. The authoritarian
tradition and the turbulent political history of the country until the mid-1970s inhibited the
emergence and – subsequently – the involvement of public, private and voluntary sector
actors in local policy-making (Chorianopoulos 2002).
Given this particular Greek situation and considering the EU URBAN intentions, Greece is a
particularly interesting case study to test the penetrating and transforming power of the EU
CIs. Koutalakis in particular argues that the political, administrative and institutional
environments for their implementation could nowhere else be more adverse. The demand to
adopt bottom-up approaches of urban development through the formation of endogenous local
partnerships sharply contradicts the Greek authoritative, top-down policy tradition: the claim
to integrate social, economic and physical aspects into one comprehensive development plan
challenges the existing separation between physical planning, economic development and
(marginal) social policy.
2.4.3 URBAN I
The authors reviewed in this paper have all done research on governance effects of URBAN I
in Greece: Georgantas/Getimis und Chorianopoulos on Piraeus, Koutalakis on Athens,
Thessaloniki and Volos. The divergent results and evaluations are quite remarkable: With a
67
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
view to URBAN I in Piraeus, Georgantas/Getimis and Chorianopoulos agree in that the
programme’s potentials to break with traditional and conventional centralist policy making
could not be availed. The programme of Piraeus focused on two neighbouring municipalities
of the Piraeus metropolitan belt, Keratsini and Drapetsona, with approximately 100.000
inhabitants. Reasons for the failure are identified primarily in the above-mentioned
peculiarities of the Greek situation: The complete URBAN I process was, for instance,
conceptualised and implemented by the national government. On the local level URBAN was
administered by the city’s development department in which the national URBAN-committee
played a dominant role. The key implication of this centralised administrative structure was
the inflexibility noted in decision-making, an outcome of which was a two-year delay in the
implementation phase of the Piraeus projects. Local interest groups (SMEs, community
organisations) were not actively involved in the programme, neither were other resource-rich
stakeholders (e.g. local banks and major companies).
The programme of Piraeus URBAN did not incorporate social regeneration measures as part
of an integrated local development plan. Projects aimed at tackling social exclusion were
devised and implemented on an ad hoc basis.
Given these circumstances, a climate of openness for experimentation with new local
governance or bottop-up development approaches could hardly thrive. Georgantas/Getimis
resume: „The lesson to be learnt from URBAN in Drapetsona and Keratsini is not a best
practice” (2001: 15).
Except for the peculiar local circumstances, Ioannis Chorianopoulos in particular addresses a
second reason for the failure of URBAN in Piraeus: Namely the – compared to North
European cities – unequally worse chances of South European cities to benefit from the EUsponsored programmes for the promotion of local developments and endogenous potentials.
In his extensive comparative study, Chorianopoulos (2002) argues that the divergent
industrialisation/urbanisation patterns in North and South Europe have resulted in different
forms of urban governance, and that the distinct urban restructuring and governance modes in
Greece, Spain and Portugal are causal factors behind the lacking competitiveness of cities in
Southern Europe. Examples of six cities’ governance responses to the EU URBAN I CI are
used to illustrate the argument. Among them is Piraeus/Greece. On the basis of his results,
Chorianopoulos criticises the EU programmes for not addressing the North/South pattern of
68
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
urban governance heterogeneity in the emerging EU urban policies. He accuses the EU of
designing their support programmes (and the ideas on urban governance and competitiveness
linked to them) in such a way as to cater to the problems, needs and circumstances of North
and Central European communes unilaterally while discriminating the South European
communes categorically. But not enough: In trying to initiate urban restructuring processes,
the EU presupposes local, social and political infrastructures that differ from those in South
Europe. Chorianopoulos claims that, in not considering the specific pathway of South
European development and the corresponding, absolutely different governance context of
South European cities, the support programmes do not reduce but aggravate the differences
and disparities between North and South European cities.
In his detailed case study on the impact of the EU Community Initiatives URBAN and
EMPLOYMENT on the policy process in Greece, Charalampos Koutalakis develops a
different view. Attempting to evaluate the impact of the CIs, Koutalakis focuses on the
responses of domestic actors at all tiers of government to the pressures, emanating from the
CIs, to adjust the existing urban policy contents, patterns, and instruments to the EU
requirements. Thus, his major interest lies in the mismatch between the EU and the Greek
urban policy approaches and the resulting policy and polity dynamics. Do the CIs have the
potential to transform the institutional and administrative structures of the Greek system of
urban governance? If yes, what are the conditions for these changes?
To answer these questions, Koutalakis thoroughly examines the implementation process of
the CIs at the national and the local level. He characterises this process as being a continuous
round of bargaining for the control of the definitions of substantial and procedural issues by
the actors at all territorial levels. One of the most interesting findings is the considerable
power of the European Commission to intervene in domestic policy-making by bypassing or
excluding unwanted domestic actors in the initial stage of implementation – the stage, in
which the policy formulation process takes place.
To examine the actual implementation process at the local level, Koutalakis looks at three
Greek cities: Volos, a medium-sized city, Thesaloniki, a large urban area, and the
metropolitan region of Athens. Drawing on historical institutionalism as a theoretical
framework, the significant variations in the policy outcomes are attributed to the different preexisting local institutional environments. The number of actors having an interest in urban
69
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
policies and their strategic and action orientations (competitive or cooperative) are crucial for
the emergence of local authority players as central in urban partnerships. In Volos, local
institutional
conditions
fostered
cooperative
patterns
of
policy
formulation
and
implementation. Koutalakis shows that in this medium-sized city, URBAN acted as a catalyst
– by Greek standards – for an unprecedented degree of organisational development and
differentiation in municipal structures. In contrast, the local institutional and political
environments were less favourable to policy change in Athens and Thesaloniki; the outcomes
of the CIs are more ambiguous. In Athens, the presence of the central government attempting
to monopolise any space for new urban policy initiatives exacerbated the competition between
central and local actors, making the building of new local institutions extremely difficult.
Nonetheless, Koutalakis acknowledges the setting up of a highly inclusive partnership in
Athens, with multiple private and voluntary actors.
2.4.4 URBAN II: Learning Processes
In his latest works, in which he concentrates on URBAN II in Greece, Chorianopoulos (2004,
2005, 2006) is arriving at similar conclusions: In his case studies on URBAN II processes in
Heraklion and Komotini, he observes considerable differences (key changes) in the
administrative structures of URBAN I and II. Furthermore, he reports of considerable
differences in the URBAN I and II action plans, their governance structures and their
approaches to urban intervention.
New Selection Process
Chorianopoulos points out that in the case of URBAN I, the Ministry of Planning followed a
selective channelling of information about the initiative to a restricted number of cities. The
six cities that participated in URBAN were invited to submit a proposed action plan. Thus, the
selection process excluded the majority of eligible cities in the country from applying. In
URBAN I the Greek (like the Portuguese and Spanish) programmes were part of a single
national URBAN initiative.
Chorianopoulos underlines that the extent to which this approach was not responding to the
interest that the local level has gradually developed towards EU urban initiatives was apparent
in URBAN II. The call for proposals for URBAN II, which was open to all eligible Greek
cities, attracted 40 applications, out of which three cities were selected (2004: 2).
70
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In an interview with Chorianopoulos, the chief administrator of URBAN at the ministerial
level pointed out two key reasons for the revision of the selection process. “First, the lack of
experience of the Ministry of Planning in managing EU urban initiatives. Second, the
publicity that URBAN received during its first operational phase, resulting in increased local
authority pressure for participation and transparent selection processes” (2005: 11).
Chorianopoulos infers that both reasons suggest a shifting relationship between national
administration and the local level. EU programmes challenge the ‘gate-keeping’ and
controlling role of the national level in local affairs. Moreover, EU regulations on
transparency and calls for devolved administration provide the opportunity for the
materialisation of local claims towards more accountable and flexible administrative
structures.
Different Administrative Structures
While URBAN I was centrally managed at the national level, URBAN II was/is regulated at
both central and local level. In the quest for more flexible decision-making structures, the
management of URBAN II programmes at the national level is now the responsibility of the
Administrative Office, an independent and accountable authority with co-ordinating and
decision-taking powers. In Heraklion, the individual URBAN II programme at the local
(municipal) level is run by the URBAN Office, set up by the municipalities in order to
achieve a single-purpose unit of flexible and accountable day-to-day administration. In
Komotini, a local Development Corporation was set up by the municipality to achieve a
single-purpose unit of URBAN management (2005: 12). Chorianopoulos suggests that the
national authorities have adopted a streamlined regulatory role that enables bottom-up
governance processes to emerge (2004: 2f). However, the centralised traits of the Greek
administration are still present in the new organisational structure (2005: 12).
Diffused Governance Structures at Local Level / Local Partnerships
While local interest groups (SMEs, community organisations) were not actively involved in
the programme of Piraeus, in Heraklion and Komotini, interest groups were invited in
discussions that formed the URBAN action plan. In Heraklion, the local Chamber of
Commerce, the association of trade unions, the university as well as cultural and community
groups, took part in scheduled meetings that monitored the progress of the programme.
Moreover, the University of Crete assumed the responsibility for the organisation and
implementation of a key project in the URBAN area: the conversion of an old warehouse into
71
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the city’s natural history museum. The University administered the funds that are set-aside for
this project directly (25,8% of the total URBAN budget). Also, it is in charge of a vocational
training scheme that aims to train residents of the URBAN area for employment in the
museum.
In Komotini the Chamber of Commerce, the association of trade unions, the Turkish
community and the local environmental pressure group take part in scheduled meetings that
monitor the progress of the programme. The same actors and the local university participate
in the development of the ‘observatory of social and economic indicators’ that aims to address
the absence of data on the living and working conditions of the minority communities in the
city. The presence of local interest groups in the programme’s Steering Committee is formally
instituted and their consent is a prerequisite for any modifications on the original action plan.
Their active participation, however, is mitigated by their lack of experience in corporate local
governance. Thus, the local environmental group talked of a “ceremonial” type of
participation and the Turkish minority association of an “observational” mode of
involvement. Moreover, the non-existence of a gypsy community association, and hence its
absence from the Steering Committee, questions the extent to which the programme was
accountable to all respective stakeholders. Nonetheless, Chorianopoulos emphasises that
URBAN introduced a qualitative change in Komotini’s local relations: “It provided a novel
platform of interaction that is already producing meaningful results, albeit in specific policy
areas. The limited spectrum of minority empowerment prospects in EU local regeneration
policies, confined primarily to engagement in civic politics and social issues has been noted in
a number of studies (McCall 1998, Lunch 1996). In the case of Komotini, however, the
URBAN programme highlighted the generalised nature of the problem and assisted in
building new coalitions that contrast with the politics of exclusion followed in the past
(Silver, 1994).” (2005: 15)
New Focus on Local Level Social Policy and Social Exclusion
In Greece, social welfare policy is particularly underdeveloped. Chorianopoulos points out
that the range of social services provided by the Greek local authorities is very narrow. Social
welfare is delivered locally through a network of services, the responsibility of which lies
with the national and regional authorities. Following this line, the programme of Piraeus
URBAN did not incorporate social regeneration measures as part of an integrated local
72
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
development plan. Projects aimed at tackling social exclusion were devised and implemented
on an ad hoc basis (2004: 3).
In the Heraklion and Komotini cases, however, Chorianopoulos finds evidence that URBAN
acted as a lever for a complete re-orientation of municipal social policy and social services. In
Heraklion, the infrastructure that is created in the URBAN area is the core of a new network
of day-care centres that covers the whole municipality. Tackling social exclusion has acquired
a new meaning for the local level. Services include, among others, improved provision of
nursery and crèche facilities, customised counselling for the young and the elderly, a homehelp unit, a language training centre specifically oriented to the needs of minorities, a hostel
for the homeless and a drugs rehabilitation centre.
In terms of local level social policy and the fight against social exclusion, Komotini is a
particularly interesting case in point. Komotini, a city of 40.000 inhabitants with alarmingly
problematic urban social indicators, is one of the few Greek cities with a well-established
presence of a Muslim community. Muslim (Turkish and Roma) communities make up 27% of
the local population. Unemployment, low educational qualifications and substandard
accommodation are to be found especially in minority quarters. The degree of segregation
between Christian central areas and Turkish and gypsy quarters is high. These problems are at
the centre of the local URBAN scheme. The main objectives of the programme revolve
around two themes: a) improvements in physical infrastructure, particularly in the minority
neighbourhoods; and, b) measures aiming to tackle social exclusion through the support of
innovative entrepreneurial activities, launch of vocation training schemes, and the reorganisation of municipal social services. One of the key targets of the programme is the
creation of a single municipal department of social services.
2.4.5 Conclusion
Chorianopoulos and Koutalakis both conclude that the URBAN programme – albeit small in
financial scale – has shown considerable potential to interrupt domestic policy traditions, even
in such an unfavourable institutional environment as is currently found in Greece. Koutalakis
shows that, at the central government level, URBAN I, for the first time, has obliged the
different ministerial departments to collaborate in the formulation of a comprehensive
development plan. Chorianopoulos argues that in Greece, URBAN has operated as an
“external institutional shock” that unsettled established patterns of Greek urban policy making
73
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
and modes of governance. The up until recently rigid relations between the national
administration and the local level are developing towards a more flexible and interactive
framework.
At the local level – albeit to different degrees –, the initiative has opened windows of
opportunity for sub-national actors and interest groups to become actively involved in the
urban development process and to experiment with innovative policy approaches, especially
in the field of local social services. Chorianopoulos’ research on the URBAN initiative in
Komotini suggests a policy shift towards a more inclusive approach that incorporates ethnic
minorities in the organisation and implementation phases of the programme.
Last but not least, Koutalakis – unfortunately without going into details – highlights the
opportunities for exchange and policy learning offered through the transnational dimensions
of the EU programmes as especially important in a country like Greece, with its current lack
of experience in decentralised and integrated policy-making.
74
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.5 Italy
Bibliography
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2002): The European Urban Initiative: Multi-Level Learning
Processes Between Successes and Failures. Paper presented at the EURA Conference Urban and
Spatial European Policies, Turin, April 18-20, 2002. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/barbanente.PDF (last access
20.03.2006).
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2005): Urban regeneration as local development? A small town
in the Italian Mezzogiorno as a local point of view on Europeanization. Paper presented at the 3rd
European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Colaizzo, Raffeale/ Maurizio Di Palma (2000): Integration, Partnership and Role of Private
Operators in the Community Initiative URBAN. In: Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, Istituto Nazionale
di Urbanistica (Ed.): Programma Urban-Italia. Europa, nuove politiche urbane. Roma: Inu Edizioni.
URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/dipalma-e.PDF (last access 31.05.2006).
Dematteis, Guiseppe/ Francesca Governa/ Cristiana Rossignolo (1999): The impact of European
Programmes on the Governance of Italian Local Systems. Paper presented at the Conference
“European Cities in Transformation”, Parigi, October 22-23, 1999.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN
at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Master Thesis in European Urbanistics,
Bauhaus University Weimar.
Nanetti, Raffaella Y. (2001): Adding Value to City Planning: The European Union’s Urban
Programmes in Naples. In: South European Society and Politics, Vol.6, No.3, 33-57.
Nuvolati, Giampaolo (2002): Urban development programmes in Italy. The UGIS project to analyse
the effects of the URBAN CI. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/47Nuvolati.PDF (last access
13.01.2006).
Palermo, Piercarlo (2001): An Opportunity to Reflect on Urban Policies. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Piercarlo-e.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
Ricci, Manuela (2001): 16 Cities compared. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/riccie.PDF (last access 22.03.2006).
75
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Sept, Ariane (2006): Urbanistica in Movimento: Die italienische Stadtplanung und das Europäische
Programm URBAN. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung der Technischen
Universität Berlin.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing “Urban” in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the
UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under the European Union: are they
‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
Tedesco, Carla (2003): Europeanisation and Urban Policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno. In: Urbanistica,
No.122, 30-34. URL: http://www.planum.net/journals/ns-uri-i.html (last access 20.01.2006).
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L'implementazione di Urban a Bari, Bristol,
Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104.
Tosi, Antonio (date of appearance not specified): URBAN and social policies. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Tosi-e.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
UGIS (= Urban Development Programmes, Urban Governance, Social Inclusion and Sustainabilty")
Project (2002) Italian National Report. Fondazione Bignaschi - Milan.
2.5.1 Introduction
When it comes to analysing the URBAN experiences in a national perspective, Italy is
certainly an outstanding case in point and therefore one of the most interesting objects of
investigation. In comparison with other countries, in Italy the URBAN programme has
aroused considerably much interest from different academic disciplines. As far as we see, the
number of people involved in academic research and debate on URBAN is nowhere higher.
All the more astonishing and striking is the wide unanimity in the discussion and evaluation
of the effects of URBAN in Italy.
The detected corpus of literature is in large part grey (Conference Papers and two unpublished
MA/Diploma theses – one completed, one ongoing). Only a few titles were officially
published as journal articles – among them some short discussion papers available on
planum.net, the European online journal of planning. Unfortunately, due to lacking language
skills, we cannot include the only monograph on the list, Carla Tedesco’s comparative study
on the implementation of URBAN in two British and two Italian cities (2004), in this review.
76
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Apart from Tedesco’s monograph and Mattiucci’s MA thesis, which aims at comparing the
effects of the URBAN programme in Italy and Germany (and here particularly in Trieste and
Erfurt), most of the articles focus exclusively on the Italian URBAN experience. Cities that
attracted particular attention are Rome, Bari, Mola di Bari, Naples, Trieste, and Genoa.
Cases
City
URBAN Programme
Studies
Naples
URBAN I
Nanetti 2001, UGIS 2002
Bari
URBAN I
Barbanente/Tedesco 2002, Tedesco 2004
Rome
URBAN I
Tedesco 2004
Mola di Bari
URBAN II
Barbanente/Tedesco 2005
Genoa
URBAN II
UGIS 2002, Sept 2006
Salerno
URBAN I
Sept 2006
Trieste
URBAN I
Mattiucci 2005
all/general
Ricci 2001, Palermo 2001, Nuvolati 2002
2.5.2 Starting Point / Initial Situation (National Context)
At the time when the urban question incrementally but irresistibly appeared on the European
and national agendas, Italy was one of the European countries without explicit urban policy.
As is pointed out in many studies, until the 1990s there had been hardly any interest in the
situation and problems of cities.
However, it is equally unanimously stated that, in the late 1980s / early 1990s, a whole new
way of thinking and action concerning the role and importance of cities as well as urban
policy and urban planning gradually emerged. This transition was part and result of a general
transformation of the Italian national political scene “in ways that post-war Italy had not seen”
after a severe state budget crisis and resulting pressure from the EU, the implosion of the
degenerated party system and the prosecution of corruption and organised crime (“mani
pulite”) at the beginning of the 1990s (Nanetti 2001: 39).
In the face of the general crisis, the deplorable situation of many cities and neighbourhoods in
Northern and particularly in Southern Italy attracted unprecedented attention. The focus was
on a self-serving political class, political patronage and a clientelistic system, financial
bankruptcy of municipal governments, economic decay, high unemployment rates, social
77
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
disintegration, rampant speculative development, total disregard of environmental issues,
partly extremely bad environmental and sanitary conditions and a wide gap between the
political class and the civil society. The UGIS report stated: “It is no exaggeration to describe
(the situation) as dramatic” (2002: 4).
Many studies and articles stress that one important outcome of the ensuing wave of legal,
institutional and administrative reforms was the heightening/strengthening of the autonomy of
local and metropolitan governments and the promotion of new practices of negotiated cooperation between public bodies.
Among the laws which are frequently mentioned in this respect are the law 142/1990
introducing the cittá metropolitana as an independent institutional body at the intermediate
level between city council and region, the new local election law of 1993, which provided for
the direct election of mayors in communes with more than 10.000 inhabitants, and the
“Bassanini law” of 1997, which reformed the relationships between state, regions and local
authorities by devolving administrative functions to lower levels of government.
In this general atmosphere of reform, innovation and experimentation, traditional urban
development and planning instruments and procedures were called into question. A thorough
reform of action in the urban context began, which was obviously influenced by the ongoing
international and European discussions and developments regarding urban regeneration.
At the national level, new planning instruments were created which are called the “complex
programmes” (programme complessi) – a series of successive schemes for integrated
intervention in particularly crisis-ridden segments of cities lead by the Ministry of Public
Works (1992 Programmi integrati di intervention, 1993 Programmi di riqualificazione urbana
(PRU), 1997 Contratti di quartiere I, 1998 Programmi di riqualificazione e di sviluppo
sostenibile del territorio (PRUSST), 1998 Contratti di quartiere II).
These different initiatives to promote local integrated action have found a variety of
applications in different cities. Padovani identifies three main innovative elements in these
programmes: “a) the promotion of new forms of partnerships in the design and
implementation of the project; b) the integration between interventions on buildings and
78
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
interventions on infrastructure, services, and open spaces; c) timing of the project to be shared
and subscribed by all the actors involved” (2000: 10).4
Following Padovani, many authors underline the high importance of this general climate of
openness for experimentation with new forms of partnerships between public, private and
third sector actors as well as “a growing interest in the role that can be played by local
integrated actions in the management of urban transformation and in local development”
(ibid.). Equally important is a “deep concern to improve the negotiating capabilities within the
public sector, above all, with regard to public measures undertaken to reform public
administration” (ibid.). As Barbanente/Tedesco put it: “URBAN has been set up and
implemented during a ‘season’ of new urban initiatives” (2002: 1).
This general propensity to innovation and experimentation in the fields of urban policy,
administration and regeneration is of enormous importance in order to understand the
unparalleled success of the URBAN programme in Italy. On the one hand, URBAN, in many
respects, promoted a similar philosophy and a similar mix of elements as the complex
programmes and therefore fit perfectly into the new stream of local and urban reform. On the
other hand and at the same time, URBAN added some important new features to the latter:
As is frequently pointed out, until then urban development in Italy had most often been
centred on physical interventions, that is on renovation and infrastructure works. In this
respect, one important URBAN challenge was the demand to balance the physical with
economic and social actions. Nuvolati for example points out that “the evolution of the
programmes from more infrastructure oriented urban policies toward new experimentation
developed through the EU URBAN Programmes and linked to social upgrading processes in
urban areas” (2002: 2).
Another crucial innovation was the area-based approach, the need to develop targeted
measures for and to concentrate the different available resources on a geographically
demarcated territory particularly struck by economic decay and social exclusion.
4
Padovani, Liliana (2000): Local Policies to fight poverty and exclusion: what can be learnt from the Italian
experience. Paper presented at the ENHR 2000 Conference in Gavle (Workshop No. 21), June 26-30, 2000. In:
Laino G./ L. Padovani: ’Le partenariat pour rénover l’action publique. L’expérience italienne’, 2000, Pôle sud,
no. 12, mai, 27-46. Although not explicitly dealing with the URBAN CI, Padovani’s account of the changes in
the forms and models of local urban action in Italy has to be listed in this review because it is a crucial point of
reference for many URBAN researchers.
79
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
On this note, URBAN is valuated as an “original experimentation that has addressed two
particular themes: The construction of projects for crisis areas, and the will to act
simultaneously on the physical city and on the social city” (Palermo 2001: 1). As Nuvolati
sums up: “Urban renewal policies in Italy have been traditionally characterised by
fragmented, sectorial, non-coordinated and voluntary actions, and, for a long time, mainly
oriented towards improving housing or infrastructural conditions without paying attention to
urban factors linked to social exclusion in the more deprived neighbourhoods. Nevertheless,
following the European example, the last two decades have witnessed a profound
transformation in Italian urban policies in terms of more integrated actions and variety of
interventions.” (2002: 2)
Many authors also highlight the requirement to involve the community or the local inhabitants
in the programme as a novel element introduced by URBAN into the Italian context. If at all,
local people so far have played a rather marginal role in urban regeneration processes – and
this also applies for the ‘complex programmes’. Citizen participation is often limited to the
mere information of the inhabitants.
Last but not least, one important feature of the URBAN programme is the great emphasis on
interaction among the cities – not just at the national but also at the international level (Ricci
2001: 1).
All in all, there are strong affinities between URBAN and the complex programmes. As
Mattiucci states: “It is very difficult to say which influenced which, but the points of
connections among all these Italian programmes are obviously many” (2005: 48). In any case,
as Barbanente/Tedesco resume, the URBAN Programme in Italy can be considered “one of
the first area-based initiatives that assume the integrated approach as a form of action aiming
to face social, economic and physical problems from an overall perspective, and that clearly
define the target areas as the urban areas in crisis. Also, the notion of involving local people
in the regeneration of disadvantaged areas was anew for many aspects, if we intend it as the
direct participation of local community in the setting-up and implementation of the initiative,
based upon the creation of partnerships between public and private, governmental and nongovernmental people and organisations.“ (2002: 3f)
80
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.5.3 URBANITALIA
The conception and implementation of URBANITALIA (2001-2006) is seen as the plainest
and most important expression of the enormous importance URBAN had for Italian urban
policy and planning. As the reference to the URBAN CI in the programme title
“URBANITALIA” already indicates, the national programme URBANITALIA was directly
influenced by the EU URBAN initiative. It was a reaction to the widely recognised success of
URBAN I and the great interest the Italian cities expressed in being part of URBAN II: 83
cities applied for URBAN II, only ten were selected. The Ministry of Public Works then
decided to take the first 20 which did not succeed to receive EU funds and to create a new
initiative for them. Funding is exclusively national, regional and local.
According to Barbanente/Tedesco (2002: 6), “the setting up of the Urban Italia programme
can be considered a case of ‘policy learning induced by Community actions’ (Majone 1996:
268). What is more: the idea underscored by the programme is that of reproducing the ‘EU
model’, adapting it to Italian problems and procedures.”
2.5.4 Peculiarities of the Italian Situation / Discussion
In a number of articles on the Italian URBAN experience, the emphasis on social aspects of
city and neigbourhood development, and in this context especially the struggle against social
exclusion, is singled out as the most important innovative element of URBAN. Given this
emphasis on the social dimension, it is all the more striking that, of all things, this aspect is
treated least in the academic studies and discussions on URBAN processes in Italy. Most
studies emphasise
The Dominance of Physical Measures
Again and again – and with good reason – the strong preponderance of physical and
infrustructural measures as against socio-economic projects is referred to as the typical
characteristic of the Italian URBAN programme. The ex-post-evaluation of URBAN I
confirms this observation when stating that, in Italy, 62% of expenditures were invested in
physical and environmental regeneration (the highest percentage throughout Europe), and
only 18% in employment and entrepreneurship (the lowest percentage in Europe). As to this
finding, Carla Tedesco – in view of the disastrous constructional and spatial condition of the
Italian (and particularly the Southern Italian) cities – has raised the interesting question
whether the focus on the physical aspects of deprivation is due to the fact that these measures
81
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
are simply most urgent – in this case, "the prevailing of physical actions is a way to match
local needs with European opportunities“; or whether this fact represents a „track of
inactivity“, a way to show one’s refusal of a European programme that is geared to the needs
of the powerful Member States, the problems of which are different (and differently
constructed) from the problems of Southern Europe – from this point of view, local
interpretation can be considered a way to resist maybe unintentionally […] the
Europeanization process often being influenced by the unbalanced distribution of power
among Member States.” (Tedesco 2003: 32)
The Importance of Administrative, Institutional and Policy Changes and Learning Processes
Unanimously, URBAN is characterised as a strong incentive to develop and experiment with
new ‘European style’ types of urban planning and neighbourhood renewal. The introduction
of integrated, area-based policies for crisis-ridden neighbourhoods is seen as an important
innovation in urban policy making and planning. “The URBAN programmes have provided
Italy with an important opportunity for learning in its urban policies: they have supplied the
resources and a credible theoretical basis – the idea of integrated approach – so as to finally
break with the town planning / building construction tradition of urban renewal” (Tosi n.d.).
The UGIS team attests URBAN “a strong incentive to alter drastically the modes of
intervention adopted until now in Italy” (Mingione et al. 2002: 12).
The implementation of this new type of programming and planning is described as a
challenge and an opportunity especially for the local political and administrative elites. The
importance of political leadership by strong mayors and the decisive role of committed
administrative persons for the success of the URBAN endeavour is often emphasised. Many
studies register great and often successful efforts to further cross-sectoral co-operation within
the administration, to establish partnerships with other public and private bodies outside the
administration and – much more rarely and without much success – to involve the local
residents. Several authors regard URBAN as a strong incentive for organisational and
institutional learning and capacity building: the establishment of effective organisational
structures, the acquirement of local “project capacity”, and the turn to more effectiveness and
accountability in administrative processes as remarkable outcomes of the participation in EU
programmes. (Palermo n.d., Mingione et al. 2002, Barbanente/Tedesco 2005)
82
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Given the strong emphasis on governance effects, Barbanente/Tedesco remind of the fact that
the URBAN programmes did indeed pursue other goals as well – which they demonstrate by
hinting at the special attention that the aim of social integration received especially in Italy:
“The attention focuses on if and how did the URBAN experience penetrate in the Italian
modes of action. But scarce is the reflection on the effectiveness of the programme in order to
tackle social exclusion, that is one of the main goals of the URBAN initiative in the EU
intentions. Our study highlights that the organisational learning, pushed by the innovative
character of the Programme, prevailed over a deep understanding of the possible outcomes in
terms of social impacts: concentrating on efficiency has put the effectiveness issues in the
shade.” (2002: 13)
An important hint as regards the classification and evaluation of the changes that took place in
the context of URBAN programmes is given by Tosi in that he compares the socioeconomic
situation of the contributing neighbourhoods “in decay” with that of most other European
cities: „In reality, the majority of the areas to which the URBAN programme apply in Italy do
not correspond to this syndrome of territorialised exclusion. In the majority of cases historic
centres are concerned, usually characterised by a noteworthy social and economic mix, nor do
the peripheral areas concerned always present characteristics of accentuated marginality. It
may be that this is a reason for the relative success of many URBAN programmes: in nonextreme situations, even the ‘weak’ variants of the model might be able to achieve appreciable
results.” (Tosi 2001: n.p.)
2.5.5 Local Experiences with URBAN – Case Studies
Even if a process of reconsideration of the traditional urban policy and planning approaches
had already been in process and some of the key URBAN ideas and concepts already
circulated, in practice, integrated area-based regeneration initiatives were still unknown in
Italy at that time. Thus, for most cities the implementation of the URBAN CI was the first
experience with this new urban policy approach. „This is one of the reasons why, in Italy, the
URBAN programme has been assuming great relevance“ (Tedesco 2002: 5).
Nanetti’s Study on EU Urban Programmes in Naples
In her 2001 article, Raffaella Y. Nanetti analyses the impact of European urban programmes
on the governance of European cities. In this regard she focuses on the case of the city of
Naples whose mayor Bassolini, after his first direct election in 1993 and re-election in 1997,
83
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
embarked on the strategy to further the urgent transformation of local policy and urban
development by participation in EU-sponsored urban programmes, including URBAN I in
part of its historical centre. Nanetti aims at empirically investigating the major organisational
innovations and policy changes brought about by the implementation of these European
programmes. In particular, she is interested in the extent to which the public function of city
planning in Naples has been strengthened in this process.
As Nanetti underlines, Bassolini adopted a dual political strategy to stop the city’s downward
spiral and to re-establish a “good local government” (Nanetti 2001: 40): On the one hand, he
wanted to restore the importance and centrality of city planning as a public function, and on
the other hand, he turned to Europe to look for constructive partnership opportunities (ibid.:
40f.). Nanetti stresses the high personal attention Bassolini paid to establishing strong
relationships to the European level. His efforts were rewarded with Naples’ participation in
four important European urban programmes (Urban Audit, Urban Pilot Project Phase II,
URBAN I and the innovative ‘global funding’ development initiative).
The URBAN I target area covered the particularly devastated Quarteri Spagnoli and the
Sanità district. URBAN’s main goal was, according to the city planning assessor, “to bring
back conditions of ‘livability as well as legality’ to the neighbourhood and to do so, not by
‘approving an urban design scheme for the area [as would have been the case in the past] but
by experimenting in this substantial portion of the historical centre with new tools of
planning, promotion and management’” (ibid.: 45). Furthermore, Nanetti emphasises the
proactive stance of the city’s URBAN programme: the programme measures did not simply
delineate the “’physical form of the transformation of the neighbourhood, but above all they
promote[d] the necessary interventions to accomplish it, by identifying resources, schedules
and responsibilities and the ways to effectively engage citizens’ (Commune di Napoli 1999:
11)” (ibid.).
As regards the measures taken, the URBAN programme was structured around two main sets
of issues: urban and environmental rehabilitation measures that bring back the original urban
structure of public spaces and buildings, and economic and social development measures to
strengthen the historical commercial and artisan activities as well as the social relations in the
quarter and thus to counter the quarter’s conditions of marginality (ibid.).
84
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In her overall evaluation of these interventions, Nanetti accentuates the numerous positive
effects in the form of visible changes brought about by these programmes (ibid.: 48).
Nonetheless, her main interest is concentrated on the transformations within Naples’
administrative structure and its civil society. “How meaningful, in terms of innovation of its
policy agenda, is the city’s participation in the European urban programmes? […] In essence,
the overarching issue is whether the dual European-municipal strategy and its urban
programmes in Naples are catalysts for systemic change or simply showcases for isolated
change.” (ibid.: 48) To measure the impacts of the European programmes, she identifies eight
policy process and administrative innovations: a 20% increase in the number of skilled
professionals working on the major European programmes as part of the plan to incrementally
restructure the higher ranks of the administration, the introduction of the profession of city
manager, the creation of inter-sectional and politico-technical work groups (interdisciplinary
task forces), the opening of an Office of European affairs, in 1998, the opening of
neighbourhood-based special offices, the delegation of responsibility for each of the urban
programmes to a single assessor to enhance political commitment and accountability, the
appointment of programme and project managers, the set-up of neighbourhood institutions
(neighbourhood councils, citizen committees etc.). Nanetti is very clear about the impact of
the EU programmes: “Without any doubt, (they) are to be attributed the result of this
administrative and process innovation” (ibid.: 51). In particular, the inter-sectional and
politico-technical work groups are seen as a noticeable success: “It has been a novelty within
a municipal bureaucracy that had not seen interdisciplinary work before” (ibid.). Furthermore,
by supporting new methods of citizen participation, it has strengthened engagement by and
promoted the growth of civil society (ibid.: 50ff.).
Nanetti resumes that the implementation of the European urban programmes, and among
them an ambitious URBAN project, has definitely enormously and in manifold ways
contributed to the above-mentioned administrative and process innovations. She draws the
conclusion that the partnership with Europe has greatly enhanced the city’s capacity to
respond to and improve upon its urban problems.
Mattiucci on URBAN I in Trieste
In her MA thesis, Laura Mattiucci comparatively explores the URBAN experiences in Italy
and Germany and particularly in Trieste and Erfurt. Her special focus is on the long-term
impacts of URBAN on the local administrative processes and the planning cultures.
85
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In Trieste, the URBAN I programme was the first experience with a complex project and
interdisciplinary work. Among the policy and administrative innovations, the partnership of
the local administration with the university and private sector actors is highlighted. There was
also some experimentation with new forms and practices of co-operation among public bodies
and within the administration, respectively. As regards the issue of citizen participation, she
found that there was very little involvement of the inhabitants.
In both cities, the interviewees describe URBAN as a complex challenge but an innovative
and promising path towards the revitalisation of crisis-ridden areas as well.
In both cities, the experiences made with URBAN influence new development projects so that
the know-how acquired about area-based, integrated urban and neighbourhood renewal is not
lost.
Barbanente/Tedesco on Multi-Level Learning Processes in Bari
Starting from the observation that the term ‘learning’ is used with increasing frequency in
debates on the Italian experimentations and experiences with urban regeneration programmes
(2002: 2) and drawing on field research in Bari / Southern Italy, Barbanente/Tedesco attempt
to grasp the role that the EU URBAN programme plays within those learning processes
(2002: 1).
In Bari, too, URBAN introduced a totally new approach with respect to traditional practices.
Barbanente and Tedesco stress that this happened within a context that showed strong
resistance towards change, from both the organisational and the social point of view (2002:
5).
The target area was the historic centre of the town, called ‘Bari Vecchia’, which is described
as a run-down and no-go area for all citizens except the inhabitants. The main focus of the
URBAN programme was, once again, on physical upgrading and also on some economic
aspects of regeneration. In practice, there was hardly any consideration of the social
dimension. Furthermore, Barbanente/Tedesco criticise “the understated potential of the
programme in terms of the symbolic impact on citizenship” (2002: 9).
86
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
All in all, according to the authors, the URBAN programme “had a very deep impact on the
town and beyond it, we can say on the entire region. This was mainly due to its high
‘visibility’. As a consequence, the URBAN initiative in the old part of Bari seems to have
become a sort of model on intervention in historic centres for a number of other towns in the
region.” (ibid.: 7) But even if URBAN Bari Vecchia is widely regarded as a success,
Barbanente/Tedesco wonder whether this evaluation holds true from every perspective:
“Certainly, it was a success in terms of public administration efficiency, which is absolutely
unusual for a Southern Italy municipality. It was a success for the citizens living outside the
area because the improvements let them accede to a part of the town that was precluded for
many years.” (ibid.: 7) On the other hand, they underline that the programme had undesirable
effects as well. Especially on the fringes of the area, where some squares and streets were
rehabilitated and new restaurants, pub and cafés opened, a gentrification process occurred that
make it “difficult to say that the programme improved the inhabitants living conditions”
(ibid.: 7). Moreover, the particularly effective measures that addressed the economic
revitalisation of the area “implied many undesirable effects in terms of contrasts between
inhabitants and new comers, between those worried about the alterations introduced into such
a valuable and fragile environment, and those enthusiastic of change” (ibid.: 7).
As regards the process of learning, Barbanente/Tedesco distinguish between ‘organisational’
and ‘social learning’. They note that – despite the general resistance to change observed for
Bari – learning did in fact occur, namely especially on the organisational level. They also
observed some forms of social learning, even though as an unintended outcome. (ibid.: 8)
While the programme was set up by a consultant agency, for its implementation the Urban
Programme Office was founded ex novo at the end of 1997, consisting only of the coordinator and two employees. The latter did not only have to adopt an integrated approach,
totally new for the local context and demanding a rigid time-schedule and co-ordination
among different sectoral departments, but were also totally unfamiliar with urban planning
and regeneration issues. In spite of the blatant lack of experience, the office succeeded in
implementing the programme efficiently – thanks to personal commitment, internal cohesion,
flexibility, adaptability and availability to do different jobs, its ability to set up a close and
continuous collaboration with the consultants and its orientation towards action (ibid.: 8). The
collaborative approach adopted by local government officials and consultants is considered to
be the crucial innovation introduced by the URBAN programme. Nonetheless, despite the
87
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
administrative efficiency and capacity developed in the process, for the authors it is not clear
whether or not it is justified to talk about ‘institutional learning processes’ for this would
imply that changes endure beyond the tenure of the individuals in office, and this remains to
be awaited.
If social learning took place, in the authors’ point of view, this is rather an “unintended
outcome” (ibid.: 10). The involvement of local people in the programme set-up and
implementation was not very systematic. It mainly consisted of informal relationships and
public meetings promoted by the Urban Office and the consultants – the actions being
actually decided and carried out by the latter (ibid.: 10). As Barbanente/Tedesco state: “The
Urban officers and consultants made no effort in order to develop people ability either to
address local problems or to generate institutional capacity (Healey, 1998). […] For a long
time during the setting up and implementation process they were not aware that community
involvement in the context of urban regeneration programmes had proven to be a cost
efficient way of getting things done, generating positive publicity, and building
trustworthiness in local people.” (ibid.: 10) Despite the disintegration processes in the quarter,
there were still some strong social ties among the old inhabitants. Local associations created a
neighbourhood committee and a traders’ consortium in order to benefit from the URBAN
opportunities. But their role in the URBAN process remained marginal.
If social learning took place nevertheless, it resulted from the fact that the gentrification
process on the margins of the target area was accelerated by the location of new businesses
promoted by the URBAN initiative. It visibly deepened the contrasts “between the renewed
fringe and the deprived and deteriorated ‘core’ where most of the ‘traditional’ inhabitants
live”, and thus “helped local people to gain consciousness of the unequal impacts of the
Programme in the neighbourhood” (ibid.: 10). As Barbanente/Tedesco observe in a
particularly intriguing section of their paper, this exacerbation, in turn, “helped the inhabitants
to understand that the local administration is in a position to change the area conditions. This
created some form of trust in political institutions. This feeling was really anew in a social
context where people have been traditionally in the habit of trying to solve their problems
placing their trust in family, friends, patronage relationships, and even being members of
criminal organisations.” (ibid.: 10) So it was, above all, the efficiency of the implemented
measures that had a deep effect on the relationship between local institutions and inhabitants.
The authors argue that “it has made the latter more awake to the neighbourhood problems, in
88
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
particular to the unacceptable degradation of urban quality in the area ‘core’”, and “induced
the inhabitants to increase their trust in the possibility that the local government would listen
to them if they had the ability to make themselves listened“ (ibid.: 11). Even though it is
rather uncertain if this experience will result in increasing political participation or civic
engagement at community level, Barbanente/Tedesco report that the neighbourhood
committee has continued working, and that “local people, together with the committee, have
recently organised several demonstrations in order to protest against the lack of drinking
water in their houses, accusing the newcomers of the increase in water shortage and the local
government to neglect their problems.” The authors emphasise that “this form of protest was
rather unusual not only for the area but also for the whole town.” (ibid.: 11)
Barbanente/Tedesco on EU Urban Policy Initiatives in the Italian Mezzogiorno (URBAN II in
Mola di Bari)
The paper is mainly based on a case-study concerning the implementation of a series of urban
initiatives funded by EU Structural Funds in Mola di Bari, a small town of 25.000 inhabitants
on the Adriatic coast of the Apulia region. From a local perspective, the role of the European
Union as a catalyst of change in areas that lack resources for urban regeneration, not only in
economic but also in societal and cognitive respects, is highlighted. In particular, the authors
look “at the outcomes of the implementation of EU promoted and/or funded initiatives on
urban action focusing on two aspects: i) the impact on well established forms of regulation,
namely in the planning field; ii) the advantage that marginal areas can draw from the new
translocal interconnections implied by their participation in EU initiatives.” A special focus
lies on the URBAN II programme.
Many cities and towns in the Mezzogiorno, among them Mola di Bari, were involved in a
series of area-based and integrated urban initiatives promoted and/or funded by EU Structural
Funds (Urban Pilot Projects, URBAN, URBAN II, rehabilitation initiatives included in
Objective 1 Regional Development Plans). Mola di Bari had experienced a long period of
socio-economic decline, its local political system displayed some of the common features of
most Southern Italian cities (a clientelistic political system, a weak civil society, and a partydominated administration). Its position in the Apulian regional system was marginal. In this
situation, local political leaders seized the opportunities of the EU Structural Funds as well as
of national and regional development programmes to design a new urban regeneration
strategy. The authors emphasise the importance of strong and knowledgeable political
89
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
leadership in this process. From all the many initiatives going on in the town,
Barbanente/Tedesco focus on the URBAN II programme mainly because, according to the
municipal administration actors themselves, URBAN II represented “a topical moment of
aggregation of a series of initiatives that are in progress” (ibid.: 7).
In Mola di Bari the URBAN programme comprised the whole urban and rural territory of the
town. Like most of the Italian programmes, it was mainly physically orientated, although the
authors acknowledge an attempt to integrate the different dimension of regeneration (physical,
social, economic). They also underline the integration of the URBAN initiative into the wider
planning strategy which they also identify as a typical Italian interpretation of the ‘integrated
approach’.
In Mola di Bari the EU initiatives and URBAN were used to develop new horizontal and
vertical relations and partnerships and co-operation schemes, as is required by the
programmes. Therefore, the participation in EU initiatives is seen as a ‘catalytic factor’ for the
establishment of these partnerships to promote local development. Mola di Bari’s
“exceptional season of urban policy innovation triggered by the setting up and
implementation of EU initiatives” (ibid.: 11), has launched this small town “in translocal
policy arenas, where such kind of towns has never been represented before” (ibid.: 4).
Other changes in local government and governance as well as in power relations that can be
attributed to the involvement in EU programmes are brought about by the necessary processes
of knowledge exchange, institutional learning and capacity building processes. Mola di Bari is
seen as an excellent example in this respect. For instance, successful competitive bidding for
EU funds and the implementation of EU programmes require special skills and professional
expertise. In Mola di Bari these qualifications are only found outside the municipal
administration, that is, with external technical and administrative consultants. This heightens
the importance and influence of such external professional experts specialised in European
projects enormously. “Often this happens to the detriment of the well-established expertises
and bureaucratic powers inside and outside local council organisations, whose expertises are
essentially centred on domestic routines and practices. Thus the rising importance of such
new professions is likely to be paralleled by an increasing separation of two spheres of
activities, the European-oriented one and the domestic-oriented one.” (ibid.: 9)
Barbanente/Tedesco observe the penetration of new European “ways of doing things” also in
90
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
other departments of the Apulian regional government organisation, “where new skills and
professional expertises specialised in EU project application and writing competitive bids as
well as in the setting up and implementation of the EU initiatives, are spreading rapidly”
(ibid.: 11).
Furthermore, they report of changing power relations also in the Apulian urban system. Due
to the successful development strategy, “Mola di Bari is no longer considered simply an edge
urban area of a metropolitan system to be strengthened (the metropolitan area of Bari) and of
a settlement system of great environmental value (the Itria Valley): its own resources and its
strategic position compared to these two territorial systems are also underlined” (ibid.: 9f.).
The case of Mola di Bari thus shows “that not only cities and regions but also small towns act
more and more as independent political actors rather than as administrative arms of states and
carriers of state initiatives, within the well-established state territorial organisation. They
engage themselves in aggressive place marketing and competition for investment.” (ibid.: 10)
All in all, the municipal government of Mola di Bari was quite successful with its strategy to
actively take advantage of the EU initiatives and to engage in as many partnerships as
possible in order to foster local economic development and to improve its position in the
urban network: Mola di Bari developed “from stagnation towards a new role within the
regional system” (ibid.: 4).
2.5.6 Upshot: Italy in/and Europe
All in all, in Italy there is unanimous recognition of the strong domestic impact of the EU
URBAN Community Initiative (and of other EU sponsored programmes) – on local as well as
on national urban policies and planning. The URBAN approach is highly appreciated because
of its specific approach and methodology: Coming as the right programme at the right time,
URBAN has had the potential to break up existing policy and planning traditions and
procedures and to introduce new forms of project management and urban governance. The
importance of URBAN as a catalyst of necessary renewal and change is undisputed. As
Palermo put it: “The URBAN programme has led in Italy to noteworthy experiments that can
contribute to a renewal of the ways of governing urban transformation in our country”
(Palermo n.d.).
91
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
This push of innovation and experimentation is often seen as a process that has drawn Italy
nearer to European urban policy and governance standards. As Tedesco points out: „During
the 1990s, when the European integration process had its first outcomes in Italy in terms of
urban policy initiatives, Italian urban policy frames were rather different from the European
ones” (Tedesco 2003: 31). As a consequence, in Italy there was a very low degree of
understanding of the URBAN programme, due to the existence of frames completely different
from the ones assumed at EU level. Thus, participation in EU programmes contributed – to
some extent – to frame urban problems in a different way: in the Italian case, the social
dimension has been assuming an increasing role in framing urban problems partly due to the
assimilation of the European URBAN programme approach (Tedesco 2003: 31). The same
holds true for governance processes: “URBAN has reduced the cultural gap between Europe
and the citizens and it has contributed to develop local project management capacity” (van
den Berg et al. 2004: 119). Or: “In the framework of recent institutional innovations and of
new practices of urban governance, UDPs in Italy are nowadays characterised by a
development from structural intervention towards more articulated experimentation in social
and environmental sectors. The gap between European Countries and Italy in UDPs is
decreasing and the URBAN programme constitutes the most important experience in
improving more coordinated and multi-sector policies.” (Nuvolati 2002: 18)
Manuela Ricci summarises all these aspects as follows: “There is no doubt that the URBAN
programme for Italy has caused our country’s cities to ‘grow’: ideas, projects, innovation,
organisation of offices, bids and tenders, partnership, and implementation management are all
fields in which the different administrations, in various original ways, have produced results
and vies with each other” (Ricci 2001: 1).
92
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.6 Netherlands
Bibliography
Dukes, Thea (2001): The European Community Initiative URBAN: help or hinder for local
participation? The case of URBAN Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Paper presented at the
conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Danish Building and Urban
Research and European Urban Research association, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop5/dukes.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Kruse, Sander (2002): Ein Trojanisches Pferd. Die “URBAN Community initiative im Amsterdamer
Bijlmermeer”. Berliner Geographische Arbeiten 94, 196-206.
2.6.1 Introduction
The two studies reviewed here both deal with the URBAN programme in the Amsterdam
district of Bijlmermeer. The programme had to be interrupted due to protest among the
population. Representatives of ethnic minority groups complained about the lack of
participation structures. An institute was authorised to evaluate possibilities for improvement.
After nine months the URBAN programme was restarted under different circumstances. Both
authors analyse the development of URBAN in the Bijlmermeer and the impact of the
URBAN programme on them.
The main focus of the studies lies on the way in which the city of Amsterdam implemented
the URBAN programme in an ongoing renewal process and its consequences, the
participation structures in the programme and how they changed, as well as the impact of the
population on the established programme structures.
2.6.2 Amsterdam Bijlmermeer
The Local Context
The Bijlmermeer (or Bijlmer) neighbourhood is part of the district “Amsterdam Southeast”
and is home to almost 50,000 people. Construction started in 1966. The idea was to build a
functional town where living, working, traffic, and recreation would be seperated. The
Bijlmer mainly consits of high-rise (10-floor) deck-access apartment blocks. The apartments
were mostly developed as public housing for (lower) middle-class families. But soon after
construction had started it became clear that those families would not move to the
Bijlmermeer. Instead, many immigrants from Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles settled in
93
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the area, more immigrants, refugees, and illegal foreigners followed. At the beginning of the
1990s the area was one of the most problematic neighbourhoods in the Netherlands (Dukes
2001: 5).
The Beginning of the Renewal
In July 1992 the Southeast District Council, the Nieuw Amsterdam housing corporation, and
the Amsterdam municipality decided to start a process of improving the situation in Bijlmer to
create a neighbourhood with a favourable living climate. “Initially it was primarily spatial
renewal that was attended to” (Dukes 2001: 5). But it was obvious that a social-economic
renewal was required as well. Therefore, the Amsterdam municipality decided to apply for the
Community Initiative URBAN “because of its emphasis on social-economic renewal
activities” (Dukes 2001: 5). In September 1995 the “URBAN Bijlmermeer programme” was
approved by the European Commission. For the Amsterdam municipality, Kruse argues that
at first the URBAN funds were seen as an additional financing of the ongoing renewal. In the
application it was stated that 800 Mio. Gulden for spatial renewal were approved. The funding
of money for social-economic projects was described as more difficult. Therefore, the
URBAN programme was considered a good opportunity to install some innovative measures,
which were mainly directed towards labour and education but also to culture, security, and
administration. (Kruse 2002: 199).
The Organisational Structure
The URBAN programme had to be integrated into the ongoing renewal operation. The
“Supervisory Committee” was in charge of the implementation of the URBAN programme. In
October 1995 it established the “Steering Committee Social-Economic Renewal” which was
authorised to approve individual project proposals. Furthermore, a “Programme
Management” and four project groups were established.
According to European guidelines, several policy levels were involved in the URBAN
Bijlmermeer programme: the “European Commission”, the “Ministry of Internal Affairs”, the
“Amsterdam city council”, and the “Southeast district council” as well as several employees
working with public services.
Kruse emphasises that the entire organisational structure was based on criteria of the URBAN
programme, although its sponsoring made up less than half of the total financial funding.
94
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
However, both Dukes and Kruse point to the fact that “the majority of the actors involved
consisted of public or semi-public actors” (Dukes 2001: 7). “It is striking that neighbourhood
organisations, ethnic- or religous organisations were not represented at all” in the composition
of the two committees, even though the URBAN programme “emphatically intended to
stimulate local participation” (Dukes 2001: 7). Kruse concludes that this structure had to
cause tension with the recommended integrated organisational set-up.
Protests – Missing Participation
In February 1996, shortly after the start of the URBAN programme, protests among the local
population occurred, represented by the “Zwart Beraad”, a group formed by black politicians
from diverse parties. In the media and in the district council, too, they criticised both the
organisational set-up of URBAN Bijlmermeer as well as the usage of the available financial
resources (Kruse 2002: 202).
The composition of the organisational set-up was dominated by mostly white representatives,
whereas the mainly black neighbourhood residents were not represented adequately. In May
1996 the Steering Committee authorised a research institute (the Verwey-Jonker Institute) to
analyse the criticised problems. During the time of research the renewal was interrupted. The
analysis and recommendations were published in a report in September 1996.
Research had been guided by a committee (the extended Steering Committee) composed of
representatives from the Southeast district, Zwart Beraad, political parties, religious
organisations, and the Ghanaian community. Dukes highlights that “the establishment of this
committee was the first milestone in population participation in the decision-making process”
(Dukes 2001: 9).
Based on the recommendations of the Verwey-Jonker report, the extended Steering
Committee published a policy document (named “A New Start”) with several proposals for a
resumption of the URBAN programme.
First of all, the “Committee insisted on stimulating the government and business community
in the district to put more effort in actively engaging people from (black) ethnic minority
groups” (Dukes 2001: 10). Unemployment was seen as one of the major problems in the
district. A second proposal was to establish grassroots panels, “in order to give the Bijlmer
95
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
residents the opportunity to increase their influence on the social economic renewal
operation” (Dukes 2001: 10). Finally, and of major importance for Dukes as well as Kruse,
there was the presentation of a new organisational structure.
Both authors specify the developments in the local population. Zwart Beraad also published a
policy document with their proposals. The most important point for Dukes and Kruse was the
“plea in favour of a proportional [multicultural] representation of the Bijlmer population in all
the official decision-making bodies in the area” (Dukes 2001: 10), of course also in the new
Steering Committee. Zwart Beraad also criticised URBAN rules being “an obstacle for
projects that focused on emancipation and participation” (Dukes 2001:10). Especially severe
criticism was aroused by the criteria “that stated that the project submission needed to be done
by an accepted and verifiable organization or institution” (Dukes 2001: 10). Social groups or
residents in Bijlmermeer were not necessarily institutionalised. A similar problem occurred
with the criteria of co-financing projects. Dukes argues that this is understandable, because it
“was highly problematic for many grassroots initiatives to find funding” (Dukes 2001: 10).
On the basis of statements of local residents, Kruse documents the grown importance of the
URBAN programme among the population. He shows that participation and engagement were
considered essential aspects for local residents to trust in the URBAN programme.
The Changes
Based on the Verwey-Jonker report and the proposals of the extended Steering Committee,
the URBAN Bijlmermeer programme was restarted at the beginning of 1997. The
organisational set-up and the further procedure of the social-economic renewal were radically
changed.
Both Dukes and Kruse highlight the replacement of the extended Steering Committee by the
Uitgebreid Bestuurlijk Overleg (UBO). The UBO “would be qualified to decide on all the
projects related to social-economic renewal” (Dukes 2001: 10). That meant, according to
Kruse, the combination of the spatial and the social-economic renewal in one committee
(Kruse 2002: 203). Equally important was the adjusted composition of the UBO. Four seats
were reserved for representatives from ethnic minority groups and one for religious
institutions. In addition, the UBO was chaired by an independent (black) person. For Dukes,
the most important change lies in the fact that there were also two seats provided for
representatives of ethnic minority groups in the “Supervisory Committee URBAN
96
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Bijlmermeer” (Dukes 2001: 11). However, she also emphasises that not all proposals and
demands were complied with: “The UBO and Supervisory Committee, for example, would be
extended with seats for representatives from ethnic minority groups and religious groups, but
these groups were not alloted ‘half plus one’ of the seats” (Dukes 2001: 11).
Kruse explains in detail that the UBO characterised the new form of participation as a form of
“shareholding”. This means that local residents get participation and responsibility, but in
exchange they must provide knowledge, networks, and engagement with the projects.
Furthermore, Dukes and Kruse point to the fact that some important changes were made
according to the project criteria. The criteria multicultural, for example, “was completely
absent in the original programme” (Dukes 2001: 12). The new demand for a bottom-up
character of a project is also highlighted by Dukes, due to the fact that “in the original
programme the only projects that were taken into consideration by the Steering Committee
were projects, submitted by an ‘accepted and verifiable organization or institution’ (Comité
van Toezicht, 1997, p. 29)” (Dukes 2001: 12).
Finally, the construction of so-called “grassroot panels” offered opportunities for direct
participation of residents. They should initiate new projects from bottom-up. Since 1998 these
panels have been encouraged by a newly founded Multiculturalisation and Participation
Bureau (MP) (Kruse 2002: 203). The establishment of this bureau was also supported by
Zwart Beraad. Therefore, Dukes judges this implementation as “another gain for the
population” (Dukes 2001: 12).
2.6.3 Conclusion
The authors draw slightly different conclusions from their respective analyses of the URBAN
programme in Amsterdam/Bijlmermeer. Kruse emphasises that the city of Amsterdam
regarded the URBAN programme to be an additional financial resource for the ongoing
renewal. URBAN was not used as a framework to realise the renewal by way of including the
population. As described, representatives of minority groups appealed against this procedure.
He states that URBAN became part of the emancipation process of the black population in
Bijlmermeer. According to him, the URBAN programme developed to be the instrument the
EU intended it to be. Therefore, Kruse describes the URBAN programme as a Trojan horse.
The city of Amsterdam considered URBAN an additional financial resource, however the
97
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
programme rose to be an instrument which made participation of the local population in the
renewal process possible (Kruse 2002: 205).
Dukes also states “that the Community Initiative URBAN has determined in considerable
measure the ‘design’ of the social-economic renewal operation in the Bijlmermeer” (Dukes
2001: 13). Still, she utters some sceptical tones: “It remains to be seen whether this increased
population participation happened thanks to or in spite of URBAN” (Dukes 2001: 13). She
emphasises that the “programme rules were frequently referred to as restrictive for grass-roots
initiatives, even by representatives of the local population” (Dukes 2001: 13). However, it is
not clear if these problems resulted from the URBAN programme itself or if the Dutch
government, by way of how it introduced the programme in Bijlmermeer, also made its
contribution to the problems. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether benefits for the
population will be permanent, especially with respect to the finished assignment of the
Supervisory Committee in 2002 and a future implementation of the European Objective 2
programme. For Dukes these are important questions for further research.
98
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.7 Northern Ireland
Bibliography
Murtagh, Brendan (1999): Listening to Communities: Locality Research and Planning. In: Urban
Studies, Vol.36, No.7, 1181-1193.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001a): The Politics and Practice of Urban Policy Evaluation. In: Community
Development Journal, Vol.36, No.3, 223-233.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001b): The URBAN Community Initiative in Northern Ireland. In: Policy and
Politics, Vol.29, No.4, 431-446.
Murtagh, Brendan (2005): Social and Ethnic Segregation and the Urban agenda. In: Niam Moor/
Mark Scott (Eds.): Renewing Urban Communities: Environment, Citizenship and Sustainability in
Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 179-196.
Murtagh, Brendan/ Stephen McKay (2003): Evaluating the Social Effects of the EU URBAN
Community Initiative Programme. In: European Planning Studies, Vol.11, No.2, 193-211.
2.7.1 Introduction
The academic URBAN research in Northern Ireland results, more or less, from the work of
only one very active researcher, Brendan Murtagh. A scholar at the School of Social and
Community Science of the University of Ulster and later at the School of Environmental
Planning of the Queens University in Belfast, Murtagh has published 5 articles on the
URBAN Programme since 1999. At the centre of his case studies on the URBAN Community
Initiative in Northern Ireland is the question on the effects that the programme had under the
special conditions of segregated and contested cities. What is most striking in this respect is,
according to Murtagh, the fact that URBAN helped overcome the traditional concentration of
urban policy on political and religious questions in favour of a stronger focus on socioeconomic problems.
URBAN research in Northern Ireland can be characterised as being very compact and
coherent. Two research questions dominate the range of academic contributions: Firstly, how
to evaluate URBAN policy and secondly, the terms and conditions of URBAN initiatives in
highly segregated and contested cities.
99
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
The theoretical background of academic URBAN research in Northern Ireland comprises the
new urban governance approach, the debate on collaborative planning, and the research
methods of traditional community studies.
Methods
The dominant research methods were the analysis of documents, interviews with key actors,
and a kind of concomitant process analysis of the URBAN projects by way of personal
observation.
Cases
The geographical focuses of the case studies are the URBAN areas in Belfast and
Derry/Londonderry. Partly, research focussed on the urban level of administrative
implementation, partly at the local level of single areas like Creggan, Bogside/Brandywell, or
Fountain.
Cases
City
URBAN programme
Studies
Belfast
URBAN II
Murtagh 2001b, 2005
Derry/Londonderry (Creggan; URBAN I
Murtagh 1999, 2001a, 2001b
The Fountain;
Murtagh/McKay 2003
Bogside/Brandywell)
2.7.2 Main Issues of the Debate
Governance
Just like all urban policies in Northern Ireland, the URBAN initiative, too, must deal with the
ethno-religious, political Northern Ireland Conflict between Catholic Republicans and
Protestant Loyalists. Thus, when in 1994 the URBAN Community Initiative came to Norhern
Ireland, it had to face a very specific time-space context. The EU approach for stabilising
disadvantaged communities was absolutely different from British anti-violence planning in
Belfast and Derry/Londonderry which was oriented at upgrading arterial routes in the cities
and creating new urban spaces for selective consumption. This compilation of projects was
characterised by William Neill as “lipstick on the gorilla” planning (Neill 1995: 50).
100
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Cathal McCall and Arthur Williamson diagnose a tension between the social and community
turn of the European urban planning programmes and the centralised and bureaucratic urban
planning culture in Northern Ireland (McCall/Williamson 2000: 405). Brendan Murtagh
suggests that the strongest potential of the URBAN initiative in Northern Ireland lay in
connecting urban regeneration issues with questions of religion, poverty, and local
governance. Thus, the URBAN initiative was an innovative rejection of the sterility of the
Direct Rule management of urban conflicts (Murtagh 2001b: 444). With the URBAN
initiative a change of urban policy in Northern Ireland was initiated. Murtagh suggests that
URBAN “had effects beyond the areas targeted and the resources it expended and has
implication for the contribution that urban policy can make to Northern Ireland’s […]
transition to peace and stability” (Murtagh 2001b: 432). Since in the late 1990s urban policy
performed a shift from a focus on physical renewal towards a stronger inclusion of local
people, urban policy in Northern Ireland generated new governance structures.
Participation
Brendan Murtagh analyses the impact of the URBAN initiative on the planning culture in
Northern Ireland. For a long time, the planning system in Northern Ireland used to be
characterised as a ‘mini-Orwellian bureaucratic machine’ in which popular interests had little
or no control at all (Blackman 1984). With the European Union’s URBAN initiative for
Derry/Londonderry a more extended debate on community participation started. Murtagh’s
main purpose is to show how the adoption of qualitative methodologies may sensitise
planners (Murtagh 1999: 1181). The implementation of new and more communicative
planning methods was accompanied by a change of local planning strategies as well as by
new forms of urban governance (Berry/McGreal 1995). The URBAN initiative introduced
new planning methods, which fostered a stronger orientation towards participation and
partnerships.
Trans-National Learning
Trans-national learning in the case of Northern Ireland is more or less the adoption and
adaptation of inputs from the European level. However, Murtagh emphasises that the
European urban policy is already an amalgamation of experiences from different national
backgrounds. Murtagh and MaKay explain that the new EU discourse on urban policy has its
roots in French concepts of partnerships, integration, and social inclusion (Williams 1999).
The URBAN Community Initiative Programmes stands for this paradigm shift of urban policy
101
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
in Europe. The programmes were aimed at deprived inner-city areas, supported integrated
developing strategies, and orientated at locally led partnerships – but while urban
development programmes thus became increasingly complex, “evaluation design has failed to
keep pace with the increasingly complex variables” of urban policy (Murtagh/McKay 2003:
194).
During the 1990s the European Commission (DG Regio) invested in research to develop
adequate methods for evaluation. Murtagh and his colleague McKay explored different
interpretations of urban policy evaluation within the European Union Structural Funds
(Means for Evaluation Actions of a Structural Nature) The MEANS Collection includes
reports on methods, case studies, and models for evaluating socio-economic programmes.
The EU-evaluation design is a synthetic model of very different cultural and methodological
traditions. The MEANS Collection formulates an ideal type of evaluation modes:
ƒ
Tagging of Needs: objectives are designed to be as specific as possible and their relevance
to need is tested through ex ante appraisals
ƒ
Monitoring the Process: according to EU-guidance, monitoring must evaluate the inputs
(money), the operations (projects), and the outputs (measure in physical or economic
units)
ƒ
Rating of Results: result indicators relate to direct and indirect effects and refer to the
consequences of the programme beyond the immediate effects on direct beneficiaries
(CEC 2000a).
As Murtagh and McKay summarise, the European Commission favours an instrumental way
of evaluation. There were, however, discussions about introducing alternative methods of
interpretative evaluation in Northern Ireland, but these were hardly realised, since the
European Commission insisted on its standard evaluation design (Murtagh/McKay 2003:
200). By the introduction of an institutional audit with community leaders, programme
managers, and members of the Monitoring Committee in Derry/Londonderry, one reflexive
component was nonetheless added to the formal ex-post analysis of the EU evaluation design.
This process-accompanying kind of evaluation allowed for interventions in the ongoing
URBAN programme and thus enhanced the possibilities for regulation as well as the
effectiveness of the programme. Similarly to this example from Derry/Londonderry, in
Belfast, too, a successful adaptation of the EU evaluation guidelines succeeded.
102
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.7.3 Selected Studies
Murtagh, Brendan (1999): Listening to Communities: Locality Research and Planning.
The focus of this study is on the dynamics of the new and more communicative planning
methods with the local planning strategies in the context of URBAN programmes in Northern
Ireland and the formation of new forms of urban governance (Berry/McGreal 1995).
In 1997 the local Development Office, in charge of urban programmes, launched the
Londonderry Initiative as the principal regeneration policy for depressed areas in the city.
Londonderry is Northern Ireland’s second biggest city and highly segregated between the
mainly Catholic Cityside and the Protestant Waterside. The religious and political conflict in
Ireland superposed the perception and analysis of social and economic problems of
communities for years. The selection criteria for the URBAN initiative areas in Londonderry
were strictly based on social data5.
A community audit was meant to ascertain the final allocation of resources and local
priorities. A range of 38 community groups in the three URBAN areas were drawn from City
Council database of community groups and surveyed by in-depth interviews. The focus was
on organisations playing an active role with local development and on those who would be
potential applicants to URBAN funds (Murtagh 1999: 1185). The methods of SWOT
analysis6 and Priority Axis7 were used for judging on problems, perspectives, and priorities in
each area. The outcome of the audit process was summarised in an “Urban Initiative Strategy
for Derry/Londonderry” with seven operational themes8.
Murtagh argues that the community audit concept is useful, as it allows discussing relevant
issues within a planning context with a more coherent consideration of spatial problems. But
planners in Northern Ireland refused to deal with this complexity of planning and adhered to a
5
Creggan (with a population of 11,500 people) was built in the 1950s and 1960s and is dominated by younger
people (43 per cent were under 19 years old) and is one of the most deprived areas in Northern Ireland (Robson
et. al. 1994). The Fountain (550 people) has a declining and aging (46 per cent were aged over 60 and only 8 per
cent were under 25 years old) Protestant population in the predominantly Catholic Cityside. The unemployment
rate in 1991 was 55 per cent. The Bogside/Brandywell area (4.400 people) also has a high level of unemployment
(37 per cent), and the housing structure is dominated by public rented housing (91 per cent).
6
A SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning tool used to evaluate Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats.
7
Priority Axis is a planning tool to draw a priorities list of the core and secondary problems by help of surveys.
8
Operational themes for the URBAN initiative in Derry/Londonderry: children and family; youth integration;
community health; training and employment, technical support; reducing isolation, and environment.
103
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
technocratic approach. A result of this technocratic orientation was a reduction of a
comprehensive community strategy to demands for access to technical assistance. Murtagh
judges that “the relationship between communities and government […] was informed by a
very different discourse from that which characterised the community audit” (Murtagh 1999:
1189).
The experience of community audits in the URBAN programme emphasised that pluralist
methods adopted in strategy formulation were replaced by a more technocratic discource of
administration which led to frustration among representatives of community interests
(Murtagh 1999: 1189). On the other hand, the URBAN initiative opened up the way for
experimenting with new forms of consultation and participation in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, Murtagh reports different limitations of the audit concept:
ƒ
the problem of representativeness of the respondents to the survey, especially the fact that
not all relevant interests can be spatially determined
ƒ
the problem of simulating a cohesive sense of community when in reality it often does not
exist (Edwards 1997)
ƒ
the problem of spatial limitation: by concentrating on small spatially defined communities
the analysis could lose sight of a wider strategic context of urban change
ƒ
the problem of implementation: this problem might be evoked by inconsistencies in the
realisation of the concept throughout the duration of the process – from research to
implementation phase. In Derry/Londonderry, for instance, community audits would often
be restricted to the research phase and hence suggest direct participation of the community
in the complete planning process only while, in fact, “penetration into the decisionmaking process, control over expenditure and resource allocation priorities were limited
and research and consultation, in themselves, do not guarantee real control” (Murtagh
1999: 1190).
These limitations of the community audit concept point to a general challenge of area-based
participation processes and empowerment strategies.
One significant outcome of the audit approach could be that it produces sensitising concepts
that allow planners to see new or different ways. This is particularly important in the case of
104
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Northern Ireland, where bureaucratic values, systems, and structures dominate the planning
culture (Murtagh 1999: 1191).
The audit concept can visualise the diversity of perspectives and interests among people who
are involved in urban programmes. In this sense, audit represents “an active social process of
consensus forming” (Healey et al. 1994: 283).
Murtagh, Brendan (2001a): The Politics and Practice of Urban Policy Evaluation.
Brendan Murtagh uses a case study of evaluating urban politics in Derry/Londonderry to
show how specific techniques of evaluation work. He distinguishes between instrumental
techniques (which are primarily concerned with performance measures and indicators of
efficiency in public spending) and interpretative techniques (which emphasise the need to
explore power relations, the impact of policy on community competencies, and self-learning).
The search for strategies of social, economic, and spatial restructuring has led to a redefinition
of the relevance of neighbourhood and community issues (Fainstein 1990). In the course of
the European URBAN initiative community interests have been expanded to also affect
planning and policy processes. If the URBAN Programmes aim at local strategies in a wider
context of urban needs, then – according to Murtagh – the techniques of evaluation must stand
back from a pure ‘result controlling’ and must explore the contribution of the programmes to
more extended objectives – to economic development, the extension of social opportunities,
and political empowerment (Davoudi/Healey 1995).
Murtagh argues that there is the danger of community interests to engage with a narrow
discourse on the measurements of local needs and to miss more extended, contextual
questions about the structure of disadvantage of communities (Murtagh 2001a: 223). Different
techniques of evaluation concern different ways of defining problems and finding solutions.
The instrumental/technocratic approach evaluates the results of political programmes by
measured values and follows a positivistic planning approach. The interpretative approach by
contrast does not comprehend evaluation as a politically “neutral” procedure and asks about
power relationships and about who gets what and why out of the policy process.
Murtagh compares different evaluation methods and argues that the scope, purpose, and
method of programme evaluation have an important impact on the designs of the programme
105
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
itself. The MEANS Collection9 by the Commission of the European Union combines the
British concern for quantitative and efficiency with the Scandinavian model of consensual,
pluralistic evaluation methods (Murtagh 2001a: 226).
A case study in the URBAN areas in Derry/Londonderry in Northern Ireland describes how
the evaluation was organised and structured: the administration established an Urban
Regeneration Group to supervise the implementation and monitoring progress of the URBAN
Programme. This group consisted of 14 people with three representatives from the City
Council, three from the private sector, three from the public sector, and five from community
groups. In addition, five local Area Partnerships were included to help adapt the initiative to
local circumstances.
The design of evaluation and monitoring in Derry/Londonderry was set out at three
hierarchical levels:
ƒ
the macro-level, including instrumental data collection on the social, economic, and
physical constitution of the city,
ƒ
the meso-level, concentrated on project appraisal and monitoring systems to examine the
financial inputs and outcomes in terms of a range of indicators (jobs, training places, and
impact on marginal groups), and
ƒ
the micro-level, where the interest is concentrated on experiences that communities made
by using an interpretative approach and qualitative methodology.
In the URBAN initiative in Derry/Londonderry a mix of instrumental and interpretative
methods was used to make sure every aspect of the programme was considered in evaluation,
for: While an instrumental approach like the Community Audit helps find out about the
priority issues of urban and social needs in the community, it cannot explore the process of
change, the way in which groups experience the impact of policy, or specific causal
relationships of community restructuring. An interpretative approach like the Participatory
Action Research (PAR), on the other hand, has the advantage that it focuses on certain groups
9
MEANS Collection is an original methodological guide, providing solutions to technical and organisational
evaluation problems, launched by the European Commission with the aim of improving and promoting
evaluation methods for working on public-sector schemes in general and in particular measures under the
structural funds .
106
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
to find out about the ways in which they benefit from urban policy change as a consequence
of participation.10
In addition, groups who had applied but failed to receive funding, too, would be sampled in
order to detect reasons for the rejection of applications. The results showed that groups felt
that they offered useful inputs for community regeneration but encountered difficulties with
the strict requirements for receiving financial support (Murtagh 2001a: 231).
Murtagh argues that both the Community Audits and the Participatory Action Research are
limited instruments. There is the danger that community interests focus more on deliverables
than on issues of empowerment and resource allocation (Murtagh 2001a: 231).
Central questions for the research on local based regeneration strategies are
ƒ
who has information,
ƒ
who controls data collection, and
ƒ
what are powerful variables in deciding the outcome of urban policy.
Urban policy by itself must become the subject of evaluation and the methodology of
evaluation must come up to this claim (Murtagh 2001a: 231).
Murtagh, Brendan (2001b): The URBAN Community Initiative in Northern Ireland.
This article focuses on the social turn of urban policy in the contested and highly segregated
urban communities in Northern Ireland. Traditionally, urban policy in Northern Ireland was
characterised by a focus on physical measures, the implementation of which was closely
connected to the special political circumstances, which is why Murtagh describes it as a
"distinctive version of Thatcherite property planning in which the renewal of town centres
[…] became intimately wedded to the British government’s responds to Republican violence"
(2001b: 432). In the last years, however, urban policy has performed a shift towards a more
inclusive agenda of engagement by local people and towards producing new governance
structures. The URBAN programme, obviously, managed to break up traditional patterns of
Northern Ireland's urban policy. Though constantly in conflict with the centralist and
bureaucratic planning culture, the URBAN initiative, according to Murtagh, exerted a far10
The application to urban policy in Derry/Londonderry consists of five interlocking phases: research and
intervention goals, assessment of needs and resources, action planning, action taking, project outcomes (Murtagh
2001a: 230).
107
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
reaching influence insofar as it went beyond the actual target areas and thus motivated general
changes in urban policy (Murtagh 2001b: 432).
Cathal McCall and Arthur Williamson observed a tension between the social and community
turn of the European urban planning programmes and the centralised and bureaucratic urban
planning culture in Northern Ireland (McCall/Williamson 2000: 405).
Although the URBAN initiative was not really successful in its basic targets (local economy,
labour market, and social deprivation) it still “seems to register some effects on the
community infrastructure and the visual quality of the three areas” and “produce added values
in the engagement between a centrist government and […] community activists” (Murtagh
2001b: 440). But these new partnerships were still limited to the application process – local
neighbourhood partnerships did not obtain any implementation function or budgetary control.
Murtagh summarises five fields of involvement of partnerships with the URBAN initiative:
ƒ
coordination of local communities to present a more unified approach at the URBAN
initiative,
ƒ
consultation as informing and being informed by groups with a stake in the URBAN
programme,
ƒ
implementation as an accompaniment of projects and providing financial supports and
technical assistance for community groups,
ƒ
support in the form of helping groups with proposing submissions and applications, and
ƒ
representing the community with the URBAN Monitoring Committee (Murtagh 2001b:
441)
These efforts notwithstanding, “the range of functions were often marginal to the task of
programme delivery, and one community activist characterised the partnership role as a
version of ‘community therapy’” (Murtagh 2001b: 441). Partnership managers reported
frustration about the bureaucratic nature of decision-making – control of information and the
timetable for decision-making as well as the judgement on allocations were incorporated into
administrative routines that were intransparent to outsiders, Thus, “the suspicion that
characterised the relations between the state and the local people was not completely
resolved” (Murtagh 2001b: 441).
108
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Murtagh, Brendan/McKay, Stephen (2003): Evaluating the Social Effects of the EU URBAN
Community Initiative Programme.
This article analyses the local adoption of European standards for urban policy evaluation.
Brendan Murtagh and Stephen McKay explore different interpretations of the meaning and
method of urban policy evaluation within the European Union Structural Funds. The MEANS
(Means for Evaluation Actions of a Structural Nature) Collection for evaluating the URBAN
initiative programmes reflects the shift in urban policy from “property-led renewal to an
approach centred on communities, social objectives and notions of empowerments”
(Murtagh/McKay 2003: 193).
According to the authors, former urban policy evaluation was characterised by efficiency-led
measurement and monitoring approaches and the focal point was put on demonstrating value
for money in public spending, calculating private sector leverage in projects, and on
quantified targets. The turn of urban policy is traced back to the challenge to cope with the
consequences of urban change. With the URBAN programme, questions of participation and
integration are more and more gaining ground in urban policy. The evaluation methods,
however, do not sufficiently come up to this shift in orientations.
Murtagh and McKay analysed the debate on urban policy and urban planning and assert a
rediscovery of ‘community’ and ‘property’ as central topics, a transition to partnership
governance, and a break out of a sectoralised government tradition (Healey 2001: 267). Patsy
Healey conceptualised the idea of communicative and collaborative planning resting on open,
undiluted, and equal communication as a basis for consensus and action (Healey 2001).
Murtagh and McKay apply this approach to the URBAN initiative: If urban policy has
changed from top-down planning to communicative planning, urban policy evaluation must
change
from
quantitative
instrumental
to
qualitative
interpretative
approaches
(Murtagh/McKay 2003: 195 ff.). The evaluation policy must give up on simple and valueoriented input-output models and must adopt a more discursive evaluation methodology.
Evaluating a communicative planning process is not a ‘Value for Money’ approach but
scrutinising the decision-making process. Healey composed a range of interrelated questions:
ƒ
Who has a stake in the qualities of the urban communities, how far are these stakeholders
actively represented in current governance arrangements?
ƒ
In what arenas do discussions take place? Who gets access to these? By which routines
and in which ways does discussion happen? Do these routines allow for diverse ways of
109
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
knowing and of assessing representation among stakeholders or do prevailing discussion
routines dominate?
ƒ
By which policy discourses are problems identified, claims for policy attention prioritised,
and information filtered?
ƒ
How is agreement reached and are commitments monitored? (Healey 1996: 213f.)
2.7.4 Problems of Evaluating the URBAN Programmes in Northern Ireland
Murtagh and McKay point to the limitations and obstacles for effective evaluation in the
URBAN programmes in Northern Ireland. As a general problem they refer to a lack of
appropriate baseline data, which made it difficult to measure and account for changes as a
result of programme activities and to assess the relevance of the objectives of local needs. A
particularity of the Northern Ireland case is identified by Murtagh and McKay in the culture
and tradition of distrust against the local state in Republican neighbourhoods. The
Community Audit with its community leaders and the Monitoring Committee including
representatives from communities were instruments to establish interpersonal trust,
communicative networks, and community participation in the URBAN projects in Northern
Ireland. (Murtagh/McKay 2003: 201). But the local administration (Local Development
Organization – LDO) continued to be the final arbiter of submissions made by groups in the
URBAN area. “Local neighbourhood partnerships were given an uncertain role within the
programme that did not devolve implementation functions or budgetary control”
(Murtagh/McKay 2003: 2001).
Murtagh and McKay conclude that the URBAN experience in Northern Ireland was a step to
deconstruct real and symbolic divisions between different ethno-religious groups. Especially
the sensibility to the different problems and needs of Catholic Republican and Protestant
Loyalist communities might serve as an example for all European URBAN initiatives that
have to deal with “spatialisation of race and its intersection with identity and poverty”
(Murtagh/McKay 2003: 209).
Murtagh, Brendan (2005): Social and Ethnic Segregation and the Urban agenda.
The ethno-religious segregation in Belfast, Northern Ireland might be allegorised as “the dark
side of difference” (Sandercock 2000). Urban planning policy in Europe turned to cope with
the problems of structural changes of economy as well as with the consequences of social
110
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
disadvantage and disintegration11. But planning and urban policy can also be seen as
instruments of social control. “Like most other areas of public policy, it should thus be
conceived as ‘double-edged’, being capable of both reform and control, emancipation and
oppression.” (Yiftachel 2000: 419) Experiences from other contested cities (Jerusalem,
Johannesburg) demonstrate the manipulative capacity of urban planning to exercise control
over the ‘others’ (Fenster 1996).
A community-based urban strategy might be perceived as a policy of preferences and
discriminations. The case of Belfast offers an example of how planning can deal with these
views. Restructuring in the Belfast Metropolitan Area (BMA) has changed the labour market
conditions in the inner-city communities, and the new production units in this ‘neutral’ area
were likely to draw from both highly segregated Protestant and Catholic areas and from
disadvantaged neighbourhoods as well (Shirlow et al. 2002). The URBAN II programme was
set up for building ‘binding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital. The North Belfast Partnership – the
central URBAN institution – has managed to establish and maintain a robust governance
structure and spend money on a cross-sector and cross-community basis. The URBAN II
programme integrated initiatives from government departments, private agencies, as well as
from communities. This is remarkable because Belfast was/is deemed to have an inefficient
and fractured governance structure. Murtagh concludes that it “would be wrong to overstate
the impact of URBAN II on North Belfast’s stubborn social and ethnic problems, but it is a
start” (Murtagh 2005: 192).
11
Murtagh quotes three tendencies of the turn within urban policy: first, the turn towards increased complexity
of understanding the nature of urban change; second, the ‘turn to community’ as increasingly targeting on people
and social capital and not only on property and buildings; and thirdly the spatial target has shifted from high
growth commercial projects towards areas of disadvantage (Murtagh 2005: 179ff).
111
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.8 United Kingdom
Bibliography
Bache, Ian/ Adam Jay Marshall (2004): Europeanisation and Domestic Change: A Governance
Approach to Institutional Adaptation in Britain. Queen’s Paper on Europeanisation No 5.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2003): EU Regional Policy and Urban Governance: Assessing reform and
renewal in Britain and Ireland. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Centre of International Studies,
University of Cambridge.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004a): Europeanisation at the Urban Level: Local Actors, Institutions and the
Dynamics of Multi-Level Interaction. Working Paper prepared by the ESRC/UACES Study Group on
the Europeanisation of the British Politics and Policy Making, Sheffield, April 23, 2004. URL:
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00001731/01/Marshall.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004b): Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the impact of the EU on
local governance in Britain. Paper presented at the ESRC/ UACES One-Day Conference, Sheffield,
July 16, 2004. URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ebpp/Marshalljuly16.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and
Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. diss., Department of Social Policy, London
School of Economics and Political Science.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing “Urban” in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the
UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under the European Union: are they
‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
Tofarides, Maria (2002): Community-led Regeneration Strategies: lessons from the URBAN
programmes in Sheffield and London. Paper presented at the European Young Researchers Network
Workshop, Venice, June 19, 2002.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System,
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities. Experiences, Motivations and Effects on
Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU
and the European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR
European Consortium for Political Research Conference Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
112
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.8.1 Introduction
We have identified ten articles on URBAN in Great Britain. However, only five focus on the
UK exclusively. The rest of the articles are comparative studies scrutinising, among other
things, URBAN projects in Britain. The way of publication indicates that the academic debate
largely takes place in the framework of conferences and workshops. More than half of the
articles are published as conference or working papers. Only a few were published as journal
articles and the literature review includes only one monograph and one unpublished PhD
thesis.
The main focus of the articles on British urban policy lies on changing patterns of domestic
governance due to the influence of the European Union (Marshall 2004 a/b, Paulus 2000,
Tofarides 2003, Wolffhardt et al. 2005). Some of the authors refer to the broader debate about
the effects of European integration and the appropriate analytical frameworks to analyse them.
Another main interest of the researchers is the question whether the EU is able to enforce
community participation or not (Marshall 2004a/b, Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2002&2003,
Wolffhardt et al. 2005). Another important aspect, which is treated in all the articles, is the
issue of institutional miss-fit between institutional arrangements (referring to formal and
informal institutions) in Great Britain and the requirements of the European Union. The
former is said to cause problems for the implementation of URBAN.
Methods
Corresponding to the pre-dominant emphasis on changing governance structures, the
dominant analytical approach to analyse recent changes in the UK’s urban policy is that of
multi-level-governance (Marshall 2004 a/b, Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2003, Wolffhardt et al.
2005). Paulus combines the concept of multi-level governance with the concept of policy
networks in order to analyse participation in the framework of partnerships.
Another concept, which some authors (Wolffhard/Bartik 2005, Tofarides 2003) apply, is that
of “extended gatekeeping”. In this respect the work of Ian Bache is central although it does
not directly refer to URBAN (Bache 1996). Bache adopted the concept of gatekeeping from
Intergovernmentalism in order to conceptualise the role of national governments in the
implementation of European policy measures. The notion of gatekeeping mainly refers to the
attempt of national governments to maintain control over policy processes. The concept of
113
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
“extended gatekeeping” aims to asses the role of central governments at all different stages of
the process (Bache 1996).
Dominant methods adopted are interviews with key actors at different levels of governance as
well as the analysis of documents concerning the implementation of URBAN at the national
and the local level. Some studies also include the European level in their analysis (Paulus
2000, Tofarides 2003).
Cases
Most of the studies are conceptualised as comparative case studies. Others are dealing with
the question of the Europeanisation of urban policies via EU programmes in Great Britain
generally.
Cities
under
scrutiny are
Birmingham
and
Glasgow
(Marshall
2004a, 2004b),
Liverpool/Merseyside (Wolffhardt et al. 2005, Paulus 2000), Manchester (Wolfhardt/Bartik
2005) and London (Paulus 2005 and Tofarides 2003) as well as Sheffield (Tofarides 2002).
City
URBAN Programmes
Studies
Birmingham
general
Marshall 2004a, 2004b
Glasgow
general
Marshall 2004a
Liverpool
URBAN I
Paulus 2005
(Merseyside)
URBAN I & II
Wolffhardt et al. 2005
London
URBAN I
Paulus 2005
(Park Royal)
URBAN I
Tofarides 2003
Heart of East End
Tofarides 2003
Manchester
URBAN I & II
Wolffhardt et al. 2005
Sheffield
URBAN I
Tofarides 2003
(NWICA area)
114
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.8.2 Main Topics of the Debate
Governance
First of all, all studies scrutinise the change of governance structures on the urban level from
hierarchical government to a more horizontal pattern of governance. In this respect the
researchers adopt different perspectives. While Marshall uses the urban level to exemplify the
process of Europeanisation, other authors such as Wolffhardt et al. use the concept of
Europeanisation as an analytical framework in order to analyse the effects of URBAN on
patterns of governance in the EU member states. According to the concept of Europeanisation
the process of EU integration leads, on the one hand, to an adaptation of domestic structures
and policy measures to EU requirements (so-called down-load Europeanisation). On the other
hand, EU integration causes an increasing interaction between the European and the regional
or local level, which extents the influence of regions and cities at the European level (socalled up-load Europeanisation) (see Marshall 2004a presented below).
Most authors suggest that the structural framework of EU Structural Funds and in particular
of URBAN allow the central government to play a gatekeeping role (Marshall 2004a, Paulus
2000, and Tofarides 2003). The different approaches to urban policy became evident in the
two years long negations between the European Commission and the UK central government
on the adequate financial and administrative procedures for URBAN. The British central
government favoured a centralised management of URBAN while the EU required a
community-led, decentralised approach (Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2003). This resulted in severe
problems for the process of implementation causing frustration among local actors and
problems of match-funding (Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2002/2003).
All authors discuss the question of fit and misfit between formal institutions and policy
traditions on the one side and EU requirements on the other side. However, they draw
different conclusions concerning this issue.
Marshall identifies a misfit between the cohesion-oriented principles of the EU and the
competition-based British urban policy (Marshall 2004a). According to him, UK local
authorities lack a constitutional standing and possess relatively few competencies, which
prevents them from taking actions beyond their responsibilities granted by the central
government. Additionally, urban governments have to share their competencies with several
meso-level institutions created by the labour government since 1997 (Marshall 2004a).
115
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Furthermore, Marshall emphasises the increasing involvement of private firms in policy
implementation and service delivery during the last decade in Great Britain. According to
Marshall, this development led to a decreasing role of cities within the policy process. In line
with these developments, the principle of private public partnership became the main vehicle
for regeneration. This kind of partnership was largely driven by economic considerations
lacking the social motives of the European notion of partnership (Marshall 2004a).
Wolffhard et al., however, interpret the pre-existence of partnerships between the public,
private and voluntary sector as a high policy-fit reducing adaptation pressure right from the
beginning. In this respect they refer to them as informal structures of policy-making
facilitating the implementation of URBAN (Wolffhard/Bartik 2005).
Nevertheless, all studies implicitly or explicitly state: pre-existing local arrangements matter.
Furthermore, previous experiences with Objective 1 and 2 programmes as well as with
Pathways projects facilitate the implementation of URBAN due to already existing “informal
governance structures” (Wolfhardt/Bartik 2005, 13). Therefore, there are also differences
across regions within the UK depending on pre-existing institutional structures and previous
experiences with EU funding procedures. Western Scotland, for example, differs from most
partnership arrangements in Britain due to a considerable fit between Commission
requirements and local practice (Bache/Marshall 2004). Concerning the topic of institutional
misfit almost all authors additionally refer to pre-existing national regeneration programmes.
Although similarities exist between the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and URBAN
concerning management and geographical contribution, there is no formal link between the
two programmes (Tofarides 2003, Paulus 2000). Since the SRB also focuses on integrated
programmes based on partnerships, according to Tedesco it is not possible to figure out to
which extent the trend of increasing community participation is a result of URBAN (Tedesco
2004). Wolffhardt et al. present similar arguments: Following them, it is difficult to single out
the effects of URBAN on UK’s urban policy. However, with empirical evidence from
Liverpool and Manchester they illustrate that local and European factors reinforce one another
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
Partnership and Community Participation
Besides the gatekeeping role of the central government, all studies point to a devolution of
European principles such as partnership and strategic planning in Britain (Marshall 2004a).
116
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Further topics related to the structural changes in governance are community participation and
partnership. With regard to this, the different studies arrive at different conclusions. In
Birmingham and Glasgow Marshall finds evidence for increasing grassroots participation in
decision-making as well as in project planning and implementation. Community actors from
across the region established the “West Midland European Network” and “Regional Action of
West Midlands” in order to engage in European and domestic issues. Even on the
neighbourhood level, communities are integrated in multi-level EU networks. Therefore
Marshall suggests a transition from “government to governance” (Marshall 2004, 16).
Concerning community participation, Tofarides and Paulus are less enthusiastic. This might
also refer to the fact that they differentiate between participation of local residents, voluntary
organisations, the public and the private sector. Emphasising social exclusion, Paulus focuses
on participation of local community defined as local residents, community organisations and
voluntary groups. Her empirical study of Park Royal (London) and Merseyside (Liverpool)
presents evidence for a dominance of civil servants in the process of formulation in both case
study areas (Paulus 2000). However, in Merseyside she identifies an increasing community
participation in further drafts. In contrast to the formulation process, both programmes under
scrutiny adopted an integrative way of decision making involving community participation in
the process of operationalisation (Paulus 2000). Similar to Paulus, Wolffhardt et al., analysing
URBAN I and II, present evidence for a process of policy learning in Merseyside concerning
the integration of actors from civil society into decision-making processes at the local level
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
As Paulus, Tofarides stresses problems of enhancing community participation in London
stating that none of the programmes managed to reach beyond those groups that were already
involved in previous regeneration programmes (Tofarides 2003). The same holds true in the
case of Sheffield (Tofarides 2002). Furthermore, according to Tofarides, there is a problem in
the fact that ‘community’ is hardly defined exactly.
Trans-National Networks
In his study on Europeanisation on the urban level, Adam Marshall refers to the process of
upload Europeanisation via transnational networks such as EUROCITIES. By evidence from
Birmingham and Glasgow he illustrates that cities attempt to increase their influence on the
European level via translational networks (Marshall 2004a). Similar to Marshall, Wolffhardt
117
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
et al. find evidence in Manchester for increasing engagement on the European level via transnational networks such as INTERREG and PHARE. They identify Manchester as “EuroPlayer”, a city which identifies itself as a “leader of European integration from below”
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
With the exception of Marshall’s study, transnational networks are no significant topic. Only
Wolffhardt et al. refer to transnational networks as a framework for policy learning in
addition to local cross-sectoral networks (Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
2.8.3 Selected Studies
In the following, some studies will be presented in more detail. They are selected either
because of their significance as such or because they include fundamental concepts other
studies refer to.
Adam Marshall: Europeanisation at the Urban Level
As already indicated above, the literature dealing with urban policy in Great Britain is partly
integrated into the debate about Europeanisation following European integration. This is
particularly true for the studies of Adam Marshall. The aim of his paper “Europeanisation at
the Urban Level: Local Actors, Institutions and the Dynamics of Multi-Level Interaction” is
to evaluate whether European policy has provoked changes in urban governance structures
(Marshall 2004a). In order to do so, he sets out a framework for Europeanisation. Following
his definition, Europeanisation is a two-fowled process consisting of download and upload
Europeanisation, which is defined as follows (Marshall 2004a, 7):
“1. Download Europeanisation: Changes in policies, practices, preferences or participants
within local systems of governance, arising from the negotiation and implementation of EU
programmes”
“2. Upload Europeanisation: “The transfers of innovative urban practices to the supranational arena, resulting in the incorporation of local initiatives in pan-European policies or
programmes”
Following this definition, the access to structural funds, on the one hand, leads to changes in
local governance structures – from a hierarchical government to a more horizontal and
flexible form of governance (Marshall 2004). On the other hand, cities are able to make their
118
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
presence felt at the EU level through participation in trans-national organisations and
networks (Marshall 2004).
Following Marshall, the engagement of cities with EU policies results in a four stage pattern
of interaction and adjustment elaborated by Green Cowles et al. 2001:
Europeanisation (Structural Fund / Community Initiatives (UPP) →
Adaptational Pressures (degree of fit between EU/ domestic norms) →
Mediating Institutions (local, regional, national institutional context) →
Urban Structural Change (institutional shifts/governance changes)
According to Marshall, British local authorities lack a clear constitutional standing and
possess relatively few competencies. Furthermore, in the recent years their influence
decreased due to an increasing involvement of private firms in the field of service delivery.
This refers to the fact that public-private-partnerships became the principal vehicle of
regeneration in Britain (Marshall 2004a, 10), which does not correspond with the
requirements of URBAN. Hence Marshall identifies a misfit between EU requirements and
British institutional settings, which leads to a pressure for adjustment.
Empirical evidence for the two-fowled process of Europeanisation is presented from
Birmingham and Glasgow – two cities with a long history of European engagement.
According to Marshall, local authorities in Birmingham and Glasgow adjusted to European
norms such as direct lobbying, partnership and long-term strategic planning. By
‘downloading’ these principles, the strategic capacity of local authorities increased (Marshall
2004). Furthermore, Marshall suggests that the EU initiatives enhanced the decision-making
role of grassroots organisations. The increasing community integration in urban decisionmaking processes goes hand in hand with the establishment of partnerships within the urban
landscape (Marshall 2004). This process of download Europeanisation is accompanied by a
process of upload Europeanisation. Both cities try to expand their influence on the European
level via transnational networks such as EUROCITIES and the EU programmes INTERREG
and PHARE (Marshall 2004a).
In conclusion, Marshall provides empirical evidence for a process of download and upload
Europeanisation in Birmingham and Glasgow. Furthermore, he suggests that Europeanisation,
as an analytical concept, can be generalised provided that the cities under scrutiny meet the
119
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
criterion of “significant involvement” with EU institutions and programmes (Marshall 2004a:
19).
Wolffhardt et al. apply the concept of Europeanisation as outlined by Marshall (Wolfhardt et
al. 2005). This enables them to adopt two perspectives: Firstly the top-down perspective,
which allows for analysing governance effects of EU programmes. With regard to top-down
Europeanisation they find evidence for a significant degree of partnership-based policy
development blurring the distinction between horizontal and vertical structures. Furthermore,
they suggest that the European programmes in Merseyside and Manchester incorporated new
groups into decision-making, mainly from the voluntary and community sector, while they
were less successful with regard to the private sector.
Secondly, they adopt the bottom-up perspective to scrutinise why and how cities get involved
with Europe. In this respect they find evidence for the consideration of Europe as a “helping
hand” (Bartik/ Wolfhardt 2005 p.34), used as a catalyst to release local potential. Moreover,
European programmes can help to sharp the city’s profile within the European urban system.
Liverpool, for instance, used “Europe” as a point of reference for its repositioning as a
service-oriented regional centre (Bartik/ Wolfhardt 2005: 34).
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and
Operationalisation of a Community Initiative
With regard to literature dealing with URBAN in the UK, the PhD thesis of Sabine Paulus
“URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and operationalisation of a Community
Initiative” is noteworthy insofar as it represents a detailed analysis of the process of
formulation, operationalisation and conceptualisation of URBAN programmes in the UK and
Germany. She applies a conceptual framework of network-analysis and multi-levelgovernance. This analysis is carried out at three different levels: the macro-level (EU-level),
meso-level (national-level) and the micro-level (local level). The case studies we are
interested in are concerned with the micro level in Great Britain, including Merseyside
(Liverpool) and Royal Park (London).
According to Paulus, Great Britain adopted a competition-based selection process of URBAN
projects following the British tradition of urban policy. The former allows Central
Government Departments to play a significant role. Therefore she categorises the
120
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
implementation of URBAN at the national level as a hierarchical decision making process.
Hence she confirms the findings of the authors stating that the model of multi-level
governance in the UK allows the central government to maintain its gatekeeping role (see
above).
However, the picture at the local level is more complex: Paulus argues that the processes of
formulation in both case study areas followed an exclusive and intransparent way of decisionmaking. In both cases civil servants dominate the process of formulation and the local
community is largely excluded. However, in Merseyside she identifies an increasing
community participation in further drafts (Paulus 2000).
In contrast to the formulation process, both programmes under scrutiny adopted an integrative
way of decision making involving community participation in the process of
operationalisation. This makes the significance of pre-existing institutional structures and
traditions evident: While Merseyside could refer to an already existing framework for
community participation thanks to its experience with Pathways programmes, in London,
community participation in the first URBAN programme still needed to be improved.
According to several interviewed local actors, they had only limited influence on the
realisation of URBAN due to pre-determined structures and extremely rigid implementation
schedules. However, the implementation of URBAN altogether enhanced community
involvement in the UK, thus contributing to a change in governance structures (Paulus 2000).
As stated by Paulus, a fundamental problem for the implementation of URBAN in the UK
resulted from the divergent conceptions of Regional Policy of the UK central government and
the European Commission. Following the principle of subsidiarity and the UK’s urban
regeneration tradition, the national government favoured a centralised administration through
a national monitoring committee, enabling the national government to control the project
management. The Commission, according to the URBAN guidelines, argued for a local
authority-led management through local URBAN management committees.
The conflict between the British central government and the Commission caused problems for
match-funding as well as for the participation of community actors, who got more and more
frustrated due to delays of programmes and initiatives. As a result, local actors had problems
to motivate community participation (Paulus 2000).
121
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Furthermore, problems occurred due to the fact that most actors were unfamiliar with EU
regulations. Following Paulus, an additional problem was the dichotomy between URBAN’s
integrated approach and the lack of a synthesised funding provision due to the ERDF/ESF
multi-fund operations. Many interviewees stated that the URBAN aspirations were too
ambiguous for the practical reality of the Structural Funds. ERDF/ESF required detailed fund
classifications within each Operational Programme resulting in time-consuming rearrangements of the financial outlays of URBAN projects. Furthermore, due to the multi-fund
provisions of ERDF/ESF, local actors had to deal with different departments at the national
and European level. Hence, the fragmented bureaucracy of the Commission was not
compatible with the integrative approach of URBAN. Therefore Paulus suggests that the
traditional EU decision-making procedures and institutional structures failed to provide
necessary conditions for the realisation of URBAN (Paulus 2000, 20).
Paulus concludes her study on URBAN stating that the impact of URBAN needs to be seen as
“ex-ante conditionality for the future conception of European policy interventions” (Paulus
2000, 256).
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper
System
Tofarides seeks to explore the growing involvement of the European Commission in urban
policy comparing US federal urban policy with EU urban programmes. The empirical part of
her study focuses on London and Marseille with an emphasis on community participation. In
this article we are only interested in the British case study referring to London.
In contrast to Marshall, Tofarides is sceptical about the extent to which the European
Commission is able to achieve community participation.
Referring to Hall, Tofarides illustrates the problem of community participation of URBAN.
Political participation is largely a phenomenon of the British middle-class but URBAN in
London operates in areas with a large population of ethnic minorities, which partly moved to
the area only recently. These social groups often lack identification with their neighbourhood
and the necessary social capacity to engage in community regeneration.
122
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In both case study areas the phenomenon of “community gatekeeping” through institutions –
e.g. charity organisations and tenant’s associations –, which were already engaged in
community regeneration, monopolising the implementation process, appeared (Tofarides
2003, 209). Even though the different URBAN Partnership Groups made considerable effort
to enhance broader community participation, none of them managed to get beyond the groups
that were already involved in community regeneration. In order to provide the Urban
Partnership Groups (UPG) with democratic legitimacy and to widen participation, the
representatives were to be elected. However, most elections were cancelled for reason of a
lack of candidates or a lack of voter turnout. In other areas, such as Steppey and Spitalfields,
the elections were mostly related to internal politics of the resident Muslim community and
not to URBAN issues (Tofarides 2003). Thus, what was needed in order to achieve a real
bottom-up approach was capacity building. Another problem that occurred concerning
community participation is, according to Tofarides, the lack of a clear definition of
‘community’ as well as a lack of clear guidelines as to how the implementing authorities
should pursue community-led strategies. To define ‘community’ is particularly difficult in
multi-ethnic cities with a fluid population, as it is the case in London. According to Tofarides,
the lack of community participation beyond the organisations that are already involved in
urban programmes might also refer to the funding facilities. Non-established organisations
with a lack of adequate resources were not able to bridge the period between paying for the
project and receiving ERDF funding and could thus not take up the role of an accountable
body. This explains why Local Councils were the leading partners in almost all URBAN
programmes in London (Tofarides 2003) (Exception: Queen’s Park).
As the other authors, Tofarides identifies the British Central Government as the initial
gatekeeper. In this respect Tofarides hints at the weak position of the European Commission,
which depends on the national administration concerning the selection of cities. While the
Commission aimed to select only a relatively small number of cities, the central government
tried to gain as many programmes as possible. This was also due to the fact that the selection
process reached high political salience.
In the context of the gatekeeping position of the Central Government, Tofarides, as Paulus,
refers to the problems of implementation resulting from the duration of negotiations between
the Central Government and the European Commission (two years). Furthermore, Tofarides
applies the notion of gatekeeping also to central government departments trying to maintain
123
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the control over the implementation process by guarding their own budget and responsibility.
Finally two separate departments where involved at the national level, each with its own
regulations, which caused further problems for the implementation at the local level.
Another problem mentioned by Tofarides is the contradiction between “provider led” and
“demand led” projects. East London, for example, favoured the former due to the existence of
a wide range of other projects. However, not all projects by URBAN Partnership Groups were
eligible, which in some cases led to resignation of participants (Tofarides 2003).
2.8.4 Conclusion
All in all, the debate on URBAN in the UK seems to be largely focussed on the issue of
changing governance structures. Besides the gatekeeping role of the central government, all
studies find evidence for Europeanisation of UK urban policy. Marshall suggests that the
efforts of the national government to retain control encouraged Europeanisation at the local
level. Cities such as Glasgow and Birmingham considered the Commission as a counterpart to
the national government and – as a reaction to the central government’s gatekeeping –
increased their lobbying for greater local input at EU-level. Hence, cities use EU programmes
in their battle for greater subsidiarity (Marshall 2004a). Moreover, in comparison to SRB
partnerships, community participation increased. With regard to community participation –
the second main topic of the debate – some authors argue that participation of local actors is
actually increased while others have doubts about the ability of URBAN to extend community
participation. Furthermore, evidence is provided for upload Europeanisation illustrated by
increasing efforts of cities to gain influence on the EU level (Paulus 2000, Marshall 2004a).
According to the reviewed academic studies, URBAN’s relevance as an additional source of
funding should not be overestimated. Due to the reduction of funding for domestic urban
regeneration and the introduction of competitive bidding during the 1980s and 1990s, many
cities increasingly sought for EU funding (Bache/Marshall 2004). Wolffhardt et al. confirm
this thesis suggesting that the motivation for Manchester and Liverpool to engage with
Europe is mainly driven by “Europe as helping hand”. Still URBAN’s significance as a
financial resource is limited (Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2003). Moreover, the literature review
shows that the influence of URBAN on UK local governance structures is debated. At least
partially the principle of partnership – an outstanding characteristic of URBAN – was already
existent in UK urban policy.
124
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
For that reason, the scrutinised readings suggest that URBAN in the UK is only part of a
general process of Europeanisation – but lacks the prominence that it might have in other
countries. Firstly, this is due to the existence of domestic regeneration programmes. Secondly:
Even though there was a misfit between the structural arrangements in the UK and EU
requirements, the patterns of governance in the UK were more similar to EU requirements
than they were in countries with more hierarchical administrative structures. In those
countries, Italy for example, URBAN encouraged a break with traditional patterns of
governance. In the UK however, informal policy structures already existed, even if not
exactly in the European sense.
125
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2.9 Comparative Studies
Bibliography
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan
Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in
Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the 40th Congress of the European Regional
Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in
Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies, Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2003): North-South Local Authority and Governance Differences in EU
Networks. In: European Planning Studies, Vol.11, No.6, 671-695.
Gelli, Francesca/ Carla Tedesco (2001): Governments and modes of governance in the U.S. and
European cities. The change in urban policies. Paper presented at the conference “Area-based
initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop3/gelli.htm (last access 20.03.2006).
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN
at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Masterthesis.Bauhaus Universität Weimar.
Paulus, Sabine W. C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and
Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Social Policy,
London School of Economics and Political Science.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing ‘Urban' in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the UK.
Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under the European Union: are they ‘European’”?
Venice, June 18, 2002.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System,
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities. Experiences, Motivations and Effects on
Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU
and the European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR
European Consortium for Political Research Conference Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
126
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities. Experiences, motivations and effects on
local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen
Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities
in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
2.9.1 Introduction
In total we found six international comparative research studies, which are characterised by a
systematic analysis of at least two cases in at least two different member states.12
Cases
States
Cities
Researcher
Spain, Greece,
Malaga, Piraeus, Porto
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000, 2002,
Portugal UK, Irland,
Birmingham, Cork,
2003)
NL
Amsterdam
UK, Germany
London, Liverpool, Berlin,
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000)
Duisburg
UK, Italy
Bari, Milano, Roma, Bristol,
Tedesco, Carla/Gelli, Francesca
London
(2001, 2002)
UK, France
London, Marseille
Tofarides, Maria (2003)
UK, Austria,
Liverpool, Liverpool,
Wolffhardt, Alexander/Bartik,
Germany
Manchester, Vienna, Graz
Herbert/Meegan, Richard/Dangschat,
Hamburg, Dortmund
Jens S./Hamedinger, Alexander (2005)
Erfurt, Trieste
Mattiucci, Laura (2005)
Germany, Italy
The international comparative URBAN research features a stronger public presence in the
academic discourses than the URBAN research in general. The researchers’ affiliation with
academic institutions and networks might be a reason for this publicity. Research work for
comparative studies is time-consuming, and so the majority of case studies is embedded in
larger research projects. Half of the international comparative studies were carried out as PhD
and MA projects (Chorianopoulos 2000, Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2003, Mattiucci 2005). The
12
The comparative analysis of management issues in the context of URBAN II by Lucie Godayer (2004) is not
taken into consideration for the range of comparative case studies since essentially it is based on secondary data
analysis and does not include a case study.
127
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
other studies were produced in the context of established research institutions like the “facoltà
di pianificazione del territorio” at IUAV in Venice or a research programme like the NODE
(New Orientations for Democracy in Europe) of the European Forum Vienna.
The UK (6), Italy (3) and Germany (3) are the countries most often analysed in international
comparative URBAN studies. Interestingly, five of the six comparative studies with reference
to the UK were conducted by researchers from outside the UK (Chorianopoulos, Paulus,
Gelli, Tedesco). This emphasises the importance of the British URBAN experience for
European urban research.
2.9.2 Main Topics of the Debate
Governance
The structure of local governance and the co-operation of administrations on different spatial
levels were in the focus of most comparative studies on the URBAN CI. The predominantly
strongly empirically focussed studies did not only explore the systematics of negotiation and
decision-making in the context of European urban policy, but also analysed the
implementation of URBAN projects as well as the impact of URBAN on governance at
different levels (European, national, regional, local). In her study Sabine Paulus explicitly
investigated the structures of multi-level-governance in the conceptualisation and
implementation of URBAN programmes in UK and Germany. She argues that the European
policy process must increasingly be understood as a network of administrative agencies, civil
and voluntary organisations, and private actors at different levels.
However, the majority of studies primarily investigate the impact of URBAN on
governmental administrations. A good example for this perspective is Maria Tofarides’ work.
In her study she identifies the central governments in UK and France as gatekeepers between
the European URBAN initiative and local projects: “In both the UK and France, central
government played a major part in the selection of cities and the agreeing of the financial
allocation to each programme” (Tofarides 2002: 255). Tofarides’ empirical findings support
the assumption of Ian Bache who states that “the gatekeeping powers of national governments
can limit the influence of the supranational level” (Tofarides 2003: 257).
In her study on Trieste (Italy) and Erfurt (Germany), Laura Mattiucci focuses on the cooperation between different departments of local administration. By her analyses she shows
128
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
that European programmes do not abruptly change local administration structures but are
integrated in the existing administrative workings. In the case of Trieste, the extensive
European impact on the administrative work was “absorbed” by the already existing
administrative department of Ufficio Speciale Urban (Urban Special Office), which was
renamed as Ufficio Affari Europai (Office of European Affairs) when the programme started.
In the ‘new’ administrative unit, however, the majority of the former staff is still working.
Regarding her German example, Mattiucci refers to an overlap of funding and administrative
superposing of different programmes on European, national, and regional level. In the Erfurt
case, for instance, the URBAN area overlaps the area of the Federal-Länder Programme
programme “Soziale Stadt” (“Socially Integrative City”) and that of a regional programme for
urban renewal. “The team which worked for URBAN still works for other projects”
(Mattiucci 2005: 100).
Alexander Wolffhardt, Herbert Bartik, Richard Meegan, Jens S. Dangschat, and Alexander
Hamedinger analyse the „European engagement of cities“ and argue in favour of a stronger
connection between research on European urban policy and Europeanisation research in
general. On the one hand, they are interested in the top-down question of how European
Programmes influence the local level, on the other hand they ask from the bottom-up
perspective why and how cities get involved with ‘Europe’ (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 70). In
their comparative study, which comprises six case studies, they operationalised the analysis of
the top-down governance effects of EU programmes by formulating and testing four
hypotheses (horizontal governance effects, vertical governance effects, participation effects,
and policy learning effects). The analysis of the bottom-up perspective of Europeanisation is
geared to different factors that decisively shape the EU engagement of cities. Wolffhardt et al.
differentiated between motivational factors (push and pull) and intermediary factors of
European engagement. As motivational factors they present different attitudes of local
administrations on the European URBAN initiative (Europe as a problem solver, Europe as a
stage, Europe as an alternative, Europe as a thread, Europe as a duty). As intermediate factors
the study refers to political tendencies of city government and the enhanced role of key
persons. Furthermore, they consider the cities’ size factor a quantitative aspect of potential
effects and benefits on the one hand, and of potential capacities of the local politicaladministrative system on the other hand. Finally, they point to the influence of domestic
contexts in the fields of constitutional arrangements, domestic law, and local traditions of
political culture.
129
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Partnership and Community Participation
Maria Tofarides names two problems of participation in the context of the URBAN initiative:
the financial imbalance between local authorities and the representatives of local residents or
the voluntary and community sector (Tofarides 2003: 259) as well as the class-specific
mediation of neighbourhood participation. Tofarides finds a lack of identification with her
neighbourhood and social capacities of the mostly underclass and ethnic minorities people in
the British URBAN neighbourhoods. Furthermore, she points to the problem of “community
gatekeeping” that occurs when charity or civil organisations dominate the participation
process.
Moreover, Tofarides refers to the bureaucratic barriers encountered in the realisation of
projects in the context of URBAN. “Many of the targeted recipients who were initially
mobilised were perplexed by the specific requirement and regulations to European funds”
(Tofarides 2003: 282). In a similar vein, Sabine Paulus describes the fragmented bureaucracy
of the Commission as not compatible to the integrative approach of URBAN (Paulus 2000:
20). The dominant role of local administration departments as key actors in the URBAN
process, which she identifies in both Germany and the UK, is regarded by Paulus as one
consequence of such bureaucratic barriers: “The local community was not decisively involved
in the initial URBAN project operationalisation” (Paulus 2000: 228).
URBAN as a Trans-National Programme
Even though the writing of the comparative case studies itself can be seen as following a
process of transnational learning – 12 researchers with six different nationalities worked at
eight different academic institutions –, there is no systematic analysis of trans-national cooperation in the context of URBAN. Trans-national exchange among URBAN projects
attracted only marginal interest in the comparative studies.
Maria Tofarides described the European Commission as itself being a central actor in the
promotion of the trans-national dimension of the URBAN initiative. She reminds to the first
international URBAN conference that took place in The Hague in 1997, which was aimed at
bringing together local residents involved in URBAN programmes throughout Europe. “The
funding package for the conference required that local residents, rather than officials, attend
the conference” (Tofarides 2003: 286 f.). In so far, trans-national activities by the European
130
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
authorities may be regarded as an attempt to bypass the traditional administrative paths on the
local and the national level.
One of the central findings by Wolffhardt et al. (2005) is the pathdependency of
Europeanisation on local and national contexts: “Europe has different effects in different
member states and therefore Europe must mean different things to actors in different places
across the Union” (Wolffhardt et. all 2005: 108). Maybe this assumption of difference is one
of the reasons why transnational learning processes have widely been neglected in academic
URBAN research so far.
2.9.3 Conclusion
The comparative case studies contribute greatly to the understanding the URBAN issue. The
governance aspects of changes in European urban policy are excellently reflected in the
comparisons. The analysis of the various ways of coping with the European challenge runs
counter the ideas of Europeanisation as homogenisation and confirms the need for case and
comparative studies to understand the political and social meanings of Europeanisation.
The previous comparative studies were mainly limited to the analysis of the dynamics of
governmental transitions. Questions of participation and of transnational learning as well as
the evaluation of social effects of the URBAN programme were largely neglected. Dividing
the process of URBAN research in different phases, one could summarise that at the
beginning of research the programming and decision-making at a European level constituted
the focal point of analysis (Chorianoupolus 2000, Paulus 2000) while, in a second phase,
mainly the policy of implementation and the administrative relations between different spatial
levels were analysed (Tofarides 2003, Wolffhardt et. al. 2005).
Social cohesion, participation, and community empowerment are paramount objectives of
European urban policy, from which the URBAN initiative emanated. In the academic research
on URBAN, however, these topics are still underexposed. Local dynamics of Europeanisation
beyond government structures and institutional questions might constitute the framework for
future academic URBAN research.
131
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
3. Governance in URBAN Research
3.1 Understanding of Governance
During the past years “governance” has risen to be one of the most multi-faceted terms of
social sciences, not only in the field of urban research. However, despite being used so often
it shows no clear contours (Görg 2005: 2). Governance is used in different ways for different
kinds of debates: as a conception of changed ways of political steering, as a description of
new structures and constellations of the actors of administrative organisations (DiGaetano
1997; DiGaetano/Strom 2003), or to express changed power relationships in society (Jessop
2002; Brenner et al. 2003).
A rather phenomenological approach is offered by Arthur Benz, who defines governance as
ƒ
a complex structure for steering and co-ordinating
ƒ
the interaction of formal and informal elements
ƒ
the co-operation of state and non-state actors as well as
ƒ
the eclipsing of hierarchical, competitive, and co-operative relationships of actors (Benz
2001: 55)
In this context, the concept of governance usually means a specific way of regulation and
steering. It refers to the way of coordinating actors, social interest groups, community
organisations, and institutions to attain specific goals which often have been negotiated
collectively.
Jan Kooiman uses the concept of governance in the first instance to draw a distinction to
traditional ways of top-down hierarchical and bureaucratic government (Kooiman 2003: 232).
In doing so, he distinguishes the steering capacities of certain actors, e. g. municipal
administrations (self-governance), and network-like co-operative relationships, e. g. publicprivate partnerships (co-governance), as well as traditional modes of planning control
(hierarchical government). In the practice of urban government these different forms may
overlap. At the same time this scheme may help with emphasising certain development
trends.
Apart from different forms, Kooiman defines different levels of governance, e.g.: it makes a
difference if a given political practice aims at solving concrete problems (first ordergovernance), at (re)organising basic institutional settings (second order-governance), or at
132
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
building a normative frame for action (meta-governance). Herein, too, all components are
found with European urban policy, and it appears reasonable to investigate the effects of
programmes such as URBAN by their single dimensions.
Variety of Modes of Governance (adapted from Kooiman 2003)
Modes of Governance
A)Self-Governance
B) Co-Governance
C) Hierarchical
Governance
Orders of Governance
governance capacity of
co-operation,
traditional top-down
individual actors
networking, public
government
private partnerships
1) First-OrderGovernance
A1
B1
C1
A2
B2
C2
A3
B3
C3
concrete problem solutions
and policy processes
2) Second-Order
Governance
institutional conditions
3) Meta-Governance
normative framework
Christoph Görk argues in a similar vein, too, and wants the essential meaning of the term to
be understood as the answer to the changed relationship of state, economy, and society.
Fundamental for these changes, he says, are “shifts of the spatial organisation of social
processes” (Görk 2005: 2) which have been introduced into socio-scientific debates under the
name of “multi-level governance” (Benz 2004) or “politics of scales” (Swyngedouw 1997;
Keil 1998). In this view, the “governance turn” in social sciences is an indication of the
decline of the sole power of the nation state to drive a society.
Another grasp of the notion of governance can be found in political contexts if the term is
understood to be a set of best practices and normative orientations. As early as in the 1970s
the World Bank, for instance, accepted ”good governance” as a return for loans in the context
of international development policy, and the OECD, too, uses the term in the context of their
“Principles of Metropolitan Governance” in a rather normative way (OECD 2001).
For academic research on the URBAN programme of the European Union, the term
“governance” also plays an essential role. According to Bourdellon, the central idea of
133
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
URBAN, its horizon and its conceptual framework, is governance, which he defines as a large
partnership between the public and the private sector and the different layers of power
(Bourdellon 2005: 120). The majority of texts ask for the impact of the URBAN Community
Initiative on the participating cities’ respective modes of urban governance and, in most cases,
indeed find evidence of such changes.
However, in the academic URBAN community there is also no common concept of
governance. From the variety of studies it is possible to identify three different approaches:
ƒ
an institutional concept of governance
ƒ
a policy-oriented concept of governance
ƒ
a power-analytical concept of governance.
The institutionalist concept of governance primarily investigates the role of administrations
for implementing European programmes. One essential question in this context is the
interaction of administrations at different levels. Under the keyword of multi level-governance
the relationships between local, regional, and national administrations as well as European
institutions are investigated. According to the Kooiman-scheme, this perspective mainly
refers to the fields of self-governance and co-governance of second order (A2, B2).
Since traditional nation state-centric theories are inadequate to analyse the process of
European integration, many of the URBAN researchers apply the concept of multi-levelgovernance for analysing EU urban policy (e.g. Paulus 2001, Tofarides 2003, Wolffhardt et
al. 2005). This approach allows for recognising the fact that cities have become actors within
the EU political system. Furthermore, it also allows for an analysis of urban policy at the
different levels of governance with regard to vertical and horizontal structures of governance.
As with the URBAN projects the cities themselves become partners of European
programmes, an increasing significance of the local level within the EU system of multi-level
governance can be stated. Especially in countries with a strong tradition of centralist planning
this enhancement of the local level is connected to competence struggles and constitutes a
deep intervention into domestic urban policies.
Furthermore, the institutional governance effects of the URBAN programmes were also
investigated at the horizontal level. For a number of studies cross-sectoral co-operations
134
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
within local administrations are at the centre of analysis (e.g. Paulus 2000; Bourdellon 2005;
Halpern 2005; Mattiucci 2005). Another important sign of horizontal changes of modes of
governance is the purposeful inclusion of non-state actors into urban policy. In this context,
the stimulation of local partnerships becomes an essential objective of European urban policy
because they are considered a successful approach of “tackling social exclusion” (Geddes
2000: 783ff). By help of the method of network analysis, several studies investigate the newly
created relationships between administrations, private actors, and non-profit organisations
(Paulus 2000).
For research, categories of political and structural misfit have proven to be a meaningful and
practically applicable pattern of analysis. In the context of adaptation processes, misfit is
understood to be a gap between European demands and domestic local-political realities. At
the same time, this gap is considered the measure of expected intensity of innovation. In this
respect, Greece is a particularly interesting case study to test the penetrating and transforming
power of the CIs. In his study Charalampos Koutalakis argues that nowhere else could the
political, administrative, and institutional environments for their implementation be more
adverse. Greece is the most centralised country in Europe; the sub-national authorities are
extremely weak. The demand to adopt bottom-up approaches of urban development through
the formation of endogenous local partnerships contradicts sharply with the Greek
authoritative, top-down policy tradition: the claim to integrate social, economic, and physical
aspects into one comprehensive development plan challenges the existing separation between
physical planning, economic development, and (marginal) social policy.
In their study, Wolffhardt et al. distinguish “policy misfit” (political objectives, standards of
regulation, and tools, e. g. traditional structures of distributing public services) and
“institutional misfits” (existing rules and procedures as well as the respective common
understandings connected to them) from each other (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 34ff;
Börzel/Risse 2000: 5). Thus, the effects of European programmes can be explained by the
respective misfits. Misfit analyses are a suitable tool for the international comparison of
European urban programmes. For, the everywhere stated tendencies of Europeanisation
cannot be understood to be an adjustment to a common standard. „’Europe’ has different
effects in different member states, and therefore ‚Europe’ must mean different things to actors
in different places across the Union”(Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 49).
135
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
A more policy-oriented concept of governance can be found in studies that rather deal with
the contents of the URBAN programmes and with the testing or implementation of new
policy approaches. According to Kooiman, these approaches can be categorised as first order
governance (A1, B1, C1). In several case and comparative studies the development of
integrated policy approaches and of area-based interventions was primarily investigated. For
this, not so much institutional contexts but the design of programmes as well as the methods
and objectives of urban policy were in the fore. In most cases the URBAN philosophy was
related to domestic approaches of urban policy and urban renewal, which in comparison to the
URBAN projects were mostly described as being rather one-dimensional. In this vein, for
example, Simon Güntner and Charlotte Halpern observed for Berlin “a significant
institutional shift within the urban regeneration policy field. […] Former critics of the
traditional approach to urban regeneration in Berlin benefited from political changes […] and
from the emergence of a new policy towards social and spatial exclusion” (Güntner/Halpern
2006: 6).
Policy-oriented concepts of governance are also found in discussions of the historic
development of European urban policy (Atkinson 2001; Frank 2005). Susanne Frank
identifies, for instance, different periods of European urban policy which in each case are
orientated towards different fields of politics. While during the 1980s city-related activities
were included into the field or environmental policy, in the 1990s they were understood to be
an integral part of cohesion policy, and during the current period they may rather be
considered a subject of economy and competition policy (Frank 2005: 307). By help of
empirical case studies on the programme implementations, the validity of such interpretations
of the European engagement in urban policies can be tested.
A more political-scientific concept of governance is found with approaches asking about basic
conditions and the actors of changed urban policy at a meta-level of governance (C1, C2, C3).
Following urban regime theory and regulation theory, European urban policy is considered a
political arena which is investigated with regard to shifts of power. In the focus there are
classical questions of political science: who decides? In which contexts do political debates
happen? What are the basic conditions of local politics?
Ioannis Chorianopoulos subsumes those changes of local politics as initiated by URBAN in a
wider context of changing regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation (Chorianopoulos
136
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
2006). Domestic change, however, is not perceived as a mere byproduct of change at macroeconomic scales. The local level is approached as a discrete restructuring arena and the
respective institutions as distinct agents of regulation (Painter 1991; MacLeod, 2001).
Thea Dukes in her analysis of European urban policy also goes beyond institutional shifts and
new policy objectives and places the European urban discourse in the context of a more
extended debate on the future design of EU policy which moves between the two poles of
“neo-liberal Europe” and “regulated capitalism” (Dukes 2005: 3). By the example of the
debates on “European governance” it can be illustrated how a special language has developed
in the context of European institutions, which, together with the growing significance of
European policy during the 1990s, rises to be the hegemonial way of self-profiling among a
growing number of political-administrative actors (Christiansen et al. 1999). Taking up the
approaches of multi-perspective framework, Dukes investigates the discourse at the following
levels:
ƒ
terms of policy discourses (how are institutional interests expressed structurally?)
ƒ
formation of particular discourse coalitions (which actors are leading the discourses, are
there groups forming and is there polarisation?)
ƒ
analysis of particular institutional practice (where do discourses happen, which conflicts
happen in this context?)
For Thea Dukes, discourses of European urban policy are a one-sided construction of social
realities which directly influence national and sub-national levels of politics. The political
vocabulary of this discourse consists of a restricted number of terms which are continuously
taken up in slogans, headlines, communications, and programmes (Dukes 2005: 21). Cities
are described as situated in a paradox double-position resulting from the fact that they are
both the places of a variety of social and economic problems and of strategic potential to
resolve them. At the political level this double nature is reflected by striving for a (socially
stabile and balanced) “European model” and at the same time the formation of a competitive
EU (Lisbon Agenda) (ibid. 22, Frank 2005).
Institutionally, the European urban discourses represent a self-positioning of the EU in the
field of urban policy. In this, Thea Dukes sees the essence of the subtle, discursive strategies
of the EU. This strategy of discourse is supported by the logics of programmes which, on the
137
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
one hand, establish the EU as a partner for local programmes and, on the other hand, as an
almost indispensable financial supporter.
However, an institutional understanding is predominant for URBAN research. By the
majority of the researchers, the effects of European politics are described as a change of
administrative acting and a change of urban-political planning structures.
3.2 Influence of URBAN on Domestic Urban Policy
In the following paragraph the direct influence of the URBAN programmes on urban policies
and governance structures in the member states shall be illustrated on the basis of the studies.
Almost all of them state a clear pressure towards change exerted on local governance
structures by the URBAN programmes. As shown by Wolffhardt et al. (2005) in their
comparative study on Austria, Germany, and Great Britain, these effects are not only related
to the institutional settings in each country and city but are strongly dependent on the
respective cities’ motivations for European engagement.
Europe as a problem solver and a “helping hand”: the European programmes are considered
a support of a striven-for socio-economic change. At the same time the implementation of the
programmes is connected to hoping for innovation stimulations for urban policy and
governance, particularly as a catalyst for modernising the administration. Europe as a
“helping hand” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 34) is used as a catalyst for releasing local potentials.
Furthermore, European programmes can help with sharpening the city’s profile within the
European urban system. Liverpool, for instance, used “Europe” as a point of reference for its
repositioning as a service-oriented regional centre (ibid.).
Europe as a challenge, a pressure towards adaptation, and an obligation: due to the
increasing Europeanisation of most different norms and regulations particularly in the fields
of environment, health, and trade, cities are forced to deal with “Europe” and European
institutions and regulations. In this context, cities partly engage in European activities because
they fear current or future EU regulations to endanger the previous national welfare state’s
standards of distribution. Furthermore, they hope to better their positions for lobbying against
tendencies of liberalisation and privatisation at the European level. Vienna, a city with a
strong tradition of public provision of municipal services, is described as an example of such
a motivation. The city considers liberalising EU regulations a threat to its local social delivery
138
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
system. As a reaction, Vienna is striving for a leading position among cities supporting the
anti-liberal stance (Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
Europe as a chance: participating in the URBAN programme is considered a means of
making one’s mark within the European network of cities and is supposed to serve for
overcoming domestic contexts. A “European” positioning is meant to help the cities with
“newly inventing themselves” after dramatic processes of change. In single cases the
European orientation towards “social cohesion” was considered a welcome counterweight
against the market-oriented policy of the conservative government.
In their investigation on Manchester, Liverpool, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund, and Hamburg,
Wolffhardt et al. stated different motivations of the single cities for their European
engagement. In some cases different factors of motivation may overlap. Whether differences
in this field affect the extent of change of governance structures, however, stays unanswered
by this study (Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
In order to systematise the effects of European programmes, different studies describe
horizontal and vertical governance effects. In this context, the development of local urban
regimes is considered a horizontal level, and the co-operative and power relationships with
the multi-level politics of local, regional, national, and European actors are considered a
vertical level. The EU’s urban-political programmes as well as the URBAN Community
Initiative stimulate change at both levels. The case studies on the URBAN programmes show
that Europeanisation of urban policy for many European countries primarily means reorganisation of local urban governance.
3.2.1 Horizontal Governance Effects
The inclusion of non-state actors from both private and civic sectors happened in the form of
both lastingly institutionalised co-operation and project-oriented co-operation.
The institutionalised ways of including non-state actors may be considered a direct result of
European demands in the context of the URBAN programme. A number of studies emphasise
that in terms of vertical and horizontal governance as well as regarding the inclusion of
external actors, co-operation as required by URBAN was a considerable challenge for most
administrations. In many cities external experts were included into the implementation of the
139
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
URBAN programme (e.g. renovation agencies, consulting firms, or planning offices). Partly,
they were the same offices which had been contracted to implement other – mostly national –
urban development programmes in the relevant areas. In Berlin, for instance, there was
overlapping with the so-called “Quartiersmanagement” (“neigborhood management”) in the
context of the joint federal and national state programme “Soziale Stadt” (“Socially
Integrative City”) (Güntner/Halpern 2004). In Erfurt the URBAN programme was organised
by the same office being already in charge of the redevelopment area. In some Italian
URBAN areas, e. g. Mola di Bari, too, non-state institutions were hired for parts of the
implementation. There, participation in European initiatives such as URBAN is considered a
catalyst for establishing such partnerships (Barbanente/Tedesco 2005).
Godayer identifies the experience of state actors with national urban programmes as an
obstacle for the inclusion of non-state actors. State actors already had a clear idea of what
urban policy was supposed to look like, and they used URBAN supplementary to already
existing programmes. Due to this, it was difficult for new actors to introduce their own ideas
(Godayer 2002).
Most of the studies document the establishing of regular (weekly to monthly) co-ordination
meetings, where the organisational frameworks for the implementation of URBAN measures
were prepared, co-ordinated, and controlled. At the political level these co-ordination groups
were cross-department and cross-level and normally also comprised further participants such
as economic and social associations and external experts. Citizens, however, did not
contribute to these processes (Andree 2005; Wolffhardt et al. 2005; Neuenfeld 2000; Mattiuci
2005).
Apart from the institutional forms, a project-like inclusion of private actors, but also of civic
organisations in the context of concrete initiatives has developed as another strategy of cooperation with non-state actors. In the URBAN area of Bremen-Gröpelingen, in the context of
the neighbourhood-initiative “Wir für Gröpelingen” (“We for Gröpelingen”) there were
systematic attempts to get in contact with shop owners in this area (Neuenfeld 2000).
Furthermore, by establishing public URBAN offices, like at Luckenwalde, new ways of
including the citizens were tested (Andree 2004). Laura Matiucci in her study on Erfurt comes
to the judgement that „the most important thing is the learned cooperation among the players,
at the regional, administrative, and local level“ (Mattiucci 2005: 92).
140
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Particularly in Southern European countries, where urban policy is traditionally characterised
by a rather centralist planning system, the inclusion of private and civic non-state actors in the
context of URBAN was considered a significant innovation.
Charalampos Koutalakis acknowledges the establishing of a highly inclusive partnership in
Athens, with multiple private and voluntary actors. As Ioannis Chorianopoulos (2005, 2006)
reports, in Heraklion and Komotini the local Chamber of Commerce, the association of trade
unions, the university, as well as cultural and community groups are also included into in the
monitoring process of the URBAN programme. In Heraklion the University of Crete assumes
the responsibility for the organisation and implementation of a key project in the URBAN
area: the conversion of an old warehouse into the city’s natural history museum. The
University directly administers the funds that are provided for this project (25,8% of the total
URBAN budget).
However, Chorianopoulos judges on the inclusion of non-state actors as being restricted. At
least for the period of URBAN I he states a considerable extent of inflexibility as an effect of
the strongly centralist tradition of administration in Greece. Local interest groups (SMEs,
community organisations) were not included into the programme, neither were financially
strong stakeholders like, for instance, local banks or big companies (Georgantas/Getimis
2001) Chorianopoulos understands this to confirm the assumption that differences between
patterns of urbanisation in Southern and Northern Europe are not considered adequately. For
its attempt to stimulate urban measures of restructuring, the EU presupposes a local social and
political infrastructure which is different from that of Southern Europe. By ignoring the
specific way of development and the completely different governance contexts of Southern
European cities, the EU Structural Funds programmes are said to rather increase the
differences and disparities between Northern and Southern European cities instead of
reducing them.
For the example of Vienna, Alexander Wolffhardt et al. (2005) show that the political attitude
towards European urban policy also has a decisive influence on the inclusion of non-state
actors. Vienna is mainly engaged with Europe in order to prevent EU regulation which is
perceived as a threat to its local policy tradition. Thus, EU programmes have never shaped the
strategic orientation of the administration. This becomes clear by the fact that Vienna
operated the programmes exclusively through already existing bodies. The researchers found
141
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
no evidence for the (URBAN-induced) creation of any institution outside the given
administration. Insofar EU programmes can be said to have had only a weak impact on
horizontal governance modes in Vienna (Wolffhardt et al. 2005).
Orientation Towards Partnership and New Networks
Orientation towards partnership and the constitution of networks are considered the main
characteristics of the new “European” urban governance. In this context, especially those
partnerships to which local administrations actively contribute are in the focus of URBAN
studies – possibly a result of the predominant institutional perspective. In this context,
networks and partnerships must be understood to be attempts at developing, at least for the
programme duration, forms of urban regimes which are characterised by the reliable inclusion
of non-state interests. According to the studies, the majority of URBAN partnerships were
reliable institutionalised forms of co-operation. The extent of decision power of these
networks, however, is different for each city. The sometimes complexly organised webs of
different committees act at different implementation-levels of the URBAN programmes
(programme planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation). Particularly the authority
of deciding about the financial resources of the programmes often stays exclusively with
administratively led co-ordination committees.
As an accompaniment to the projects, regular co-ordination meetings were established in
many URBAN towns and cities (e.g. Bremen, Luckenwalde, Berlin) in which, besides the
administration, the project agents from private and non-profit sectors also took part. The
range of these co-ordination meetings went from the right to suggest projects (Luckenwalde)
(Andree 2004) as far as to deciding about the distribution of specifically allocated budgets
(so-called “little URBAN funds” in Berlin) (Güntner 2003: 9). London and Liverpool
established so-called Urban Partnership Groups (UPG) which developed URBAN action
plans and were responsible for the realisation of URBAN (Paulus 2000, Tofarides 2003).
In some URBAN cities, e. g. in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, lasting advisory
council- and planning-structures were established, into which community groups were
included. In Derry/Londonderry the administration established an Urban Regeneration Group
to superintend the implementation and monitor the progress of the URBAN programme. This
group consisted of 14 people with three representatives from the City Council, three from the
private sector, three from the public sector, and five from community groups. In addition, five
142
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
local area partnerships were included to help adapt the initiative to the local circumstances
(Murtagh 2001a). In Belfast, by help of the central URBAN institution North Belfast
Partnership, it was possible to establish and maintain a robust governance structure and to
spend money on a cross-sector and cross-community basis. The URBAN II programme
integrated initiatives from government departments, private agencies, as well as from
communities (Murtagh 2005: 192).
In Amsterdam, too, – after initial protest against the composition of the steering committee –
representatives of community groups were better integrated into the committees – however,
without achieving a majority of votes (Kruse 2002; Dukes 2002). For Amsterdam, Thea
Dukes describes co-funding as an obstacle for participation: particularly for grassroots
initiatives it was difficult to find funding for their own projects (Dukes 2002: 10).
Examples from France show that institutionalised co-operation of municipal administrations
and non-state actors in the URBAN context were of “quango”13 nature. Especially semipublic associations contributed to the networks, which had been existent for a long time, in
their vast majority were dependent on public funding, and looked back to previous experience
with working with the administration (Bourdellon 2005).
Municipal Administrations as Mediators
Another governance-feature of European urban policy is the change of administrative acting
from hierarchical top-down ways of planning to a rather moderating and mediating role of the
local state (Kazepov 2005). Instead of inner-administratively implementing politically
determined decisions by help of own resources, municipal administrations increasingly act as
initiators and steering authorities for market-economic projects and civic initiatives. Such a
shift of administrative acting could also be expected within the URBAN programmes. Apart
from the already described institutional arrangements for successful regime-acting, the
URBAN cities often adopted a mediating role at the level of concrete projects, too.
Sometimes the administrations put aside their own interests and acted as a seemingly neutral
clearing authority in case of conflicts between other participating actors.
13
„Quango“ is a term for „quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations“ which – being institutional
hybrids – show both characteristics of state and private organisations. Private agencies or non-profit
organisations which take over public tasks on behalf of the administration are considered typical representatives
of such quangos (Flinders/Smith 1998).
143
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Stimulated by URBAN, some of the semi-private project managers developed their own
interests in the programme areas, which would sometimes go beyond to the municipalities’
traditional urban development objectives. Local administrations, like, for example, Berlin,
took up the innovation stimulus and adopted a supporting role with applying for funds and
shaping programmes (Güntner/Halpern 2006).
For the case of St. Etienne, Romain Gayton reports of a mediating role of the administration.
Administrative responsibility and power for implementing the URBAN programme was with
the prefect in charge, who in the way of top-down control moderated the co-operation of the
stubbornly acting departments. Here, too, own positions were put aside in the interest of
successful and continuous work on the project (Gayton 2005).
The municipal administrations of Belfast and Derry/Londonderry were confronted with a
mediating task of a completely different dimension. The URBAN Programme Northern
Ireland acts under the conditions of an ethnically-religiously-politically split society. Thus, it
was a challenge for URBAN to allocate projects in a balanced way and to organise them
commonly, if possible. This way, the advisory councils and partnerships of the URBAN
programmes also became places of mediating a social conflict. Brendan Murtagh judges that
the URBAN initiative “had effects beyond the areas targeted and the resources it expended
and has implication for the contribution that urban policy can make to Northern Ireland’s […]
transition to peace and stability” (Murtagh 2001b: 432).
These few examples illustrate a shift of local-political acting towards moderation-control; the
concrete negotiation processes at project levels, however, are not in the focus of URBAN
research for the time being. The strong focus on institutional questions has distracted from
analysing processes at the micro-level of political control. But particularly there it would be
possible to gain many insights – beyond the scope of URBAN – on the new steering
approaches of local policy.
Cross-Sectoral Co-operation
An essential feature of the URBAN initiative is its promotion of area-based interventions in
the context of integrated urban policy, i.e. a policy that combines traditional physical
measures of urban renewal with social and economic initiatives. An essential precondition for
this is the existence of cross-department co-operations within the administration(s).
144
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
In almost all the investigated towns and cities the URBAN programme resulted in increased
co-operation of previously divided administration units. Besides common projects and
working groups, this co-operation sometimes even resulted in a general re-structuring of
municipal administrations. One example for this is Berlin, where the URBAN experience
contributed to the amalgamation of the Senate Administration for Building and Housing
(SenBauWohn) and the Senate Administration for Urban Development and Environment
(SenStadtUm) to a super-Department for Urban Development (SenStadt) (Güntner/Halpern:
2006: 9).
In the context of the URBAN programme in Naples, not only the post of a city
(neighbourhood) manager was created but also an inter-sectoral and politico-technical workgroup as an interdisciplinary task force was installed (Nanetti 2001).
In single cases the determination of areas by URBAN, too, stimulated the co-operation of
different authorities, if, for example, in Berlin or Clichy-sur-Bois and Montfermeil (only
under URBAN II) the area included several administrative districts. Charlotte Halpern
assumes that this was a conscious strategy by the Berlin Senate administration in order to
break up territorial borders (Halpern 2005: 705f). Also Bertille Bourdellon identifies a
growing readiness to co-operation between different administrative sections. In Clichy-sousBois and Montfermeil URBAN enhanced a close co-operation between different departments
and services (Bourdellon 2005).
3.2.2 Vertical Governance Effects and Multi-Level Governance
In the European governance context, these new relationships between urban policy actors at
the different territorial levels are understood to be vertical governance structures. Instead of
traditional, hierarchical relationships between national, regional, and local levels, with the
appearing of European urban policy a new, partnership-oriented co-operative relationship
among the actors at different levels is expected to emerge. Particularly the direct participation
of cities in European programmes can be regarded as an attempt to bypass existing domestic
structures when it comes to policy formulation or financial resourcing so as to gain more
autonomy from the national.
The URBAN-accompanying debates on multi-level governance and the role of the centralist
states within implementing the programmes reflect current rescaling processes. The URBAN
145
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
programmes have speeded up the formation of new constellations of actors and changed the
geographic layout of administrations. In the context of the URBAN programme, Manchester
and Liverpool (UK) institutionalised strategic planning structures at the regional level without
any stimulation by or co-ordination with central-state authorities. Often, these new vertical
patterns of co-operation go beyond the field of administration and evolve as networks with
private and civil-society actors. Thus, the researchers provide evidence of changed modes of
vertical governance.
However, many URBAN committees like, for example, the councils authorised to allocate
funds, assemble non-state actors as well as representatives of the different levels of
administration. The formally hierarchical relationships of, for instance, central-state and local
administrations are suspended for these meetings in favour of partnerships of equals. In her
study on Luckenwalde, Dörthe Andree (2004), for example, describes the structures and
composition of these committees in detail (see also Dukes 2005).
While in some countries the demands of multi-level partnership are formally met, not for all
of their URBAN cities structural changes of modes of co-operation become visible, e.g.: for
Vienna, despite actively contributing to European programmes such as URBAN, only little
interest in partnerships is stated. Co-operative relationships with national state and also
European institutions by the majority stay in the hands of administrations. By establishing two
staff groups, the “Department of Research on House Building and of International Relations”
as well as the “Department of Urban Research and EU-Matters” at the Magistrate of Vienna,
the vertical effects of governance were incorporated into existing administrative structures.
With regard to the new role of cities within the European policy system for some countries
researchers identify a gate-keeping role of national governments. In this respect Ian Bache’s
work is essential (Bache 1996). Bache developed the concept of extended gatekeeping, which
he adopted from intergovernmentalism in order to conceptualise the role of national
governments for the implementation of European policy measures. The notion of gatekeeping
mainly refers to the attempt of national governments to maintain control over policy
processes. The concept of extended gatekeeping aims at assesing the role of central
governments at all different stages of the policy process (Bache 1996).
146
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
A national government playing a gatekeeping role might obstruct the implementation of
URBAN, as it is reported to be the case in France, where state dominance within the URBAN
programme is one of the main reasons why URBAN failed to change governance structures.
The UK is another example of national gatekeeping. Here, a conflict about the adequate
management of URBAN between the European Commission and the central government
resulted in severe delays of the implementation. However, this situation did not stop the
process of Europeanisation in the UK. As Marshall and others show, the gatekeeping of the
national government encouraged the cities to engage with Europe directly at the European
level (Marshall 2004).
For Greece, too, a distinctive gate-keeping role of the national state is diagnosed. The
complete URBAN I process, for instance, was conceived and implemented by the national
government. At the local level, URBAN was administrated by the development departments
of the towns and cities – but the national URBAN committee played a dominant role.
In countries with a long-years tradition of municipal self-administration on the other hand,
like Germany or Austria, European programmes such as URBAN did not bring about
comparable shifts in the modes of administration and governance. Accordingly, the role of the
national state with implementing the URBAN programmes is smaller. The organisation and
implementation of the programmes is rather subject to a kind of “federal gate-keeping”.
Governance effects in German cities are strongly filtered by the system of co-operative
federalism and therefore the cities’ “influence on the shaping of EU programmes is dependent
on mutual understanding with the federal province and persistence in joint policy formulation
within various multi-level bodies” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005: 106).
3.3 URBAN as a Vehicle and Catalyst of Europeanisation
The EU URBAN Community Initiative is not only a programme that provides additional
funds, but must also be considered an essential instrument of Europeanisation in the field of
urban policy. “Europeanization means a turnaround or reshaping of politics in the domestic
arena in a way which reflects the political guidelines, the practices, or the preferences of EU
actors and institutions.” (Bache/Marshall 2004: 5) In this context, cities must find their way
through a complex web of EU norms, policies, and programmes.
147
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Altogether, it is impossible to de-couple the Europeanisation of domestic urban policies from
other fields of European integration and to look at it separately. Furthermore, the comparative
studies also show that any approach of investigation should analyse both the effects of EU
policies and programmes on cities and the role of cities within the European process of
decision-making. In many studies there is differentiation between upload and download
processes (Bache 1996, Marshall 2004a, b, Wolffhardt et al. 2005a). “Download
Europeanisation” describes changes in policies, practices, preferences or participants within
local systems of governance, arising from the negotiation and implementation of EU
programmes. ‘Upload Europeanisation’ rather puts the transfer of innovative and best urban
practices to the supranational arena resulting in the incorporation of local initiatives in panEuropean policies or programmes in the focus of analysis. It suggests itself to also apply this
system when assessing the effects of the URBAN programme.
3.3.1 Download Europeanisation through URBAN
In the following, predominantly those changes of municipal politics that are directly
connected to the implementation of the URBAN programmes are considered effects of
download Europeanisation. The case studies and particularly the comparative studies deal
extensively with the transition towards “new urban governance”.
Change of Policies Practices
The extent of innovational power of the URBAN programmes is different for each country
and city. There is widespread agreement that Graz (Austria) is the perfect example of
successful Europeanisation through the URBAN programme. There, fundamental changes of
urban policy at all levels could be observed. Urban policy in Graz before URBAN was mainly
centred on planning based on individual projects and concepts. URBAN created the incentive
to start thinking in broader terms while enhancing the development of cross-sectoral
partnerships. Furthermore, the programme provided Graz with the opportunity to participate
in best practice exchanges by way of loose networks of cities across Europe (Wolffhardt et al.
2005b). The operational programme was based on a wide-ranging consultation process. Even
though the municipality maintained the strategic role, tasks and duties were constantly redefined between the managing authority, the programme office, and project agents.
Furthermore, a high budget for communication with citizens and small project funds was
directed towards the needs and expectations of the voluntary sector. Furthermore, Wolffhardt
et al. find evidence for a high commitment of business actors in Graz. Small-scale
148
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
programmes seem to encourage grass-roots involvement in decision-making processes,
leading to changes of participants and thus to changing policy patterns. Furthermore,
Wolffhardt et al. report of a significant change of intra-administrative patterns, improving
cross-department co-operation. According to Wolffhardt et al., one important factor for this is
the incorporation of the department responsible for EU programmes in the urban planning and
development office. Under URBAN II network-centred decision-making was extended to
programme planning and implementation strategies. According to Wolffhardt et al., the
motivation of Graz was strongly shaped by Europe as a “helping hand” providing financial
and conceptual resources (Wolffhardt et al. 2005b: 34). Hence, Europe is considered a
“problem solver […and] source of innovation”, providing support for socio-economic
restructuring (Wolffhardt et al. 2005b: 33). This is particularly important for restructuring
industrial cities.
Studies on other cities also judge URBAN to have a stimulating effect towards a Europeoriented change of policies. According to Marshall, local authorities in Birmingham and
Glasgow adjusted to European norms, such as direct lobbying, partnership, and long-term
strategic planning. By “downloading” these principles the strategic capacity of local
authorities was increased (Marshall 2004). Furthermore, Marshall suggests that the EU
initiatives enhanced the decision-making role of grassroots organisations. The increasing
community integration in urban decision-making processes goes hand in hand with the
establishment of partnerships within the urban landscape (Marshall 2004).
For Germany, Paulus argues in a similar way and emphasises that through URBAN
orientation towards partnership has become the essential principle of policy formulation even
at the level of decision-making (Paulus 2000: 5). Paulus summarises: “The decision-making
process was generally characterised by multi-level co-ordination and co-operation between
the multiple actors in the BMWi, the DSSW, the BMBau, the Länder and the cities”.
Particularly “personal commitment and close co-operation between the URBAN key actors on
an informal basis overcame the often paralysing departmentalism” at the vertical and
horizontal policy level. This development is considered a change in patterns of governance
(Paulus 2000: 155).
For Greece, Ioannis Chorianopoulos describes a change of administrative structures or urban
development which was triggered off by URBAN. While URBAN I was centrally managed at
149
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
the national level, URBAN II was/is regulated at both central and local levels. In the search
for more flexible decision-making structures, the management of URBAN II programmes at
the national level is now in charge of the Administrative Office, an independent and
accountable authority with co-ordinating and decision-making powers. In Heraklion the
individual URBAN II programme at the local (municipal) level is run by the URBAN Office,
set up by the municipalities in order to achieve a single-purpose unit of flexible and
accountable day-to-day administration. In Komotini a local Development Corporation was set
up by the municipality to achieve a single-purpose unit of URBAN management
(Chorianopoulos 2005: 12). Chorianopoulos (2004: 2f) suggests that the national authorities
adopted a streamlined regulatory role that allows bottom-up governance processes to emerge.
However, the centralised traits of the Greek administration are still present in the new
organisational structure (Chorianopoulos 2005: 12).
In Italy the URBAN programme is part and parcel of a comprehensive change of urban
policy. Different initiatives to promote local integrated action have found a variety of
applications in different cities. Padovani identifies three main innovative elements in these
programmes: “a) the promotion of new forms of partnerships in the design and
implementation of the project; b) the integration between interventions on buildings and
interventions on infrastructure, services, and open spaces; c) timing of the project to be shared
and subscribed by all the actors involved.” (Padovani 2000: 10) The European URBAN
programme increased these changes and both according to the way it sees itself and to its
instruments it fits perfectly in the new stream of local and urban reform.
For Northern Ireland, Murtagh and McKay identify another effect of Europeanisation, i.e.
taking over concrete methods of planning and implementation, e.g. the use of MEANS as a
standard of evaluation for the implementation and accompaniment of URBAN projects
(Murtagh/McKay 2003). Godayer also emphasises that evaluation, as introduced by the
URBAN programme, represents a completely new element in French urban policy (Godayer
2002).
Changes of Preferences
Apart from changes of political practice, a shift in the contents and methods of urban policy
was also expected to be an effect of Europeanisation. Particularly adopting European norms
such as partnerships and strategic planning as well as orientation towards integrated
150
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
approaches of policies and area-based interventions may be called a paradigm shift brought
about not least by the URBAN programmes. This shift becomes clear by a comparison to
traditional programmes of urban renewal in the single towns and cities.
In Erfurt the chosen URBAN area overlapped with a reconstruction area of the department for
the support of urban development, which was meant to promote urban regeneration, so that
the URBAN programme completed the traditional orientation towards physical regeneration
by the social and economic objectives of a comprehensive orientation towards renewal
(Mattiucci 2005: 91). In Amsterdam, too, the URBAN project took up existing measures of
urban renewal and complemented “primary spatial renewal” by “social-economical renewal
activities” (Dukes 2002: 5).
In Northern Ireland participation in the URBAN programme also came along with a
fundamental change of urban development policy. Murtagh anticipates an end of that version
of “Thatcherite property planning” which was orientated at aspects of control and security
(Murtagh 2001: 432) and a transition to a robust governance structure on a cross-sector and
cross-community basis with stronger orientation towards social integration and supporting
neighbourhood structures (Murtagh 2005: 192).
In some Greek cities the URBAN programme even opened up new spheres of municipal
policies. In Greece social welfare policy is particularly underdeveloped and the range of
social services provided by Greek local authorities is very narrow. Social welfare is delivered
locally through a network of services, the responsibility of which lies with national and
regional authorities. In Heraklion and Komotini the URBAN Programme worked as a lever
for a complete re-orientation of municipal social policy and social services. In Heraklion the
infrastructure that is created in the URBAN area is the core of a new network of day-care
centres that covers the whole municipality. Tackling social exclusion has acquired a new
meaning for the local level. Services include, among other things, improved provision of
nursery and crèche facilities, customised counselling for the young and the elderly, a homehelp unit, a language training centre specifically orientated towards the needs of minorities, a
hostel for the homeless and a drugs rehabilitation centre. The main objectives of the URBAN
programme in Komotini are related to two topics: a) improvement of physical infrastructure,
particularly in the minority neighbourhoods and b) measures aiming at tackling social
exclusion through the support of innovative entrepreneurial activities, launch of vocation
151
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
training schemes, and the re-organisation of municipal social services. One of the key targets
of the programme is the creation of a single municipal department of social services
(Chorianopoulos 2004). For Greece, Chorianopoulos resumes that the effect of URBAN had
come as an “external institutional shock” which unsettled established patterns of Greek urban
policy making and modes of governance.
In Italy the URBAN programme also encouraged a turn towards new urban policy
approaches. The crucial innovation was the area-based approach which responded to the need
to develop targeted measures for and to concentrate the different available resources on a
geographically demarcated territory particularly struck by economic decay and social
exclusion. On this note, URBAN is valuated as an “original experimentation that has
addressed two particular themes: The construction of projects for crisis areas, and the will to
act simultaneously on the physical city and on the social city.” (Palermo 2001: 1). As
Nuvolati sums up: “Urban renewal policies in Italy have been traditionally characterised by
fragmented, sectoral, non-coordinated and voluntary actions, and, for a long time, mainly
oriented towards improving housing or infrastructural conditions without paying attention to
urban factors linked with social exclusion in the more deprived neighbourhoods.
Nevertheless, following the European example, the last two decades have witnessed a
profound transformation in Italian urban policies in terms of more integrated actions and
variety of interventions.” (2002: 2) In any case, as Barbanente/Tedesco resume, the URBAN
Programme in Italy can be considered “one of the first area-based initiatives that assume the
integrated approach as a form of action aiming to face social, economic and physical
problems from an overall perspective, and that clearly define the target areas as the urban
areas in crisis”(Barbanente/Tedesco 2002:3).
Change of Actors’ Structure
The development of a different actors’ structure is considered a third effect of
Europeanisation. For this, too, the URBAN programme may be seen as a catalyst and
stimulator. Particularly the participation-related demands of the URBAN programme forced
municipal administrations to increase co-operation with citizens‘ groups and community
organisations.
In Graz small-scale projects put money into the hands of citizen initiatives, thus providing
citizens with considerable decision-making power. The important know-how in terms of
152
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
network-building gained under URBAN I was successfully translated into URBAN II
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005b). This way, the inclusion of civil sector initiatives was put on a
permanent basis. In Vienna the URBAN I programme also institutionalised citizen
participation at the programme level. The city established a comprehensive neighbourhood
advisory council deciding upon all major projects and serving as a platform for the exchange
of information. The council was composed of representatives of public authorities and
representatives of the local residence.
In Birmingham and Glasgow Marshall finds evidence for increasing grassroots participation
in decision-making as well as in project planning and implementation (Marshall 2004a).
Community activists from across the region established the “West Midland European
Network” and “Regional Action of West Midlands” in order to engage in European and
domestic issues. Even at the neighbourhood level communities were integrated into multilevelled EU networks. Therefore, also on that score, Marshall suggests a transition from
“government to governance” (Marshall 2004a: 16).
In Italy the stronger focus on participation, too, is considered an effect of European
programmes. Barbanente/Tedesco (2002: 3f) state: “The notion of involving local people in
the regeneration of disadvantaged areas was new under many aspects, if we intend it as the
direct participation of local community in the setting-up and implementation of the initiative,
based upon the creation of partnerships between public and private, governmental and nongovernmental people and organisations.“
3.3.2 Upload Europeanisation through URBAN
By “upload Europeanisation” we understand processes of systematic influencing of European
policies by cities. In the context of the URBAN Community Initiative this way of
Europeanisation occurs mainly in the form of an international transfer of urban policy
experiences and by way of active contribution to European-wide programmes and networks.
With previous URBAN research this perspective of bottom up Europeanisation plays only a
minor role.
Transfer of Innovative Urban Practices
Although the promotion and distribution of “best practices” is part of the basic repertoire of
European policies and is also used in the URBAN context, the studies give only a few
153
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
examples of successful transfer of innovative experiences. By the example of the so called
“neighbourhood funds” – which were used for the first time in the Berlin URBAN II area – it
can be exemplarily shown what such a transfer of innovation may look like. Relatively small
amounts of money are provided as an instrument of participation with exclusively the
residents being allowed to decide about their use. This idea is for instance found in the Berlin
URBAN II programme under the name of “Little URBAN Fund” with a volume of 50,000
Euros a year, after having been developed in the context of the local programme of
“Quartiersmanagement” (“neighbourhood management”). Thus, in the context of the
Dortmund URBAN II programme an autonomously administered “quarter budget” of 15,000
Euros a year is available for the citizens. And Neuenfeld in her work on Bremen points to the
project of “Wir für Gröpelingen” (We for Gröpelingen), which was developed after the
district office had been established and which addressed all inhabitants of the neighbourhood
by calling upon them to develop ideas and suggestions for improving the current situation.
The funding comprised sums from 300 to 5,000 Euros. As this project was very well received,
it was supposed to be continued until 2001. However, Neuenfeld qualifies that this offer was
mainly received by socially better-off people or by already existing institutions and
associations. However, she also points to the fact that by help of this project it was possible in
single cases to address those migrant communities which otherwise had been rather
disinterested in the URBAN programme (Neuenfeld 2000). The presented studies do not
provide information on the question whether there have been attempts of such quarter funds
outside Germany, too.
The analysis of the practice of innovation transfers within European urban policy still is a
rather neglected field of research. While the implementation of European principles and
demands for urban policy has been investigated rather intensely, the exchange of concrete
experiences at the project level has met little interest for the time being. Further questions also
for URBAN research might be: How can “best practice” be transferred from one place – that
is one particular social, economic, political, cultural context – to another? What is the
significance of international experience with the conceptualisation of domestic projects?
Incorporation in Pan-European Policies or Programmes
Another possibility of upload Europeanisation, i.e. the shaping of European policies by the
cities, is seen in the involvement in European networks. While some – mainly medium-sized
and smaller towns – hope to receive ideas for solving concrete problems and for help with
154
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
implementing European programmes from such networks, there is also a number of cities
considering these networks a place of the political organisation of Europe and which, by help
of their activities, want to promote their own interests at the European level. Wolffhardt et al.
in their typology of European engagements of cities found the type of “profiling, self-styled
Euro-player” (2005b: 39). They are active in networks and aim at increasing their influence at
the EU level. According to Wolffhardt et al., Vienna is the most obvious case of this type of
city. Manchester belongs to the same category, since it participates in processes of upload
Europeanisation via trans-national networks such as INTERREG and PHARE. They identify
Manchester as a “Euro-Player”, a city which identifies itself as a “leader of European
integration from below” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005b).
Adam Marshall identifies another form of upload Europeanisation in transnational networks
like EUROCITIES or the EU programmes INTERREG and PHARE. As he illustrates by
evidence from Birmingham and Glasgow, cities engage in these networks to increase their
influence at the European level.
A thorough analysis of such contributions to networks of URBAN cities is still missing –
many investigations mention the topic but do not work it out systematically. This is all the
more surprising since particularly the European networks offer a suitable approach of finding
out about the significance of trans-nationality in the development of a European urban policy.
3.4 URBAN as a Stimulus to Urban Policy in the Member States
The central question regarding the emergence of European Urban Policy is about its impact
on the domestic (national, regional, local) structures of urban policy.
A wide range of studies analysed the impact of the implementation of the URBAN initiative
in different EU member states. They asked about the direct consequences of operating with a
European programme at national and local levels. In many member states and cities
researchers observed a change of traditional governance modes. Even there where the central
national government acted as a gatekeeper the structures of administrative co-operation were
modified. Networking, cross-departmental collaboration, partnership, and participation
developed to become the central characteristics of governance in area-based urban
interventions initialised and sponsored by the European Union.
155
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
But what do we know about the scope, sustainability, and profundity of the URBAN induced
changes? Has the programme stimulated a larger trend towards area-based integrated urban
programmes? Has the URBAN initiative created a self-supporting dynamic of urban
intervention in the spirit of partnership, participation, and local empowerment?
One indication of a sustainable impact of European policy may be the creation and
implementation of national or regional programmes for integrated urban policy. Charalampos
Koutalakis summarised the URBAN policy approach by three inter-connected characteristics:
ƒ
integrated/comprehensive approach of programming (coherent strategy of urban
intervention and cross-department collaboration)
ƒ
innovative character of policy interventions (novel measures, projects, partnership
arrangements, methods of problem identification etc.)
ƒ
bottom-up approach of policy formulation and implementation (local partnerships,
participation) (Koutalakis 2006: 5).
In eight EU member states area-based programmes have been set up showing these URBAN
characteristics. The fact that most of them started after the beginning of URBAN in 1994 can
be interpreted as an indicator for the enormous influence of this Community Initiative and
thus as evidence for a Europeanisation process in the field of urban policy triggered off by
URBAN.
European Adoption in National Urban Policy in Selected Member States (URBAN 1994)
State
Programme(s)
Start
Austria
“Grätzelmanagement”
2000
Danemark
Danish Urban Regeneration Programme
1997
France
“politique de la ville”
Seit 1970er
Germany
„Federal-Länder Programme Soziale Stadt“
1999
Italien
“Contratti di quartiere”
1997
“Programmi
di
recupero
urbano
e
di
sviluppo 1998
sostenibile”
URBAN Italia
Sweden
Stadtentwicklungsplan Großstadtbereiche
1998
“Peripherie Initiative”
1995
156
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
The Netherlands “Grotestedenbeleid” (GBS – Revitalisation Policy for 1997
Major Cities)
UK
NDC „New Deal for Community“
1998
Source: Soziale-Stadt-Info, no. 14, 2003
How can we explain this co-opting of European Urban policy approaches in national urban
policies? Three reasons might be named for taking over European Urban policy into the
domestic policy process:
Financial dependence on European funds: due to the reduction of finance for urban
regeneration, many cities increasingly looked for EU funding. Wolffhardt et al. confirm this
thesis by suggesting that the motivation to engage with Europe is mainly driven by “Europe
as a helping hand”. However, all European activities must be co-financed by local or national
authorities.
The European discourse hegemony on urban issues: in the emerging debate on a European
urban agenda the European Union ranks as a key actor of urban policies in Europe (Atkinson
2001). Different documents by the European Commission, especially the “Urban
Communications”, written at the end of the 1990ies (COM 1997, 1998), can be understood as
pacemakers of urban policy making in the member states. These papers defined the “urban”
problem, and, at the same time, presented the desired solutions. „European urban policy
makers produce a particular urban policy discourse that is disseminated through European
urban programmes“ (Dukes 2003: 2). According to Thea Dukes, one motif of the member
states to start similar programmes was to regain the “gatekeeper role” and thus their leading
position in urban policy issues.
The leading role of European institutions with implementing URBAN projects: the URBAN
projects are well accompanied by European institutions. The selection process, the
programming, and also the evaluation were carried out in a close co-operation with European
actors and institutions. The URBAN programme may be considered a training programme for
local and national urban policy actors (Barbanente/Tedesco 2002; Mattiucci 2005; Halpern
2005). Thus, Europe becomes a “helping hand” for domestic urban policy. However, if and
how much of these new stimulations for urban policy will be taken up even after the
termination of the programmes will depend on the respective city and country.
157
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
3.5 Conclusion
The governance effects triggered off by the URBAN programme – most of the studies agree
on this – are estimated as being enormous if measured by the relatively restricted size of the
programme. Institutionally, topically, and also in relation to actors involved, urban policies in
the programme cities have changed. At least for implementing the projects, traditional
administrative structures were broken up and partnership-oriented co-operation committees
were developed. However, the sustainability and profundity of such changes varies. While in
some cities the implementation of URBAN was connected to a deep transformation of politics
and policies, structural change in other cities was rather of an episode-nature and expired with
the running time of the programmes. The URBAN Community Initiative had the clearest
effects there where simultaneously national ideas of urban policy were in the process of
reshaping (Italy, UK) so that URBAN could function as a catalyst or enforcer of already
begun processes.
The institution-oriented perspectives of most URBAN studies differentiate between horizontal
and vertical governance effects. As horizontal governance, changed co-operation structures at
the local level are investigated. For this, the inclusion of non-state actors is in the focus of
interest. In this context both the consideration of private and entrepreneurial interests and also
the increased inclusion of community organisations was stated. According to the logic of the
URBAN programme, the transition to a more partnership-oriented and network-like way of
governing already appears like a success – the economic and social effects coming along with
the transition from traditional government to governance are measured only seldom. For the
analysis of vertical governance structures – which refer to the co-operation of different spatial
levels of administration – traditional, hierarchical structures of top-down planning are also
described as obstacles for new politics. However, the advantages of a new, less hierarchical
way of the co-operation of European, national, and urban levels are described only seldom.
Drawing on the Kooiman-scheme of variety of governance (Kooiman 2003), we can state that
previous URBAN studies have focused mostly on second order-governance, that is the
institutional settings of urban policy, and have hardly taken potentials for concrete problemsolving (first order-governance) into consideration, with the exception of aspects of
participation by including community organisations (A2).
Depending on the perspective, URBAN can be considered a direct or indirect means of
Europeanisation of urban policy. Changes ocurring as results of the programme’s concrete
158
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
implementation through projects, e.g. the emergence of new networks, the extension of
leeways for participation, or the development of cross-departmental co-operations at different
territorial levels, are evidence of the fact that URBAN can serve as a direct instrument of
Europeanisation. There are, however, effects of URBAN that rather highlight its function as
an indirect instrument of Europeanisation, insofar as, for instance, debates on and changes of
domestic urban policy triggered off by URBAN do not have to show any immediate
connection to URBAN projects but can, nonetheless, have been initiated by it.Thus,
orientation towards integrated area-based interventions has meanwhile become a standard of
urban policy in many European countries. The important influence of URBAN in the context
of this European-wide adaptation of urban policy approaches is explicitly worked out by some
studies (Mattiucci 2005; Halpern 2005). As these indirect Europeanisation effects often are
the adaptation of governance principles and approaches, we may speak of meta-governance
referring both to self-governance capacities of single actors (mostly administrations) as well
as to appropriate networks (co-governance) (A3, B3).
Use of the Term ‚Governance’ in URBAN Research
Modes of Governance
A) Self-Governance
B) Co-Governance
C) Hierarchical
governance capacity
co-operation,
Governance
of individual actors
networking, public
traditional top-down
private partnerships
government
B1
C1
Orders of Governance
1) First-Order-Governance
A1
concrete problem solutions and
(URBAN and
policy processes
participation)
2) Second-Order Governance
A2
B2
C2
institutional conditions
URBAN and new
URBAN and new
URBAN and
urban governance
urban governance
gatekeeper-problem
3) Meta-Governance
A3
B3
normative framework
URBAN as an
URBAN as an
instrument of
instrument of
Europeanisation
Europeanisation
C3
The studies on the implementation of URBAN programmes cover a large part of possible
perspectives on governance. The low empirical evidence of traditional top-down control is
due to the programme objectives, which deliberately aim at new, partnership-oriented, and
integrated ways of urban policy making. Only when describing conflicts between newly
developing supranational-local coalitions and the attempts of controlling by national states
159
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
(gatekeeping), aspects of hierarchical governance are emphasised. URBAN research shows
gaps mainly with regard to the level of first order-governance. The analysis of actual effects
of changed governance structures for the economic and social development of cities and/or
neighbourhoods might be a task for future investigations for the Europeanisation of urban
policy should not only aim at changing modes of governance structure but should really
improve living conditions in cities.
160
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
4. URBAN, Participation, and Local Empowerment
4.1. Perceptions of Participation and Empowerment in URBAN Research
Apart from a handful of studies (exemplarily Sander Kruse 2002, Henrike Neuenfeldt 2000
and Brandon Murtagh 1999), participation and empowerment have hardly been analysed as
independent URBAN research issues so far. There have been, however, a range of studies that
focussed on these issues as aspects of the governance dynamics of URBAN. All the
comparative studies, for instance, broached the issue of participation and empowerment, but
still not as focal points of their analysis.
What becomes clear from the different contributions on participation is that there is no
common European perception of participation in urban contexts. Deducing from these
different perceptions, the studies scrutinised different challenges and limits of implementing
participation and, furthermore, offered a range of different methods and procedures for
participation in URBAN contexts.
Present URBAN research revealed a wide range of different ideas on what participation might
mean. Angela Barbanente and Carla Tedesco summarised the URBAN participation approach
as:
ƒ
the “notion of involving local people in the regeneration of disadvantaged areas”,
ƒ
the “direct participation of local community in the setting-up and implementation of the
initiative” and
ƒ
the “creation of partnership between public and private, governmental and nongovernmental people and organisations” (Barbanente/Tedesco 2002: 3).
Differing from these theoretical ideas, the empirical findings as they are presented in the case
studies showed that there are actually various ways to implement this URBAN participation
approach. Hence, the positions of researchers about what participation means (or should
mean) seem to differ significantly. Participation in URBAN research contexts was interpreted
as partnership, as trust in political institutions, as a network, as involvement of community
organisations, as direct citizen participation or as participation for deprived social groups.
In the case study on URBAN Trieste the practice of community participation was described as
a collaboration of the local administration with universities and private sector institutions with
only very little involvement of citizens (Mattiucci 2005). According to Mattiucci, this
161
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
perception reduced the meaning of participation to partnerships and the consideration of
community interests.
In their case study on Bari, Barbanente/Tedesco interestingly refer to community
empowerment as some kind of “unintended outcome” of the URBAN programme. They argue
that the URBAN experience of assertive, successful and visible acting of the local
administration created some kind of trust in political institutions and highly encouraged
political participation as well as civic commitment in the community (Barbanente/Tedesco
2002: 10f.).
In her study on London and Liverpool, Sabine Paulus discussed ‘participation’ as the
involvement of pre-existing institutionalised community structures .
Contrary to this view which understands participation as the indirect empowerment of
communities via interest organisations, most researchers prefer a definition of participation as
the direct and individual involvement of inhabitants. In this vein, Maria Tofarides criticised
the “community gatekeeping” exercised by established civil organisations as a form of
discrimination of local people (Tofarides 2003). Quite similarly, the studies by Thea Dukes
on Amsterdam and by Henrike Neuenfeld on Bremen are informed by the idea of direct
citizen participation.
The narrowest definition of participation can be found in Andreas Krammer’s study on
URBAN in Vienna, in which he especially considers participation a chance “for deprived
social groups” (Krammer 2003). This class-specific perception of participation does not
represent the common concept (in the URBAN academic community), but it demonstrates the
variability of academic interpretations of ‘participation’.
4.2. Challenges and Limits of Implementing URBAN Participation
Deducing from their different perceptions, the URBAN rsearchers scrutinised different
challenges and limits of implementing participation. A systematisation of the various results
allows us to identify three central topics in the academic discussion on URBAN participation:
ƒ
the target group question (Who should be the actor of participation? Who should be
involved in participation?)
162
The European URBAN Experience
ƒ
Study Report
the problem of representativeness (Who is speaking in the name of the community?
Which topics are addressed? To which spatial area is representation restricted?)
ƒ
the dilemma of institutionalisation (How does the collaboration of professionals and nonprofessional volunteers work? How open and how continuous should a participation
project be?)
4.2.1. Target Groups of Participation
Resulting from the different perceptions of participation, there are diverse opinions regarding
the question of whom to involve in participation. Local residents, voluntary organisations, the
public and/or the private sector are considered target groups of participation to a varying
extent. Emphasising social exclusion, Paulus focuses on the participation of the local
community, defined as local residents, community organisations and voluntary groups. But
the debate on participation has been supplemented by the question of whether to support
already existing community organisations or to establish new community coalitions. Related
to the term „community gatekeeping“, there has been a heated debate on the content of
community participation.
Citing Marseille as an example, Maria Tofarides (2003) criticises the discrimination brought
about by existing community participation structures. Already established groups, comités
d’interêt de quartier (CIQ), claimed to represent the interests of the neighbourhood. They
consisted of local residents and associations, originally implemented by the former Mayor of
Marseille, aiming at improving the communication between residents and elected officials. It
is, however, questionable to which extent the interests of the local residents are indeed
represented by those groups.
According to Tofarides, problems of representation arise from restrictive practices in the
admission of new members, i.e.: to participate in a CIQ, people must go through a system of
invitations and selections operated by existing members. Statements of local residents,
according to which a typical representative of a CIQ is white, European and middle aged, are
confirmed by officials involved on the grass roots level (Tofarides 2003: 232). Hence, there is
evidence that membership is not open to all members of the local community.
In her comparative study on London and Liverpool, Duisburg and Berlin, Sabine Paulus
suggests an interrelation between participants and the respective phases of projects. She found
163
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
out that during the formulation process there were predominantly civil organisations involved;
during the operationalisation process, however, there was a higher degree of community
participation (Paulus 2000). In Northern Ireland Brendan Murtagh observed the contrary:
consideration of community interests was assured in the phase of strategy findings and
priority settings but neglected during the implementation of the projects (Murtagh 1999: 1189
ff.).
A range of studies accentuate the relevance of capacity building for community participation.
The Bari case, for instance, reveals that a lack of capacities on the local level constitutes a
barrier to participation. The neighbourhood committees created by local associations were
partly not able to generate a benefit from the URBAN opportunities. Neither did the URBAN
officers support the local inhabitants in addressing their problems nor in generating
institutional capacities to participate in the URBAN Programme in a more effective way
(Barbanente/Tedesco 2001: 10).
4.2.2. The Problem of Representativeness
The problem of representativeness in participation approaches occurs on different levels.
ƒ
The individual level: on this level we must ask about the legitimacy of participants. Who
is speaking in the name of the community? Which cultural and social resources are needed
to represent a community or an interest group?
ƒ
The community level: here we must deal with the simulation of a cohesive sense of
community, which, in reality, often does not exist (Edwards 1997). How can the diversity
of interests be integrated? How can multi-interest-groups be consolidated for community
participation?
ƒ
The spatial level: every participation approach must solve the problem that area-based
interventions are spatially limited. In focussing on small spatially defined communities,
the analysis might lose sight of the wider strategic context of urban change. Furthermore,
it is often difficult to draw the line between the areas to be supported and the ones to be
excluded from support.
These limitations of the community participation concept refer to a general challenge of
spatially based participation processes and empowerment strategies.
164
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
The new community-orientated participation approaches often fail to come up to the
democratic claims of the programmes. In contrast to the procedures of formal democracy,
community participation is often confined to special target groups. This is not a fundamental
problem – but it must be legitimised by a political statement. Yet, in the reality of community
participation the problem of legitimacy is mostly not reflected. Such non-reflected community
participations can obscure power relations.
In their attempt to construct a common interest the agenda of community empowerment did
not fully consider the analyses pointing to the growing disintegration and exclusion. Maria
Tofarides emphasised the social dimension of this problem. Political participation – she draws
on the British experience – is largely a phenomenon of the middle-class, but URBAN
programme operates in areas with a large population of ethnic minorities, some members of
which have moved to the area only recently. These social groups often lack identification with
their neighbourhood and the necessary social capacity to engage in community regeneration
(Tofarides 2003). The URBAN programmes had to cope not only with a lack of capacities or
identification but also with the internal differentiation of communities alongside ethnic,
religious and political lines (see 6.2.4.).
4.2.3. The Institutionalisation of Participation Processes
The institutionalisation of participation processes appears reasonable for several reasons.
Only on the basis of solid, shared experiences, common positions can be found and projects
realised. But how permeable are the structures emerging in this process for new interests?
Will there be hierarchies between professionals, semi-professionals and laymen?
Only few studies emphasise the necessity of organisational capacities for participation. Nonestablished organisations with a lack of adequate resources were not able to bridge the period
between paying for the project and receiving ERDF funding and could thus not fill the role of
an accountable body. This explains why formerly existent civil sector organisations were the
leading partners in almost all URBAN programmes (Tofarides 2003).
The tension between ‘professionals’ and ‘laypersons’ became obvious in different ways. On
the one hand, community participants are often confronted with the lack-of-professionalismargumentation when told that their plans were not feasible. On the other hand, often
community activists must deal with the over-professionalism-argumentation, i.e. they are
165
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
accused of not representing the whole community but rather pursuing their own semiprofessional ambitions.
In the URBAN studies these conflicts were reflected. On the quiet, some URBAN officers
even designated community participation as a “disturbing factor” of urban planning. In her
study on participation in Bremen-Gröpelingen, Henrike Neuenfeld (2000) pointed to some
kind of third-sector-dominated participation in the context of URBAN and criticised the social
selectivity of this kind of participation. Even though the invitation to participate was extended
to all inhabitants, only well organised institutions, associations and organisations accepted the
offer. From the administrative viewpoint it seems easier to cooperate with semi-professional
institutions and their staff because these people often resemble the administrative staff in their
social and cultural characteristics, hence there is an affinity between the two groups.
4.2.4 Methods and Procedures of Participation
The application of methods and procedures of participation in urban policy contexts is never
apolitical and must be interpreted by its social meaning and its effects (Murtagh 2001).
Brendan Murtagh explained different techniques of evaluation concerning different ways of
defining problems and finding solutions. The instrumental/technocratic approach evaluates
the results of political programmes by quantitative criteria and follows affirmative
considerations. The interpretative approach regards evaluation as politically biased and asks
for power relations and interests behind the policy process (Murtagh 2001: 223). An
instrumental/technocratic approach for quantitatively evaluating participation would, for
instance, ask about the number of people and neighbourhood groups involved or the
frequency of workshops offered to residents. An interpretative approach that tries to analyse
the power relations behind discussion and decision making would, in turn, rather focus on
question like: who has a stake in urban policy? How powerful is the influence of residential
interests in the URBAN projects? Is there any distribution of competence from administration
to community? Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) conceptualised a gradation of content and intensity
of participation and identified eight levels of participation – the “ladder of citizen
participation”: Manipulation → Therapy → Information → Consultation → Placation →
Partnership → Delegated Power → Citizen Control.
166
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
This framework can assist a better understanding of participation experiences in the URBAN
context. URBAN studies describe different methods of assuring the participation of
communities. Some of them should be shortly mentioned:
The community audit: The community audit allows researchers to analyse local problems
while, at the same time, initiating a community-wide discussion on urban strategies. It
combines statistical data-analysis and in-depth interviews with community groups and
workshops. A range of community groups in the URBAN areas in Belfast were drawn from
City Council database of community groups and surveyed by in-depth interviews. The focus
was on those organisations playing an active role in local development and those representing
potential applicants to URBAN funds (Murtagh 1999: 1185). The community audit was used
for appraisal of the problems, perspectives and priorities in each area. The outcome of the
audit process was summarised in an “Urban Initiative Strategy for Derry/Londonderry” with
seven operational themes. Brendan Murtagh argued that the community audit concept is
useful as it allows to debate different issues within a planning context that allows for a
comprehensive understanding of spatial problems. The audit concept can visualise the
diversity of perspectives and interests among people who are involved in urban programmes.
In this sense, the audit represents “an active social process of consensus forming” (Healey et
al. 1994: 283).
However, Murtagh voices scepticism regarding the potential to really include community
groups in the planning process by means of community audits. This scepticism results from
inconsistencies in the realisation of the concept throughout the duration of the process – from
research to implementation phase. In Derry/Londonderry, for instance, community audits
would often be restricted to the former phase and hence suggest direct participation of the
community in the complete planning process only while, in fact, “penetration into the
decision-making process, control over expenditure and resource allocation priorities were
limited and research and consultation, in themselves, do not guarantee real control” (Murtagh
1999: 1190). As the case of community audits in the URBAN areas in Northern Ireland
reveals, even a strategic orientation on participation and pluralistic planning methods does not
guarantee participation as these efforts run the risk of being undermined by technocratic
discourses of administration – to the frustration of neighbourhood initiatives and interest
groups (Murtagh 1999: 1189).
167
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Advisory boards and steering committees: another often realised participation approach is the
constitution of advisory boards or steering committees as central institutions in the URBAN
programmes. On the one hand, participation by advisory boards has often been considered a
successful way of institutionalising community participation, on the other hand it was
criticised for its tokenism (Arnstein 1969). The URBAN experience featured both these
options. The Amsterdam case of the successful protest of the black community demonstrates
the importance of access to advisory boards for all community groups. The advisory board in
Amsterdam developed from an arena of conflict into an instrument of participation. Henrike
Neuenfeld describes a different and limited participation experience in the BremenGröpelingen URBAN project, especially in the starting phase. Communication between
different project partners outside the administration only occurred during meetings of an
advisory board. For the most part, however, well-established institutions from the third sector
participated. Thus, according to Neuenfeld (2000: 76), the URBAN programme failed to
adequately consider the “special interests of the inhabitants in the URBAN area”. Some
studies refer to the problem of ‘non participation’ of unorganised groups in the community. In
the Komotini case, the non-existence of active community associations was named as a reason
of the limited empowerment of certain minority groups (Chorianopoulos 2005). Another
problem that was identified concerned the fact that advisory boards and steering committees
often did not empower community or interest groups to get involved in implementation
functions or budgetary control. A community activist in Belfast – exemplarily for a European
experience – characterised participation in the different committees and boards as “a version
of community therapy” (Murtagh 2001:441). The problem of participation by advisory boards
could be summarised as the tension between powerful but closed institutionalised structures
and powerless but generally open participation bodies.
Participation by projecting: most URBAN programmes started and realised a wide range of
concrete projects targeted at the improvement of life in the neighbourhood. These projects
were often accompanied by public meetings or neighbourhood celebrations and attracted
many inhabitants. Whenever the planned projects concerned the direct sourroundings of their
housing places, people would get involved into the planning process. Henrike Neuenfeld
(2000) pointed out that small projects could help with including the disadvantaged and most
resigned community (Neuenfeld 2000: 96). The spatial limitation of the projects does,
however, not only serve as a door opener for some kind of ‚underclass participation’ but also
refers to the limited political influence of the community. Taking part in an URBAN project
168
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
does not automatically empower the community to participate in urban policy discussions.
Participation by projecting can be understood as some kind of advocacy planning, where the
community remains an object of urban policy. The URBAN potential of activating the
unorganised and disadvantaged turned out to be highly dependent on the timing of URBAN
programmes. Oftentimes, projects were realised in the later phase of URBAN so that those
groups with the lowest degree of empowerment became most involved when the strategic
discussions on urban development had already been closed.
4.3 Conclusion
For the time being, the different aspects of participation and empowerment in URBAN
programmes have only been described and assessed with reference to individual, unrelated
case studies. A comparative analysis of participation approaches remains to be done. An
integrated analysis of procedures of participation, different perceptions of participation and
the intensity of participation might be an interesting topic for future research. In this respect,
Brendan Murtagh (2001:231) drafted some crucial questions for research on communityorientated participation strategies: who has information? Who controls data collection and
financial funds? How numerous and large are the opportunities for influencing the outcomes
of urban policy?
169
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
5. Policy Learning and Transnational Policy Transfer
5.1 Understanding of Policy Learning and Transnational Policy Transfer
In political-scientific urban research changes of policy focuses and/or political instruments are
often conceptualised as learning processes (Bandalow 2003; Benz/Fürst 2002). These
approaches focus on both the subjects and the forms of learning processes. In this vein, the
transformation of actors’ experiences, “individual learning”, is distinguished from
“institutional learning” of complex structures. In respect of how they happen, learning
processes themselves are differentiated into “single loop” and “double loop” learning
processes. “Single loop” learning processes can be considered a search for the best means
within a basically unchanged set-up of an experiment, while in the case of complex “double
loop” learning processes not only the suitable tools are looked for but the basic conditions
themselves are also reflected on (Jachtenfuchs 1996).
In URBAN research, policy learning is mostly interpreted institutionally and discussed with
reference to “innovative changes of administrative control” (Wolffhardt 2005b: 27). In the
context of urban Europeanisation, different ways of learning can be distinguished:
Vertical learning: top-down processes of taking over principles of structural funds and
adaptations to EU-norms and -guidelines which, communicated by way of programmes like
URBAN, contribute to modernising local urban policy. In literature, such learning processes
are often described as caused by an “external shock” (Cox 2001).
Horizontal learning: learning processes resulting from contributing to trans-national networks
among cities and happening by way of exchanging “best practices”. In this context,
restructuring of governance modes does not happen due to forced adaptation but within a
space of opportunities which might be taken up by the respective municipal administrations.
Indirect learning: here, learning processes are understood to be innovations for which the
European programmes are not considered a direct trigger but observably work as a reinforcer
and catalyst of certain developments. The precondition for such indirect learning processes is
a high degree of congruence of political goals and striven for institutional ways of
organisation of urban policy between local or even state programmes and European
initiatives. The best URBAN example for such a catalyst effect is the mutual reinforcement of
the European URBAN and national URBAN Italia programmes (Tedesco 2006).
170
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Transnational policy transfer may be understood to be one aspect of policy learning that
explicitly refers to the adaptation of urban-political experiences from other countries and in
the ideal case is communicated by way of European networks and city partnerships.
5.2 Policy Learning in the URBAN Context
The few URBAN studies explicitly discussing learning processes use a concept of learning
which understands learning to be “interaction and production of knowledge” happening under
certain conditions – positive and negative learning stimulations (Walther/Güntner 2002;
Halpern 2005). This concept of learning is based on the idea of subjectively communicated
innovations and demarcates learning processes from the decreed adaptation techniques of
benchmarking. For this, different levels of learning are identified, each of which is subject to
different conditions:
ƒ
individual learning by professional actors: here, skills of cognitively understanding a
situation and social competences of single persons are in the focus. More exactly, it is
about individual actors’ ability to self-reflectively generate changes of one’s action
structure from interactions and (daily) practice. Examples for this are administration
officials or experts being able to give up on their traditional (mostly hierarchical) routines
and not only to use but also to internalise the chances offered to them by new ways of
organisation in the context of the URBAN programme. The much highlighted significance
of “committed staff” for the success of the URBAN programme (Nanetti 2001, Halpern
2003; Mattiuci 2005; Marshall 2004a) indicates the effectiveness of such learning
processes, as for most of the actors the demands by these European programmes are
innovations which are different from their previous experiences and maxims of
administrative work.
ƒ
institutional learning by complex bodies: essential for this are changes of norms, rules,
and/or routines of entire institutions. More than in the case of individual learning, here
learning processes can be understood to be institutional adaptations to altering
circumstances. Particularly changed demands and guidelines can be interpreted as
stimulating modifications of organisational structures and processes. In the URBAN
context,
for
example,
cross-departmental
coordination
and
co-operation
or
(institutionalised) co-operation of municipal and private actors or regional bodies can be
understood as such processes. Even cities acting at the European level itself may be a
manifestation of such learning processes. Walther and Güntner assume that in the context
of the URBAN programme “today local politics are characterised by a doublebind of
171
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
learning if it includes several levels in the form of multi-level governance and includes e.
g. EU structural funds.” (Walther/Güntner 2002: 268). Local politics must learn how to
cope with the problems of critical neighbourhoods, and it is able to learn as by the EU
funds it is provided with additional funds for experiments (ibid.).
ƒ
policy-learning: this level of learning refers to the field of meta-governance and includes
changes of urban-political strategies, of agenda-setting and framing, as well as choice of
topics. Compared with individual and institutional learning processes, policy-learning is
much more reflected by urban-political discourses and strategic orientations. In respect of
the URBAN programmes, a general orientation towards area-based interventions,
integrated planning approaches, and empowerment strategies that would go beyond the
scope of the programme would indicate such learning processes. In many European
countries these principles of the URBAN initiative have been inscribed into the way in
which this policy is formulated by their national programmes (see chapter 3.4). For
France, UK, and the Netherlands, Roelof Verhage (2005: 225) describes a “renewal of
urban renewal” and thus summarises a general transition towards partnership-oriented
strategies of renewal aiming at “coherent, multi-faceted response to a multifaceted
problem” (Hall/Hickman 2002: 691). In how far such changes of strategy are due to direct
influence by European programmes remains an open question. At the same time, however,
there is no doubt that the debates on changed (local and national) strategies of urban
renewal are embedded in European discourses (Dukes 2005).
Evaluations of learning effects in the context of the URBAN programme are markedly
differentiated. They range from assuming a far reaching modernisation of administrations and
consequent orientation towards partnership combined with a comprehensive view at urbanspatial developments in Graz which goes beyond the single URBAN projects (Bartik
Wolffhardt 2005; Ferstl 2004) and as far as to stating an institutional resistance against
innovation in Vienna, where URBAN stimulations were incorporated into exiting
administrative processes (Wolffhardt et al. 2005; Krammer 2003).
Particularly for cities taking part both in the URBAN I programme and in URBAN II,
institutional learning processes and first steps towards policy learning could be observed.
With respect to Berlin, Charlotte Halpern, for instance, observes that chances for a change in
the strategy of municipal politics were missed because various levels of the administration
refused co-operation and put their own interests in the fore while in the course of URBAN II
172
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
administrative structures were fundamentally changing and ways towards a new kind of
municipal policy were indeed found (Güntner/Halpern 2006).
Similar effects were stated for Greece, too: While during the period of the URBAN I
programme it was still not possible to break up the strongly centralist relationships between
the national and the municipal level, URBAN II came along with a clear enhancement of
municipal levels and made independent and self-responsible municipal acting possible
(Chorianopoulos 2004, 2005, 2006).
Thus, particularly in the case of longer periods of observation, a change of learning models
from “single loop-learning” to “double loop-learning” (Jachtenfuchs 1996) can be observed.
In the field of urban policy these models can be operationalised as a change of tools or
strategies by urban policy (Glock 2006; 192ff). While at the level of concrete projects there
happened “simple” learning processes in the sense of trying out suitable tools, methods, and
participation structures, long-term engagement of cities is often connected to a fundamental
change of urban policy strategies. The studies on the URBAN programmes show that taking
over new tools for urban policy does not necessarily come along with a fundamental change
of strategy and that the predominance of centralist, hierarchical governance was hard to crack
open. Comparing URBAN I and II in Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, Bourdellon
identifies an attempt to manage URBAN II in a more integrative and participatory manner.
However, the therefore created institutions did not manage to break with traditional structures
and behaviour of local state actors. Since state actors largely refused to abandon power to
those newly created institutions, the latter did not achieve to play a significant role. Therefore,
even under URBAN II, the prefecture was actually the decisional power (Bourdellon 2005).
However, these attempts to change the structure can still be interpreted as policy learning.
Different studies point out that the duration of programmes might be too short to allow for
fundamental policy changes (Andree 2004, Paulus 2000). For the case of Erfurt (Germany),
Laura Matiucci shows that continuity of new approaches can also be maintained by way of
continuity of contributing people. She highlights that later the key actors of URBAN worked
for other, similar programmes implemented in the city, like “Soziale Stadt” (“Socially
173
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Integrative City”) and “LOS” (“Local Social Capital”)14. She concludes that “therefore, the
experience and the know-how has not been lost“ (Mattiucci 2005: 99f).
Interactions, that is incentives for exchange among networks, experiments in the sense of
incentives for knowledge production and research, as well as applications as incentives for
implementing best practices are named as typical elements of learning by Walther and
Güntner (Walther/Güntner 2002). Particularly due to its project orientation, the URBAN
programme offers possibilities for all these elements of learning. Whether they will be
successfully implemented, however, depends on the respective local conditions. Benz and
Fürst count network structures, orientation towards actors, actors‘ autonomy of action, as well
as the stability of local circumstances among the decisive conditions for successful learning
processes (Benz/Fürst 2002). Different factors of successful learning are described as being
complexly interrelated and, in parts, mutually exclusive: „Learning networks have to comply
with different – to a certain degree contradictory – criteria regarding the cognitive and
political dimensions of policy learning. On the one hand, the management of information
(detection of demand for change, mobilization of new tactic knowledge, finding new
solutions) requires pluralistic, polyarchic and open networks including competitive and
internally autonomous actors in flexible but intensive patterns of communication. On the
other hand, the effective solution of conflicts is more likely in homogeneous, hierarchical and
closed networks with cooperative, interdependent actors forming stable coalitions of changepromoters” (Benz/Fürst 2002: 28 f.). These demands are different according to city and
country, so that no general pattern of policy learning in the context of the URBAN
programme can be formulated. A systematic analysis of the effects of learning of European
programmes is still lacking, and particularly comparative studies suggest themselves for
pursuing this question.
5.3 Trans-National Policy Transfer
The trans-national orientation of URBAN cities is evident, for the URBAN programme itself
is indeed a tool for the European transfer of urban-political experiences.
14
LOS (“Lokales Kapital für soziale Zwecke”) stands for the "Local Social Capital" programme – a pilot project
from the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ) and the
European Social Fund (ESF). This provides financial support in selected regions throughout Germany for socalled micro-projects. See http://www.los-online.de/content/index_eng.html.
174
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
The majority of URBAN cities do not restrict their activities to carrying out the programmes.
Rather they get involved with national or European urban networks like, for instance, the
German-Austrian URBAN Network or the URBACT programme, and/or they participate in
other EU funded networks or lobby organisations like ”Eurocities” or “Cities of Tomorrow”.
The presented studies on the URBAN programme do not systematically and qualitatively
analyse the effects of contributing to such international networks. Given the fact that
transnational learning is a complex process, it is difficult to filter out one causal chain of
effects of trans-nationality from participating in URBAN. Thus, the majority of studies does
not offer anything more than a list of international activities and integrations. Thus, for
instance, in the case of Duisburg, there is emphasising that the city carried out an URBAN
Symposium 1997 where approaches of sustainable urban development of different European
cities were discussed (Paulus 2000: 222), but concrete effects of this exchange of ideas are not
analysed. In the same vein, Koutalakis (2003) highlights the opportunities for exchange and
policy learning offered to the Greek URBAN cities through the transnational dimension of the
EU programmes as especially important in a country like Greece with its lack of experience in
decentralised and integrated policy making. However, he does not give any substantiation or
example for this claim.
However, most of the studies assume that the URBAN programme offers a suitable
framework for exchanging best practices by way of trans-national networks and thus also
contributes to policy learning processes (Wolffhardt et al. 2005b).
Just as for the European engagement of cities in general, it is also possible to describe
different motivations for contributing to international co-operations and networks. Hoping for
an exchange of experiences in order to solve local problems in a more sufficient way, transnational stimulations for a shift of local urban-political emphasis, as well as successful
lobbying by cities at the European level may be considered three distinguishable expectations.
In practical urban work these motivations may eclipse, but they are decisive for the nature of
international activities.
Trans-National Networks as a Framework for Exchanging Urban Experiences/Best Practices
One motivation for trans-national co-operation of cities, which is described by many URBAN
studies, is pragmatic exchange that occurs while looking for concrete solutions to urban
175
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
problems. In their comparative study, Wolffhardt et al. see trans-national networks as one
framework for policy learning, in addition to local cross-sectoral networks. Such networks
provide cities with the opportunity to exchange information and best practice strategies
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005b).
Particularly smaller towns with restricted staff and administrative capacities focus their
European co-operation on a practical outcome. Thus, for example, the municipal
administration of Erfurt concentrates on networks of cities with similar backgrounds of
experiences (Mattiuci 2005). Luckenwalde (Germany), too, restricted its engagement to the
German-Austrian URBAN network and orientated its contribution towards becoming
networked with towns sharing similar problems (Andree 2004). The example of Liverpool
points out a different pragmatic access to trans-national networks in the URBAN context. The
projects of the URBAN programme were closely combined with other European activities
like, for example, successfully applying for the title “European Capital of Culture 2008”
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 7). Particularly renovation works in parts of the historical city centre
increased Liverpool’s cultural-historical significance and supported the acceptance of bid in
favour of Liverpool.
Trans-National Networks as Stimulations for Domestic Policy Reforms
Another striven for effect of getting engaged in European networks and contributing to transnational activities can be seen in increasing domestic stimulations for a change of municipal
policy. In this context, Europe becomes a consciously used method of overcoming restrictions
by political contexts at home. Thus for example Manchester, stimulated by the URBAN
programme, increasingly took up cross-section topics, like gender mainstreaming, also in
other fields of municipal policy (Wolffhardt et al. 2005). In Graz, too, intensive contribution
to trans-national networks, like the German-Austrian URBAN network, contribution to
URBAN meetings in France, UK, or Spain, as well as participating in programmes such as
CIVITAS is interpreted as a tool for urban development (Ferstl 2004). In contrast to this,
Gera’s (Germany) strikingly numerous European activities are not reflected by a fundamental
change of urban governance. Gera participates in altogether six URBACT networks. The goal
of European co-operation, it is said, is “collecting as much experience with co-operation
within the EU, in order of being prepared for future EU-funding” (URBAN Gera 2005).
Qualitative effects of changes in trans-national networking are less dependent on the quantity
of activities but rather result from already existing readiness for change of local political
176
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
structures. For this, like a “jumping the scales strategy”, actions by municipal administrations
at the European level may build an institutional bypass for overcoming restrictions by
national politics.
Trans-National Networks as a Forum for Lobby Activities of Cities at the EU Level
Another often named motivation for contributing to European networks is the possibility for
cities to take a stand in the context of inter-urban spatial competition and their chances of
contributing to the shaping of European politics. In the course of this, Europe becomes the
arena of local urban actions, and the trans-national activity of the cities follows the premise of
lobbying for themselves. Particularly big cities established independent agencies and offices
in Brussels as early as in the 1990s with the aim of being able to participate directly in
European debates.
In his study on Birmingham and Glasgow, Adam Marshall states that these cities try to
expand their influence at the European level by way of trans-national networks, such as
Eurocities and the EU programmes Interreg and Phare (Marshall 2004a). Wolffhardt et al.
find similar results for Austria, pointing to trans-national networks being a framework used by
cities to shape their position within the European urban system. The motivation of Vienna to
participate in Interreg, for example, is characterised by its ambition to play a distinctive role
vis-à-vis central and eastern European countries. Therefore, they characterise Vienna as a
“profiling, self-styled Euro-player” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 39) defining itself as a leader of
European integration from below.
Dortmund’s contribution to networks such as Eurocities, Cities of Tomorrow, and the
German-Austrian Network, too, did not only serve for exchanging experiences but, at the
same time, was considered a basis for lobbying partners at the European level and as an arena
for profiling oneself as a modern, international city (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 95).
5.4 Conclusion
Both the aspects of policy learning and of trans-national transfer of experiences are
considered only marginally in the previous works on the URBAN programme. Both topics are
named as sub-aspects of changes of governance, but they are not systematically analysed.
Particularly a combination of both aspects in the analysis might put the specifically European
facets of a changed urban policy to the fore. Is there a connection between trans-national
177
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
transfers of experiences and political learning processes? Particularly such a bottom-up
perspective of Europeanisation could be a qualitative yardstick for the effective power of the
project of Europe. Furthermore, just as in the field of governance studies, an evaluation
against the background of social and economic processes is still lacking for the researched
cities. For, only if there is really measurable success of urban policy, there will be an
incentive for lasting and sustainable Europeanisation of urban policy.
178
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
6. Conclusions
6.1 Common Insights of Scientific URBAN Research
Almost all of the case and comparative studies on the European Community Initiative
URBAN as being evaluated for this investigation confirm an enormous effect of the
programme. There is broad agreement that despite being relatively low-funded and despite the
restricted number of cities participating in the programme, URBAN has decisively influenced
and advanced the Europeanisation of urban policy. Especially in the field of organisational
structures and routines of proceeding the URBAN programme has changed the face of urban
policy in Europe. Area-based interventions in disadvantaged urban areas, integrated policy
approaches, and partnerships with other state and non-state actors have been established as
features of urban policy in almost all EU member states. Furthermore, the findings confirm
the misfit-thesis that particularly in countries with a hierarchical and centralist tradition of
planning URBAN resulted in the most significant institutional changes.
At the same time the studies point to a variety of different URBAN experiences. The effects
of URBAN are as different as the urban-political realities in Europe. In this context
Wolffhardt et al. say good bye to the image of the European puzzle and want Europe to be
conceived of as an unequal landscape of regions with unequal conditions (Wolffhardt et al.
2005a: 50). Accordingly, many studies focus their investigations on analysing basic domestic
conditions and regulations. Particularly national and local conditions were decisive for the
success of the European programme. Especially in countries which by their own motivations
had already begun to change their planning structures (Italy) or urban-political orientations
(UK) the URBAN programme worked as an enforcer, and the “windows of opportunity” were
wide open. There where URBAN stimulations were not in line with existing structures of
urban governance, distinct gatekeeper conflicts could be observed, which partly happened in
the form of competitive relationships between European initiatives and national/regional
institutions. According to the researchers, one example for this is France, where, despite farreaching congruence with the topical orientation of URBAN, sticking to traditional
governance relationships resulted in a blockade (Tofarides 2003; Gayton 2005).
The success of the URBAN programme as stated by the studies refers almost exclusively to
‘weak factors’ of urban policy. For the time being there are hardly any investigations which
try to estimate the effects of URBAN projects on the basis of social and economic data. In the
focus of investigations there were changes of urban governance structures, the extension of
179
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
aspects of participation, as well as abilities of policy-learning and trans-national transfer of
experiences. The long-term efficiency of the URBAN approach will have to be judged by the
question if changed governance structures and urban-political establishing priorities will
really be able to solve the urgent problems of European cities. Some studies at least ask the
question whether social structural problems can be solved by means of area-based
programmes (Dangschat 2004).
From the institutionalist viewpoint of most of the studies it has not yet been possible to judge
on the material power of the URBAN programme. Often, changes of governance become a
value or subject of investigation “in itself”, without asking whether the changed way of
organising policy really results in other effects for urban policy.
Similarly restricted was the view at the participation effects of the URBAN programme. Here,
too, particularly formal and institutionalised participation offers were presented without
asking about the success or effects of these new structures of participation at a micro-social
level. Particularly the question whether a real shift of decisional power towards the
inhabitants of the target areas happened in the context of the projects stayed mostly
unanswered.
6.2 Special Issues
Besides insights on the three “great” topics of the URBAN programme (governance,
participation, and trans-nationality), the studies raised several other questions which might
stimulate future debates on the Europeanisation of urban policy.
6.2.1 URBAN in Big, Small, and Medium-Sized Towns and Cities
The altogether almost 200 cities which took part in the two URBAN programmes represent a
broad spectre of different types of cities in Europe. Particularly the size of cities was
discussed as a crucial factor for handling the European programmes. The relation of expected
EU funding and the size of the city (including its administrative capacities) may influence the
Euro-orientation of cities. For example, big cities (and their administrations) often are more
able and experienced in the difficult task of coping with the administrative requirements of
EU funded projects. On the other hand, the penetrating and innovational power and thus the
political significance of the European programmes is often much stronger in smaller towns.
180
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Particularly
ƒ
the administrative and financial capacities of cities,
ƒ
the urban political significance of the European programmes, as well as
ƒ
motivational structures for European engagement
are often interpreted as being directly related to the size of the place.
Administrative and Financial Capacities of Cities
Even if programmes like URBAN are in the first place regarded as a source of finance, the
acquisition of EU funds is most often connected to considerable financial and administrative
efforts. The EU’s principle of subsidiary alone obliges cities to cover 25% (objective 1regions) and 50% (all other regions) of the total of funding, which must be paid from national
(and/or regional and municipal as well as private) funds. Often, this brings smaller and
medium-sized towns and cities to the limits of their capacities.
Bigger cities, on the other hand, often found it easier to mobilise the necessary financial
resources but had to find much strength to include independent and sometimes stubborn
department administrations into a co-operational relationship. In Berlin, for instance, URBAN
I had to include not only different departments at the Senate level but also several local
administrations of the Berlin districts into a common project (Halpern 2005). In the course of
this, the size of administrations and their internal differentiation partly blocked flexible
responses to the demands of European programmes.
Significance of the Programmes and Size of Cities
The significance of European programmes depends to a good deal on the volume of European
funds. The funding volume of URBAN II for Berlin (ca. 3.5 mio. inhabitants) and
Luckenwalde (ca. 20,000 inhabitants) is about almost 20 mio. Euros each. These figures alone
illustrate the financial importance of the URBAN programme for a small town like
Luckenwalde. In respect of staff and administration, too, a European programme often
changes the established approaches and routines in smaller towns much more. While for the
gigantic administrative organisations of the metropolises a European Office or an additional
staff position does hardly make any difference, at smaller and medium-sized places a similar
programme occupies essential staff resources of local politics. There, it is often the mayor or
the heads of departments who personally back up the implementation of the European
programme. Accordingly, the importance of the projects is much higher.
181
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nevertheless, there is no automatic relation between the size of the town or city and the cities’
tendencies to engage in European programmes. The studies indicate very different URBANexperiences in smaller and medium-sized places. Graz – with its 225,000 inhabitants a
relatively small city if compared to the metropolises like Berlin, Vienna, Brussels, or Milan –
is widely considered the perfect example of a successful and also sustainable process of
Europeanisation in the field of urban governance (Wolffhardt et al. 2005b; Ferstl 2004). In
cities of comparable size, like Trieste and Erfurt, too, changes were not restricted to URBAN
projects proper (Matiucci 2005).
However, the example of Berlin shows that even in big cities the stimulations by a small
programme such as URBAN do not necessarily disappear in the vast variety of urban-political
activities. There, particularly institutional changes have developed towards the nature of a
paradigm shift in urban policy. In big cities the effects of URBAN programmes cannot be tied
to the volume of investment but to changes of the contents and structures of urban policy. In
smaller places, however, direct programme effects are more in the fore.
Motivation Structures for a European Engagement of Cities
Motivations for participating in European programmes and trans-national networks also vary
from city to city. Indeed, almost all cities – independent of size and number of inhabitants –
may be supposed to be interested in acquiring additional funds, but beyond this, big and small
cities and towns pursue different strategies by their European activities.
Particularly small and medium-sized places are orientated towards a possibly immediate
improvement of their problem-solving capacities. Thus, many small towns restrict their transnational activities to towns with comparable problems. In this respect, Europe is considered
an important element of local urban-political practice.
Bigger cities and metropolises, on the other hand, are much more under pressure by an
international urban competition and understand their European engagement also from the
point of view of winning, defending, or enhancing a position within the European network of
cities. For this, Europe becomes the stage of urban marketing strategies which are meant to
make especially innovative practices or exemplary solutions well-known beyond the borders
of their countries. Wolffhardt et al. call cities with such strategies “self-styled Euro-players”
(Wolffhardt et al. 2005b: 99).
182
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Overcoming the obstacles of domestic urban politics might be considered a third motivation
which is also predominantly pursued by bigger cities, national contexts and their
administrative hierarchies being circumvented with the help of European programmes. For
this, Europe is used as a joker for implementing a change of strategies of urban politics. Not
the concrete social, economic, and physical effects of European programmes such as URBAN
are really in the fore here but rather their effects on governance structures and strategic
orientation of urban politics. This kind of Europe-motivation can be expected mostly for
bigger cities which – due to their staff and administrative capacities – are able to pursue their
own strategic interests.
It is not possible to formulate a general pattern of Europeanisation for smaller towns and
bigger cities respectively. Although demands and also objectives are rather orientated towards
the conditions and problems of big cities, the short-term effects of the URBAN programme
often become more visible in small towns. However, a systematic comparative analysis –
which is still lacking – should also take the long-term effects on governance structures into
consideration. The size of cities influences the way in which urban Europeanisation through
the URBAN programme takes place – previous URBAN research, however, suggests that this
influence can only be reasonably investigated in connection with other variables in the
context of a multi-factor analysis.
6.2.2 North-South Dimension of URBAN
Another much addressed topic of the URBAN studies is the North-South dimension of urban
Europeanisation. Especially in the first years there was widespread scepticism towards the
programme since it was suspected to consider the special conditions of Southern European
countries only insufficiently (Chorianopoulos 2002; Hadjimichalis 1994).
At present, however, both the institutional and the political-strategic misfit between Southern
European urban policy and the EU URBAN CI are regarded as the starting point of deep
change.
Sceptical arguments dominated the early discussions. Numerous representatives of South
European cities and countries rejected the EU urban programmes as the expression and the
result of a notion of politics and society that was deeply entrenched in Northern Europe and
failing to perceive or respect the specificities of the Southern European development process.
183
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
As the Greek regional planner Costis Hadjimichalis put it: „EU policies have a northcentral
European socio-economic bias incapable of appreciating southern pecularities […], and still
less of formulating appropriate policies.” (Hadjimichalis 1994: 19f) Just some keywords to
illustrate these Southern peculiarities: urbanisation without industrialisation and thus
fundamentally different labour market, social and family structures, continuity of traditional
and informal production methods – even in the most innovative industries; a rudimentary
safety net of social protection, centralised political and administrative structures with weak
local authorities; and an authoritarian and clientelistic notion and tradition of politics and the
state’s role that never permitted the development of democratic and civil structures,
organisations or movements.
Taking all this into account, the critics and sceptics asked: how are the Southern European
cities supposed to implement a programme that requires a considerable degree of local
autonomy as well as strong local actors and institutions? How are “bottom-up approaches”
supposed to be developed in countries in which political processes run only in one direction,
that is to say top-down? How to integrate social, economic, and physical aspects into one
comprehensive development plan in countries where there is a rigid separation between
physical planning and economic development and where social policies are particularly
underdeveloped. How could citizens be motivated to stand up for their concerns in states
without civic culture?
Particularly the EU URBAN governance requirements seemed to prove that the Brussels ideal
of the European city and its problems was very much the one of the Northern European
industrial city, which, while building upon and using its traditions and structures, is
transforming successfully – even if painfully – into an entrepreneurial service city. Thus, the
EU was blamed for imposing a uniform political and governmental model on all European
cities – one that the Southern cities could not but fail to realise. Southern cities, once more,
would become excluded from European mainstream. Rather than contributing to economic
competitiveness and social and spatial cohesion, the national and regional disparities as well
as the centre-periphery contrast would become even more blatant.
Against the background of these critical voices one is surprised to find that today, in the
academic and political debates, the URBAN programme is widely valued as a particularly
positive experience and a striking success. It is acknowledged to have shown considerable
184
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
potential to interrupt domestic national and sub-national policy traditions. Empirical findings
show that the URBAN requirements forced national administrations to cross-sectorally work
together, and, often for the very first time, to work together with local authorities. For most
cities under scrutiny, URBAN was the first experience with integrated and area-based policymaking and welcomed as a strong incentive to experiment with new concepts of urban
planning, and namely to combine the physical aspects of regeneration with social and
economic measures.
In many cities the set up of efficient local institutions and of horizontal as well as vertical
partnerships was an extremely troublesome process – and often, however, also a successful
one. Local authorities were able to seize URBAN as an opportunity to improve their
administrative, institutional, functional, and procedural abilities, capacities and performances,
and to activate and involve various socio-economic actors into local and neighbourhood
development.
Measured by Northern standards, the achievements realised in the field of community
involvement and participation might appear modest; but measured by Southern standards the
plain fact that citizens are actually informed about and sometimes even integrated in urban or
neighbourhood plans is often described as an unprecedented process. What is also emphasised
is the enormous profit that the Southern European cities – untrained in decentral and
integrated policy-making as they were – made from their participation in the transnational
networks of European learning. As a matter of fact: the Southern European cities are
represented in the URBACT networks in high numbers and are standing out by their
extraordinary commitment and enthusiasm. Thus, it seems as if the harshest critics of the
initiative have, after all, become the most ardent enthusiasts. Today, Southern actors and
experts welcome the ideas of good governance implemented by the European Union as a way
of breaking authoritarian and centre-oriented political and administrative structures and as a
way of strengthening the local political and social actors and institutions that have been
marginalised so far. Far from excluding Southern European cities from European society,
today the initiative is said to have drawn them into a democratic “Europe of the Cities”. As
expressed by a representative of the Spanish city delegation on the occasion of an URBAN
conference: “URBAN was our liberation. URBAN allowed us to become part of the European
civilization.” (fieldnotes)
185
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
What can we learn from the Southern experience?
ƒ
The first point refers to the Europeanisation debate. Regarding Southern cities, most
authors find evidence of a Europeanisation process as defined by Radaelli as “a set of
processes through which the EU political, social and economic dynamics become part of
the logic of domestic discourse, identities, political structures and public policies”. Albeit
it is certainly true that the changes brought about by the EU urban programmes are more
qualitative than quantitative, the results underscore their ability and effectiveness as an
instrument to induce domestic innovation and change in respect of governance issues as
well as planning approaches – even in such unfavourable or even adverse institutional
environments as are, at least at first sight, the Southern member states.
ƒ
The second point concerns the question of the stability and profundity of these changes
and learning processes brought about by the URBAN programme. Here, the differences
between Greece and Italy are particularly instructive. In both countries the URBAN
initiative is valued as a positive experience. However, many Greek observers argue that
there is little evidence that the changes enforced by EU implementation requirements will
have long-lasting effects. Despite the fact that about 100 URBAN-like interventions took
place under EU-pressure to add an ‘urban dimension’ to Greek development programmes,
there are no signs that these experiences will develop into a re-thinking or a turnaround in
urban policy-making at the national level or into an empowerment of cities and local
authorities. It is thus to be feared that the institutional changes and learning effects of the
URBAN experience in Greece will vanish into thin air. The opposite holds true for Italy:
as it is emphasised in most of the studies, during the Nineties the national government
started innovation and experimentation with integrated urban planning and programming.
In this atmosphere of general openness for and propensity to reform, URBAN came as the
right programme at the right time. As a consequence, the EU sponsored urban
programmes are nowhere as unanimously welcomed as in Italy. These differences
between Greece and Italy once more confirm a rule that is already well-known from the
study of other attempts of project-oriented urban restructuring, namely the politics of
festivalisation or urban development through big events. The rule says that – urban
development projects are likely to fail if they occur as isolated measures and if the
changes are enforced against the grain of existing policies, structures and procedures, that
is if they are not part of or embedded in wider reform processes – project based
restructuring is likely to be successful and the changes are likely to endure beyond project
duration if they are built on or reinforce reform processes that have already been initiated
186
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
and have gathered momentum and if they have a broad basis of support. In this case the
project may function as a catalyst or reinforcer of change, and this is what happened in
Italy.
ƒ
The significant differences between Northern and Southern European cities and countries
notwithstanding, the empirical findings show that the North/South dualism or divide no
longer applies as an explanatory framework for the effective implementation of EU
policies and programmes. On the one hand, there are considerable variations between the
Southern member states. This point will be elaborated on further below. On the other
hand, there are considerable differences also within the Southern member states – that is,
for example, between Greek cities or between Italian cities. Furthermore, there are
differences between small towns, medium-sized and big cities and so on. These variations
suggest that the North / South scheme is only one factor, and apparently not even a very
relevant one, in the interpretation of the different abilities of the cities to make sense of
the EU programmes.
Ironical Turn in the North/South Debate
Today some authors even suggest that in Southern countries and cities the URBAN
programme has functioned so well – and arguably in many cases even better than in many
Northern countries – just because of the different socio-spatial patterns of Southern cities.
Thus, while poverty rates in the South are the highest in Europe, the patterns of poverty and
social exclusion as well as the spatial clusterings of poor people vary significantly from the
Northern cities. In the South, poverty affects “ordinary people”, that means to a large extent
married, able-bodied parents and their children. Furthermore, there is neither striking
neighbourhood concentration of poor people nor such strong ethnic segregation like in the
North. All in all, the social mix even in deprived areas is much higher than in the North.
When it comes to the implementation of EU area-based approaches to urban social
regeneration this would mean that, as compared with Northern cities, Southern cities are
advantaged rather than disadvantaged. Or, in other words, rather than hindering the effective
implementation of EU urban policies, the specific characteristics of Southern cities would
further the effective implementation of area-based social and economic regeneration
measures.
187
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
6.2.3 Significance of Committed Staff for URBAN Processes
Another often mentioned but hardly systematically analysed subject of URBAN research was
the significance of committed staff. Many case studies name single officials or politicians as
key-characters of a successful implementation of the URBAN programme. More than with
the routines of action of traditional urban policy, capacity for enthusiasm, persuasiveness, and
being keen to experiment seem to become decisive factors of urban policy. The dependence of
programme effectiveness on the personell of actors increases with hierarchical organisational
structures.
In single cases, like in St Etienne, URBAN I was formulated only by one person, the prefect
of the city. According to Gayton, neither the municipality nor private or community actors
were involved. The role of the prefect was further enhanced by the fact that he was the only
one having knowledge and experience with EU funding. In addition, the existence of several
national regeneration programmes is regarded as a reason for lacking interest of the
municipality (Gayton 2005).
In their comparative study Wolffhardt et al., too, identified key actors as an intermediate
factor. Especially at the formative stage of EU related activities, key persons play a distinctive
role. In this respect Wolffhardt et al. refer to officials at the planning department in Graz who
recognised the potential of EU programmes early on. The same is true for officials in Vienna
using the opportunity of INTERREG cross-boarder co-operations. Based on their decisions,
administrative structures capable to deal with EU programmes are developed and “European
awareness” (Wolffhardt et al. 2005a: 38) is built.
Due to a lack of commitment of the administrational actors, in Vienna EU programmes have
never really shaped the strategic orientation of the administration (Wolffhardt et al. 2005b).
For URBAN I in Berlin, too, a lack of assertiveness of the commissioned B&SU management
office is described as one reason for the failure of the project (Halpern 2005). In contrast to
this, the success of the URBAN II programme is attributed to the charismatic character of the
Senator for Urban Development, for by enforcing an integrated department administration for
questions of urban development the implementation of integrated approaches of policy was
made decisively easier (Güntner/Halpern 2006). However, such key-characters do not always
act because they are convinced of the contents but use URBAN as a possibility of making
their marks in order to extend their own spheres of power and popularity. With regard to St.
188
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Etienne, for example, Gayton describes the municipal elections as having been an essential
factor for increasingly turning towards the URBAN programme. The newly elected deputies
were able to distinguish themselves from the older deputies by means of urban policy, which
led to increasing interest in urban issues (Gayton 2005).
A different significance of the committed staff is described for Erfurt by Laura Matiucci.
Accompanying the URBAN programme, the competences of the head of the advisory
committee in charge were extended there. As now he is also in charge of the Federal-Länder
Programme “Soziale Stadt” (”Socially Integrative City”), the continuity of the URBANphilosophy is secured for the Erfurt municipal administration.
6.2.4 URBAN in Divided Cities
The URBAN programmes had to cope with internal division of communities alongside ethnic,
religious and political lines. Three local experiences illustrate how the URBAN projects
addressed these issues.
Belfast: The URBAN initiative, like all urban policies in Northern Ireland, must deal with the
ethno-religious political Northern Ireland Conflict between Catholic Republicans and
Protestant Loyalists. A community-based urban strategy runs the risk of being understood as a
policy of preferences and discriminations. The URBAN case of Belfast is a good example of
how planning deals with these suspicions: accentuation of social and economic issues of
urban development in contrast to the traditional emphasis on political and religious division;
spatial concentration on restructuring in the Belfast Metropolitan Area (BMA) as a ‘neutral’
area, which was likely to draw from both highly segregated Protestant and Catholic areas and
from highly disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Shirlow et al. 2002), and political balancing by
the selection of the target areas. The URBAN-II programme was set up for building ‘binding’
and ‘bridging’ social capital. The North Belfast Partnership – the central URBAN Institution
– has managed to establish and maintain a robust governance structure and to channel funds
into cross-sector and cross-community structures. Murtagh summarises that it “would be
wrong to overstate the impact of URBAN II on North Belfast’s stubborn social and ethnic
problems, but it is a start” (Murtagh 2005: 192).
Amsterdam: The URBAN programme in Amsterdam Bijlmermeer demonstrates how
effective community protest for better participation can be. As Sander Kruse and Thea Dukes
189
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
point out in their studies, there was a lack of community involvement when the URBAN
programme started: “The majority of the actors involved consisted of public or semi-public
actors […] ethnic or religious organisations were not represented at all” (Dukes 2002: 7).
Kruse concludes that this structure was bound to cause tension with the recommended
integrated organisational set-up of URBAN. Shortly after the start of URBAN, protests
among the local population arose, represented by the “Zwart Beraad”, a group formed by
black politicians from diverse parties. In the media and at the district council they criticised
the organisational set-up of URBAN Bijlmermeer as a waste of available financial resources
(Kruse 2002: 202). The Steering Committee reacted to these protests and assigned a research
institute to analyse the problems brought up. For the time of the research the URBAN
programme was stopped. Some months later the results of the analysis were published and the
URBAN programme re-started with radically altered organisational structures. The
Amsterdam case studies highlight the replacement of the extended Steering Committee by the
Uitgebreid Bestuurlijk Overleg (UBO). The UBO “would be qualified to decide on all the
projects related to social-economic renewal” (Dukes 2002: 10). Also important was the
adjusted composition of the UBO. Four seats were reserved for representatives from ethnic
minority groups and one for religious institutions. In addition, the UBO was chaired by an
independent (black) person. The protest of the marginalised community groups enforced the
institutionalisation of their own participation. Thea Dukes appraised that “the establishment of
this committee was the first milestone in population participation in the decision-making
process” (Dukes 2002: 9).
Komotini: The Komotini URBAN II area – according to Ioannis Chorianopoulos (2005) – is
characterised as a puzzle of highly segregated Christian, Turkish and Gypsy communities.
Empirical research on the URBAN initiative in Komotini suggests a policy shift towards a
more inclusive approach that incorporates ethnic minorities in the organisation and
implementation phases of the programme. Interest groups were invited to discussions that
formed the URBAN action plan. Currently the Chamber of Commerce, the association of
trade unions, the Turkish community, and the local environmental pressure group take part in
scheduled meetings that monitor the progress of the programme. The same actors and the
local university participate in the development of the ‘observatory of social and economic
indicators’ that aims to address the absence of data on the living and working conditions of
minority communities in the city. The presence of local interest groups in the programme’s
Steering Committee is formally instituted. Local partners were given a role within the
190
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
programme that was not particularly influential, that is, it did not involve implementation
functions and budgetary control. Moreover, the non-existence of a Gypsy community
association, and hence its absence from the Steering Committee, questions the extent to which
the programme was accountable to all respective stakeholders (Murtagh/McKay 2003). The
URBAN initiative, however, introduced a qualitative change in local relations. It provided a
new platform for interaction that is already producing significant results, though only in
specific policy areas. The limited spectre of minority empowerment prospects in EU local
regeneration policies, which is due to their primary commitment to civic politics and social
issues, has been noted in a number of studies (McCall 1998; Lunch 1996). The attempt to
combat social exclusion with the concept of ‘citizenship’ ignores a series of cultural and
relational dimensions of exclusion (Atkinson, 2001). In the case of Komotini, however, the
URBAN programme highlighted the generalised nature of the problem and assisted with
building new coalitions different from former exclusion policies (Silver 1994).
6.3 Future URBAN Research
The report on previous URBAN research shows that a broad spectre of views at specific
processes of Europeanisation in the field of urban policy is academically reflected on. The
variety of case studies and comparative investigations offers extended and substantial material
on the URBAN programme in different cities and countries. Notwithstanding the lack of a
common system of research questions in URBAN research – by the vital interest in issues of
governance change a central research topic has been established.
The instituionalist perspective, which is typical in most cases, has elaborated the reorientation of planning structures, experimenting with public-public and public-private
partnerships, and lines of conflicts of multi-level governance. Particularly the comparative
studies have elaborated transferable research frameworks and methodologies for investigating
the varied implementations of the URBAN programme. In this context the works by Paulus
(2000), Tofarides (2003), and Wolffhardt et al. (2005b) must be particularly emphasised.
The preponderance of the institutionalist perspective on governance can be explained by the
research logic of investigations. Almost all studies described the implementation process of
running URBAN projects. For future investigations it should be possible to rather put the
material effects of the programmes in the fore, in order to evaluate the effects of changes of
governance on the basis of social and economic criteria.
191
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Future investigations on participation approaches might also be geared to a similar reality test.
Particularly the question whether those participation structures as introduced by URBAN
really result in an increase of participation has stayed open with the previous studies. Apart
from the often described inclusion of non-state actors, the activation of inhabitants in the
programme areas should also be taken into consideration more.
A third field of future investigations might refer to ways of working and effects of
international networks. For almost all URBAN cities, there was reporting on experiences with
trans-national co-operations – but hardly any effort was made to investigate the effects of
those networking activities. In respect of European transfer of experience, for example, the
way of best practices might be traced. For this, the question will less refer to the development
of such best practices but to their implementation in other contexts. Are there examples of
approaches from other countries being successfully adapted? Which institutional conditions
are needed for a successful transfer of experiences?
The previous works have mostly dealt with download processes of Europeanisation.
Questions of implementation and meeting European demands and guidelines were in the
focus of interest. On the other hand, the URBAN cities themselves can be described as
influential actors of Europeanisation. However, how municipal influence on European urban
policy really happens is a question that, for the time being, has hardly been investigated.
The previous results of URBAN research – with their interdisciplinary and international
orientation – offer an excellent starting point for further investigating tendencies of the
Europeanisation of urban policy in the mentioned spheres.
192
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
References
Aldskogius, Göran (2000): Urban Policy in the Structural Policy of the European Union. UmeaUniversity: CERUM Working Paper No.21. URL:
http://www.umu.se/cerum/publikationer/pdfs/CWP_21_00.pdf (last access 31.05.2006).
Andree, Dörthe (2004): Europäische Stadtpolitik und lokale Maßarbeit. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung
im Rahmen Europäischer Strukturpolitik am Beispiel von Luckenwalde. Diplomarbeit am Institut für
Stadt- und Regionalplanung, Institut für Soziologie der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan
Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien.
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: JAIP, Vol.35, No.4, 216-224.
Atkinson, Rob (2001): The Emerging ‘Urban Agenda’ and the European Spatial Development
Perspective: Towards an EU Urban Policy? In: European Planning Studies, Vol.9, No.3, 385-406.
Atkinson, Rob (2002): The White Paper on European Governance: Implications for Urban Policy. In:
European Planning Studies Vol.10, No.6, 781-792.
Bache, Ian (1996): EU Regional Policy: Has the UK Government Succeeded in Playing
the Gatekeeper Role over the Domestic Impact of the European Regional Development Funds?
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.
Bandalow, Nils C. (2003): Lerntheoretische Ansätze in der Policy-Forschung. In: Mattias Maier et al.
(Eds.) Politik als Lernprozess? Wissensorientierte Analysen der Politik. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 98121.
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2002): The European Urban Initiative: Multi-Level Learning
Processes Between Successes and Failures. Paper presented at the EURA Conference Urban and
Spatial European Policies, Turin, April 18-20, 2002. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/barbanente.PDF (last access
20.03.2006).
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2005): Urban regeneration as local development? A small town
in the Italian Mezzogiorno as a local point of view on Europeanization. Paper presented at the 3rd
European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Bartik, Herbert/ Alexander Wolffhardt (2005): Cities and services of general interest – A case
study in deliberative European governance. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael
Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien, 33-48.
Bartz, Maren (2004): Die städtische Dimension der Europäischen Strukturpolitik. Masterarbeit im
Studiengang Europäisches Verwaltungsmanagement der Fachhochschule für Verwaltung und
Rechtspflege Berlin und der Technischen Fachhochschule Wildau.
Benz Arthur (2004): Governance-Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Benz, Arthur (2001): Der moderne Staat. Grundlagen der politologischen Analyse. München, Wien:
Oldenbourg.
Benz, Arthur/ Dietrich Fürst (2002): Policy Learning in Regional Networks. In: European Urban
and Regional Studies, 9, 21-35.
193
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Berg, Leo van den/ Erik Braun/ Jan van der Meer (2004): National Urban Policies in the European
Union. Two Volumes. Rotterdam: EURICUR.
Berry, Jim/ Stenley McGreal (1996): Community and inter-agency structures in the regeneration of
inner city Belfast. In: Town Planning Review, Vol.66, No.2, 129-142.
Blackman, Tim (1984): Planning in Northern Ireland: the shape of things to come. In: The Planner,
Vol.76, No.30, 12-15.
Bourdellon, Bertille (2005): L’européanisation des systèmes d'action locale: la traduction du
programme d’initiative communautaire Urban sur le site de Clichy sous Bois Montfermeil. Mémoire
de fin d'études 2004-2005. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7
(last access 31.05.2006).
Brenner, Neil/ Bob Jessop/ Martin Jones/ Gordon Mcleod (Eds.) (2003): State / Space. A Reader.
Malden, Oxford, Berlin: Oxford University Press.
Brenner, Neil/ Nik Theodore (2005): Neoliberalism and the urban condition. In: City, Vol.9, No.1,
101-107.
Cavallier, Elodie (1999): Vers une politique de la ville communautaire? L'exemple du projet pilote
urbain et du PIC Urbain dans l'agglomération lyonnaise. Travail Universitaire, Institut d’études
politiques de Grenoble.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in
Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the 40th Congress of the European Regional
Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa
Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in
Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies, Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2003): North-South Local Authority and Governance Differences in EU
Networks. In: European Planning Studies, Vol.11, No.6, 671-695.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2004): The URBAN Community Initiative: The Greek experience. Paper
presented at the Regio OPEN DAYS Workshop Programme “Managing Regional Development”,
Workshop R12 “Urban Development”, Brussels, September 28-29, 2004.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2005): Tackling social exclusion in urban areas: a break with the past.
Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2006): The Case of Heraklion URBAN in Greece: regulatory responses to
EU challenges. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop,
Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Christiansen, Thomas/ Knud Erik Jorgensen/ Wiener, Antje (1999): The Social construction of
Europe. In: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.6, No.4, 528-544.
Colaizzo, Raffeale/ Maurizio Di Palma (2000): Integration, Partnership and Role of Private
Operators in the Community Initiative URBAN. In: Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, Istituto Nazionale
di Urbanistica (Ed.): Programma Urban-Italia. Europa, nuove politiche urbane. Roma: Inu Edizioni.
URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/dipalma-e.PDF (last access 31.05.2006).
194
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
COM (1997): Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union, Communication from the
Commission. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
COM (1998): Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for Action,
Communication from the Commission. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Cox, Robert H. (2001): The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reforms Happened
in Denmark And The Netherlands, But Not in Germany. In: World Politics, 3, 463-498.
Dangschat, S. Jens (2004): Eingrenzungen und Ausgrenzungen durch ‚Soziale Stadt’-Programme. In:
Walter Hanesch/ Kirstin Krüger-Conrad (Hrsg.): Lokale Beschäftigung und Ökonomie.
Herausforderungen für die „Soziale Stadt“. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 327-342.
Davoudi, Simin/ Patsy Healey (1995): City Challenge – a sustainable mechanism or temporary
gesture? In: Robin Hambleton/ Huw Thomas (Eds.): Urban Policy Evaluation: Challenge and Change.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 158-174.
Dematteis, Guiseppe/ Francesca Governa/ Cristiana Rossignolo (1999): The Impact of European
Programmes on the Governance of Italian Local Systems. Paper presented at the Conference
“European Cities in Transformation”, Parigi, October 22-23, 1999.
DiGaetano, Alan (1997): Urban Governing Alignments and Realingments in Comparative
Perspective. Developmental Politics in Boston and Bristol, 1980-1996. In: Journal of Urban Affairs
Vol.14, No.4, 367-384.
DiGaetano, Alan/ Elisabeth Strom (2003): Comparative Urban Governance. An Integrated
Approach. In: Urban Affairs Review, Vol.38, No.3, 356-395.
Dukes, Thea (2001): The European Community Initiative URBAN: help or hinder for local
participation? The case of URBAN Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Paper presented at the
conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Danish Building and Urban
Research and European Urban Research association, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop5/dukes.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Dukes, Thea (2005): Constructing Cities and Positions in European Urban Policy Discourse. Paper
presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Dukes, Thea (2006): Acceptance versus resistance. Explaining the policy process of the URBAN
programmes in Amsterdam and The Hague (the Netherlands). Paper presented at the European Urban
Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Edwards, John (1997): Urban policy: the victory of form over substance? Urban Studies, Vol.34,
No.4-5, 825-843.
Fainstein, Susan (1990): The Changing World Economy and Urban Restructuring. In: Dennis Judd/
Michael Parkinson (Eds.): Leadership and Urban Regeneration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 31-47.
Fenster, Tovi (1996): Ethnicity and Citizen Identity in Development and Planning for Minority
Groups. In: Political Geography, Vol.15, No.5, 405-418.
Ferstl, Alexander (2004): URBAN Graz. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung 1996-2006. Die EUGemeinschaftsinitiativen URBAN und URBAN II als Instrumente der Stadtentwicklung. Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors der Naturwissenschaften an der
naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.
Frank, Susanne (2005): The European URBAN experience – Changing Urban Policy Through the
Community Initiative URBAN. Paper presented at the URBAN Future-Conference “European
195
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Cohesion Policy and Integrated URBAN Regeneration – Concepts, Prospects and Networks”,
Sarrebruck, June 8-9, 2005.
Frank, Susanne (2006a): The European Union and the European Cities: Three Phases of European
Urban Policy. In: Uwe Altrock et al. (Eds.) Spatial planning and urban development in the ten new EU
Member States. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Frank, Susanne (2006b): Aufeinander zugehen. Die Europäische Union und die europäischen Städte.
In: Heinz Kleger (Hrsg.): Von der Stadtagglomeration zur Städteregion. Neue politische Denk- und
Kooperationsräume. Münster/ Hamburg/ London (im Erscheinen).
Frank, Susanne (2006c): The southern URBAN experience. Paper presented at the European Urban
Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Gayton, Romain (2005): L’application du programme d’initiative communautaire URBAN I. Mater
II Mention Droit public et sciences politiques + Spécialité Droit public et politiques des territoires.
Faculté de droit, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne.
Geddes, Mike (2000): Tackling Social Exclusion in the European Union? The Limits to the New
Orthodoxy of Local Partnership. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.24,
No.4, 782-800.
Gelli, Francesca/ Carla Tedesco (2001): Governments and modes of governance in the U.S. and
European cities. The change in urban policies. Paper presented at the conference “Area-based
initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop3/gelli.htm (last access 20.03.2006).
Georgantas, Elias/ Panagiotis Getimis (2001): Too many stakes, a few holders, but no partners:
Governance failures, institutional inertia and the implementation of an URBAN community initiative
in Greece. Paper prepared for the 8th International Conference of the Regional Studies Association
Regional Transitions, Gdansk, September 15-18, 2001.
Glock, Birgit (2006): Stadtentwicklungspolitik in schrumpfenden Städten: Duisburg und Leipzig.
Dissertation an der Philosophischen Fakultät III der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Godayer, Lucie (2002): Le Programme d’initiative communautaire Urban. Quand la politique de la
ville devient européenne. Etude du Pic Urban de l'agglomération Grenobloise, Séminaire Habitat et
Société 2001-2002. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7
(last access 31.05.06).
Görg, Christoph (2005): Von Environmental Governance zu Landscape Governance. Multi-LevelGovernance und ‚Politics of Scales’. Leipzig: UFZ-Diskussionspapiere 18/2005.
Güntner, Simon (2002a): Reconciling Abstract and Lived Space? The Case of URBAN II in Berlin.
Paper presented at the EURA Conference “Urban and Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial
Government”, Turin, April 18-20, 2002.
Güntner, Simon (2002b): URBAN II in Berlin – Making Sense of Ambiguities. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon (2003): Managing Ambiguity and Contradictions – on the Mechanisms of the
Europeanisation of Local Governance. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon/ Charlotte Halpern (2006 forthcoming): From Urban Regeneration to
Neighbourhood Management – local policy change in Berlin and the role of the EU (1990-2004). In:
Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.): Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
196
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Hadjimichalis, Costis (2004): The Changing Geography of Europe: A Balkan and Southern European
View. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol.11, No.4, 363-366.
Hall, Stephen/ Paul Hickman (2002): Neighbourhood Renewal and Urban Policy: A Comparison of
New Approaches in England and France. In: Regional Studies, Vol.36, No.6, 691-696.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000a): Les politiques européennes de la ville. L’example du Programme
d’initatives Européennes URBAN: une réponse de la Commission aux enjeux des grandes villes
européennes. In: Pour, No.167, 87-95.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000b): La mise en œuvre du Programme d’Initiative Communitaire URBAN à
Berlin (1994-1999). Acteurs, Institutions et Processus: Trois niveaux d’analyse pour observer l’action
publique en marche. DEA sociologie politique et politiques publiques, Institut d’Etudes Politique de
Paris.
Halpern, Charlotte (2003): What is so Special about the European Integration? Focussing on the
Conditions for an External Innovation to Challenge Interests and Representations at the Local Level:
the Implementation of the Community Initiative URBAN in Berlin (1994-1999). In: Cahier Européen,
No.01/05, du pôle Ville/ métropolis/ cosmopolis, Centre d’Etudes Européennes de Sciences po
(Paris). URL: http://www.portedeurope.org/IMG/pdf/cahier_ville001.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Halpern, Charlotte (2005): Institutional change through innovation: URBAN Community Initiative
in Berlin, 1994-99. In: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol.23, 697-713.
Harburger, Sylvie (2002): Programme communautaire ‘Urban’. L’exception française? In: Revue
Urbanisme, No.326, 21-22.
Harburger, Sylvie (2004): L’Union européenne sur la voie du renouvellement urbain? In: Revue
Urbanisme, No.336, 20-22.
Healey, Patsy (1996): Consensus-building across difficult divides: new approaches to collaborative
strategy making. In: Planning Practice & Research, Vol.11, No.2, 207-16.
Healey, Patsy (2001): Towards a More Place-focused Planning System in Britain. In: Ali
Manadipour/ Angela Hull/ Patsy Healey (Eds.): The Governance of Place. Space and Planning
Processes. Aldershot: Gower, 265-286.
Healey, Patsy et al. (1994): Challenges for urban management. In: Patsy Healey et al. (Eds.):
Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. Chichester: J. Wiley, 273-89.
Jachtenfuchs, Markus (1996): International Policy-Making as a Lerning Process? The European
Union and the Greenhouse Effect. Aldershot: Avebury.
Jessop Bob (2002): The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keil, Roger (1998): Globalisation makes states: Perspectives on local Governance in the age of the
world city. In: Review of International Political Economy, Vol.5, No.4, 616-646.
Kooiman, Jan (2000): Societial Governance. Levels, modes, and orders of social-political
interactions. In: Jon Pierre (Ed.): Debating Governance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press,
138-146.
Kooiman, Jan (2003): Governing as Governance. London: Sage.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003a): Cities and the Structural Funds. The Domestic Impact of EU
Initiatives for Urban Development. Athens, Komotini: Ant.N.Sakkoulas Publishers.
197
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003b): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Towards a
model for evaluating implementation performance in different urban areas. Paper prepared for the
conference “Public Administration, Public Policy and Governance: Challenges & Innovations”,
International Geographical Union/ Commission on Geography and Public Policy, Lisbon, April 9-11,
2003.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2004): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Lessons from
the Implementation of Urban I in three Greek Cities. Berlin. Paper presented at the Urban and
Regional Sociology Colloquium, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, January 20, 2004.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2006): Partnership or Self-sufficiency? Assessing the Domestic Impact of
EU Urban Development Initiatives in Greece. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Krammer, Andreas (2003): URBAN Wien Gürtel Plus: Soziale und organisatorische Innovation in
der Wiener Stadtentwicklung, Thesis, Institut für Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung der Universität
Wien.
Kruse, Sander (2002): Ein Trojanisches Pferd. Die URBAN Community Initiative im Amsterdamer
Bijlmermeer. Berliner Geographische Arbeiten, Nr.94, 196-206.
Lunch, Peter (1996): Minority Nationalism and European Integration. Cardiff: U.W.P.
MacLeod, Gordon (2001): New regionalism reconsidered: globalization and the remaking of political
economic space. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.25, No.4, 804-829.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2003): EU Regional Policy and Urban Governance: Assessing reform and
renewal in Britain and Ireland. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Centre of International Studies,
University of Cambridge.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004a): Europeanisation at the Urban Level: Local Actors, Institutions and the
Dynamics of Multi-Level Interaction. Working Paper prepared by the ESRC/UACES Study Group on
the Europeanisation of the British Politics and Policy Making, Sheffield, April 23, 2004. URL:
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00001731/01/Marshall.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004b): Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the impact of the EU on
local governance in Britain. Paper presented at the ESRC/UACES One-Day Conference, Sheffield,
July 16, 2004. URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ebpp/Marshalljuly16.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN
at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Master Thesis in European Urbanistics,
Bauhaus University Weimar.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005a): Die europaweite Umsetzung von Gender Mainstreaming im Rahmen von
URBAN II. In: ExWoSt-Informationen, Forschungsfeld 26, Nr.2, 14-15.
Mattiucci, Laura (2006): A new philosophy in urban planning culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at
federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Mboumoua, Irène (2006): Assessing the modes of appropriation of the concepts diffused through
URBAN. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop,
Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
McCall, Cathal (1998): Postmodern Europe and the Resources of Communal Identities in Northern
Ireland. In: European Journal of Political Research, Vol.33, No.3, 389-441.
198
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
McCall, Cathal/ Arthur Williamson (2000): Fledgling Social Partnerships in the Irish Border
Region: European Union Community Initiatives and the Voluntary Sector. In: Policy and Politics,
Vol.28, No.3, 397-410.
Meyer, Julia (2005): Die Förderung von Städten durch die Europäische Union. Bausteine für eine
erfolgreiche Integration der Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN in die Regelförderung. Diplomarbeit an
der Fakultät ‚Raumplanung’ der Universität Dortmund.
Mingione, Enzo et al. (2001): National and City Contexts, Urban Development Programmes and
Neigbourhood Selection. The Italian Background Report. A Working Paper for UGIS (Urban
Development Programmes, Urban Governance, Social Inclusion and Sustainability). AntwerpenApeldoorn: Garant.
Mingione, Enzo et al. (2001): National and City Contexts, Urban Development Programmes and
Neigbourhood Selection. The Italian Background Report. A Working Paper for UGIS (Urban
Development Programmes, Urban Governance, Social Inclusion and Sustainability). AntwerpenApeldoorn: Garant.
Murtagh, Brendan (1999): Listening to Communities: Locality Research and Planning. In: Urban
Studies, Vol.36, No.7, 1181-1193.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001a): The Politics and Practice of Urban Policy Evaluation. In: Community
Development Journal, Vol.36, No.3, 223-233.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001b): The URBAN Community Initiative in Northern Ireland. In: Policy and
Politics, Vol.29, No.4, 431-446.
Murtagh, Brendan (2005): Social and Ethnic Segregation and the Urban agenda. In: Niam Moor/
Mark Scott (Eds.): Renewing Urban Communities: Environment, Citizenship and Sustainability in
Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 179-196.
Murtagh, Brendan/ Stephen McKay (2003): Evaluating the Social Effects of the EU URBAN
Community Initiative Programme. In: European Planning Studies, Vol.11, No.2, 193-211.
Nanetti, Raffaella Y. (2001): Adding Value to City Planning: The European Union’s Urban
Programmes in Naples. In: South European Society and Politics, Vol.6, No.3, 33-57.
Neill, William (1995): Lipstick on the gorilla: the failure of image-led planning in Coleman Young’s
Detroit. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.19, 639-653.
Neuenfeldt, Henrike (2000): Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung. Eine empirische
Untersuchung zur Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der EU-Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN am
Beispiel von Bremen-Gröpelingen. Diplomarbeit, Universität Bremen.
Nuvolati, Giampaolo (2002): Urban development programmes in Italy. The UGIS project to analyse
the effects of the URBAN CI. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/47Nuvolati.PDF (last access
13.01.2006).
OECD (2001): Cities for Citizens: Improving Metropolitan Governance. Paris: OECD
Padovani, Liliana (2000): Local Policies to Fight Poverty and Exclusion: what can be learnt from the
Italian experience? Paper presented at the ENHR 2000 Conference (Workshop No. 21), Gavle, June
26-30, 2000. Published In: Giovanni Laino, Liliana Padovani (2000): Le partenariat pour rénover
l’action publique. L’expérience Italienne, Pole sud, No. 12, mai, 27-46.
199
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Painter, Joe (1991): Regulation Theory and Local Government. Local Government Studies, 17/6, 2344.
Palermo, Piercarlo (2001): An Opportunity to Reflect on Urban Policies. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Piercarlo-e.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
Parkinson, Michael (2005): Urban Policy in Europe – Where have we been and where are we going?
In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan
Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 7-32.
Pasquier, Romain/ Gilles Pinson (2004): Politique européenne de la ville et gouvernement local en
Espagne et en Italie. In: Politique européenne, No.12, hiver, 42-65.
Paulus, Sabine W. C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and
Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Social Policy,
London School of Economics and Political Science.
Pierre, Jon/ Guy Peters (2000): Governance, Politics and the State. Houndsmill, London: Macmillan
Press.
Ricci, Manuela (2001): 16 Cities compared. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/riccie.PDF (last access 22.03.2006).
Sander, Robert (2002): Europäische und amerikanische Erfahrungen mit der sozialen
Stadtteilentwicklung. In: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (DIFU) (Hrsg.): Die Soziale Stadt. Eine
erste Bilanz des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf – die soziale
Stadt“ im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin, 298-321.
Sandercock, Leonie (2000): When Strangers become Neighbours: Managing Cities of Difference. In:
Planning Theory & Practice, Vol.1, No.1, 13-30.
Schlappa, Hans (2005): Urban Regeneration and the Impact of European Union Funding on Third
Sector Organisations. Paper presented at the first European Conference of ISTR and EMES, Paris,
April 27-29, 2005.
Sept, Ariane (2006): Urbanistica in Movimento: Die italienische Stadtplanung und das Europäische
Programm URBAN. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung der Technischen
Universität Berlin.
Shirlow, Peter et al. (2002): Measuring and Visualising Labour Market and Community Segregation.
Coleraine, University of Ulster.
Silver, Hilary (1994): Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms. International Labour
Review, 531-578.
Swyngedouw, Eric (1997): Neither global nor local. ‘Globalisation’ and the politics of scale. In: Cox
Kevin R. (Ed.) Spaces of globalisation. New York, London: Guildford Press, 137-166.
Tedesco Carla (forthcoming): Territorial action and EU regional policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno:
hybridizing ‘European’ frames in local contexts. In: Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.)
Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing ‘Urban' in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the UK.
Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under the European Union: are they ‘European’”?
Venice, June 18, 2002.
200
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Tedesco, Carla (2003): Europeanisation and Urban Policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno. In: Urbanistica,
No.122, 30-34. URL: http://www.planum.net/journals/ns-uri-i.html (last access 20.01.2006).
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L'implementazione di Urban a Bari, Bristol,
Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104.
Tedesco, Carla (2006): Beyond URBAN. The difficult attempt to mainstream the ‘URBAN approach’
in the Apulia Region, Southern Italy. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN
Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Theußl, Dietmar (2005): Gemeinschaftsinitiative Urban II Graz-West. Ein Vergleich mit
ausgewählten deutschen Urban-Städten. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Geographie und Raumforschung
der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz.
Tofarides Maria (forthcoming): Government and Governance in the European Union: Local
Experiences of European Urban Policy. In: Luigi Doria/ Valeria Fedeli/ Carla Tedesco (Eds.):
Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tofarides, Maria (2002): Community-led Regeneration Strategies: lessons from the URBAN
Programmes in Sheffield and London. Paper presented at the European Young Researchers Network
Workshop, Venice, June 19, 2002.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System,
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tosi, Antonio (date of appearance not specified): URBAN and social policies. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Tosi-e.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
URBAN Gera (2005): Geraer Europaarbeit im Fokus europäischer Städte, http://www.urbangera.de/cgi-bin/click.it?action=news_detail&was=2005&menu=urban&nav=5&wie=1&id=
131&sid=177917-64131242 (zuletzt aufgerufen am 23.06.2006).
Verhage, Roelof (2005): Renewing urban renewal in France, the UK and the Netherlands:
Introduction. In: Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol.20, No.3, 215–227.
Wagner, Alexander (2003): Die Entwicklung des Urbact-Netzwerkes in der EU-Strukturpolitik.
Multi-Level Governance oder nationale Dominanz? Diplomarbeit am Seminar für Politische
Wissenschaft der Universität Köln.
Walther, Uwe-Jens/ Simon Güntner (2002): Transnationales Wissen in Revitalisierungsstrategie –
Informiert oder deformiert die EU? In: Uwe-Jens Walther (Hrsg.): Soziale Stadt – Zwischenbilanzen.
Ein Programm auf dem Weg zur sozialen Stadt? Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 265-274.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities. Experiences, Motivations and Effects on
Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU
and the European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR
European Consortium for Political Research Conference Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander
Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities. Experiences, motivations and effects on
local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen
Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities
in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
Yiftachel Oren (2000): Social control, urban planning and ethno-class relations: Mizrahi Jews in
Israel’s ‘Deveolpment Towns’. In: Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.24, No.2, 418-438.
201
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Appendix
Workshop „The European URBAN Experience“: Schedule
Friday, April 7, 2006 – South Europe and Future Prospects
1:30
Opening and Welcome
Humboldt Study Team
2:00
URBAN Experiences in Greece
Ioannis Chorianopoulos, University of the Aegean:
“Institution Building and Governance Responses to EU Challenges: Towards the Articulation of a
Local Regulatory Scale in Greece”
Charalampos Koutalakis, University of Athens:
“Partnership or Self-Sufficiency? Assessing the Domestic Impact of EU Urban Development
Initiatives in Greece”
2:45
3:00
short break
URBAN Experiences in Italy
Ariane Sept, Technical University Berlin:
“Urban Planning in Italy and the European Programme URBAN”
Giulia Longo, Polytechnic University of Milano:
“Continuity and Innovation in Urban Regeneration in Rome"
Carla Tedesco, Polytechnic University of Bari:
“Beyond URBAN. The Difficult Attempt to Mainstream the “URBAN Approach” in the Apulia
Region, Southern Italy.”
Laura Mattiucci, Bauhaus University Weimar:
“A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at Federal-Regional
and Local Level: Italy and Germany”
Comment:
Susanne Frank, Humboldt University Berlin:
“The Southern URBAN Experience”
5:00
5:30
break
Future URBAN Prospects
Christian Huttenloher, “German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development”:
“Future URBAN Prospects“
7:00
Joint Dinner: Restaurant „Via Nova“, Universitätsstr. 2-3a (vis-à-vis Workshop Venue)
202
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Saturday, April 8, 2006 – North and West Europe
10:00
Local / National URBAN Case Studies
Franz Brunner, University of Graz:
“Urban Graz and the Scientific Work of the University of Graz"
Thea Dukes, University of Amsterdam:
“Acceptance versus Resistance: Explaining the Policy Process of the URBAN Programmes in
Amsterdam and The Hague”
Simon Güntner, Technical University Berlin:
“Program and Project: a Relation of Enabling and Constraint. Observations of the
Implementation of URBAN II in Berlin”
Charlotte Halpern, Sciences Po Paris:
“Institutional Change Through Innovation: the URBAN Community Initiative in Berlin, 1994 –
99”
11:45
short break
12:00
International Comparative Studies
Alexander Wolffhardt, EFW Europaforum Wien:
“Cities in Europe – Europe in Cities
EU Engagement and Local Governance Effects in Six European Cities”
Irene Mboumoua, Université Paris VIII, Marne-la Vallée:
“Assessing the Modes of Appropriation of URBAN in France and England”
Renate Reiter, Osnabrück University:
“URBAN and Urban Social Policies in Germany and France”
Comment
Hannah Kreinsen, Humboldt Study Team:
“URBAN in Austria, The United Kingdom and France”
1:30
lunch break
2:30
Final discussion
Input: Andrej Holm, Humboldt Study Team
203
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Bibliography of URBAN I and II Literature
List in Alphabetical Order
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
1.
Aldskogius, Göran (2000): Urban Policy in the Structural Policy of the European
Union. Umea-University: CERUM Working Paper No.21. URL:
http://www.umu.se/cerum/publikationer/pdfs/CWP_21_00.pdf (last access
31.05.2006).
Working Paper
published
general
EU
2.
Andree, Dörthe (2004): Europäische Stadtpolitik und lokale Maßarbeit. Integrierte
Stadtentwicklung im Rahmen Europäischer Strukturpolitik am Beispiel von
Luckenwalde. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung/ Institut für
Soziologie der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Diploma Thesis
unpublished
case
Germany
(Luckenwalde)
3.
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005):
European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien.
Article in edited
volume
published
general and
comparative
Austria, UK,
Germany
4.
Atkinson, Rob (2001): The Emerging ‘Urban Agenda’ and the European Spatial
Development Perspective: Towards an EU Urban Policy? In: European Planning
Studies, Vol.9, No.3, 385-406.
Article in journal
published
general
EU
5.
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2002): The European Urban Initiative: MultiLevel Learning Processes Between Successes and Failures. Paper presented at the
EURA Conference Urban and Spatial European Policies, Turin, April 18-20, 2002.
URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/barbanente.PDF
(last access 20.03.2006).
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Italy (Bari)
204
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
6.
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2005): Urban regeneration as local
development? A small town in the Italian Mezzogiorno as a local point of view on
Europeanization. Paper presented at the 3rd European Consortium for Political
Research (ECPR) Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Italy (Mola di
Bari)
7.
Bartik, Herbert/ Alexander Wolffhardt (2005): Cities and services of general
interest – A case study in deliberative European governance. In: Eugen Antalovsky/
Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance.
Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 33-48.
Article in edited
volume
published
general
EU
8.
Bartz, Maren (2004): Die städtische Dimension der Europäischen Strukturpolitik.
Masterarbeit im Studiengang Europäisches Verwaltungsmanagement der
Fachhochschule für Verwaltung und Rechtspflege Berlin und der Technischen
Fachhochschule Wildau.
Master Thesis
unpublished
general
Germany
9.
Berg, Leo van den/ Erik Braun/ Jan van der Meer (2004): National Urban
Policies in the European Union. Two Volumes. Rotterdam: EURICUR.
Research Report
published
general
EU
10.
Bourdellon, Bertille (2005): L’européanisation des systèmes d'action locale: la
traduction du programme d’initiative communautaire Urban sur le site de Clichy
sous Bois Montfermeil. Mémoire de fin d'études 2004-2005. URL:
http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=d
ocumentation#7 (last access 31.05.2006).
Master Thesis
unpublished
case
France
(Clichy sous
Bois,
Montfermeil)
11.
Cavallier, Elodie (1999): Vers une politique de la ville communautaire? L'exemple
du projet pilote urbain et du PIC Urbain dans l'agglomération lyonnaise. Travail
Universitaire, Institut d’études politiques de Grenoble.
Master Thesis
unpublished
case
France
205
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
12.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: NorthSouth Differences in Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the 40th
Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 September 1, 2000.
Conference Paper
unpublished
comparative
Greece
(Piraeus),
Spain
(Malaga),
Portugal
(Porto),
13.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte.
In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities and
Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Article in journal
published
comparative
Greece
(Piraeus),
Spain
(Malaga),
Portugal
(Porto),
Netherlands
(Amsterdam)
, Ireland
(Cork), UK
(Birmingham)
206
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
14.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: NorthSouth Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies, Vol.
39, No.4, 705-726.
Article in journal
published
comparative
Greece
(Piraeus),
Spain
(Malaga),
Portugal
(Porto),
Netherlands
(Amsterdam)
,Ireland
(Cork),UK
(Birmingham)
15.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2004): The URBAN Community Initiative: The Greek
experience. Paper presented at the Regio OPEN DAYS Workshop Programme
“Managing Regional Development”, Workshop R12 “Urban Development”,
Brussels, September 28-29, 2004.
Conference Paper
unpublished
comparative
Greece
(Piraeus,
Heraklion)
16.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2005): Tackling social exclusion in urban areas: a break
with the past. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 810, 2005.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Greece
(Komotini)
17.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2006): The Case of Heraklion URBAN in Greece:
regulatory responses to EU challenges. Paper presented at the European Urban
Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8,
2006.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Greece
(Heraklion)
207
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
18.
Colaizzo, Raffeale/ Maurizio Di Palma (2000): Integration, Partnership and Role
of Private Operators in the Community Initiative URBAN. In: Ministero dei Lavori
Pubblici, Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica (Ed.): Programma Urban-Italia. Europa,
nuove politiche urbane. Roma: Inu Edizioni. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/dipalma-e.PDF (last access 31.05.2006).
Working Paper
published
general
Italy
19.
Dematteis, Guiseppe/ Francesca Governa/ Cristiana Rossignolo (1999): The
impact of European Programmes on the Governance of Italian Local Systems. Paper
presented at the Conference “European Cities in Transformation”, Parigi, October
22-23, 1999.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Italy
20.
Dukes, Thea (2001): The European Community Initiative URBAN: help or hinder
for local participation? The case of URBAN Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, the
Netherlands). Paper presented at the conference “Area-based initiatives in
contemporary urban policy”, Danish Building and Urban Research and European
Urban Research association, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop5/dukes.pdf (last access
13.01.2006).
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Netherlands
(Amsterdam)
21.
Dukes, Thea (2005): Constructing Cities and Positions in European Urban Policy
Discourse. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 8-10,
2005.
Conference Paper
unpublished
general
EU
22.
Dukes, Thea (2006): Acceptance versus resistance. Explaining the policy process of
the URBAN programmes in Amsterdam and The Hague (the Netherlands). Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop,
Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Workshop Paper
unpublished
case
Netherlands
(Amsterdam,
The Hague)
208
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
23.
Ferstl, Alexander (2004): URBAN Graz. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung 1996-2006.
Die EU-Gemeinschaftsinitiativen URBAN und URBAN II als Instrumente der
Stadtentwicklung. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors
der Naturwissenschaften an der naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Karl-FranzensUniversität Graz.
Ph.D. Thesis
unpublished
case
Austria
24.
Frank, Susanne (2005): The European experience – Changing Urban Policy
Through the Community Initiative URBAN. Paper presented at the URBAN FutureConference “European Cohesion Policy and Integrated URBAN Regeneration –
Concepts, Prospects and Networks”, Sarrebruck, June 8-9, 2005.
Conference Paper
unpublished
general
EU
25.
Frank, Susanne (2006a): The European Union and the European Cities: Three
Phases of European Urban Policy. In: Uwe Altrock et al. (Eds.) Spatial Planning and
Urban Development in the ten new EU Member States. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Article in edited
volume
published
general
EU
26.
Frank, Susanne (2006b): Aufeinander zugehen. Die Europäische Union und die
europäischen Städte. In: Heinz Kleger (Hg.): Von der Stadtagglomeration zur
Städteregion. Neue politische Denk- und Kooperationsräume. Münster/ Hamburg/
London (im Erscheinen).
Article in edited
volume
published
general
EU
27.
Frank, Susanne (2006c): The southern URBAN experience. Paper presented at the
European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University
Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Workshop Paper
unpublished
general
Southern
Europe (Italy,
Greece,
Spain)
28.
Gayton, Romain (2005): L’application du programme d’initiative communautaire
URBAN I. Mater II Mention Droit public et sciences politiques + Spécialité Droit
public et politiques des territoires. Faculté de droit, Université Jean Monnet, SaintEtienne.
Master Thesis
unpublished
case
France
(SaintEtienne)
209
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
29.
Gelli, Francesca/ Carla Tedesco (2001): Governments and modes of governance in
the U.S. and European cities. The change in urban policies. Paper presented at the
conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Copenhagen,
May 17-19, 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop3/gelli.htm (last access
20.03.2006).
Conference Paper
unpublished
comparative
USA, EU
30.
Georgantas, Elias/ Panagiotis Getimis (2001): Too many stakes, a few holders, but
no partners: Governance failures, institutional inertia and the implementation of an
URBAN community initiative in Greece. Paper prepared for the 8th International
Conference of the Regional Studies Association Regional Transitions, Gdansk,
September 15-18, 2001.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Greece
(Piraeus)
31.
Godayer, Lucie (2002): Le Programme d’initiative communautaire Urban. Quand la
politique de la ville devient européenne. Etude du Pic Urban de l'agglomération
Grenobloise, Séminaire Habitat et Société 2001-2002. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=d
ocumentation#7 (last access 31.05.06).
Master Thesis
unpublished
case
France
(Grenoble)
32.
Godayer, Lucie (2004): Comparison research on the Management of Urban II.
Working Paper prepared for the Development Corporation Amsterdam. URL:
http://duec.gx.nl/kcgs/servlet/nl.gx.siteworks.client.http.GetFile/id=173243/file=Co
mparison_Urban_II.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Working Paper
unpublished
comparative
EU (selected
cities)
33.
Güntner, Simon (2002a): Reconciling Abstract and Lived Space? The Case of
URBAN II in Berlin. Paper presented at the EURA Conference “Urban and Spatial
European Policies: Levels of Territorial Government”, Turin, April 18-20, 2002.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Germany
(Berlin)
34.
Güntner, Simon (2002b): URBAN II in Berlin – Making Sense of Ambiguities.
Working Paper.
Working Paper
unpublished
case
Germany
(Berlin)
210
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
35.
Güntner, Simon (2003): Managing Ambiguity and Contradictions – on the
Mechanisms of the Europeanisation of Local Governance. Working Paper.
Working Paper
unpublished
case
Germany
(Berlin)
36.
Güntner, Simon/ Charlotte Halpern (forthcoming): From Urban Regeneration to
Neighbourhood Management – local policy change in Berlin and the role of the EU
(1990-2004). In: Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.): Rethinking
European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Article in edited
volume
published
case
Germany
(Berlin)
37.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000a): Les politiques européennes de la ville. L’example du
Programme d’initatives Européennes URBAN: une réponse de la Commission aux
enjeux des grandes villes européennes. In: Pour, No. 167, 87-95.
Article in journal
published
general
EU
38.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000b): La mise en oevre du Programme d’Initiative
Communitaire URBAN à Berlin (1994-1999). Acteurs, Institutions et Processus:
Trois niveaux d’analyse pour observer l’action publique en marche. DEA sociologie
politique et politiques publiques, Institut d’Etudes Politique de Paris.
Master Thesis
unpublished
case
Germany
(Berlin)
39.
Halpern, Charlotte (2003): What is so Special about the European Integration?
Focussing on the Conditions for an External Innovation to Challenge Interests and
Representations at the Local Level: the Implementation of the Community Initiative
URBAN in Berlin (1994-1999). In: Cahier Européen, No.01/05, du pôle Ville/
métropolis/ cosmopolis, Centre d’Etudes Européennes de Sciences po (Paris). URL:
http://www.portedeurope.org/IMG/pdf/cahier_ville001.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Article in journal
published
case
Germany
(Berlin)
40.
Halpern, Charlotte (2005): Institutional change through innovation: URBAN
Community Initiative in Berlin, 1994-99. In: Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol.23, 697-713.
Article in journal
published
case
Germany
(Berlin)
41.
Harburger, Sylvie (2002): Programme communautaire ‘Urban’. L’exception
Article in journal
published
general
France
française? In: Revue Urbanisme, No 326, 21-22.
211
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
42.
Harburger, Sylvie (2004): L’Union européenne sur la voie du renouvellement
urbain? In: Revue Urbanisme, No 336, 20-22.
Article in journal
published
general
France
43.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003a): Cities and the Structural Funds. The Domestic
Impact of EU Initiatives For Urban Development. Athens - Komotini:
Ant.N.Sakkoulas Publishers.
Monography
published
comparative
Greece
(Athens,
Thesaloniki,
Volos)
44.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003b): European Urban Policies and Domestic
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
Greece
Responses. Towards a model for evaluating implementation performance in
different urban areas. Paper prepared for the conference “Public Administration,
Public Policy and Governance: Challenges & Innovations”, International
Geographical Union/ Commission on Geography and Public Policy, Lisbon, April 911, 2003.
45.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2004): European Urban Policies and Domestic
Responses. Lessons from the Implementation of Urban I in three Greek Cities.
Berlin. Paper presented at the Urban and Regional Sociology Colloquium, Humboldt
University of Berlin, Berlin, January 20, 2004.
Conference Paper
unpublished
comparative
Greece
(Athens,
Thesaloniki,
Volos)
46.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2006): Partnership or Self-sufficiency? Assessing the
Domestic Impact of EU Urban Development Initiatives in Greece. Paper presented at
the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt
University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Workshop Paper
unpublished
comparative
Greece
(Athens,
Thesaloniki,
Volos)
47.
Krammer, Andreas (2003): URBAN Wien Gürtel Plus: Soziale und
organisatorische Innovation in der Wiener Stadtentwicklung, Thesis, Institut für
Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung der Universität Wien.
Thesis
unpublished
case
Austria
212
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
48.
Kruse, Sander (2002): Ein Trojanisches Pferd. Die URBAN Community Initiative
im Amsterdamer Bijlmermeer. Berliner Geographische Arbeiten, Nr.94, 196-206.
Article in edited
volume
published
case
Netherlands
49.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2003): EU Regional Policy and Urban Governance:
Assessing reform and renewal in Britain and Ireland. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.
Ph.D. thesis
unpublished
comparative
UK
50.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004a): Europeanisation at the Urban Level: Local Actors,
Institutions and the Dynamics of Multi-Level Interaction. Working Paper prepared
by the ESRC/UACES Study Group on the Europeanisation of the British Politics and
Policy Making, Sheffield, April 23, 2004. URL:
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00001731/01/Marshall.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Working Paper
unpublished
case
UK
51.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004b): Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the
impact of the EU on local governance in Britain. Paper presented at the
ESRC/UACES One-Day Conference, Sheffield, July 16, 2004. URL:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/ebpp/Marshalljuly16.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
UK
52.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of
the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Master Thesis
in European Urbanistics, Bauhaus University Weimar.
Master Thesis
unpublished
comparative
Italy
(Trieste),
Germany
(Erfurt)
53.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005a): Die europaweite Umsetzung von Gender Mainstreaming
im Rahmen von URBAN II. In: ExWoSt-Informationen, Forschungsfeld 26, Nr.2,
14-15.
Article in journal
published
general
EU (selected
cities)
213
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
54.
Mattiucci, Laura (2006): A new philosophy in urban planning culture? Legacy of
the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop,
Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Workshop Paper
unpublished
comparative
Italy
(Trieste),
Germany
(Erfurt)
55.
Mboumoua, Irène (2006): Assessing the modes of appropriation of the concepts
diffused through URBAN. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Workshop Paper
unpublished
comparative
France,
Britain
56.
Meyer, Julia (2005): Die Förderung von Städten durch die Europäische Union.
Bausteine für eine erfolgreiche Integration der Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN in
die Regelförderung. Diplomarbeit an der Fakultät ‚Raumplanung’ der Universität
Dortmund.
Master Thesis
unpublished
general
EU, Germany
57.
Mingione, Enzo et al. (2001): National and City Contexts, Urban Development
Programmes and Neigbourhood Selection. The Italian Background Report. A
Working Paper for UGIS (Urban Development Programmes, Urban Governance,
Social Inclusion and Sustainability). Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Working Paper
published
58.
Murtagh, Brendan (1999): Listening to Communities: Locality Research and
Planning. In: Urban Studies, Vol.36, No.7, 1181-1193.
Article in journal
published
case
UK
(Northern
Ireland)
59.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001a): The Politics and Practice of Urban Policy Evaluation.
In: Community Development Journal, Vol.36, No.3, 223-233.
Article in journal
published
case
UK
(Northern
Ireland)
214
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
60.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001b): The URBAN Community Initiative in Northern
Ireland. In: Policy and Politics, Vol.29, No.4, 431-446.
Article in journal
published
case
UK
(Northern
Ireland)
61.
Murtagh, Brendan (2005): Social and Ethnic Segregation and the Urban agenda. In: Article in edited
Niam Moor/ Mark Scott (Eds.): Renewing Urban Communities: Environment,
volume
Citizenship and Sustainability in Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 179-196.
published
case
UK
(Northern
Ireland)
62.
Murtagh, Brendan/ Stephen McKay (2003): Evaluating the Social Effects of the
EU URBAN Community Initiative Programme. In: European Planning Studies,
Vol.11, No.2, 193-211.
Article in journal
published
case
UK
(Northern
Ireland)
63.
Nanetti, Raffaella Y. (2001): Adding Value to City Planning: The European
Union’s Urban Programmes in Naples. In: South European Society and Politics,
Vol.6, No.3, 33-57.
Article in journal
published
case
Italy
64.
Neuenfeldt, Henrike (2000): Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung. Eine
empirische Untersuchung zur Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der EUGemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN am Beispiel von Bremen-Gröpelingen.
Diplomarbeit, Universität Bremen.
Diploma Thesis
unpublished
case
Germany
(BremenGröpelingen)
65.
Nuvolati, Giampaolo (2002): Urban development programmes in Italy. The UGIS
project to analyse the effects of the URBAN CI. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/47Nuvolati.PD
F (last access 13.01.2006).
Conference Paper
published
case
Italy (Naples)
66.
Palermo, Piercarlo (2001): An Opportunity to Reflect on Urban Policies. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Piercarlo-e.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
Working Paper
unpublished
general
Italy
215
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
67.
Parkinson, Michael (2005): Urban Policy in Europe – Where have we been and
where are we going? In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson
(Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities.
Wien: Europaforum Wien, 7-32.
Article in edited
volume
published
general
EU
68.
Pasquier, Romain/ Gilles Pinson (2004): Politique européenne de la ville et
gouvernement local en Espagne et en Italie. In: Politique européenne, No.12, hiver,
42-65.
Article in journal
published
comparative
Spain (La
Corogne),
Italy (Turin)
69.
Paulus, Sabine W. C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation
and Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Ph.D. Thesis
unpublished
comparative
UK (London,
Liverpool)
Germany
(Duisburg,
Berlin)
70.
Ricci, Manuela (2001): 16 Cities compared. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/ricci-e.PDF (last access 22.03.2006).
Working Paper
published
comparative
Italy
71.
Sander, Robert (2002): Europäische und amerikanische Erfahrungen mit der
sozialen Stadtteilentwicklung. In: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (DIFU) (Hg.):
Die Soziale Stadt. Eine erste Bilanz des Bund-Länder-Programms ‚Stadtteile mit
besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt’ im Auftrag des
Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin, 298-321.
Article in journal
published
general
USA, Europe
72.
Schlappa, Hans (2005): Urban Regeneration and the Impact of European Union
Funding on Third Sector Organisations. Paper presented at the first European
Conference of ISTR and EMES, Paris, April 27-29, 2005.
Conference Paper
unpublished
general
EU
216
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
73.
Sept, Ariane (2006): Urbanistica in Movimento: Die italienische Stadtplanung und
das Europäische Programm URBAN. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadt- und
Regionalplanung der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Diploma Thesis
unpublished
comparative
Italy
(Salerno,
Genoa)
74.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing ‘Urban' in the European Cities: Insights from
Italy and the UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under the
European Union: are they ‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
Conference Paper
unpublished
comparative
Italy, UK
75.
Tedesco, Carla (2003): Europeanisation and Urban Policy in the Italian Article in journal
Mezzogiorno.
In:
Urbanistica,
No.122,
30-34.
URL:
http://www.planum.net/journals/ns-uri-i.html (last access 20.01.2006).
published
case
Italy
(Southern
Italy)
76.
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L'implementazione di
Urban a Bari, Bristol, Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104.
Article in journal
published
comparative
Italy (Bari,
Roma) UK
(Bristol,
London)
77.
Tedesco, Carla (2006): Beyond URBAN. The difficult attempt to mainstream the
‘URBAN approach’ in the Apulia Region, Southern Italy. Paper presented at the
European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University
Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Tedesco Carla (forthcoming): Territorial action and EU regional policy in the Italian
Mezzogiorno: hybridizing ‘European’ frames in local contexts. In: Luigi Doria,
Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.) Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a
Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Workshop Paper
unpublished
case
Italy
Article in edited
volume
published
case
Italy
Diploma Thesis
unpublished
general and
case
Austria
(Graz),
Germany
78.
79.
Theußl, Dietmar (2005): Gemeinschaftsinitiative Urban II Graz-West. Ein
Vergleich mit ausgewählten deutschen Urban-Städten. Diplomarbeit am Institut für
Geographie und Raumforschung der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz.
217
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
80.
Tofarides, Maria (2002): Community-led Regeneration Strategies: lessons from the
URBAN Programmes in Sheffield and London. Paper presented at the European
Young Researchers Network Workshop, Venice, June 19, 2002.
Conference Paper
unpublished
case
UK
81.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level
Gatekeeper System, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Monograph
published
comparative
UK (London)
France
(Marseille)
82.
Tofarides Maria (forthcoming): Government and Governance in the European
Union: Local Experiences of European Urban Policy. In: Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli,
Carla Tedesco (Eds.) Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Article in edited
volume
published
still unknown
still unknown
83.
Tosi, Antonio (date of appearance not specified): URBAN and social policies. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Tosi-e.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
Working Paper
unpublished
general
Italy
84.
Mingione, Enzo et al. (2001): National and City Contexts, Urban Development
Programmes and Neigbourhood Selection. The Italian Background Report. A
Working Paper for UGIS (Urban Development Programmes, Urban Governance,
Social Inclusion and Sustainability). Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Working Paper
published
case
Italy (Genoa,
Naples)
85.
Wagner, Alexander (2003): Die Entwicklung des Urbact-Netzwerkes in der EUStrukturpolitik. Multi-Level Governance oder nationale Dominanz? Diplomarbeit am
Seminar für Politische Wissenschaft der Universität Köln.
Diploma Thesis
unpublished
general
EU,
Germany
86.
Walther, Uwe-Jens/ Simon Güntner (2002): Transnationales Wissen in
Revitalisierungsstrategie – Informiert oder deformiert die EU? In: Uwe-Jens Walther
(Hg.): Soziale Stadt – Zwischenbilanzen. Ein Programm auf dem Weg zur sozialen
Stadt? Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 265-274.
Article in edited
volume
published
general
EU
218
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Nr.
Reference
Character of
Publication
Mode of
Publication
Thematic
Orientation
National/
Local Focus
87.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/
Alexander Hamedinger(2005a): The European Engagement of Cities. Experiences,
Motivations and Effects on Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and
Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU and the European Cities: Evolving
Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR European
Consortium for Political Research Conference Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Conference Paper
unpublished
comparative
UK
(Liverpool,
Manchester)
Austria
(Vienna,
Graz)
88.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/
Alexander Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities. Experiences,
motivations and effects on local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz,
Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael
Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in
the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
Article in edited
volume
published
comparative
UK
(Liverpool,
Manchester)
Germany
(Hamburg,
Dortmund)
Austria
(Vienna,
Graz)
Further References:
In addition to the academic literature, we would like to recommend two documents from EU-related sources which contain lots of valuable
information about the URBAN experience:
European Court of Auditors (2001): Special Report No. 1/2001 concerning the URBAN Community initiative, together with the Commission’s replies (2001/
C 124/01). URL: http://www.eca.europa.eu/audit_reports/special_reports/docs/2001/rs01_01en.pdf (last access: 08.06.06).
GHK Consulting (2003): Ex-Post Evaluation URBAN Community Initiative (1994-1999). Final Report. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/urban/urban_expost_evaluation_9499_en.pdf (last access: 08.06.06).
219
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
List by Mode of Publication
Published Literature
Aldskogius, Göran (2000): Urban Policy in the Structural Policy of the European Union. Umea-University: CERUM Working Paper No.21. URL:
http://www.umu.se/cerum/publikationer/pdfs/CWP_21_00.pdf (last access 31.05.2006).
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien.
Atkinson, Rob (2001): The Emerging ‘Urban Agenda’ and the European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards an EU Urban Policy? In: European
Planning Studies, Vol.9, No.3, 385-406.
Bartik, Herbert/ Alexander Wolffhardt (2005): Cities and services of general interest – A case study in deliberative European governance. In: Eugen
Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum
Wien, 33-48.
Berg, Leo van den/ Erik Braun/ Jan van der Meer (2004): National Urban Policies in the European Union. Two Volumes. Rotterdam: EURICUR.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Colaizzo, Raffeale/ Maurizio Di Palma (2000): Integration, Partnership and Role of Private Operators in the Community Initiative URBAN. In: Ministero dei
Lavori Pubblici, Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica (Ed.): Programma Urban-Italia. Europa, nuove politiche urbane. Roma: Inu Edizioni. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/dipalma-e.PDF (last access 31.05.2006).
Frank, Susanne (2006a): The European Union and the European Cities: Three Phases of European Urban Policy. In: Uwe Altrock et al. (Eds.) Spatial Planning
and Urban Development in the ten new EU Member States. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Frank, Susanne (2006b): Aufeinander zugehen. Die Europäische Union und die europäischen Städte. In: Heinz Kleger (Hg.): Von der Stadtagglomeration zur
Städteregion. Neue politische Denk- und Kooperationsräume. Münster/ Hamburg/ London (im Erscheinen).
220
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Güntner, Simon/ Charlotte Halpern (forthcoming): From Urban Regeneration to Neighbourhood Management – local policy change in Berlin and the role of
the EU (1990-2004). In: Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.): Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000a): Les politiques européennes de la ville. L’example du Programme d’initatives Européennes URBAN: une réponse de la Commission
aux enjeux des grandes villes européennes. In: Pour, No.167, 87-95.
Halpern, Charlotte (2003): What is so Special about the European Integration? Focussing on the Conditions for an External Innovation to Challenge Interests
and Representations at the Local Level: the Implementation of the Community Initiative URBAN in Berlin (1994-1999). In: Cahier Européen, No.01/05, du
pôle Ville/ métropolis/ cosmopolis, Centre d’Etudes Européennes de Sciences po (Paris). URL: http://www.portedeurope.org/IMG/pdf/cahier_ville001.pdf
(last access 13.01.2006).
Halpern, Charlotte (2005): Institutional change through innovation: URBAN Community Initiative in Berlin, 1994-99. In: Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol.23, 697-713.
Harburger, Sylvie (2002): Programme communautaire ‘Urban’. L’exception française? In: Revue Urbanisme, No 326, 21-22.
Harburger, Sylvie (2004): L’Union européenne sur la voie du renouvellement urbain? In: Revue Urbanisme, No 336, 20-22.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003a): Cities and the Structural Funds. The Domestic Impact of EU Initiatives for Urban Development. Athens - Komotini:
Ant.N.Sakkoulas Publishers.
Kruse, Sander (2002): Ein Trojanisches Pferd. Die URBAN Community Initiative im Amsterdamer Bijlmermeer. Berliner Geographische Arbeiten, Nr.94, 196206.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005a): Die europaweite Umsetzung von Gender Mainstreaming im Rahmen von URBAN II. In: ExWoSt-Informationen, Forschungsfeld 26,
Nr.2, 14-15.
Mingione, Enzo et al. (2001): National and City Contexts, Urban Development Programmes and Neigbourhood Selection. The Italian Background Report. A
Working Paper for UGIS (Urban Development Programmes, Urban Governance, Social Inclusion and Sustainability). Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Murtagh, Brendan (1999): Listening to Communities: Locality Research and Planning. In: Urban Studies, Vol.36, No.7, 1181-1193.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001a): The Politics and Practice of Urban Policy Evaluation. In: Community Development Journal, Vol.36, No.3, 223-233.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001b): The URBAN Community Initiative in Northern Ireland. In: Policy and Politics, Vol.29, No.4, 431-446.
221
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Murtagh, Brendan (2005): Social and Ethnic Segregation and the Urban agenda. In: Niam Moor/ Mark Scott (Eds.): Renewing Urban Communities:
Environment citizenship and Sustainability in Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 179-196.
Murtagh, Brendan/ Stephen McKay (2003): Evaluating the Social Effects of the EU URBAN Community Initiative Programme. In: European Planning
Studies, Vol.11, No.2, 193-211.
Nanetti, Raffaella Y. (2001): Adding Value to City Planning: The European Union’s Urban Programmes in Naples. In: South European Society and Politics,
Vol.6, No.3, 33-57.
Nuvolati, Giampaolo (2002): Urban development programmes in Italy. The UGIS project to analyse the effects of the URBAN CI. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/47Nuvolati.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
Parkinson, Michael (2005): Urban Policy in Europe – Where have we been and where are we going? In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael
Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 7-32.
Pasquier, Romain/ Gilles Pinson (2004): Politique européenne de la ville et gouvernement local en Espagne et en Italie. In: Politique européenne, No.12, hiver,
42-65.
Ricci, Manuela (2001): 16 Cities compared. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/ricci-e.PDF (last access 22.03.2006).
Sander, Robert (2002): Europäische und amerikanische Erfahrungen mit der sozialen Stadtteilentwicklung. In: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (DIFU) (Hg.):
Die Soziale Stadt. Eine erste Bilanz des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt“ im Auftrag des
Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin, 298-321.
Tedesco, Carla (2003): Europeanisation and Urban Policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno. In: Urbanistica, No.122, 30-34. URL: http://www.planum.net/journals/nsuri-i.html (last access 20.01.2006).
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L'implementazione di Urban a Bari, Bristol, Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104,
Tedesco Carla (forthcoming): Territorial action and EU regional policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno: hybridizing ‘European’ frames in local contexts. In: Luigi
Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.) Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tofarides Maria (forthcoming): Government and Governance in the European Union: Local Experiences of European Urban Policy. In: Luigi Doria, Valeria
Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.) Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
222
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Walther, Uwe-Jens/ Simon Güntner (2002): Transnationales Wissen in Revitalisierungsstrategie – Informiert oder deformiert die EU? In: Uwe-Jens Walther
(Hg.): Soziale Stadt – Zwischenbilanzen. Ein Programm auf dem Weg zur sozialen Stadt? Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 265-274.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities.
Experiences, motivations and effects on local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S.
Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
Unpublished Literature
Andree, Dörthe (2004): Europäische Stadtpolitik und lokale Maßarbeit. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung im Rahmen Europäischer Strukturpolitik am Beispiel von
Luckenwalde. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung/ Institut für Soziologie der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2002): The European Urban Initiative: Multi-Level Learning Processes Between Successes and Failures. Paper presented
at the EURA Conference Urban and Spatial European Policies, Turin, April 18-20, 2002. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/barbanente.PDF (last access 20.03.2006).
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2005): Urban regeneration as local development? A small town in the Italian Mezzogiorno as a local point of view on
Europeanization. Paper presented at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Bartz, Maren (2004): Die städtische Dimension der Europäischen Strukturpolitik. Masterarbeit im Studiengang Europäisches Verwaltungsmanagement der
Fachhochschule für Verwaltung und Rechtspflege Berlin und der Technischen Fachhochschule Wildau.
Bourdellon, Bertille (2005): L’européanisation des systèmes d’action locale: la traduction du programme d’initiative communautaire Urban sur le site de Clichy
sous Bois Montfermeil. Mémoire de fin d’études 2004-2005. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7 (last access 31.05.2006).
Cavallier, Elodie (1999): Vers une politique de la ville communautaire? L’exemple du projet pilote urbain et du PIC Urbain dans l’agglomération lyonnaise.
Travail Universitaire, Institut d’études politiques de Grenoble.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the
40th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2004): The URBAN Community Initiative: The Greek experience. Paper presented at the Regio OPEN DAYS Workshop Programme
“Managing Regional Development”, Workshop R12 “Urban Development”, Brussels, September 28-29, 2004.
223
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2005): Tackling social exclusion in urban areas: a break with the past. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest,
September 8-10, 2005.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2006): The Case of Heraklion URBAN in Greece: regulatory responses to EU challenges. Paper presented at the European Urban
Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Dematteis, Guiseppe/ Francesca Governa/ Cristiana Rossignolo (1999): The impact of European Programmes on the Governance of Italian Local Systems.
Paper presented at the Conference “European Cities in Transformation”, Parigi, October 22-23, 1999.
Dukes, Thea (2001): The European Community Initiative URBAN: help or hinder for local participation? The case of URBAN Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, the
Netherlands). Paper presented at the conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Danish Building and Urban Research and European
Urban Research association, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL: http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop5/dukes.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Dukes, Thea (2005): Constructing Cities and Positions in European Urban Policy Discourse. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September
8-10, 2005.
Dukes, Thea (2006): Acceptance versus resistance. Explaining the policy process of the URBAN programmes in Amsterdam and The Hague (the Netherlands).
Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Ferstl, Alexander (2004): URBAN Graz. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung 1996-2006. Die EU-Gemeinschaftsinitiativen URBAN und URBAN II als Instrumente
der Stadtentwicklung. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors der Naturwissenschaften an der naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.
Frank, Susanne (2005): The European experience – Changing Urban Policy Through the Community Initiative URBAN. Paper presented at the URBAN FutureConference “European Cohesion Policy and Integrated URBAN Regeneration – Concepts, Prospects and Networks”, Sarrebruck, June 8-9, 2005.
Frank, Susanne (2006c): The southern URBAN experience. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt
University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Gayton, Romain (2005): L’application du programme d’initiative communautaire URBAN I. Mater II Mention Droit public et sciences politiques + Spécialité
Droit public et politiques des territoires, Faculté de droit, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne.
Gelli, Francesca/ Carla Tedesco (2001): Governments and modes of governance in the U.S. and European cities. The change in urban policies. Paper presented
at the conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Copenhagen, May 17-19 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop3/gelli.htm (last access 20.03.2006)
224
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Georgantas, Elias/ Panagiotis Getimis (2001): Too many stakes, a few holders, but no partners: Governance failures, institutional inertia and the
implementation of an URBAN community initiative in Greece. Paper prepared for the 8th International Conference of the Regional Studies Association
Regional Transitions, Gdansk, September 15-18, 2001.
Godayer, Lucie (2002): Le Programme d’initiative communautaire Urban. Quand la politique de la ville devient europèenne. Etude du Pic Urban de
l’agglomération Grenobloise, Séminaire Habitat et Société 2001-2002. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7 (last access 31.05.06).
Godayer, Lucie (2004): Comparison research on the Management of Urban II. Working Paper prepared for the Development Corporation Amsterdam. URL:
http://duec.gx.nl/kcgs/servlet/nl.gx.siteworks.client.http.GetFile/id=173243/file=Comparison_Urban_II.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Güntner, Simon (2002a): Reconciling Abstract and Lived Space? The Case of URBAN II in Berlin. Paper presented at the EURA Conference “Urban and
Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial Government”, Turin, April 18-20, 2002.
Güntner, Simon (2002b): URBAN II in Berlin – Making Sense of Ambiguities. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon (2003): Managing Ambiguity and Contradictions – on the Mechanisms of the Europeanisation of Local Governance. Working Paper.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000b): La mise en oevre du Programme d’Initiative Communitaire URBAN à Berlin (1994-1999). Acteurs, Institutions et Processus: Trois
niveaux d’analyse pour observer l’action publique en marche. DEA sociologie politique et politiques publiques, Institut d’Etudes Politique de Paris.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003b): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Towards a model for evaluating implementation performance in
different urban areas. Paper prepared for the conference “Public Administration, Public Policy and Governance: Challenges & Innovations”, International
Geographical Union/ Commission on Geography and Public Policy, Lisbon, April 9–11, 2003.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2004): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Lessons from the Implementation of Urban I in three Greek Cities. Berlin.
Paper presented at the Urban and Regional Sociology Colloquium, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, January 20, 2004.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2006): Partnership or Self-sufficiency? Assessing the Domestic Impact of EU Urban Development Initiatives in Greece. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Krammer, Andreas (2003): URBAN Wien Gürtel Plus: Soziale und organisatorische Innovation in der Wiener Stadtentwicklung, Thesis, Institut für Stadt- und
Regionalentwicklung der Universität Wien.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2003): EU Regional Policy and Urban Governance: Assessing reform and renewal in Britain and Ireland. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.
225
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004a): Europeanisation at the urban Level: Local Actors, Institutions and the Dynamics of Multi-Level Interaction. Working Paper
prepared by the ESRC/UACES Study Group on the Europeanisation of the British Politics and Policy Making, Sheffield, April 23, 2004. URL:
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00001731/01/Marshall.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004b): Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the impact of the EU on local governance in Britain. Paper presented at the ESRC/
UACES One-Day Conference, Sheffield, July 16, 2004. URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ebpp/Marshalljuly16.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany.
Master Thesis in European Urbanistics, Bauhaus University Weimar.
Mattiucci, Laura (2006): A new philosophy in urban planning culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Mboumoua, Irène (2006): Assessing the modes of appropriation of the concepts diffused through URBAN. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Meyer, Julia (2005): Die Förderung von Städten durch die Europäische Union. Bausteine für eine erfolgreiche Integration der Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN
in die Regelförderung. Diplomarbeit an der Fakultät Raumplanung der Universität Dortmund.
Neuenfeldt, Henrike (2000): Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der EUGemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN am Beispiel von Bremen-Gröpelingen. Diplomarbeit, Universität Bremen.
Palermo, Piercarlo (2001): An Opportunity to Reflect on Urban Policies. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Piercarlo-e.PDF (last access
13.01.2006).
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. diss., Department of
Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Schlappa, Hans (2005): Urban Regeneration and the Impact of European Union Funding on Third Sector Organisations. Paper presented at the first European
Conference of ISTR and EMES, Paris, April 27-29, 2005.
Sept, Ariane (2006): Urbanistica in Movimento: Die italienische Stadtplanung und das Europäische Programm URBAN. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadtund Regionalplanung der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing “Urban” in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under
the European Union: are they ‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
226
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Tedesco, Carla (2006): Beyond URBAN. The difficult attempt to mainstream the ‘URBAN approach’ in the Apulia Region, Southern Italy. Paper presented at
the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Theußl, Dietmar (2005): Gemeinschaftsinitiative Urban II Graz-West. Ein Vergleich mit ausgewählten deutschen Urban-Städten. Diplomarbeit am Institut für
Geographie und Raumforschung der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz.
Tofarides, Maria (2002): Community-led Regeneration Strategies: lessons from the URBAN programmes in Sheffield and London. Paper presented at the
European Young Researchers Network Workshop, Venice, June 19, 2002.
Tosi, Antonio (date of appearance not specified): URBAN and social policies. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Tosi-e.PDF (last access
13.01.2006).
Wagner, Alexander (2003): Die Entwicklung des Urbact-Netzwerkes in der EU-Strukturpolitik. Multi-Level Governance oder nationale Dominanz?
Diplomarbeit am Seminar für Politische Wissenschaft der Universität Köln.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities.
Experiences, Motivations and Effects on Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU and the
European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR European Consortium for Political Research Conference
Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
List by National Focus
Austria
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien.
Ferstl, Alexander (2004): URBAN Graz. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung 1996-2006. Die EU-Gemeinschaftsinitiativen URBAN und URBAN II als Instrumente
der Stadtentwicklung. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors der Naturwissenschaften an der naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.
Krammer, Andreas (2003): URBAN Wien Gürtel Plus: Soziale und organisatorische Innovation in der Wiener Stadtentwicklung, Thesis, Institut für Stadt- und
Regionalentwicklung der Universität Wien.
227
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Theußl, Dietmar (2005): Gemeinschaftsinitiative Urban II Graz-West. Ein Vergleich mit ausgewählten deutschen Urban-Städten. Diplomarbeit am Institut für
Geographie und Raumforschung der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities.
Experiences, Motivations and Effects on Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU and the
European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR European Consortium for Political Research Conference
Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities.
Experiences, motivations and effects on local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S.
Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
France
Bourdellon, Bertille (2005): L'européanisation des systèmes d'action locale: la traduction du programme d'initiative communautaire Urban sur le site de Clichy
sous Bois Montfermeil. Mémoire de fin d'études 2004-2005. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7 (last access 31.05.2006).
Cavallier, Elodie (1999): Vers une politique de la ville communautaire? L'exemple du projet pilote urbain et du PIC Urbain dans l'agglomération lyonnaise.
Travail Universitaire, Institut d’études politiques de Grenoble.
Gayton, Romain (2005): L’application du programme d’initiative communautaire URBAN I. Mater II Mention Droit public et sciences politiques + Spécialité
Droit public et politiques des territoires, Faculté de droit, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne.
Godayer, Lucie (2002): Le Programme d'initiative communautaire Urban. Quand la politique de la ville devient europèenne. Etude du Pic Urban de
l'agglomération Grenobloise, Séminaire Habitat et Société 2001-2002. URL: http://www.urbanfrance.org/2005.2/site/public/v_fr/contenu_v2002/page.php?ts=1141223788&rub=documentation#7 (last access 31.05.06).
Harburger, Sylvie (2002): Programme communautaire ‘Urban’. L'exception française? In: Revue Urbanisme, No 326, 21-22
Harburger, Sylvie (2004): L’Union européenne sur la voie du renouvellement urbain? In: Revue Urbanisme, No 336, 20-22.
Mboumoua, Irène (2006): Assessing the modes of appropriation of the concepts diffused through URBAN. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System, Aldershot: Ashgate.
228
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Germany
Andree, Dörthe (2004): Europäische Stadtpolitik und lokale Maßarbeit. Integrierte Stadtentwicklung im Rahmen Europäischer Strukturpolitik am Beispiel von
Luckenwalde. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung/ Institut für Soziologie der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien.
Bartz, Maren (2004): Die städtische Dimension der Europäischen Strukturpolitik. Masterarbeit im Studiengang Europäisches Verwaltungsmanagement der
Fachhochschule für Verwaltung und Rechtspflege Berlin und der Technischen Fachhochschule Wildau.
Güntner, Simon (2002a): Reconciling Abstract and Lived Space? The Case of URBAN II in Berlin. Paper presented at the EURA Conference “Urban and
Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial Government”, Turin, April 18-20, 2002.
Güntner, Simon (2002b): URBAN II in Berlin – Making Sense of Ambiguities. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon (2003): Managing Ambiguity and Contradictions – on the Mechanisms of the Europeanisation of Local Governance. Working Paper.
Güntner, Simon/ Charlotte Halpern (forthcoming): From Urban Regeneration to Neighbourhood Management – local policy change in Berlin and the role of
the EU (1990-2004). In: Luigi Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.): Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Halpern, Charlotte (2000b): La mise en oevre du Programme d’Initiative Communitaire URBAN à Berlin (1994-1999). Acteurs, Institutions et Processus: Trois
niveaux d’analyse pour observer l’action publique en marche. DEA sociologie politique et politiques publiques, Institut d’Etudes Politique de Paris.
Halpern, Charlotte (2003): What is so Special about the European Integration? Focussing on the Conditions for an External Innovation to Challenge Interests
and Representations at the Local Level: the Implementation of the Community Initiative URBAN in Berlin (1994-1999). In: Cahier Européen, No.01/05, du
pôle Ville/ métropolis/ cosmopolis, Centre d’Etudes Européennes de Sciences po (Paris). URL: http://www.portedeurope.org/IMG/pdf/cahier_ville001.pdf
(last access 13.01.2006).
Halpern, Charlotte (2005): Institutional change through innovation: URBAN Community Initiative in Berlin, 1994-99. In: Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol.23, 697-713.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany.
Master Thesis in European Urbanistics, Bauhaus University Weimar.
229
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Mattiucci, Laura (2006): A new philosophy in urban planning culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Neuenfeldt, Henrike (2000): Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der EUGemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN am Beispiel von Bremen-Gröpelingen. Diplomarbeit, Universität Bremen.
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. diss., Department of
Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Theußl, Dietmar (2005): Gemeinschaftsinitiative Urban II Graz-West. Ein Vergleich mit ausgewählten deutschen Urban-Städten. Diplomarbeit am Institut für
Geographie und Raumforschung der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz.
Wagner, Alexander (2003): Die Entwicklung des Urbact-Netzwerkes in der EU-Strukturpolitik. Multi-Level Governance oder nationale Dominanz?
Diplomarbeit am Seminar für Politische Wissenschaft der Universität Köln.
Walther, Uwe-Jens/ Simon Güntner (2002): Transnationales Wissen in Revitalisierungsstrategie – Informiert oder deformiert die EU? In: Uwe-Jens Walther
(Hg.): Soziale Stadt – Zwischenbilanzen. Ein Programm auf dem Weg zur sozialen Stadt? Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 265-274.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities.
Experiences, motivations and effects on local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S.
Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
Greece
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the
40th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2004): The URBAN Community Initiative: The Greek experience. Paper presented at the Regio OPEN DAYS Workshop Programme
“Managing Regional Development”, Workshop R12 “Urban Development”, Brussels, September 28-29, 2004.
230
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2005): Tackling social exclusion in urban areas: a break with the past. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest,
September 8-10, 2005.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2006): The Case of Heraklion URBAN in Greece: regulatory responses to EU challenges. Paper presented at the European Urban
Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Frank, Susanne (2006c): The southern URBAN experience. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt
University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Georgantas, Elias/ Panagiotis Getimis (2001): Too many stakes, a few holders, but no partners: Governance failures, institutional inertia and the
implementation of an URBAN community initiative in Greece. Paper prepared for the 8th International Conference of the Regional Studies Association
Regional Transitions, Gdansk, September 15-18, 2001.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003a): Cities and the Structural Funds. The Domestic Impact of EU Initiatives For Urban Development. Athens - Komotini:
Ant.N.Sakkoulas Publishers.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003b): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Towards a model for evaluating implementation performance in
different urban areas. Paper prepared for the conference “Public Administration, Public Policy and Governance: Challenges & Innovations”, International
Geographical Union/ Commission on Geography and Public Policy, Lisbon, April 9–11, 2003.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2004): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Lessons from the Implementation of Urban I in three Greek Cities. Berlin.
Paper presented at the Urban and Regional Sociology Colloquium, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, January 20, 2004.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2006): Partnership or Self-sufficiency? Assessing the Domestic Impact of EU Urban Development Initiatives in Greece. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Italy
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2002): The European Urban Initiative: Multi-Level Learning Processes Between Successes and Failures. Paper presented
at the EURA Conference Urban and Spatial European Policies, Turin, April 18-20, 2002. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/barbanente.PDF (last access 20.03.2006).
Barbanente, Angela/ Carla Tedesco (2005): Urban regeneration as local development? A small town in the Italian Mezzogiorno as a local point of view on
Europeanization. Paper presented at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Conference, Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
231
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Colaizzo, Raffeale/ Maurizio Di Palma (2000): Integration, Partnership and Role of Private Operators in the Community Initiative URBAN. In: Ministero dei
Lavori Pubblici, Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica (Ed.): Programma Urban-Italia. Europa, nuove politiche urbane. Roma: Inu Edizioni. URL:
http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/dipalma-e.PDF (last access 31.05.2006).
Dematteis, Guiseppe/ Francesca Governa/ Cristiana Rossignolo (1999): The impact of European Programmes on the Governance of Italian Local Systems.
Paper presented at the Conference “European Cities in Transformation”, Parigi, October 22-23, 1999.
Frank, Susanne (2006c): The southern URBAN experience. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt
University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany.
Master Thesis in European Urbanistics, Bauhaus University Weimar.
Mattiucci, Laura (2006): A new philosophy in urban planning culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Mingione, Enzo et al. (2001): National and City Contexts, Urban Development Programmes and Neigbourhood Selection. The Italian Background Report. A
Working Paper for UGIS (Urban Development Programmes, Urban Governance, Social Inclusion and Sustainability). Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Nanetti, Raffaella Y. (2001): Adding Value to City Planning: The European Union’s Urban Programmes in Naples. In: South European Society and Politics,
Vol.6, No.3, 33-57.
Nuvolati, Giampaolo (2002): Urban development programmes in Italy. The UGIS project to analyse the effects of the URBAN CI. URL:
http://www2.polito.it/ricerca/eupolis/euraconference2002/Paper_pdf/47Nuvolati.PDF (last access 13.01.2006).
Palermo, Piercarlo (2001): An Opportunity to Reflect on Urban Policies. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Piercarlo-e.PDF (last access
13.01.2006).
Pasquier, Romain/ Gilles Pinson (2004): Politique européenne de la ville et gouvernement local en Espagne et en Italie. In: Politique européenne, No.12, hiver,
42-65.
Ricci, Manuela (2001): 16 Cities compared. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/ricci-e.PDF (last access 22.03.2006).
Sept, Ariane (2006): Urbanistica in Movimento: Die italienische Stadtplanung und das Europäische Programm URBAN. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadtund Regionalplanung der Technischen Universität Berlin.
232
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing “Urban” in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under
the European Union: are they ‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
Tedesco, Carla (2003): Europeanisation and Urban Policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno. In: Urbanistica, No.122, 30-34. URL: http://www.planum.net/journals/nsuri-i.html (last access 20.01.2006).
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L'implementazione di Urban a Bari, Bristol, Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104,
Tedesco, Carla (2006): Beyond URBAN. The difficult attempt to mainstream the “URBAN approach” in the Apulia Region, Southern Italy. Paper presented at
the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Tedesco Carla (forthcoming): Territorial action and EU regional policy in the Italian Mezzogiorno: hybridizing ‘European’ frames in local contexts. In: Luigi
Doria, Valeria Fedeli, Carla Tedesco (Eds.) Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tosi, Antonio (date of appearance not specified): URBAN and social policies. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/Tosi-e.PDF (last access
13.01.2006).
Netherlands
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Dukes, Thea (2001): The European Community Initiative URBAN: help or hinder for local participation? The case of URBAN Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, the
Netherlands). Paper presented at the conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Danish Building and Urban Research and European
Urban Research association, Copenhagen, May 17-19, 2001. URL: http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop5/dukes.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Dukes, Thea (2006): Acceptance versus resistance. Explaining the policy process of the URBAN programmes in Amsterdam and The Hague (the Netherlands).
Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Kruse, Sander (2002): Ein Trojanisches Pferd. Die URBAN Community Initiative im Amsterdamer Bijlmermeer. Berliner Geographische Arbeiten, Nr.94, 196206.
233
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Portugal
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the
40th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Spain
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the
40th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Frank, Susanne (2006c): The southern URBAN experience. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt
University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Pasquier, Romain/ Gilles Pinson (2004): Politique européenne de la ville et gouvernement local en Espagne et en Italie. In: Politique européenne, No.12, hiver,
42-65.
UK (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
234
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2003): EU Regional Policy and Urban Governance: Assessing reform and renewal in Britain and Ireland. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004a): Europeanisation at the Urban Level: Local Actors, Institutions and the Dynamics of Multi-Level Interaction. Working Paper
prepared by the ESRC/UACES Study Group on the Europeanisation of the British Politics and Policy Making, Sheffield, April 23, 2004. URL:
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00001731/01/Marshall.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Marshall, Adam Jay (2004b): Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the impact of the EU on local governance in Britain. Paper presented at the ESRC/
UACES One-Day Conference, Sheffield, July 16, 2004. URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ebpp/Marshalljuly16.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Mboumoua, Irène (2006): Assessing the modes of appropriation of the concepts diffused through URBAN. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Murtagh, Brendan (1999): Listening to Communities: Locality Research and Planning. In: Urban Studies, Vol.36, No.7, 1181-1193.
Murtagh, Brendan (2001a): The Politics and Practice of Urban Policy Evaluation. In: Community Development Journal, Vol.36, No.3, 223-233
Murtagh, Brendan (2001b): The URBAN Community Initiative in Northern Ireland. In: Policy and Politics, Vol.29, No.4, 431-446.
Murtagh, Brendan (2005): Social and Ethnic Segregation and the Urban agenda. In: Niam Moor/ Mark Scott (Eds.): Renewing Urban Communities:
Environment citizenship and Sustainability in Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 179-196.
Murtagh, Brendan/ Stephen McKay (2003): Evaluating the Social Effects of the EU URBAN Community Initiative Programme. In: European Planning
Studies, Vol.11, No.2, 193-211.
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. diss., Department of
Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing “Urban” in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under
the European Union: are they ‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L’implementazione di Urban a Bari, Bristol, Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104.
235
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Tofarides, Maria (2002): Community-led Regeneration Strategies: lessons from the URBAN programmes in Sheffield and London. Paper presented at the
European Young Researchers Network Workshop, Venice, June 19, 2002.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities.
Experiences, Motivations and Effects on Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU and the
European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR European Consortium for Political Research Conference
Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities.
Experiences, motivations and effects on local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S.
Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
EU
Aldskogius, Göran (2000): Urban Policy in the Structural Policy of the European Union. Umea-University: CERUM Working Paper No.21. URL:
http://www.umu.se/cerum/publikationer/pdfs/CWP_21_00.pdf (last access 31.05.2006).
Atkinson, Rob (2001): The Emerging ‘Urban Agenda’ and the European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards an EU Urban Policy? In: European
Planning Studies, Vol.9, No.3, 385-406.
Bartik, Herbert/ Alexander Wolffhardt (2005): Cities and services of general interest – A case study in deliberative European governance. In: Eugen
Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum
Wien, 33-48.
Berg, Leo van den/ Erik Braun/ Jan van der Meer (2004): National Urban Policies in the European Union. Two Volumes. Rotterdam: EURICUR.
Dukes, Thea (2005): Constructing Cities and Positions in European Urban Policy Discourse. Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR Conference, Budapest, September
8-10, 2005.
Frank, Susanne (2005): The European experience – Changing Urban Policy Through the Community Initiative URBAN. Paper presented at the URBAN FutureConference “European Cohesion Policy and Integrated URBAN Regeneration – Concepts, Prospects and Networks”, Sarrebruck, June 8-9, 2005.
Frank, Susanne (2006a): The European Union and the European Cities: Three Phases of European Urban Policy. In: Uwe Altrock et al. (Eds.) Spatial Planning
and Urban Development in the ten new EU Member States. Aldershot: Ashgate.
236
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Frank, Susanne (2006b): Aufeinander zugehen. Die Europäische Union und die europäischen Städte. In: Heinz Kleger (Hg.): Von der Stadtagglomeration zur
Städteregion. Neue politische Denk- und Kooperationsräume. Münster/ Hamburg/ London (im Erscheinen).
Gelli, Francesca/ Carla Tedesco (2001): Governments and modes of governance in the U.S. and European cities. The change in urban policies. Paper presented
at the conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Copenhagen, May 17-19 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop3/gelli.htm (last access 20.03.2006).
Godayer, Lucie (2004): Comparison research on the Management of Urban II. Working Paper prepared for the Development Corporation Amsterdam. URL:
http://duec.gx.nl/kcgs/servlet/nl.gx.siteworks.client.http.GetFile/id=173243/file=Comparison_Urban_II.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Halpern, Charlotte (2000a): Les politiques européennes de la ville. L’example du Programme d’initatives Européennes URBAN: une réponse de la Commission
aux enjeux des grandes villes européennes. In: Pour, No.167, 87-95.
Mattiucci, Laura (2005a): Die europaweite Umsetzung von Gender Mainstreaming im Rahmen von URBAN II. In: ExWoSt-Informationen, Forschungsfeld 26,
Nr.2, 14-15.
Meyer, Julia (2005): Die Förderung von Städten durch die Europäische Union. Bausteine für eine erfolgreiche Integration der Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN
in die Regelförderung. Diplomarbeit an der Fakultät ‚Raumplanung’ der Universität Dortmund.
Parkinson, Michael (2005): Urban Policy in Europe – Where have we been and where are we going? In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael
Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 7-32.
Sander, Robert (2002): Europäische und amerikanische Erfahrungen mit der sozialen Stadtteilentwicklung. In: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (DIFU) (Hg.):
Die Soziale Stadt. Eine erste Bilanz des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt“ im Auftrag des
Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin, 298-321.
Schlappa, Hans (2005): Urban Regeneration and the Impact of European Union Funding on Third Sector Organisations. Paper presented at the first European
Conference of ISTR and EMES, Paris, April 27-29, 2005.
Wagner, Alexander (2003): Die Entwicklung des Urbact-Netzwerkes in der EU-Strukturpolitik. Multi-Level Governance oder nationale Dominanz?
Diplomarbeit am Seminar für Politische Wissenschaft der Universität Köln.
Walther, Uwe-Jens/ Simon Güntner (2002): Transnationales Wissen in Revitalisierungsstrategie – Informiert oder deformiert die EU? In: Uwe-Jens Walther
(Hg.): Soziale Stadt – Zwischenbilanzen. Ein Programm auf dem Weg zur sozialen Stadt? Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 265-274.
237
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
List of Comparative Studies
Antalovsky, Eugen/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.) (2005): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien:
Europaforum Wien.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2000): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU urban initiatives. Paper presented at the
40th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, August 29 - September 1, 2000.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2001): Ungleiche Bedingungen und Chancen für Städte. In: Europa Kommunal, Journal of the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, No.1, 7-11.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2002): Urban Restructuring and Governance: North-South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative. In: Urban Studies,
Vol.39, No.4, 705-726.
Chorianopoulos, Ioannis (2004): The URBAN Community Initiative: The Greek experience. Paper presented at the Regio OPEN DAYS Workshop Programme
“Managing Regional Development”, Workshop R12 “Urban Development”, Brussels, September 28-29, 2004.
Gelli, Francesca/ Carla Tedesco (2001): Governments and modes of governance in the U.S. and European cities. The change in urban policies. Paper presented
at the conference “Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy”, Copenhagen, May 17-19 2001. URL:
http://www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop3/gelli.htm (last access 20.03.2006).
Godayer, Lucie (2004): Comparison research on the Management of Urban II. Working Paper prepared for the Development Corporation Amsterdam. URL:
http://duec.gx.nl/kcgs/servlet/nl.gx.siteworks.client.http.GetFile/id=173243/file=Comparison_Urban_II.pdf (last access 13.01.2006).
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2003a): Cities and the Structural Funds. The Domestic Impact of EU Initiatives For Urban Development. Athens - Komotini:
Ant.N.Sakkoulas Publishers.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2004): European Urban Policies and Domestic Responses. Lessons from the Implementation of Urban I in three Greek Cities. Berlin.
Paper presented at the Urban and Regional Sociology Colloquium, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, January 20, 2004.
Koutalakis, Charalampos (2006): Partnership or Self-sufficiency? Assessing the Domestic Impact of EU Urban Development Initiatives in Greece. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Marshall, Adam Jay (2003): EU Regional Policy and Urban Governance: Assessing reform and renewal in Britain and Ireland. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.
238
The European URBAN Experience
Study Report
Mattiucci, Laura (2005): A New Philosophy in Urban Planning Culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany.
Master Thesis in European Urbanistics, Bauhaus University Weimar.
Mattiucci, Laura (2006): A new philosophy in urban planning culture? Legacy of the CI URBAN at federal-regional and local level: Italy and Germany. Paper
presented at the European Urban Policy and URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Mboumoua, Irène (2006): Assessing the modes of appropriation of the concepts diffused through URBAN. Paper presented at the European Urban Policy and
URBAN Researchers Workshop, Humboldt University Berlin, April 7-8, 2006.
Pasquier, Romain/ Gilles Pinson (2004): Politique européenne de la ville et gouvernement local en Espagne et en Italie. In: Politique européenne, No.12, hiver,
42-65.
Paulus, Sabine W.C. (2000): URBAN: A Critical Case Study of the Formulation and Operationalisation of a Community Initiative. Ph.D. diss., Department of
Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Ricci, Manuela (2001): 16 Cities compared. URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/ricci-e.PDF (last access 22.03.2006).
Sept, Ariane (2006): Urbanistica in Movimento: Die italienische Stadtplanung und das Europäische Programm URBAN. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Stadtund Regionalplanung der Technischen Universität Berlin.
Tedesco, Carla (2002): Implementing “Urban” in the European Cities: Insights from Italy and the UK. Paper presented at the Workshop "Urban Policies under
the European Union: are they ‘European’”? Venice, June 18, 2002.
Tedesco, Carla (2004): Una politica europea per la città? L'implementazione di Urban a Bari, Bristol, Londra e Roma. Milano: Studi urbani e regionali 104.
Tofarides, Maria (2003): Urban Policy in the European Union. A Multi-Level Gatekeeper System, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005a): The European Engagement of Cities.
Experiences, Motivations and Effects on Local Governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna and Graz. Paper presented to the Panel “The EU and the
European Cities: Evolving Forms of Governance and (new?) Policy Instruments”, 3rd ECPR European Consortium for Political Research Conference
Budapest, September 8-10, 2005.
Wolffhardt, Alexander/ Herbert Bartik/ Richard Meegan/ Jens S. Dangschat/ Alexander Hamedinger (2005b): The European engagement of cities.
Experiences, motivations and effects on local governance in Liverpool, Manchester, Vienna, Graz, Dortmund and Hamburg. In: Eugen Antalovsky/ Jens S.
Dangschat/ Michael Parkinson (Eds.): European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the Cities. Wien: Europaforum Wien, 65-112.
239