Governance in Europeanisation

The range of processes of dissemination and harmonization resulting in development of a common European culture can be summarized under the term of Europeanisation. Europeanisation appears at both, national and regional level and is determined by different types of adaptation pressures and "mediating" institutions operating within different actors (bodies) of governance. Europeanisation emphasizes the involvement of local framework, development of more urban partnerships and encouragement of wider level of actors in multilevel territorial interaction. The UK central government's effort to retain absolute control over the Structural Funding has been determined by encouragement rather than prevention of further Europeanisation at the local level. Increasing level of Europeanisation in the UK has also a further origin in a connection between the central government with local actors, resulted in formation of new implications in terms of urban governance e.g. “european urban governance”. The centralization of local government is apparent in the weight of legislation directed at local authorities.
The local authorities in cities such as Birmingham and Glasgow have participated and encouraged direct lobbying, long-term strategic programming and partnership, to liaise with conditions of The European Union Programme and to benefit from Structural Funding in terms of urban development. The contributors and assessors are policy makers and researchers from different range of disciplines. EU Cohesion Policy refers to the set of activities aimed to reduction of regional and social disparities in the European Union. Although the EU Cohesion Policy appears as a relatively well designated programme, there are still some unresolved issues in terms of measurements, philosophical approaches and methods of Cohesion Policy evaluation.
The further challenges such as different interests of European institutions and Member State governments occur as a main constraint. Cohesion Policy has been described as “political expression of solidarity” between Europe's wealthier and poorer regions.
Socio-economic disparities in European regions
Socio-economic disparities in the European Union countries are considerable. Strong differences between neighboring regions create both, threats and opportunities. In terms of opportunities we understand goods, capital and labour in relatively closely defined regions; in the threats perspective it is mainly appearance of large differences between wealth and lagging regions. Described threats are highlighting the importance of geographical range (thus influence on socio-economic standards). In terms of economic development, disparities between European countries have been reduced over the last two decades, showing a clear “convergence” between the countries. The imbalances occurred particularly due to a large agglomeration, where geographically advanced regions play a significant role in growing GDP. Although poorer and more peripheral regions of the EU have shown a significant economic growth, in terms of the whole European economy they represent only a smart part of contribution. In rapidly growing economies such as Ireland, Estonia and Latvia regional differences lead to a positive outcome and relative decline in the more peripheral parts. Socio-economic differences due to regional disadvantage occur particularly in Finland, France and Spain, where the high unemployment rate has increased in more peripheral regions. Mapping potential accessibility to European GDP makes it possible to identify the areas well positioned to develop “hub functions”, by acting as "businesses and entrepreneurial" crossroad. In the former EU-15 countries the analysis confirms that the main cause of inequality is a dominance of the main metropolitan areas, which are creating two or more imbalanced territories, such as Italy (North-South), Belgium (Flanders-Wallonia), Germany (West-East) and Spain (North-East and South-West). From the perspective of geographical advantage, a major core area centered in the border regions of Southern Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia emerges as well as a key - centre in terms of accessibility around Prague, Bucharest, Budapest and Vienna. All three countries have provided the financial support in terms of social and economic imbalances since 1994 and both grants initiatives were established in connection with the historic enlargement of the European Union and European Economic Area in 2004. Local authorities and government play significantly important role in land use development, community development and social services.
The Urban governance in European countries is characterised by its diversity due to spatial and urban disparities. In cities of southern Europe a high level of centralized decisions is jeopardizing a successful outcome of the policy. Importance of the examination of local level political processes, determined by the local political and social infrastructure is an important tool for successful urban governance.
The north European regions’ post-war welfare has been described as a consequence of extensive urban planning policies and centrally defined responsibilities for local authorities, whereas the southern regions interpret a presence of indigenous small and medium-sized firms dominated the organisation of industry. The structure and functions of the governmental organizations are often highly fragmented and therefore, these might be overlapping powers and responsibilities. Secondly, the community response in southern European states is less included in decision-making processes, either in variety of consultations with stakeholders, or in assessments of environmental impacts and management processes. Political will is significantly important for successful process of urban governance, as changing the political environment has a great impact on voluntary and community activity. The more closer is the connection between ‘real communities’ in regions, cities, neighborhoods and government bodies, the more sensitive will be addressing the issues on local and regional level, and more successful the implementation of the policy.
Urban governance is hence, not a tool to retain a control over the increasing challenges, but ability to successfully manage and regulate the differences and to be creative in urban areas where the changes are most visible.
Urban Policy
In 2007, in European Union, ministers adopted the Leipzig Charter to achieve the objective of sustainable cities and recognise the importance of social, cultural and economic role that cities play.
The key policy document is building on the results of the previous presidencies, in particular:
*The Lille Action Programme (2000),
*The Urban Acquis (2004)
*The Bristol Accord (2005).
European cities (and metropolitan regions) by signing the Leipzig Charter had acceded into conditions to draw up integral development plans, Cities as a key element of urban governance due to changes in political, social, spatial spheres and growing complexity of social life are trying to “delink” themselves from their national economies. City governments had to become more entrepreneurial and able to attract a business investments. New lifestyle and social differentiation appears as impossible to govern at one level and the governance response to these circumstances therefore includes new combinations of people-based and place-based policies.
Institutional frameworks can influence positively to regional and urban challenges in terms of innovative processes. By institutions, institutionalists we understand rules, norms and practices which structure areas of social endeavour and not formal organisations, which focus on interactions and not decisions.<ref name=coaf/>
The way of governing has shifted from those of “hierarchies and bureaucracy” to selforganising networks of heterarchy.” <ref name=kearns/> Private firms are seeking more political engagement and want to achieve better functioning of urban and economic system. On the other hand, the state wants to influence firms to achieve better overall economic performance.
In the European Union the urban governance at the national scale requires except network influences and financial capital, sufficiency of knowledge for policy makers, otherwise “one solution model suitable to one region” does not necessarily guarantee successful outcome of the policy in the other region. The issue of multilevel governance in cities occurs in such cases when, the local governance activity “can mask the inefficiency” of social and political implementation policies to support and encourage citizens.
Another cause of urban governance shift is arising a social justice, greater consciousness of the diversity of basic needs and cultural identities, and a stronger awareness of environmental resource management and sustainability limits.<ref name=coaf/>

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu