Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda [1st ed.] 9783030471347, 9783030471354

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-x
Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction (Carlos Nunes Silva, Anna Trono)....Pages 1-11
Front Matter ....Pages 13-13
Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola (Carlos Nunes Silva)....Pages 15-45
Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance (Ilona Pálné Kovács)....Pages 47-64
Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy Process: The Road from Governance to Government (Edit Somlyódyné Pfeil)....Pages 65-90
What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing Discourses on Governance, Scales, and Spaces (Simonetta Armondi)....Pages 91-109
Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist Perspective in Central and Eastern Europe (Łukasz Mikuła)....Pages 111-134
Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Spatial Development (Jadranka Veselić Bruvo, Martina Jakovčić)....Pages 135-156
Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience Amongst Inter-Municipal Associations in Spain (Tony Gore)....Pages 157-178
Regional Reorganisation in Italy: Challenges and Changes (Anna Trono)....Pages 179-200
Front Matter ....Pages 201-201
The 2016–2018 Milan Metropolitan Strategic Plan: Features and Limits of an Innovative Tool Within the Local Government Framework (Renzo Riboldazzi)....Pages 203-220
Citizens Committees and Civic Participatory Tools in Urban Governance in Rome: Before and After the New Urban Agenda (Maria Cristina Antonucci)....Pages 221-236
Problems and Determinants of Public Participation in the Creation of Public Space (Mariusz W. Sienkiewicz)....Pages 237-254
Sidelining Sustainable Development: Structural Constraints on the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda in the UK (Alan Patterson)....Pages 255-273
The Future of Urban Policy in Africa. Localization of SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda (Remy Sietchiping, John Omwamba)....Pages 275-291
Payment of Ecosystem Services for Cultural Heritage: Contributions from the New Urban Agenda (Valentina Castronuovo)....Pages 293-309
A Stakeholder Analysis for the Adaptive Reuse Assessment of Architectural Heritage: Towards an Integrated Approach (Francesca Giuliani, Anna De Falco, Luisa Santini)....Pages 311-333
Sustainable Urban Mobility and Local Governance Practices: The Case of Cycling in Italian Cities (Donatella Privitera)....Pages 335-348
Smart Mobility and Sustainable Tourism in Urban Areas: Two Case Studies in the South of Italy (Gabriella Trombino, Anna Trono)....Pages 349-363
Back Matter ....Pages 365-369

Citation preview

Local and Urban Governance

Carlos Nunes Silva Anna Trono Editors

Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda

Local and Urban Governance Series Editor Carlos Nunes Silva, University of Lisbon, Portugal

This series contains research studies with policy relevance in the field of sub-­ national territorial governance, at the micro, local and regional levels, as well as on its connections with national and supranational tiers. The series is multidisciplinary and brings together innovative research from different areas within the Social Sciences and Humanities. The series is open for theoretical, methodological and empirical ground breaking contributions. Books included in this series explore the new modes of territorial governance, new perspectives and new research methodologies. The aim is to present advances in Governance Studies to scholars and researchers in universities and research organizations, and to policy makers worldwide. The series includes monographs, edited volumes and textbooks. Book proposals and final manuscripts are peer-reviewed. The areas covered in the series include but are not limited to the following subjects: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Local and regional government Urban and metropolitan governance Multi-level territorial governance Post-colonial local governance Municipal merger reforms Inter-municipal cooperation Decentralized cooperation Governance of spatial planning Strategic spatial planning Citizen participation in local policies Local governance, spatial justice and the right to the city Local public services Local economic development policies Entrepreneurialism and municipal public enterprises Local government finance Local government and sustainable development Anthropocene and green local governance Climate change and local governance Smart local governance

The series is intended for geographers, planners, political scientists, sociologists, lawyers, historians, urban anthropologists and economists. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16129

Carlos Nunes Silva  •  Anna Trono Editors

Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda

Editors Carlos Nunes Silva Universidade de Lisboa Lisbon, Portugal

Anna Trono University of Salento Lecce, Italy

ISSN 2524-5449     ISSN 2524-5457 (electronic) Local and Urban Governance ISBN 978-3-030-47134-7    ISBN 978-3-030-47135-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Carlos Nunes Silva and Anna Trono Part I 2 Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 Carlos Nunes Silva 3 Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance����������������������������������������������������   47 Ilona Pálné Kovács 4 Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy Process: The Road from Governance to Government ����������������������������������������   65 Edit Somlyódyné Pfeil 5 What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing Discourses on Governance, Scales, and Spaces����������������   91 Simonetta Armondi 6 Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist Perspective in Central and Eastern Europe������������������������������������������  111 Łukasz Mikuła 7 Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Spatial Development��������������������������  135 Jadranka Veselić Bruvo and Martina Jakovčić

v

vi

Contents

8 Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience Amongst Inter-Municipal Associations in Spain ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  157 Tony Gore 9 Regional Reorganisation in Italy: Challenges and Changes����������������  179 Anna Trono Part II 10 The 2016–2018 Milan Metropolitan Strategic Plan: Features and Limits of an Innovative Tool Within the Local Government Framework��������������������������������������������������������  203 Renzo Riboldazzi 11 Citizens Committees and Civic Participatory Tools in Urban Governance in Rome: Before and After the New Urban Agenda����������������������������������������������������������������������������  221 Maria Cristina Antonucci 12 Problems and Determinants of Public Participation in the Creation of Public Space��������������������������������������������������������������  237 Mariusz W. Sienkiewicz 13 Sidelining Sustainable Development: Structural Constraints on the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda in the UK��������������  255 Alan Patterson 14 The Future of Urban Policy in Africa. Localization of SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda���������������������������  275 Remy Sietchiping and John Omwamba 15 Payment of Ecosystem Services for Cultural Heritage: Contributions from the New Urban Agenda������������������������������������������  293 Valentina Castronuovo 16 A Stakeholder Analysis for the Adaptive Reuse Assessment of Architectural Heritage: Towards an Integrated Approach��������������  311 Francesca Giuliani, Anna De Falco, and Luisa Santini 17 Sustainable Urban Mobility and Local Governance Practices: The Case of Cycling in Italian Cities������������������������������������  335 Donatella Privitera 18 Smart Mobility and Sustainable Tourism in Urban Areas: Two Case Studies in the South of Italy��������������������������������������������������  349 Gabriella Trombino and Anna Trono Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  365

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Average annual change in subnational government expenditure, in EU countries, in real terms, 2000–2009 and 2010–2013.......... 52 Fig. 3.2 Rating of some public services in Hungary and in Europe........... 53 Fig. 3.3 Comparing European Quality of Life survey (2012) and Eurobarometer (2016) results on social trust................................ 61 Fig. 3.4 Percentage of positive answers to the question ‘Do you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it?’ in the Hungarian sample........... 61 Fig. 7.1 The first regional plan by V. Antolić 1930.................................... 142 Fig. 7.2 The Zagreb suburban region acc. to S. Žuljić 1965...................... 143 Fig. 7.3 Spatial plan of Zagreb region – scheme of the process of spatial transformation............................................................... 144 Fig. 7.4 Spatial plan of Zagreb region – scheme of general use of space......................................................................................... 145 Fig. 7.5 Spatial plan of Zagreb region........................................................ 146 Fig. 7.6 Joint spatial plan for the City of Zagreb and Association of Municipalities................................................. 147 Fig. 7.7 Spatial plan of the City of Zagreb – City of Zagreb (10 municipalities) plus outer municipalities (Zaprešić, Samobor, Velika Gorica, Sesvete)................................................. 148 Fig. 7.8 Spatial coverage of different regional and spatial plans of Zagreb area............................................................................... 149 Fig. 7.9 Strategic planning process for sustainable urban development of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb......................................... 150 Fig. 7.10 Scheme of spatial coverage of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb....................................................................................... 152 Fig. 8.1 Number of mancomunidades, 1975–2018.................................... 169 Fig. 9.1 Metropolitan cities........................................................................ 187 Fig. 9.2 Spending by cities – distribution of intermediate bodies’ expenditure by axis (in million euros).......................................... 190 vii

viii

List of Figures

Fig. 9.3 The “new regions”: redrawing the boundaries.............................. 195 Fig. 11.1 Citizens’ committees enlisted in Rome five municipality registers: geographical distribution in 2017.................................. 230 Fig. 14.1 Trends in Urban and Rural Population of the World, 1950–2050.................................................................................... 276 Fig. 14.2 Africa Population Growth Trend, 1950–2050.............................. 277 Fig. 14.3 Countries UN-Habitat is supporting in developing NUP in Sub-Saharan Africa................................................................... 285 Fig. 15.1 Taranto, municipal boundaries...................................................... 298 Fig. 15.2 Map of the surveys. Archaeological evidence in the coastal zone of Mar Piccolo – eastern sub-bay......................................... 301 Fig. 15.3 Archaeological evidence surveyed in the coastal zone of Mar Piccolo – eastern sub-bay. X = areas at high risk............. 302 Fig. 15.4 Framework for assessment of Ecosystem Services....................... 304 Fig. 16.1 Five-step methodology for the management of the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage............................................................... 315 Fig. 16.2 Diachronic analysis and timeline pf the plans regarding the urban district of Pescaiola, Arezzo. At the bottom: (A) historic image of the silo; (B) photo of the urban context (year 2001); (C) and (D) photo of the silo (year 2016)................. 320 Fig. 16.3 Architectural survey of the grain silo of Arezzo........................... 322 Fig. 16.4 Stakeholder analysis and classification for the grain silo of Arezzo....................................................................................... 323 Fig. 16.5 Histogram of the preferences for the different alternatives (Si) for the eight cases. The rankings are expressed by the indicator benefits/costs....................................................... 330 Fig. 17.1 Modal share in Italy (%)............................................................... 339 Fig. 17.2 The percentage of motorization of Italian cities (cars for 100 inhabitants).............................................................. 340 Fig. 17.3 Trends in bike paths and lanes (km/100 km2 land) in 48 Italian cities.......................................................................... 344 Fig. 18.1 Natural reserves of Castel Volturno.............................................. 352 Fig. 18.2 Bike sharing in the city of Lecce.................................................. 360

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Angola – provinces, municipalities, comunas, and population, 2014.................................................................. 18 Table 2.2 Municipal competences by sector.............................................. 34 Table 2.3 Municipal assembly: number of elected members by size of the municipality...................................................................... 38 Table 2.4 Number of municipal secretaries................................................ 39 Table 3.1 Main structural data of local municipalities in Hungary: 1990, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2017.................................................... 55 Table 3.2 Percentile rank of Hungary on selected ranking lists among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank)............................................................................ 60 Table 4.1 Breakdown of Hungarian cities and towns based on their population, 2017......................................................................... 72 Table 5.1 Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse from the global level........................................ 99 Table 5.2 Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse from the regional level..................................... 100 Table 5.3 Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse.......................................................................... 101 Table 5.4 Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse from the national level..................................... 103 Table 5.5 Approaches to the metropolitan issue in global urban policies for the New Urban Agenda........................................... 104 Table 6.1 Classification of attitudes of municipality, city and county leaders............................................................... 129 Table 7.1 Basic and additional criteria for inclusion of the cities and municipalities in Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb.............. 151

ix

x

Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 8.7 Table 8.8

List of Tables

Adapted OECD geographical area typology.............................. 161 Spain: Multilevel, multispatial and subnational governance...... 165 Spain: Main forms of inter-municipal cooperation.................... 166 Size of Spain’s municipalities 2016........................................... 167 Trends by functional classification............................................. 170 Trends by type of service provision............................................ 171 Trends by geographical classification......................................... 171 Recent regional trends in number of Mancomunidades............. 172

Table 16.1 Definition and scoring system of the attributes for the design phase of the MADA........................................................ 326 Table 16.2 Definition and scoring system of the attributes for the design phase of the MADA........................................................ 328 Table 16.3 Scores and weights of the attributes (xi) of the MADA.  Each attribute is assessed with reference to the four scenarios (Si) and weighted by four stakeholders (LG, OHP, RED and R).............................................................. 328 Table 17.1 Table 17.2 Table 17.3

Total car accidents in Italy.......................................................... 340 The congestion level of cities in Italy......................................... 341 Mode of transport used most often in Europe (%)..................... 342

Table 18.1 Table 18.2 Table 18.3

Driver–pressure analysis............................................................. 354 Pressures estimated for the Castel Volturno case study.............. 355 Pressures estimated for the Lecce case study............................. 355

Chapter 1

Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction Carlos Nunes Silva and Anna Trono

Abstract  The chapter provides an overview of the process that lead to the Habitat III Conference in 2016 and to the New Urban Agenda. Among other aspects of this half-century long process, the book shows how local government became increasingly a critical tier of government in the implementation of the global urban and development agendas. This centrality in the policy process of these global agendas requires a local government system with significant levels of local autonomy. This organizational, functional, and financial autonomy of local government do not exist in numerous countries, in particular in developing countries, while in others, namely in developed countries, there are signs of a move back towards recentralization, which places in risk the implementation of the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda. This introductory chapter ends with a brief presentation of the book structure, its main parts, and chapters in each of them, highlighting the rationale behind the organization of the book. Keywords  Global Urban Agendas · Sustainable Development · Local Government · Local Autonomy · New Urban Agenda

The world urban population reached 50% in 2007 and in 2019 55.7% of the estimated 8 billion inhabitants, with some of the least urbanized countries or regions experiencing the fastest annual urbanization rates. In certain regions of the world, as is the case of Africa, the urban transition is expected to occur in the coming decades, with the urban population in Africa reaching 50.9% in 2035. The global urban population is expected to get to 68.4% in 2050, a proportion that is approximately the

C. N. Silva (*) Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] A. Trono University of Salento, Lecce, Italy © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_1

1

2

C. N. Silva and A. Trono

reverse of what existed in 1950 when the world urban population was estimated to be 29.6% and the rural population 70.4% (United Nations 2018, 2019). The growing concentration of the population in cities poses important challenges for sustainable development, including inequality, social and economic exclusion and environmental deterioration. There are very large deficits in the provision of basic infrastructure and services, and there are also many examples of cities which meet few of the criteria for sustainable development. However, urbanization also offers opportunities for economic growth, social and cultural development and environmental protection. This explains the growing interest, by national governments and international multilateral institutions, in the contribution cities can make for sustainable urban development. Cities enable economic agglomeration on many levels, which lowers the costs of achieving positive outcomes. These effects depend on local and urban government taking advantage of those more favourable conditions. With the world becoming increasingly urban, the governance of cities and other human settlements require new approaches and new tools. The New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017) adopted at the Habitat III Conference, the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development, in Quito, Ecuador, in October 2016, and other global urban agendas as well, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015 (United Nations 2015), and the Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015, in the Convention Framework on Climate Change (United Nations 2016), are some of the new sources of guidance that can help steer the urbanization process and its social, economic and environmental outcomes. In other words, the urban condition will be shaped to some extent by the way each country and city adopts and localizes the principles and goals of these new global agendas. The New Urban Agenda (NUA) provides a set of principles and goals that aim to guide the different stakeholders engaged in the urbanization process to deal with the challenges confronting cities and at the same time to take advantage of the transformative potential that cities and other urban settlements can provide. The New Urban Agenda has 175 paragraphs organized into two parts: the ‘Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements for All’ (paragraphs 1–22) and the ‘Quito Implementation Plan for the New Urban Agenda’ (paragraphs 23–175). The Quito Declaration comprises three sections: Our Shared Vision, Our Principles and Commitments and Call for Action. The Quito Implementation Plan has the following sections: Transformative commitments for sustainable urban development, Effective implementation and Follow-up and review. The NUA seeks to mainstream urbanization into the global development agendas up to 2036. It constitutes thus a paradigm shift by recognizing a new correlation between urbanization and sustainable development. And it does this by setting out standards and principles for the planning, construction, development, management and improvement of urban areas for each of its five main pillars of implementation: national urban policies, urban legislation and regulations, urban planning and design, local economy and municipal finance and local implementation. Achieving these standards and targets requires strong institutional capacity, both at national and local levels. This calls for the

1  Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction

3

existence, at the local level, of local government with strong organizational, functional and financial autonomy, and capacity to initiate policies as well, conditions that are critical for the localization of SDGs and other goals. The New Urban Agenda (NUA) identifies the main challenges and opportunities that urban administrations must tackle in order to create cities that are inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. The NUA indicates standards for the achievement of sustainable urban development, finding new ways to build, manage and live in cities (United Nations 2017). The NUA recognizes the economic importance of cities, as well as the possibility of providing better living conditions and a high quality of life. The NUA also recognizes the city as important for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases. In sum, the vision and principles of the New Urban Agenda can be summarized in the following points: cities and human settlements must be for everyone, ensuring the ‘right to the city’; the right to adequate housing, along with other functional systems; gender equality; accessible urban mobility for all; disaster management and resilience; sustainable consumption; long-term integrated urban planning and design; sustainable local finance systems; cooperation of all levels of government; and the participation of citizens and other stakeholders (United Nations 2017). The New Urban Agenda follows a long list of past global development agendas. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment that took place in 1972 in Stockholm is the first global conference to address the issue of environmental degradation (United Nations 1972), a process that later led to the notion of sustainable development. A turning point in the way the environment was perceived, this first global conference on the environment was followed two decades later by the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, as the first Conference on Sustainable Development (United Nations 1993). The Agenda 21 adopted in this conference gave to local government a central role in the attainment of sustainable development, seen as achieving economic, environmental and social development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own, as defined in ‘Our Common Future’, the 1987 Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987), through a process known as Local Agenda 21, in which the municipalities played an important role, engaging the local community in the decision-making process. This was followed 10  years later by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg, South Africa (United Nations 2002), a follow-up of the first conference in Rio, and a decade after that, in 2012, by the Earth Summit (RIO +20) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In the turn of the millennium, the United Nations set eight development aims, the Millennium Development Goals (Sachs et al. 2005). These Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were closely related to the 1996 Habitat Agenda as they aspired, among other aims, to eradicate poverty (Goal 1) and to ensure environmental sustainability (Goal 7). Urbanization was dealt with in Goal 7, which was divided into three targets (9, 10 and 11), being target 10 (sustainable access to improved water source in urban and rural areas) and target 11 (slum dwellers) directly related to urban issues. In all these global development

4

C. N. Silva and A. Trono

agendas, subnational tiers of government were seen as key stakeholders being therefore local and urban governance perceived as important tools for addressing the challenges of urban growth and the needs associated with the urban transition in a global scale. If it is true that these United Nations (UN) summits on environment and development contributed with findings, such as the evidence provided of unsustainable urban development trends, or through the identification of spatial planning as a key tool to tackle the urbanization problems that had already been identified, it was in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, in particular with the Agenda 2030 (United Nations 2015) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with its 17 goals and 179 targets, in particular SDG11, that a clear difference was introduced in the way urbanization and cities were seen by these UN global development agendas. Compared to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to the Rio + 20, the New Urban Agenda (NUA) recognizes urbanization as one of the key forces of socio-economic transformation and places it in the centre of its vision of sustainable development, a paradigm shift in the way the contribution of cities and urban governance for sustainable development was considered by the key stakeholders. Somehow parallel to the conferences on the environment, the United Nations held also global conferences on housing and human settlements with 4-year difference. Two decades after the first Habitat Conference in Vancouver, in 1976, the II Habitat Conference in 1996, in Istanbul, adopted the Habitat Agenda and the Istanbul Plan of Action. One of the goals of the 1996 Habitat Agenda was the provision of proper shelter for all and sustainable human settlements in a world that was becoming increasingly urbanized. Part of the preparatory work for the 2016 Habitat III Conference  – the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development  – consisted in an evaluation of the implementation of these 1996 Habitat Agenda goals in each country based on national reports and on multiple multilateral meetings over several years before the meeting in Quito, Ecuador, in October 2016. These assessments showed, among other aspects, the existence of significant progress in key socio-economic variables but at the same time the existence of many regions in the world that were lying far from the goals and targets that had been defined in the Habitat Agenda and in the Istanbul Plan of Action. These findings pointed to the need of new approaches to the urban question. The outcome of this process was the adoption of the New Urban Agenda. The implementation of these principles is being followed and monitored by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme in regular reports that inform about the progress achieved in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the urban dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets (UN-HABITAT 2019). In this context, local and urban governance gained increased recognition as the right institutional setting for the implementation of these United Nations global agendas, on the Environment, on Development, on Housing and Human Settlements or more recently on Sustainable Development. Local government acting along the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda will have a decisive role and a significant potential to impact positively in the way urbanization will develop in the coming decades and how it will impact in the environment and in the current social

1  Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction

5

conditions. If the principles of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) are well adjusted to the specific local conditions and well implemented, urbanization can certainly be, as expected by all those engaged in the NUA process, a powerful tool for sustainable urban development in any region of the world. However, as happened with the implementation of previous global development agendas, the implementation of the New Urban Agenda may be affected negatively by insufficient funding or by inadequate institutional frameworks, as is potentially the case in highly centralized countries, in countries with low levels of administrative decentralization in which local government has little organizational, functional and financial autonomy. Local and national governments need to rethink the way cities and other urban settlements are planned, built and managed, as is clearly said in the New Urban Agenda final document. The aim of the book is thus to explore and to discuss the responses, in the broad field of local and urban governance, to the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) adopted by the United Nations in 2016 in the Habitat III Conference  – the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development. What follows is a collection of selected case studies, illustrative of different contexts, characterized by different types of needs and priorities, a contribution to the most needed debate about the implementation of the SDGs and the NUA goals in different regions of the world. How relevant are the NUA principles for sustainable urban development in the different national and local contexts? What tools should be used for the implementation of these principles in different political, social, economic and environmental contexts? What changes are being introduced in  local government institutional models in order to better prepare cities to fulfil the principles of the New Urban Agenda and to attain its goals? What may explain trends towards centralization in some countries in flagrant contradiction with fundamental principles of the New Urban Agenda? And what impacts will that have in the capacity of local government to address the challenges of urbanization in the coming decades? What institutional models for specific urban areas, such as the large metropolitan areas, in both developed and developing countries? And what strategies and institutional models in the case of shrinking cities? In sum, the current institutional reforms of local government, the planning reforms and specific urban policies implemented in some countries recently, and how they will potentially affect the localization of the SDG11 and the implementation of the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda, are the issues addressed in the following chapters. The book is organized into two main parts. The first part with eight chapters deals with issues of decentralization and local government reform, with case studies in Europe and in Africa. The New Urban Agenda explicitly refers regions, local and metropolitan planning and governance as means of implementing sustainable urban development. Debate on local and metropolitan governance has been dominated by perspectives based or focused on western countries situations. The chapters in the book take into account the specific historical and political background of the countries examined. The second part with nine chapters examines and discusses specific sectors, including spatial planning, citizen participation, smart and sustainable urban mobility, cultural heritage management, Local Agenda 21 and

6

C. N. Silva and A. Trono

implementation of SDGs in Africa. All these ‘sectors’ selected and included in the book are critical for sustainable urban development, and therefore the analysis of these case studies sheds new light on the constraints lying ahead in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda principles in countries with different local government institutional strength and therefore with different local and urban governance culture. In the first part of the book, the first three chapters examine and discuss decentralization processes and local government reforms, exploring the potential or actual impact of these institutional reforms for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda principles and for sustainable urban development. The first of these three chapters deals with a case of decentralization, while the other two chapters address a case of recentralization, with potentially opposite consequences for the promotion of the Sustainable Development Goals and for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. The first of these chapters, Chap. 2 ‘Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola’, examines the engagement of the government of Angola in the formulation of the New Urban Agenda adopted in 2016 in the Habitat III Conference, discusses the reform of local government announced in 2018 and explores the need to localize the SDG11 and the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda in developing countries, such as Angola, highlighting the need for more decentralization and for the reinforcement of local government autonomy in Angola in order to allow the implementation of the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda. The two following chapters deal with the case of Hungary, a country in a process of recentralization, which places new constraints and raises new challenges to local government in the country and to its ability to contribute positively to the ongoing global efforts towards a sustainable urban development. In the first of these two chapters, ‘Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance’, Ilona Pálné Kovács deals with the Hungarian territorial governance, introduces the Hungarian territorial reforms and shows that the changes identified in the last three decades are embedded into global processes of territorial governance. And as the empirical evidence collected and examined by the author shows, the principles and the goals of the New Urban Agenda cannot be addressed without the correct understanding of the paradigm shift that took place. As Ilona Pálné Kovács concludes, Hungary seems to need more time to adapt to these new challenges, a situation similar to that found in other countries experiencing similar centralizing developments, which constitutes undoubtedly an important constraint to the full implementation of the New Urban Agenda principles in Hungary. In the second of the two chapters on Hungary – ‘Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy Process: The Road from Governance to Government’ – Edit Somlyódy-Pfeil examines and discusses the impact of the political and administrative recentralization process, responsible for the reduction of the autonomy of local and regional government. The chapter sheds new light on the tools that the state uses to interfere more and more with the autonomy of local authorities. The findings suggest that in a state as Hungary, the possibility to decentralize and to develop multilevel decentralization is lower, which puts at risk the capacity of local

1  Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction

7

government to fulfil its expected role in the localization of SDG11 and in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. The next two chapters explore constraints, challenges, opportunities and trends in institutional reforms in metropolitan areas. The metropolitan dimension is also addressed in other chapters of the book, besides these two, as is the case of Chap. 9 which is also focused in municipal cooperation and regional tier. The first of these two chapters discusses the case of Italy and the second that of Poland. Simonetta Armondi, in Chap. 5  – ‘What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing Discourses on Governance, Scales, and Spaces’ – offers a theoretically grounded perspective of how the metropolitan issue is conceived as a kind of regionalism. These spaces are not a neutral outcome of the political process, and as the author argues, the object of analysis, in what concerns subnational governments, is not always a unitary phenomenon nor do they always represent an ontologically well-defined category. In the second of these chapters on metropolitan government – Chap. 6 ‘Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist Perspective in Central and Eastern Europe’  – Lukasz Mikula explores and discusses the possibility to implement the New Urban Agenda in the field of metropolitan planning and governance in post-socialist countries in Europe. This is done through the analysis of the Poznan Metropolitan Area, which is one of the most advanced examples of bottom-up spatial planning and urban governance in Poland. One of the challenges confronting the implementation of the New Urban Agenda is the need to overcome city-suburbs conflicts. In Chap. 7 – ‘Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Spatial Development’, Jadranka Veselic Bruvo and Martina Jakovcic define criteria for spatial coverage of the urban agglomeration of Zagreb, a new spatial planning category, the ‘urban area’, introduced in the context of the Croatian Regional Development Act of 2015. The chapter discusses the potential of the New Urban Agenda as a tool for the governance of spatial and socio-economic development of Croatia. The New Urban Agenda is also about the existence of structures that can foster collaboration between government institutions in neighbouring geographical areas. Cooperation and association are critical dimensions for a good local and urban governance. It is not only about the coordination of activities in different policy sectors. In Chap. 8 – ‘Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience Amongst Inter-municipal Associations in Spain’  – Tony Gore explores a recent attempt of Spanish government to rationalize the local administration landscape by reducing the number of voluntary inter-municipal associations via an upward transfer of powers, a process confronted with resistance from regional and municipal entities. In Chap. 9, ‘Regional Reorganisation in Italy: Challenges and Changes’, Anna Trono examines the process of transfer of competences and responsibilities from the provinces to the metropolitan cities, large conurbations and municipal associations outside these conurbations, with reference to the European ‘model’ indicated by the European Urban Agenda of 2016, which is founded on a new distribution of roles and coalitions of actors, functional homogeneity and the sharing of urban assets.

8

C. N. Silva and A. Trono

The second part of the book, with nine chapters, addresses trends, constraints, challenges and opportunities in different ‘sectors’, all critical for any sustainable urban development strategy. Chapter 10 deals with metropolitan planning issues; Chaps. 11 and 12 with citizen participation; Chap. 13 with the impact of cuts on local government resources and on its capacity to act; Chap. 14 looks specifically at the African case; Chaps. 15 and 16 deal with cultural heritage; and Chaps. 17 and 18 deal with smart and sustainable urban mobility. The first chapter in this second part deals with metropolitan planning. In ‘The 2016–2018 Milan Metropolitan Strategic Plan: Features and Limits of an Innovative Tool Within the Local Government Framework’, Renzo Riboldazzi explores the adequacy of the strategic planning instruments introduced recently in Italy and how they can operate adequately in articulation with urban and regional planning tools. The empirical analysis is focused or based on the case study of the Milan Metropolitan Strategic Plan approved in 2016. As the author shows, there are numerous critical aspects in the legal framework which will undermine the potential positive effects of this new planning approach and its usefulness for the implementation of the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda. The following two chapters deal with citizen participation, a critical issue in sustainable urban development strategies and in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda in particular. Maria Cristina Antonucci explores in the following chapter – ‘Citizens Committees and Civic Participatory Tools in Urban Governance in Rome: Before and After the New Urban Agenda’ – real and virtual instruments of citizen participation in the city of Rome before and after the adoption of the New Urban Agenda by the United Nations. Through this analysis the book provides new insights on the application in Rome of civic participatory models proposed by the New Urban Agenda for urban governance. Mariusz Sienkiewicz, in the following chapter  – ‘Problems and Determinants of Public Participation in the Creation of Public Space’ – examines and discusses the role of public participation in the process of spatial planning and area development in Poland and discusses the significance of urban policy assumptions set out in the 2016 New Urban Agenda and in the Polish regulations in the field of spatial planning. Alan Patterson offers in Chap. 13  – ‘Sidelining Sustainable Development: Structural Constraints on the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda in the UK’ – a historical overview of the process of hollowing out the local state in recent decades, through budgets cuts, reduction in the functions and powers of local government as well as several changes in the scope, form and organizational culture of local government. Even if the events that support the analysis took place well before the New Urban Agenda, the findings and insights are useful for the current process of institutional reforms going on in several countries and which might well end up in similar situation as that described and discussed in this case, which would constrain the implementation of the SDG11 and the goals of the New Urban Agenda. In Chap. 14 – ‘The Future of Urban Policy in Africa: Localization of SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda’ – Remy Sietchiping and John Omwamba look specifically at the African case exploring how SDGs and the New Urban Agenda can help guide better the urbanization process in the continent. The localization of SDGs will

1  Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction

9

certainly shape the way cities and other human settlements will become increasingly inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable in Africa. According to the New Urban Agenda, the safeguard of cultural heritage sites is a key action in the global commitment for sustainable urban development. Local and city governments have thus the duty to promote local heritage through people-­ centred cultural policies. This point is addressed in the following two chapters. In Chap. 15 – ‘Payment of Ecosystem Services for Cultural Heritage: Contributions from the New Urban Agenda’ – Valentina Castronuovo explores the role of ecosystems services in attaining sustainable development by meeting the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda. It is focused in the case of Italy, a country with a rich and diversified natural and cultural heritage although with numerous problems in its management, well exemplified by the case study in Taranto, Puglia, Italy. As the author shows, the payment for ecosystem services applied to cultural heritage, similarly to what is already done with natural heritage, can be useful in order to combine practices of local economic development with the need to safeguard heritage. In the second of these chapters on heritage, ‘A Stakeholder Analysis for the Adaptive Reuse Assessment of Architectural Heritage: Towards an Integrated Approach’, Francesca Giuliani, Ana De Falco and Luisa Santini explore and discuss the numerous challenges with which local government is confronted when a policy of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is adopted. As the authors show, this is a highly complex problem with the decision-making process constrained by numerous conflicting objectives and conditions. The authors identify an interdisciplinary methodology to address adaptive reuse by combining several techniques, which has been tested in a case study in Arezzo, Italy, in an industrial building listed as a national heritage site. The chapter shows how to evaluate the adaptability of a building for new uses and how to manage the adaptive reuses of historic buildings according to the principles of the New Urban Agenda. In the last two chapters, the book discusses a critical issue for sustainable urban development and therefore for the successful implementation of the New Urban Agenda: smart and sustainable urban mobility. Donatella Privitera discusses in Chap. 17 – ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility and Local Governance Practices: The Case of Cycling in the Italian Cities’ – among other aspects, how sustainable mobility is associated with walkability and cycling, which together promote and improve health and well-being. Donatella Privitera argues in the chapter that urban cycling, by increasing the supply of urban transport, assists in the transition to sustainable mobility requiring nonetheless design measures to improve road safety. As the author shows, a cycling culture is needed in our contemporary cities, and this can in part be promoted or enhanced by both central and local government policies. This is illustrated through the analysis of cities in Italy, with different mobility cultures, urban transport policies and different levels of infrastructures for cycling. In the last chapter  – ‘Smart Mobility and Sustainable Tourism in Urban Areas: Two Case Studies in the South of Italy’ – Gabriella Trombino and Anna Trono explore and discuss the effects of sustainable tourism on other socio-economic sectors and on the environment. In particular, the authors discuss the role of mobility and the quality of urban transport, as one of the main drivers impacting the environment, on

10

C. N. Silva and A. Trono

sustainable urban development strategies. Gabriella Trombino and Anna Trono analyse the relations between mobility and tourism, with a special focus on technological solutions associated with the concept of smart cities, and do this through the analysis of two case studies. By providing informed accounts of current reforms in  local government, on recent developments in several key urban policies and on changes perceived as decisive for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and for sustainable urban development, the book is of interest for students, researchers and practitioners in the broad field of local government and urban studies. The empirical evidence and the insights provided in the book reinforce the New Urban Agenda idea that the world needs to rethink the way cities and other urban settlements are planned, constructed, developed, managed and improved. Local and urban governance need to be reimagined and reinvented if the challenges confronting the move towards sustainable urban development are to be addressed effectively. As recognized in the New Urban Agenda and in other recent global development agendas, local and global challenges are increasingly interconnected, which calls for a greater role for local and urban governments in the planning and management of the city and other human settlements. While many initiatives have been launched by national governments, many others are the responsibility of local government. The obstacles are numerous and include significant infrastructural deficits, namely, in water supply, urban waste disposal and air pollution, and insufficient financial capacity of local government and in numerous countries also a limited capacity for central-local cooperation. As the book indicates, there is divergence in the current reforms of local government, with processes of decentralization in some countries and recentralization in others impacting in different ways in the capacity of local government to implement the principles of the New Urban Agenda. The same occurs at the metropolitan and regional scales. These somehow contradictory trends are due to different historical, political and economic national contexts, and each of them has a different potential to impact on urbanization and on sustainable development. In sum, in order to meet the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 and the goals of the New Urban Agenda, local government must be more proactive, its strategic vision and planning capacity strengthen, and citizen engagement in the co-­ governance of the city ought to be encouraged. Local and urban governance need to be focused and centred on the transition to low-carbon and resilient cities but also on the ‘right to the city’. And for that the principles of the New Urban Agenda are surely a useful set of policy guidelines for the planning, building and management of cities and other human settlements. The speed of these transformative processes and the unknown of its outcomes recommend further and continuous research in the different regions of the world, in the North and in the South, in developed and in developing countries as well.

1  Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda: An Introduction

11

References Sachs J et al (2005) Investing in development. A practical plan to achieve the millennium development goals. Earthscan, London UN-HABITAT (2019) Country activities report 2019. Supporting the new urban agenda. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi United Nations (1972) Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment. United Nations – United Nations Environment Programme, New York United Nations (1993) Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. United Nations, New York United Nations (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002. United Nations, New York United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York United Nations (2016) Report of the conference of the parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 United Nations (2017) New urban agenda. United Nations, Quito United Nations (2018) World urbanization prospects 2018. United Nations, New York United Nations (2019) World population prospects 2019. United Nations, New York World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future (‘Brundtland report’). United Nations, New York

Part I

Chapter 2

Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola Carlos Nunes Silva

Abstract  The New Urban Agenda adopted by the United Nations in the HABITAT-­ III Conference in 2016 assigns to local governments an important role in the implementation of their principles and goals. In the case of Angola, notwithstanding the fact that the country had been engaged in the preparation of this global urban agenda, local self-government has not been implemented yet. The chapter examines the engagement of the Angolan government in the formulation of the New Urban Agenda adopted in 2016 in the HABITAT-III Conference, discusses the reform of the local government announced in 2018, and explores the need to localize the SDG11 and the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda. Keywords  New Urban Agenda · SDG11 · Decentralization · Local Government Reform · Angola

2.1  Introduction Decentralization in Africa has been expanding since the beginning of the 1990s, in part associated with the introduction of multi-party political systems at the national level (Ribot 2002). In some of these countries, sub-national tiers of government, at the municipal but also at the regional level, are now elected (Erk 2014; Dickovick and Riedl 2010; Tordoff 1994; Silva 2016a, 2016b). Reforms aiming to increase the organizational, functional, and fiscal autonomy of sub-national tiers of government have been implemented in the post-independence period, with different degrees of success (Burke 1969; Brosio 2000; Wunsch 2000, 2001; Olowu 2003; Silva 2016a; Gumede et  al. 2019). Nonetheless, despite these positive changes, local C. N. Silva (*) Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_2

15

16

C. N. Silva

self-­government in Africa continues underdeveloped when compared with local government in other regions of the world and does not seem to be able to fulfil the role sub-national tiers of government ought to play in the implementation of the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda (NUA) established in Quito, Ecuador, in the HABITAT-­III Conference in 2016 (United Nations 2017). Angola became independent on 11 November 1975 after the last liberation war that lasted from 1961 until 19741. Angola has an area of 1,246,700 sq. km and had a population of 25,789,024 inhabitants in 2014.2 The country is in the position 147 in the Human Development Index (HDI) ranking in 2016. The population with adequate access to housing was very low in 1996 (8%) increasing to 24% in 2012, a decade after the end of the civil war. The percentage of people living in slums was estimated at 38% in 1996 and 32% in 2012. The percentage of population with access to safe water was 30% in the same period in 1996 and 65% in 2012, with access to adequate sanitation was 60% in 1996 and 70% in 2012, and with access to regular waste collection was 7% in 1996 and 28% in 2012. These figures are expected to improve substantially in the next years according to the National Development Plan for the Period 2018–2022 (Ministério da Economia e Planeamento 2018), which will put in practice the commitments held by the Government of Angola in the Long Term Strategy Angola 20253 (Ministério do Planeamento 2007), in the Agenda 2063 of the African Union (African Union Commission 2015), in the SADC 2015–2020 Strategic Indicative Plan for Regional Development4 (Comunidade de Desenvolvimento da África Austral 2015), and in the context of the UN Agenda 2030 (United Nations 2015a). Angola shares with the other four Lusophone African countries a long common colonial past that started in the 15th–16th century and the respective colonial administrative culture5. Since independence, there have been two main periods in the political history of Angola: the first Republic or Revolutionary Period from 1975 to the 1990s and the Second Republic or Democratic Period since then. Angola experienced a long civil war from 1975 to 2002. The new Constitution adopted in 1992 and revised in 2010 introduced a multi-party democracy, replacing the socialist type of political regime adopted when the country became independent in the mid-1970s, and established the basis for a decentralized political and administrative system by

 - Wheeler and Pelissier (2011) offer a well-documented introduction to the history of Angola.  - Basic demographic statistical information for the colonial period is available in: INE 1945, 1946, 1973. For the post-colonial period in INE-Angola 2016. For data on electors, see: Ministério da Administração do Território (2017). 3  - ELP  - Estratégia de Longo Prazo Angola 2025. This long-term strategy had already been reflected in the previous National Development Plan for the Period 2013–2017 (Ministério do Planeamento e do Desenvolvimento Territorial 2012). 4  - RISDP - Plano Estratégico Indicativo de Desenvolvimento da Comunidade, 2015–2020. 5  - For an informed account of the local administration in the colonial period in Angola until the early twentieth century see, among others: Moura (1913); Ulrich (1908); Vasconcellos (1921), Caetano (1934). The relevant colonial legislation is published in Boletim Oficial de Angola (several years). 1 2

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

17

establishing a local self-government system6. The country has thus lived in a situation of constitutional default since then, or at least since 2002 when the civil war ended. Sub-national government in Angola comprises three tiers: 18  units in the regional level (‘Provinces’), 164 municipalities, and 518 sub-municipal units (‘Comunas’). All these sub-national tiers are currently still a mere form of administrative de-concentration, since they are units of the state local administration (SLA), despite the changes that occurred in the Constitution. This chapter examines and discusses the decentralization reform in Angola, focusing in particular on the proposals approved in 2018, and on its potential impact on the implementation of a much-needed New Urban Agenda in Angola. The aim is therefore to explore the nature of the decentralization process in the post-colonial period in Angola and to explore how the local government reform proposed in 2018 relates to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017). For that, the chapter addresses two research questions: What was the type of local government in Angola before the recent decentralization reform? and What will change in the type and in the role of the local government in Angola, namely in its capacity to implement the New Urban Agenda, as a result of these reforms? The chapter is organized in seven sections, including this Introduction and the Conclusion. The next offers a presentation of the local government system in Angola; the third examines the engagement of the Angolan government in the formulation of the New Urban Agenda adopted in 2016 in the HABITAT-III Conference; the fourth deals with the reform of the State Local Administration in Angola; the fifth explores the local government reform announced in 2018; followed in the next by an analysis of the local government system in Angola that will emerge from this reform and how it can be related to the localization of the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG11) in Angola.

2.2  Local Government System in Angola Local administration in Angola, in particular since the 1869 Rebelo da Silva reform, followed the same organizational principles adopted in the then Colonial Portuguese Empire in Africa (Silva 2016a). Apart from a short period during the Republican democratic regime in the 1910s and 1920s, local administration in Angola has always been a mere form of administrative de-concentration. Even during that short democratic period, elected local councils did not cover the entire territory of the colony, and elections were restricted to the European colonists and to a reduced number of ‘assimilated’ Africans. At the end of the colonial period, the administrative structure of Angola comprised a regional tier, the district, 16 units in total, the municipal tier, 158  units in total, and a sub-municipal tier, the parish, this one a 6  - The relevant legislation post-independence is published in Diário da República - Órgão Oficial da República de Angola (several years). The post-independence decentralization process in the five Lusophone African countries is examined in more detail in Silva 2016a.

18

C. N. Silva

mere administrative circumscription without real capacity to administer the territory. After the independence, the first Constitution did not consider any sub-national tier of local self-government but only forms of administrative de-concentration. Currently, sub-national tiers of local administration in Angola comprise 18 Provinces, 162 municipalities, and 559 sub-municipal entities, the comunas (Table 2.1). Angola shares, as mentioned before, a long colonial local administration culture with the other Lusophone African countries that also became independent in the mid-1970s. However, if in some of the other countries the colonial local administration system was fully implemented in the entire territory of the country, as was the case in the two island states of Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe, that was not the case in Angola. In the last years of the colonial war in the early 1970s, in municipalities in the border region, where the military conflict was more intense, the civil administration was replaced by the military administration. In addition to this, the size of several of these units was such that no effective administration and service provision could ever be expected considering the human and financial resources allocated to each of these units. This means a system that formally was highly centralized, but which in practice was far from being implemented on the ground and far away from being fully responsive to the needs of the local constituents (Silva

Table 2.1  Angola – provinces, municipalities, comunas, and population, 2014 Provinces Cabinda Zaire Uíge Luanda Cuanza Norte Cuanza Sul Malanje Lunda Norte Benguela Huambo Bié Moxico Cuando Cubango Namibe Huíla Cunene Lunda Sul Bengo Angola (total)

# Municipalities 4 6 16 7 10 12 14 10 10 11 9 9 9 5 14 6 4 6 162

# Comunas 12 25 47 32 31 36 52 25 38 37 39 30 31 14 52 20 14 23 559

Population 716,076 594,428 1,483,118 6,945,386 443,386 1,881,873 986,363 862,566 2,231,385 2,019,555 1,455,255 758,568 534,002 495,326 2,497,422 990,087 537,587 356,641 25,789,024

Source: INE-Angola (2016). Censo 2014. Resultados definitivos do recenseamento geral da população e da habitação de Angola 2014. Luanda: Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Author’s own elaboration)

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

19

2016b)7. The size of the country and the political process that followed the independence are in part responsible for the differences that we currently find between Angola and the other countries that were once colonized by Portugal. In the post-independence period, there have been several important changes (Santos 2012a, 2012b; Feijó 2014). Angola is a unitary state and this has not changed since independence, and no form of political regionalization has been considered, not even for the case of Cabinda, the enclave in the north of the country in which a pro-independence political movement continues active. The political and administrative system changed in the early 1990s. The single party political system adopted in the first Constitution was replaced by a multi-party political system in the Constitution of 1992, and the administrative centralization, associated with the single party system, was replaced by a formal system of local self-government, which however is not yet implemented (Alexandrino 2010, 2013). Also important in this process was the opening of major economic sectors to the private initiative, a clear shift towards a market economy by comparison to the state-controlled economy that prevailed in the period of the first Republic. The non-implementation of the local government system meant that Angola continued to be in practice a highly centralized country with only mere forms of administrative de-concentration in both local and regional tiers. This high centralization in Angola is well-expressed in the fact that in the last years, on average around 80% of the national budget is expended in the province of Luanda, where the capital is, and only 20% in the other 17 provinces. The 2010 Constitution, the first revision after the end of the civil war in 2002, marks the beginning of a new period in Angola, which may perhaps justify the name the third Republic, to signal the differences with the previous constitutional period and the consolidate peace period that the country has been living since then. In fact, with the end of the civil war in 2002, Angola experienced political conditions for the implementation of a true reform of local government, an important condition for the development of the New Urban Agenda. However, in practice, there was insufficient political will to implement a system of local self-government in the country in those years after 2010. All legal acts necessary for the implementation of a true system of local self-government were already prepared and finalized around 2012, with most of them being prepared since the mid-1990s. The measures taken in 2016 concerning the reorganization of the State Local Administration (Law 7/2016; Law 13/2016; and Law 15/2016) and the rejection of the proposals from the opposition, presented in 2014 by UNITA, revealed the lack of an overall plan or vision for sub-­national government in Angola, thus persisting in the publication of dispersed and apparently not articulated laws. The reform of sub-national administration followed therefore two different paths, instead of a straight-forward process, as allowed by the 2010 Constitution. First, it started with the reorganization of the state local administration, a process that was intended mainly for the creation of the conditions that would later allow the 7  - An analysis of the colonial period and the changes in the early post-colonial period is provided in Chap. 2 ‘Local Government and Urban Governance in Lusophone African Countries: From Colonial Centralism to Post-Colonial Slow Decentralization’ (Silva 2016b).

20

C. N. Silva

implementation on the ground of the local self-government system and which was already underway even before the 2010 Constitution. Second came the implementation of a true system of local self-government, a process that experienced a substantial impulse after the 2017 Presidential election as examined in the following sections. This long established perspective was again restated in the National Strategic Plan for Territorial Administration for 2015–2025 (Ministério da Administração do Território 2015) that guided the decisions taken in the years that followed. In the meantime, during this period, the country was engaged in the preparation of the HABITAT-II Agenda and more recently also in the HABITAT-III agenda, processes in which local self-government seems to have been ignored by the Angolan government against all the best practices available across the world already at the time. In other words, the reform of sub-national tiers of government and administration and the current reform for the implementation of a true system of local self-government seem to have followed parallel and unrelated courses of action in comparison to the engagement of the country with the UN-HABITAT global urban agenda, as examined in the following section of this chapter.

2.3  The New Urban Agenda in Angola The New Urban Agenda (NUA) adopted in the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, HABITAT-III Conference, held on 17–20 October 2016, in Quito, Ecuador, follows previous and similar commitments by the Heads of State and Government related to housing and human settlements, as described and discussed in Cociña et al. (2019). The NUA defines among its principles and commitments the obligation of working towards an urban paradigm shift for a New Urban Agenda which, among other aspects, ‘recognize the leading role of national Governments, as appropriate, in the definition and implementation of inclusive and effective urban policies and legislation for sustainable urban development, and the equally important contributions of sub-national and local governments, as well as civil society and other relevant stakeholders, in a transparent and accountable manner’ (United Nations 2017). Besides the ample recognition of the role of local government considered in almost all policy sectors mentioned in the NUA, the Agenda explicitly refers the building of the urban governance structure, recognizing and adopting the principles and strategies contained in the International Guidelines on Decentralization and Strengthening of Local Authorities and the International Guidelines on Access to Basic Services for All issued by the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) in its resolutions 21/3 of 20 April 2007 and 22/8 of 3 April 2009. In addition, the Agenda states the commitment to ‘foster stronger coordination and cooperation among national, sub-national and local governments, including through multilevel consultation mechanisms and by clearly defining the respective competences, tools and resources for each level of government’, as well as ‘support strengthening the capacity of sub-national and local governments to implement effective local and

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

21

metropolitan multilevel governance, across administrative borders, and based on functional territories, ensuring the involvement of sub-national and local governments in decision-making’ (United Nations 2017). The Agenda also recognizes the importance of local government in the follow-up of the NUA by stating ‘the importance of local governments as active partners in the follow up to and review of the New Urban Agenda at all levels and encourage them to develop, jointly with national and sub-national governments, as appropriate, implementable follow-up and review mechanisms at the local level, including through relevant associations and appropriate platforms’ (United Nations 2017). What results from these principles and others across the 175 paragraphs that constitute the Agenda is that sub-national tiers of government, namely local government and the multiple forms of urban governance, are central for the implementation of the principles and guidelines that make up the NUA. However, this does not seem to have been duly considered by the Government of Angola, neither in its approach to the HABITAT-II conference nor in the more recent work developed for the HABITAT-III Conference. This perspective on the importance of local government is absent in all reports produced by the Government of Angola in the context of the HABITAT-II Conference as well as in the statements and reports produced during the preparation of the HABITAT-III Conference (National Committee for Habitat II 1996; Ministry of Public Works and Urban Planning 2001). In her public statement on the third Preparatory Meeting of HABITAT-III, the Minister of Urbanism and Housing referred among other aspects to the fact that the Angolan government contracted with the UN-HABITAT the elaboration of the National Policy of Spatial Planning and Urbanism, whose main principles are aligned with those of the New Urban Agenda (Ministry of Urban Planning and Habitat 2016). Again, the commitment to the New Urban Agenda seems to engage only the central government as there is never an explicitly strong reference to any eventual local government engagement in the formulation or implementation of the New Urban Agenda or the localization of the SGDs as proposed and defended by local government organizations across the world (UCLG 2017, 2018, 2019) and as highlighted in current scholarly and policy debates (Barnett and Parnell 2016; Pieterse et al. 2018), namely in analysis focused on planning (Hague 2018). In the HABITAT-II Agenda, adopted in 1996, the Heads of State and Government pledged two main objectives, namely the promotion of adequate housing for all and sustainable human settlements in an urbanizing world, and committed themselves with an action plan to implement those objectives. Similar commitments were made in the Millennium Declaration, namely the commitment to reduce by half the population without access to safe drinking water and sanitation, among other aspects. Angola subscribed these and other international agreements in this field. However, the country was unable to fulfil all these commitments. In fact, the country was still in a situation of armed conflict, the Angolan civil war, which ended in 2002. Until that year and during almost three decades, Angolan cities were a place of refuge for citizens displaced by the civil war. One of the outcomes was the progressive overcrowding of urban infrastructures. Only after the signing of the peace accord in 2002 was Angola able to start the reconstruction of the country. This period of peace

22

C. N. Silva

coincided with the introduction of a multi-party democracy and economic growth. This was also a period of legislative reform, including the publication of new legislation on administrative decentralization, on local government organization, on spatial planning, among other relevant local policy issues, as examined in the following sections of this chapter. Despite what is in the 1992 Constitution and notwithstanding the measures towards the de-concentration of public administration examined in following sections, the country continued highly centralized. It is therefore not surprising that the local government is missing in the National Program of Urban Development and Housing (PNUH  - Programa Nacional de Urbanismo e Habitação) approved in 2008, being the State, and punctually its de-concentrated local administration, the sole tier of public administration considered. Contrary to  what was common in democratic, decentralized, and developed countries, no particular role was considered for local self-government during the implementation of HABITAT-II Agenda in Angola, as well as in the implementation of other policies intended to promote the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), such as the Water for All program in which the Government of Angola committed to deliver water to 80% of peri-urban and rural settlements and to 100% of inhabitants in the cities. The National Report of Angola to the HABITAT-III Conference, in order to monitor the progress made by the country in relation to the targets established in Agenda HABITAT-II (Government of Angola 2014; Ministry of Urban Development and Housing 2016), took as reference the years 1996 (the year the Agenda HABITAT-II in Istanbul was approved), 2002 (the year that marks the end of the civil war and the effective peace in Angola), and 2008 (the year of the elections that marked the transition from a post-conflict reconstruction approach to policies more focused on social and economic development, which included the launch of the National Program of Urban Development and Housing (PNUH), approved in 2008, as referred before, and other initiatives intended to achieve or even surpass the targets that had been set in the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations 2015). The PNUH aimed to promote access to decent housing and basic services to the citizen and at the same time to create the conditions for the gradual development of a real estate market in which the state provides the basic infrastructure and social equipment. The National Program of Urbanism and Housing included several sub-­ programmes, namely regularization of informal land occupations, where possible; constitution and regularization of land reserves; self-directed construction; construction of 200 dwellings by municipality; construction of new urban areas in the capital of provinces and in the second level municipalities; and cooperatives and private initiatives (Ministry of Urban Planning and Habitat 2016). Once again what emerges from this report on the implementation of HABITAT-II Agenda (Ministry of Urban Development and Housing 2016) is the absence of a relevant reference to the potential role of local self-government, inexistent in practice in Angola at that time but whose existence is mandatory since at least the 1992 Constitution that inaugurated the second Republic by establishing a multi-party democracy, a market economy, and a decentralized public administration. But more serious is the non-centrality of local self-government in the preparation of the

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

23

HABITAT-III Conference in a moment when the debate on decentralization and implementation of a real model of local self-government was already going on for several years in the country as examined and discussed in the following sections of this chapter. In fact, in none of the public and official statements produced by the Angolan government during the preparation of the HABITAT-III Conference is any intention to reform local government and to engage it in the implementation of the HABITAT-III principles and actions explicitly mentioned. Therefore, the entire urban policy for sustainable urban development in Angola was conceived as a task of central government. The reform of sub-national government in Angola in the years leading to the HABITAT-III Conference followed a parallel path that in rare occasions seems to have crossed with the preparatory works and with the implementation of action plans adopted in that context. The competences and the resources planned to be allocated to the local government in Angola in the reform due to being implemented in 2020 will certainly force a revision of what was established by the Angolan government in the context of HABITAT-III as the evidence and insights provided in the following sections indicate. Nonetheless, these ongoing institutional changes in Angola and the implementation of the New Urban Agenda should take into consideration insights from critical perspectives (Parnell 2016; Pieterse et al. 2018; Turok and Scheba 2018), and the knowledge and experience already acquired with a range of attempts to put in practice the principles and the goals of the New Urban Agenda and the attempts for the localization of the SDG11 in different regions of the world (Valencia et al. 2019; Garschagen et al. 2018; Caprotti et al. 2017) as well as the insights on the data and knowledge needed for the proper implementation of the New Urban Agenda (Robin et al. 2019). The establishment of the UN-HABITAT country office in Angola in 2015 and the work developed since then may facilitate the adaptation and internalization of the New Urban Agenda in the National Policy of Spatial Planning and Urbanism (Política Nacional do Ordenamento do Território e Urbanismo - PNOTU) launched in that year. Besides the engagement with the National Policy of Spatial Planning and Urbanism, namely in the implementation of the NUA and in the elaboration or revision of key legal acts in the field of spatial planning and urbanism, the UN-HABITAT office in Angola is also involved, supporting different departments of the Government of Angola, in the National Housing Policy, in the elaboration of the Urban Atlas of Angola, and in urban land management programmes, a range of activities through which the internalization of the NUA principles may take place gradually.

2.4  The Reform of the State Local Administration in Angola In Angola, the main reform focused on sub-national tiers of administration has been so far the de-concentration of competences from central government departments to the province, the regional tier, and to the municipality, the local tier, as well as the

24

C. N. Silva

consideration of infra-municipal tiers and forms of de-concentrated administration8. After the end of the civil war in 2002, a new law published in 2008 established the standard organization model for the province, municipality, and comuna9. In 2010, the law established the limits and the forms of coordination between the central state and the de-concentrated entities that make up the local state administration: Province, Municipality, and Comuna10. In that same year, the Act 6/1011 defined the limits between central and local state administration. This post-civil war de-­ concentration model was revised at the end of the previous Presidency in 201612 and in 201713. The new President also introduced a small change in this system by reducing the number of governors14. The de-concentration reform that started in 2016 with the publication of a new law on the state local administration (SLA) - the Law 15/16, 12 September, established the principles and norms of organization and functioning of the SLA at the provincial, municipal, and infra-municipal levels. Although focused on the de-­ concentration of competences of central state to SLA entities, this law stated that as soon as local self-government is created and implemented, some of these competences assigned to SLA will be gradually transferred to the new entities. This is what the law names the transition principle.15 The LSA represents the central state in the area of the province, municipality, comuna, or district. The Governor of the Province has the same status as a minister.16 Among other competences, the Province has the duty to develop the municipal administration with the aim to create the capacities for the transition to local self-government17. 8  - Comuna, distrito, cidade, vila, bairro, povoação, aldeia (Commune, district, city, town, neighborhood, place, village). 9  - Decree 9/08, 25 April establishing the paradigm of the statutes of provincial governments, municipal and communal administrations; canceled by Presidential Decree No. 208/17, 22 September (Decreto 9/08, 25 abril que estabelece o paradigma dos estatutos dos governos provinciais, administrações municipais e comunais; revogado pelo Decreto presidencial n° 208/17, 22 Setembro). 10  - Law 17/10, 29/7 on the organization and functioning of local state administration bodies - province, municipality, infra-municipal; Law 39/11, December 29 - revised Law 17/10 of 29/7; repealed by Law 15/16. (Lei 17/10, 29/7 sobre organização e o funcionamento dos órgãos da administração local do Estado - província, município, infra-municipal; Lei 39/11, 29 dezembro - reviu lei 17/10 de 29/7; revogado pela Lei 15/16). 11  - Presidential Legislative Decree 6/10, 17 August - on delimitation and coordination of the central and local administration of the State (Decreto legislativo presidencial 6/10, 17 agosto - sobre delimitação e coordenação de atuação da administração central e local do Estado). 12  - Law 15/16, 12 September  - Lei 15/16, 12 September  - on general principles on local state administration that set up the general principles of the SLA. 13  - Law 208/17 that regulated the Law 15/16 defining the details of the organization; Presidential Decree n° 208/17, 22 September - regulation of the law of local government. 14  - Presidential Decree 281/17, 15 November amends Presidential Decree 208/17, 22/9 on the number of governors. 15  - Transience principle (Princípio da transitoriedade). 16  - Including the salary, immunity, protocol rights, among other aspects. 17  - Local Authorities (Autarquias locais).

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

25

Some points should be highlighted here. First, this 2016–2017 regime was intended to prepare the current de-concentrated municipal administration for the creation and implementation of a true system of local self-government with directly elected boards. The current municipal administration is empowered with a substantial list of competences covering the most frequent policy areas at the local level that can be found even in developed countries. The scope of the functions and competences assigned to the municipal administration includes the following sectors: finance and budgetary issues; urban development and spatial planning; social and economic development; urban hygiene; energy; transport; water; sanitation; and urban equipment. The current LSA system (2016–2017) considers a number of consultative boards18. The law also defines the organizational structure, the range, and nature of the different technical or operational departments. The implementation on the ground of this model and its practical operation during a number of years will certainly facilitate the transition to a true system of local self-government. However, the evidence available does not reveal the existence of enough local conditions that could allow a full implementation of what is in the law. Education, health, economic activities, environment, community services, transport and mobility, social action, culture, tourism, youth, sport, energy, water, sanitation, and urban planning are some of the policy sectors for which a municipal department19 is expected to be created and implemented in each municipality. It is possible under this law for a municipality to create a municipal public enterprise or a municipal institute to fulfil its functions and competences in specific sectors. Municipalities can also establish public-private partnerships within its field of competences. The local finance system established in this 2016 law keeps the de-concentrated municipalities from being fully dependent on central government budget. A limited number of fees are assigned to these local state institutions (municipality, province, and so on) as is the case of the fees related to transport20 from which 50% can be assigned to the SLA entities, although without policy discretion. This is certainly an area in which the transition will require substantial changes. A similar structure and functional regime is defined for the other LSA entities, provinces, and infra-­ municipal entities. Just after the October 2017 election, the newly elected President João Lourenço introduced changes in the law on SLA in November 2017, reducing the number of

  - e.g., Municipal Council for Community Auscultation; Municipal Council for Social Concertation; Municipal Council for Community Surveillance. Presidential Decree 224/18, 27 September - regulation of the community auscultation councils in the province, municipality, commune, urban district (Conselho Municipal de Auscultação da Comunidade; Conselho Municipal de Concertação Social; Conselho Municipal de Vigilância Comunitária. Decreto presidencial 224/18, 27 setembro - regulamento dos conselhos de auscultação da comunidade na Provincia, municipio, comuna, distrito urbano). 19  - Municipal Direction (Direção Municipal). 20  - Traffic and traffic enforcement fees (Taxas de circulação e de fiscalização trânsito). 18

26

C. N. Silva

deputy governors, considered excessive, in order to rationalize the system. In January 2018, the Law 20/18, 29 January established the regime of delimitation and coordination of competences between central state and SLA21. This law addressed or aimed to solve the problem of overlapping activities between the different tiers of public administration and established the principle of gradual de-concentration of functions from the state to the SLA. Another move towards the reform of Local Government  in Angola was the implementation of the council of local governance (CLG)22, a consultative board of the President of the Republic. Its regulation was approved in February 201823 and in its first meetings were discussed the different law proposals that will make up the transition from a de-concentrated administration to a true system of local self-­ government (LSG) run by directly elected boards. One of the competences of this CLG is exactly the reform of local administration and the implementation of LSG. The Decree 211/18 changed aspects related to the entities represented in this council24. Also in February 2018 was published a new law on the local finance system, applied to the province and municipality, as the de-concentrated entities defined in the law 15/16, 12 September. The new 2018 law created a National Fund (FEN)25 with the aim to guarantee a balanced distribution of revenues to the SLA entities, the Province, and the municipality. The FEN is financed with a percentage of the receipts defined in Act 89/18, 9 April.26 The law defines the taxes and fees and the respective percentage that are incomes of the province and municipality. For the transference of new competences, the existence or the potential existence of human, financial, and material resources necessary to its execution is required. The law admits the possibility of combining the transfer of new competences with the transfer of human resources through staff mobility within state administration, with full guarantee of staff rights as well as with the transfer of the corresponding financial resources to the local entity, province, or municipality. The system also considers the possibility that a specific competence be delivered by two or more

 - Presidential Decree 20/18, 29 January  - establishes the general regime of delimitation and deconcentration of competences and coordination of the territorial action of the central administration and the local administration of the state (Decreto Presidencial 20/18, 29 janeiro - estabelece o regime geral de delimitação e desconcentração de competências e coordenação da atuação territorial da administração central e da administração local do Estado). 22  - Local Governing Council. Presidential Legislative Decree No. 3/17, October 13 on the organization and financing of the auxiliary organs of the President of the Republic (Conselho de Governação Local. Decreto legislativo presidencial n° 3/17, 13 de outubro sobre organização e financiamento dos órgãos auxiliares do presidente da República). 23  - Law 36/18, 9 February 2018. 24  - Presidential Decree 211/18, 11 September alters aspects of represented entities (Decreto presidencial 211/18, 11 setembro altera aspetos das entidades representadas). 25  - Fundo de Equilíbrio Nacional (National Balance Fund). 26  - Article 9 of Presidential Decree 89/18, 9 April – Regulation of local government funding funds (Regulamento dos fundos de financiamento da administração local do Estado). 21

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

27

municipalities, thus admitting or stimulating the emergence and development of forms of inter-municipal articulation and cooperation. Since not all municipalities will meet these conditions at the same time, the implementation process of this de-concentration policy will be gradual. The list of functions and tasks pertaining to the municipality in this division of public functions among the three tiers—national, regional, local—if effectively implemented on the ground will make the transition an easier process. However, the option for the principle of geographical gradualism means the recognition by the state that municipalities on the ground are not fulfilling the functions listed in Law 20/18, 29 January 2018. If that was the case, then there was no justification for the gradualism, and the transition could be simultaneous. Important to note, in any case, is the fact that a municipality with these competences, if provided with appropriate financial resources and staff, will make the LSG in Angola a true system of local self-­ government, compared to those in more developed countries. As the literature shows, the point is financial capacity, and this is far from being sufficient. In March 2018, the President approved the regulation of the Financial Fund for the LSA entities. There are two funds: Fundo de Equilíbrio Nacional (FEN) and Fundo de Equilíbrio Municipal (FEM). FEN is a financial instrument that aims to guarantee the balance in the assignment of income to the SLA.  The sources of income of the FEN are a percentage of several taxes (income, property, and so on). In the FEN, the transfer to the municipalities is conditioned grants (transfer to specific projects). The distribution among the municipalities is based on a set of criteria: 30% equally to all; 30% for municipalities with lower fiscal capacity (lower capacity to charge taxes); 20% for municipalities with lower population density; 20% remain as a reserve for emergency needs. The FEM aims to guarantee a fair distribution of the resources among the municipalities of the same province. These funds are transferred unconditionally to the municipalities. The FEM is divided according to the following criteria: 35% is divided by the municipalities with tax collection lower than 1/3 of the value of the municipality with higher tax collection; 40% for projects with a transversal impact in the province; 25% remain in the Fund as a reserve for emergency or contingency. Even in the main city, the capital Luanda, the municipality despite what is in the law does not fulfil the roles assigned to this level, for instance, in the field of urban planning. As an example, the process of urban reconversion of two neighbourhoods in Luanda—Cazenga and Sambizanga—was conducted by a technical cabinet under the control of the head of the state27, which for some aspects coordinates with the Province and not with the municipality. Another example of this still high centralization in the field of spatial planning is the case of the Master Plan of Luanda,28 which defines the new spatial strategy for Luanda until 2030. It was necessary to define who

 - Presidential Decree 165/15, 20 August 2015.   - Plano Director Geral de Luanda / Luanda Master Plan (PDGML  – Plano Luanda. December 2015).

27 28

28

C. N. Silva

would be responsible for its implementation. In April 2018,29 such competence was assigned to the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Housing with the support of the Governor of the Province. Despite what is in law of de-concentration, key important functions due to be held by the local tier—municipality or Province—such as this one in the field of urban planning, continues to be in the hands of the central government. This places substantial challenges to the implementation of the principles of the New Urban Agenda in Angola. The reform was announced in 2018 and is expected to start to be implemented in 2020. It addresses most of the weaknesses encountered in the current sub-national institutional framework in Angola. The way its implementation is being considered raises concerns and constitutes a challenge for the adoption of the New Urban Agenda principles at the local level.

2.5  The Local Government Reform Announced in 2018 The second stream towards the reform of sub-national government in Angola is the still unfinished process for the creation and implementation of a true system of local self-government in Angola. Despite what is in the Constitution adopted in the early 1990s and in its subsequent revisions, namely in the current 2010 Constitution, local self-government (LSG) is not yet implemented, which constitutes a critical constraint to the proper implementation of the New Urban Agenda in Angola in the coming years. Nonetheless, several attempts have been made in recent years. Few months before the change of power, the previous President of the Republic published the law that sets the principles for the organization of Local Self Government in Angola30. This law establishes the system for the organization, functioning, and implementation of local self-government, the institutionalization of traditional authorities and all the other modalities associated with citizen participation. Local self-government is structured on the basis of the principle of political decentralization and democratic organization. In this law, local government comprises two forms: local self-government31 and traditional authorities32 and other forms of citizen participation.33 Local Self-Government is a form of local government issued from the law and are part of the state apparatus. Traditional authorities are entities originated from the people and recognized by the state34. Local Self Government is the municipality, although the law also allows the creation of supra-municipal as well as infra-municipal entities of local self-government.

 - Despacho Presidencial 37/18, 2 Abril (Presidential Order 37/18, 2 April).  - Law 15/17, 28/6/2017 – Lei Orgânica do Poder Local (Local Government Act). 31  - Autarquias locais (Local Authorities) 32  - Poder Tradicional (Traditional Authorities). 33  - Associations, and so on. 34  - For a discussion of the role and limits of local authorities see Guedes (2008). 29 30

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

29

The new local self-government system was therefore defined in the Law 15/17, 8 August, which resulted from a combination of the project of law submitted by UNITA, the main opposition party in Parliament35, and the proposal of law presented by the national Government two  weeks before36. The joint document was unanimously approved in the national parliament in May 201737. UNITA had attempted before to submit this project in 2013/201438 without success. The project was rejected in 2013/2014 by the 144 votes against from the MPLA majority that supported the Government, receiving the support of 31 votes in favour from the all opposition in the national parliament39. UNITA had, in March 2017, all the main projects of law for this reform except the project of law of the local finance law. In contrast to the pressure made by the opposition parties for the implementation of local self-government in Angola, which proposed local elections before 2018, the government and the MPLA, its supporting party, tried to delay the process, proposing a postponement during five years. The implementation has indeed been repeatdely  postponed by the majority in Parliament at least since 200840. The Art 41° establishes the principle of gradualism in the effective implementation of local government on the ground. This means that the state (central state) can determine the opportunity of its creation, the transfer of competences, and the transition from State Local Administration to Local Self-Government. In the 2014 as well as in the 2018 projects of law on local government, UNITA did not accept or did not follow the principle of geographical gradualism, considered unconstitutional, contrary to the perspective of the majority party and government, which see gradualism as being in accord with article 242 of the 2010 Constitution. Meanwhile, the creation of new urban centralities around Luanda was considered by central government as an experimental stage in the process of local government reform.41

35  - Proposta de Lei Orgânica sobre as Bases do Sistema de Poder Local (Draf Law on the Bases of Local Government). 36  - Proposta de Lei Orgânica sobre as Bases Gerais do Poder Local (Draf Law on the General Bases of Local Government). 37  - Law 15/17, 8 August – Lei Orgânica do Poder Local (Local Government Act). 38  - Projecto de Lei Orgânica do Sistema de Organização e Funcionamento do Poder Local (Draft Law on Local Government Organization and Functioning), proposed in 19.3.2014. 39  - UNITA, CASA-CE, PRS and FNLA. 40  - In the national election of 2008, the MPLA won with 82% votes (191 out of 220 deputies in the national parliament). 41  - For the Minister of Territorial Administration, Bornito de Sousa, the creation of these new centralities - Kilamba, Cacuaco, Viana, Cazenga e Belas - represented an experiment of the new local institutional solutions to be eventually adopted in the country (speech in the International Conference on “Descentralização e Autarquias” (Decentralization and Local Government”), in Catholic University of Angola, in 2013. For Bornito de Sousa, the Presidente of the Administrative Commission of the City (Presidente da Comissão administrativa da cidade) is in practice what the Mayor (Presidente da Câmara Municipal) will be in the future. This vision was contested by the main opposition party - UNITA - as Kilamba has been created and implemented without the participation of the local citizens and therefore it is not a good example to be replicate in the rest of the country.

30

C. N. Silva

A package of laws on local government was approved by the central government in May 2018 covering the different dimensions of the system42. This package of laws will support the local government that is expected to be elected for the first time in 2020, as proposed by the President of the Republic on 22 March 2018 in the first meeting of the Council of the Republic of Angola, and unanimously supported by the members of this Council. The main opposition party, UNITA, announced its agreement with this date, but required a new electoral census. For UNITA, the creation of supra-municipal entities should also take place in 2020, leaving the establishment of infra-municipal entities for the following years. The implementation of the municipalities will be gradual, and therefore, its institutionalization in the entire country will take place in the following 15 years. These six laws on local government were submitted to public discussion, including citizens and key stakeholders, all over the country during two months, a period that ended in 31 July 201843. Based on that, a final document was prepared, discussed by the government, and submitted to the national parliament in 2019 (Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2019)44. While the President of the Republic proposed local elections before the general elections of 2022, an idea repeated again in 2019, the main opposition party UNITA continued to claim that it should be done as soon as possible, pointing for 2019 or 2020, recalling that it should had been done before the general elections of 201745 as the party claimed and proposed in the National Assembly in the years before46.

 - The six proposals of law are the following: (1) Lei de Organização e Funcionamento das Autarquias Locais (Law on the Organization and Functioning of Local Authorities); (2) Lei da Institucionalização das Autarquias Locais (Law on the Institutionalization of Local Authorities); (3) Lei das Atribuições e Competências das Autarquias Locais (Law on Local Authorities Powers and Competences); (4) Lei Orgânica das Eleições Autárquicas (Law on Municipal Elections); (5) Lei da Tutela Administrativa (Law on Administrative Supervision / Tutelage; (6) Lei das Finanças Locais (Local Finance Law) (Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018a, b, c, d, e, f). 43  - This consultation process was determined by the Council of the Republic (‘Conselho da Republica’) on its meeting on 22 March 2018. 44  - This Report on the process of public consultation on the local government legislation (‘Relatório do Processo de Auscultação Pública sobre o Pacote Legislativo Autárquico’) was presented by the Minister of Territorial Admnistration and State Reform, Adão de Almeida (MATRE - Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado), on 19 March 2019, in Luanda. On this occasion, the Minister reaffirmed the commitment to the start the implementation of this reform in 2020 including the first local elections, for a 5 year term. 45  - The Electoral Census was concluded in early 2017 and therefore the local election would have been possible as claimed by the opposition parties. According to the 2017 Electoral Census (Ministério da Administração do Território 2017), Angola had in 2017 9,317,294 electors, 30,9% of which in the Province of Luanda, 48,1% Man and 51,9% Women. 46  - The other opposition parties, such as Coligação Angolana CASA-CE also claimed over the years local elections as soon as possible and simultaneously in the entire country, thus expressing opposition to the principle of geographical gradualism. Out of the scope of this chapter is the claim by FLEC - Frente de Libertação do Enclave de Cabinda, a political movement established in 1963, for the separation and independence of Cabinda from Angola. 42

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

31

The principle of geographical gradualism in the implementation of the local government on the ground is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the current local government reform. Considered to be unconstitutional by all the opposition parties and by important sectors of the civil society, it is considered a correct interpretation of article 242 of the Constitution by the political majority that supports the government. According to this perspective, the institutionalization of local government is for the entire national territory but its implementation will be gradual according to pre-defined criteria. The reform will be first applied in the municipalities with higher levels of development and infrastructures in each Province. These will be followed by the municipalities, essentially rural with at least 500 thousand inhabitants and with the capacity to raise revenues equal to at least 15% of the public expenditure budgeted in the last 3 years. The inclusion of new municipalities in this process will take place in the beginning of each new electoral cycle, that is, every 5 years, in a period that cannot last more than 15 years. It is therefore expected that the entire process will be concluded with the local elections of 2035. According to the governmental proposal, it is a competence of the National Assembly to select the municipalities for each phase of this process according with the criteria defined47. Once these are selected, then a whole range of investment in equipments and infrastructures, such as fiscal administration services, judicial courts, bank agencies, and telecommunication networks, will be carried out by central government in order to create the conditions for the full development of the local autonomy. This institutional capacitating process will also include when necessary the transfer or allocation of the needed human resources. The second issue that raises controversy is the role of the traditional authorities and its relationship with local self-government. The ambiguity that results from such type of entity in a Republican regime is one of the dimensions, as well as the overlap between local government competences and the role that can be potentially assigned to these traditional authorities.

2.6  The New Local Government System in Angola The new local government system in Angola, to be implemented through the reform announced in 2018 by the newly elected President João Lourenço, considers as local self-government48 the municipality. The law admits nonetheless the possibility of creation of both supra- and infra-municipal entities. It is undoubtedly positive and important that the Government of Angola has signed and adopted the principles and goals of the New Urban Agenda and SDGs, even if local government is almost absent in the documents and discourses related  - Despite this it has been referred in the press that the Government estimated that 34 municipalities out of the current 164 would meet the conditions of the law to start this process of implementation. 48  - The “Local Authorities” (as “Autarquias Locais”). 47

32

C. N. Silva

to this process. The focus now ought to be on how to get the new local government, being created and established in Angola through the currently ongoing reform, to develop their response to the SDGs. This means that the new local government system being established in Angola must create the institutional and governance basis that will allow each municipality to achieve the NUA goals locally, as most of the activity needed to achieve the NUA goals depend on local government. With the population becoming increasingly urban, as in the rest of Africa, urban areas in Angola do need and depend on the competences and capacities of local self-­ government. And this will certainly need support from higher levels of government, national and regional, in order to play the transformative role needed for the successful implementation of the NUA goals for the virtuous combination of prosperity, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability, making cities in Angola more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient. It will be necessary for municipalities and cities in Angola to build their own list of indicators for each NUA goal in order to track and report on its implementation. The remaining of this section presents and discusses the character of the new local government system being established in Angola, which is expected to be the basic institutional framework that will allow the much-needed localization of the New Urban Agenda goals. The Municipality as a form of local self-government is entitled, in the new local government system due to be implemented in 2020, with significant degrees of autonomy—organizational, functional, and financial. Nonetheless, since Angola is a unitary state, which within the framework of its administrative organization recognizes local government autonomy, it was necessary to create legal instruments conferring powers of control to the state administration over local government entities, in order to respect the law, as well as the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and communities. This is regulated by the law on administrative supervision or tutelage49 and is exercised by the State by carrying out inspections, investigations, and inquiries. The practice, by action or omission, of serious illegalities in the management of the municipality may determine, under the terms of this law, the dismissal of the President of the City Council or the dissolution of the Municipal Assembly. The holders of municipal organs are subject to civil and criminal liability for acts and omissions of which they are responsible. Besides this supervision of the legality of the municipal administrative acts, after they have been taken, certain municipal decision or acts are subject to tutelage by ratification before they can be effective and implemented. Ratification is required, among other cases to be defined in the law, in the following situations: (a) Approval of the municipal development plan; (b) Approval of the municipal budget; (c) Approval of the Municipal Master Plan; (d) Approval of the municipal staff structure; (e) Approval of borrowing by the municipality, in accordance with the law. Ratification may be refused only on the grounds of unconstitutionality, unlawfulness of the act, or its non-compliance with the plans and programmes to which the municipality is bounded, under the terms of

 - Draft Law on Administrative Supervision/Tutelage (Proposta de Lei da Tutela Administrativa sobre as Autarquias Locais).

49

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

33

the law. Exceptionally and transitionally, during the first term of municipal institutionalization, the municipal acts, contracts, and regulations are subject to the tutelage of merit and may be revoked and/or terminated if there is manifest error or a breach of an essential public interest. In the proposed new local government system, the division of powers and competences between the State and the municipalities aims: (a) to make the decision process closer to the citizens; (b) to define the territorial jurisdiction between the State and the municipalities; (c) to promote the territorial cohesion; (d) to rationalize the resources available; (e) to adjust the public services provided to the local reality from the point of view of the local population. Municipalities have the duty to promote and safeguard all specific interests of the respective population, namely in the following fields: Rural and Urban Equipment; Energy and Water; Transport and Communications; Education; Heritage, Culture and Science; Leisure, Tourism and Sport; Health; Social Action; Housing; Civil Protection; Environment and Sanitation; Consumer Defence; Local Development Promotion; Spatial Planning and Urbanism; Municipal Police; and Decentralized Cooperation and Twinning. The increase of these responsibilities and competences must be gradual and the transference from central to local government will also be gradual. These competences are regulated by law. In each of these fields, the municipality can hold, in terms to be defined in each specific case, the following types of competences: (a) consultative; (b) planning; (c) management; (d) investment; (e) inspection; and (f) licensing. Despite the option for the principle of generality in the definition of local government competences, the law on the transference of competences from the State to the municipalities introduces the principle that only those competences transferred explicitly from the State to the municipalities, in this and in the following laws, are competences of the municipalities. If not explicitly transferred in this law, they remain competences of the State50. The transference of new competences from the State to the municipalities is followed by the transference of adequate human and financial resources necessary to the fulfilment of these new functions by the municipality. These transferences can be done to groups of municipalities when the local conditions require such forms of inter-municipal cooperation. It is also possible that some of these competences due to be transferred from the State to municipalities be carried out jointly by the State and by a municipality or group of municipalities if the specific local conditions so require. In other words, the law introduces a flexible system that can accommodate the diverse local conditions found in Angola. Competences can be transferred from the State to municipalities in the following sectors (Table 2.2): (a) Rural and Urban Equipment; (b) Energy; (c) Transport and Communications; (d) Education and Teaching; (e) Heritage, Culture, and Science; (f) Leisure, Tourism, and Sport; (g) Health; (h) Social Action; (i) Housing; (j) Civil Protection; (k) Environment and Basic Sanitation; (l) Promotion of Development;

 - Draft Bill of Transfer of State Responsibilities and Powers to Local Authorities (Proposta de Lei da Transferência de Atribuições e Competências do Estado Para as Autarquias Locais).

50

34

C. N. Silva

Table 2.2  Municipal competences by sector Sectors 1) Rural and urban equipment

Domains a) Green spaces; b) Streets; c) Municipal cemeteries; d) Facilities of public services of the municipality; e) Markets and municipal fairs. 2) Energy a) Plan and management of street lighting on all public municipal roads; b) Licensing and supervision of elevators; c) Licensing and supervision of storage facilities and fuel supply located in the territory of the municipality 3) Transport and (a) Plan, guide, and manage the local transport network; communications b) License and supervise the taxi activity that is carried out exclusively in the territory of the municipality; c) Manage, under the supervision of the State, local aerodromes and heliports 4) Education and a) Build and equip pre-school and primary schools; teaching b) Manage, rehabilitate, and maintain pre-school and primary schools; c) Implement school meals in accordance with the health requirements for the age according to local habits and customs; d) Ensure the management of the cafeterias of the pre-school and primary schools; e) Support the development of out-of-school activities; f) Prepare the Education Chart to be integrated into the Municipal Master Plan and ensure the school transport network; g) Manage the non-teaching staff in pre-school and primary education levels 5) Heritage, culture, and (a) Organize and keep up to date an inventory of cultural heritage, science urban and landscape design existing in the territory of the municipality; b) Support the construction and maintenance of cultural facilities; c) Classify joint buildings or sites considered of local interest; (d) Manage local classified museums, buildings, and sites in accordance with the law; e) Support cultural activities of local interest; f) Support research projects with impact on the local authority territory; g) Manage the local heritage (continued)

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

35

Table 2.2 (continued) Sectors 6) Leisure, tourism, and sport

7) Health

8) Social action

Domains a) Build and install equipment for sports and recreational practice of local interest; b) Build, manage, and maintain municipal stadiums and other municipal sports equipment; c) License and supervise the venues of shows; d) License and supervise leisure activities with a commercial or mass character; e) License and supervise the installation and operation of nightclubs, bars and similar services; f) Promote tourism at local level; g) Promote sports and recreational activities of local interest a) Define and plan the health infrastructure and equipment network of the municipal level; b) Build and rehabilitate health centers and posts under methodological supervision of the central administration. c) Prohibit the operation of unhealthy establishments. d) Promote actions against noise pollution; e) Maintain and manage health centers and posts; f) Participate in the provision of continuing health care as part of the support to social dependency, in partnership with the state and other local institutions; g) Manage municipal thermal equipment a) Build, rehabilitate, and manage day care centres, kindergartens, nursing homes, or support for people in vulnerable situations; b) Cooperate with social solidarity institutions in programmes and projects of local social action, particularly in the fight against poverty and social exclusion; c) License and supervise private social facilities intended for early childhood, the elderly, and the disabled, as well as other vulnerable groups; d) Develop entrepreneurship and social economy actions; e) Develop actions for the promotion and strengthening of family skills, with particular impact on the neediest families; f) Promote education and awareness-raising campaigns that address the issues of all forms of discrimination against women, equality and gender equity, and women’s empowerment; g) Promote the implementation of programmes and projects that discourage traditional practices that undermine the dignity of the human person; h) Create social support services (continued)

36

C. N. Silva

Table 2.2 (continued) Sectors 9) Housing

10) Civil protection 11) Environment and basic sanitation

Domains a) Promote and manage the social housing and urban renewal programmes of municipal scope and dimension; b) Establish, coordinate, and control the housing policy of the local authority, as well as to control and coordinate the urbanization programmes and projects of precarious settlements; c) Establish, coordinate, and control the organization and mobilization of citizens directed to self-construction through plans approved by the entity competent for that; d) Maintain the cooperative housing park, through the concession of incentives and building restoration works; e) Promote the opening, cleaning, subdivision, and commercialization of land for housing and to guarantee their infrastructure, in coordination with the provincial and central entities; f) Promote and manage the municipal housing stock; g) Manage and grant building permits, respecting the limits established by law; h) Propose and participate in the feasibility of recovery programmes or replacement of degraded dwellings inhabited by the owners or by lessees a) Build and manage water supply systems in accordance with the municipal programmes; (b) Build and manage community water supply systems; c) Maintain drainage and wastewater treatment systems and drainage of rainwater on municipal roads; (d) Prepare plans for solid waste collection and treatment systems and cleaning of public spaces, submitting them for the approval of the Municipal Assembly; e) Build and manage municipal landfills; f) Promote and monitor protection programmes, erosion infrastructures soil clearance, dewatering of the water lines, and flooding of small watercourses; g) Perform preventive and mitigating tasks of the effects of erosion of floods; h) Ensure cleanliness of public spaces, including bathing areas and protected areas, collection and treatment of municipal solid waste, in coordination with the provincial organs; i) Promote environmental conservation and pollution prevention actions

(continued)

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

37

Table 2.2 (continued) Sectors 12) Promotion of development

Domains (a) Promote local economic development; b) Promote local revenue collection to foster development of the municipality; (c) Support local initiatives to promote employment, self-­ employment, and business activity; d) Support and foster any cultural activity linked to the local authority; e) Prepare the register of industrial establishments; f) License the economic activities, in the domain of commerce, hospitality, tourism, and agriculture, g) Promote actions aimed at the registration of citizens residing in the respective local authority, in coordination with the central administration. 13) Spatial planning and a) Elaborate the proposal of the municipal spatial plans, in accordance urbanism with the law on spatial planning and tourism, and submit for approval by the Municipal Assembly; b) Promote the elaboration of urban land subdivision plans for housing purposes and submit them for approval to the Municipal Assembly; c) Delimit the areas of urban development and priority construction, in according to national and municipal plans. 14) Municipal police Municipalities may create municipal police with intervention in the areas to be defined by a specific law. The scope of the municipal police is of an administrative nature. Promote and participate in projects of decentralized cooperation. 15) Decentralized cooperation and twinning

(m) Spatial Planning and Urbanism; (n) Municipal Police; (o) Decentralized Cooperation and Twinning. In each of these sectors will be transferred only those functions that can be better done by the municipality. Besides these areas of competence, the law identifies other possible areas of municipal competence, such as: (a) latrine and septic tank systems; (b) construction of animal vaccination sleeves and toilet tanks; (c) Promotion of artisanal fishing; (d) Definition and implementation of measures for the collection of animals wanderers, stray or dead; (e) Small scale clearance of small watercourses; (f) Construction, rehabilitation and management of kennels; and (g) Promotion of family and cooperative farming activities. The municipality has three representative entities: the Deliberative Assembly (Assembleia Municipal), the Executive Council (Câmara Municipal), and the Mayor (Presidente da Câmara Municipal). The law on local elections51 defines active and passive elective conditions, including aspects such as age, place of residence, ineligibility conditions, and types of constraints by past legal actions pending on the 51

 - Draft Organic Law on Local Elections (Proposta de Lei Orgânica sobre as Eleições Autárquicas).

38

C. N. Silva

Table 2.3  Municipal assembly: number of elected members by size of the municipality Size of the Municipality (Number of Electors) ≥ 500,000 electors 100,000–499,999 electors 50,000–99,999 electors ‹ 50,000 electors

Municipal Assembly (Number of Elected Members) 55 45 35 25

person, for instance. Candidates for the positions of mayor and member of the municipal assembly are proposed by political parties, coalitions of political parties, or groups of citizens. The groups of citizens must have a minimum of 50 members. The lists of candidates must have according to the law a reasonable balanced gender composition. These lists must be subscribed by 500–550 elector residents in the area of the municipality. These boards (assembly and executive councils) and the mayor are elected for a five-year term. The Mayor is elected directly, being the number one in the list with more votes for the municipal assembly. The members of the Municipal Assembly are elected according to the system of proportional representation, with votes converted in mandates based on the method of Hondt (Table 2.3). Members of the Municipal Assembly are not in full time and are not paid, except the President, Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of the Assembly, which are in exclusivity in this political role and therefore receive a salary. In the executive, the Mayor, the Secretary of the Municipality (Table 2.4), and the Secretaries of the Comuna and of Urban Districts are all in exclusivity and paid in terms to be defined later in the law. The Municipal Assembly has administrative and financial autonomy and its main role is to control the activity of the Executive Council and that of the Mayor, namely through the approval of the annual budget, the annual activity plan, or the key municipal spatial plans, as well as the approval of municipal fiscal decisions52. The law defines a long and exhaustive list of competences for the municipal executive board53 as well as a long list of competences for the mayor. The municipal executive (Câmara Municipal) comprises the Mayor (President of ‘Câmara Municipal’) and a certain number of Municipal Secretaries54, direct collaborators of the Mayor, responsible for certain functional areas, but dependent from the Mayor as they are freely nominated and dismissed by the Mayor. The number of Municipal Secretaries varies according to the number of electors of the municipality (Table 2.4). The Municipality can organize municipal councils, whose aim is to support the municipality in the definition of its policies in different sectors. Besides the participation in these councils, the Municipality must promote the conditions for citizen participation in all areas of municipal activity. The Mayor has the autonomy to define the structure of the municipal services taking into account the law. Municipal employees have a status similar to that of state civil servants with the necessary  - Article 15.  - City Council, article 28 (Câmara Municipal, article 28). 54  - Town Hall Secretaries, article 30 (Secretários da Câmara Municipal, article 30). 52 53

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola Table 2.4 Number municipal secretaries

of Size of the municipality (Number of Electors) ≥ 500,000 electors 100,000–499,999 electors ‹ 100,000 electors

39 Number of municipal secretaries (Maximum) 15 13 11

adaptations. The Municipality can also establish municipal enterprises or local public institutes to carry on specific municipal functions and competences. The Municipality is divided into Communes and/or Urban districts, which are de-concentrated entities of the municipality. In each of these circumscriptions, there is an executive board comprising an individual—the Secretary of the Comuna or Urban District—and a collective board—the Secretariat of the Comuna and/or Urban District. The Secretary of the Commune or of the Urban District represents the Municipal Executive Board (‘Câmara Municipal’) in the respective area, comuna, or urban district. Both are freely nominated by the Mayor and have competences delegated by the Mayor. The Secretariat of the Commune or Urban District is essentially a centre for the provision of public services to the local citizens thus connecting more easily the municipality with its citizens. The proposal of law for the implementation of local self-government55 defines the criteria for the selection of the municipalities in which the new local government system will be effectively and gradually implemented. The selection of the municipalities in which local self-government will be first implemented is a competence of the National Assembly according to the following criteria defined in Article 3 of this law: (a) Some municipalities with levels of socio-economic development and significant infrastructure within the province; (b) Some eminently rural municipalities, which have a minimum of population of 500,000, socio-economic development, and a revenue collection capacity of at least 15% of public budget expenditure over the last 3 years; (c) Some municipalities with less than 50,000 inhabitants, which have specific local economy policies and a track record of collecting revenue of at least 5% compared to the average public budgetary expenditure over the last 3 years; (d) Some municipalities with poor revenue collection capacity, which have a minimum of 250,000 inhabitants; (e) Some municipalities with great expression and cultural particularities, mainly from the interior of the country, regardless of their ability of revenue collection and regardless of its population; (f) Some municipalities in the interior of the country, with local development dynamics based on agriculture and livestock, regardless of their ability of revenue collection.  - Draft Law on the Institutionalization of Local Authorities (Proposta de Lei Sobre a Institucionalização das Autarquias Locais).

55

40

C. N. Silva

In the following rounds, it is the competence of the National Assembly to define the criteria for the selection of the municipalities. The central government ought to continue the process of institutional capacitating in those municipalities that will not be selected in the first round in 2020 and in subsequent years. Once selected by the National Assembly, these municipalities will be equipped by central government with public services considered necessary for the fulfilment of a true local autonomy. These include the following actions: a) setting up of the tax administration system; b) setting up of the Comarca Court, according to the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Courts of Common Jurisdiction; c) setting up of the equipment necessary for the functioning of the Municipal Assembly and Câmara Municipal  (the executive board); d) setting up of at least one bank agency; e) setting up of the network allowing access to information and communication technologies. In addition, more and more qualified human resources will be assigned to the selected municipalities before the first local election. Each of these municipalities must have in its technical and administrative departments at least one member of staff with a higher education diploma in each of the functional areas assigned to these municipalities before the transition from current municipal administration structures to the elected municipal government entities. The administrative staff in the selected municipalities will be subject to specific training programmes. The municipality has financial autonomy, which is based on the following powers: a) Approve and modify the municipal budget and other municipal financial documents; b) Approve the accounting documents; c) Collect and dispose of revenues from fees, tariffs, and prices assigned by law to the municipality; d) Use its own tax revenues and those assigned by law to them; e) Order and process legally authorized expenses; and f) Acquire, manage, and dispose of its own assets, as well as those assigned to the municipality. Municipal revenues will come from the following sources: a) The income from the collection of property taxes located in their territory, namely Urban Property Tax (Imposto Predial Urbano), Sisa Tax (Imposto de Sisa), Traffic Tax (Taxa de Circulação), or others that may substitute these taxes in the future; b) The income from the collection of the Spill Tax (Derrama), up to an annual maximum of 1% of the Industrial Tax; c) The income from the levying of fees resulting from the grant of licences and fees and charges for the provision of services by the Municipality; d) The income from the collection of capital gains charges assigned by law to the Municipality; e) The product of fines fixed by law or regulation and assigned to the municipality; f) Income from own, movable, or immovable property, explored directly by the municipality or granted or given to exploration by third parties; g) Participation in the profits of companies and in the results of other entities in which the Municipality takes part; h) The product of inheritances, legacies, donations, and other liberalities given in favour of the municipality; i) The income from the disposal of own, movable, or immovable property; j) Other revenues established by law in favour of the municipalities; k) the product of borrowing. Besides these revenues, the municipalities are entitled to a relative share of the following revenues: a) 70% of Income Tax; b) 50% of the Industrial Tax; c) 80% of the inheritance and gift

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

41

tax; and d) 60% of consumption tax, with the exception of the consumption tax collected on imports. The national state budget includes every year the distribution of these funds by the municipalities through a National Equilibrium Fund, whose aim is to eliminate the inequalities among the municipalities and to promote territorial cohesion. A maximum transition period of 3  months, from municipal administration to municipal elected boards, is defined for each time the municipal boards are elected for the first time. The new entity, the municipality with elected boards, will inherit all the buildings and equipment that belong to the current de-concentrated municipal administration due to be extinguished in this process. Three years after the start of the implementation of the newly elected local government, that is until end of the first trimester of 2023, a first formal evaluation of the implementation process concerning the transfer of competences from the State to the Municipality will be carried out by a follow-up Commission composed of members of the various entities concerned.

2.7  Conclusion The implementation of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are confronted with numerous challenges, namely urban growth, climate change, demographic change and migration, and ageing. For all of them, the role of the local government is critical as recognized in numerous paragraphs of the NUA document adopted in Quito. And critical also for the realization of the Global Goals included in the Agenda 2030, in the Paris Agreements, and in the Sendai Framework. For that reason, the current reform of local government in Angola ought to consider this role linking explicitly the future municipalities to be implemented after 2020 to the New Urban Agenda and to the other global agendas in which Angola is engaged. The success of the implementation of the NUA depends largely on the localization of its goals and principles. This however requires attention to the potential sideline of important aspects of the urban life if the NUA is literally and uncritically considered. The relatively vague definition of the urban in the NUA and in the SDG11, on one side, and the hidden agendas of those behind the formulation of these global agendas do require attention and reflection on the part of the future local government actors in Angola. It is essential that the new local government questions what these NUA principles and goals mean for their rural settlements, to the suburbs, for the large informal urban areas, and to the small size cities in Angola, avoiding a simple and automatic application of relatively vague principles. This calls for political and technical competences, which need time to be fully developed, conditions that the new municipalities expected to be implemented in 2020 do not have and which will probably need more than one electoral term to be fully acquired. A risk the new local government entities in Angola ought to be aware of is the uncritical application of the standards and indicators associated with the NUA, SDG11, and other global urban agendas, a practice that may hide social

42

C. N. Silva

conflicts and sideline minority interests while giving emphasis at the same time to certain more powerful economic interests. In the case of Angola, and contrary to the increasingly more accepted vision about the importance of cities and the respective urban government for sustainable development, the promotion of sustainable development seems to be seen primarily as a function of the central government. However, with the reform of the local government in Angola reaching a new stage, with the first elections of municipal boards expected to take place in 2020, it is now time to discuss and decide how the new local government institutional landscape can promote sustainable development in Angola, within the overall framework of the UN 2030 Agenda, and with what resources and tools. The emphasis put on the NUA to better modes of urban governance and to decentralized spatial planning systems is one more factor that asks for and favours the establishment of a stronger system of local self-government in Angola. Nonetheless, as previous global agendas have shown, if other fundamental conditions do not change, as the global financing framework for development, it will be difficult for cities and local governments in developing nations to achieve the sustainability goals. In addition, without a fair and just share of national resources, between central and local government in Angola, it will again be difficult for sub-­ national tiers of government to have any significant role in this process in the country. In sum, in the current institutional conditions in Angola, characterized by the inexistence of a true system of local self-government, it will be difficult to achieve all the goals defined in the New Urban Agenda. On the contrary, the engagement of Angola in the preparation of the NUA within the African consensus and the ongoing reform of local government can be an opportunity for Angola to reassess and to rethink the governance of cities and the institutional framework for the promotion of sustainable development in which local government can gradually have a more relevant role. In addition, localization or the need to make the NUA principles and goals locally more specific constitutes one more pressure for the consolidation of the municipality as an autonomous policy actor within the multilevel governance framework and as the true holder of the government of cities in Angola.

References African Union Commission (2015) Agenda 2063. The Africa we want. African Union Commission, Addis Ababa Alexandrino JM (2010) O poder local na Constituição da República de Angola: os princípios fundamentais. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa 51(1–2):61–92 Alexandrino JM (2013) O novo constitucionalismo angolano. Instituto de Ciências Jurídico-­ Políticas, Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon Barnett C, Parnell S (2016) Ideas, implementation and indicators: epistemologies of the post-2015 urban agenda. Environ Urban 28(1):87–98 Boletim Oficial de Angola (several years)

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

43

Brosio G (2000) Decentralization in Africa—working paper. International Monetary Fund, Washington Burke FG (1969) Research in African local government: past trends and an emerging approach. Can J Afr Stud/Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines 3(1):73–80 Caetano M (1934) Resumo da História da Administração Colonial Portuguesa. In: Amaral DF (ed) Estudos de História da Administração Pública Portuguesa. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra Caprotti F, Robert C, Datta A, Broto VC, Gao E, Georgeson L, Herrick C, Odendaal N, Joss S (2017) The new urban agenda: key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Res Pract 10(3):367–378 Cociña C, Frediani A, Acuto M, Levy C (2019) Knowledge translation in global urban agendas: a history of research-practice encounters in the Habitat conferences. World Dev 122:130–141 Comunidade de Desenvolvimento da África Austral (2015) Projecto de Plano Estratégico Indicativo de Desenvolvimento Regional de 2015–2020, Secretariado da SADC, Abril de 2015 Diário da República—Órgão Oficial da República de Angola (several years) Dickovick JT, Riedl RB (2010) Comparative assessment of decentralization in Africa: final report and summary of findings. United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Erk J (2014) Federalism and decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa: five patterns of evolution. Reg Federal Stud 24(5):535–552 Feijó C (2014) Poder Local em Angola—Institucionalização, organização e problemas. In: Melo A (ed) Jornadas de Direito Municipal Comparado Lusófono. Lisbon, Associação Académica da Faculdade de Direito de Lisboa Garschagen M, Porter L, Satterthwaite D, Fraser A, Horne R, Nolan M, Solecki W, Friedman E, Dellas E, Schreiber F (2018) The new urban agenda: from vision to policy and action/will the new urban agenda have any positive influence on governments and international agencies?/ informality in the new urban agenda: from the aspirational policies of integration to a politics of constructive engagement/growing up or growing despair? Prospects for multi-sector progress on city sustainability under the NUA/approaching risk and hazards in the new urban agenda: a commentary/follow up and review of the new urban agenda. Plan Theory Pract 19(1):117–137 Government of Angola (2014) The statement by Angola. Wednesday 17.09.2014 on the First Preparatory Committee of Habitat III Conference Guedes AM (2008) Uma articulação entre o Estado e as ‘Autoridades Tradicionais’? Limites na congruência entre o Direito do Estado e os Direitos ‘Tradicionais’ em Angola. In: Amaral DF, Almeida CF, Almeida MT (eds) Estudos Comemorativos dos 10 anos da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, vol I. Coimbra, Almedina Gumede N, Byamukama J, Dakora E (2019) Contemporary perspectives on fiscal decentralisation and new local government in South Africa. Ghana J Dev Stud,. Special Issue 16(2) Hague C (2018) Delivering the new urban agenda through urban and territorial planning. Plan Theory Pract 19(4):618–622 INE (1945) Anuário Estatístico do Império Colonial—1943. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Lisboa INE (1946) Anuário Estatístico do Império Colonial—1945. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Lisboa INE (1973) Anuário de Portugal—Ultramar (Portugal—Overseas Territories Yearbook). Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Lisbon INE-Angola (2016) Censo 2014. Resultados definitivos do recenseamento geral da população e da habitação de Angola 2014. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Luanda Ministério da Administração do Território (2015) PLANEAT  - Plano Nacional Estratégico da Administração do Território. Estratégia da Administração do Território 2015–2025. Ministério da Administração do Território da República de Angola, Luanda Ministério da Administração do Território (2017) Registo Eleitoral 2016/2017. Estatísticas Globais. Ficheiro Informático de Cidadãos Maiores - 3 de Maio de 2017. Ministério da Administração do Território, Luanda Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018a) Proposta de Lei de Organização e Funcionamento das Autarquias Locais

44

C. N. Silva

Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018b) Proposta de Lei Sobre a Institucionalização das Autarquias Locais Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018c) Proposta de Lei das Atribuições e Competências das Autarquias Locais Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018d) Proposta de Lei da Tutela Administrativa Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018e) Proposta de Lei Orgânica das Eleições Autárquicas Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2018f) Proposta de Lei das Finanças Locais Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado (2019) Relatório do Processo de Auscultação Pública sobre o Pacote Legislativo Autárquico. Ministério da Administração do Território e Reforma do Estado, Luanda Ministério da Economia e Planeamento (2018) Plano de Desenvolvimento Nacional 2018–2022. Governo de Angola, Luanda Ministério do Planeamento (2007) Angola 2025. Angola Um País Com Futuro. Sustentabilidade, Equidade, Modernidade. Estratégia de Desenvolvimento a Longo Prazo para Angola. Governo de Angola, Luanda Ministério do Planeamento e do Desenvolvimento Territorial (2012) Plano Nacional de Desenvolvimento 2013–2017. Governo de Angola, Luanda Ministry of Public Works and Urban Planning (2001) National report on the implementation of the habitat agenda in Angola (Istanbul + 5). Ministry of Public Works and Urban Planning, Luanda Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (2016) Angolan national report for habitat III. On the implementation of the Habitat II Agenda (2014, revised - 11 March 2016). Ministry of Urban Development and Housing – National Habitat Committee, Luanda Ministry of Urban Planning and Habitat (2016) Declaration of Mrs. Branca do Espírito Santo, Minister of Urban Planning and Habitat of the Republic of Angola at the 3rd Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development. Sourabaya – July 26, 2016 Moura C (1913) A história administrativa, colonial e política de Portugal. Typ. do Annuario Commercial, Lisboa National Committee for Habitat II (1996) Housing and Human Settlements in Angola. In: Report and Plan of Action. National Committee for Habitat II, Luanda Olowu D (2003) Local institutional and political structures and processes: recent experience in Africa. Public Adm Dev 23:41–52 Parnell S (2016) Defining a global urban development agenda. World Dev 78:529–540 Pieterse E, Parnell S, Haysom G (2018) African dreams: locating urban infrastructure in the 2030 sustainable developmental agenda. Area Dev Policy 3(2):149–169 Ribot JC (2002) African decentralization: local actors, powers and accountability. United Nation Research Institute for Social Development, UNRISD, USA, Geneva Robin E, Steenmans K, Acuto M (2019) Harnessing inclusive urban knowledge for the implementation of the new urban agenda. Urban Res Pract 12(2):137–155 Santos B (2012a) Breve história do processo de desconcentração, descentralização e governação local em Angola. Rumo à democracia local. República de Angola, Ministério da Administração do Território, Direcção Nacional da Administração Local do Estado, Luanda Santos OM (2012b) O Município na Constituição Angolana. Curso de PósGraduação em Direito Municipal Comparado dos Países de Língua Oficial Portuguesa. Faculdade de Direito, Lisboa Silva CN (2016a) Local government and urban governance in Lusophone African Countries: from colonial centralism to post-colonial slow decentralization. In: Silva CN (ed) Governing urban Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 13–72 Silva CN (2016b) Governing urban Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, London Tordoff W (1994) Decentralisation: comparative experience in commonwealth Africa. J Mod Afr Stud 32(4):555–580

2  Decentralization and the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Angola

45

Turok I, Scheba A (2018). ‘Right to the city’ and the New Urban Agenda: learning from the right to housing, Territory, Politics, Governance (Published online: 26 Jul 2018) UCLG (2017) National and sub-national governments on the way towards the localization of the SDGs. United Cities and Local Governments, Barcelona UCLG (2018) Towards the localization of the SDGs  – 2nd report. United Cities and Local Governments, Barcelona UCLG (2019) Towards the localization of the SDGs  – 3rd Report. United Cities and Local Governments, Barcelona Ulrich RE (1908) Sciencia e Administração Colonial, vol 1. Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra United Nations (2015) The millennium development goals report. United Nations, New York United Nations (2015a) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations-General Assembly, New York United Nations (2017) New urban agenda. United Nations - Habitat, Nairobi Valencia SC, Simon D, Croese S, Nordqvist J, Oloko M, Sharma T, Buck N, Versace I (2019) Adapting the sustainable development goals and the new urban agenda to the city level: initial reflections from a comparative research project. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 11(1):4–23 Vasconcellos E (1921) Colonias Portuguezas—Geographia Physica, Politica e Economica, 2nd edn. Typographia da Companhia A Editora, Lisboa Wheeler D, Pelissier R (2011) História de Angola. Tinta da China, Lisboa Wunsch JS (2000) Refounding the African state and local self-governance: the neglected foundation. J Mod Afr Stud 38(3):487–509 Wunsch JS (2001) Decentralization, local governance and ‘recentralization’ in Africa. Public Adm Dev 21:277–288

Chapter 3

Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance Ilona Pálné Kovács

Abstract  The chapter deals seemingly with the Hungarian territorial governance, but the aim is more ambitious. What happened in Hungary with the local governance system in the last three decades is embedded into the global processes of territorial governance. The challenges of the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda (NUA) cannot be answered without deeper understanding of paradigm shift from the decentralised neoliberal towards the centralised neo-Weberian governance patterns, and also without the territorial shift from regional (rural) to urban scale. The chapter introduces the Hungarian territorial governance reforms providing explanation about the theoretical and political background. Thinking about the prospects of the future, the chapter concludes that Hungary needs more time and professional and political efforts to adapt to the new governance challenges taking into consideration the national economic, social, and cultural conditions besides the external, global patterns, and especially the New Urban Agenda. Keywords  Hungarian local government system · Territorial reforms · Neoliberal governance · New Urban Agenda

3.1  Introduction There is no doubt that we are witnessing an important stage in the evolution of governance systems beyond neoliberal logics. Accordingly, new theoretical and praxis-­oriented challenges have emerged that require redoubled effort from both academic and policy communities. Generally, neoliberal and neo-Weberian (or post-­neoliberal) governance models provide different conditions for the territorial

I. P. Kovács (*) CERS Institute of Regional Studies, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_3

47

48

I. P. Kovács

sharing of power. However, real existing governance systems are always interpenetrated by highly different local and national power structures that challenge more abstract modelling. The selection of this topic was motivated by governance reforms implemented in the past decade in Hungary. Based on the new constitution, government and governance in Hungary have been completely rearranged and recentralised. These changes have affected general representative and executive branches of power as well as systems of territorial government. Investigating the circumstances of Hungary’s centralisation process is an opportunity for revealing the questions of neo-Weberian centralisation versus neoliberal decentralisation. The case is also a good example of how territorial scales and logics are changing due to emerging urban agendas and structurally changing forms of multilevel governance, as well as evolving political ambitions of new party. Hungary, as we will see, has neglected the improvement of urban governance in the last decades, focusing rather on the failed project of creating meso (regional)-level governance structures. City governments are therefore not prepared for more innovative, participative and open modes of governance aimed by the New Urban Agenda (UN 2017). Moreover, centralisation is certainly not an adequate response to this dilemma. The next paragraphs will analyse changes in theoretical governance paradigms focusing on questions of centralisation versus decentralisation and geographical scale. Based on this, Hungarian territorial reforms and the situation of urban governments will be described, including internal and external factors that have influenced legislation and its functioning. The chapter ends with a list of open questions regarding the necessary conditions for effective territorial reforms and a truly decentralised governance system which as yet is lacking in Hungary and in Central and Eastern Europe more generally.

3.2  Old Dilemmas: Centralisation Versus Decentralisation Governance systems differ in terms of the policy remits and level of autonomy that local governments enjoy. Decentralisation is one of the elements of democracy but at the same time it is also a question of rational, public policy considerations. Optimal balance between decentralisation and centralisation is not easy to identify (Charbit 2011), and some experts argue that there is as yet a lack of sufficient evidence for a precise assessment of advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation (Banting and Costa-Font 2010). However, it is clear that countries with good economic performance are better governed and generally more decentralised (Müller 2009; Charron et al. 2012). This is borne out by evaluations of decentralisation and local and regional autonomy (Hooghe et al. 2010; Ladner et al. 2016) that distinguish between administrative, political, decision-making, qualitative and quantitative, financial and executive forms of decentralisation. These evaluations also use various indicators in order to identify the position of local, regional governments within governance systems and then rank them internationally.

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

49

Local governments, notwithstanding theoretical and methodological considerations, have an impact on local living conditions, on the quality of services and on local economic development as well on citizen trust and satisfaction (Weziak-­ Bialowolska and Dijsktra 2015). The functioning of local governance is basically determined by the overall economic, social and especially by the governance environment. Thus, decentralised systems may ensure greater opportunities for local government to shape a locally optimal decision-making system. Exploiting this opportunity is by no means easy, as systems of local governance always face challenges for the efficient management of problems at the right time and place. The theoretical frames of the centralisation versus decentralisation dilemma have not much changed in the last decades. Similar arguments and counterarguments are reiterated in the literature (Begg et al. 1993; Linder 2002). How much decentralisation is needed and possible in any given place and time always depends on both political and professional considerations. We have witnessed cycles of New Public Management (NPM) and the socalled re-municipalisation (Wollmann and Marcou 2010; Wollmann et  al. 2016), while economic and social contexts have been continuously changing. Simultaneously, we have been trying to put emphasis on the market, the roles of public actor relationships between top-down and bottom-up decision-making. Decentralisation is embedded within context; it is not by definition and automatically advantageous. Moreover, decentralisation can be understood differently, in de jure and de facto terms and as either administrative or political (Hutchcroft 2001). We have to take into consideration that Central and Eastern European (CEE) democracies have from the beginning enjoyed less favourable conditions for public service modernisation, given the immense efforts required to negotiate systemic transformation (Bouckaert et  al. 2011). The cost of this transformation was indeed very high. In transition countries more time is needed for the advantages of decentralisation to become evident, as these countries are not simply implementing institutional change but are also coping with the fundamental political and economic restructuring (Temmes 2000). The less-developed civil and private sectors have also proved to be obstacles to implementing more ‘horizontal’ and less hierarchical governance models, especially at the local level (Denters 2011). Finally, we cannot ignore the importance of national cultural differences in democratic values like trust, participation and so on (Pickvance 1997; Tönnisson 2004). The autonomy and power granted to local and regional governments also depend on more global contexts. This is especially true in the case of the European Union in which the principle of Multilevel Governance (MLG) enjoys considerable currency. The relationships between governance levels have an impact not only on concrete interactions between EU, national, regional and local actors, but also on the convergence – or Europeanisation – of administrative structures, values, procedures and institutions. Generally speaking, the European MLG model, coupled with logics of Cohesion Policy, has supported decentralisation and regionalisation (Piattoni and Polverari 2016). By the same token, these trends have been promoted by neoliberal paradigms of ‘good governance’. However, the behaviour and role of regions towards vis-à-vis EU is far from uniform. The ideas of MLG and the Europe of the Regions do not enjoy general support despite the fact that the grounding principle of subsidiarity in the EU’s official narrative is not questioned (yet). It is not an

50

I. P. Kovács

accident that the white book on MLG originally promoted by the European Committee of the Regions has never been accepted at upper governance levels (CoR 2009; Delamartino 2009). The EU has had both a stake and a crucial impact not only on regionalisation but also on the strengthening role and position of urban governance both at the national and European governance tiers. Cities are already partners of the regions, and city networks have formal representation in the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and informal influence on other European institutions. This process has not yet resulted in structural administrative reforms in most of the member states, but many of them are experimenting with special forms of urban/regional governance.

3.3  Trends and Reforms of Territorial Governance All territorial reforms intend to find territorially more efficient and democratic models of governance. However, this general aim can be reached by different means. The question nowadays is not only ‘who governs’ (Dahl 1961) but rather where, how and with whom can be governed. Territorial governance models have been gradually shifting from hierarchical forms towards partnerships between tiers as well as from uniform models to asymmetric solutions. As regards content, the reforms started with putting emphasis on administrative de-concentration and then shifting towards political decentralisation, aiming first at better public services and later at more competitive economic development. Gaulé distinguishes (2010, p. 49) three periods in the European territorial reform processes according to these main ambitions: the period between 1950 and 1980 when predominantly administrative reforms were implemented; from the 1980s onward, efficient governance and public service solutions have been experimented with through the territorial and functional restructuring of governance levels; the 1990s brought changes especially in form and actors. The previous goal of efficiency has been expanded by strengthening participation and legitimacy. Local government reforms have often been coupled with changes in territorial scale and boundaries enabling territorial decision-makers to fulfil new tasks by larger size and by geographically more appropriate boundaries. In Western Europe, following the logic of economies of scale, drastic structural reforms have been implemented since the 1970s. A crucial part of smaller settlements lost their own local governments, offices and even their representative bodies. Consequently, even the right of decision or control over local public issues and abilities to manage public services have been curtailed. The reforms have generated numerous conflicts, including democratic deficits due to the growing distance between citizens and local governments. However, larger local units did prove capable of fulfilling more tasks, achieving both better quality and cost-efficiency. This indicates a strong connection between the public role, that is the share of public budgets, and the size and administrative capacity of local governments (Baldersheim and Rose 2010, p. 3). Some countries of Central and Eastern Europe underwent similarly hectic and many times

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

51

failed reforms, indicating that the question of ‘territorial choice’ is not a mere technocratic issue of economies and that there is altogether no uniform model of optimal scale (Swianiewicz 2010). The second run of territorial reforms targeted the meso-level under the slogan of a ‘Europe of Regions’. Some European countries realised that regionalisation could be a possible solution for ethnic, cultural autonomy conflicts, while others, focusing on economic performance and administrative quality, tried to improve the administrative capacity. In many so-called cohesion countries, for example Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the centrally initiated regional reforms intended to fully absorb European cohesion funds. The European principles of subsidiarity and partnership applied in Cohesion Policy required involvement of regions in decision-making processes of the Union, and, as a result, regions became relevant actors of multilevel governance (Bache 1998). However, the delimitation of the so-called Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics, level 2 (NUTS2) regions as frameworks for Cohesion Policy proved to be an especially hard task in CEE countries. Creating new, regional boundaries and designating regional pole cities without regional traditions, identity or cohesion was an indeed challenging task. The second step was even more difficult, equipping these new mesos with institutions, competences and financial resources. This requirement was highly ambivalent, leading to relative success in some cases but also contributing to failed regional reforms of public administration (Scott 2009). Thus it is no surprise that in contrast to the pre-accession period, massive recentralisation was initiated in most East-Central European countries. It seems that during the time of ‘conditionality’, there was strong external determination for the adaptation (Hughes et al. 2004). Following accession, EU requirements lost much of their impact in promoting real ambitions for learning (Bache 2010; Bouckaert et al. 2011). Cohesion policy proved therefore to be an insufficient motivation for implementing territorial reforms (Yanakiev 2010; Pálné Kovács 2009). Despite this fact, the CEE countries were rather beneficiaries of these ambivalent decentralisation movements. The year 2008 marks the beginning of a new epoch, characterised by the re-­ emergent centralised strong state with a preference for security and crisis management (Baldersheim and Rose 2010, p.  258). As a result, the future of territorial governance systems was indeed ‘at the crossroads’ (CEMR 2013). Furthermore, the economic and financial crisis of 2008 had severe impacts on the budgets of the subnational governance levels in general (Fig. 3.1) and exacerbated the loss of decision-­ making autonomy elicited by recentralisation. Budgetary constraints had different impacts on regions and cities. Rural areas were among the victims of the economic crisis as national governments tended to cut public spending and subsidies in social policy and rural development. Only cities and dynamic urban regions were able to maintain dynamism or even develop further. Disparities between Eastern and Western European capitals decreased at the same time that disparities between regional centres and smaller cities grew apace, resulting in considerable regional gaps within countries (Gorzelak et  al. 2010). Recent disparities between the capital and rural regions are three to four times more than during the 1950s and 1960s (Horváth 2015, p. 52). We could say that this has

52

I. P. Kovács

Fig. 3.1  Average annual change in subnational government expenditure, in EU countries, in real terms, 2000–2009 and 2010–2013. (Source: European Commission 2014)

been the cost of national-scale catching up, but the increasing regional polarisation made CEE countries more fragile during the crisis. Urban–rural division is therefore highly accentuated in the EU’s eastern member states, where the scale of urbanisation is still modest. According to the data of the 6th Report on European Cohesion, the less-developed regions were growing faster between 2000 and 2008, but this positive trend was broken after 2010, because the crisis impacted rural and urban regions differently. Only the bigger, capital cities were approaching to the West (Pálné Kovács 2016). The question is how urbanisation and metropolisation can be managed within a larger territorial context but without exacerbating a decline of peripheries in less-­ developed countries. The challenge is complex. Territorial governments at the local, meso and regional levels have not been able to cope with the problems of urban– rural polarisation but, on the other hand, without them any form of long-term management is simply impossible. The other crucial dilemma is how to continue the decades-long decentralisation process, preserving the role and autonomy of local governments in the era when the recentralisation trend is strengthening.

3.4  A  Short History of Subnational Territorial Governance in Hungary Historically, the Hungarian state has been highly centralised and territorially divided into counties (Megye). Counties have continued to serve as geographical frames and have functioned in parallel with different deconcentrated government offices and elected self-governments. In the past, municipalities were generally subordinated to county authorities, the exception being larger cities with county-like status and autonomy. The lack of local/municipal self-governance tradition was coupled with structural deficiencies, such as fragmented rural municipalities, weak city networks, a lack of willingness and official mean to cooperate, etc. Interestingly, the Soviet-­ type council system during the communist period (1950–1989) was territorially

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

53

‘rational’, integrating villages into larger districts and coordinating public service delivery and development activities under the control of the counties. The system of course was not decentralised and democratic, but it provided accessible public services of similar quality. Traditionally, Budapest, the capital, has always been the only real centre of Hungary. Budapest’s population is 1.7 million, which is about tenfold of the populations of the other five major cities. Today there is no other city in the country which could possibly become an ‘economic engine’, as only Budapest possesses critical mass and the conditions for sustained economic performance. As concerns the Hungary’s regional centres, they have partly lost their higher urban functions and many of them suffer from demographic decline. Generally speaking, they are not able to counterbalance the overwhelming dominance of the capital. Systemic change led to a fundamental transformation not only in administrative models but also in territorial configurations. The 1990 Act on Local Governments created a completely new situation in the spatial distribution of power. Instead of the 19 counties, as the meso-level, the municipality became the key element of the local government system. The 1000-year-long power of the counties as self-governments have been almost totally eliminated and replaced by deconcentrated bodies as ‘bridge-head’ positions of central ministries. With regard to questions of democracy and autonomy, the number of local decision-­making units was doubled: The former local councils were replaced by more than 3000 municipalities. Due to this extreme fragmentation, the system suffered from high costs as well as low efficiency and quality. Thus, the politically privileged local government system proved unsuitable and unsustainable in terms of the decentralisation of state power due to the shortcomings of spatial fragmentation. Although several administrative reforms were announced and partially implemented, the structural deficiency at the local level remained unchanged (Fig. 3.2). The public legal autonomy of small settlements has

Fig. 3.2  Rating of some public services in Hungary and in Europe. (Source: Own computation based on the European Quality of Life Survey, 2012)

54

I. P. Kovács

been sacrosanct since the change of regime, making it impossible to discuss the possibility of settlement amalgamations and mergers. One potential alternative, the system of municipal associations, has never gained a predominant role although it was financially supported for a long period (Table 3.1). Not only rural municipalities but also cities contributed to territorial fragmentation. Systemic change initiated a strong competition for gaining ‘city’ status. The number of settlements with city-type administrations rose from 166 in 1990 to 346 by 2017; but most of them are not real cities, and there are even ‘cities’ having a population around 1000. The regulation on big cities is similarly contradictory and has led to further fragmentation, therefore isolating the county and county seat governments. The legislator has established 23 cities with county rank following the historical tradition of granting privileged status for some larger cities. According to the Act on Local Governments, the cities with county rank have the right to undertake county-tier competencies within their own geographic areas. Cities with county rank have no representation in the county assembly and they organise their affairs independently, giving rise to disturbances in service provision and development activities. As a consequence, larger cities in Hungary cannot become integrative centres within regions (counties), but are merely actors operating according to local particularisms and narrowly defined interests. All in all, the territorial balancing points within the system have proved to be quite disadvantageous. The regulation failed to take into consideration that in the era of systemic transformation, modernisation and economic development, the role of large towns and meso-level governments should have been more emphasised instead of the small communities of micro settlements. In general, the greatest dilemma was that broad and equal responsibilities of all municipalities, independent of size, were coupled with insufficient financial conditions and organisational capacities, so that the system of broad power resulted in broad irresponsibility. Dysfunctional local government remits have thus been replaced by the deconcentrated administrative territorial organs of central government, while the decentralised democratic governance system has been replaced by centralised administration. In an almost miraculous way, when inadequate capacities and decreasing finance could no longer be compensated by the selling of own assets, the system of local services did not collapse immediately. The maintenance of services was much more due to organisational inertia and not due to municipal consolidation reforms introduced in the spirit of neoliberal NPM involving profit and non-profit actors and other cost-saving methods. Nevertheless, public service institutions showed signs of deterioration in an absence of structural and capacity reforms and the narrowing finance. The perspective of EU membership slightly improved this situation, necessitating structural and institutional adjustments in order to fulfil EU requirements and preconditions. During preparations for membership, some territorial reform attempts emerged. For the municipalities the introduction of micro-regions seemed to be a

Towns Capital districts 22 22 23 23 23

Towns with county rank 8 20 22 23 23 Other towns 157 156 214 304 322

Municipalities with own offices 782 1562 1668 1200 545

Municipalities joining districts notarities 2188 1535 1490 1977 2633

Number of district notarities 638 529 580 768 738

Seat of district notarity Large Town village Village NA NA NA NA NA NA 33 34 513 75 23 670 127 47 564

Source: Gazetteer of the Republic of Hungary, 1990, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2017. The 1990 data is before the new law on local governments; 2011 data before the new law on local governments

Year 1990 1991 2001 2011 2017

Total number of local municipalities 1420 3097 3158 3177 3178

Table 3.1  Main structural data of local municipalities in Hungary: 1990, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2017

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance 55

56

I. P. Kovács

solution to fragmentation. The secret of the ‘success story’ of these so-called micro-­ regions is that mayors were forced to collaborate at the level of NUTS4 districts, frameworks that were designated by the government as the units of development policy. The 174 micro-regions gained additional public service functions and become the legally institutionalised units of cooperation in 2004. Regionalisation, as the other territorial adjustment referring to the EU accession, was a more difficult task. The replacement of 19 historical counties with larger regions was initiated by the Act on Spatial Development in 1996. The so-called development councils were established at national, regional, county and micro-­ regional scales and consisted of delegated members from the top and the bottom. A major dilemma was the question whether the 19 counties (NUTS3) or the 7 regional units (NUTS2) should be the main action arena in regional (cohesion) policy. The question remained also open whether these units should be designed only for the purpose of development policy or for territorial public administration as well. The new left-wing liberal government announced a radical programme of regionalisation in 2002 and the election of regional governments from 2006 onwards. The latter programme has been implemented but instead of holding regional elections, the government decided to reorganise the deconcentrated county offices. The specific charm of this regional reorganisation was the designation of the seats of the new regional agencies. The cities aspiring to become administrative headquarters competed with each other since there were no ‘obvious’ centres of the regions. This phenomenon provides evidence that the NUTS2 regions were only artificial units. The boundaries and seats were the focus of political debate, but the question regarding where real power resided in the region was somehow lost. Although the regions became influential units in development policy, having professional development agencies with skilled staff and some experience in multi-­ actor cooperation, the entire institutional system lost its position. The management system of EU Structural Funds became strongly centralised. Each operational programme, even the so-called regional operational programme was managed by the single National Development Agency. Even the second programming period that started in 2007 did not bring any changes. The regions remained very weak actors within EU Cohesion Policy, and their role in public administration was also peripheral whilst the county level almost disappeared. Besides of this ambivalent regionalisation, neither the bigger cities nor urban regions were able to become independent actors of development policy under the strong control of the centre. In conclusion, Hungary produced a very fragmented local level and a jumble of meso-level units between 1990 and 2010. Neither cities nor territorial governance levels could integrate the subnational system, providing an easy way and argumentation for further centralisation.

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

57

3.5  The Return of Old Centralisation Patterns The year 2010 signalled a new epoch in Hungary with the victory of the present right-wing government and the imposition of its agendas with regard to territorial public administration as well. Overtly defying the previous neoliberal civic philosophy, Hungary currently witnesses the centralising and nationalising efforts of the ‘neo-Weberian’ state, which has been politically justified by the economic crisis. The necessity of the local government reform was generally accepted, both by political and professional circles. The fragmented structure of municipalities and the weakness of the county assemblies resulted, as mentioned above, in low-quality performance and financial problems. The latter led to crucial financial crisis accelerated by the global economic and financial crisis started in 2008. So the new government had to do something, and possessing a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly it was able to enforce essential changes without compromise with the parliamentary opposition. We must however admit that 8 years later the series of constitutional amendments that the new ‘fundamental law’ and the following legislation inaugurated took a completely different political governance direction, which cannot just be regarded as crisis management or consolidation. The position and status of self-governments in a strong and centralised state underwent serious modifications parallel with the geographical reordering of the entire territorial governance system. These steps have actually brought the two decades long hesitation about the geographical scale of stabilising meso-level to an end. However, it must be emphasised that counties have survived only as geographical units, as their status and remits have completely changed. As the new constitution declares ‘The capital and county government offices shall be the territorial state administration organs of the Government with general competence.’ So the constitutional background established the legal frames to fill the counties as geographical units with different power contents. Although the county self-governments remained, the state administration became much more dominant. Numerous public institutions (hospitals, schools, and so on) were taken over by the central government and its deconcentrated offices already in 2010–2011, with the argument that nationalisation is unavoidable due to the financial crisis of county assemblies. The new act on local governments was adopted in 2011 and moved the country further towards a weaker and centrally more controlled model. Local governments have since lost many competences in the field of public services and their former autonomy was limited by stricter legal and financial control. It is no wonder that the report of the Council of Europe on Hungarian local government reforms criticised many aspects of the law (CoE 2013). Interestingly no significant reforms were implemented in territorial-structural terms. Fragmentation remained since all municipalities preserved their self-­ government status but with considerably less responsibilities than before. However, the optimal size according to economy of scale considerations has been targeted by several innovations. For example, the law allows for compulsory establishment of association of municipalities and the abolishment of municipal offices with less

58

I. P. Kovács

than 2000 inhabitants. Many public utilities now have to be run in a legally prescribed scale and the financing activities more strictly controlled than before. Thus, the former taboos of municipal autonomy were, finally, abolished without implementing the likely unpopular amalgamation. In spite of that achievement, the government, in general, used the means of nationalisation instead of enabling municipalities to function more efficiently. Many local public services (education, healthcare, and so on) have been nationalised in the last years setting up new, sometimes huge, nationwide units such as public service providers. As we mentioned, the assessment of advantages of decentralised public functioning is a hard job; it depends on the methodology of measurement and also on the overall context. It may indeed be that we need more time and experience to make a balanced assessment. What is sure, however, is that Hungarian local governments did not receive opportunities for developing within a more efficient legal and geographical context and that local societies have lost their direct, democratic control over decision-making, not to speak about participation in local affairs, among other issues. The democratic deficit is therefore obvious, but we have to admit that nationalisation was not perceived too negatively by the public. The new legal documents were of course disputed by the associations of self-government and oppositional parties, but the majority of the people and local elites were rather neutral concerning massive centralisation, or they were not generally aware of the ownership of public service institutions. The county assemblies suffered possibly the biggest losses. As outlined before, counties were floating in the power structure after systemic change as a form of ‘punishment’ for their dominant role in Hungarian history. But since 2010 they have become the true victims of centralisation. County self-governments have been recently designated as exclusively responsible for development policy, especially for the territorial management of cohesion funds. This role, as the preliminary research evidence shows,1 is very weak, limited only to formal planning activities and to assisting central resource allocating decisions. This actually one-purpose local government model is far from the spirit of the European Charter of Local Governments and is detached from rationales of regional development policy, which requires complex empowerment and instruments for planning, public services, infrastructure, environment, economic development, and so on. The Hungarian county self-government is almost totally excluded from these policy fields and missions. This limited scope provides only a servile role in the direct management of development projects, if at all, but is far from being a strategic coordinator of territorial processes. Of course, this narrow mission and space of movement have negative impacts on institutional capacity and staff. Nowadays, county self-governments have insufficient institutional background for a more influential functioning, and this contributes to near invisibility within the power structure.

1  The project, KÖFOP-2.1.2.-VEKOP-16-2016-00001 run by National University of Public Services, Budapest.

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

59

The case of the larger cities may be better since they have preserved much more competences and instruments for being the main public actors locally. It is also true that huge amounts of financial subsidies from the national and EU funds can be granted to the larger cities under the centrally designed development program called ‘modern cities’. Larger cities are seemingly in the focus again following the targets of the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda (NUA); however, the freedom of movement is narrow due to strict financial controls and to the lack of local resources. The other problem is that cities with county rank are still separated from county assemblies and are still not legally linked to their own surrounding areas. Although the legal regulation creates an institutional context for cooperation with the counties, this potential exists only on paper as no decision-making competences have been foreseen. The real ambition of the cities is to be more ‘independent’ and ‘stronger’ than the other ‘horizontal’ partners, the county assemblies. This is naturally understandable from the political point of view, since almost all of the mayors of the big cities generally have excellent political connections to the central government and the ruling party this favourable patronage condition plays a key role even in the local political scene. But taking into consideration the ideal territorial integrative role of the cities, this vacuum position is rather disadvantageous. So if we look at the territorially and sectorally scattered landscape of the Hungarian governance system, we can realise that there are no integrative points and organisational channels for territorial cohesion and interests, which means that there are no powerful actors able to counterbalance existing power asymmetries. Subnational actors have almost totally disappeared from the central political arena, as is similarly the case with the dimension of shared rule, used by Hooghe and her colleagues (2010) to measure regional autonomy. The formerly highly popular legal option of a doubles mandate of mayors and parliamentary members has been rescinded as has the county party list in parliamentary elections. The chance of national associations of local governments for interest reconciliation was further weakened as a consequence of the statist logic of the political and government system. Seemingly, the formal and informal territorial links which were previously influential are no longer missed, since the strongly centralised decision-making mechanism does not need any territorial information and support. The question as to how centralisation will work in the longer run is open to debate. Now we are returning to the original question: Which are the ‘ideal’ proportions and patterns of centralisation versus decentralisation?

3.6  Future Prospects, Open Questions Hungary is not well positioned as regards the quality of government (Table 3.2). This performance can be partly explained by the contradictory processes of decentralisation. It is generally agreed that decentralisation would have positive effects on trust, participation and also on the quality of governance and public services (Banting and Costa-Font 2010; Charbit 2011). Evidence shows that Hungarians are

60

I. P. Kovács

Table 3.2  Percentile rank of Hungary on selected ranking lists among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank)

Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Bertelsmann’s (BTI) Governance Index European Quality of Governance (EQI) Bertelsmann’s (SGI) Sustainable Governance Governance Index

Number of countries 202

2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 73.0 70.8 70.5 69.0 68.3 66.4 67.5 –

129

84.4 62.8 –

28

28.6 –

41

–

51.2 –

25.0 – –

–

12.2 7.3

41.1 –

38.8

–

14.3 –

7.3

7.3

–

Source: Own elaboration based on http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi, www.bti-project. org, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy, www.sgi-network.org

not satisfied with the quality of public services which could be also in strong correlation with the opinion on local governance (see figures below, Ariely 2013). In order to understand what has happened in Hungary, we need more knowledge regarding processes of territorial reforms. Failures of decentralisation interrelate with the ignorance of knowledge needed for shaping of territorial governance systems and with the servile imitation of available patterns (Pálné Kovács et al. 2016). We may ask whether it is possible to have ‘good governance’ in a centralised country? This question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. All countries at all times have to find the optimal territorial scale, institutional forms and design of processes that fit a concrete context (Barca 2009; Litvack et al. 1998). Decentralisation does not necessarily need a modification of existing boundaries. Indeed, efficient territorial governance is more than only a question of scale. It is also one of cooperation skills, compatibility of actors and levels, political freedom of movement and, of course, material and financial conditions. However, a major dilemma lies in the fact that although people in Hungary are not satisfied with local public services (Fig. 3.2), they still have much more confidence in the local governments than in central institutions (Fig.  3.3). Moreover, despite the fact that the power of local governments has been decreasing, trust in them is increasing (Fig. 3.4). This paradoxical trend can possibly be explained by the generally low knowledge and information about local issues, that is people are not able to identify the real holder of power and responsibility. In spite of the fact that the general political and cultural context is not optimal, scholars, practitioners and experts must work on their own ‘Hungarian’ model of decentralised governance. This preparatory work is first of all not about geographical boundaries; these should actually be the concern of final stages of the reform. First, we have to know much more about the real conditions and performance of the economy, infrastructure and society in general and in each locality. We have to identify the real roles and opportunities of settlements and cities within the spatial context, and after having done this we need to look for a suitable organisational and structural model that addresses form, status, instruments, partners and scale. Having

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

61

Fig. 3.3  Comparing European Quality of Life survey (2012) and Eurobarometer (2016) results on social trust. (Source: Own computations based on the European Quality of Life Survey, 2012 and Eurobarometer Survey, 2016)

Fig. 3.4  Percentage of positive answers to the question ‘Do you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it?’ in the Hungarian sample. (Source: Eurobarometer 2008–2017)

general models and alternatives are, however, not enough. Experiments, analysis and pilot measures are needed to fine-tune an improved model within real territorial networks and entities. In this respect, Hungary is facing crucial challenges: Strengthening the role of the cities, connecting them with each other and with the rural municipalities, integrating somehow tiny villages, dealing with the special case of the capital city and designing appropriate scales/boundaries for the

62

I. P. Kovács

meso-­level – all need to be addressed. These tasks require, moreover, professional approaches. They can also be completed more easily than the stabilisation of political support for local democracy and decentralisation in the heads of the political elite and citizens, which seems indeed to be a longer story in Hungary.

3.7  Conclusion To find the new role of cities within the (overall) system of territorial governance in accordance with the NUA principles is not an easy task at all. The rearrangement of the power relations in urban, rural and meso governments is a challenge for the multilevel governance system at a t time when centralisation tendencies have emerged again. This is especially difficult in Central and Eastern Europe, where the decentralised power model has only a short history and proved to be fragile. Our findings show that the rapid changes in the directions of territorial reform, the unstable institutionalisation of local interests and the weakly represented (as well as weakly shared) political values of decentralisation evoke strong connections to Hungary’s centralistic state traditions, which are widely shared in Central and Eastern Europe. Although new democracies are already beyond the period of transition, they have not yet arrived to the club of consolidated democracies (Henderson et al. 2012). Unfortunately, this observation is confirmed by recent political developments in some CEE countries, not just in Hungary. So the most important precondition for efficient and democratic local government  – that of democratic and cooperative ‘good’ local governance – does not yet exist. The macro political ambitions limit the territorial reforms to more rational spatial and institutional model, which provides both better frames of participation and efficient public service delivery. Many western examples show that the cities could be pioneers in innovations looking for a decentralised governance system. The question is whether or not the highly concentrated power relations in Hungary will allow this where both the meso-level and the bigger cities are rather subordinated agents of the central power. The governance of cities cannot be improved or innovated against the power nature of the whole governance system. Reforms are necessary in all tiers of governance.

References Ariely G (2013) Public administration and citizen satisfaction with democracy: cross-national evidence. Int Rev Adm Sci 4:747–767 Bache I (1998) The politics of European Union regional policy. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield Bache I (2010) Partnership as an EU policy instrument: a political history. West Eur Polit 1:58–74 Baldersheim H, Rose EL (eds) (2010) Territorial choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders. Palgrave, Macmillan, Houndmills Banting K, Costa–Font J (2010) Decentralisation, welfare, and social citizenship in contemporary democracies. Guest Editorial. Federalism, decentralisation, and the welfare state. Envir Plan C Govern Pol 28(3):381–389

3  Changing Patterns and General Dilemmas in Hungarian Territorial Governance

63

Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy. A place-based approach to meeting the European Union challenges and expectations http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/ future/barca_en.htm Begg D et  al (1993) Making sense of subsidiarity: how much centralization for Europe? The Centre for Economic Policy Research, London Bouckaert G, Nacrosis V, Nemec J (2011) Public administration and management reforms in CEE: Main trajectories and results. NISPAcee J Pub Adm Pol IV(1):9–32 CEMR. (2013). Decentralisation at the crossroads. Territorial reforms in Europe in time of crisis. Council of European Municipalities and Regions, www.ccre.org Charbit, C. (2011). Governance of public policies in decentralised context. The multi-level approach. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No 04. (https://doi.org/10.1787/5 kg883pkxkhc-en) Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Dijkstra, L. (2012). Regional Governance Matters. A Study on Regional Variation in Quality of Government within the EU. EC. Working Papers. Brussels. DG Regional Policy Committee of the Regions. (2009). A white paper on multilevel governance. Brussels Council of Europe. (2013). Local and regional democracy in Hungary. Rapporteurs: Torres Pereira, A.-Cukur, D. Congress of Local and Regional Authorities https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?R ef=CG(25)7PROV&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=C 3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=CACC9A&BackColorLogged=EFEA9C Dahl RA (1961) Who governs? Democracy and power in an American City. Yale University Press, New Haven Delamartino, F. (2009). The Paradigm of Multilevel Governance. http://www.cor.europa.eu Denters B (2011) Local governance. In: Bevir M (ed) The SAGE handbook of governance. SAGE, London, pp 313–329 Eurofound (2012) Third European quality of life survey - quality of life in Europe: impacts of the crisis. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg European Commission. (2014). Investment for jobs and growth. Sixth Report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Brussels European Commission. (2016). Standard Eurobarometer 86. Eurobarometer Surveys. [online] European Commission. https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/S2137_86_2_STD86_ENG European Commission. (2017). Standard Eurobarometer 88. Eurobarometer Surveys [online] European Commission https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/S2143_88_3_STD88_ENG Gaulé E (2010) Public governance decentralisation modelling in the context of reforms. Pub Pol Adm 32:47–60 Gorzelak G, Bachtler J, Smetkowski M (eds) (2010) Regional development in central and Eastern Europe. Routledge, London/New York Henderson K, Pettai V, Wenninger A (eds) (2012) Central and Eastern Europe beyond transition: convergence and divergence in Europe. Strasbourg, ESF Hooghe L, Marks G, Schakel A (2010) The rise of regional authority. A comparative study of 42 democracies. Routledge, Abingdon/New York Horváth G (2015) Spaces and places in central and Eastern Europe. Historical Trends and Perspectives. Routledge, London/New York Hughes J, Sasse G, Gordon C (2004) Europeanization and regionalization in the EU’s enlargement to central and Eastern Europe. Palgrave, MacMillan, London Hutchcroft PD (2001) Centralization and decentralization in administration and politics: assessing territorial dimensions of authority and power. Gov Int J Pol Adm 14(1):23–53 Ladner A, Keuffer N, Baldersheim H (2016) Measuring local autonomy in 39 countries (1990–2014). Reg Fed Stud 26(3):321–359 Linder W (2002) Political challenges of decentralisation. Washington DC, World Bank Institute Litvack J, Ahmad J, Bird R (1998) Rethinking decentralization in developing countries. World Bank. Sector Studies Series, Washington, DC Müller U (2009) From subsidiarity to success. AER. BAK Basel Economics, Basel

64

I. P. Kovács

Pálné Kovács I (2009) Régiók és fejlesztési koalíciók (Regions and Growth Coalitions). Politikatudományi Szemle 4:37–61 Pálné Kovács I (2016) Cohesion policy in Central and Eastern Europe. The challenge of learning. In: Piattoni S, Polverari L (eds) Handbook on cohesion policy in the EU. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton, pp 302–325 Pálné Kovács I, Bodor Á, Finta I, Grünhut Z, Kacziba P, Zongor G (2016) Farewell to decentralisation: the Hungarian story and its general implications. Croat Comp Public Admin 16(4):789–817 Piattoni S, Polverari L (2016) Handbook on cohesion policy in the EU. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Pickvance CG (1997) Decentralization and democracy in Eastern Europe: a sceptical approach. Gov Pol 2:129–143 Scott JW (ed) (2009) De-coding new regionalism. Ashgate, Franham Swianiewicz P (2010) Territorial fragmentation as a problem, consolidation as a solution. In: Swianiewicz P (ed) Territorial consolidation reforms in Europe. OSI/LGI, Budapest, pp 27–45 Temmes M (2000) State transformation and transition theory. Int Rev Adm Sci 66(2):258–268 Tönnisson K (2004) The applicability of networking principles among Estonian local governments. In: Jenei G, Mclaughlin K, Mike K, Osborne SP (eds) Challenges of public management reforms. IRSPM-BUESPA, Budapest, pp 193–217 UN (2017) New Urban Agenda. UN-Habitat, Nairobi Weziak-Bialowolska D, Dijsktra L (2015) Trust. Local governance, and quality of public service in EU regions and cities. European Commission JRC, Luxembourg Wollmann H, Marcou G (eds) (2010) The provision of public Services in Europe. Between state, local government and market. Elgar, Cheltenham Wollmann H, Kopric I, Marcou G (eds) (2016) Public and social services in Europe. IIAS, Palgrave Macmillan, COST, London Yanakiev A (2010) The Europeanization of Bulgarian regional policy: a case of strengthened centralization. Southeast Eur Black Sea Stud 1:45–57

Chapter 4

Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy Process: The Road from Governance to Government Edit Somlyódyné Pfeil

Abstract  The chapter investigates and discusses the impact of the political and administrative recentralisation process that has been going on in Hungary since 2011 on local government and urban governance, which has reduced the autonomy of both local and subnational self-governments. This chapter was written to confront the Hungarian urban policy with the challenges related to the new urban paradigm and the special principles of sustainable urban development defined in the New Urban Agenda, which was approved by the United Nations. The critical analysis identifies the tools of the state designed to penetrate more and more into the autonomy of local authorities and the impacts of these. Ist shines a light on the difficulties of the implementation of local governance by using the example of a post-­ socialist country. The chapter focuses on the role of large- and medium-sized Hungarian cities in the design and implementation of urban policy, based on the findings of an in-depth qualitative research made with city leaders. Throughout this, the analytical framework of the research is provided by multi-level governance and horizontal and vertical branches of cooperation and coordination. The findings point out that the operation of the Hungarian local governmental system has become fragmented in regard to urban and economic development. There are hardly any institutionalised arenas for horizontal cooperation, and unfortunately this is true for the cooperation among the governmental tiers. According to the conclusions drawn from the research, there is a tension between both the characteristics of the unitary nation state’s institutional structure and its urban policy and the elements of the New Urban Agenda. In the unitary state, the chances for the implementation of multi-level governance can be limited.

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil (*) Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_4

65

66

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

Keywords  Urban policy · Local autonomy · Functional urban area · Recentralisation · Spatial planning · Multi-level governance · Coordination · Fragmentation · Hungary

4.1  Introduction The New Urban Agenda was approved in 2016 by the United Nations in Quito, which defines the implementation of urban policy as a step on the road that leads to the realisation of sustainable development (UN 2017).1 A precondition for the success of this is the implementation and capacity development of an integrated urban policy at each level of government. At the same time, it acknowledges the leading role of national governments, as they are irreplaceable actors in an effective and sustainable urban development. It is an important circumstance then that national (urban) policy gives the framework in which cities can be responsible for their social and economic development. This policy has many forms of appearance in European countries; it involves various institutions, financial resources, planning and regulatory tools. In certain EU member states, the governmental positions of subnational levels and of cities have been strengthened, with the primary goal of the development of the economy and the creation of cooperation across administrative boundaries. In other European countries, it is recentralisation and the conscious weakening of the local and territorial self-governments that can be seen (Gore 2018, p.150). The group of the latter countries involves Hungary whose urban governance structure is analysed in this chapter. In Hungary a change of governance and a turn in the style of government occurred in 2011, resulting in fundamental institutional reforms in the public sector after 20 years. The Public Administration Reform (PAR) has been going on for 9 years, as confirmed in 2015 by the Public Administration and Public Service Development Strategy of the Government of Hungary. Since 2011 the unitary Hungarian state has reshuffled the tasks among the different levels of government with normative tools. The significance of the self-government sector has lessened. The subnational level (county level) appears exclusively as the competency area of the government offices, and the county self-governments are not part of any future scenario in the government’s strategy. So, in contrast to the decentralisation tendencies of Europe during the last three decades, the subnational county self-governments have been practically emptied of power and financial resources. Cities and their hinterlands are now separate from each other because the state does not offer a special 1  UN (2017) New Urban Agenda. Draft outcome document for adoption in Quito, October 2016. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

67

organisational framework for the institutionalisation of urban areas. It can be added that the content of the PAR was not communicated, as the government, which has strong political legitimacy given to it by the results of the general elections, feels authorised in making decisions on its own. The Hungarian Parliament delivered a new implicit urban policy embedded into the National Development and Spatial Development Concept in 2014. The policy expressed the adaptation to the requirements of the EU. It especially focused on the intention of the application of the integrated approach, the renewing of urban-rural linkages and also the development of functional urban areas, guaranteeing that it reaches a polycentric urban network. This urban policy formally follows international trends; in reality, however, the political and institutional reforms demonstrate antithetical processes, due to the recentralisation attitude of the government. The environment created by the latter blocks the application of governance structures harmonising with the new urban paradigm. The aim of this chapter is to examine the Hungarian urban policy in the framework of the new model of the local governments and of the public administration structure to clarify its specific character. The critical analysis identifies the tools of the state to penetrate more and more into the autonomy of local authorities and the impacts of these. The chapter uses a qualitative case study approach with thesis statements focusing on the examination of national regulation and policy documents, and then their application in practice is tested by using the findings of a qualitative survey conducted in 2018. The discussion focused on the opinions of leaders of medium-sized and large Hungarian cities on urban policy tools. Throughout this, the analytical framework of the research is provided by multi-level governance and horizontal and vertical branches of cooperation and coordination. The crucial question of the chapter will be whether the institutional and regulatory environment gives the local and territorial actors a chance for bottom-up partnership building and taking part in the national planning scheme. On the whole, the analysis is to test the expectations and some of the principles of the New Urban Agenda and the European Union’s cohesion policy for strengthening urban governance and enhancing the local governments’ contribution to achieve the creation of sustainable cities with Hungarian policy-making instruments. The chapter contributes to the elaboration of the theme of this book by shining a light on the difficulties of the implementation of local governance, using the example of a post-socialist country. It introduces the process and symptoms of the return to local governments from governance in the second decade of the twenty-­ first century. According to our hypothesis, the reform process pushed the unitary state towards centralisation, and the spaces of cooperation and coordination have been constricted. Unlike the international local governmental reforms, the new conservative state stresses the statutory state spaces and does not encourage the space construction for networks. We have to emphasise our doubt that in the unitary state, given the weakened and fragmented cities and other territorial actors beyond the public sector, there are chances for the realisation of multi-level governance.

68

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

During our analysis we considered as a starting point the opinion (Atkinson 2002, p. 82) that says urban policy must be integrated horizontally and vertically both in the European Union and its member states. This is the condition of effective governance, as problems that need to be solved are complex and cross the boundaries of governance levels and sectors. Integrated urban policy at the same time requires the application of a strategic view, centred on the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, and gives a central role to both governments and citizens in the policy process. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 is an introduction to the nature of the reform of public administration implemented in Hungary, its background and impact on the position of local self-governments and subnational territorial governments. The focal point of this topic is the role of medium-sized cities in territorial governance, explored by analysing the legal regulation, on the one hand, and through the findings of an in-depth qualitative research made with city leaders, on the other hand. The process brings attention to the issues of cooperation, territorial organisation and also horizontal and vertical coordination. Section 2 places the topic into a broader international context and discusses the conditions of integrated urban development on the basis of requirements specified by international organisations, on the one hand, and the different approaches detectable in international literature, on the other hand. The closing section summarises the main arguments and outlines the hindrances of the urban policy process of Hungary in a broader post-socialist environment.

4.2  T  he Process of the Hungarian Urban Policy, Its Institutions and Actors 4.2.1  T  he Change of the Constitutional Status of Local Self-­Governments and Cities in the Framework of the Hungarian Public Administration Reform After the parliamentary election held in Hungary in 2010, a right-wing government came to power, and in 2018 they started its third government term with a two-thirds majority in the Parliament. One of its activities was the launch of a comprehensive reform of the state and public administration in 2011–2012, with a narrative of governing the country towards the strengthening of the nation state, as opposed to the previous left-wing neoliberal philosophy. In regard to the system of public administration, this takes shape in the construction of a strong centralised state. We are convinced that the urban policy process, the focus of our analysis, and the situation of its main characters, the cities, can only be understood through a brief summary of the new general institutional design. Hungary stepped on the path of self-governmental decentralisation in 1990, which puts the country into the group of transformation countries, as the progress of

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

69

public administration was not an organic one (Wollmann 2012). The fragility of decentralisation and the fluctuations in the nature of state regulation are both reflected by the fact that on the path of bourgeois development, the focus in the first 20 years was on the local governmental sector and decentralisation was implemented for its favour. From political and functional aspects, it was the local level that enjoyed priority within public administration. Since 2011 centralisation has been the main direction of state building, and bureaucratic management has been dominant in institutional architecture within which the role of the subnational level has been strengthened. Also from the point of view of governance, a fundamental change has occurred in the field of the provision of public services. The essence of this is that the government separates the new self-governmental model from the New Public Management (NPM), as the excessive outsourcing in the field of the organisation of public services in the last two decades undeniably did a lot of harm to local self-governments. The adequate preparation and control of the latter was very much missing for the operation of private organisations outside the public sector, typically with one single objective, for the general interest and not for the satisfaction of their own specific demands (Jenei 2009; Wollmann 2012). In Hungary, then, a return from a governance model to government could be seen, which demonstrates the priority of the performance of state tasks. The new model, however, diverges from the direction of reforms in other countries where NPM was also “recalled”, as in Hungary it was not simply a re-municipalisation that took place: the nationalisation character of the process is stronger than that. This actually means that in the provision of public tasks, the public sector enjoys priority over the private sector, on the one hand, and the state service provider is prioritised against the local self-governments, on the other hand. This was reinforced by the state by the transformation of its own regulatory functions, the stricter regulation of the implementation of activities, the constraint of the rearrangement of assets and the prescription of the ownership structure. In addition, the rejection of the NPM also led to the decline in the quantity of the relations of self-governments to the economic and non-governmental sector (Horváth 2015). In 2011 the Parliament repealed the Act on Local Governments enacted at the time of the regime change2 and reregulated the self-governmental system. The provisions of the Act on Local Governments in Hungary,3 however, must be interpreted in correlation with the new constitution that came into effect in 2012. It is dangerous that the new constitution enacted in 2012 does not define in what territorial units local self-governments operate, and it does not specify, either, who are subject to the local self-government’s authority. These issues are not given a constitutional protection, and so the right of self-government is no longer a basic constitutional right of local communities (Balázs 2017). Another fundamental change affecting the position of the local governments is that the Act on Local

 Act No. LXV of 1990 on Local Governments in Hungary  Act No. CLXXXIX of 2011 on Local Governments in Hungary

2 3

70

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

Governments, as opposed to the previous regulation, does not specify the implementation of local public affairs by the local authorities as the main rule. So the legislators were given complete freedom in deciding what kind of organisation it designates for the implementation of tasks regarded as local public affairs: a bureaucratic or a self-governmental organisation (Balázs 2017; Hoffman 2017). In the new era, the number of the local self-governments, with a population of 3200 people on average, did not change, but the self-governmental system with a broad range of responsibilities was annihilated by a number of measures restricting autonomy. The state deprived the local self-governments of several public policy areas of strategic importance (health, public education, vocational training), and the related tasks were delegated partly or in their totality to state organs created for these purposes, giant bureaucratic organisations or large-scale state enterprises. In reducing the competencies of local governments the legislators did not differentiate among the local self-governments, both small villages and the big cities were “beheaded”. The loss of hospitals, primary schools, secondary grammar schools and vocational training institutes and clinics is a sensitive issue to urban self-­ governments that are interested in the development of the local business environment and job creation. This process also means that in the sectors mentioned above, investments for the creation of municipal infrastructure can only be implemented by large state institutions, and the decision concerning these is made by the government. In addition to the previously mentioned issues, the development activity of cities is also strictly limited from the side of prudent financial management: local self-­ governments can take out loans – apart from liquid credit, which is borrowed and paid back within 1 year – only with individual permission from the government. However the only other exceptions of this (i.e. getting permission) are commitments to the EU and international organisations.4 Finally, evidence of the reduction of the competencies of the local self-governments from several sides is that the annual local governments’ expenditure in proportion to the GDP of Hungary fell from 12.0% in 2009 to 7.9% by 2015, which is a 34.2% decrease (Hoffman 2017). The Hungarian system of self-governments is a two-tier system; at the subnational level, there are 19 county self-governments whose strong legitimacy is given by the fact that their organ of representation is the general assembly directly elected by the voters. The local level of the system consists of 3155 municipalities [HCSO (Hungarian Central Statistical Office), 2018]. The applicability of the principle of subsidiarity was abolished in Hungary in the field of the organisation of local public services. The explanation for this is that, as opposed to the European continental traditions and the previous Act on Local Governments in Hungary, county self-­ governments were not given a general authorisation for the management of local public affairs. The legislators specified the responsibilities in their competencies exhaustively: “The county self-government is a territorial self-government that implements regional development, rural development, physical planning and

 Act No. CXCIV of 2011 on the economic stability of Hungary

4

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

71

coordination tasks as specified by the law”.5 Subnational government has thus survived as a political forum. It can be stated that the lack of the subsidiary county also means the lack of multipurpose organisations with general authority at the meso-­ level, where they should be responsible for the design of sectoral policies. Furthermore, they should also meaningfully participate in the vertical coordination among the different layers of government but are unable to do so. The weakened county self-governments can hardly meet the expectations against the subnational level and fulfil their integrative role, as it is blocked by several of their institutional features. Firstly, they do not have their own sources of revenues; their operation is solely financed by state subventions. They lack any development resources of their own. Secondly, their management capacities are insufficient and they only serve the allocation of EU support. They have no tools to act as agencies or catalysts of economic development. Thirdly, they have to harmonise the planning and development activities of 60–350 fragmented municipalities that belong to the respective counties, but these municipalities have no institutionalised representations at the subnational level. Additionally, the county self-governments were assigned with the coordination of the development objectives of municipalities and the economic and non-governmental sector. However, they barely have any relations with the civil and business sector. Thus, the focal point of territorial administration is in the 19 county government offices created in 2011 in which the legislators amalgamated 20 sectorally organised administrative state agents. Later, in 2013 the structure was vertically enlarged with 175 district offices. Districts are territorial units at a lower meso-level, without a representative organ. This reorganisation of public administration represents governmental capacity building coupled with intensive centralisation, which is complemented with standardisation and strong internal integration (Barta 2015). The changes taking place in the governmental structure can be considered as recentralisation on the whole, which has a strong impact on the design and the implementation process of the Hungarian urban policy.

4.2.2  T  he Role of Cities in the Formulation and Implementation of Urban Policy Hungary has a total of 346 towns and cities, including Budapest. The Act on Local Governments considers them all as local self-governments. The Hungarian urban network is made up of small- and medium-sized towns by European standards; the Hungarian urban hierarchy lacks the category of big cities just below the metropolises (Table 4.1). It seems to be a significant progress compared to the previous regulation that the group of municipalities with town status are getting differentiated, in regard to their  Act No. CLXXXIX of 2011 on Local Governments in Hungary § 27 (1)

5

Source: HCSO (2018)

Population categories of the cities 5000 5000–9999 10,000–19,999 20,000–49,999 50,000–99,999 100,000˂ Total

District centres Number Proportion (%) 19 10.9 42 24.1 57 32.9 38 21.8 11 6.3 7 4.0 174 100.0

Non-district centre towns Number Proportion (%) 72 42.1 67 39.2 29 17.0 3 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 171 100.0

Table 4.1  Breakdown of Hungarian cities and towns based on their population, 2017 Total Number 91 109 86 41 11 7 345

Proportion (%) 26.4 31.6 24.9 11.9 3.2 2.0 100.0

72 E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

73

status, into towns with a county rank, district centre towns and urban municipalities without either of the previous statuses (Table  4.1). It is important to remark that each town with a county rank also has a district centre status, so there is overlap between the two categories. When empowering the central municipality, the legislators use the principle of so-called differentiated location of competencies, assigning more tasks to the municipalities with stronger organisational capacities. It requires urban municipalities to implement extra tasks when it says that these municipalities have an obligation to provide public services that they are responsible and authorised for, for their hinterlands, and in case of district centre towns for the total territory of their district, in addition to their own administrative areas.6 However, the rule of the allocation of these services is not accompanied by a clear concept; the law mentions functional urban areas and districts as administrative territorial units alternatively. For the time being, the operation of this principle in practice is limited; there are a few social services that the district centre towns must provide to their hinterlands (e.g. the maintenance of a family and child protection centre). The situation is not better when it comes to the 23 towns with a county rank, either: they are also responsible for the provision of services in all of or a larger part of their counties. This result of the nationalisation of a large number of public services actually means the maintenance of museums, libraries and some institutions of cultural affairs. On the whole, there is no direct horizontal financial compensation mechanism in the Hungarian local governmental system for the favour of towns obliged to the territorial service provision function; there is only an indirect extra financing connected to concrete tasks (Dafflon and Tóth 2003). It can be added to the previous train of thought that the Hungarian regulation does not offer one institutional model for the institutionalisation of the urban areas. This statement has been valid since 2012 for the Budapest metropolitan area, the only agglomeration in Hungary on an international scale. What is more, the state does not support the cooperation of urban areas with financial tools.

4.2.3  Planning Foundations of the Urban Policy The second planning document, relevant for this chapter, is the National Development and Territorial Development Concept (NDTDC).7 The characteristic feature of the NDTDC as a national strategy is that one single document contains medium-term sectoral and territorial policy goals. Hungary does not have an explicit urban policy, so the development directions and objectives of the urban network are incorporated in the NDTDC.

 Act No. CLXXXIX of 2011 on Local Governments in Hungary § 21 (1)  Parliament Decree No. 1/2014 (3 January) on National Development 2030  – the National Development and Territorial Development Concept, Par. 2. b 6 7

74

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

The objective of the NDTDC was to establish the Operational Programmes elaborated for the use of the European Union support eligible for Hungary. This planning document was also designed for the orientation of the use of the national development resources, as specified by the legal document. There is no legal norm, however, that obliges the major state administrative organs to implement this, as the regulation says that the decisions of the Parliament and the government must be made with the possible consideration of the measures and actions to be carried out as recommended in the strategy. This exemption is frequently used by the government. The territorial structure of Hungary is monocentric; the role of the capital city, Budapest, has been excessive for decades. So, the NDTDC specified that the priorities of the development of the urban network for the coming 7 years are the achievement of polycentricity and the creation of a decentralised and networked spatial structure. We have to emphasise that the tools for the implementation specified by the NDTDC do not only contain the improvement of access by transportation but also cooperation in the aegis of multi-level governance and the application of the strategic view in the planning of urban areas. The promise of the strategy in 2014 was the implementation of the comprehensive goals through the creation of integrated urban development concepts and strategies and the co-planning of urban areas, which would be promoted by the state. It was said that the basic units of territorial developments will be functional urban areas, integrating the cities and their hinterlands. The planning document is expected to be, as tools for implementation, a considerable appreciation of spatial planning in Hungary and the implementation of the development of planning capacities. The traditional sectoral view is replaced by the horizontal aspects of territoriality, which will require a more intensive application of horizontality. Consequently in 2014 there was still a hope for the implementation of the future scenario envisaged in an effective and decentralised way. The legislators would actually have opened a path for governance with this possibility, if it had been realised. To sum it up, we can say that the practice of the use of the development resources has receded from the strategic goals. In the use of the Structural Funds, separate resources were allocated to the towns with a county rank and the other municipalities in the territory of the respective counties, and the county self-governments only planned the developments of the latter, which led to the rigid separation of the investments implemented in the two territorial units. Finally, the joint planning and development of cities and their hinterlands wasn’t implemented at any level. If we look at the Modern Cities Programme, towns with a county rank are prioritised, and this is the case during the utilisation process of the European Structural and Investment Funds as well. In both programmes they handled towns with a county rank separately than their hinterlands by providing them with special grant resources. However both of these contradict the goals of the national strategy. The introduction to the NDTDC can be closed with the remark that it contains a large number of concepts and promises not harmonised with each other, which finally do not designate a definite direction for urban policy. This circumstance also contributed to the start of a development process non-transparent from the aspects

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

75

of towns and cities, which significantly seceded from the content of the planning document and questions the efficiency thereof. It can be mentioned that Hungary has been long criticised for its lack of reconciliation of public policy priorities and resource allocation. This continuously mentioned problem could also be interpreted as follows: the planning documents are formally accepted but their contents are not implemented (OECD 2015). Local self-governments are obliged, anyway, in accordance with the Act on Built Environment to create their settlement development concept and integrated settlement development strategy.8 From 2009 they were entitled to make concepts or strategies in associations in which municipalities were involved in joint planning and could be accepted as joint documents. The regulation, however, was amended in 2016, inasmuch as each town/city and village is only authorised to approve planning documents for their own administrative areas. This change, surprisingly, was implemented under the effect of the NDTDC that legitimised the co-planning of urban areas and the institutionalisation of the functional urban areas. The Hungarian government, in contrast with international practice, does not use urban area planning as a governance tool and does not encourage the Hungarian local self-governments to manage their conflicts and reach synergies. Unfortunately, a significant part of the public authorities are not aware of the participative development techniques that can be applied during development strategy creation. The government decree itself on the order of the creation and approval of local planning documents specifies a review phase that allows for comments by the partners.9 According to the text in effect, in the case of integrated urban development strategies, the right of opinion is restricted to the neighbouring settlements. This does not mean the hinterland of the given town or city but municipalities that have an adjacent administrative border. Research on the effectiveness and impacts of the norm, however, failed to indicate any improvement compared to the previous practice, in regard to the quality of the inclusion of socio-economic partners. The partnership realised during the planning procedures of the towns with a county rank was classified in the category of symbolic participation (tokenism) (Bajmócy et  al. 2016). Researchers identified three forms of participation, which do not include the interpretation of planning as governance. We can state after all this the planning structure in effect runs just against the service provision responsibility of towns for their districts, or all of or a larger part of their counties. Although municipalities with town status as municipal entities were given service provision responsibilities of a different kind for their areas, they still primarily design their plans and development activity within the boundaries of their own municipal administrative areas.

 Act No LXXVIII of 1997 on the development and protection of the built environment  Govt. Decree 314/2012 (8 November) on the concept of urban development, on the integrated strategy of urban development and on the urban planning instruments and on special legal institutions for physical planning 8 9

76

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

4.2.4  T  he Practical Tool for the Implementation of Urban Policy: The Mismatch of Cooperation and Hierarchical Attitude The field of urban development was neglected by all governments after the regime change; no national resources were devoted to this issue for decades. To remedy this situation, the government announced in 2015 the action called the “Modern Cities Programme” (hereinafter, MCP), which it intended to finance from national resources. In the meantime the European Union resources have also been involved; the proportions are 35:65% in favour of national resources. The government officially communicated a development “programme”; however, we would seek a programme in vain, as no complex planning document was made for the foundation of the Modern Cities Programme. Although some planning background of the MCP can be recognised in the NDTDC, the latter still positioned the towns in the inner and outer urban ring around Budapest with different emphases. Developments are implemented with a different logic in the new programme: it aims for the development of all towns with a county rank, i.e. 23 big cities. Budapest, the largest city of the country, is not in this circle. A special feature of the MCP is that its area of intervention is restricted to the core cities (exceptions include a few projects of some cities). For the financing the government created special national rules that do not require the cities to contribute their own resources. The guaranteed elements of the practice of the European Union were not integrated in this, which of course does not apply to the projects financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds.10 The MCP is implemented in the competency of the government. This is indicated by the short-term and formal bilateral cooperation agreements made by the Prime Minister and the mayors of the respective cities. For this, cities were allowed to compile their own concrete development proposals on the basis of which a total of 260 projects were implemented; one fifth of them concerned transportation development.11 The MCP thus has a bottom-up and top-down leg but is openly limited to the partnership of the government and the towns with a county rank, and no other stakeholders except those from the public administration are involved. The appearance deceives, as the mechanism of the MCP is not in the form of real contracts between the city and the state, which is well known from the development practices of European states in that it expresses cooperation between equal partners and also the matching of the local and the national development objectives. Instead, the government specifies with the issue of normative acts the elements of the  Government Decree 250/2016 (24 August) on the implementation of the Modern Cities Programme, § 5–6 11  According to the government communiqués at the end of 2018, the budget of the MCP in the 2016–2022 period will make € 12.4 billion (i.e. approximately 4000 billion Forints). From this, a total of € 2.9 billion support was paid (940 billion Forints) by the end of 2018, whereas in 2019 beneficiary cities can expect a total of € 12.4 billion. 10

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

77

programme compulsory for the cities and details of the implementation of the projects that the government supports. This means that the government administers the issue by normative decisions, i.e. it uses a hierarchical administrative tool in the horizontal relationship of the municipalities with urban status. In addition, the norm applied is used for government purposes, which is against the law.12 The programme does not involve decentralisation in favour of the cities; its operational principle is identical with government. This is also reflected in the fact that, in accordance with the government decree cited, a committee consisting of three ministers or the government itself is authorised to make decisions on the support applications submitted by the cities. It is striking that the implementation of tasks related to urban development is managed by the minister responsible for regional and settlement development, i.e. the minister leading the Prime Minister’ Office. From this process subnational self-governments that are responsible for territorial development at the meso-level are excluded. This latter issue also concerns a general problem of the operation of the local governmental system: the application of the interest representations of vertical coordination and local authorities. The interest representation organs of local authorities were able for two decades after 1990 to have a real impact on government decisions concerning the municipalities, for which a given organisation framework existed. Since 2011 their activity has been weakened, and they now only have a chance to negotiate with the government occasionally and formally (Zongor 2016). The organisational framework for this should be provided by the National Cooperation Council of Local Authorities, a body empowered with the right of consultancy and opinion, which had two sessions in 2018.13 The outcomes of the sessions were not made public. Similar operational problems can be mentioned in connection with the National Interest Reconciliation Forum for Regional Development, in which ministries, county self-governments, only towns with a county rank and the capital city and its districts have representation; municipalities and their interest representation associations do not.

 Act No CXXX of 2010 on Legislation in Par. 23 (1) says that the government can regulate its organisation and operation, activity and action programme in normative decisions. Accordingly, the normative government decision is a tool regulating the organisation and performance of central administrative organs, the use of which for municipalities is a misuse. 13  See Govt. Decision No. 1128/2012 (26 April) on the National Cooperation Council of Local Authorities. 12

78

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

4.2.5  T  he Role of Cities in the Formation of Urban Policy, as Seen by the City Leaders 4.2.5.1  Research Methods The EU supported the research that analysed the role of Hungarian towns and cities in regional governance.14 In the framework of this research, we conducted in the period 1 June–15 August 2018 the in-depth qualitative survey in which interviews were made with political and professional leaders of local governments in 57 towns and cities selected by sampling. The introduction of the horizontal and vertical relationship system of large- and medium-sized cities of Hungary is founded on the findings of this research. The research was representative, as it covered 16.5% of the cities out of the total of 345, excluding Budapest. The respondents represented 18 towns with a county rank, which is 78.3% of all towns with a county rank. Although Budapest as a metropolis was not the subject of the research, we expanded the survey to Pest County surrounding Budapest (region of Central Hungary), due to its outstanding level of urbanisation. A total of 13 urban municipalities were interviewed there, of which 10 towns are in the Budapest agglomeration. It must be added that the towns and cities contacted are proportionately distributed in the seven NUTS2 regions. It is an important fact that since 2004 the Hungarian Central Statistical Office has designated agglomerations on the basis of the mutually tight functional relationships between the city core and the hinterland (HCSO 2014). Although these functional urban areas do not have institutional consequences and are not institutionalised either from administrative or development policy aspect, we still found it important from a methodology aspect to have 51% of the locations of the qualitative survey from among local self-governments situated in functional urban areas. The horizontal relationships of Hungarian towns and cities are weak; they participate in a small number of regional and economic development cooperations. In our approach the inter-municipal associations of local governments are not in this category, as their profile is solely for the provision of public services. As admitted by the local politicians, they are unsuitable for the harmonisation of development activities and the representation of the interests of the local governments, as they are occupied with the problems of the operation of institutions and public utility companies. After a colourful institutionalisation of cooperations, the Act on Local Governments in effect broke the organic development path; the legislators regulate one single type of association, the association with a legal entity with a joint decision-making organ, which is responsible for inter-municipal cooperation in urban and rural areas. Associations in Hungary do not have sui generis rights, and the legislators do not authorise intercommunal cooperations with extra competencies  The selected project is called the “Modernisation” sub-programme of the Operational Research Plan No. 2017/18 of the Research Centre of Local Governments implemented within the framework of “Development of public services founding good governance”, identification number KÖFOP-2.1.2-VEKOP-15-2016-00001. The title of the sited research was Participation of Cities in Territorial Governance. Research leader: E. Somlyódyné Pfeil.

14

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

79

compared to the member municipalities. The latter are free to transfer responsibilities to the associations. These organs do not have financial freedom; they do not have the right to levy taxes and duties. It is an important issue as to what happened to the multipurpose micro-regional associations eliminated centrally in 2013, which had comprehensively institutionalised the cooperation of municipalities at LAU 1 level both in the provision of public services and spatial development and planning. The multipurpose regional associations were part of the institutional system of spatial development liquidated since then, and so these horizontal cooperations also joined in the vertical branch of governance from the aspect of representation (Somlyódyné Pfeil 2010). 4.2.5.2  Horizontal Relationships of Hungarian Cities The survey revealed that the majority of the Hungarian cities consider other municipalities as competitors; one reason for this is the lack of state tools promoting cooperation. Another reason is the lack of their adequate knowledge about the essence and advantages of cooperation amidst the global environmental conditions; they simply do not know international good practices. This is also supported by the fact that 70% of the cities contacted for interview declared that they did not participate in any strategic cooperation connected to other urban municipalities. The situation is demonstrated by the fact that not one Hungarian city specified Budapest as their strategic partner. Not more than 21 intercities networks were detected, of which 6 operate within their respective counties, 10 are cross-county and 5 are cross-border cooperations. The negligible volume of the international relations of Hungarian towns and cities is reflected by the fact that the managers of only two cities mentioned that their cities had membership in international organisations. In Hungary it happens relatively rarely that municipalities implement joint investments, which is related to the fact that their joint physical planning activities are not promoted by legal regulations. This made it important to get factual data about the harmonisation of the development activities of cities. The research has demonstrated that in recent years, during the approval or revision of the integrated urban development strategies, 22.8% of the towns and cities in the representative sample thought it was important to carry out real negotiations with the other municipalities of their functional urban areas, which meant that they went beyond their legal obligation. The biggest part of them (36.8%) implemented the formal reviewing process, and they sent their planning documents to the neighbouring municipalities. Of the cities concerned, only 8.8% negotiated with other municipalities concerning concrete investments, while 7.5% avoided answering this question. Finally, a very high proportion of cities (28.1%) did not even formally harmonise their urban development strategies with the other municipalities in their hinterlands. All in all, the overwhelming majority of the medium-sized and large Hungarian cities did not follow a territorial approach during their planning activities, which jeopardises the implementation of the district service provision responsibility transferred to them.

80

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

According to the opinions stated, the development and investment decisions are made not so much on the basis of plans but depending on the tendering possibilities, as in the present financing system of the municipalities, few cities are able to carry out developments from their own resources. Other research on the planning activities and products of municipalities came to the conclusion that the larger part of the local self-governments – according to a representative survey, 57.8% of them – did not follow up on the implementation of the objectives specified in the strategic planning documents, and the use of indicators for this was even more exceptional (Sisa and Veress 2013). The explanation for this was the absence of the inner motivation for planning; it is experienced as a legal or political constraint. Hungarian towns and cities are quite heterogeneous also in regard to economic development, and since common actions are not typical for them, the state can make use of this situation. Only 9% of towns are interested in jointly operating industrial parks, and the decisive majority of respondents (63.2%) said that such a concept is not realistic now in Hungary, as the municipalities are not yet mature enough for this or because the state does not support this method of establishment. The obstacle that politicians see in the first place is the effort of municipalities to have autarchy, as economically prosperous cities think that they are able on their own to possess the infrastructure and capacities necessary for the operation of an industrial park. This attitude is especially typical for the towns in the Budapest agglomeration. A quarter of the city leaders, however, think that cooperation in the promotion of the economy is a realistic opportunity. The territorial view of the municipalities is also absent in the field of the regulation of population migration into the cities and businesses settling down in them. The findings of the survey revealed that the pressure that they have on infrastructure and local institutions is managed by the towns questioned in an isolated manner, which causes significant losses in the performance of governance. Three and a half per cent of local politicians mentioned inter-municipal cooperation in the creation of construction or housing policy. The leaders of the municipalities in the territory of the Budapest agglomeration, struck by the amalgamation of towns, declared that in questions like this neighbouring municipalities would be unable to come to agreement, as nobody likes it if anybody intervenes in their development decisions. The research findings show that the willingness of cities to cooperate is weak and has definitely lost momentum compared to the period before the reform of public administration. The examples revealed demonstrate that rivalry among the municipalities has become typical and reinforced by the recentralisation measures of the state. 4.2.5.3  Vertical Cooperation Among the Governmental Levels The extended horizontal relationships of municipalities are only one condition for governance that is effective and strengthens territorial and social cohesion; the other condition would be cooperation among the different tiers of government. As we have already mentioned, the NDTDC formally declared the necessity of the

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

81

application of multi-level governance, and so it is an important question whether its vertical branch is actually realised or not in the area of urban policy. As we can see, the state made all efforts in the last 8 years to gain control over an ever-larger share of urban development interventions. The opinions of local politicians are mixed regarding the decision-making and coordination of local development investments by the state. The delicate character of the issue is indicated by the fact that in eight cities respondents refused to answer. Twenty-eight per cent of cities found the penetration of the state in the local space as a positive phenomenon; 30% of them said it was in fact negative. Another 28% of them thought these steps had both advantages and disadvantages for the local self-governments. Unsatisfied city managers said the activity of the state organs was lengthy and bureaucratic, whereas the other side found that it was reasonable, effective and well-conceived, stressing that the state must have a greater insight into the proper distribution of development resources. Small towns are more often satisfied with the state organs taking over the implementation of developments, as they lack their own organisational capacity necessary for this undertaking. Bigger towns, on the other hand, complained that the state has deprived them of their competencies because they were prepared to manage larger-scale investments. A group of respondents clearly stated that decisions should be made locally where demands are known and local characteristics can be enforced. Local self-governments miss the platforms through which local interests and specialities could be channelled into the central decision-­ making process. In a few cases, cities even mentioned the danger of being placed under the trusteeship of the state.15 City leaders supported our hypothesis that the county self-government had lost its role in interest representation and coordination, and its development function has been emptied of power and financial resources. It cannot be seen how this level will contribute to the cooperation among the governmental levels. It only has decision support and implementation rights in the allocation of European Union resources; it has been completely pushed out of the national development policy. Of all city leaders participating in the survey, 40% said the county did not mediate among the territorial tiers and at the meso-level among sectors and actors. Another 41% judged county self-governments like organisations whose activity does not go beyond information services regarding tenderable resources and project management for some smaller municipalities. Not more than 6% of all respondents mentioned that

 Approximately half a year after the survey, with Act No. CXXXVIII of 2018 that came into effect on 1 January 2019, the Hungarian state made another significant step forward to centralising municipal developments. The norm on the implementation of state-financed building constructions authorises the government to declare all investments that are partly or wholly financed from national resources as developments of public interest by individual government decisions. The essence of this is that these investments, from their inception to their implementation, are taken away from local self-governments and transferred to the Investment Agency owned by the state, acting on behalf and for the benefit of the municipalities in all such cases. This is justified by the state by the more effective use of resources by a giant state organisation or assigned sub-contractors.

15

82

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

development planning implemented by the county self-government was suitable for the representation of local interests. City self-governments have few tools to influence development policy at the national level, although the displacement of the subnational self-governments appreciated the role of the interest representation at the central level. In connection with this, the interviewees said that in the interest representation mechanism, it is lobbying and “personal favours” that have become important in the recent years. The effectiveness of these can be measured in whether the name of the respective settlement is featured in the manifestations of development decisions made by the government. Actually, almost half (46%) of all respondents emphasised that the most important channel of interest representation was the member of the Parliament in their constituency and that goals could be achieved by using political connections and lobbying. Another 5% believed that ministries too were suitable institutions for interest representation. A high proportion (24%) of respondents, however, specified municipalities’ interest associations as formal institutions, although they indicated their dissatisfaction with the role of the interest associations apart from the organisation that integrates towns with a county rank. Less than 5% of local politicians were able to participate in policy-making at national level through spatial planning and programming. Finally, a considerable proportion of respondents (17%) said there were simply neither formal channels nor tools for cooperation between the local and the governmental level. This leads to a situation where the interests of local municipalities are only occasionally taken into consideration when deciding upon domestic development resources. The relationships of towns and cities to the business and the non-governmental sector are different. Municipalities were able to specify three institutional frameworks for the cooperation of the three sectors, Community-led Local Development (CLLD) and LEADER local action groups (30%) and employment pacts (25%), although several local leaders expressed their doubts about the efficiency of the latter. Approximately one-quarter of the cities directly support financially the operation of non-governmental organisations, while 10% said that in their settlements a non-governmental round table or council operated for interest reconciliation. In regard to NGOs, factors setting back cooperation were inadequate proficiency and financial capacities. Surprisingly, few city administrations keep in regular touch with the business sector, as there were only two mentions of the operation of a local economic platform. The weakness of the business connections is explained by the fact that businesses are engaged with their own economic activities and usually not interested in the development of their regions.

4.2.6  Summary The analysis of the Hungarian practice of territorial governance revealed that it is a futile attempt to look for a connection between the national development strategy, its urban policy goals and the implementation of urban policy in practice. As the

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

83

institutional connection mechanisms between the local and the governmental level are missing or at least substituted by the lobbying activity of individual politicians, spatial and settlement planning cannot fulfil its function. From the aspect of the integrative role of spatial planning, we can differentiate urban development financed from national resources and financed by the EU. In regard to the former, planning does not function as a governance tool in Hungary for the time being, and the support of the European Union is not integrated into the national urban policy processes, either. Of course we do not want to question with this statement the role of integrated urban strategies in the development going on within the administrative boundaries of the respective cities, although the state development policy operating with a bureaucratic logic reduces that, too. We also have to emphasise the other side of the coin, inasmuch as the cities do not even strive for the integration of territorial interests and the harmonised actions of the urban areas – all that they typically try is to achieve their individual urban development objectives. The research findings also point out that the operation of the Hungarian local governmental system has become fragmented in regard to urban and economic development. After a long time, a growing number of towns and cities strive for autarchy again, and this is favourable for the ever more centralised national policy. It seems that centralised urban development is becoming the tool for the assertion of the spatial view, as territorial interests are not added up either at a subnational level or the level of the city regions. The main problem is that the decision-making mechanism of the government is not transparent, and what is more, it is not based on planning. Finally, it is an important fact that county self-government has been totally pushed out from the cooperation among the levels of government. After all, the research led to the conclusion that in the framework of the Hungarian institutional design of urban policy, we cannot speak about the operation of multi-level governance (MLG).

4.3  T  he Use of Integrated Approach in Sustainable Urban Development: Brief Theoretical Background of the Mutually Reinforcing Role of Government and Governance Getimis (2010, p.131–132) draws attention to three kinds of changes in the field of urban policy that are generated by Europeanisation. In his view there is a shift from traditional government towards urban governance, which is manifested in the birth of horizontal partnerships and networks. A policy involving not only state but also other actors is suitable for the distribution of resources and the management of conflicts among the public and private sector in the struggle for the urban development resources. The second change is that the path led from urban policy consisting of arbitrary and isolated actions to the creation of integrated local strategies and sustainable development (for the improvement of the quality of life and the

84

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

environment of the urban citizens). And this requires the combination of the resources of the different sectors. Thirdly, the EU spurred the creation of a complex system of actors in the political networks in a multi-level political arena, which is suitable for generating institutional innovation at territorial and local levels. In the background we find the appreciation of the role of cities in the achievement of sustainable and inclusive development and the creation of territorial cohesion in the last three decades. This is correlated to the transformation of the nature of economic geography. Globalisation drew attention to the institutional significance of space and the function of localities, including cities, in economic growth. This correlates with the starting point that the territorial capacities are in the local social, institutional and economic fabric that may make the economy successful. In other words, institutional reforms in themselves are unlikely to lead to significant achievements (Barca et al. 2012). In this space, all actors interested in development must cooperate with each other with the goal of sustainability, which in Frey’s opinion (Frey 2003) will automatically involve the collaboration of the political, the economic and the not-for-profit sectors in the aegis of the sustainability of the economy, society and the environment. The application of the governance model thus can also be derived from this principle, as each principle has its own “stakeholders” as potential actors of governance. These public policy networks affect the operation of the state, the use of integrated attitude, and make the state carry out more active planning, as their members are interested in the decrease of the transaction costs. These networked groups can also be considered as driving forces of integrated and joint sectoral policy-making, as they are suitable for overcoming bureaucratic slowness during the implementation of policies (Faludi 2012). The selection of intermediary levels from the aspects of the spatial division of the state and their authorisation with planning competencies (city regions, subnational and supra-local levels) are manifestations of a non-state-centred spatial view. Besides the planning of space used within the administrative boundaries, spatial planning with its fuzzy boundaries is now also accepted and is manifested in development strategies without direct legal effect (Allmendinger et al. 2015). The penetration of spatial planning is also the expression of a modernisation attempt, an indispensable precondition of which was the devolution or decentralisation of the power of the state, for the benefit of subnational territorial units. Since the 1990s a political and institutional reform took place in the member states of the EU during which the states rescaled their territorial structures (Herrschel and Newman 2003) both functionally and in a geographical sense. This is called the first step; the second one was the networked governance reform as a political strategy. The appearance of spatial planning was embedded into the restructuring process of the local and subnational levels (Brenner 2003). In other words, territorial integration can take place on different geographical scales. The simplest example for this is when municipal self-governments together make their development policy and for this purpose they approve a joint spatial development plan. Similarly, cities and agglomerations may also have joint development policies with the suburban areas (Böhme et al. 2011).

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

85

Spatial planning acts as a political tool, the normative character of which is problematic, as it is not primarily embedded into the mechanism of representative democracy. Secondarily, however, within the frameworks of multi-level governance, it can recreate the legitimacy of planning in a way that goes beyond the political sector. Parallel to the legally binding state planning procedure, it creates a communication space in which development interests conflict with each other. In addition, due to its capacity of conflict management, it leads to decision-making on the basis of consensus. The EU operates as a multi-level system in which competencies are located on different levels, but the different levels must join a common will formulating procedure whose method is determined by the supra-national and the national level (Jachtenfuchs and Kohler-Koch 2004). In the exploration of the essence of multi-­ level governance, the widely used typology by Marks and Hooghe  (2004) is of decisive significance. From this time on the level of the member state is not the exclusive factor in decision-making procedures. Its positive effect is the aggregation and utilisation of forces that are relevant for the application of the integrated approach and coherent solutions (Faludi 2012). In the case of a decentralised state administration the national governments, the subnational authorities are also able to work out their own sectoral policies in accordance with their territorial endowments, and the dynamic approach of MLG allows the maximum utilisation of their territorial capital for a balanced development (Davoudi et al. 2008). This also means that subnational governments have been mobilised and been given new fields of action for the assertion of their interests, while national governments have kept their control over them. While the concept of territorial competency is stable, competencies related to the making of policy can be flexible, as the territorial scale in which they operate can change in accordance with the functional demands of society. Accordingly, European governance is not an unchanged scheme; it changes in time and by sectors of public policy (Faludi 2012). A reflection of this is the second type MLG concept by Hooghe and Marks (Hooghe and Marks 2001, p. 12–14), which is also different from the first approach inasmuch as in the first case there are overlap-free territorial entities and their competencies over the respective areas are tolerated, whereas in networked governance there may be governing networks with territorially overlapping competencies, designed for the solution of problems or the implementation of projects. In fact, the integration of the public policies is necessary with a territorial approach, which cannot be achieved if the mechanisms and structures of the territorial integration of society are absent. As a consequence of this, multi-level governance is the system in which policy-making and execution is divided among different governance tiers and local institutions with special purposes (partnerships of the public and private sector) and in which the power that was “disintegrated” during decentralisation can be integrated again (Böhme et al. 2011).

86

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

Both the Quito Declaration, approved by the United Nations (UN 2017),16 and the Pact of Amsterdam (2016) summarise the decades of development of the theory of urban governance and orientate practice in regard to the design and implementation of urban policy. In other words, both the UN and the EU devoted themselves in 2016 to sustainable urban development with an integrated approach. A decisive element in this approach is to implement sustainable development in an integrated and coordinated way, with the participation of all relevant actors at global, regional, national, subnational and also local levels. The declarations emphasised that cities have more responsibilities in these, as they are also responsible for their whole regions. They must fulfil their territorial functions even across their administrative boundaries; in fact, they must act as hubs and driving forces, safeguarding the balanced and integrated spatial development of each level.17 Both agendas emphasise that the role of long-term and integrated urban and territorial planning must be reinforced so that the spatial dimension can be optimised. For this, they require the national legislators to strengthen the capacities of subnational and local governments, as this is the precondition for the implementation of multi-level governance in the functional territorial units. This involves the clear-cut separation of the competencies of the governance levels and the assignment of the adequate tools and finances to them.18 Thus, the even growth of regions can only take place by the establishment of partnerships between the urban and rural areas and intercommunal cooperation.19

4.4  Conclusions It can be seen that otherwise important documents of different international organisations usually mediate the models successfully applied by the developed states towards the member states. The adaptation of these, however, is problematic for Eastern European countries in that they are different from political, social and cultural aspect (Pálné Kovács 2017; Swianiewicz 2014). The principles, techniques and values supporting the application of sustainable urban development and integrated approach, mediated by the New Urban Agenda of the United Nations (2016) and the Urban Agenda for the EU (2016)20 as values of selected importance, which doubtlessly suppose a decentralised and federalised political structure. This limits the possibility of their adaptation in centralised states, which do not seem to be interested in them, anyway. It means that the impact of the documents referred to is  UN (2017) New Urban Agenda. Draft outcome document for adoption in Quito, October 2016. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development 17  New Urban Agenda: 13 (e) 18  New Urban Agenda: 85–90 19  New Urban Agenda: 96 20  Urban Agenda for the EU (2016) “Pact of Amsterdam” Agreed at the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Urban Matters on 30 May 2016 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 16

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

87

most negligible only in those countries where the introduction of the integrated approach would be the most needed. It can be raised as a problem that the declarations do not tell us what procedure should be followed if the institutional structure of the urban policy in the respective state diverges from the desirable common values and the learning process that it is designed to initiate does not operate. In regard to the institutionalisation of urban spaces and the implementation of urban governance, there is a rather wide gap between Western Europe and East-­ Central Europe. Most of the post-socialist states are still suffering from large-scale territorial inequalities within their countries and problems of economic competitiveness. In the last decades, the CEE countries should have positioned their cities by helping them be a part of the international city network and eliminate their fragmentation; however success in this has been rare in comparison to more developed countries. The explanation for this is complex. There are no traditions of horizontal cooperation among municipalities, on the one hand, and their relations to the other sectors are even weaker. On the other hand, there is no top-down state policy that assists in the birth of cooperation and functional areas by decentralisation and financial means. It is especially true in the Visegrad Four (group of countries made up of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) where an adaptation constraint and catch-up effect towards the Western big city governance methods has existed for a long time. Breakthrough, however, is blocked by several factors, the most important being the rigid municipal and administrative boundaries in the Eastern European area. This can be interpreted in two ways: in one of them, the central state is unable to accept the functional territorial scale of agglomerations and does not want to empower them for the implementation of common tasks. In the other interpretation, actors, forced to cooperate, are less able to represent common city regions and rise above the individual municipal interests (Mikula 2017). Oppositely, in Poland it is a positive phenomenon that the foundation of metropolitan associations, led by agglomeration councils, is now possible; the central government is still reluctant to carry out a real decentralisation in favour of big city regions and authorise them for sovereign actions (Mikula and Kaczmarek 2016, p. 41–42). Consequently, they are not able to carry out strong governance. Beyond this trend in some European countries, we can see recentralisation and the negligence of local and subnational self-governments. This is manifested in the weakening of the power and capacities of local municipalities, an explanation for which is the intention to cut public expenses (Gore 2018). The process of centralisation is mostly explained by macroeconomic problems and the deficiencies of the self-government sector operation (Buček 2017; Somlyódyné Pfeil 2014). As our analysis of Hungary highlighted, the state made a return from the successful transformation towards the decentralised Western state model to the basic model of the unitary state, the essence of which is hierarchy (Wollmann 2012, p.  49). Similarly, a new classification labelled the local governmental systems of the Eastern European countries into five types, which classified both the Hungarian and the Slovak local government system created after the regime change into the cluster “champions of decentralisation”. Dominant features of the local governments in this group were  – among others  – the broad scope of functions, the high level of

88

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

financial autonomy and the existence of a directly elected second level of self-­ governance with strong legitimacy (Swianiewicz 2014). It was just Slovakia and Hungary that left this positive classification the farthest behind with their centralisation turn. It is evidence of the fact that in absence of broad societal consensus, no model can be embedded, not even if it is one incorporating decentralisation. It is a widely accepted idea (Pálné Kovács 2017; Buček 2017) that the modernisation reforms, introduced by the Eastern European states after the regime change, coupled with demand for democratisation and decentralisation targeting simultaneously the creation of high quality and effective public administration. This was then followed by a change of the decentralised administrative model, where there was an opposite turn in development. Effective and professional public administration is now seen in Hungary by the government as the creation of macro-organisations operating with the logic of hierarchy. On the value side, the integration effort has been replaced by the reinforcement of the nation state and the generation of public policy processes free of external influences. There is nothing surprising in recentralisation, though, as the Hungarian institutional design has never gone beyond decentralisation, i.e. it has never left centralisation behind. It is also true that this conservative turn made Hungary part of the minority among the European states. Centralisation emphasises uniformity. In the opinion of Baldini and Baldi (2014), it is typical of decentralisation that it increases the power of each self-governmental level, while the Hungarian state administration actually reduced both competencies and resources to a significant extent. In fact, a common feature of centralisation and decentralisation is that both are designed to increase the capacities of the central government, but the state-centred solution neglects resources outside the sector of public law. In contrast, a decentralised state promotes the operation of networks stepping out of the sector of public power (Vecchi et al. 2014). In regard to the Hungarian urban policy, it could be a definite competitive disadvantage that it does not promote the complex management of societal problems, which is expressed by the fact that instead of coordination among the sectors, it is integration and centralisation that are used as tools in the operation of state administration. Additionally for the municipalities, it will cause a bigger loss to abandon cooperation as a tool supporting creativity and innovation than the gain the state achieves by the central organisation and organisational rationalisation. It must be added that consequences of centralisation include the decrease of the transparency of decisions and the weakening of the principle of accountability, as decision-makers are not elected bodies. It is a worrying fact that county self-­ governments’ autonomy has decreased dramatically, as the narrowing of the power of territorial units is also a limitation on the chances of coordination among the territorial levels and an obstacle to the application of the integrated urban policy approach. Of course it is a key question for the future of cooperation whether the Hungarian central state is willing to concede some of its competencies and tools for the benefit of the subnational level and if so, to what extent. If not and the slightest sign of decentralisation can be seen, then the problem-solving capacity of the partnership organisations can only be used in the shade of the existing organisations and will not be suitable to become part of the multi-level governance.

4  Application of Integrated Development Approach in the Hungarian Urban Policy…

89

Acknowledgements  We are grateful to the European Union and the Hungarian state for their financing, which has allowed for the implementation of the research serving as the basis of this chapter, and for the Research Centre of Local Governments of the National University of Public Service that managed the project called “Development of public services founding good governance”, identification number, KÖFOP-2.1.2-VEKOP-15-2016-00001. A special thanks goes to Ádám Páthy, sociologist, who assisted in the implementation of the empirical research.

References Allmendinger P, Hauthon G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2015) Soft spaces, planning, and emerging practices of territorial governance. In: Allmendinger P, Hauthon G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) Soft spaces in Europe. Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. Routledge, London and New York, pp 3–22 Atkinson R (2002) The white paper on European governance: implications for urban policy. Eur Plan Stud 10(6):781–792 Bajmócy Z, Gébert J, Gy M, Juhász J, Méreiné Berki B (2016) A helyi gazdaságfejlesztési folyamat aspektusai. Hazai megyei jogú városok interjús elemzése. Szegedi Tudományegyetem Műhelytanulmányok MT–GTKKK 2016/3. University of Szeged Faculty of Economics, Szeged Balázs I (2017) Helyi önkormányzatok változóban  – a hatásköri generális klauzula vége felé? Comitatus Önkormányzati Szemle Vol 225:3–14 Baldini G, Baldi B (2014) Decentralization in Italy and the troubles of federalization. Reg Fed Stud 24(1):87–108 Barca F, McCann P, Rodríguez-Poze A (2012) The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place neutral approaches. J Reg Sci 52(1):134–152 Barta A (2015) A területi államigazgatást érintő 2015. évi integrációs folyamatok. Új Magyar Közigazgatás 8(3):14–20 Böhme K, Doucet P, Komornicki T, Zaucha J, Światek D (2011) How to strengthen the territorial dimension of ‘Europe 2020’ and the EU Cohesion Policy. Report based on the Territorial Agenda 2020. Warsaw: Prepared at the Request of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/challenges2020/2011_territorial_dimension_eu2020.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015 Brenner N (2003) Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. Eur Urban Reg Stud 10(4):297–324 Buček J (2017) Why and when countries implement local public administration reforms: a long-­ term view of reform dynamics in Slovakia, 1950–2015. In: Silva CN, Buček J (eds) Local government and urban governance in Europe. Springer, New York, pp 33–70 Dafflon B, Tóth K (2003) Local fiscal equalisation in Switzerland: the case of the Kanton Fribourg. BENEFRI Centre for Studies in Public Sector Economics at the University of Fribourg. https:// core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6609487.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2018 Davoudi S, Evans N, Governa F, Santangelo M (2008) Territorial governance in the making approaches, methodologies, practices. Boletin de la A.G.E.  N.° 46:33–52. http://www.age-­ geografia.es/ojs/index.php/bage/article/viewFile/677/631. Accessed 10 Apr 2011 Faludi A (2012) Multi-level (territorial) governance: three criticisms. Plan Theory Pract 13(2):197–211. Accessed 15 July 2016 Frey RL (2003) Regional Governance zur Selbststeuerung territorialer Subsysteme. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 8/9, Bonn, pp 451–462 Getimis P (2010) Strategic planning and urban governance: effectiveness and legitimacy. In: Carreta M, Concilio G, Monno V (eds) Making strategies in spatial planning. Knowledge and values. Springer, Heidelberg/London/New York, pp 123–146

90

E. Somlyódyné Pfeil

Gore T (2018) Cities and their hinterlands 10 years on: local and regional governance still under debate. People, Place Policy 11(3):150–164 HCSO (2014) Agglomerációk, településegyüttesek. Magyarország Településhálózata 1. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest HCSO (2018) Magyarország Közigazgatási Helynévkönyve, 2018. január 1. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest Herrschel T, Newman P (2003) Die governance europäischer Stadtregionen. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 9/10:543–555 Hoffman I (2017) A helyi önkormányzatok és szerveik (tisztségviselőik) által ellátott feladatok főbb kérdései. Magyar Jog 64(4):216–224 Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Types of multi-level governance. EIOP 5 (11). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/ texte/2001-011a.htm. Accessed 6 Aug 2015 Horváth MT (2015) Magasfeszültség. Városi szolgáltatások. Közszektor-olvasmányok. Dialóg Campus, Budapest–Pécs Jachtenfuchs M, Kohler-Koch B (2004) Governance in der Europäischen Union. In: Benz A (ed) Governance  – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbanden, pp 77–101 Jenei GY (2009) A közintézményi menedzsment reformjainak torz magyar folyamatai az EU-tagállamok mércéjén: hiányok, okok, megoldási javaslatok. In: Verebélyi I, Imre M (eds) Jobb közigazgatás helybe járás és visszafejlődés helyett. Budapest, Századvég Kiadó, pp 37–52 Marks G, Hooghe L (2004) Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In: Bache, lan–Flinders, Matthew (eds) Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–30 Mikula L (2017) Metropolitan governance in post-socialism: searching for a theoretical framework (Presentation). In: “Local Governance in The New Urban Agenda” Annual Conference of IGU Commission Geography of Governance held at the University of Salento in Lecce, October 19–21, 2017 Mikula L, Kaczmarek T (2016) Metropolitan integration in Poland: the case of Poznań Metropolis. Int Plan Stud 22(1):30–43 OECD (2015) Hungary: Towards a strategic state approach, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing. http:/dxdoi.org/10.1787/9789264213555-en. Accessed 20 July 2016 Pálné Kovács I (2017) A területi reformok elmélete. In: Pálné Kovács I (ed) A magyar decentralizáció kudarca nyomában. Dialóg Campus Kiadó, Budapest, Pécs, pp 12–28 Sisa K, Veress A (2013) Felmérés a települési önkormányzatok tervezési módszereiről. Stat Szle 92(5):447–473 Somlyódyné Pfeil E (2010) Hungarian public service reform: multipurpose microregional associations. In: Swianiewicz P (ed) Territorial consolidation reforms in Europe. Local government and public service reform initiative. Open Society Institute, Budapest, pp 255–264 Somlyódyné Pfeil E (2014) The end of regionalism in Hungary? an assessment of local governance before and after. In: Pálné KI, Profiroiu CM (eds) Regionalisation and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Selected Revised Papers from the 21st NISPAcee Annual Conference May 16–18, 2013 Belgrade, Serbia. NISPAcee, Bratislava, pp 87–107 Swianiewicz P (2014) An empirical typology of local government systems in Eastern Europe. Local Gov Stud 40(2):292–311 UN (2017) New urban agenda. Adapted in Quito on 20 October 2016. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development. Habitat III Secretariat. http://habitat3.org/ wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2018  Vecchi V, Brusoni M, Bogonovi E (2014) Public authorities for entrepreneurship: a management approach to execute competitiveness policies. Public Manag Rev 16(2):256–273 Wollmann H (2012) Local government reforms in (seven) European countries: between convergent and divergent, conflicting and complementary developments. Local Gov Stud 38(1):41–70 Zongor G (2016) Az önkormányzati szövetségek szerepe a területi érdekérvényesítésben. In: Pálné Kovács I (ed) A magyar decentralizáció kudarca nyomában. Dialóg Campus, Budapest–Pécs, pp 113–126

Chapter 5

What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing Discourses on Governance, Scales, and Spaces Simonetta Armondi

Abstract  The metropolitan dimension has become a relevant scale for both global urban policies and multilevel governance strategies. The aim of this chapter is to investigate how the metropolitan issue, as a category of regionalism, is constructed discursively and if and how this issue leads the nexus between global urban policy and multilevel governance. The chapter explores metropolitan space as a non-­ neutral outcome of the political process, specifically in New Urban Agenda discourses, with the assumption that the object of the analysis is not a unitary phenomenon and it does not represent an ontologically defined category. The focus on and the investigation of the vocabulary of the metropolitan scale aim at challenging the academic debate and the public action by facing the complexity of regional and local socio-spatial dynamics. The chapter takes a constructivist approach to metropolitan space by focusing on discourses and representations rather than only on institutional variables. Keywords  Regionalism · Metropolitan scale · Rescaling · Global urban policy · New Urban Agenda · Multilevel governance · Local governance

S. Armondi (*) Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_5

91

92

S. Armondi

5.1  Introduction The urban dimension has definitely become a persistent focus of a range of national, supra-national, and global development and environmental policy debates in the last decade (IPC-IG/UNDP 2016). In 2016, the Pact of Amsterdam agreed upon by the European Union (EU) Ministers responsible for Urban Matters, established the main features of the Urban Agenda for the European Union (Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2016). Furthermore, the issue of metropolitan governance is currently a central topic in political and academic agendas in many European countries (Armondi 2017; Sykes and Nurse 2017; Zimmermann and Getimis 2017). Another example of this new city-centric notion of development and policy-making is the UN-Habitat III Conference and the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017) adopted in Quito in late 2016 that has an exclusively urban focus. The brief mention of these policies and initiatives makes it clear that the relationship between urban spaces, scales, and multilevel governance has become an increasingly important dimension in the study of the contemporary world. At stake in UN negotiations surrounding the New Urban Agenda are central issues pertaining to the centrality of urban pathways for sustainable development (Parnell 2016). Consequently, the New Urban Agenda discloses who the major actors and institutions are and how they define global urban policy; the shifting normative and discursive positions on cities and why the increasingly complex process of the global policy environment make defining a universal agreement on urban development so difficult. Since the Habitat II Conference in 1996, the framework conditions for urban development have changed significantly. The globalization of economies and the impact of the world economic recession, population growth and fast urbanization, the threat of climate change, increasing inequalities, global migration, and the impact of new technologies have all been reshaping the challenges facing the governance of cities and urban regions. Policy discourse has moved away from a problem-­centered approach on cities towards an interpretation that recognizes cities as potential areas of intervention in the transformation of global processes of environmental change and economic growth. From this point of view, the global agenda Habitat III is more ambitious regarding cities compared to earlier Habitat agreements (Parnell 2016). Nonetheless, there is an important difference between Habitat III and Habitat II concerning the relationship with local governments, which in 1996 actively participated and engaged in the decision-making process. Today, there is currently no direct mechanism for local and city governments to contribute to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (Buckley and Simet 2016, p. 66). However, notions about cities have evolved radically in policy discourses over the last two decades. First, there has been a shift in the role of cities, from simply highlighting them as sites for sustainable development action to a direct statement to use cities as the drivers of global environmental change. The second major shift is the current emphasis on ensuring the universal right to housing as the stronger claim to ‘the right to the city’ (Turok and Scheba 2018), against the backdrop of a

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

93

contested definition of global urban poverty (Amin and Thrift 2017). Parnell (2016) refers to a shift from considering cities as being a local problem in the 1980s to a vision of cities as key strategic nodes of multi-scalar intervention by 1996. The UN acknowledges what scholars and urban policy-makers have long argued, which is that cities are now catalysts of almost every aspect of the global world. What is most significant about the so-called ‘new conventional wisdom’ (Parnell 2016) of cities is that it emphasizes urban processes as sites of opportunity, growth, and potential, not just as problems. In this new ‘orthodox’ understanding, it is assumed that there is a positive feedback loop between urban development and economic competitiveness, social cohesion, responsive governance, and, increasingly, environmental sustainability (Gordon 2005) that also infuses with global urban development policy. The third major change is the growing scholarly debate focused on the destabilization of conventional concepts of the city, region, and territory (Rickards et  al. 2016), a debate related, among other aspects, to the conceptualization of planetary urbanization (Brenner and Schmid 2014, 2015) and to radical and critical traditions of urban theory. The conceptual unbundling of the city has the potential to emancipate urban and regional processes from their longstanding policy and practical subordination to other ‘scales’ of action. The shared but differentiated decoupling of urban concepts can be seen across various fields of academic inquiry. Here, the research identifies in particular a field in which this undermining and unpacking raises important questions for the implementation and legitimization of the New Urban Agenda, namely the debate about multiple scales of urban governance (Barnett and Parnell 2016). Within this academic debate, on one hand, there is an emphasis on the ways in which various competencies of an increasingly ‘fragile’ state have been rescaled away from a national level to subnational levels of regions, cities, or localities. However, the nation-state is returning as a prevailing structure in international relations and scepticism about global governance runs deep as a feature of populist and sovereigntist movements. On the other hand, there is also a focus on the multiple approaches to regionalism as an increasingly local strategy for growth (Wachsmuth 2017). The aim of this chapter is thus to investigate how the metropolitan issue, as a spatial category, is constructed discursively and if and how this issue leads the nexus between global urban policy and multilevel governance. According to Cole and Payre (2016) as well as Fricke and Gualini (2018), this analysis explores metropolitan space as an outcome of global policy process, specifically in New Urban Agenda discourses, assuming that the object of the analysis is not a unitary phenomenon and it does not represent an ontologically given category. The focus and the investigation of the vocabulary of metropolitan scale challenges the academic debate and public action to address the complexity of contemporary socio-spatial dynamics.1 The chapter takes a constructivist approach on metropolitan space by focusing on discourses and representations rather than on

1  For an up-to-date overview see the special issue on metropolitan regions of Territory, Politics, Governance, 2018, 6 (2).

94

S. Armondi

institutional variables. First, the analysis focuses on how policy discourses of the New Urban Agenda constitute metropolitan space as a political and policy object, as Cole and Payre (2016) argue. Second, it underlines how this relates to—or contests—variations among processes of rescaling in different metropolitan regions (Brenner 2009a, 2009b). While the former aspect contributes to dealing with new research questions on global urban policy, the latter attempts to tie them to current lines of scholarly debate on both the topics of rescaling and the scalar logic of regionalism (Wachsmuth 2017). Metropolitan scale has become an objective of policy design set out in initiatives that emphasize the ‘metropolitan’ as the relevant scale for many public policies. UN-Habitat, national governments, transnational actors such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2015a; 2015b) as well as several city networks—such as Eurocities—highlight the need for building metropolitan governance arrangements to develop and implement such initiatives. By contrast, only a limited number of countries have developed and implemented comprehensive and coherent national urban policies in the last ten years. Often, national legal and institutional frameworks are not adequately adapted to the specific contexts of urban areas and the capacity of subnational governments (Dodson et al. 2015). France, Italy, and other European countries have undertaken institutional reforms focused at the metropolitan level. Most metropolitan governance reforms have triggered intense political debates and controversies relating to local identities and antagonisms, the vested interests of municipalities and opposition from higher levels of government or constraints related to local public finance systems (Andersson 2015). Nonetheless, the institutional framework is not the focus of the chapter. Rather it deals with, on the one hand, the definition of the normative/institutional level that does not fully address the real issue of metropolitan dynamics, and on the other hand, the administrative and political categories do not capture the complexity of the urban phenomena. Consequently, in the chapter, the metropolitan dimension is not only an agglomerative fact with a clear administrative boundary. The metropolitan city is seen not as an implicit premise, but as an effect of trans-scalar social, political, and economic relations. In light of this approach, the chapter deals with the two following issues: first, how global urban policy nurtures a new metropolitan issue; second, how we cope with international debate on rescaling from a global urban agenda perspective. The chapter focuses on the construction of the metropolitan dimension in four related policy documents: (1) the UN-Habitat III Policy Paper Unit 4 Urban governance, capacity, and institutional development; (2) the UN-Habitat III Issue Paper 6 on Urban Governance; (3) UN-Habitat III Regional Report on Housing and Urban Development in the Economic Commission for Europe Region: Towards a City-­ Focused, People-Centred and Integrated Approach to the New Urban Agenda; and (4) the UN-Habitat III Italy’s National Report. The chapter raises questions around the potential for reductionism in this agenda and argues for the reflexive need to be

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

95

aware of the types of spatiality, governance networks, and multi-city regionalism that are potentially excluded by the new trends in global urban policy. The chapter is organized as follows: this introduction establishes a frame of reference for the emergence of a global policy focus on cities and the New Urban Agenda with an understanding of the political dimension of the metropolitan space. The second section forms the theoretical framework of the discussion. The third section then examines and discusses the results related to the analysis of the construction of metropolitan space in the New Urban Agenda documents. The fourth section finally draws conclusions by opening with the contribution of two research directions on the discursive construction of metropolitan space at the global scale.

5.2  T  heoretical Framework. The Metropolitan Issue and Scale as Social Constructs Fostering a more constructive, place-based research agenda and identifying the mismatches between New Urban Agenda’s rhetorical discourses (Caprotti et al. 2017), for instance, require recognizing that urban sustainability has always been a problematic, interdisciplinary effort (Evans and Marvin 2006) entangled in theoretical tension and political contestation. Scholarly debate highlights the lack of any dominant definition of ‘metropolitan’ as such, but rather it frames a number of conceptual dimensions of the phenomenon. Consequently, despite the widespread use of the words ‘metropolis’ and ‘metropolitan’ in the urban discourse, these concepts continue to defy easy definition. Following Lang and Török (2017), this research refers to metropolization as a social construct, a multi-process combining empirical dimensions, namely the concentration of population and (economic) activities, normative-political dimensions such as policy frameworks supporting discursive dimensions adding particular values (e.g. about wellbeing), and relations (e.g. urban-rural linkages) to the general debate. Metropolitan regions have been introduced as an important part of European spatial policies at least since the European Spatial Development Perspective in 1999 and the Lisbon Strategy in 2000. Metropolitan policies have emerged early in Western European countries, particularly in England in the 1970s, France in the 1980s, Germany in the 1990s, and—more recently—also in Central and Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Romania (Egedy et  al. 2016). Whereas some of the earlier policies of metropolitan region building have to be seen in light of local government reforms, in order to achieve more effective administration, the recent rise of metropolization laws, as a deliberate creation of state action, mainly relates to competitiveness and growth in the wake of globalization. According to Kübler (2012), the metropolitan region comes to be rescaled as an issue of European and national policy instead of being connected to regional self-­ organization in the sense of more efficient metropolitan governance. Meanwhile,

96

S. Armondi

Wachsmuth (2017) introduces the concept of competitive multi-city regionalism beyond the national political structure and beyond the local growth machine. Furthermore, the word metropolis does not define a precise content. It is a relational concept (Farías and Stemmler 2012) and metropolization can be regarded as a bundle of issues potentially generating public policy related to rescaling processes. For these reasons, the chapter uses the scholarship on state rescaling and on scale conceptualization with a clear aim: detect what this tells us about the category ‘metropolitan’ itself. The literature emphasizes the strengthening of national governments across diverse states at the expense of subnational regional, metropolitan, or local levels characterizing the Keynesian welfare state as a post-war model of social and economic regulation related to Fordism as a regime of economic production and capital accumulation (Brenner 2004). This pattern has moulded the geographies of spatial development up to the early 1970s when the shift to post-Keynesian, post-Fordist paradigm occurred (Jessop 2002; Martin and Sunley 1997; Peck 2001). The conceptualization of the rescaling of the state, regarded as a tool to grasp socio-economic phenomena, has found a central place in a heterogeneous body of literature since the turn of the century (MacLeod and Goodwin 1999; Goodwin et al. 2005), notwithstanding the lack of a universally shared definition of state rescaling. Consequently, the concept in the wider literature is used as a descriptive category (Brenner 2009). Furthermore, Brenner’s (2003, 2004, 2009) comprehensive contributions and Jessop’s (2002, 2004, 2015, 2016) works on state power have provided a foundational unifying critical framework. The connection between the de-territorialization process of globalization and the territorial reconfiguration it determines produces rescaling processes (Brenner 2000). According to Gualini (2006), rescaling is interpreted as a manifestation of a ‘politic of scale’ that considers a dynamic contribution of state structures in promoting a scalar change. Indeed, in the ever-dynamic world of scale-making and remaking, a deeper problematizing of spatial scale is needed as much of the existing literature on state rescaling has been built upon an approach that assumes scales as fixed progressions, with each hierarchical level—the global, national, regional, metropolitan, and urban—overlapping the one below. Rescaling processes in contemporary societies (a) are elusive and involve contested spatial outcomes of fluid economic networks and socio-political mobilization, (b) reveal the misalignment between formal administrative boundaries and actual socio-spatial dynamics, and (c) refer to a complex set of political, institutional, and social practices that put the spatial scale at stake in public policy, as noted by several authors. Many contributions challenge the meaning of scale shifting the treatment away from scales as an empirically self-evident geometric tool (Smith 1995; Jonas 2006; Herod 2011), debating how (and if) it should be conceptualized along with the different ways through which actors engage in scalar politics (e.g. Swyngedouw 1997a, 1997b; 2000; Marston 2000; Marston et al. 2005). Meanwhile, research focused on the metropolitan scale has become increasingly important in the literature for understanding the geographical dynamics of urban

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

97

region governance in a number of European countries, such as The Netherlands (Duyvendak et al. 2009), Spain (Navarro and Tomàs 2007), the UK, (Dimitriou and Thompson 2007), Finland, Sweden (Giersig 2008), France (Kübler 2012), and Germany (Jouve 2005). These approaches are grounded in analyses adopting fixed scales and administrative units and are exposed to the ‘territorial trap’ (Agnew 1994). In this case, rescaling strictly concerns the reorganization, re-articulation, and redefinition of the spatial scales and the corresponding metropolitan level is entangled in the transformations. Brenner (2004, p.  274) illustrates the different rounds of ‘rescaling upward’ processes throughout Western Europe that relate to the changing territorial organization of world capitalism. The first round of new metropolitan institutions began in the 1960s and concluded in the 1980s with a top-down hierarchical-bureaucratic framework of metropolitan service delivery. The second round of metropolitan institutional reform started in the 1990s and has been oriented towards the support of regional competitiveness rather than administrative efficiency and local service provision issues that characterized the former metropolitan reform initiatives. This chapter, assuming the variability of the rescaling phenomena, considers metropolitan space as an outcome of discursive policy processes. The chapter aims at comparing metropolitan notions by using non-neutral policy concepts that are mobilized in the documents as an interpretive lens. Furthermore, comparing similarities and differences in the use of these concepts allows us to recognize more easily the multifaceted process of constructing metropolitan spaces as an outcome of rescaling strategies. It is assumed that representations of metropolitan spatiality generate powerful effects, which influence decision-making and agenda-setting of specific global and local urban policies. By studying the meanings and representations of spatial concepts, this analysis identifies ideas and seductive concepts used in the global urban policy documents for the description of the metropolitan issue and for relating it to a specific background. Such spatial concepts are, for instance, notions of growth, competitiveness, internationalization, sustainability, and cohesion.

5.3  S  patial Representation and Policy Discourses in Global Urban Policy This chapter aims to be more specific regarding the uncertain multifaceted processes characterizing metropolitan spatiality and scale building process. It is a step forward in respect to existing academic and policy-making knowledge. This section investigates selected policy documents to pick out discourses mobilized in the construction of global urban policy and their potential effects on the representation of the metropolitan dimension. The analysis of the policy discourse relies mainly on representations of concepts describing the metropolitan issue in

98

S. Armondi

policy documents. By using concepts related to a specific understanding of metropolitan space, the research advances two analytical distinctions. First, it grasps references to the metropolitan issue as the formal and jurisdictional domain of the institution (e.g. metropolitan government) and to the metropolitan issue as a spatial consequence decipherable in reference to a particular policy domain and actor network. Second, rescaling processes take place in different policy arenas and in several forms, engendering a mix of hard and soft spaces (Allmendinger and Haughton 2009, 2010) that reflect the multi-scalar negotiation of diverse networks, actors, and interests. Hard spaces may be defined by hard jurisdictional new orientations—typically laws or spatial planning programs—or by de-­ territorialization and re-territorialization practices. Instead, soft spaces follow more relational and implicit spatial references. Soft spaces, sometimes defined by fuzzy boundaries, provide an opportunity to address mismatches between administrative and jurisdictional territories by producing adapted spaces for dealing with specific issues, integrating different sectors such as energy, infrastructure, education, and health and operating at varying scales in such processes. This approach assumes that policies can exhibit either a soft or hard metropolitan dimension. Metropolitan discourses can take the form of an explicit politics of scale as well as implicit forms, such as in particular policy initiatives. Policies are explicitly hard when they are designed on the basis of a prominent metropolitan focus, providing the spatial criteria through which problems to be dealt with are identified and circumscribed. In this case, spatial visions, representations, or definitions of the metropolitan scale are in direct reference to a metropolitan administrative level. They may involve metropolitan reforms (e.g. in Italy, France, and Germany), planning measures, or policies assuming a territorial definition of metropolitan space as the scale of projected policy outputs and outcomes. Yet they can also be developed as packages for specific areas, including special institutional status for ‘capital’ (e.g. for Rome and Paris). In all these cases, the construction of the metropolitan scale is the manifestation of an explicit state or regional driven rescaling project that is territorial, functional, and comprehensive in nature. In policies with a soft metropolitan focus, actions by public and private actors are related to a blurred spatial scope, without necessarily having an explicit frame of reference. In these cases, the construction of the spatial scale is relational in nature and directly reliant on the way specific policies are defined. The following section compares a number of UN-Habitat III New Urban Agenda policy documents focused in particular on governance: UN-Habitat III Issue Paper 6 on Urban Governance (2016) in Table 5.1; UN-Habitat III Regional Report on Housing and Urban Development in the Economic Commission for Europe Region: Towards a City-Focused, People-Centred and Integrated Approach to the New Urban Agenda (2016) in Table  5.2; UN-Habitat III Policy Paper Unit 4  – Urban Governance, Capacity and Institutional Development (2016) in Table 5.3; and the UN-Habitat III Italy’s National Report (2016) in Table 5.4. The analysis focuses on their prevailing conceptualizations and dimensions of metropolitan space and future agendas through examining their strengths and weaknesses.

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

99

Table 5.1  Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse from the global level Statistical features Functional-­ economic features Political-­ territorial features Hard spaces Soft spaces

Strengths Weaknesses

UN-Habitat III Issue Paper 6 on Urban Governance - No - No

The New Urban Agenda will need to be implemented in towns, cities, and metropolitan areas, that is, at the local level. - No The metropolitan dimension is becoming increasingly relevant as cities are more interdependent on their surrounding settlements and hinterlands, a de facto continuum in terms of urbanization, economic growth, employment, environmental impact, transportation, and cultural belonging. - No In metropolitan areas, fragmentation causes missed opportunities for service provision efficiencies, spillovers across jurisdictional boundaries, and regional income and service level inequalities.

In developing the analysis of the contents, this approach highlights criteria that contribute to different conceptualizations of metropolitan space. In the following section, according to Fricke and Gualini (2018), the chapter outlines how attributes for delineating and mobilizing the metropolitan issue were used in each case. In general, they underline blanket policy proposals and general principles of interventions while also considering specific criteria. First, the metropolitan area is defined statistically as a territory consisting of administrative units, which are similar concerning a specific indicator (e.g. population density). However, such examples for statistical definitions of metropolitan dimension are not present in all documents. In the Italy National Report, emphasis is placed on economic growth indicators. Second, metropolitan regions are defined as functional and economic entities. Functional regions are characterized by interdependencies between the inner urban core and the suburban or surrounding municipalities. However, the policy documents show that metropolitan space may diverge depending on different functions such as transportation, planning, or infrastructure. Third, metropolitan space is defined as political space, either based on the jurisdictions of territories or based on the spatial delimitation of a specific policy. The coexistence of multiple ontologies of metropolitan political spaces can be found in all the documents and is also emphasized by academic literature. This typically results in a mismatch between territorial-­jurisdictional and functional-relational definitions (Varro and Lagendijk 2013) as well as between the ‘variable geometry’ of specific policy fields and the divergent frames of references of the policy actors involved. Moreover, conflicting or overlapping conceptualizations of metropolitan spatiality as a political region were compared and understood as outcomes of discursive policy processes. According to the critical distinction adopted

100

S. Armondi

Table 5.2  Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse from the regional level Statistical features Functional-­ economic features

Political-­ territorial features Hard spaces Soft spaces

Strengths

Weaknesses

UN-Habitat III Regional Report - Yes. -The region, therefore, faces two challenges: first, the management of low-­ demand areas (i.e. shrinking areas/cities) where housing vacancies are increasing and housing prices decreasing. Second, it must provide access to housing and housing affordability in overheated markets as economic success and migrants in search of employment continue, where housing prices increase disproportionately to average local incomes, thereby impairing housing affordability. While these cities are key contributors to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), they are creating issues of intra-metropolitan, regional, and national polarization. There is a consequential concern for businesses in these cities due to limited access to affordable housing, which limits labour mobility. The evidence from cities points to different tenure needs in metropolitan areas that can better support labour dynamics in the areas that are key to national economic growth. - Coordinated governance arrangements across jurisdictions and policy fields and the coordination of policies are important where borders of metropolitan areas do not correspond to today’s functional realities. – - Much of the growth occurring in urban areas does not take place strictly within city limits and regional partnerships and bodies of governance are, therefore, extremely important for managing the consequences of urban agglomeration. - Restorative growth eventually took place when re-established institutional order, relative political stability, accumulated learning, entrepreneurship, and certain external economic conditions enabled countries and metropolitan economies to become innovative and entrepreneurial. Metropolitan regions will be the principal drivers of national economies. - The reality on the ground shows new challenges in urban poverty, social polarization, concentration in the largest metropolitan areas, an ageing demographic structure, and cultural hyper-diversity as well as those brought about by territorial dynamics such as suburbanization, urban sprawl and, in some parts, urban shrinkage. - The experience of the large cities of North America is in distinct contrast to smaller ones. Many smaller metropolitan areas are experiencing rapid decline. - The governance of metropolitan areas is particularly difficult. Whatever the institutional arrangements or the peculiarities of the surrounding region, metropolitan governance must address increasingly extended, diverse, complex, and segregated spaces as well as demographic expansion and institutional fragmentation.

in the third section, metropolitan issues refer to political space, either as the domain of territorial institutions—for instance, metropolitan governments, metropolitan governance agencies, or institutionalized scales of political authority—or as consolidated politics of scale effects in specific policy domains. In particular, one can observe in the recent attempt of territorial reform in Italy, through a new law (Law 56/2014), where this policy initiative led to the establishment of metropolitan government at a new scale.

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

101

Table 5.3  Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse

Statistical features

Functional-­ economic features

Political-­ territorial features Hard spaces

Soft spaces

UN-Habitat III Policy Paper Unit 4 – Urban Governance, Capacity, and Institutional Development - Establish metropolitan level accounts that bring together data aggregated from different existing sources, but which also include dedicated new data that captures the metropolitan dimension. Key data should cover metropolitan spatial development, economic development, housing, transport, and environmental performance. - A metropolitan area can be a single conurbation for which planning and distribution of services is functional, or it can be made up of dozens of municipalities with significant disparities and spatial segregation across neighbourhoods. The lack of coordination at the metropolitan scale may create cost-ineffective solutions, especially in terms of coping with spillover and externality challenges. - Responding to new urban challenges requires adjusting the distribution of power to match the reality of where people live and work (functional urban areas), rather than matching policies to administrative boundaries that were, in some cases, drawn up centuries ago. -Providing metropolitan regions with authority over critical metropolitan concerns (which may be context-specific while tending to have a strong focus on spatial governance) requires democratic legitimacy, legal frameworks, and reliable financing mechanisms for metropolitan governance. - Intermediate governments (such as provinces, regions, or states) can also play a crucial role in the coordination and effectiveness of metropolitan governance. Intermediate levels of government and metropolitan areas typically compete for responsibilities and financial revenues. Win-win solutions need to be sought and effective cooperation encouraged in order to avoid unproductive competition and duplication of effort. - Endow metropolitan governments with their own powers and responsibilities with a clear division of tasks between the metropolitan government and other levels of government to avoid competing responsibilities. - Metropolitan governance reforms require ‘buy-in’ from all levels of government—particularly from core and peripheral cities—and they need to be adapted to the different national/regional contexts. - The issue of metropolitan governance requires special consideration due to the wide range of stakeholders required to make it work, including the private sector (which can sometimes advocate for metropolitan governance in order to promote the economic competitiveness and attractiveness of metropolitan areas), professional communities (such as architects, engineers, geographers, and economists), education and knowledge community (universities and think tanks), labour unions, and many other civil society organizations. All these actors play a role in creating a sense of belonging and ownership. - The complexities and specificities of the various urban scales should be recognized. Small towns, intermediary cities, and urban agglomerations require complex and multi-sectoral forms of metropolitan governance. - Metropolitan governance arrangements range from soft inter-municipal cooperation to more structured, integrated, and sometimes even elected forms of governance. - There is no one-size-fits-all solution; metropolitan governance models can range from soft partnerships to more institutionalized arrangements (e.g. singleor multi-sectoral planning agencies, inter-municipal collaboration agreements, as well as elected or non-elected metropolitan supra-municipal structures). (continued)

102

S. Armondi

Table 5.3 (continued)

Strengths

Weaknesses

UN-Habitat III Policy Paper Unit 4 – Urban Governance, Capacity, and Institutional Development - Metropolitan governance mechanisms can offer a flexible coordination of policies amid rapidly changing conditions to help address externalities and spillover issues while creating synergies to boost metropolitan development. - In a majority of countries, large urban agglomerations are the engines of national development. - The growth of large metropolitan areas is reshaping the urban landscape, raising new challenges for the management of metropolitan areas. Weak metropolitan governance undermines development potentialities and the attractiveness of metropolitan areas as cornerstones of national development. - Most metropolitan governance reforms have triggered intense political debates and controversies. However, barriers to further reform efforts exist, including strong local identities and antagonisms, the vested interests of municipalities and residents, opposition from higher levels of government, or constraints related to local public finance systems.

Comparing political conceptualizations of metropolitan space as an outcome of policy discourse discloses some thought-provoking parallels, especially of each conceptualization in relation to the respective ‘scale’. Examining policies according to spatial references involves an understanding of policy discourse as a fixation of spatial meaning in terms of hard or soft metropolitan dimensions, as argued in the third section. Table 5.5 presents the main discursive position at stake by matching their approach, spatial reference, and main concern. At this level of analysis, the epistemology of global ‘metropolitan’ policy relates not only to political-institutional variables, but likewise to discourses and representations mobilized by policy actors. In either explicit or implicit terms, diverse and even competing understandings of metropolitan space are at stake, in a struggle between governmental levels, arenas of policy-making, and policy networks at different scales. In order to detect specificities and differences, the author proposes an interpretation of the nature of the discursive field, which characterizes the cases as specific patterns and combinations of the dimensions adopted in the analysis. Beyond the recurring statements in the policy discourses (OECD 2005, 2015b), there is no convincing evidence that metropolitan areas can emerge as key players everywhere, due to the financial, juridical, and institutional constraints, they face and because of their potential capture by existing elites. Furthermore, Table 5.5 shows a number of mismatches between the rationalities of approach, metropolitan dimension, and the main concern of the policy documents, specifically regarding the gap between the discourses of sustainability and competitiveness. This is in spite of multilevel governance appearing as a recurring and key topic in discourses about the metropolitan issue, in line with the academic debate, for which countries with good governance outcomes tend on the whole to register lower levels of spatial inequality (Ezcurra and Rodríguez-Pose 2014). For instance, assuming a balance between national and regional political structure and vision, the main issue in the regional report relates to metropolitan areas as drivers of national

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

103

Table 5.4  Metropolitan scale as spatial references in global urban policy discourse from the national level Statistical features Functional-­ economic features

Political-­ territorial features

Hard spaces

Soft spaces

UN-Habitat III Italy’s National Report - Yes. - Further ‘regionalization’ of Italy’s urban agenda is therefore necessary to speed up the actions related to the three priorities connected to synergistic relationships, such as: i) smart growth—i.e. developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation; ii) sustainable growth—i.e. promoting a more resource-efficient, greener, and more competitive economy; and iii) inclusive growth—i.e. promoting a high employment economy to foster social and territorial cohesion. - Law 56/2014 entrusts metropolitan cities with the strategic task of promoting the development of their own areas (not least from the point of view of infrastructure and international relations). - Accompanying local governments for maximized application of law 56/2014, with particular reference to wide statutory autonomy granted to metropolitan cities to promote their role(s) as the country’s driving development force. - Law 56/2014 attributes a few basic functions to provinces, thus letting their own identities largely depend on the choices that will be taken at the regional level. - In providing for the creation of metropolitan cities and, more generally, for the evolution of provinces, the reform assigns an important role to municipalities and associations to address and manage much larger problems and territories than those delimited by current administrative boundaries. As a matter of fact, the reform introduces specific provisions on the union and merging of municipalities. - Law 56/2014 re-defines local administrations’ boundaries and responsibilities without amending title V of Italy’s constitution. The law acts as a bridge between the existing constitution and the future one by outlining, for the first time in Italy, two levels of government based on a ‘two-tier democratic system’ and entrusting them with diverse roles and objectives within a coherent and harmonious framework. - The partnership agreement sets out an ad hoc strategy addressed to cities, clearly differentiating between metropolitan cities, medium-sized cities, and small municipalities, respectively, and breaking down interventions on territories based on these three typologies. - Drawing upon the potentials of law 56/2014 to primarily shift the focus of local and regional public administrations for actions aimed at overcoming current—often obsolete—administrative boundaries of municipalities, intermediate bodies, and metropolitan cities. - Context highlights the value of Italy’s polycentric system and the profound differences in metropolitan urban phenomena linked to diverse urban situations, multiple kinds of demands from citizens and enterprises, and different institutional behaviours related to social conditions and cohesion practices. Metropolitan fragilities are more or less pronounced, but similar in representing urban life unease. (continued)

104

S. Armondi

Table 5.4 (continued) Strengths

Weaknesses

UN-Habitat III Italy’s National Report - Compared to the Habitat II Conference held in 1996, Italy’s institutional and territorial organization has dramatically changed. Urban institutions are increasingly playing a strong role, on the one hand, with the establishment of metropolitan cities and, on the other hand, with small administrative contexts strongly encouraged to merge. The successful conclusion of this process will be an important tool to set up better performing local investment strategies in order to improve inter-institutional dialogue for the management of public municipal services. - Law 56/2014 (assigning new key features to metropolitan cities, in addition to those already assigned to provinces) determines important implications in terms of land management and relationships between institutions of different levels and fields (e.g. redistribution of responsibilities and functions relating to the environment). Metropolitan cities inherit from provinces all the existing tensions characterizing the relationship with the respective regions as well as those between the region and the state as to concurrent/shared disciplines. - Over the last decade, metropolitan cities have been characterized by intense immigration flows, with a more-than-doubled foreign population at the level of provincial capital cities and even more within municipalities neighbouring metropolitan cities. New forms of discomfort have increased over recent years, due to factors such as inadequate housing, overcrowding, non-guaranteed accommodations, and homelessness risks.

Table 5.5  Approaches to the metropolitan issue in global urban policies for the New Urban Agenda

Approach

UN-Habitat Issue Paper 6 Urban management De facto continuum

Main metropolitan dimension Major concern Governance fragmentation

UN-Habitat Regional Report Economic development Key to national economic growth

UN-Habitat Policy Paper Metropolitan governance Engines of national development

Issues of intra-­ metropolitan, regional, and national polarization

Metropolitan governance arrangements (scales, powers; stakeholders)

UN-Habitat III Italy’s National Report Institutional innovation Country’s development force Smart growth; sustainable growth; inclusive growth

economic growth, though in the meantime the main concern is portrayed as intra-­ metropolitan, regional, and national polarization. In the global urban policy documents, the metropolitan issue is mainly mobilized as an engine of growth, a discourse dismissed by some scholars as a ‘1990s’ account (Dijkstra et al. 2013) contested from a historical perspective as urbanization without development is becoming increasingly common (Jedwab and Vollrath 2015). Furthermore, according to Rodríguez-Pose (2018), rescaling the economic policy efforts in large metropolitan regions alone would lead to a rapid rise in territorial inequality, which could further sustain a populist ‘revenge’.

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

105

5.4  Conclusions Global urban policy documents highlight a number of reasons for which metropolitan governance matters at the world scale, in particular: –– Metropolitan regions are growing fast; nonetheless, urbanization without growth is increasingly becoming the norm, and many metropolitan areas are dealing with fragmentation, inequity, spillovers, and dysfunctional governance arrangements; –– Jurisdictional boundaries tend to be stable over time, while the commuter, local economic and shrinking areas constantly change, depending on improved public transport, new infrastructures, and communication technologies. While inclusion and cohesion objectives are nevertheless maintained and shared, there seems to be a widespread consensus in global urban policy that to a certain extent the metropolitan paradigm is a logical and unavoidable result of economic transformation and globalization and that it is needed to achieve overall competitiveness, counterbalancing a clearly fragile state (Habitat III, Issue Paper 6, p. 9). In fact, while geographers have also long questioned the end of the nation-state, its sudden and unexpected reappearance—in Hungary, Poland, the USA, and more recently in Austria, Italy, and Brazil—has brought nationalism back to the fore of political debates. Whether targeting globalization and free-trade, international migration and multiculturalism, Europeanization and international governance or all of these simultaneously, new nationalist sovereignty narratives have emerged in places as varied as England and Italy, with one resulting in Brexit and the other in defiance of EU budgetary rules. This chapter is therefore an effort to conceptualize a different construction of new kinds of global urban policy that can better account for the variety of metropolitan regionalism currently at play. It opens new perspectives for the scholarly and policy-making debate, furthering the analysis of policy engaged in the field of complex spatiality, outside of the standard dualism between metropolitan government/ governance. Research must address the rescaling of metropolitan regions at the global level, states rescaled at the urban level, contested social constructs, and the effects of several public and private actions. Accordingly, the arguments presented earlier are meant as a starting point for what is intended to be a much wider debate on the nexus between metropolitan governance and global urban policy. The chapter has focused on the emergence of the New Urban Agenda as an opportunity, with two promising research strands: –– First, the new metropolitan issue in relation to regional dynamics. Too many ‘regional’ contributions take a descriptive and normative approach to their research area and suffer from a tunnel vision that fails to explain the relevance of the research for regional urbanization. As highlighted in Sect. 5.2, much of the existing literature on state rescaling has built upon an approach that assumes scales as fixed, with each hierarchical level—the global, national, regional, and local—overlapping the one below. This chapter has tried to address the gap in the

106

S. Armondi

debate about the effective recognition of the generative power of cities and regions mentioned by Soja (2015), highlighting the absence of analyses on regional urbanization, multi-scalar regionalism, regional governance, and planning. Formal regional governments are not always a solution, which was the main focus of ‘old’ regionalism. This strand of research stresses a trans-scalar dimension of practices rather than of practices per se at different scales. –– Second, metropolitan phenomena, institutional building, and governance processes. How to govern large metropolises and rethink metropolitan institutions? Decentralizing or transferring power to less developed cities or areas has resulted in inadequate economic outcomes (Rodríguez-Pose and Ezcurra 2010). Faced with these circumstances, the response has been, in most city-regions, a bricolage of or tinkering with makeshift governance practices (Storper 2014). If metropolitan governance is an expression of a politics of scale (Smith 1993), metropolitan regions constantly represent new geometries of power, often in an ad hoc fashion, frequently without comprehensive institutional reform. The forms that governance bricolage take are many: expansion of conventional forms of public provision through the creation of new agencies, their division or recombination; the creation of new special-purpose public special authorities; the ad hoc invention of private-public corporate forms, including quangos, or, furthermore, through local growth coalitions collaborating across many city-regions. Further research is needed at the global, national, and regional levels to better understand the relation between the multi-scalar discursive, relational, and political dimensions linked to the formation of metropolitan regions across Europe and beyond and, according to Mazzucato (2018), to contribute to the development of a ‘mission-oriented’ global urban policy.

References Agnew J (1994) The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of Int. Polit Econ 1(1):53–80 Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames gateway. Environ Plan A 41:617–633 Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2010) Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 28:803–818 Amin A, Thrift N (2017) Seeing like a city. Polity Press, Cambridge Andersson M (2015) Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development. Discussion Paper, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (Un-Habitat) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Bonn and Eschborn, Germany Armondi S (2017) State rescaling and new metropolitan space in the age of austerity. Evidence from Italy. Geoforum 8:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.008 Barnett C, Parnell S (2016) Ideas, implementation and indicators: epistemologies of the Post-2015 urban agenda. Environ Urban 28(1):87–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815621473 Brenner N (2000) The urban question as a scale question: reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. Int J Urban Reg Res 24(2):361–378

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

107

Brenner N (2003) Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. Eur Urban Regional Stud 10:297–324 Brenner N (2004) New state space. Urban governance and the rescaling of the statehood. Oxford University Press, Oxford Brenner N (2009a) Restructuring, rescaling and the urban question. Critical Plan J 16:61–79 Brenner N (2009b) Open questions on state rescaling. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 2:123–139 Brenner N, Schmid C (2014) The ‘urban age’ in question. Int J Urban Reg Res 38(3):731–755 Brenner N, Schmid C (2015) Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 19:151–182 Buckley RM, Simet L (2016) An agenda for Habitat III: urban perestroika. Environ Urban 28(1):64–76 Caprotti F, Cowley R, Datta A, Castán Broto V, Gao E, Georgeson L, Herrick C, Odendaal N, Joss S (2017) The new urban agenda: key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Res Pract 10(3):367–378 Cole A, Payre R (eds) (2016) Cities as political objects. Historical evolution, analytical categorizations and institutional challenges of Metropolitanisation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Dijkstra L, Garcilazo E, McCann P (2013) The economic performance of European cities and city regions: myths and realities. Eur Plan Stud 21:334–354 Dimitriou H, Thompson R (2007) Strategic planning for regional development in the UK. Routledge, London Dodson J, Ali J, Dalton T, Horne R (2015) Consolidated report of regional National Urban Policies. RMIT University Duyvendak J, Hendriks F, van Niekerk M (2009) City in sight: Dutch dealings with urban change. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam Egedy T, Kovács Z, Kondor AC (2016) Metropolitan region building and territorial development in Budapest: the role of National Policies. Int Plan Stud:1–16 Evans R, Marvin S (2006) Researching the sustainable city: three modes of interdisciplinarity. Environ Plan A: Econ Space 38(6):1009–1028 Ezcurra R, Rodríguez-Pose A (2014) Government quality and spatial inequality: a cross-country analysis. Environ Plan A 46:1732–1753 Farías I, Stemmler S (2012) Deconstructing “metropolis”. Critical reflections on a European concept. In: Brantz D, Disko S, Wagner-Kyora G (eds) Thick space. Approaches to metropolitanism. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 49–66 Fricke C, Gualini E (2018) Metropolitan regions as contested spaces: the discursive construction of metropolitan space in comparative perspective. Territory Polit Gov 6(2):199–221 Giersig N (2008) Multilevel urban governance and the ‘European City’: discussing metropolitan reforms in Stockholm and Helsinki. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Goodwin M, Jones M, Jones R (2005) Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state. Reg Stud 39:4421–4436 Gordon I, Buck N (2005) Introduction: cities in the new conventional wisdom. In: Buck N, Gordon I, Harding A, Turok I (eds) Changing cities: rethinking urban competitiveness, cohesion and governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 1–21 Gualini E (2006) The rescaling of governance in Europe: new spatial and institutional rationales. Eur Plan Stud 14(7):881–904 Herod A (2011) Scale. Routledge, London-New York IPC-IG/UNDP (The International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth) (2016) A new urban paradigm: pathways to sustainable development. Policy Focus. https://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/eng/ PIF37_A_new_urban_paradigm_pathways_to_sustainable_development.pdf Jedwab R, Vollrath D (2015) Urbanization without growth in historically perspective. Explor Econ Hist 58:1–21 Jessop B (2002) The future of the capitalist state. Polity Press, Cambridge Jessop B (2004) Hollowing out the nation-state and multilevel governance. In: Kennett P (ed) Handbook of comparative social policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 11–25

108

S. Armondi

Jessop B (2015) Crises, crisis-management and state restructuring: what future for the state? Policy Polit 43(4):475–492 Jessop B (2016) Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance. Territory Polit Gov 4(1):8–32 Jonas AEG (2006) Pro scale: further reflections on the ‘scale debates’ in human geography. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 31:399–406 Jouve B (2005) From government to urban governance in Western Europe: a critical analysis. Public Adm Dev 25:285–294 Kübler D (2012) Introduction: metropolitanisation and metropolitan governance. Eur Political Sci 11(3):402–408 Lang T, Török I (2017) Metropolitan region policies in the European Union: following national, European or neoliberal agendas? Int Plan Stud 22(1):1–13 MacLeod G, Goodwin M (1999) Reconstructing an urban and regional political economy: on the state, politics, scale, and explanation. Polit Geogr 18:697–730 Marston S (2000) The social construction of scale. Prog Hum Geogr 24:219–242 Marston S, Jones JP III, Woodward K (2005) Human geography without scale. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 30:416–432 Martin RL, Sunley PJ (1997) The post-Keynesian state and the space economy. In: Lee R, Wills J (eds) Geographies of economies. Arnold, London, pp 278–289 Mazzucato M (2018) Mission-oriented research and innovation in the European Union. European Commission, Brussels Navarro C, Tomàs M (2007) Madrid and Barcelona. Alternative Conceptions of Metropolitan Governance. In: Collin J-P, Robertson M (eds) Governing metropolises. Profiles of issues and experiments on four continents. Presses de l’Université Laval, Quebec, pp 209–234 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005) Local governance and the drivers of growth. OECD, Paris Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015a) Governing the city. OECD, Paris Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015b) The metropolitan century: understanding urbanization and its consequences, policy highlights. OECD, Paris Parnell S (2016) Defining a global urban development agenda. World Dev 78:529–540 Peck J (2001) Neoliberalising states. Prog Hum Geogr 25:445–455 Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2016) Urban agenda for the EU.  Pact of Amsterdam. Amsterdam 30 May. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/ urban-development/agenda/pact-of-amsterdam.pdf Rickards L, Gleeson B, Boyle M, O’Callaghan C (2016) Urban studies after the age of city. Urban Stud 53(8):1523–1541 Rodríguez-Pose A (2018) The revenge of the places that doesn’t matter (and what to do about it). Camb J Reg Econ Soc 11:189–209 Rodríguez-Pose A, Ezcurra R (2010) Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. J Econ Geogr 10:619–644 Smith, N. (1993). Homeless/global: scaling places. In Bird, J. et al. (Eds). Mapping the futures: local cultures, global change, New York: Routledge 87–119 Smith N (1995) Remaking scale. Competition and cooperation in prenational and postnational Europe. In: Eslkelinen H, Snickars F (eds) Competitive European peripheries. Springer-­ Verlag, Berlin Soja E (2015) Accentuate the regional. Int J Urban Reg Res 39(2):372–381 Storper M (2014) Governing the large metropolis. Territory Polit Gov 2(2):115–134 Swyngedouw E (1997a) Neither global nor local: ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In: Cox K (ed) Spaces of globalization: reasserting the power of the local. Guilford Press, New York, pp 137–166 Swyngedouw E (1997b) Excluding the other: the production of scale and scaled politics. In: Lee R, Wills J (eds) Geographies of economics. Arnold, London, pp 167–176

5  What Metropolitan Issues Contribute to Global Urban Policy. Comparing…

109

Sykes OJ, Nurse A (2017) Cities and regional development in England – a festival of scales and regions? Pôle Sud 2017(1) Turok I, Scheba A (2018) ‘Right to the city’ and the new urban agenda: learning from the right to housing. Territory Polit Gov. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1499549 United Nations (2017) New Urban Agenda. United Nations. http://habitat3.org/wp-content/ uploads/NUA-English.pdf Varro K, Lagendijk A (2013) Conceptualizing the region  – in what sense relational? Reg Stud 47(1):18–28 Wachsmuth D (2017) Competitive multi-city regionalism: growth politics beyond the growth machine. Reg Stud 51(4):643–653 Zimmermann K, Getimis P (2017) Metropolitan governance in Europe. P Raumforsch Raumordn 75(3):201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-017-0491-2

Chapter 6

Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist Perspective in Central and Eastern Europe Łukasz Mikuła

Abstract  The New Urban Agenda (NUA) explicitly refers to metropolitan planning and governance as a necessary means of effective implementation of sustainable urban development. Although metropolitan planning and governance is increasingly becoming a global topic, for many years theoretical and practical discussion on this issue has been dominated by the Western perspective that usually does not take into account specific historical and political background of other regions of the world. The objective of this chapter is to explore the abilities to implement NUA guidelines in the field of metropolitan planning and governance in post-­ socialist countries of Central Eastern Europe (CEE) with their legacy of the socialist past and experience of the democratic transformation after 1989. The identification of processes and challenges responsible for the specific nature of metropolitan areas in post-socialist CEE is followed by in-depth case study of the Poznań metropolitan area, which is the most advanced example of bottom-up planning and governance in Poland – the largest CEE country. The empirical evidence from face-to-face interviews with local political leaders has revealed a complex nature and difficult creation process of metropolitan governance arrangements indicating as the main challenge the need to overcome city-suburbs conflicts that arose in the transformation period. Keywords  Local governance · New Urban Agenda · Metropolitan areas · Post-­ socialist transformation · Urban planning

Ł. Mikuła (*) Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_6

111

112

Ł. Mikuła

6.1  Introduction The debate about metropolitan planning and governance is a kind of a never-ending story of searching for optimal institutional arrangements beyond formal administrative borders that usually do not recognise the specific features of metropolitan areas. Questions related to metropolitan planning and governance are increasingly a worldwide topic, as witnessed by their inclusion into the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017). At the same time, theoretical and practical discussion of the multiple aspects of metropolitan planning and governance has been dominated by the Western perspective. This is in a way understandable. In Western countries, the public debate on metropolitan planning and governance took place under conditions of well-established democracy, from the local to the national level, as well as unrestricted academic discussion. Pluralism of opinions was conducive to airing a variety of views on metropolitan areas, allowed for testing different institutional solutions and could evolve along with the changing political and socioeconomic conditions. Complicated relations between national government and relatively independent local and regional self-government units and, especially in more recent approaches to the subject, a whole set of stakeholders from outside the traditional world of politics and administration were taken into account. In authoritarian states, of course, there are also problems of managing development on a metropolitan scale. As a rule, however, attempts to solve such issues take place within a centralised and hierarchical structure of state administration. On the one hand, it often has the appropriate capacity to act, unrestricted by local autonomy and democratic procedures, but on the other hand, it operates without respect for, and often in violation of, the fundamental political, social and economic rights of local communities and individual citizens. Another unique category of states consists of those that have radically transformed their political system, from an authoritarian to a democratic one. Unquestionably, these include CEE countries, in most of which this kind of transition took place at the turn of the 1990s. Profound political transformations and socioeconomic changes correlated with them have also left their mark on metropolitan areas, their spatial development and the institutional structures of planning and governance. Recognizing the gap between the global nature of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) and the current scope of research on metropolitan planning and management, with its Western-centric perspective, this chapter will focus on two fundamental issues: 1. To what extent do the achievements of Western theoretical thought and practical experience adequately explain processes in CEE countries? 2. How does the legacy of the socialist past affect the ability to implement NUA objectives in the field of metropolitan planning and governance? The next section describes the development and current state of the international debate on metropolitan planning and governance. With reference to it, Sect. 6.3

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

113

briefly describes the challenges related to metropolitan planning and governance arising from the NUA. The topic of Sect. 6.4 is the identification of processes and problems responsible for the specific nature of post-socialist CEE in this field. Empirical verification of the assumptions presented in Sect. 6.5 is based on research conducted in the Poznań metropolitan area, which is the most advanced example of bottom-up planning and governance in Poland, the largest CEE country.

6.2  Theoretical Foundations The development of theoretical concepts and practical institutional solutions for metropolitan planning and management in Western countries has a long history and periodisation that is well established in literature. Starting from the practical challenges posed by the process of mass post-war suburbanisation and increasing administrative fragmentation of metropolitan areas, a primary division has emerged between two “traditions” (Ostrom 1972). This dispute was defined as a classic normative confrontation between “regionalists”, i.e. supporters of metropolitan reforms or more broadly of centralisation/consolidation, and “localists” or supporters of decentralisation/fragmentation (Parks and Oakerson 2000; Blatter 2006). Proponents of the “regional” tradition and of the metropolitan reform see the politically fragmentated nature of metropolitan areas as the chief obstacle for public activity (Wood 1961). The main argument in favour of metropolitan reforms, which is still valid today, is that the economic and social development of the city should be accompanied by corresponding and concurrent institutional transformations. The reform therefore means a fully integrated and institutionalised planning and management at the metropolitan level (Lefèvre 1998). The concept of reform is closely related to the tradition of regional planning, dating back to Geddes, Mumford and Abercrombie in the first half of the twentieth century, and then implemented on a large scale in the planning of metropolitan areas in the 1950s and 1960s, associated with rational and comprehensive planning and implementation of the welfare state (Razin 2015). The other tradition harks back to the theory of public choice (Tiebout 1956; Ostrom et al. 1961; Bish 1971; Bish and Ostrom 1974). It starts off with an economic analysis of the political process and is against institutional consolidation. Competition between jurisdictions is regarded as a tool for preventing an excessive growth of administration and supports effective and democratic public engagement. The fragmented nature of metropolitan areas forces local authorities to provide good public services to their citizens; otherwise, if they are dissatisfied with the policies of local authorities in their current place of residence, they can move to better managed units in the same metropolitan area (Koch 2013). In European countries where the scope of centrally managed metropolitan reforms was by far the widest (e.g. the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark; see Lefèvre 1998), the “golden age” of modernising the structures of territorial administration in the 1960s and in the first half of the 1970s meant in effect

114

Ł. Mikuła

most often the consolidation of the local level through the merger of municipalities and the introduction of a two-tier structure of territorial governance in metropolitan areas. In its most classical version, the reform was implemented primarily in the UK, but the less radical intermunicipal model, based on obligatory cooperation of local units, gained recognition in many other countries (France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Canada). In the 1980s, the growing importance of neoliberal ideology led to a crisis in the model of metropolitan reforms combined with a growing lack of faith in the sense and effectiveness of comprehensive planning (Healey et al. 1997; Albrechts et al. 2003). Since the 1990s, new models of metropolitan governance have emerged, which do not fit seamlessly with either the tradition of metropolitan reform or public choice, often collectively referred to as the new regionalist trend (Savitch and Vogel 2000). It had a real impact on both ideology and practice of territorial governance (Brenner 2003), partly related to the second golden period of metropolitan reforms that took place in this decade. This does not mean that the parallel interest in the traditional approach to metropolitan reforms and public choice has diminished. In the 1990s, reforms were also carried out which are considered to be an example of “old regionalism”, which Heinelt and Kübler (2005) identify with the tradition of metropolitan reforms. In this spirit, modern management models for areas such as the Community of Madrid, Greater London, Stuttgart Region and Region Hannover have emerged. On the other hand, the concept of public choice has evolved from the original version assuming the defence of a multitude of small local government units to emphasising the argument that there are different optimal scales for the production of different public goods. The logical consequence is to propose functional specialisation and special-purpose vehicles, or single-purpose government units (Frey and Eichenberger 2001; McGinnis 1999; Blatter 2006). The idea of new regionalism, although it draws on the positive and negative experience of metropolitan reforms and public choice, is rooted primarily in the discourse on the rescaling of the national state and the weakening of the role of central governments in favour of supra- and substate entities (Brenner 2003). The main driving force behind this process is the transition of the economic model from the stage of Fordism-Keynesian and welfare state to the post-industrial phase and the progress of globalisation (Scott and Storper 2003; Harrison 2006). Both processes are assumed to weaken the state’s ability to effectively regulate the economy and to stimulate economic growth and build competitiveness, making it necessary to look for another optimal scale of management – a regional one. While the first experiences and positive examples of new regionalism in Western Europe were based on traditional “big” historical regions (Baden-Württemberg, Emilia-Romagna, Catalonia) (Keating 1998), further stages of concept development coincided with the rediscovery of the key role of cities in fostering economic growth, after the crisis in the 1970s caused by deindustrialisation, suburbanisation and the decline of the city centre. A version of the new regionalism referring to the scale of the metropolitan area, often called especially in the UK context city-regionalism, is a reconciliation of the regional and urban-centric approach (Harrison 2010). According to Scott and

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

115

Storper (2003), city-regionalism is associated with a new phase of capitalist territorial development, in which the political and regulatory competences of the nation state are challenged by the emergence of new super-agglomerations, which include global city-regions. Economic globalisation itself depends on and is driven by the forces of the spatial agglomeration around the city-regions. In terms of metropolitan planning and governance, the concept of new regionalism, like the tradition of metropolitan reform, recognises that the scale of a metropolitan area is appropriate for building capacity to govern for stimulating and managing economic growth, but unlike in the earlier period of metropolitan reforms, a wider range of social and political objectives gives way to a focus on the fundamental task of building economic competitiveness. With the approach of public choice, the new regionalism combines scepticism towards top-down, rigid and omnipotent institutional forms of planning and administration at the metropolitan level. The semantic change from metropolitan government to metropolitan governance means the emergence of a system in which the most important actors are interdependent and complementary. In order to achieve the potential necessary for efficient operation, they form coalitions (policy networks), in which political legitimacy derives from public authorities elected by universal suffrage, while financial and economic resources are derived mainly from business entities (Jouve and Lefèvre 2002). The concept of new regionalism, still a far cry from systematic, has not become the one and only dogma but rather a basis for further comprehensive debate. In the course of this debate, the concept infrequently comes under heavy criticism. Firstly, the linear shift from government to governance, as parallel to economic processes (Fordism-Post-Fordism), is put into question. The descriptions of governance systems are relatively numerous in the literature, but the reasons for their formation are poorly documented empirically (Koch 2013). The alleged loss of control capacity by local self-governments and administration is only partly true. The initially loose structures become institutionalised and formal principles continue to matter (Goetz 2008). Secondly, the reduction of the role of the state vis-à-vis ever stronger metropolitan areas has empirical foundations in relation to a selected group of “global” metropolitan areas (Robinson 2002; McCann 2003; Jonas and Ward 2007). What is criticised is the sole focus on cases of metropolitan/regional “success” (Harrison 2006), spatially restricted and limited to the narrow economic success (Lovering 1999, 2007) in terms of attracting capital as an engine of growth which attracts the critical mass of investment (Overman et  al. 2007; Beel et  al. 2016). In turn, the social or environmental challenges of metropolitan development are underestimated. Thirdly, the success of the reforms of the second golden age of 1990–2000 proved to some extent illusory (Lefèvre 2001). An interesting analysis of the root causes of failed metropolitan reforms is provided by Salet et al. (2003). According to the authors, a major mistake made by central authorities in the preparation and implementation of reforms was the strategy to simultaneously achieve two objectives. On the one hand, governments seek to bridge the gap in living standards

116

Ł. Mikuła

between central cities and the suburbs and to overcome social and fiscal imbalances. On the other hand, they try to encourage cooperation in the face of international and interregional competition. It seems very difficult to reconcile the two objectives. Fourthly, the concept of new regionalism, through its focus on economic rationale and justification for metropolitan governance, takes little account of the political and civic dimension of the creation of metropolitan areas (Harrison 2010). It does not explain the interests and political creation of metropolitan areas. The idea of governance points to actors and their mutual relations, but poorly defines what interests characterise these relations and how they influence negotiations and decision-­making processes (Keil and Hamel 2015). In short, who really rules and whose interest prevails (Herrschel and Newman 2002). Finally, present-day city-regionalism in Europe (the situation in the USA is slightly different, cf. Phelps and Wood 2011) continues to be strongly city-centred. Focusing on the role of core cities, it fails to always see and appreciate very distinct changes in the city-suburbs relation, of functional, spatial and political nature (Savini et al. 2015; Salet and Savini 2015). In light of the current lively scientific discussion about metropolitan planning and governance, it seems interesting to compare its main issues to the provisions of the New Urban Agenda. It can be seen as an attempt to formulate generally accepted principles with a global and universal context.

6.3  P  rinciples of Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the NUA While the main substantial part of the NUA focuses on pointing out challenges under the section “sustainable urban development”, two paragraphs in the New Urban Agenda (90 and 96) that refer explicitly to metropolitan planning and governance are included in the section dedicated to “effective implementation”. This clearly demonstrates that the creation of planning and territorial management structures at the metropolitan level is not an aim in itself, but only a means for the pursuit of more fundamental development goals. The NUA applies the term metropolitan governance first of all in Paragraph 90: 90. We will, in line with countries’ national legislation, support strengthening the capacity of subnational and local governments to implement effective local and metropolitan multilevel governance, across administrative borders, and based on functional territories, ensuring the involvement of subnational and local governments in decision-making and working to provide them with the necessary authority and resources to manage critical urban, metropolitan and territorial concerns. We will promote metropolitan governance that is inclusive and encompasses legal frameworks and reliable financing mechanisms, including sustainable debt management, as applicable. We will take measures to promote women’s full and effective participation and equal rights in all fields and in leadership at all levels of decision-making, including in local governments.

Several elements of this paragraph deserve further scrutiny. These are as follows:

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

117

• Recognition of the national context (“in line with countries national legislation”) of the system of territorial governance, confirming what Silva (2007) indicated: the assumption of a single best model of metropolitan reform, possible to implement under any circumstances, has become obsolete. • Focus on the perspective of governance rather than government and recognition of its multilevel character. • Definition of a metropolitan area as primarily functional rather than purely administrative territory. • The need to involve local authorities and other subnational entities, as well as to provide them with competences, finances and legal instruments. • The inclusive nature of metropolitan governance; however, the last sentence on women’s participation in decision-making processes raises an issue that is so important and goes beyond metropolitan issues that it would deserve to be included in a separate paragraph. The NUA guidelines on the nature of metropolitan governance should be read in conjunction with the second key paragraph on planning at this level: 96. We will encourage the implementation of sustainable urban and territorial planning, including city-region and metropolitan plans, to encourage synergies and interactions among urban areas of all sizes and their peri-urban and rural surroundings, including those that are cross-border, and we will support the development of sustainable regional infrastructure projects that stimulate sustainable economic productivity, promoting equitable growth of regions across the urban-rural continuum. In this regard, we will promote urban-rural partnerships and inter-municipal cooperation mechanisms based on functional territories and urban areas as effective instruments for performing municipal and metropolitan administrative tasks, delivering public services and promoting both local and regional development.

Special emphasis on the category of city-region and metropolitan plans is a clear confirmation of the role ascribed in the NUA to this very level of planning. It is equally important to recognise the scalar diversity of urban areas that require such spatial coordination, as well as the indirect definition of metropolitan area/city-­ region as an area extending beyond built-up areas (conurbation) and including peri-­ urban and rural areas. This approach breaks the city-centric perspective. An important premise of NUA is also a specific balance between the objectives of economic productivity and equitable growth, which is an attempt to solve the key dilemmas present in theoretical concepts of metropolitan governance and planning. The NUA guidelines do not assume the universal implementation of comprehensive territorial reforms, or those relating to the planning system, in order to anchor metropolitan areas as “hard” planning spaces. Instead, they refer to the principles of partnership and cooperation within functional territories. At the same time, they now extend beyond the planning sphere, assuming that administrative tasks and public services on a metropolitan scale can also operate in this formula, which, however, seems to be a major additional organisational and institutional challenge. The NUA model assumptions of metropolitan planning and governance, despite the high degree of generalisation, will constitute in the following part of the chapter

118

Ł. Mikuła

a model of reference for the analysis both for the whole post-socialist CEE and for an empirical case study.

6.4  Post-socialist Countries The main aim of this section is to try to resolve the following dilemma: to what extent are the experiences of metropolitan planning and governance in post-socialist CEE countries related to the adaptation of Western countries’ experiences, convergence and catching up with Western countries, and to what extent are they conditioned by a specific path dependence, fundamentally different from the Western experience? Both options do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive if the time dynamics are taken into account. As pointed out by Musil (1993, 2001), while there were big differences in the early period, later on urban trajectories in Eastern Europe started to converge with the trends in Western Europe. Cities in former CEE socialist countries sought to be at least partially comparable to the urban “West”. However, the most interesting element of the research is nonetheless the search for the factors that still make a difference. In this analysis it is useful to distinguish, after Koch (2013), three perspectives by means of which it is possible to explain the processes leading to the emergence of institutional systems of metropolitan governance: functional, institutional and constructivist. The functional perspective looks primarily for factors external to a given metropolitan area, which influence its development and functioning, triggering the need, if not the necessity, to adapt planning and management structures to new conditions. The institutional perspective assumes that the adaptation process does not take place in an automatic and unified way but is “filtered” through the existing institutional and organisational structures, their patterns of conduct and reaction – a specific institutional memory. Therefore, the same external processes may produce different effects and create different models of metropolitan governance not only between different countries but also within them. The constructivist perspective recognises that the response to challenges and external pressures is not always repetitive and predictable. There is a possibility of overcoming existing patterns, under the influence of different values and beliefs shared by key actors. In this approach, the focus is on a combination of given circumstances and attitudes of stakeholders, which leads to the transformation of the existing model. This perspective seems to be the most difficult to grasp, requiring empirical research on the attitudes and beliefs of people who have had a real impact on the formation of metropolitan planning and governance systems. The reference of these three perspectives to the analysis of the phenomenon of metropolitan planning and governance in post-socialist countries leads to two observations:

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

119

• While, from a functional perspective, the general transformations in the CEE region as a whole were similar, they overlapped with different institutional conditions, and the diversity of responses is only explained by the constructivist perspective. • In all three perspectives, there are both factors, systems and values, analogous to those in Western countries and those peculiar to CEE countries. The two most important issues distinguishing Western countries from CEE in terms of metropolitan planning and governance are as follows: • A dissimilar starting point of transformations over the last few decades (Western welfare state vs. CEE socialist state) • A dissimilar timeline of the processes connected with the revolutionary nature of the 1989/1990 transformation and the high intensity of the political and socioeconomic processes of the following decade (“time contraction”, after Buček 2016) Both factors call for more in-depth analysis. If we take a closer look at the last of the three dominant currents of metropolitan approach, the concept of new regionalism, we can clearly see that it has its own specific starting point: the Western welfare state and its gradual weakening since the late 1970s in the face of global changes in capitalism and ideological change in favour of neoliberalism. The model of the socialist state, which lasted from 1945 to 1990, should be regarded as a relatively parallel, at least in time, starting point for the CEE countries. Although both models, i.e. the Western democracy of the welfare state period and Eastern European authoritarianism under the rule of communist parties, seem to be worlds apart, certain similarities can be sought in terms of spatial planning. In both cases a wide range of regulatory, to some extent technocratic, spatial planning was assumed, with more or less visible elements of social engineering. However, the list of differences is much longer. In Western countries, the planning process took place in a local democracy, with elected local governments. In socialist countries the tradition of self-­government was interrupted, and planning decisions were made within a centralised hierarchical structure of state administration, interlinked with the politically dominant party apparatus. Planning in Western countries, although strongly dominated by the perspective of public authorities in the period of Fordism-Keynesianism, has always functioned in a situation in which the implementation of plans in housing, industry, social services and infrastructure – in different proportions between sectors and countries – was always a combination of public and private entities’ activities. In the socialist countries, there was a real monopoly of state entities in all these areas (including housing cooperatives strongly supported by the state and controlled by the party), with a narrow margin of private initiative (individual single-family housing mainly in peri-urban and rural areas and the outskirts of large cities – limited by floor-size standards and planning guidelines; small handicraft activities). Planning was therefore largely subordinated to public objectives (which also included multifamily housing and virtually all industry). Expropriation of real estate for the

120

Ł. Mikuła

implementation of these objectives was carried out on a massive scale, while compensation offered to private owners was much lower than the real values of the property. In the 1980s, serious criticism of planning emerged in both groups of countries. In the Western countries, from a neoliberal perspective, planning was a constraint on economic growth and the free market, treated as part of the “big government” (Healey et al. 1997; Albrechts et al. 2003). In the CEE countries, in turn, planning had, at least among the still numerous private landowners, an even worse image – as an instrument of economic oppression, limiting personal freedom to dispose of property and building rights, especially on the outskirts of large cities. While mistrust in planning and attempts to loosen its rigidities in the West took place in the situation of a relatively stable territorial governance structure at the local level and a well-established ownership order, in CEE countries planning found itself in the midst of a political, administrative and socioeconomic revolution. The processes in Western countries, although dynamic and with turning points (e.g. the 1979 victory of the Conservatives in the UK), were evolutionary and incremental. Meanwhile, CEE saw an almost immediate political and economic breakthrough, and the next decade was a period of “condensed evolution” (Stanilov 2007). The basic process that aroused interest and awareness of the need for metropolitan planning and governance in CEE countries was, as in the classical Western perspective, suburbanisation. Although before 1990 there were also complex polycentric settlement systems requiring coordination of development and management on a supra-local scale (industrial regions, systems of satellite cities), the majority of socialist cities extended their limits in the period 1945–1990, and development processes were attempted to be concluded within them. After the breakthrough, this trend changed significantly (Haussermann 1996; Nuissl and Rink 2003, 2005; Musil 1993, 2001; Hirt 2007; Ott 2001). From a functional perspective, suburbanisation is not so much an external factor in relation to the planning and governance system, but rather its local manifestation. A more thorough analysis of the process of suburbanisation in CEE by Stanilov and Sýkora (2014) points to three fundamental reasons for this process, which have had the character of reform imperatives: • The privatisation of state assets • The deregulation of economic activities • The decentralisation of political power Restitution and privatisation of land, in particular agricultural land, made it possible to create a real estate market which did not exist in the socialist period. Changes in ownership of agricultural land on the outskirts of large cities were particularly important for the process of suburbanisation (although, e.g. in Poland, nationalisation/collectivisation of agricultural land had never been fully carried out). Deregulation connected with privatisation meant the abolition of the state monopoly on investment activities in industry, services and housing construction. At the same time, the procedures for transforming agricultural land into investment areas were simplified, and building single-family houses was possible.

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

121

However, Stanilov and Sýkora (2014) consider the decentralisation process to be the most important factor stimulating urban sprawl; it allowed the newly created, democratically elected local authorities to take over responsibility and control for spatial development. The transfer of these competences took place at the same time as the municipalities became to the large extent financially self-dependent. The municipalities, deprived of their earlier state subsidies, started to look for alternative sources of financing, and the aggressive and expansionist spatial policy, especially in the case of suburban municipalities, proved to be one of the most advantageous financial strategies. All the three aforementioned macro-processes in the functional perspective can be considered as external factors in relation to metropolitan areas. They appeared on a national scale, and in principle in the entire CEE region, driven both by the general social reaction to the severe limitations of the socialist period and more consciously directed by new political elites, strongly influenced by neoliberal ideology, then dominant in the West. However, the political and socioeconomic reforms in the period of transformation, especially in the case of metropolitan areas, took place under specific institutional circumstances, mainly related to the territorial-administrative structure. The first stage of the decentralisation process was in many cases related to the fragmentation of the existing structures at the municipal level into smaller units (a trend particularly visible in the Czech Republic and Slovakia), partly as a reaction to the earlier actions of the communist authorities aimed at forced consolidation at this level. Thus, in the CEE countries, the trend towards municipal consolidation, dominant since the 1960s, especially in northern European countries, was reversed with varying intensity (Swianiewicz 2009). The second important institutional trend in the territorial structure was the weakening of the importance of mid-tier governments: regional, provincial and county authorities. Since they were not covered by the first wave of decentralisation, they were perceived as an element of the hierarchical state structure associated with a bygone era, and their earlier regulatory and control functions, including in the area of spatial development, were weakened or completely disappeared. The process of rescaling in the CEE countries clearly promoted the municipal level in this phase, which was linked to a strong belief in the localism, popular among representatives of the democratic opposition in the last years before the collapse of communism (Swianiewicz 2011). From the theoretical perspective, the changes in the first years of the transformation period were conducive to the emergence of an ideological environment “friendly” to the concept of public choice (Mikuła 2015), with strong decision-­ making autonomy of relatively small local units (although the metaphor of the “market” of local governments was severely distorted by the high disparity in size between core cities and suburban municipalities), even if, unlike spatial policy, tax autonomy (an equally important pillar of the original public choice concept) was heavily restricted. However, the processes initiated by the reforms led in the majority of metropolitan areas to “voting with one’s feet” and to a start of stronger

122

Ł. Mikuła

migration flows of city residents to suburban municipalities, in search of more favourable housing conditions. Dysfunctions of post-transformational spatial development of metropolitan areas, which began to emerge in the conditions of uncoordinated growth of new residential areas, often without adequate infrastructure equipment, and increasing traffic congestion and pressure on the environment, gradually made people aware of the need for spatial planning and management on a supra-local scale. Such activities can be carried out either on the basis of the idea of metropolitan reforms or within the new regionalism perspective. The specific nature of post-socialist countries makes it possible to apply to them both approaches, from the Western perspective connected with different periods and state models. This reflects a broader challenge faced by post-socialist countries in building self-government structures after 1990, i.e. the combination of the introduction of the traditional Weberian principle of the rule of law and the simultaneous influence of quasi-market instruments in administration, more readily associated with the idea of New Public Management (Coulson and Cambell 2006). A feature of most CEE countries is the lack of self-government territorial units at supra-local levels (Swianiewicz 2011). However, in some CEE countries, comprehensive territorial-administrative reforms were carried out as part of the second phase of decentralisation, although ultimately no units corresponding to the classic metropolitan government were introduced. One of the main factors of reform at the regional level was the anticipation of accession to the European Union and the need to adapt the territorial division to EU regional policy (although, except for Poland, not always consistently to the NUTS-2 level). Self-government regions were created in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, although in each of these countries, metropolitan areas were organised differently at this level. In the Czech Republic, the capital city of Prague was designated as an independent region, distinct from the surrounding Central Bohemian region (Kostelecký et  al. 2007). In Slovakia, the Bratislava region was delimited more widely than the capital city itself, but still within too narrow limits in relation to the real functional urban area of Bratislava (Buček 2016). In Poland, metropolitan areas avoided such disintegration and were fully integrated into large regions, referring to historical divisions, but the spatial planning competences granted to regional authorities proved to be relatively weak and insufficient. In addition, Poland, as the largest CEE country, introduced also a third level of self-­government – counties (powiaty). Although they do not have direct responsibility for any aspect of spatial planning, their competences enter the more broadly defined sphere of metropolitan spatial development and public services (intermunicipal roads, building permissions, secondary schools, hospitals). At this level, core cities were granted a status of independent counties, separated by an administrative border from their surroundings. In some cases, the suburban zone of the metropolitan area itself is also divided between different counties; hence the fragmentation at the municipal level was exacerbated by fragmentation at the county level, despite one regional jurisdiction (Kaczmarek and Mikuła 2007).

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

123

Furthermore, Poland was the country where, with the greatest tenacity although without much success, attempts were made to introduce a more classical version of metropolitan reforms treated by successive governments as the third stage of the decentralisation process. Proposals initially developed exclusively for the metropolitan area of Warsaw (1999–2002), ultimately not adopted, were later extended to the remaining metropolitan areas in the intensive phase of legislative work in the years 2007–2009 in the form of a draft “metropolitan law”. The legislative process associated with the new act was very difficult, due to the opposition of two strong actors: 1. Regional governments – afraid of losing political power and financial resources to metropolitan institutions, led by mayors of big cities (especially Mazovia region, where most of the economic and demographic potential is concentrated in the capital city of Warsaw and its suburban zone). 2. One of the national government coalition parties – Polish People’s Party (PSL) – which in terms of its electorate is based in rural areas, was afraid that creation of metropolitan institutions would eventually lead to redirection of central government financial support to large urban centres (Mikuła and Kaczmarek 2017). The authorities of suburban counties were also sceptical about the idea of introducing the “fourth tier” of self-government, although their opinion would probably have not prevailed, offset by the more pro-metropolitan attitude of authorities of the largest cities, concentrated in the Union of Polish Metropolises. Unexpected resumption and acceleration of legislative work at the end of the parliamentary term led to the adoption in 2015 of a law on metropolitan associations, introducing the possibility of creating an intermunicipal metropolitan government with its own competences and sources of financing. However, the law was a short-lived one and after the elections the new government repealed it. Only the piloting of a metropolitan association for the metropolitan area of Upper Silesia was introduced; this is very unique due to its polycentric structure, the legacy of heavy industry and general depopulation processes – and thus very different from the typical monocentric metropolitan areas around large Polish cities, which are engines of economic growth and housing development and are affected by dynamic processes of suburbanisation. Due to the short period of functioning of the metropolitan association for Upper Silesia (from 1 July 2017), it is still difficult to assess its success. In view of the lack of real effects of metropolitan reforms in CEE countries, the alternative is to base the coordination of spatial development, consistent with the New Urban Agenda guidelines, on metropolitan governance and on the idea of new regionalism. A question arises, of course, to what extent the theoretical achievements of this trend, developed mainly on the basis of Western experience, and most often cities strongly involved in the global economy and metropolitan network, can be transferred to the realities of CEE countries. Secondly, to what extent the justification given by the new regionalism for metropolitan cooperation  – stimulating economic growth and building competitiveness – is the most important challenge for building metropolitan management capacity in CEE. And thirdly, to what extent do the processes that stood at the beginning of the idea of new regionalism, i.e.

124

Ł. Mikuła

post-industrial economic transformation, globalisation and European integration, affect the spatial development of metropolitan areas in European post-socialist countries. The answer to the above questions cannot be unambiguous. While commercial and industrial suburbanisation in post-socialist countries was connected with globalisation processes and strategies of large international corporations (retail chains, industrial concerns), residential suburbanisation has had an endogenous character, not connected with international macro-processes (Sykora and Ourednicek 2007; Sýkora and Bouzarovski 2012). Using the Keil and Hamel (2015) classification, it is more self-built than state-led or capital-led. Although it was significantly influenced by the liberalisation of planning regulations (state responsibility) and the development of the mortgage loan market (capital sphere), the direct involvement of international players in the residential property market was much more pronounced in core cities. Global competition for investors, especially those requiring large areas of land, certainly drew attention to the need to build an investment offer on a scale of the metropolitan area, combining transport accessibility, international brand and a high level of central city services with a specific investment site located in a suburban municipality. Another thing is that central governmental factors are usually involved in the acquisition of really large investments and this is done on special rules. It is not always necessary to have a strong institutionalised metropolitan structure. The second macro-process, European integration, had its impact primarily in the sphere of infrastructure – both strategic, developing regional, national and international functions of individual cities and their inclusion and accessibility in the European metropolitan network, and also at the local level, meant the possibility of investing in basic infrastructure. At the same time, strategic investments, especially into road infrastructure, significantly strengthened the role of peri-urban areas in the context of increasing importance of logistics on the one hand and individual car mobility on the other hand. In this way, they indirectly influenced the process of suburbanisation and thus the emergence of challenges of metropolitan planning and spatial management. Access to European funds enabled many local governments to stop relying solely on their own revenues and state subsidies and increased the self-­ confidence of many suburban municipalities, which obtained funding. At the same time, it created the conviction that applying for EU funds is competitive. It was only very recently that the idea of awarding bonuses for cooperation appeared, especially directed towards metropolitan areas (Integrated Territorial Investment). However, the impact of the European Union on environmental requirements, which, impossible to achieve individually, also required cooperation on a wider scale, cannot be overestimated. Notwithstanding the importance of external factors and a functional perspective, an in-depth analysis from an institutional and constructivist perspective seems to be of key importance for the assessment of the possibility of meeting the NUA objectives for metropolitan planning and management in the CEE countries. This required empirical research, a case study of one of the most advanced metropolitan areas in

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

125

CEE countries in terms of metropolitan planning and governance, i.e. the Poznań Metropolis.

6.5  Empirical Case Study: The Poznań Metropolis The Poznań Metropolis (the name adopted by the association coordinating the political and functional integration of the Poznań metropolitan area) belongs to the group of Poland’s seven largest urban areas. The choice of the Poznań Metropolis as the object of empirical studies is justified by the following characteristics: • Its size (core city ca. 540,000, metropolitan area ca. 1,030,000 inhabitants) and structure (monocentric, 22  units of local government with divergent status: urban, urban-rural and rural) place it roughly in the middle of the set of CEE metropolitan areas. • As an area which does not perform capital functions on a national scale, is not covered by special regulations concerning the territorial-administrative structure or local government. • Strongly develops economically as a whole, with an exceptionally strong intensity of the suburbanisation process (emigration of residents from the core city to the neighbouring municipalities), creating the need for metropolitan coordination. • Since 2007, it has consistently used bottom-up forms of metropolitan cooperation which have not been directly stimulated by external instruments such as the ITI. • Metropolitan cooperation takes into account spatial development; a joint spatial development concept has been adopted. All of the above features make the Poznań Metropolis one of the few examples of soft spaces of planning and governance (Allmendinger and Haughton 2009), operating on a metropolitan scale in the CEE countries. The fundamental research methodology consisted of 23 in-depth face-to-face interviews with former (4) and incumbent (14) mayors of municipalities along with political leaders of core city, i.e. Poznań (mayor, deputy mayor, former mayor) (3) and suburban county of Poznań (2), carried out between May and September 2018. Around 1/3 of the respondents had been connected with local government since the early 1990s and were able to give a first-hand account of the entire period of political transformation with respect to the metropolitan area. The interviews focused on three main study questions: 1. What were the direct consequences and long-term impact of the post-socialist political and economic transformation at the beginning of the 1990s on planning and governance at the scale of the metropolitan area? 2. What was responsible for overcoming previous barriers to metropolitan cooperation and for entering the path of integration in the second half of the 2000s?

126

Ł. Mikuła

3. What is the assessment of the current state of cooperation and prospects for its further development in the light of NUA guidelines? Interviews with mayors, who held their offices still in the 1990s, showed the extensive burden of the events and processes of the first period of reintroduction of local self-government after the turn of 1990 for the development of metropolitan cooperation. The municipalisation of public services, especially in the field of public transport and public utilities (especially water and sewage infrastructure), meant the disintegration of previous organisational ties. This was not a smooth transition. The core city was perceived as a major player, almost a monopolist, striving to impose unilaterally conditions of cooperation. In public transport the cost of the services provided was very high, partly due to the higher standard of transport (frequency, quality of rolling stock), partly due to the higher costs of administration. As a result, practically all suburban municipalities abandoned participation in the metropolitan transport system and set up their own public transport companies. A side effect was a reduction in the quality of services in this area, especially in urban-­ suburban connections, which in the long run led to the establishment of new car-­ dependent suburban housing estates. The second critical element of the political divisions of the early transformation period was the issue of the water and sewage system. Due to the lack of basic infrastructure in this area, the efforts to bridge the gaps left by the communist period dominated the activities of most local governments in the first half of the 1990s. Large intermunicipal disputes resulted in organisational transformations of the state-owned water and sewage company managing the metropolitan system; in the first stage, it was entirely owned by the core city and then transformed into a commercial company. It was only after long and difficult negotiations that it was possible to work out the rules of mutual settlements in the area of transferring the assets of municipalities to the company and their taking up shares in the enterprise. The tensions surrounding public transport and management of public utilities, directly related to the processes of municipalisation of state property and ownership reorganisation, caused a great distrust of the suburban municipalities towards the core city and created an unfavourable atmosphere around the idea of metropolitan cooperation. At the same time, the factor of intermunicipal competition infiltrated also the sphere of spatial planning. Spatial development policy became an element of active competition for investors, mainly commercial and industrial ones, unfortunately often at the expense of a rational planning. The change in planning and development ideology, from a regulatory and restrictive approach to one conducive to investment, as compared to the previous period, resulted in a tendency to use very large areas of agricultural land for investment purposes, even if it was not possible to develop them in a rational time perspective. This led to the creation of a large surplus of land formally designated for future development (even without adequate infrastructure) and created very high business expectations of their owners, which have persisted to date. The metropolitan territorial management system was significantly changed in the next stage of the decentralisation reform. The then existing administrative Poznań

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

127

Province, one of 49 in Poland, covering both the city and the suburban zone, was disintegrated, and new actors appeared on stage: self-government counties and the authorities of new large regions. This resulted in further territorial-administrative disintegration of the metropolitan area (e.g. visible in the road management system through an increase in the number of managing authorities from 2 to 4), and at the same time, the newly introduced units, with modest competences and financial resources, were poorly rooted in the awareness of the inhabitants. However, the territorial reform in 1998 was an important element of shaping the spatial dimension of the Poznań Metropolis. The lack of cities with historical traditions of the county capital resulted in the formation of a concentric/ring-like county around Poznań, which included all suburban municipalities adjacent to the city. The municipalities of the second ring, which historically did not belong to the Poznań county, took steps to join this unit, which influenced the awareness of the strength of functional relations with Poznań and stimulation of metropolitan (city-regional) identification. Paradoxically, the factors which in the 1990s (i.e. in the period which in Western countries was rather dominated by the pro-metropolitan approach of the new regionalism) caused the disintegration of both the institutional management system and the coherence of planning policy to a large extent contributed to the development of cooperation after 2000. The intensive development of suburbanisation, triggered by the planning policy, resulted on the one hand in a change in the attitude of the core-city authorities. In the face of the progressing depopulation, they realised that it is necessary to build more partner relations with the environment and that acting solely from the position of strength is not sufficient. On the other hand, suburban municipalities in the face of dynamic housing growth, largely based on individual and non-organised development, could not keep up with the infrastructure and also felt that it was not possible to solve the key development problems, especially in the field of transport, on a local scale; this was contrary to their vision from the early 1990s. In the initial period of relatively weak scope of competences and resources, the new actors of the county and the region sought legitimacy of their status. While in the case of regional authorities it was crucial to take over the role in the management of EU funds, the role of the county, especially in the circular version without the core city, was still undefined. The solution was to promote a metropolitan vision in which the county represents the entire suburban zone and is almost an equal partner for the core city. The important breakthrough took place in May 2007, when the city of Poznań, all 17 suburban municipalities from the county of Poznań and the county itself created the Poznań Agglomeration Council as a non-statutory institution expected to act as a platform of exchange of information between the local governments. The intention to cooperate was expressed in the following areas: supporting business initiatives, marketing activities, public transport, education, health care and spatial policy. Although the initiative originated from the political leaders of the city of Poznań and county of Poznań, in the following years, four municipalities from adjacent

128

Ł. Mikuła

counties joined the Council. These territorial extensions brought controversies among original members of the Council as some of them indicated that the primary objective should be strengthening already existing institutions instead of spatial expansion. The process of inclusion of new municipalities into formalised metropolitan cooperation was stalled after 2011. The primary objective for the Council was to create the joint development strategy for the Poznań Agglomeration. Its creation was possible, thanks to a lively cooperation with the local academic community, which was actively involved in the substantive work of the project. The contribution of the joint development strategy to metropolitan integration is evident in an institutional sphere. According to the propositions presented in the strategy, the informal Poznań Agglomeration Council was transformed into statutory-­based form of cooperation – the Poznań Metropolis Association (2011). The main objective of the Association is the coordination of intercommunal cooperation and the implementation of the joint development strategy. The successful bidding for EU funds on metropolitan integration (spatial planning, metropolitan transit) and the EU initiative of Integrated Territorial Investment within the 2014–2020 budget perspective was the most important driver for further development of institutionalised metropolitan governance in the Poznań Metropolis. To become the beneficiary of ITI, local governments have to form territorial partnerships covering cities and their suburban areas. The Poznań Metropolis Association has gained a status of ITI joint board, being the only one example of previously existing bottom-up initiative in Poland that was directly transformed into beneficiary of this new EU programme. However, EU funds may have both progressive and regressive impact in terms of building metropolitan cooperation. A threat may be a utilitarian and pragmatic approach to the use of funds, without building a deeper sense of community of values and beliefs. In the context of the current state of metropolitan integration and prospects for its further progress, the interviews conducted helped to create a classification of attitudes of municipality, city and county leaders (Table 6.1). The experience of creating institutional forms of metropolitan planning and governance in post-socialist conditions, with the Poznań Metropolis as a case study, can be referred to the NUA guidelines, placed in paragraphs 90 and 96, in particular those related to the following: • • • •

Compliance with national legislation Involvement of subnational and local governments in decision-making Inclusive character of metropolitan governance Municipal cooperation mechanisms for performing metropolitan administrative tasks; implementation of city-region and metropolitan plans • Balance between sustainable economic productivity and promoting equitable growth The development of metropolitan cooperation in the case under analysis took place in the conditions of lack of national legislation for metropolitan areas concerning planning and management. Only a few interlocutors considered this fact as a significant impediment, while most of them believed that one nationwide legal

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

129

Table 6.1  Classification of attitudes of municipality, city and county leaders Approach Metro-sceptic localism

Representatives Ca. 1/3 mayors

Metro-positive localism

Slight majority of mayors

Municipal-based metropolitanism

A few mayors

All-suburban metropolitanism

Chairman of Poznań County Board Former mayor of Poznań

Core-city metropolitanism

Core-city suprematism

Mayor of Poznań

Characteristics They appreciate EU funds for metropolitan areas but believe that integration and cooperation with the core city generates high, unjustified costs and is based on unequal principles They see more positives than negatives of metropolitan cooperation, are open to its development but believe that competence in spatial planning should remain in the hands of municipal authorities They are aware of the limitations of the existing system of planning and growth management and its negative consequences for their municipality and are willing to transfer some planning competences to the metropolitan level Support metropolitan integration and overcoming local particularities, but stick firmly to the principle of balance between the core city and the suburban zone Cooperation with suburban municipalities and creation of institutions for the metropolitan area is necessary for effective management and mitigation of the effects of suburbanisation, a potential way of rationalisation of development processes Integration is adequate, but it should first of all strengthen the potential of the core city; suburban municipalities are now “free-riders”, making use of the city’s closeness

Source: own research based on face-to-face interviews

regulation would not be able to take into account the specificity of particular metropolitan areas and the achievements of their institutional experience to date. There was a clear feeling of distrust towards any legislative proposals of the central government and the conviction that the greatest value of metropolitan cooperation in Poznań is its grassroots and voluntary nature. However, the conviction of the advantages of bottom-up creation of metropolitan management structures is combined with the feeling of limited real influence on metropolitan decision-making among some mayors of suburban municipalities. The Poznań Metropolitan Association is a “mayors’ club”, but the first-rate roles are played by the Mayor of Poznań and the Leader of Poznań County Board as, respectively, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Metropolis Board. The position of individual mayors is relatively weak and attempts to form coalitions are temporary in nature. Such a formula of operation has little inclusive character. Meetings of the Metropolitan Council do not have a public and open character, and the activities of the Metropolis as a rule are not interesting not only for the residents and civic society, but even for the councillors of individual municipalities. The formula of the mayors’ club has one more potentially problematic feature – it is sensitive to electoral changes (mayors in Poland are directly elected), which was particularly

130

Ł. Mikuła

evident in the period after the change in the position of the Mayor of Poznań, where the new leader had, at least initially, a clearly different vision of the functioning of the Metropolis from that of his predecessor. A great advantage of the operation of a metropolis in a relatively loose institutional form is the possibility of adopting flexible forms of cooperation for performing metropolitan administrative tasks. The system of bilateral municipal agreements has been the most important instrument in providing integrated management in such fields as public transport, employment market, business support, fire safety, emergency medical services, preschool education, day care in nurseries, adoption and child protection centres. But there have been also other single-task special-purpose intermunicipal organisations including local government commercial law companies and associations: Aquanet (water and sewage company) and Poznań Local Tourism Organisation. The interviewees considered such a formula to be optimal for one reason: possible problems in cooperation in one field do not have a strong impact on other spheres due to their different territorial, organisational and personal form. While the overcoming of the lack of trust, caused by the post-socialist transformation shock, was achieved through gradual evolutionary cooperation in the field of public transport and social services (although maintaining schools is still a problem in mutual settlements), it is much more difficult to rectify planning problems arising in the first phase of post-socialism. The regulations and court jurisprudence concerning compensation for the lost potential value of the property are a serious obstacle to withdrawing from the excessively expansive development plans of a dozen years ago. At the same time, mayors stress that they are now able to resist pressure from private owners to further convert agricultural land into investment land. Some of them indicate that the planning documents of the metropolitan level, although not legally binding, are nevertheless an important argument for councillors and residents to resist excessive pro-investment demands. The concept of directions of spatial development of the Poznań Metropolis adopted in 2017 was developed in a soft planning convention. At the request of local governments, the concept was prepared by experts of the Metropolitan Research Centre of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. The document shows the areas that are actually suitable for residential use and meet the criteria of a compact settlement network, have social and technical infrastructure and do not interfere with the green infrastructure of the Poznań Metropolis. This informal document is meant to fill the gap between the still weakly understood and inadequately legally defined metropolitan planning of the regional government and local planning, based on the principle of the planning authority of the municipality. The concept is based on a principle of balance between sustainable economic productivity and promoting equitable growth. However, interviewees, especially from municipalities with weaker development opportunities, mainly due to the proximity of valuable natural areas, stated that such an effect is impossible to achieve without an additional mechanism of financial flows between local governments within a metropolis.

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

131

6.6  Conclusions The New Urban Agenda contains relatively clear, although generalised, guidelines concerning the necessity of shaping the capacity to plan and manage on a metropolitan scale as a necessary means of effective implementation of sustainable urban development. The transformation of the spatial structure of metropolitan areas in post-socialist CEE countries, stimulated by dynamic but also chaotic and uncoordinated processes of suburbanisation, made residents aware several years after the breakthrough that it was necessary to create mechanisms of metropolitan planning and governance. As part of the transformation of the territorial management system, metropolitan areas in post-socialist CEE countries were largely omitted between the dynamic processes of municipalisation in the first phase of the transformation, which were a rather spontaneous reaction after the breakthrough to the centralisation of the socialist state, and more premeditated regionalisation processes (at least in some countries) in anticipation of EU accession, which were driven by pragmatic and political considerations. Creation of institutional structures of metropolitan planning and governance fulfilling the NUA recommendations without strong support from the state level is difficult but possible. The unique feature of post-socialist countries is that building institutional capacity on a metropolitan scale requires overcoming the relatively recent experience of decentralisation reform processes, which may have left deep, though sometimes covert, divisions. Overcoming political and mental barriers may take longer in the case of local leaders who actively participated in the first phase after 1990. Analysis of the relatively advanced case of building bottom-up institutional capacity in the Poznan metropolitan area points to four critical factors that contribute to metropolitan governance: 1. Emphasis on effective links with the core city and the availability of its services by residents of suburban municipalities, usually newcomers 2. Weakening the sense of domination among the leaders of the core city as a result of the process of suburbanisation and related depopulation, also as a result of positioning in relation to other metropolitan areas and feeling the risk of the deterioration of the competitive position of the city itself 3. Searching for legitimacy by the mid-tier government who wants to more actively enter the territorial management system and promotes “soft” metropolitan institutional solutions 4. Creation of academic facilities, cooperating with local authorities, which provide the necessary expertise and substantive contribution to metropolitan integration The experience of post-socialist CEE countries demonstrates the usefulness of ideas developed in Western countries and their adaptability, yet with due regard for the particularities of political and administrative culture. The implementation of the NUA recommendations concerning the planning and management of metropolitan areas on a global scale generally requires respect for national and local conditions.

132

Ł. Mikuła

However, the development path of CEE countries may in many aspects be interesting and useful for countries shifting from authoritarianism towards democracy, irrespective of the political and cultural context. Acknowledgement  The research was funded by National Science Centre, Poland within project No. 2016/23/D/HS5/00202.

References Albrechts L, Healey P, Kunzmann K (2003) Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. J Am Plan Assoc 69:113–129 Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environ Plan A 41:617–633 Beel D, Jones R, Rees Jones I (2016) Regulation, governance and agglomeration: making links in city-region research. Reg Stud Reg Sci 3(1):509–530 Bish RL (1971) The public economy of metropolitan areas. Markham, Chicago Bish RL, Ostrom V (1974) Understanding urban government: metropolitan reform reconsidered. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington Blatter J (2006) Geographic scale and functional scope in metropolitan governance reform: theory and evidence from Germany. J Urban Aff 28(2):121–150 Brenner N (2003) Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. Eur Urban Reg Stud 10(4):297–324 Buček J (2016) Urban development policy challenges in East-Central Europe: governance, city regions and financialisation. Quaestiones Geographicae 35(2):7–26 Coulson A, Cambell A (2006) Into the mainstream: local democracy in central and Eastern Europe. Local Gov Stud 5:543–562 Frey B, Eichenberger R (2001) Debate: metropolitan governance for the future: functional overlapping competing jurisdictions. Swiss Pol Sci Rev 7(3):124–130 Goetz K (2008) Governance as a path to government. West Eur Polit 31(1):258–279 Harrison J (2006) Re-reading the new regionalism: a sympathetic critique. Space Polity 10:21–46 Harrison J (2010) Networks of connectivity, territorial fragmentation, uneven development: the new politics of city-regionalism. Polit Geogr 29(1):17–27 Haussermann H (1996) From the socialist to the capitalist city: experiences from Germany. In: Andrusz G, Harloe M, Szelenyi I (eds) Cities after socialism: urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies. Blackwell, Malden, pp 214–231 Healey P, Khakee A, Motte A, Needham B (eds) (1997) Making strategic spatial plans: innovation in Europe. UCL Press, London Heinelt H, Kübler D (eds) (2005) Metropolitan governance. Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. Routledge, London Herrschel T, Newman P (2002) Governance of Europe’s city regions. Planning, policy and politics. Routledge, London Hirt S (2007) Suburbanizing Sofia: characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geogr 28(8):755–780 Jonas A, Ward K (2007) Introduction to a debate on city-regions: new geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction. Int J Urban Reg Res 31(1):169–178 Jouve B, Lefèvre C (eds) (2002) Local power, territory and institutions in European metropolitan regions. Frank Cass, London Kaczmarek T, Mikuła Ł (2007) Metropolitan areas in Poland: towards a new scale of urban governance. Quaestiones Geographicae 26:97–105 Keating M (1998) The new regionalism in Western Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

6  Metropolitan Planning and Governance in the New Urban Agenda: A Post-socialist…

133

Keil R, Hamel P (eds) (2015) Suburban governance a global view. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Koch P (2013) Overestimating the shift from government to governance: evidence from Swiss metropolitan areas governance. Int J Policy, Admin Inst 26(3):397–423 Kostelecký T, Illner M, Vobecká J (2007) Metropolitan governance in the Czech Republic. In: Collin J-P, Robertson M (eds) Governing metropolises: profiles of issues and experiments on four continents. Presses de l’Université Laval, Sainte-Foy (Quebec City), pp 235–258 Lefèvre C (1998) Metropolitan government and governance in western countries: a critical review. Int J Urban Reg Res 22(1):9–25 Lefèvre C (2001) Metropolitan government reform in Europe: trends and challenges. Revue Suisse de Sciences Politiques 7(3):136–141 Lovering J (1999) Theory led by policy: the inadequacies of the “new regionalism” (illustrated from the case of Wales). Int J Urban Reg Res 23:379–395 Lovering J (2007) The relationship between urban regeneration and neoliberalism: two presumptuous theories and a research agenda. Int Plan Stud 12:343–366 McCann EJ (2003) Framing space and time in the city: urban policy and the politics of spatial and temporal scale. J Urban Aff 25:159–178 McGinnis MD (ed) (1999) Polycentricity and local public economies. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Mikuła Ł (2015) Theories of metropolitan government and the post-socialist experience: the case of Poznań metropolitan area. In: Buček J, Ryder A (eds) Governance in transition. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 91–107 Mikuła Ł, Kaczmarek T (2017) Metropolitan integration in Poland: the case of Poznań Metropolis. Int Plan Stud 22(1):30–43 Musil J (1993) Changing urban systems in post-communist societies in central Europe: analysis and prediction. Urban Stud 30:899–905 Musil J (2001) Vývoj a plánování měst ve střední Evropě v období komunistických režimů: Pohled historické sociologie. Sociologický Časopis/Czech Sociol Rev 37(3):275–296 Nuissl H, Rink D (2003) Urban sprawl and post-socialist transformation: the case of Leipzig (Germany). UFZ-Bericht Nr. 4/2003. UFZ, Leipzig Nuissl H, Rink D (2005) The “production” of urban sprawl in Eastern Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. Cities 22:123–134 Ostrom E (1972) Metropolitan reform: propositions derived from two traditions. Soc Sci Q 53:474–493 Ostrom V, Tiebout CM, Warren R (1961) The organisation of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am Polit Sci Rev 55:831–842 Ott T (2001) From concentration to deconcentration – migration patterns in the postsocialist city. Cities 18:403–412 Overman H, Rice P, Venables AJ (2007) Economic linkages across space. Centre for Economic Performance, London Parks RB, Oakerson RJ (2000) Regionalism, localism and metropolitan governance: suggestions from the research program on local public economies. State Local Gov Rev 32:169–179 Phelps N, Wood A (2011) The new post-suburban politics? Urban Stud 48(12):2591–2610 Razin E (2015) District plans in Israel: post-mortem? Environ Plann C Govern Policy 33:1246–1264 Robinson J (2002) Global and world cities: a view from off the map. Int J Urban Reg Res 26:531–554 Salet W, Savini F (2015) The political governance of urban peripheries. Environ Plann C Govern Policy 33:448–456 Salet W, Thornley A, Kreukels A (eds) (2003) Metropolitan governance and spatial planning. Comparative case studies of European city-regions. Spon Press, London Savini F, Majoor S, Salet W (2015) Urban peripheries: reflecting on politics and projects in Amsterdam, Milan, and Paris. Eviron Plann C Gov Policy 33(3):457–474 Savitch HV, Vogel RK (2000) Paths to new regionalism. State Local Govern Rev 32(3):158–168

134

Ł. Mikuła

Scott AJ, Storper M (2003) Regions, globalization, development. Reg Stud 37:549–578 Silva CN (2007) Reinventing local and metropolitan government. Public Admin Rev Sept-Oct:954–957 Stanilov K (ed) (2007) The post-socialist city: urban form and space transformations in central and Eastern Europe after socialism. Springer, Dordrecht Stanilov K, Sýkora L (2014) Managing suburbanization in postsocialist Europe. In: Stanilov K, Sýkora L (eds) Confronting suburbanization: urban decentralization in postsocialist central and Eastern Europe. Wiley, London, pp 296–320 Swianiewicz P (2009) Reformy konsolidacji terytorialnej  – teoria i praktyka krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Samorząd Terytorialny 4:5–22 Swianiewicz P (2011) Empiryczna typologia systemów samorządowych w krajach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Samorząd Terytorialny 11:5–21 Sýkora L, Bouzarovski S (2012) Multiple transformations conceptualising the post-communist urban transition. Urban Stud 49(1):43–60 Sykora L, Ourednicek M (2007) Sprawling post-communist metropolis: commercial and residential suburbanisation in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In: Dijst M, Razin E, Vazquez C (eds) Employment deconcentration in European metropolitan areas: market forces versus planning regulations. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 209–234 Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64:416–424 United Nations (2017) New urban agenda. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi Wood R (1961) New York, 1400 governments. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Chapter 7

Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Spatial Development Jadranka Veselić Bruvo and Martina Jakovčić

Abstract  The Republic of Croatia Regional Development Act, promulgated in January 2015, introduced a new planning and implementation framework for the regional development policy and a new spatial planning category  – urban area. Urban area, according to that Act, is divided into three categories: urban agglomerations, larger and smaller urban areas. Based on that Act, the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds declared the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb in March 2016. The Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb was established in line with larger framework of scenarios for Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and EU cohesion policy (2014–2020) and ‘Urban Agenda for Europe’ with the purpose of building stronger cities as focal points of economic development. The aim of the chapter is to elaborate criteria for spatial coverage of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb, to explain operational problems (statistical, political, geographical, and so on) and to discuss potentials of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a tool for management of spatial and socioeconomic development of Croatia. Spatial coverage was analysed by method of comparison and overlapping of spatial plans in the 90  years’ period starting from 1930s onwards. The result of the research will show that the idea of forming a joint territory of what we today call Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb is not new. During time it has changed its spatial coverage but the idea of forming a joint unit has always been present. Keywords  Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb · Regional planning · Strategic planning · Spatial plans · Croatia

J. Veselić Bruvo City Bureau for Physical Planning, Zagreb, Croatia M. Jakovčić (*) University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_7

135

136

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

7.1  Introduction Urban areas have imposed themselves as generators of European growth and social development in the European Union under the influence of several ‘roof’ documents. The first one is a global document of New Urban Agenda adopted in Quito, Ecuador, in 2016, as the part of the Habitat III process with the purpose to represent a shared vision of the states for the better and more sustainable future in general and in cities (UN, The New Urban Agenda 2017). The second one is the Urban Agenda for the EU based on the grounds of the Pact of Amsterdam enacted in May 2016 (Urban Agenda for the EU: Pact of Amsterdam, European Council 2016) with the purpose to contribute to the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, notably Goal 11. This is in particular the European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth – Europa 2020 (European Commission 2010) on economic growth, new investment, innovation and creation of new jobs. Presently, over 70% of the European population lives in urban areas, and this number is continuously increasing. Urban areas are the drivers of economic growth and development, and the basis of new employment and focal points of competitiveness. At the same time, however, these areas are exposed to numerous spatial challenges such as increase in energy consumption, pollution, social polarization and segregation, widespread unemployment and poverty. There is an evident need for adopting operational tools and for establishing cooperation between all the actors in planning, from city administration, economic sector, NGOs to all other stakeholders in order to respond to numerous challenges and to plan sustainable development of urban areas. Urban Agenda is the initiative which defines the policy of urban development through development of legal framework in the context of increase of availability of EU funds, operational financial tools, development and distribution of knowledge. The Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) mechanism is perceived as one of such operational financial tools of the European Union introduced to enable future strengthening of the role of the cities as the drivers of the economic development (European Parliament and Council 1303/2013 2013a). The priority issues addressed by the ITI mechanism include sustainable development of cities and urban agglomerations (European Parliament and Council 1301/2013 2013b) highlighting, in particular, the abandoned, neglected and/or underused urban spaces. The Republic of Croatia has identified three potential thematic issues by which it could benefit from the ITI mechanism: Progressive cities as drivers of sustainable and smart economic growth; clean cities for combating climate change, promoting energy efficiency and healthy environment; and inclusive cities aiming at combating poverty and supporting social inclusion. By signing the Partnership Agreement, Croatia undertook to utilize the ITI mechanism which includes a set of activities that could be funded from the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund in order to implement the sustainable urban development concept. By promulgating the Regional Development Act in January 2015, Croatia introduced a new regional development policy planning and implementation

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 137

framework. The Act defines an obligation to establish three categories of urban areas: urban agglomerations, larger urban areas and smaller urban areas (Vlada 2014 Croatian Parliament, Official Gazette 147/14, 123/17). Urban agglomerations of Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek and larger urban areas of Zadar, Pula and Slavonski Brod were selected as target areas for the use of the ITI mechanism. The chapter describes the development of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as one of the urban area categories according to the Regional Development Act. The first part of the chapter elaborates on the criteria used to identify and define cities in urban areas in Croatia and in the European Union. The second part elaborates on the development of the Zagreb area though the twentieth century. The third part presents in brief the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as the largest urban agglomeration in Croatia, defines its spatial coverage, and the establishment and development of the spatial development strategies. The third part is dedicated to the presentation of the expected effects from the establishment of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb on sustainable management of spatial development. In the preparation of this chapter, the available documents on the City of Zagreb and on the newly established Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb have been used in addition to the existing and available technical and scientific literature addressing the determination of the criteria for identifying the spatial coverage of urban areas. It has to be mentioned that one of the authors had actively participated in the process of establishing the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb and in the adoption of the relevant documents.

7.2  O  verview of Previous Studies and Legal Regulations on Defining of Urban Areas in the Republic of Croatia Urban agglomerations in general and the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb in particular are topic of numerous studies. Davoudi (2008) gives an interesting review of concepts of urban regions and articulates relations between a city and its suburban region. In her work from 2010, Davoudi gives an overview of various methodologies used to define city and region, highlighting the economic factor as a key factor in defining the urban region concept. An overview of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definitions of cities is given by Dijkstra and Poelman (2012). In his book, Urban and Regional Planning, Hall (2005) also underscores the importance of the impact of suburban region economic factors on the city structure. The importance of urban regions for spatial economy is also stressed by Parr (2005). The establishment of urban agglomeration is also elaborated by Knox and Pinch in their book Urban Social Geography – An Introduction (2010), and also by Pacione (2009). Neuman and Hull (2009) examine the future of urban regions. The national technical and scientific literature defines regions as spaces where ‘complex sociogeographical processes’ evolve because of an ‘attracting power of labour’ that the central cities have (Vresk 1979), as ‘regions of qualitative

138

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

transformation of cultural landscape affected directly by the metropolis’ (Rogić 1979), namely as ‘forms of reterritorialisation’ for successful defence of joint development processes (Rogić 1992). One of the first analyses of the urban region of Zagreb, comprising the City of Zagreb and its functional suburban region, was prepared by Žuljić already in 1965. He differentiated between three terms referring to different territorial coverage: the City of Zagreb region, that is, greater territory gravitating towards the City of Zagreb; the narrower territory gravitating towards the City of Zagreb; and the Zagreb suburban region. The criterion used to define the Zagreb suburban region, identified by Žuljić, is that a suburban region is an area with direct connection to the city, not developing under the social impacts of the neighbouring urban centre, located not more than 40 km from Zagreb, not markedly separated from Zagreb in political and administrative sense (Žuljić 1965). Žuljić also studied the urban agglomeration of Zagreb in his works of 1969 and 1974. He proposed a model according to which the urban region of Zagreb would be identified based on functional interconnection and tendency for physiognomic transformation, with total share of agricultural population of less than 50%. It was already in 1979 that Rogić presented his analysis of an issue of geographical differentiation of urban regions. In his work from 1992, Marinović–Uzelac raised an issue of regions and spatial planning, and Rogić (1992) theoretically elaborated on an issue of regions in the than newly independent Republic of Croatia. Vresk stands out by quantity of his works on urban regions in Croatia. In 1978, he focused on the urban region of Zagreb, its spatial coverage and characteristics, and identified the Urban Region of Zagreb based on four criteria (share of agricultural population, share of employed population in the active population, labour centre and territorial continuity). Vresk based his model on the German Stadtregion model. In 1979, Vresk offered an analysis of urban regions for four major Croatian macroregional centres on the basis of an analysis of labour function. A year later, he dealt with the issue of defining the cities and urban regions in Croatia by analysing the geographical factors of their identification (Vresk 1980). In his work from 1986, Vresk writes about the socioeconomic urban regions comprising the city and its urbanised suburban region (Vresk 1986). In a paper published in 2008, Vresk develops a model for identifying cities, according to which the city settlements are defined based on three interdependent variables used to determine the minimum size of a city – the share of agricultural population, urban style of life and percentage of active settlement population working in the settlement (but outside its own farm), that is, minimum functional independence of settlements expressed as labour function (Vresk 2008). According to the modified M.  Vresk model presented by Klempić Bogadi in 2008, the urban region together with the city encompasses a continuous suburban region with settlements that have less than 20% of agricultural population, minimum 50% of employed in active population, and commuters making 25% in total number of the employed (Vresk 1997, Klempić-Bogadi 2008). In her paper from 1996, Fürst-Bjeliš presents characteristics of the Zagreb agglomeration development, highlighting, in particular, the concentration of population and commuting flows. In her works, Bašić (2004, 2005) deals with Zagreb

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 139

agglomeration extensively. In his book Mozaik izvan grada: tipologija, ruralnih i urbaniziranih naselja Hrvatske, Lukić (2012a) points to the problem of petrified definitions of urban areas which are frequently not questioned and highlights the complexity of the process of identifying and combining criteria and defining of urban areas. Legislation in many countries, international organisations and a considerable number of scientific and technical papers deal with the criteria for identifying of urban areas and offer their own definition of such areas. The situation becomes even more complex because it is necessary to define several key spatial terms – city, urban area, urban region, urban agglomeration, etc. Below, the criteria and definitions most important for the area under our consideration and within the context of the European Union are presented. The criteria most commonly used to identify urban areas is settlement size (population or, rarely, number or dwellings), population density, administrative status, socioeconomic structure of the population as well as urban infrastructure and morphological characteristics. By an analysis covering 93 states, Lukić established that the settlement size as the only or one of indicators had been the most commonly used criterion for identification of urban settlements. In his paper Službene definicije ruralnih i urbanih područja: primjeri iz svijeta, Lukić (2012b) further tackles an issue of boundaries between the rural and urban settlements. Definition of urban and rural settlements in Croatia was also dealt with by Ostroški (2011). Since different authors and different countries use different criteria to define administrative and territorial boundaries of cities and urban areas, the European Union introduced in 2012 a new methodologically uniform spatial concept for classification of urban areas based on smaller areas (grid cells) with high population density (Dijkstra and Poelman 2012). The comprehensive definition of an urban area undergoes an identical specific process in four steps: selection of all spatial units – urban centres with minimum population density of up to 1500 persons/km2; determination of contiguous spatial units – urban centres with minimum population of 50,000 inhabitants; selection of local administrative units with minimum 50% of population within an urban centre; and ultimately – the definition of a city. In 1991, the degree of urbanization (DEGURBA) was introduced for defining the character of a specific area. It is based on population size and density and on continuity of the second level Local Administrative Units (LAU 2). In Croatia, LAU 2 includes municipalities and cities. To meet the needs of the European Commission, the urban–rural typology was revised in 2010 (European Commission 2011, The New Degree of Urbanisation). Thus, the new approach and overlapping LAU 2  units (Second-Level Administrative Units) with urban clusters and their classification in three categories (densely populated area – cities or large urban areas, intermediate density areas – towns and suburbs, and thinly populated areas – rural areas) enable greater comparability between the countries and contributes to harmonisation of several conflicting spatial concepts. In the European Union, a more intense development of strategic planning of sustainable urban development started in 1990 when initial activities and projects (programmes) focusing on development of individual specific areas, most frequently problem areas within the cities, were designed, elaborated and implemented.

140

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Since the functional connections between the cities and suburban regions have strengthened with time, resulting in creation of integrated and interdependent spatial and functional entities, it was necessary to develop an integral planning system for functional regions – urban agglomerations – interconnected in this way. A complex and comprehensive strategic approach was used for planning the development, based on the identification of common problematic development areas, needs and potentials and on definition of common strategic development goals, priorities and integrated measures necessary to face the economic, environmental, climate, demographic and social challenges. The European Union defines urban regions by using several different models: UMZ  – Urban Morphological Zone, MUA  – Morphological Urban Area, FUA  – Functional Urban Area, LUZ – Larger Urban Zone, applying different criteria to that end: criterion of maximum distances in continuous urban fabric, criterion of minimum population density and minimum number of inhabitants and/or criterion of daily commuting towards urban cores (urban cores/cities are defined by two criteria: population density and number of inhabitants). Numerous laws determine urban areas in Croatia. The national Local and Regional Self-Government Act defines a town as ‘a unit of local self-government where the seat of the county is located, as well as any other place with more than 10,000 inhabitants that represents an urban, historical, natural, economic and social entity. The town as a local self-government unit can include suburban settlements that together with the urban settlement constitute an economic and social entity and are connected with it by daily commuting and everyday needs of the inhabitants of local importance (Vlada 2013 Croatian Parliament, Official Gazette 19/13, 137/15, 123/17). The same act defines the city as a ‘local self-government unit as economic, financial, cultural, health care, traffic and scientific centre of development of greater region with population of more than 35,000 persons’. According to the earlier mentioned Regional Development Act (Vlada 2014 Croatian Parliament, Official Gazette 147/14, 123/17), urban areas namely seats of urban agglomerations are divided according to the number of inhabitants as follows: urban agglomerations referring to the four major cities that according to 2011 Census have more than 100,000 inhabitants: the cities of Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek; larger urban areas – areas of cities with more than 35,000 inhabitants; and smaller urban areas – towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants in central settlement or those that have the role of county seats. The urban agglomeration boundaries are defined on the basis of administrative boundaries of the self-government units comprising the urban agglomeration, and they are determined by the regional development minister based on a proposal submitted by a city – seat of urban agglomeration, provided opinions from all the local self-government units comprising an agglomeration and the opinion of the physical planning ministry have been obtained. The problem arises from definition of cities as spatial and administrative entities, declared as such by a political decision, while other criteria (demographic, socioeconomic, morphological, etc.) applied for the determination of urban areas do not have to be taken into account. Therefore, there are presently a number of cities in Croatia where disharmony with their functional and social role is obvious because

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 141

of a smaller number of inhabitants, their distinctly transitional or rural character, and lack of affirmation of central urban amenities (Vlada 2006; 2010; 2013; 2015. Croatian Parliament, Official Gazette 145/10; 37/13; 44/13; 45/13; 110/15).

7.3  Regional and Spatial Plans for ‘The Zagreb Area’ The traditional spatial planning applies exclusively to the regional self-government units (counties) and local self-government units (municipalities and cities), its status is formal, and it uses spatial plans to manage and control land use through the zoning system. At the same time, borders of urban regions are established through scientific analysis and different concepts of regionalisation with cities as centres. An important difference is that urban regions of that kind cannot be founded on the basis of historical importance or heritage (Marinović-Uzelac 1992). The Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb presently occupies the territory of three counties (Zagreb County, Krapina–Zagorje County and the City of Zagreb), the City of Zagreb and 29 municipalities and cities with area totalling 2911 km2 (5% of total area of the Republic of Croatia). The population in the area is 1,086,528 inhabitants (somewhat more than one-quarter of the population of the Republic of Croatia). During the twentieth century, the Zagreb area had different spatial coverage, in administrative and/or spatial planning sense, with certain spatial and functional connections having been preserved until the present. It was already in 1930 that Antolić developed the Zagreb Regional Plan, namely a plan covering the greater ‘Zagreb area’, determining the development of its satellite cities  – Sisak, Karlovac and Varaždin and planning their intensive traffic and economic connections with Zagreb (see Fig. 7.1). In 1965, Žuljić defined the Zagreb suburban region (see Fig.  7.2.) as a space directly connected with the city, which does not develop under the influence of the neighbouring urban centre and is not distanced from Zagreb more than 40 km, and is strongly separated from Zagreb in political and administrative sense. Figures 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5, represent Spatial Plan of the Zagreb Region produced by the Croatian institute for urbanism, in 1972. The Spatial Plan of the Zagreb Region introduced a concept of secondary (satellite) centre around Zagreb as the primary centre. The area of Zagreb Region covers the total surface of 4037 km2, which represents 7.14% of territory of Republic of Croatia. It also states common planning policy for the development of the City of Zagreb and its entire region. The Plan researches possible processes of spatial transformation – centripetal development tendencies from the wider area towards the City of Zagreb and centrifugal development tendencies from Zagreb towards its region. In early 1980s, a Joint Spatial Plan for the City of Zagreb and Association of Municipalities in the Zagreb Area was prepared (Croatian institute for urbanism 1983) (see Fig. 7.6). It covered the area of 5530 km2. The plan tried to slow the rapid

142

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Fig. 7.1  The first regional plan by V. Antolić 1930. (Source: Antolić 1930)

spatial development of the regional centre of the City of Zagreb by selective reorganization of activities and functions which should have triggered the development of local centres. In a way the plan was perceived as a ‘registry of different development interventions’. Regretfully, it has never been institutionally adopted. However, the Spatial Plan for the City of Zagreb (Croatian Institute for Urbanism 1986) was prepared as a long-term spatial planning document (see Fig.  7.7). Harmonized with the social plan for development of the territory of 14 municipalities integrated into the Zagreb City Association of Municipalities it supported the harmonious development of municipal and transport infrastructure, more rational space use, environmental protection and enhancement, thus ensuring stronger links between the City and the territory of the Zagreb Association of Municipalities. In

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 143

Fig. 7.2  The Zagreb suburban region acc. to S. Žuljić 1965. (Source: Žuljić 1965. Legend: Large dots represent border included in Zagreb surroundings; broken lines represents borders of municipalities included in Zagreb surroundings; doted surfaces represents areas above 200 m elevation)

1995, the administrative boundaries changed again but the City of Zagreb and the Zagreb County reached an agreement about common goals in spatial development as presented in the document Temeljna zajednička polazišta za planiranje prostora Grada Zagreba i Zagrebačke županije (City Office for City Development Planning and Environmental Protection 1999). From the above stated details it is clear that the idea of forming a joint territory of what we today call Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb is not new. As can be seen from Fig. 7.8, through decades it changed its title and spatial coverage but the idea of developing a common unit with strong economical and daily migration flows has always been present.

144

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Fig. 7.3  Spatial plan of Zagreb region – scheme of the process of spatial transformation. (Source: Croatian institute for urbanism 1972)

7.4  S  trategic Planning Process for Sustainable Urban Development of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb After the regional development policy in Croatia had been established by the adoption of the Regional Development Strategy for the Republic of Croatia until the End of 2020, the City of Zagreb initiated the strategic planning process for sustainable urban development by selecting and evaluating the criteria to be used to define spatial coverage, establish the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb and partnership for sustainable development, and prepare the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb Development Strategy for the period by 2020 (Fig. 7.9).

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 145

Fig. 7.4  Spatial plan of Zagreb region – scheme of general use of space. (Source: Croatian institute for urbanism 1972)

During the process of formation of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb, the criteria for the definition of the spatial coverage were determined, evaluated and grouped in three sets Ministarstvo regionalnoga razvoja i fondova Europske unije (2018). The first set includes the basic criterion referring to minimum 30% share of employed persons commuting towards the centre of the urban area. The additional criteria reflects the common interest of the population of the greater Zagreb region, such as: sustainability and modernisation of transport and infrastructural system – the most significant being the existing and planned regional road infrastructure, highways, the Zagreb Airport, the Lučko Airport, traffic nodes, railway bypass, commuter railway, the Sljeme Cableway, integrated passenger transport, cycling routes, regional water supply system with the drinking water wellhead protection areas, plans and projects for upgrading of the gas supply and district heating systems; development and enhancement of business and entrepreneurship infrastructure – single market, shared utilization and plans for development of business and entrepreneurship parks, entrepreneurship incubators, start-ups and different forms of support to placement of local products in the market, development of tourism by sustainable utilization of natural resources, cultural and natural heritage, and recreation; protection of environment,

146

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Fig. 7.5  Spatial plan of Zagreb region. (Source: Croatian institute for urbanism 1972)

protection and sustainability of natural resources and heritage, shared obligations and utilization goals, groundwater quality and quantity protection and improvement; conservation and protection of significant areas of green infrastructure  – the Medvednica and Samoborsko Gorje Nature Parks and other valuable parts of nature; biological, geological and landscape diversity, conservation and enhancement of ecosystem services; The Sava Programme  – long-­term sustainable resolving of issues related to the Sava River and its hinterland from the Republic of Slovenia to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The last criterion is spatial continuity. The share of daily commuters in total employed population as the basic criterion for inclusion in the spatial coverage of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb is met by 7 cities and 20 municipalities in the territories of the Zagreb County (7 cities and 15 municipalities), Krapina-Zagorje County (3 municipalities), Sisak-Moslavina County (1 municipality), and Karlovac County (1 municipality) (City Office for Strategic Planning and Development of the City, 2015  – Demografska kretanja i pokazatelji funkcionalne povezanosti na području Urbane aglomeracije Zagreb) (Table 7.1).

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 147

Fig. 7.6  Joint spatial plan for the City of Zagreb and Association of Municipalities. (Source: Croatian institute for urbanism 1983)

Based on the additional criteria applied, it was concluded that 25 local self-­ government units included into the proposed spatial coverage of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb by using commuting as the basic criterion also satisfy the additional criteria. Further, four local self-government units from Krapina-Zagorje County not meeting the commuting criterion were also taken into consideration when the additional criteria were applied. Taking, however, into account the additional criteria and based on the results of consultations with these units, it was concluded that there is a need for additional strengthening of their functional connections with the City of Zagreb and readiness for cooperation in preparation of the strategy, as well as for participation and implementation of the joint programs and projects (integrated passenger transport, medical–recreational–sports tourism, sustainable exploitation of the Medvednica Nature Park resources). Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned 25 local self-government units, the additional criteria were also satisfied by the said four local self-government units (the City of Zabok, the City of Oroslavje, the City of Donja Stubica and the Stubičke Toplice municipality). Unlike

148

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Fig. 7.7  Spatial plan of the City of Zagreb – City of Zagreb (10 municipalities) plus outer municipalities (Zaprešić, Samobor, Velika Gorica, Sesvete). (Source: Department of urbanism of the City of Zagreb 1986)

them, the municipalities of Lasinja and Lekenik, which met the basic criterion of commuting, are the only two units that do not belong to the counties directly bordering with the City of Zagreb (Lasinja belongs to the Karlovac County, and Lekenik to the Sisak-Moslavina County); thus, they could be considered a part of the greater Zagreb territory, but they are closer connected to the cities that are seats of those counties (Lasinja with Karlovac, and Lekenik with Sisak). The goal of the establishment of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb was to consolidate the space that has the most intensive mutual communication and initiate more efficient dialogue as the basis for the joint planning of sustainable development – programming, management and implementation of joint development activities of local self-government units of different sizes with regard to their population,

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 149

Fig. 7.8  Spatial coverage of different regional and spatial plans of Zagreb area. (Source: Authors’ own elaboration)

150

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Fig. 7.9  Strategic planning process for sustainable urban development of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb. (Source: Authors’ own elaboration)

degree of development pursuant to the development index, and position (physical/ spatial, economic, transportation) important for the entire region. The determination of the spatial coverage of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb also relied on elements of the relation between the City of Zagreb and its suburban region, including the earlier established cooperation/partnership approach; the results of a number of studies carried out and documents adopted on the local and regional level; the earlier association with the common administrative space and, consequently, joint spatial, economic and social planning; experience and examples of cooperation on the strategic, spatial, and other documents; projects, programmes, and planning and rendering of transport, municipal and other services from the City of Zagreb to the local self-government units in its suburban region. The Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb is the largest agglomeration in the Republic of Croatia by its area and population, and the only one whose spatial coverage encompasses local self-government units from the territory of several counties (the City of Zagreb, Krapina-Zagorje, and Zagreb County). Seven cities and 15 municipalities are situated in the Zagreb County and three cities and four municipalities in the Krapina-Zagorje County. The agglomeration seat is the City of Zagreb, which has the status of both a local self-government unit (city) and regional self-­government unit (county). The agglomeration area is 2911.3 km2, that is, 57% of combined total area of all three counties. The agglomeration population is 1,086,528 inhabitants (2011 Census), that is, 88% of total population of all three counties and somewhat less than a quarter (25.35%) of total population of the Republic of Croatia (4,284,889). The inhabitants live in 599 settlements, which account for 50% of total number of settlements in all three counties. In total, 12 out of 599 settlements are urban city settlements, and 587 are transitional and rural settlements. Share of the City of Zagreb population in total agglomeration population is 72.7% (City Office for Strategic Planning and Development of the City, 2015 – Demografska kretanja i pokazatelji funkcionalne povezanosti na području Urbane aglomeracije Zagreb) (Fig. 7.10).

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 151 Table 7.1  Basic and additional criteria for inclusion of the cities and municipalities in Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb No

Spatial unit

Status County

Daily a migration

Infrastructure

Economy

Environment

Spat. CouncContielling nuity

Source: Authors’ own elaboration GZ – City of Zagreb, ZC – Zagreb County, KZC – Krapina-Zagorje County, KC – Karlovac County, SMC – Sisak-Moslavina County a Share of daily commuters in the total number of employees (%), based on the Population census 2011 b Lasinja and Lekenik were included as a result of consultations with ministry of regional development and EU Funds

During the second phase, the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb would include urban areas and related local self-government units from the greater Zagreb region which are connected with the City of Zagreb and local self-government units included in the first phase as regards spatial, economic, transport, historical, and

152

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Fig. 7.10  Scheme of spatial coverage of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb. (Source: Elaborated by Saša Bruvo)

other aspects and for which units the analysis of the additional criteria and comprehensive correlations determined that they form an integrated, interrelated and integral urban area. The City of Zagreb is the largest city and thus the seat of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb. The City of Zagreb is the leader in devising of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb Development Strategy. It convened the Partners’ Council consisting of representatives of administration (municipalities, cities, counties), scientific community, economic sector, citizens, and NGOs. The Partners’ Council of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb is an advisory body through which the partnership principle is implemented in preparation, elaboration, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Strategy, with the primary goal being the determination of common priorities at the urban agglomeration level and proposition of strategic projects important for the development of the urban agglomeration. Having in mind the defined spatial coverage, the preparation of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb Development Strategy is a complex and demanding process because it involves a large number of local self-government units (cities and municipalities), which also means a complex procedure for the determination of common development orientation and identification of development activities, projects and programmes, and organization and implementation of the public consultation processes. Although ITI is a public sector–led instrument, the local community has to be involved in the

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 153

preparation of the development strategy for an urban area which is mandatory for utilization of ITI. According to Albrecht’s methodology for the preparation of strategic plans, an emphasis has to be on the communication during the planning process, establishing of dialogue between the stakeholders, strengthening of the citizens’ role in decision-­ making, and presentation of implementation proposals in the strategy. The most efficient response to the complex development challenges is the ability to combine the conceiving of strategic vision with short-term implementation documents  – action plans (Albrecht 2004). The Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb Development Strategy gives global guidelines for harmonious spatial and socioeconomic organization of the agglomeration. The strategic framework of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb Development Strategy includes vision, strategic goals, and development priorities and measures. The vision and strategic goals are determined on the long-­ term basis, and development priorities and measures offer a framework for action, namely a list of indicative activities planned for the period by 2020. The expected effects of the common strategy for the development of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb are sustainable and integrated planning of the City of Zagreb and functional region; usage of potential generated by the complex spatial and development interrelations; improvement of cooperation in all aspects of development; coordination of development activities based on common plans, programmes, and projects relying on the Strategy; integrated, polycentric, and harmonized territorial development; relief of spatial pressure on the City of Zagreb; more efficient allocation of resources and triggering of potentials in all the areas included in the spatial coverage of the agglomeration, competitive capacity building; efficient use of structural and investment funds; and conditions for utilization of ITI mechanism.

7.5  I nstead of a Conclusion: Preparation of the Spatial Development Programme for the Zagreb Area Spatial plans lack an aspect of active encouragement and synergy with other policies. Unlike spatial planning, strategic planning is a social process involving a large number of stakeholders which, through a long-term vision, activities and tools for implementation establishes a format and framework for the transformation of the presently limited number of only strategically key areas into areas they should become, and focuses on decisions, activities, monitoring and evaluation of results. Strategic planning designs structures and frameworks for change management and it is a dynamic process. Strategic plans are open to permanent evaluation and amending through coordination of various stakeholders (Faludi 2000). Formation of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb, in March 2016, underscores the spatial and functional connection between the City of Zagreb and its suburban region. The Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb Development Strategy is the document

154

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

which includes economic, environmental, climate, and social aspects of development without the spatial component. It is the lack of the spatial component that makes the relation between the systems of strategic and regional development planning problematic since they should create an integral system. Its integrated development, however, could not be analysed without regard of the spatial framework. Therefore, it was necessary to prepare a joint spatial development document to encompass the entire agglomeration area and the greater region of the actual metropolitan area of the City of Zagreb – the Zagreb region (Greater Zagreb 2050), irrespective of established formal local/regional self-government units. A planning region is an instrument used in planning and implementation of the spatial development policy as a defined goal, and it needs to rely on functional rather than arbitrary criteria (Marinović-Uzelac 1992). Thus, the next step is preparation of a joint spatial programme that would assume a complex analysis of the situation and processes in the area of the region and management of its long-term development (as well as short-term actions). This makes it a building block for multisectoral programme framework and an approach to common and integrated planning of the City of Zagreb and its greater region as a provisional background document for preparation and adoption by the city, municipal and county spatial development plans, while responding to the economic and social changes (stable quality for flexible development). This asks for conceptual preparation (support to streamlined planning  – examination of demands, timely informing, technical and financial support) as well as stronger involvement of stakeholders into the planning process, which ultimately leads to the creation of new alliances, networks and ideas and openness to the continual modification and coordination of different stakeholders caused by external and internal impacts (Faludi 2000). The Spatial Development Programme for the Zagreb Area should focus particularly on horizontal and vertical harmonization of documents on strategic planning, regional development, mobility, energy and environmental protection. For multidisciplinary approach to an integrated and harmonized territorial development, the Spatial Development Programme for the Zagreb Area should encompass: • Specific characteristics of Zagreb within the system of Central European cities and its development potential. • Rational organization of space and arrangement of amenities of common interest. • Guide-lining of investment policy through spatial development plans and joint development of strategic projects, topics and networking projects. • Setting up of an integrated system for development of traffic and municipal infrastructure within the international, national and interregional traffic routes. • Improvement and balancing of the quality of life. • Social interrelations within the region. • Determination of underdeveloped areas and proposal of measures for their spatial improvement. • Ensuring accessibility and focusing on urban mobility based on public transport. • Ensuring resilience to changes and harmful impacts.

7  Institution of Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb as a Tool for Sustainable Management… 155

• Preparation of the city green infrastructure plan and establishing biological balance by preservation and protection of the environment. • Sustainable management of nature, landscape and cultural and historical values. • Preparation of guidelines and defining of goals for low-carbon development and adaptation to climate change.

References Albrecht L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environ Plann B Plann Des 31(5):743–758 Antolić V (1930) Regionalni plan Zagreba. Zagreb Bašić K (2004) Decentralization of the Zagreb urban region. Dela 21:519–530 Bašić K (2005) Apsolutna decentralizacija u populacijskom razvoju Zagrebačke aglomeracije. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 67(1):63–78 Davoudi S (2008) Conceptions of the city-region: a critical review. Proc Inst Civil Eng Urban Des Planning 161(2):51–60 Davoudi S (2010) Defining the ‘City-region’. Town Country Plan: 180–185 Dijkstra L, Poelman H (2012) Cities in Europe. The new OECD-EC definition regional focus, vol 1, pp 1–13 European Commission (2010) Europa 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM (2010), Brussels European Commission (2011) The new degree of urbanization. Eurostat, Luxembourg European Council (2016) Urban agenda for the EU “Pact of Amsterdam” European Parliament and Council (2013a) Regulation (EU). No 1303/2013 European Parliament and Council (2013b) Regulation (EU). No 1301/2013 Faludi A (2000) The performance of spatial planning. Plan Pract Res 15(4):299–318 Fuerst-Bjeliš B (1996) Zagreb – periodizacija razvoja gradske aglomeracije. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 58(1):89–96 Gradski ured za strategijsko planiranje i razvoj Grada (2015) Demografsks kretanja i pokazatelji funkcionalne povezanosti na području Urbane aglomeracije Zagreb. Grad Zagreb, Zagreb Gradski zavod za planiranje razvoja Grada i zaštitu okoliša (1999) Temeljna zajednička polazišta za planiranje prostora Grada Zagreba i Zagrebačke županije. GZPRGZO, Zagreb Hall P (2005) Urban and regional planning, 4th edn. Routledge, London Institut za turizam (2014) Regionalni razvoj, razvoj sustava naselja, urbani i ruralni razvoj i transformacija prostora. Institut za turizam, Zagreb Klempić-Bogadi S (2008) Utjecaj migracije na demografski razvoj riječke aglomeracije. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 70(1):43–63 Knox P, Pinch S (2010) Urban social geography – an introduction, 6th edn. Pearson, London Lukić A (2012a) Mozaik izvan grada: Tipologija ruralnih i urbaniziranih naselja Hrvatske. Meridijani, Samobor Lukić A (2012b) Službene definicije ruralnih i urbanih područja: primjeri iz svijeta. Geografski horizont 58(1):7–26 Marinović-Uzelac A (1992) Regionalizacija iz vidokruga prostornog planiranja. Društvena istraživanja 1(1):69–85 Ministarstvo regionalnoga razvoja i fondova Europske unije (2018) Strategija regionalnog razvoja Republike Hrvatske za razdoblje do 2020. Godine, Zagreb. Ministarstvo regionalnoga razvoja i fondova Europske unije Neuman M, Hull A (2009) The futures of the city region. Reg Stud 43(6):777–787 Ostroški L (2011) Model diferencijacije urbanih, ruralnih i prijelaznih naselja u Republici Hrvatskoj: Metodološke upute 67. Državni zavod za statistiku, Zagreb

156

J. Veselić Bruvo and M. Jakovčić

Pacione M (2009) Urban geography: a global perspective, 3rd edn. Routledge, London Parr J (2005) Perspectives on the city – region. Reg Stud 39(5):555–566 Rogić V (1979) Prilog – Zagrebačka regija: prilog poznavanju problematike geografske diferencijacije urbanih regija. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 41–42(1):149–160 Rogić I (1992) Hrvatska i njezine regije. Društvena istraživanja 1(1):25–35 United Nations (2017) New urban agenda. UN-Habitat, Nairobi Urbanistički institut SR Hrvatske (1972) Prostorni plan Zagrebačke regije. UIH, Zagreb Urbanistički institut SR Hrvatske (1983) Zajednički prostorni plan Grada Zagreba i Zajednice općina Zagreb. UIH, Zagreb Urbanistički zavod grada Zagreba (1986) Prostorni plan Grada Zagreba. UZGZ, Zagreb Vlada RH (2006; 2010; 2013; 2015) Zakon o područjima županija, gradova i općina u RH. Narodne novine 86/06-pročišćeni tekst; 145/10; 37/13; 44/13; 45/13; 110/15 Vlada RH (2013; 2015; 2017) Zakon o lokalnoj i područnoj (regionalnoj) samoupravi. Narodne novine 19/13-pročišćeni tekst; 137/15; 123/17 Vlada RH (2014; 2017) Zakon o regionalnom razvoju Republike Hrvatske. Narodne novine 147/14; 123/17 Vresk M (1978) Gradska regija Zagreba. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 40(1):59–87 Vresk M (1979) Gradske regije velikih gradova Hrvatske. Acta Geographica Croatica 14(1):61–72 Vresk M (1980) Gradovi SR Hrvatske i njihove okolice: Problem definiranja gradova i gradskih regija. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 41–42(1):61–69 Vresk M (1986) Socioekonomske gradske regije Hrvatske. Geografski glasnik 48(1):73–83 Vresk M (1997) Suburbanizacija Zagreba. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 59(1):49–70 Vresk M (2008) Gradska i ostala naselja u Hrvatskoj – model izdvajanja 2001. Geografski horizont 54(2):53–57 Žuljić S (1965) Zagreb i okolica – utjecaj gradskog organizma na regiju (II dio). Hrvatski geografski glasnik 27(1):39–144

Chapter 8

Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience Amongst Inter-Municipal Associations in Spain Tony Gore

Abstract  The governance aspects of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) are not only about the coordination of activities across traditionally disparate policy domains, but also about the adoption of frameworks and structures that foster collaboration between governmental institutions operating in neighbouring territories and at different geographical scales. In many European countries, various forms of such coordination have been practised for several years, focusing mainly on public service delivery and regulation of economic and social activity. In the post-crisis period after 2008, such territorial arrangements have been under the spotlight as severe austerity-based policies have bitten. While many governments still promote cross-­ boundary coordination and collaborative governance, the justification has shifted from enhanced quality and effectiveness to securing greater efficiency, in particular the potential cost savings they can bring. Equally such moves can readily transmute into an attack on subnational collaborative arrangements, not just on the basis of expenditure reduction, but also to limit the potential emergence of powerful subregional coalitions. Even so, the nature of whatever modifications to governance structures emerge still depends on the balance of social forces within a given national polity and the scope for change afforded by the legal basis of that polity. In this chapter, these processes are examined through a case study of a recent central government attempt in Spain to rationalise the local administrative landscape by drastically reducing the number of voluntary inter-municipal associations (mancomunidades) via an upward transfer of powers. However, inadequate legislative framing has combined with strong regional and municipal resistance and the flexible advantages of this form of association to effectively nullify the initiative, especially in those territories that most value a high degree of autonomy (Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia). Given the difficulties of generalising across such disparate geographies, the chapter concludes with a call for multidisciplinary research

T. Gore (*) Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 C. Nunes Silva, A. Trono (eds.), Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47135-4_8

157

158

T. Gore

using a relational analytical framework that blends insights from political science, public administration and political geography. Keywords  Collaborative governance · Cross-boundary coordination · Decentralisation · Inter-municipal associations · New Urban Agenda · Post-crisis austerity · Recentralisation · Spanish local governance · Spatio-temporal fixes

8.1  Introduction The comprehensive ambitions of the UN’s New Urban Agenda (NUA), as elaborated in the Introduction, are explicitly predicated on the development of governance models that involve greater integration and cooperation. The Quito Declaration recognises that achieving the right to an adequate standard of living, based on equal access to public goods and services, will require subnational government bodies to work towards ‘…balanced, sustainable and integrated territorial development within and across administrative boundaries’ (United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development; Habitat III 2017, p.7), based upon ‘…a strengthening (of) urban governance models that foster and empower multi-­ stakeholder partnerships to build integrated systems of cities and settlements’ (ibid., p. 8). In other words, the governance aspects of the New Urban Agenda are not merely about the coordination of activities across traditionally disparate policy domains, but as much about the adoption of frameworks and structures that foster collaboration between governmental institutions operating in neighbouring territories and at different geographical scales, and, where feasible, with civic society and private sector interests as well. The clearest articulation of this is presented in the Agenda’s underpinning Policy paper 4: Urban governance, capacity and institutional development. One of its recommendations reads: Above all, new urban governance should be democratic, inclusive, multi-scale and multilevel. Effective multilevel governance needs to be the result of a broad consultative process, built around mechanisms for vertical and horizontal integration. Vertical integration involves collaboration between national, regional and local government (and ultimately supranational institutions). Horizontal integration involves collaboration between sectoral ministries and departments, municipalities and public institutions at the same governance level…. Inter-municipal cooperation, including between urban and rural municipalities, should be facilitated through adequate incentives to create economies of scale and integration. (Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development; Habitat III 2016, p. 3)

More detailed suggestions follow about how such governance arrangements should be organised and implemented. These include: ‘adequate legal tools and related incentives … to foster … voluntary inter-municipal cooperation’ (ibid., p. 16); ‘... appropriate mechanisms for regular dialogue and coordination between different levels of government, (in order) to involve subnational governments in

8  Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience…

159

the definition and implementation of key policies and.... to strengthen the cooperation between public institutions’ (ibid., p.  24); the ‘(f)oster(ing of horizontal) cooperation between nearby local governments … particularly between small towns, by considering a legal framework which would allow and encourage associations of municipalities to deliver joint plans and services, with the aim of achieving economies of scale and efficient use of resources.’ (ibid., p. 26)

For many in the global north such collaborative arrangements will have a familiar ring, given the wide range of cross-boundary coordinative structures and frameworks established at regional, subregional and metropolitan levels over the past 20–30  years (and indeed earlier in some countries). This does not mean that the NUA statements on governance coordination at subnational scales are unnecessary. For a start, they would seem to apply to those parts of the global south where local government capacity is constrained, and where collective action by both state and non-state agents can improve access to and quality of public services and environmental protection in the quest for better standards of living. At the same time, they are also a timely reminder to governments of more affluent societies of the importance of these basic citizen rights, and of the need to ensure that the means to deliver them efficiently and effectively are in place. In an increasingly complex and globalised world, this will inevitably involve a wide range of public, private and third sector organisations working together, at a variety of scales. In many European countries, various forms of this cross-boundary coordination have been practised for several years, focusing mainly on public service delivery and local regulation of economic and social activity. In parallel there has been continued emphasis on the ‘partnership principle’ in strategic urban planning and the promotion of economic development, fostered in particular by the regulations of the European Cohesion and Structural Funds (see, for example, Batory and Cartwright 2011). Such cooperation emerged especially as a way of undertaking these functions in places where municipal government is geographically fragmented into a myriad of relatively small units in terms of population size, for example, in France, Italy and Spain. Some, but by no means all, instances were explicitly framed at the urban or metropolitan scale. In some ways this was mirrored in the 2000s, when city regions were identified as key drivers of economic growth, and hence became the new spatial policy frame of choice for the regeneration of peripheral or lagging regions (and in some cases nations). This geographical framing involved a search for similar collaborative arrangements across ‘functional economic geographies’, a process fuelled by strong interest lobbying and continuing regional and local ‘boosterism’ (see, for example, Rodríguez-Pose 2008). In the post-crisis period after 2008, such broader territorial arrangements have been under the spotlight as severe austerity-based policies have bitten. While many European governments still promote cross-boundary coordination and collaborative governance, the justification has shifted from enhanced quality and effectiveness to securing greater efficiency, and in particular the potential cost savings they can bring. In this way, national governments have sought to devolve austerity to regions and localities. However, other nations, especially some of the younger democracies in central and eastern Europe, have experienced top-down recentralisation of power and resources into a national managerial model that emphasises markets and private

160

T. Gore

sector provision, and in the process limits the capacity of local authorities to act in their own jurisdictions, never mind in collaboration with neighbours (see, for example, Buček and Sopkuliak 2014; Kovács 2014; Oosterlynck 2010; Sarazhinsky 2014). In general terms, there is a clear three-way tension here, between, first, meeting citizens’ needs and desires in terms of public services and facilities; second, allocating public resources in ways that achieve this, whilst limiting or reducing national debt (and as part of this minimising public borrowing and the take from taxation); and, third, maintaining the health and legitimacy of local democracy. In this light, local governance structures and their integral coordinative and spatial arrangements are as much a political as an administrative construct. The varying ways that this three-way tension is addressed, and any modifications to governance structures that emerge, in general depend on the current balance of social forces within a given national polity and the scope for change afforded by the legal basis of that polity. Clearly these factors vary markedly between different nation states, so that making comparisons and transferring lessons between them is not a straightforward task. Nevertheless, an in-depth case study of trends and developments in one country can be used to draw broadly generic conclusions and lessons which could be applicable elsewhere. With this in mind, the aim of this chapter is to cast some initial light on the aforementioned political–geographical facets of cross-boundary coordination at the local scale through an examination of a particular form of voluntary inter-municipal cooperative association in Spain, known as mancomunidades. These came to prominence during the post-Franco restoration of democracy and the decentralisation of power to the Autonomous Communities (Comunidades Autonomas, or CCAAs) and local authorities (municipios) under the 1978 Constitution (Balaguer-Coll et al. 2010). However, new legislation passed in 2013 by the Rajoy Partido Popular (PP) government as part of its austerity drive sought to rationalise the proliferation of local governance structures by targeting the mancomunidades for dissolution on the basis of inefficiency and financial mismanagement, and in their place transferring their functions to the higher-level provinces (Diputaciones Provinciales). However, analysis of the administrative registration records indicates that this reform has made little headway except in a few more rural regions. The varied pattern of mancomunidad interventions and contexts, plus insights from secondary sources, suggest that this resilience can be ascribed not just to the flexibility of the voluntaristic associational arrangements that are in place, but also to the devolved distribution of power across the constituent nations and regions of Spain and their varying approaches to ensuring effective local governance. The analysis is framed on the one hand by ideas on collaborative governance from political science, and on the other by research on inter-municipal cooperation in a range of European countries over the last two decades, drawing predominantly on the traditions of public administration studies. However, it seeks to go beyond these complementary strands by introducing an explicitly geographical dimension, exploring variations and divergences between the various regions (or CCAAs) within Spain. It is based on a range of secondary quantitative and qualitative data, revolving in particular around successive local government unit registration data releases over recent years from the Spanish Ministry of Taxation and Public

8  Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience…

161

Table 8.1  Adapted OECD geographical area typology Area type Predominantly urban Predominantly rural Remote rural Intermediate

Overall population density per km2 Qualifying threshold 150 or more More than 50% of residents live in municipalities in this category 75–149 Less than 75 Variable

At least one urban centre contributing 25% of population

Source: OECD (2011, p. 3)

Administration (Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas). This allows for the patterns of change over time to be assessed. These records have been enhanced by linking them to population statistics for municipalities (municipios) issued by the national statistical body, the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE), and by use of an adapted version of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) typologies for rural and urban areas on the one hand, and the classification of public services on the other (OECD 2011; Eurostat 2011). The former allows the classification of each mancomunidad into one of four geographical types, on the basis outlined in Table 8.1. The analysis is also supplemented by previous cross-sectional research on mancomunidades, and is contextualised by wider social, political and legal interpretations of Spanish subnational governance and its reform. The chapter starts with a review of the literature concerning collaborative governance and inter-municipal cooperation, as a means of providing an anchoring lens through which to view the specific patterns and trends evident with respect to mancomunidades across Spain. The second section provides a brief outline of sub-­ national government in Spain’s modern democratic era, before presenting an analysis of the historical trajectory of mancomunidad expansion and the divergences between different CCAAs. This is then supplemented by a discussion of the likely factors underpinning these variations. The chapter concludes with some general observations regarding the variegated Spanish local governance context, and how future research based on a more interdisciplinary relational and interpretive framework might improve understanding of its regional and local variations.

8.2  Collaborative Governance and Inter-Municipal Cooperation The term ‘collaborative governance’ has been applied in a range of settings. Its broadest definition depicts it as ‘a constellation of joint activities involving coproduction of policy goals and strategies and the sharing of resources and responsibilities...’ (Davies and White 2012, p. 161), whereas others interpret it as ‘a form of

162

T. Gore

collective decision-making where public agencies and non-state stakeholders engage … in a consensus-oriented deliberative process…’ (Johnston et  al. 2011, p. 699). More narrowly, it has also been deployed in relation to similar processes that involve only state bodies pursuing public goals and functions (Ansell and Gash 2008), which is the sense in which it is used in this chapter. Whatever the nature of the collaborating organisations, there are several structuring and procedural factors required for this mode of governance to progress. The former includes a prior history of cooperation, sufficient incentive(s) for participants to get involved, a relatively even distribution of power over decision-making and resource allocation, facilitative leadership, and inclusive institutional design. Procedural features cover face-to-face dialogue and negotiation, mutual trust building, the development of shared understanding and commitment, and a specific and achievable initial focus that will help to foster these qualities (Ansell and Gash 2008). More recent research has underlined the importance of an accommodating and effective organisational setting, with authority and autonomy to act in the specified domain; benefits distributed equitably between members or partners; and clear joint decision-making procedures (Gash 2017). However, this genre of analysis has only just begun to seek ways of incorporating questions concerning administrative geography, noting the inevitability of tensions across scales or between multiple scales in most forms of collaborative governance (Ansell and Torfing 2015). Given the centrality of geographical scale to the study of both horizontal and vertical partnerships, this is less of an issue for the literature on inter-municipal cooperation (IMC). This work echoes the importance of the procedural and structural features of successful collaboration identified above, but tends to have a narrower focus. The broad definition of IMC is ‘...governance arrangements and institutions created to generate and maintain collaborative settings between different local government (units) in a particular territory’ (Teles and Swianciewicz 2018a, p. 1). Most studies of the phenomenon focus on a single region or nation, with only a handful covering two or three countries on a comparative basis (see, for example, Bolgherini 2016; Lackowska 2009; Wollmann 2004, 2010). However, there have been two edited book collections of IMC studies in which the editors have endeavoured to draw out comparative patterns and lessons from the evidence presented by the other contributors (Hulst and van Montfort 2007a; Teles and Swianciewicz 2018). Both collections have approached the topic principally in line with the ‘rational choice’ and ‘institutionalist’ paradigms. Hence, the central concerns are with the drivers underpinning such collaborative efforts, the different cooperative institutional forms that these take, the nature and range of the organisations represented, the types of governance activity or function taken on, and the extent to which the new arrangements have resulted in economic and efficiency gains for the public sector (with a particular emphasis on cost savings). Both also recognise that IMC is just one of a number of ways of responding to the varying and growing pressures faced by local governments in an era of global competition. The specific arrangements that emerge depend on the interactions between institutional context, environmental factors and local preferences (Hulst et al. 2009), with wider social, economic and

8  Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience…

163

political circumstances at both national and international levels forming an essential backdrop. This means that there are some instructive differences in the findings of the two collections, given that they were assembled 11 years apart but with a banking crisis, global recession and almost ubiquitous austerity politics emerging in the intervening period. Thus, the 2007 volume has a fairly optimistic tone, foreseeing the persistence of already existing IMC arrangements and the continued growth of new collaborations (Hulst and van Montfort 2007b). From their comparative analysis across the eight European countries, they identify four basic types of IMC, namely semi-regional planning and coordinating alliances, organisations charged with providing one or more public services across a wider area, the cooperative contracting out of service delivery to another party, and more loosely linked planning policy networks. These may be ‘pure’ (i.e., confined to local municipalities) or ‘mixed’ (i.e., involving a range of bodies from the public, private and voluntary sectors)  (Hulst and van Montfort 2007c). Their underlying rationale is that they are able to address issues of scale, capacity, complexity and externality in public policy-making and service provision, while retaining the democratic basis of and local control over decision-­ making (see also Hulst and van Montfort 2011). Although there are inevitable start-up and operating costs, the evidence suggests that these tend on balance to be lower than previous arrangements (see, for example, Bel and Fageda, 2008; Bel et al. 2013; Bel and Warner 2015, 2016; Zafra-Gomez et al. 2013). Establishment of an IMC body also avoids the high costs of wholesale territorial restructuring or functional redistribution, and more pertinently the protracted political struggles that tend to be generated by such proposals (Hulst et al. 2009). Other findings from Hulst and van Montfort’s comparative analysis include the fact that the majority of IMC examples studied concentrated on provision of basic public services. Apart from housing, transport and infrastructure in a few larger urban agglomerations, planning and policy coordination was much less prominent where collaboration between smaller municipalities was involved. The only exception to this was in countries like England, where the regional level of government is absent. This is also linked to the important influence that higher-level resource-­ allocating government bodies have in alternatively stimulating IMC via persuasion, legal frameworks and financial incentives, or blocking the option for municipalities to collaborate by failing to put such provisions in place (Sorrentino and Simonetta 2013). This in turn highlights the extent to which higher-level authorities see such collaborations as an essential part of their area’s governance fabric (Warner 2006). While the more recent collection covers a lot of similar ground, it also notes an increase in the concerns and constraints facing local government practices and structures, and the much more variegated role of IMC initiatives as part of the response to them. Amongst other things, the editors note the need to address issues such as climate change, international migration, mass tourism and terrorism, all of which necessitate coordinated action at the very least between neighbours, if not on a wider scale. They also cite the neoliberal imperative for places or territories to promote themselves to the wider world, in competition with each other, and all this whilst maintaining acceptable levels of democratic accountability and legitimacy

164

T. Gore

(Teles and Swianiewicz 2018a). They also attempt to shift the focus from single country case studies that identify commonalities and distinctive features, which are then deployed as the basis for tentative IMC typologies (ibid., p.  9). Instead the contributing authors tend to follow a range of thematic enquiries, sometimes within one country but in several of the chapters as comparisons between two or three. Permeating all of this, however, is the ‘red thread’ of fiscal austerity. This provides their comparative analysis with its central question: To what extent have austerity policies promoted or hindered the continued growth of IMC arrangements? In a separate chapter, Raudla and Taveres (2018) explore some of the conceptual dimensions of this, starting with the observation by Pollitt (2010) of the complex relationship between fiscal policies and public sector reform. Thus, the variation in scale and type of austerity measures in different countries suggests that their impact on IMC will be diverse, and may well lead to trends heading in opposite directions. Thus, while fiscal retrenchment almost always involves greater centralisation of decision-making, with national governments imposing reduced funding amounts, stricter fiscal rules and constraints on discretionary activities, at the same time economies of scale achieved via resource pooling could also strengthen the case for an expansion of IMC. In many cases the greater speed and relatively lower cost with which such arrangements can be put in place adds to this advantage. On the other hand, where resources are severely limited, it may be felt that preparatory costs and incentives to participate are too great, and that some form of functional reallocation to a higher-level body which already acts in this capacity might be preferable. The transnational research captured within the book includes a survey of 18 experts across 11 countries, designed to tease out trends in each with respect to IMC since the advent of austerity. This revealed five countries where its use had become more extensive and another five where there had been no major changes (ibid., pp. 27–33). Only one (Spain) had seemed to experience a move away from IMC following legislation that imposed stricter financial performance criteria, although it was stated that the full effects of these provisions were not yet known (see also Silva and Pano Puey 2018). Nevertheless, the survey’s Spanish respondent claimed that there had been ‘massive adjustments or extinction’ of such arrangements (Raudla and Taveres 2018, p. 33). This inconsistency underlines the need for further investigation of the trends affecting subnational governance in Spain; as stated above, this chapter represents an initial contribution to that quest. Overall, then, the picture that emerges from this recent study of IMC across Europe is one of diversity in terms of the nature of collaborative arrangements and their evolution; the range of member organisations involved; the basis of their membership; their range of functions and purposes; their mode of operation and the nature of the cooperation underlying it; and the trends towards increase, stasis or decline (Teles and Swianiewicz 2018b). On this basis, the editors shy away from the time-honoured but near-impossible task of fitting all the variations into some form of comprehensive classification, instead calling for an essentially descriptive ‘post-­ typology’ approach to the analysis of IMC along a number of relevant dimensions (Teles and Swianiewicz 2018a, pp. 6–7). These include the level of formalisation of cooperative arrangements; whether membership was voluntary, conditional or

8  Collaborative Governance in Austere Times: Change and Resilience…

165

compulsory; the IMC organisation’s functions and duties; the range of organisational types represented; and the modes of democratic representation and accountability. While this framework would doubtless increase knowledge of the full range of possibilities that IMC can encompass, it would seem less well suited to enhancing greater understanding of how and why specific forms and patterns emerged in the way they have, and the ways in which these have changed over time and vary across space. In order to arrive at a mere inkling of this, the analysis would need also to take account of the wider political and social context, encompassing historical trends, spatial scale, geographical variation and sociopolitical processes. The following section represents an initial foray in this direction by means of an analysis of a specific form of IMC in Spain known as mancomunidades. It is intended as a contribution to an interdisciplinary search for greater understanding, albeit one couched within a context of national austerity programmes and the severe restrictions they are applying to effective public administration and service provision.

8.3  The Context for Inter-Municipal Collaboration in Spain The 1978 Spanish Constitution set the framework for the current multilevel, multispatial and subnational governance structure (see Table  8.2), which has subsequently become known as the ‘state of the autonomies’, particularly in reference to the ‘variable geometry’ of decentralised control over a wide range of public services and functions (Arriba and Moreno 2005, p. 195). Also enshrined in the Constitution is the principle of ‘local autonomy’ for municipalities (municipios), which are identified as the ‘cornerstone’ (piedra angular) of the system (Angoitia Grijalba 2004). In subsequent consolidating legislation, they are defined as ‘the basic local unit for the territorial organisation of the state’ (Ley Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local (LRBRL), 7/1985, Article 11.1). While legal clarification has upheld this principle of autonomy, the strong resource allocation and policy framing influence of the CCAAs has prompted the view that this discretion is more administrative than political in nature (Carrillo 1997; Angoitia Grijalba 2004). At the same time, municipalities have the right to group together into various types of larger functional government units. At the subregional level the Table 8.2  Spain: Multilevel, multispatial and subnational governance Level National Regional Subregional Local

Number Spanish name (2018) Gobierno de España 1 Comunidades Autónomas 17 Diputaciones 52 Provinciales Municipios 8124

Source: Author’s own elaboration

Population range 46.43 m 0.32 m/8.39 m 0.09 m/6.50 m

Average population N/A 2.73 m 0.93 m