|
Cities play a major role in our world. As the recent World Development Report (1999) by the World Bank has pointed out, about 50% of the world population live in cities. They are going to be the centres of economic growth, cultural diversity as well as of all the down-sides of urban life such as urban unemployment, pollution and social polarisation. The focus of the World Bank report was on globalisation on the one hand and localisation and decentralisation on the other. I will take this as an starting point to outline the Urban Policy of the European Union. Firstly, I will highlight the global system cities are operating in. Secondly, I will outline the urban policy of the European Commission to illustrate how an evolving supranational governance system tries to cope with global as well as local challenges. Finally, I will analyse the importance of a best practice approach as a model to deal with the challenges of globalisation at the local level. Due to the limited time I will focus on the key aspects. Globalisation What is a city in a globalised world? Responding to this question Let's start with those things which are obvious. Cities are very diversified systems and look very different. We will find huge variations in the physical structure of cities in terms of layout, land use, density, transport infrastructure and in relation to their hinterland. We will also find huge variations in their social composition such as number of inhabitants, social polarisation, generation mix and culture. All the things cities have in common also make them very different and more importantly these common issues also define the relationship of cities to their created as well as natural environment. The urban sociologist Saskia Sassen has pointed out in her book "The global city" (1991) - which has become the bible of urban sociology - that cities are operating in a global system which is created by a division of labour. She identifies Tokyo, London and New York as global cities which play an important role in the world economy. The three major cities have a huge concentration of top-level headquarters and service industries such as advertising, banking and finance. Her thesis is that these three cities are systemically connected and play in the top-league of the "global hierarchy". Please note that all three cities cover a regional area within a specified time zone. This gives an idea about the strong relationship between time and space for economic and political power which cannot be discussed here in length. Sassen identifies other key players in the global system of cities such as Frankfurt Chicago or Hong Kong which have a crucial position within the hierarchy of cities but do have not attracted such a disproportional amount of decision-making power. They compete for a leading position within the second league of world cities. However, there are good reasons to be critical about deploying the "football league" approach to describe the role of cities. Sassen's approach illustrates in which way globalisation and urbanisation are linked up. It also shows that we have a polycentric - system to be more fashionable: a world wide web of cities with very different functions. 2. EU The European Union is a developing supranational system. Legal experts like to call it a governance system sui generis. This wording basically describes that the EU is a system of governance they never have seen before. There is an ongoing discussion about the character of the European Union. Some favour a federal Europe a United States of Europe whereas others favour an intergovernmentalist approach: a Europe based on the voluntary co-operation of the Nation States of the European Union. The regional policy of the EU is operating within this political framework. Although this policy has existed since the founding treaties of the then European Community in 1957 in Rome, it has become more famous with the introduction of the principle of "subsidiarity" in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The principle of subsidarity should help to define at which level of government problems are solved - locally, regionally, nationally or at the supranational level. The principle also represents a compromise which pleases intergovernmentalists as well as federalists, because everybody can claim that "subsidiarty" favours their own position. However, the Maastricht Treaty went further and emphasised the importance of regions and cities within the - since 1992 - European Union. Many political analysts describe 1992 as an important date for the development of a multi-level governance system within the EU. By then Committee of the Region(s) had been introduced. It is the voice for the cities and the regions within the EU. The Committee has three weaknesses. First, it does not have decision-making power - it reports to the European Commission or delivers its view on specific policies such as European Monetary Union and regional development. Second, we still have a so-called language problem. Not every Finnish local councillor speaks perfect Italian. Many French politicians are convinced that English is a world language which should be spoken by their PAs and Secretaries but not necessarily by themselves. Third, there are differences of culture. To come back to the principle of subsidarity, in a federal state such as Germany local authorities tend to see the supranational EU level merely as an additional level of governance. They try to keep as much power as possible but do not care too much if they deal with the EU Commission or the federal government in Berlin about funding and policy issues. In the British context subsidiarity means the possibility to gain more discretion for self-government in a highly centralised governance system. The Commission is appreciated very much as a partner to by-pass the nation state. Especially in Scotland and Wales you will find very supportive voices at the local level for a powerful Europe. This of course, concerns the British government. There is, clearly, a potential for future conflicts but we may concentrate here on the regional and urban policy of the European Union. I am not going to discuss the EU enlargement, nor will I discuss the role of the European Monetary Union. I will focus on the key policy instruments of the European Commission to create a "Europe of the regions" and to introduce the principles of "solidarity" and "competitiveness" by same token. On the one hand there are the European Structural Funds and on the other hand we find the "Urban initiative" of the European Commission. The European Structural Funds comprise - amongst others - three funds which are important for urban areas: European Social Fund European Structural Fund European Cohesion Fund. The Cohesion Fund is mainly used for those countries which have relatively weak economies compared to other EU Member States. Although originally designed to support such countries to join the Euro and to expire at the end of 1999 it has been agreed to keep the cohesion fund as an policy instrument. The Structural Fund itself covers a bigger area of the European Union and is divided into three objectives. Objective 1 covers all regions which are "lagging behind the EU average". The indicator for the EU average) is the GDP per head and regions which have a GDP below 75% of the EU average are eligible for this kind of funding. The GDP measure has been questioned by academics and politicians but the European Commission still favours this statistical method. It is an objective way to measure wealth but not necessarily to measure quality of life. To give you an example from Germany for an objective 1 area: All Neue Länder except East Berlin are objective 1 areas. This means they have to match (usually) 50% of the funding they receive via the federal government from the European Commission. But they have a certain extent of discretion about the subsidies they hand out to the business located in their particular area. Public and private companies may receive up to 75% funding to start a business, to create and secure employment and to work in the field of environmental protection. Objective 2 areas are "converting regions seriously affected by industrial decline". Objective 2 areas have to match 50% of the EU funding. This is a major challenge to many local authority budgets, especially as they are operating within the strict regime required by European Monetary Union. The discretion to give business support and subsidies is very limited as the EU competition law is applied without the exemptions which apply to the Objective 1 areas. You may be surprised to hear that cities, which are linked to wealth and cultural excitement - such as - London and Berlin, are covered by the Objective 2 policy. It illustrates that urban dereliction and social polarisation can be found in many of our cities in Europe as well as in the US. Objective 3 does not apply directly to an area, i.e. is not a spatial policy. Objective 3 is a measure to "combat long-term unemployment" and focuses on eligible population such as the long-term unemployed. Objective 3 may be deployed in Objective 2 areas. Lets have a look on another policy instrument which is focusing on urban areas and does not need a match It is the "URBAN" Initiative of the European Commission. Urban is a so-called community initiative and supports economic and social regeneration of declining towns and cities. Although it focuses on urban areas the funding the initiative has been allocated on the basis of population levels and unemployment. In total there will be a budget of 700 million EURO or 700 million dollar. The main aims are to create social cohesion in urban areas, where appropriate link the URBAN initiative to Objective 1,2 and 3 and promote sustainable urban growth or to put it into US English: to promote "smart growth". A key feature is to increase the level of community participation. The aim is to have what de Tocqueville describe as a "habit of association". So what the concepts behind all this funds I described? There are three or rather four important termini: innovation, competitiveness, collaboration and solidarity. Innovation means that people are able to adapt to a changing environment. The change from an industrial society to a knowledge society is taking place on a global scale. Innovation allows to create new jobs and in some cases makes our world more sustainable. Competition is one of the driving forces to facilitate innovation. Many benefit from competition, because they are dynamic enough. Although we should not perceive markets as a zero-sum game where we only have winner and looser we have to be aware that poorer regions may loose track with recent economic developments. And at European tradition - if for good or for worse - suggest that social disruption will sooner or later have negative effects on the competitiveness of a society. As every urban area in the EU has problems with unemployment the idea of solidarity and collaboration becomes more important. Cities and their inhabitants realised that they can learn from each other by comparing their policies in the area of employment, health, environmental policy with the policies of other cities. "Benchmarking" and "best practise" are the methods which allows cities in the EU to merge the concept of solidarity with the concept of competitiveness. To learn from each other, sharing knowledge and know how allows to use the competition between cities to achieve its main aim: to increase quality of life. Conclusion Best practise within the European Union has the perspective to make politicians at the local and regional level to think hard about the way they deliver. As the approach starts to pick up, politicians are getting aware that the public and especially the press starts to compare the local achievements in the area of employment, environmental protection, economic growth and so on are going to be compared with other cities. For instance, the so-called London Study which has been commissioned by the European Commission is accompanied by the Berlin Study. Both reports focus on the potentials of their cities within a European context. This is a first step for local authorities to complement globalisation. To become aware of their identity in the global context as well as to learn from other cities. Due to the limited time I have focused only on the EU´s urban policy. There are many US examples for best practise programmes and projects which have inspired NGOs, local communities and governments on each side of the Atlantic. For instance, the Groundwork project started in the UK and is focusing on recycling previously used land and how to stop urban sprawl. It has been adapted in the US and serves now as a very good example of transatlantic best practice. There is an ongoing debate about the future of the nation state. Those sessions at this conference which will deal with security policy are likely to emphasise the importance of the nation state and intergovernmental organisations such as the NATO. However, I have tried to show that there are other key level of governance which have become very important during the last decade: the global level, the supranational and the local level. Policy-makers at the local level are aware of this changing policy environment. As the former mayor of Barcelona has put it: "The best way to solve some our global problems is breaking them down analytically into local ones". This remark may explain the underlying motives of the EU's urban and structural policy. However, more important is that it shows that cities and towns are our future wherever you are in the world. Thank you. |