TheAthensID 9th Issue

TTThhheeeAAAttthhheeennnsssIIIDDD 9, 2010

- , , , - , . (30) . - , . (35) , . - , . , . 1253b

http://www.democracycrisis.com

TTThhheeeAAAttthhheeennnsssIIIDDD 9, 2010

: , , 1-16 : , , 17-41 : ,

, 42-58 The Europeanization of the Greek Local Government in the EU Multi-level

Governance System,

by Antonios Karvounis, 59-95

[TheAthensID]

TheAthensID 6 . , , . . . - . ( , , ) (.2121/1993, . 2819/2000, . 3049/2002 14, .3057/2002 81) ( ). , . ( , e-mail : [email protected]. TheAthensID : e- mail. e- mail . [email protected] [email protected] . [email protected] [email protected]

TheAthensID / 9, 2010

[e D I t o r I a l]

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 www.democracycrisis.com

TheAthensID 2008. , , . TheAthensID. editorial

; ; TheAthensID . TheAthensID; ( brand name) IDea Identity. .

, . , . ... , , , 9 , 2010. . , ,

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 [ii]

[e D I t o r I a l] , , . 20

,

: 30 New Deal, , . ! Master Chef. ; 30 40 20 ; . , , . TheAthensID . , : , , . (constraints) , . , 10 , ( ) . ...

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 [iii]

[e D I t o r I a l]

(. . . 1989. . . : .)

[1252a] () ( ), , , (5) ' : . , , , , , . . (10) . .. , , , , , , . : . , . , (15) , , . . . ( ), (20) , , , .

, , , (25) ' , ' . , , .. ( , ' , (30) ). , , [ ]. , , . , , ( ) . ' . [1252b] , . , . (5) , . , , , . :

, (10) , , ' :

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 [iv]

[e D I t o r I a l]

' ' .

. , , . (15) , , . , , . ' , , , (20) . , , . , . :

,

. , , (25) , , . . , , , , , , (30) . , , . , . . , , , , , . . [1253a] . , , , ( ). , , . (5) , , . , . . , , . (10) ' . , ' . . , (15) . , , ' : . , . .

, , , (20) . . , , , . , , . , , , .

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 [v]

[e D I t o r I a l] (25) , , . , , . , , . (30) , , ' . . , , , , ' . , , (35) . , , . . .

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 [vi]

[ ][ ]

:

1.

19 1970 1300 . , 24 . 1960 , . 1970 . 1389 275 24 14. , . , 2007 , , . 5 , 98. , 5.4 , , ( ), . , ,

TheAthensID / 9 2010 [1]

[ ][ ]

. , , . , , , .

2. 2007-2013, , 1. , . , , 2

1 . Interservce Group on Urban Development, The Urban Dimension in Community Policies for the Period 2007-2013, , , 2007, .8. 2 . ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd, State of European Cities Report, European Commission (Directorate-General Regional Policy), / (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/ docgener/studies/pdf/urban/stateofcities_2007.pdf, 26 2007).


[ ][ ]

, , 3.

, . Jessop Amin, , , , 4. . , , , . , , , . , 5.

, , , , , , , ,

3 . I.Docherty, S.Gulliver and P.Drake, Exploring the Potential Benefits of City Collaboration, Regional Studies, 38 (4), 2004, .447. 4 . B. Jessop and A. Amin (ed.) Post-Fordism and the State. Post-Fordism: A Reader, Blackwell, Oxford 1994. 5 . S. Castle, B. Cope, M. Kalantzis and M. Morrissey (.) Mistaken Identity: Multiculturalism and the Demise of Nationalism in Australia, Pluto Press, 1988, .140.


[ ][ ]

6. , M. Aglietta, , , 7. , , , 8. , . . 9. , . , 1974 , . , , , . , , , , 10. ,

6 . L. Panitch, : () , . , . (.) . , , 2001, .316. 7 . . Aglietta, Globalisation Financire: L Aventure Oblige, CEPII, 1990. 8 . . , : , , 1999. 9 . . . , , () . , , 1999. 10 . E. Kapstein, Governing the Global Economy, Harvard University Press, 1994, .20


[ ][ ]

H. Minsky11, , , , , , : . , , , . , . , . - , - , .

, 12. , , -, . - . , , 70 11 . H. Minsky, Stabilising an Unstable Economy, Yale University Press, New Haven and London 1986. 12. G. MacLeod and M. Goodwin, Space, scale and state strategy: Rethinking Urban and Regional Governance, Progress in Human Geography, 23 (4), 1999, .503-527.


[ ][ ]

% , . , , , 13. , , , , 14. , , , . , , , - , , , , ,

15.

. . , ,

13. Committee of the Regions, White Paper on Multilevel Governance, Brussels 2008, .4. 14. P. Dicken, Gloval Shift, Sage, London 2003. 15. Conclusions of the Council, Architects contribution to Sustainable Development, [(2008/C319/05) OJ C 319/13, 13.12.2008].


[ ][ ]

, 16. , , -17. , . , 18. 19. , 20.

, , . ( ), ( ). , , , 16. N. Brenner, New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, Oxford University Press, New York 2004. 17 , .176. 18 .J. Peck, Political Economies of Scale: Fast Policy, Interscalar Relations and Neoliberal Workfare, Economic Geography, 27 (2), .222-232. 19 . Jessop, .. 20 . D. Haider, Place Wars: New Realities of the 1990s, Economic Development Quarterly, 6, 1992, . 127134.


[ ][ ]

, , .

, .

3. 1970 21, . , 80 . 90, , , 1998 : . 2001 . 2002, - Lars Lkke Rasmussen

21 1970 1200 24 . 275 14. . P.E. Mouritzen, Denmark. Reforming Local Government in Denmark: How and Why?, Centre for Local Innovation, Barcelona Provincial Council 2008.


[ ][ ]

, . : , , , , , , .

15 . 12 . , .


[ ][ ]

. , . , , , 22. , 20.000 , 3 8, . , . .

, , . , 30.000 , 5.

, (.. , , , , ). - . 20.000 , 7 8.

22. (http://www.im.dk/publikationer/struktur_uk/index.html).


[ ][ ]

, . , ( ). 30.000 .

, . , . , , . . - , , . : , , . . , , . , 30.000 , 20.000+ . 20.000 , : ( ),


[ ][ ]

( ).

, 98 . , . . , , . , , . . 23.

4. ( ) , 24.

23 . H. T. Andersen, The emerging Danish government reform - centralised decentralisation, Urban Research & Practice, 1(1), 2008, .3-17. 24 .


[ ][ ]

2003, : 25, , 26. , ( ), . , .

, , - 27. , Scott Storper - 28. , . , . .

25 . Nellemann consulting, Kortlaegning og analyse of byernes udfordringer [Mapping and analysis of urban challenges], Copenhagen 2003. 26 . M. H. Thelle and J. Nyholm Regionernes konkurrencevne [Competitiveness of regions], Copenhagen Economics and Inside Consulting , Copenhagen 2004. 27 . E. G. Jonas and A. K. Ward, Introduction to a debate on city-regions: new geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction. International journal of urban and regional research 31:1 , 2007, . 169-178. 28 . A. J Scott and M. Storper, Regions, Globalization, Development, Regional Studies 37 , 2003, . 579-593


[ ][ ]

2000-2003, 29. , , . , , . Eastern Jutland . .

, , , . : , 50 36, . , , . , , 29 . H. T. Andersen and F. Hansen, Sociale og geografiske uligheder i Danmark [Social and geographical inequalities in Denmark], Copenhagen 2001


[ ][ ]

, .

5. , , , , .

, . . . . . . , . . 150 . 20 , 33. ,


[ ][ ]

700 , , , .

, , ;


[ ] [ ]

. .

(domaine reserv). . . 1 ( ) 1. . , . , 1999 . .

(ius sanguinis) , , , , ( ) ,

1 -, , , 5 , 2002, . 11.

TheAthensID / 9, 2010 [17]

[ ] [ ]

.., . - - , , .

. , . .

. ( ) / , , , . , (humanity) 2.

. , , - - , : , , , , , 3.

2 The Challenge of Carl Schmitt, edited by Chantal Mouffe, Verso 1999, p. 43. 3 Randal Hansen, The poverty of postnationalism: citizenship, immigration and the new Europe, Theory and Society 38 (2009), p. 1.


[ ] [ ]

. . (ius soli) , - - . . ius soli 18 , , () (1804) , 4. , ius sanguinis - 19 - , . 1889 ( - ius soli)5.

( ) , ,

4 Studies in the History of the law of Nations. Grotian Society Papers, edited by C.H. Alexandrowicz, Martinus Nijhoff, 1972, p. 3. 5 Patrick Weil, Access to citizenship: A comparison of twenty five nationality laws, http://patrick-weil.com/Fichiers%20du%20site/2001%20-%20Access%20to%20citizenship.doc.


[ ] [ ]

. (ius sanguinis) 6: 1871 Reichs und Staatsangehrigkeitsgesetz- RuStAG- 1913, . 1913 7.

. 1844 3 , , . , 8.

. , .

6 - - 1818. 31 1842. 7 Ingo von Mnch, Die deutsche Staatsangehrigkeit. Vergangenheit-Gegenwart-Zukunft, De Gruyter, 2007, ss. 30. 8 John A. Petropoulos, (1833-1843), , .... ,. 615.


[ ] [ ]

, , , , , ius soli, . .

. . 1913. . , , , : , 9. H ( ) 1913 10. , 11. . , (1955) 1938-1945, (1956)

9 Kay Hailbronner, Country Report: Germany, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, 2009, http://www.foyer.be/IMG/pdf/EUDO-2009-Germany-linked.pdf Alice Ludwig, Dealing with Dual Citizenship in Austria and Germany: A Comparison, European Consortium of Political Research ECPR-Joint Sessions, April 14-18. 2000, Copenhagen. 10 . 11 Matthias Bs, The Legal Construction of Membership: Nationality Law in Germany and the United States, Program for the Study of Germany and Europe, Working Papers Series No 00.5, http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/publications/docs/pdfs/Boes.pdf


[ ] [ ]

, (1957) . ( 3.2 ) , - RuStAG- (de patre ius sanguinis). A 1974 ( Gesetz zur nderung Assylverfahrensauslnder und staatsangehrigkeitsrechtlicher Vorschriften-1993), 12.

. ... 1967 , ... ( ) . ad hoc . 116 (1) (1949-1950) . de jure , , 31/12/1937 (Grundgesetz fr die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, GG). H ( Statusdeutsche) : ( -

12 La Rforme de 1999 du Droit Allemand de la Nationalit, Revue Internationale de droit compar, 54.4, 2002, http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ridc_0035-3337_2002_num_54_4_17773 , p. 1048.


[ ] [ ]

) (, , ..), 13. 1999 late-expatriate (Sptaussiedler), ( ) 14.

, , .., , (GG 16.1).

( , ), 15.

Auslndergesetz 1965 , . Federal Administrative Guidelines 1977, 13 1990 (Aussiedler Aufnahmegesetz) , 1992 250.000 . 1996 , Louise Hendrickson, The Impacts of Assimilation:Concepts of Citizenship in Germany, 2007, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/2/2/p97228_index.html 14 Eniko Horvath and Ruth Rubio-Marin, Alles oder Nichts? The outer boundaries of the German citizenship debate, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2010, 8(1), 72-93. 15 ... (recruitment program), 1955 .


[ ] [ ]

, ... 16.

1970 () 14 ( 1973). Willy Brandt Bewerberstopp, . SPD CDU, Federal Administrative Guidelines ( ) 17.

, ( 1970) 1983-4 ( ) , 18.

1990 Auslndergesetz. 1990 1993 (renunciation)

16 Ruth Rubio-Marn, Citizenship and Inclusion in Germany and the United States as a Democratic Challenge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 216. 17 Robert Carle, Citizenship Debates in the New Germany, Society Abroad, 2007, 44, pp. 150-151. 18 Merih Anil, No more Foreigners? The remaking of German Naturalization and Citizenship Law, 1990-2000, Dialectical Anthropology, 2005, 29, pp. 457.


[ ] [ ]

, , .. , , Aussiedler . Aussiedler ( ) 19.

H . CDP 1994 , (Kinderstaatszugehrigkeit). , 12 , , 18 , . 20.

1990 ( , ) , , : . , 1993 Bundestag 16 . 19 Jrgen Wydra, Is Germany moving on Migration? The New Citizenship and Immigration Politics of the Government by SPD and the Greens, Portularia 2, 2002 (31-55), pp. 40-41. 20 Kay Hailbronner, ..


[ ] [ ]

, ( )21.

( 1999) SPD , ius soli, CDU/CSU , . FDP , ius soli ( ), )22.

1998 . CDU/CSU, , , ( , , Junge Wilde) SPD )23.

H , , . 13 1999 . Schilly (SPD) , RuStAG 1913. Schilly CDU 21 Robert Carle, .., p. 152. 22 Merih Anil, .., p. 465. 23 Alice Holmes Cooper, Party-Sponsored Protest and the Movement Society: The CDU/CSU mobilizes against Citizenship Law Reform, German Politics, 11. 2 (August 2002), pp. 88-104.


[ ] [ ]

, , Bundesrat. FDP, (Optionsmodell). 15 1999 ( ), 1 200024.

Schilly : ( ius soli), 14 , (10/2/1999) (Gewmlicher Aufenthalt) , 23 . SPD, FDP (16/3/1999) , , Statusdeutsche ( )25.

. 2000 : , , , 24 Marco Hanitzsch, Blau-gelbe Optionen zwischen Rot und Schwarz. Zur Verwestlichung des deutschen Staatsbrgerschaftsrechts 1999/2000, September 2006, http://www.wortschlag.net/downloads/2006WS_Verwestl_StaaBuergRecht.pdf 25 Marianne Wiedemann, Die Neuregelung des deutschen Staatsangehrigkeitsrechts, unter besonderer Bercksichtigung von Rechtsfragen mehrfacher Staatsangehrigkeit. Dissertation, Uni Konstanz, Mrz 2005, pp.36-41, http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2005/1671/pdf/Dissertation_Wiedemann_Acrobat7.pdf


[ ] [ ]

, ( Aufenthaltgesetz 2004/2005)26 , 10 1999. 11 ( PKK)27. , 2002 (Gesetz zur Bekmpfung des internationalen Terrorismus- Schutzklausel).

2007 ( , , ), , , , . . , 180 ( ) 90 (Tagesstze), , . , 23

26 , , .. ( ) 27 Marianne Wiedemann, .., pp. 114.


[ ] [ ]

, ( ) , .

. , 2007 .. , .. , 28.

2009 . , .

. - 1999/2000 : Staatsangehrigkeitsgesetz Reichs- und Staatsangehrigkeitsgesetz (1913), -- . ( )29. , , , 3 (1) . Findelkind, ( 28 Kay Hailbronner, .. 29 Nicolas Bouche, .., pp. 1039-1040.


[ ] [ ]

), ius sanguinis ( )30.

: 4 .. (Aufenthaltserlaubnis-EU) (Niederlassungserlaubnis).

1. CDU/CSU Schilly (Doppelpass), 31, . , ( ) ius soli , , , 32. , , , , ,

30 3 (2) , Nicolas Bouche, ;o.p., p. 1051. 31 , . en passant , , (ius sanguinis ) 32 Brubaker (1992) Alice Ludwig, Dealing with Dual Citizenship in Austria and Germany, ... p. 9


[ ] [ ]

, , 33.

( ) 1999/2000 (Optionspflicht): - ius soli- 23 ( ) (StAG=Staatsangehrigkeitsgesetz, 29)34.

; , 16.1 , . , . 1999, , , 35,

33 Eleonore Kofman, Citizenship for some but not for others: spaces of citizenship in contemporary Europe, Political Geography, 14.2, 1995, p. 128. 34 40 10 4 (3) 2000 . 18 2008 35 H : , Anita Bcker and Dietrich Thrnhardt, Multiple Citizenship and Naturalization: An Evaluation of German and Dutch Policies, Journal of International Migration and Integration, 7.1, 2006, p. 87.


[ ] [ ]

36. 18-23 ;

( ). , 23 , .

. 3.1 , ius sanguinis, . , , 37. , .

, / - - ( 1952). ( Nottebohm-1955) -, , .

36 Eniko Horvath and Ruth Rubio-Marin, .., pp. 80-81. 37 Marianne Wiedemann, .., pp. 67-69.


[ ] [ ]

in toto , , 4 (3) StAG , 38.

- . 1963 , 1990, 199739.

- , , , Optionspflicht , 40.

2. (Generationenschnitt) H .

38 Marianne Wiedemann, .., p.78 39 Second Protocol amending the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality CETS No.: 149, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=149&CM=8&DF=01/04/2010&CL=ENG European Convention on Nationality CETS No.: 166, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=166&CM=8&DF=01/04/2010&CL=ENG 40 Nicolas Bouche, .., pp. 1065-1066.


[ ] [ ]

. 4 (4) StAG , 31/12/1999 , , ( 19 20 )41.

3. H 10 StAG . . , .

( 15 ) , , , , , 42. 86 Auslndergesetz ( ).

41 , 1870, , . ius sanguinis 1913, Nicholas Bouche, .., p. 1053. 42 atthias Winter, Becoming a German national, http://www.civiced.org/pdfs/MatthiasWinter.pdf .


[ ] [ ]

. , , Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Staatsangehrigkeitsrecht-StAR VwV43.

( ), 16 , ( ). 16 , 44.

10 , . , 60 , .

, , 10 (3) StAG , ( 23

43 Simon Green, Beyond ethnoculturalism? German citizenship in the new Millennium, German Politics, 9.3, 2000, p. 115. 44 Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Staatsangehrigkeitsrecht-StAR VwV, 85.2.1.2.


[ ] [ ]

) 45.

4. - Bundesvertriebenengesetz 1953. 1999 . 1999 , (Sptaussiedlerbescheinigung). H ( 1923) , .

2004/2005 (Zuwanderungsgesetz) , 46. 2002 22% , 64% , .

(repatriate) : 1953 , . Aufnahmebescheid, .

45 Marianne Wiedemann, .., pp. 140-142. 46 Marianne Wiedemann, .., pp. 159-161.


[ ] [ ]

(Sptaussiedlerbescheinigung), 47. , . 1994 , ( 31/12/1993 Sptaussiedler)48.

H . , , . ( Halakha= ) , , , , , , 49.

H 2 () . , ,

47 Kay Hailbronner, .., pp. 23-25. 48 Silvia Keil, Staatsangehrigkeit, nationale Identitt und Fremdenfeindlichkeit. Deutschland, Frankreich und Grossbritannien im empirischen Vergleich, http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2007/4838/index.html , pp. 37-38. 49 Louise Hendrickson, ., pp. 8-10.


[ ] [ ]

50

5. , 116 (1) , . ( ) .

, 51 ( - .., ).

. .

. , Bundesrat. , , (division of law making and law executing).

50 Louise Hendrickson, ., pp. 10-12. 51 Marianne Wiedemann, .., pp. 236-237.


[ ] [ ]

. , ( ) . , - . - , , , 52.

, . .. , , , ( ) , . , status , . . , 53.

52 Eniko Horvath and Ruth Rubio-Marin, .., pp. 91-92. 53 Silvia Keil, .., pp. 50-73.


[ ] [ ]

, , . 2005 2,5% ( 7,1% 2000). . ( ) , , , 54.

- . , , ( ) (checks and balances). , . , . , . ( ) ,

54 Utku Sezgin, Going beyond Culture and Assimilating Immigrants: The Conversation that Germany needs, http://www.daad.org/file_depot/0-10000000/10000-20000/16426/folder/33804/Essay_Sezgin.pdf


[ ] [ ]

( ).

, . , ( .. ). , , , .

. , .

, , 1999 ( ), , .

- - .


[ :

] [ ]

:

.

: , . , , . , . , , , .

: , . , , ,...,.. , ( 2007), .


[ :

] [ ]

, , .

...., , , .

, , :

, ,

.

, -


[ :

] [ ]

, .

, , , ( ) (), ().

, , , , , .

, , . , .

, ,


[ :

] [ ]

, , , .

:

, .

,


[ :

] [ ]

value for money.

: ,

,

.

( )

, .

..., , ( ), , .


[ :

] [ ]

, . , , . , ( , , ). , .

, .

, , . , . , , , , .


[ :

] [ ]

, , , (Balanced Scorecard, Total Quality, MbO) , .

, , .

, , , , .

, . ( 2005), :

,


[ :

] [ ]

2008 .

, , , , .

, , , :

,

- , Classification of Functions of Government, ... ..., , , .


[ :

] [ ]

, , , () () . , , , , . , .

, , .

, , . , .

:

,


[ :

] [ ]

,

,

,

, M.b.O Balanced Scorecard

,


[ :

] [ ]

:

,

, ,

, ,

,

, ,

:

, (top-down approach)


[ :

] [ ]

, ,

, ,

... , , :

,

,

-

,


[ :

] [ ]

,

, , ( , ) , .

, , , .. , , , ( , ), . .

, , . , , , .


[ :

] [ ]

, .

, , , . , :

,

(cross-cutting) , coaching

, , , ,


[ :

] [ ]

, , .

, , , , , , . , , .

, , , , , , , .

, , , .

, , , .


[ :

] [ ]

. . , , , , . . .

:

1. Andy Bruce & Ken Langton 2001

2. 2005

3. 2009 4. ,

J.Wallis &B.Dollery 2005 5. John Stewart

2005 6.

1 2005

7. Ben Rosamond 2004

:


[ :

] [ ]

1. Does Performance Budgeting Work ; Marc Robinson and Jim

Brumby

IMF Working Paper 2005

2. Citizen Centric Performance Budgeting at the Local Level Answar

Shah World Bank 2008

3. A Performance Management Framework for State and Local

Government- Policy Review Draft National Performance

Management Advisory Commission U.S.A 2009

4. Strategic Planning for Local Government Gerald Gordon ICMA 2005

5. Performance Budgeting, Managing the reform process Jack

Diamond

IMF 2001

6. A Critique of the New Public Management and the Neo-Weberian

State: Advancing a Critical Theory of Administrative reform D.Miller

&W.Dunn Public Organization Review 2007


[The Europeanization of the Greek Local Government in the EU Multi-level Governance System] [by Dr. Antonios Karvounis]

The Europeanization of the Greek Local Government in the EU Multi-

level Governance System

by Dr. Antonios Karvounis

1. Introduction

Two major topics have gained in importance to cities over the last decade:

first, the evolving relationship between cities and the European Union, and

second, the rise of new forms of governance, be it at the local level or in the

multi-level context of the European Union1. European integration has led to a

manifold and far-reaching involvement of cities in policies devised at the

European level. In many respects, metropolitan regions and cities have

become the concrete, practical testing grounds for EU rules, strategies and

programmes. The implementation of EU programmes at the local level alters

the preferences of local actors as well as practices, and policies while around

two thirds of the legislation implemented by local authorities is EU legislation2.

Conversely, local experiences shape the development of EU programmes and

policies which incorporate such experiences and innovative urban practices3.

So, what has often been described as the European turn of cities becomes

manifest in the recognition by cities of the EU as a new political arena,

offering new ways for changing local and regional governance, resources and

advice in dealing with changes in the economic and social realm in a proactive

and strategic manner, and possibilities to influence policy-making alongside

This article is an extended version of the writers presentation to the International Conference for Europeanization of Local Administration held in the University of Gande , April 29-30, 2010. 1 See E.Antalovsky, J.S.Dangschat & M.Parkinson (eds) Cities in Europe- Europe in the Cities. Final Report, European Metropolitan Governance research project of Europaforum WienCenter for Urban Dialogue and European Policy (EFW), the European Institute of Urban Affairs at Liverpool John Moores University (EIUA) and the Department of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Planning, Sociology at Vienna University of Technology (ISRA), Vienna and Liverpool 2005. 2 See U. Zimmermann Die Europische Verfassung Eine Bilanz aus kommunaler Perspektive in: von Alemann, U. and Mnch, C. (eds.) Europafhigkeit der Kommunen. Die lokale Ebene in der Europischen Union (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften), 2006, pp. 25-47. 3 See A. Marshall Europeanization at the urban level: local actors, institutions and the dynamics of multi-level interaction Journal of European Public Policy, 2005, 12(4): 668-686.



the sometimes narrow confines of national political procedures4. Europe and

the notion of City-level Europeanization have become the companions of

cities in the EU multi-level governance system.

However, in spite of the growing visibility of cities as actors on the European

stage and of urban issues in EU policies Cities in Europe and the

pervasiveness of the European Union in local affairs Europe in the Cities

the effects, processes and democratic quality of these interactions are not yet

well understood. For instance, as the increased role of city networks for policy

making or for implementing public policies is generally seen as a positive

development, allowing for a more flexible approach, seeking context sensitive

solutions, involving citizens, businesses and other, often informal, social and

political networks in both the formulation and implementation of different

policies, at the same time, city networks can carry a more negative image,

linked to the risk that they become closed shops or clubs: taking decisions

and exerting influence without considering the wider interests of stakeholders

who are not influential members of the network. In this way, horizontal

Europeanization appears to be more and more important at the local level.

Against this backdrop, this paper highlights some results of an empirical

analysis on the Greek local authorities participation in the EU multi-level

governance system through their international multilateral partnerships. The

theoretical framework is derived from both the literature about

Europeanization and the discussion about multi-level governance, which is a

central topic in contemporary urban studies.

As a result, the paper proceeds in the following way. The next two sections,

on city-level Europeanization and multi-level governance, set the conceptual

context. The fourth section briefly outlines the city-networked paradigm. The

fifth section concludes by reflecting on the findings of the study on the

4 See A. Hamedinger, H. Bartik and A.Wolffhardt, The Impact of EU Area-based Programmes on Local Governance: Towards a Europeanization?, Urban Studies, 2008, 45 (13): 2669-2687.



intercultural dialogue at the local level, conducted by the Hellenic Ministry of

Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008, and in particular, on the

Greek local governments experience in international multilateral partnerships,

in addition to authors own research.

2. The City-level Europeanisation debate

Although local politics is increasingly shaped by EU decisions, the city-level

Europeanization has only emerged as a topic for analysis recently5. While

Europeanization has become an important approach in European studies6, the

local level has played only a marginal role in Europeanization research.

A look at the current literature on Europeanization proves that there is still a

lot of confusion concerning the concept of Europeanization, not at least due

to the various definitions on offer7. It must not be forgotten that

Europeanisation is quite a young concept; the lack of a grand theory of

Europeanisation is therefore not a surprise. After all, a lot of the confusion is

due to the quite inconsequential use of the term in the literature, the terms

Europeanisation and European Integration are not rarely mixed up. Some

writers seem to act according to the idea that they rather use both terms

simultaneously for their papers to make sure that it will definitely be

recognized. Radaelli even concludes: Some articles re-brand well-known

5 See P. John The Europeanization of sub-national governance Urban Studies, 2000, 37 (5-6): 877-894; Marshall Europeanization at the urban levelop.cit.; H. Kassim The Europeanization of Member state institutions in: Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (eds.) The Member States of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford et al. 2005, pp. 285-316. 6 See K. Featherstone and C. Radaelli (eds.) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford University Press, Oxford et al. 2003; S. Bulmer and C. Lequesne (eds.) The Member States of the European Union Oxford University Press, Oxford et al. 2005; P. Graziano and M. Vink (eds.) Europeanization. New Research Agendas, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills and New York 2007; J. Olsen The many faces of Europeanization, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, 40(5): 921-952. 7 See Olsen The many facesop.cit.; ibid, 'Europeanization'op.cit.p.334; K. Featherstone 'Introduction: In the Name of 'Europe'', in K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli (eds) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003, p.6; R. Harmsen, and T. M. Wilson 'Introduction: Approaches to Europeanization', Yearbook of European Studies, 2000, 14: 13-26; P. Mair, 'The Europeanization Dimension', Journal of European Public Policy, 2004, 11 (2): 345; M. P. Vink 'What is Europeanization? and other questions on a new research agenda', European Political Science, 2003, 3(1): 63-74.



features of European integration as Europeanisation8. Other authors use the

term Europeanisation without referring to the theoretical discussion that is

linked to it9. Besides the usual problem of finding a commonly acknowledged

definition in social science this diversity derives as well from the fact that

different disciplines are dealing with the subject of Europeanisation.

In particular, Olsen identifies five different meanings of Europeanisation:

Europeanisation as (a) changes in external territorial boundaries, (b) the

development of institutions of governance at the European level, (c) central

penetration of national and sub-national systems of governance, (d) exporting

forms of political organisation and governance that are typical and distinct for

Europe beyond the European territory, (e) a political project aiming at a

unified and politically stronger Europe10. Featherstone speaks of a fourfold

typology which characterises the different trends of definitions in literature,

whereas Harmsen and Wilson even refer to eight differing meanings. Mair

points out that for him Europeanisation does not yet deal enough with

political conflicts expressed in party competition and election campaigning. In

contrast, Vink suggests a broader use of the Europeanisation concept not just

exclusively linked to the EU but to link it as well to other forms of regional

integration and co-operation11. An example for a quite complex definition of

the notion of Europeanisation in the latter sense is Radaelli's approach which

tries to include the different aspects that are linked to this understanding of

Europeanisation: Europeanisation consists of processes of a) construction, b)

diffusion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures,

policy paradigms, styles, 'ways of doing things' and shared beliefs and norms

which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then

incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse,

8 See C.M. Radaelli 'Europeanisation: Solution or problem?' European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 2004, 8 (16), p.22, endnote 2. 9 See J. Roose, Die Europisierung von Umweltorganisationen. Die Umweltbewegung auf dem langen Weg nach Brssel, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 2003. 10 See Olsen The many facesop.cit.; ibid, 'Europeanization'op.cit.p.334. 11 See M. P. Vink 'What is Europeanisation? and other questions on a new research agenda', European Political Science, 2003, 3(1): 63-74.



political structures and public policies. This definition points to the

multifaceted conception of Europeanisation that has to be taken into account

but which can as well be challenged on various grounds.

Roughly speaking, three different conceptualisations of Europeanization, can

be derived from the current literature. The first conceptualisation has

emphasised the creation or use of European political institutions (the

accumulation of policy competences at the EU level). The second

conceptualisation has emphasised change in domestic politics due to

European integration (the top- down impact of the EU on its member states).

Whereas a third conceptualisation has emphasised the relationship between

the national and the international level (the growing importance of the EU as

a reference point for national and sub-national actors, the two-way interaction

between states and the EU, or even, the horizontal transfer of concepts and

policies in the EU between member states)12.

While this paper takes into account these approaches, the focus of our

research is on a fourth dimension which concentrates on horizontal

Europeanization, namely city twinning, and mostly, city networking. Cities

have developed various tools to facilitate best practice transfer. Although EU

institutions play either no role here or merely a facilitative one (e.g. through

project funding), this is an important aspect of urban-level Europeanization13.

Strategies ranging from city twinning to the establishment of transnational

city networks constitute a crucial dimension of the emerging foreign policy

and para-diplomacy of European cities, while dealing with a complex socio-

economic environment14. It must be recalled that the majority of the

European regions and local authorities are now grouped together either

according to their geographical location, or according to their economic or

12 See I. Bache, Europeanization and Britain: Towards Multi-level Governance?, Paper prepared for the EUSA 9th Biennial Conference, Austin, Texas, March 31-April 2, 2005. 13 See K. Kern, When Europe Hits City Hall: The Europeanization of Cities in the EU Multi-level System, Paper submitted for presentation at the 2007 Biennial Conference of the European Studies Association in Montreal, p.3. 14 Ibid.



cultural characteristics in associations providing an interface between the

institutions and bodies of the Union and the reality on the ground. Notable

among these are the CEMR, ARE, CPRM, Eurocities etc. As a result,

Europeanization, far from reducing local fragmentation, actually serves to

accentuate it, prompting the development of more urban partnerships,

widening the number of participants involved in decision-making and

providing a sense of the means by which multi-level governance is

implemented.

3. The Multi-level Governance debate

Once the Unique Market was released in 1985 a new concept regarding the

decisional process in EU was developed, respectively the multi-level

governance in which the power is divided between the actors from different

governmental level: sub-national, national and supra-national. Initially the

multi-level governance referred to the negotiation between the local

governments at different decisional levels and described the way in which

the supra-national, national, regional and local level belonged to a complex

territorial complex network. In particular, the term multi-level defined the

interactions and multiple interdependences between the local governments

operating at different vertical territorial level, while the term of governance

underlined the increase of the horizontal interdependences between the

governmental and nongovernmental actors15.

Until then, the field of EU studies had been dominated by the theories of neo-

functionalism and inter-governmentalism which purported to explain not only

how the European Union had come about, but also how it functioned. It was

generally assumed that the same forces which explained the creation and

evolution of the European Union would also explain its functioning: whether

the fundamental unit of analysis were states defending and promoting their

15 See I.Bache, Europeanisation and Multi-level Governance: Cohesion Policy in the European Union and Britain, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham/New York 2008.



national interests in an inter-governmental arena or they were rather market

forces which inevitably attracted individuals, groups and firms towards the

supranational level, the forces of integration explained also the functioning of

the integrated entity. Some years later, the seminal article by Gary Marks16

called into question this dichotomous view of European integration and of

inserting a conceptual wedge between the two theoretical poles. In order to

avoid the Scylla of the raison dtat and the Charybdis of impersonal market

forces, Marks17 introduced the visions, passions and interests of real life

individuals and asserted the autonomous explanatory force of a third

paradigm, that of multi-level governance.

Marks et al.18 drew attention to the role that non-central state authorities and

non-governmental organizations made to the daily politics of the European

Union and therefore to their capacity to cross the domestic gates without the

keepers permission. The debate, in the field of regional or cohesion policy,

boiled down to deciding whether sub-national authorities were willing and

capable of contributing to the policy-making process without the supervision

of the central national governments. Instead of the two level game

assumptions adopted by state centrists, multi-level governance theorists posit

a set of overarching, multi-level policy networks. Generally, multilevel

governance approach highlighted the establishment of new local/regional

networks and the involvement of more non-state actors and institutions in

developing and implementing local policies. A key concern has been processes

of networking and partnershipthat is, attempts to supplement the formal

dimensions of politics by informal rules and non-institutional forms of

governing. Within these networks, the roles of local governments have

16 See G. Marks, Structural Policy in the European Community, in A. Sbragia (a cura di), Euro-politics. Institutions and Policymaking in the New European Community, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution, 1992, pp. 191-225. 17 See G. Marks, Structural Policy and Multi-Level Governance in the EC, in A. Cafruny e G. Rosenthal eds, The State of the European Community. Vol. 2, The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993, pp. 391-410; ibid, An Actor-Centred Approach to Multi-Level Governance, Regional and Federal Studies, 1996, 6(2): 20-40. 18 See G. Marks et al. Competencies, Cracks and Conflicts: Regional Mobilization in the European Union, Comparative Political Studies, 1996, 29(2): 164-192.



changed. In short, the multi-level governance theory can be summed up as

such19:

The decisional competences are distributed between the actors from different level and are not monopolised by the national actors.

The collective decisions involve an important loss of control/authority by each state.

The political space is interconnected to a larger territory. The sub-national actors operate in both areas national and international

creating transnational bonds.

The European Commission further contributed to this discussion particularly

by referring to its White Paper on European Governance20, which described

several levels of responsibility for the success of good European governance.

The central aim of that strategic paper was to make the European system of

governance more citizen-oriented. For the Commission, new forms of

governance are an answer to the question of how to reconcile the goals of

economic competitiveness and social cohesion through the development of

new forms of governing at the European, national, regional and local levels.

Furthermore, promotion of innovative governance at the sub-national level

has often been associated with a desire to enhance the role of cities in the

European system of multilevel governance, where cities are considered to

become active (and broadly pro-European) actors on the EU stage21.

In terms of the discussion of the city-level Europeanization, the position of

local authorities in the multi-level structure of European governance was

further strengthened in the recent White Paper of the Committee of the

Regions.

19 See L. Hooghe and G. Marcus, Multi-level Governance and European Integration, Rowman & Littlefield 2001. 20 See European Commission, European Governance. A White Paper, EC, Brussels 2001. 21 See Hamedinger et al., The Impact of EU,op.cit.p.2674.



As a matter of fact, the White Paper on Multilevel Governance of the

Committee of the Regions has argued that the challenge of multilevel

governance is to ensure that there is a complementary balance between

institutional governance and partnership-based governance, acknowledging,

a network structure that favours a horizontal cooperation dynamic andthe

many active networks at local and regional level in Europe and throughout the

world22. The connection of those networks with the European process is

expected to contribute to the success of common policies and their

ownership by the citizens23. The recently introduced European Grouping of

Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) offers an eloquent example of EU supported

horizontal cooperation on the regional and local levels, beyond the state

borders and the EU member states.

In other words, the multi-level governance approach does not seek to

reinforce and shape the responsibilities of local and regional authorities at

national level but to encourage their participation in the coordination of

European policy, in this way helping to design and implement Community

policies through their diverse thematic or cross-sectoral networks. The new

processes are, therefore, not just multi-level, but also multi-actor meaning

that different types of actors linked different governmental levels and

populated the subnational networks thus formed24. This creates new

opportunities for cities, which can pursue their interests at both national and

European levels25.

4. The City Networked Paradigm

Networks and networking have become very fashionable concepts and terms

in regional science, and in particular in regional and urban geography in the

22 See Committee of the Regions, The Committee of the RegionsWhite Paper on Multilevel Governance, Brussels 2009. 23 Ibid. 24 See S. Piattoni, Multilevel Governance in EU: Does it Work?, Paper presented at the Globalisation and Politics: A Conference in Honor of Suzanne Berger, 8-9 May 2009. 25Ibid.



last fifteen years: we speak about network firms, network society, network

economy but also network cities, city-networks, reti urbane, rseaux de

villes. The paradigm of city-networks, complementary to the traditional one

of urban hierarchy, initially proposed by the Southern European tradition of

spatial analysis, has gained interest and support in other scientific and policy

contexts. As a matter of fact, the networked governance paradigm, advanced

most eloquently by the Anglo-Governance School26, the global cities

competition approach27, sociologists28, economic geographers29 and public

administration literature,30 represent the basic pillar underpinning the concept

of city-level Europeanization. Three types of transnational networking can be

distinguished here31: (1) bilateral twinning (sister cities); (2) transnational city

networks; (3) EU-funded projects. While our research gives space to city

twinning and EU-funded projects, the focus of this paper is mainly on the city

networks. The marked increase in transnational networking among

municipalities started in the late 1980s32. In the 1990s, newly founded

networks tended to become more specialized and Europeanized. In the first

phase of development in the 1990s most networks were characterized by

dynamic growth and strong differentiation but more recently many networks

have entered a different phase in their life cycle. According to Kern33, typical

26See R. Rhodes, Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexibility and Accountability, Open University, Buckingham 1997; ibid, The New Governance: Governing without Governance, Political Studies, 44(4), 1996, pp.652-67; A. Giddens, The Third Way, Polity, Cambridge 1998, pp.28-33; C.Hay and D. Richards, The Tangled Webs of Westminster and Whitehall: The Discourse, Strategy and Practice of Networking within the British Core Executive, Public Administration, 78 (1), 2000, pp.167-76; D.Marsh and M.Smith, Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach, Political Studies, 48 (1), 2000, pp.4-21. 27 See S.Sassen, The Global City, New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton Universtity Press, Princeton NJ 1991; ibid, City in the World Economy, Pine Force Press, Thousand Oaks 1994; ibid, Global Networks, Linked Cities, Routledge, New York-London 2002 28 See M. Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, London 1996. 29 See B Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State, Polity Press, Cambridge 2002. 30 See E. H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan, Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance Public Management, 2(2), 2000, 135-158; E. H. Klijn Rules as Institutional Context for Decision Making in Networks: The Approach to Postwar Housing Districts in Two Cities Administration and Society, 33(2), 2001, 133-164; G. Teisman and E. H. Klijn, Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme Public Administration Review, 62(2), 2002, pp. 197-205. 31 See Kern, op.cit.p.16. 32 See S. Ward and R. Williams, From hierarchy to networks? Sub-central government and EU urban environment policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 35 (3), 1997, pp. 439-464. 33 See Kern, op.cit. p.18.



of transnational city networks is that, first, members are autonomous and free

to join and leave. Second, such networks appear to be polycentric, horizontal,

and non-hierarchic. Third, they provide a good basis for decentralized

cooperation between members.

In accordance with the common experience and international practice, the

key features of a city networking are as follows34:

a. The voluntary character and autonomy of the members of a network.

b. Participation of partners (Local Governments, Non-Governmental

Organizations, Local Government Associations, Universities, Research

Institutes etc.) from different countries, having a distinct legal status

(public, private, association).

c. Commitment to common objective(s) (single-thematic or multi-

thematic network) and to the preparation of one or more initiatives.

d. Optional or legal consolidation of the network. In case it is not legally

consolidated, the network ought to be set up according to a Charter of

Commitments signed by each partner.

e. Observance of the rules of sound economic management and

transparency.

f. Respect of the principles of mutual understanding and toleration

among the partners and collective responsibility in the course of the

implementation of an initiative.

On this basis, the most important benefits that a local authority organization

or a country of its origin may gain from its participation in an international

network can be summed up as such35:

34 See A. Karvounis, D.Tzanakis et al., A Europe of Cities and Citizens. A Practical Guide to the International Partnerships of Local Authorities, Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Interior, Public Administration & Decentralisation and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens 2007, p.41. 35 Ibid., p.42.



a. Coordinated projection and enhancement of the aspirations of a local

authority or a local society.

b. Active engagement, effective representation, access and exercise of

pressure on European and international fora and organizations.

c. Multilateral and sustainable partnership with other overseas local

authorities or local government associations, with civil society

organizations and with the voluntary sector.

d. Developing initiatives or participation in EU funding programmes and

initiatives of third parties.

e. Acquisition of know-how, experience, technical, best practices, all

deemed necessary for improving the quality of services provided at the

local level.

f. Facilitation and access to employment since the networks define and

provide jobs to young trainees, to employed persons and professionals.

g. Valuable tool for national governments designed to cover specific

needs in sectoral policies (i.e. culture and education).

h. Provision of enhanced professional training with a view to developing

the professional skills of young people in various fields of policy.

i. Disseminating information and trends amongst professionals, including

national governments, concerning current growth and development in

various sectors of everyday life.

j. Re-energising a countrys international partnerships and relationships.

Finally, the setting up of a network of cities goes through various phases:

(a) Definition of the pursued aim (rationale)

Before resorting to anything else, the vision and the reason that render

necessary the setting up of an international network must be clearly

articulated. In other words, participants must fully understand what they wish

to achieve from the link in the short, medium and long term and an idea of

how this can happen.



(b) Ensuring support

Securing strong and broad support from local, regional, national and

international political, social and economic agencies constitutes a form of

guarantee, not only for the viability of the network, but also for the possibility

of implementing its pursued aims. This presupposes the communication of the

target and the individual aims of the network to every part of the community

that wishes to support or actively engage in the network.

(c) Finding partners

The search for partners for the creation of a network of cities requires an

investigative process, similar to that followed in the town-twinnings. However,

in the case of a network, it must be decided from the outset, whether and to

what extent the network will have a singlethematic or multithematic

character, an official or unofficial form. It would also be advisable, prior to

submitting any official proposal to a prospective partner, having previously

undertaken a series of joint actions and initiatives (for instance, the

formalisation of a twinning relationship, the joint organisation of a thematic

conference or other events with the participation of members coming from

local communities) which could serve as a guide for the deepening of

cooperation.

(d) Formalisation of the relationship (agreement)

Following the agreement over the character, the aims and the means of

achieving their objectives and aspirations, the partners sign a declaration of

principles in which the following elements are set out as follows:

a. the name of the network,

b. the reasons that led the partners to its creation,

c. the mission of the network,

d. the individual objectives and actions of the network (business plan),

e. the means for creating the network,



f. the seat of the network.

(e) Allocation of responsibilities and structure

After signing the declaration and the agreement on the planned activities, the

partners proceed to the election of a temporary managing committee. The

committee is constituted of the representatives of partner-cities who

undertake the following tasks:

Planning the network activities. Composing the networks internal regulation. Determining the networks financial resources. Elaborating the networks business plan. Developing a public and international relations system. Taking action for the network expansion. Constructing the networks web page.

The networks internal regulation/constitution set out the following:

The objectives of the network. The categories of membership (i.e. active, honorary, permanent,

temporary, associated members, fees per category of members,

termination of membership, obligations and rights of members).

The organizational structure of the network.

The international experience has shown that a network is usually governed by

the following bodies:

Annual General Assembly: The Assembly comprises only the registered members of the network. The role of the Assembly is to give guidance

on the general policy direction of the network. The Assembly is

competent for adopting any revisions of the constitution of the

network.



Executive Committee: The Committee is in charge of the networks administration and management. It decides on staff issues and the

budget of the network, the coordination of the activities of Sectoral

Committees, the appointment or the election of the Treasurer, the

General Secretary of the network, as well as the appointment of those

members representing the network in various international

organizations.

Chairman: The Chairman is elected by the General Assembly, having the mandate to represent the network at the international fora and

constitutes the executive body of the decisions of the Assembly and of

the Executive Committee.

General Secretary: The General Secretary is usually elected by the General Assembly or appointed directly by the Executive Committee

and is involved in the day-to-day activities of the network.

Treasurer: The Treasurer is responsible for the oversight of the financial strategy, accounting and management of the networks

finances.

The Coordinating Committee or Coordination Bureau provides the secretarial support of the network.

Sectoral Committees: They are set up and organized by the Executive Committee and the General Secretary and each one undertakes a

specific field of policy.

Committees charged with geographical competence: They are set up mainly in networks in which cities or associations come from different

geographical regions (European, Asiatic, American, African etc.).

(f) Communication of cooperation

One of the first tasks that the managing committee shall embark upon is

publicizing the cooperation to other cities or other networks of cities, which

possibly have experience in the implementation of similar actions at a local

level or wishing to participate in it. The construction of a website, the

production of a newsletter, the publication of articles in the national papers



and the coverage of events by the electronic national and international press

constitute the main means of publicizing the cooperation. So, a

comprehensive communication campaign concerning a network should have

the following characteristics:

It must be collective and well organized. It must be a multi-channel, using various media in order to cover any

activity.

It must target specific information at certain groups within community with a view to activating significant parts of the local society.

Above all, campaign means trust. Trust is the basic component of

contemporary politics that is why it is difficult to acquire it and preserve it.

People tend to become particularly cynical and feel estranged and isolated. In

order to win their confidence you need new and diverse ways of

communication and campaign. The old ways will not suffice. This means

passing from rhetoric to action. This also means greater involvement of the

public in the activities carried out by the network. And it certainly means

transparency in the management of public finance and frequent accountancy

of the elected officials.

In parallel, the managing Committee must see that the following are secured:

Staffing the bureau of public and international relations of the network with persons possessing past experience from contacts with overseas

delegations or persons who have cultivated good relations with the

local media.

Appointment of an elected official as representative of the network in its international relations.

Regular and timely production of press releases for the better promotion of the activities of the network: by Thursday morning for

the national Sunday newspapers and on Friday or Monday for the local



government weeklies. Most media prefer press releases to be e-mailed

as text.

Production of photographic material and posters mostly related to the activities of the network, put up at specific spots of the cities-partners

as well as in its website.

(g) Monitoring evaluation of activities

A basic precondition for the success of the whole undertaking is the

continuous follow up of activities, the review and the improvement, as

necessary, of the procedures. To this end, it would be useful if the following

actions were conducted on a regular basis:

Distribution of questionnaires and conduct of poll surveys in the local societies aimed at the registration of problems and detection of

volunteers.

Planning of actions on the basis of received answers. Continuous search for information and know-how with regard to each

activity.

Continuous updating and dissemination of information to the local communities with a view to raise their awareness.

Taking the above into account, what follows is the analysis of the Greek

participation in the EU multi-level governance system through the city

networks.

5. The participation of the Greek local government in EU multi-level

governance through the city networks



5.1 Methodology

In 2008 the Hellenic Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

conducted a survey on the contribution of the Greek local authorities to the

Intercultural Dialogue. A part of this survey concerned their international

multilateral partnerships (i.e. transnational city networks). The investigation

area was the then 1034 municipalities and communities (first level local

authorities) of the 13 regions of the Greek state (Attiki, Central Macedonia,

Crete, Eastern Macedonia & Thrace, Epirus, Ionian Islands, Mainland Greece,

Northern Aegean, Peloponnese, Southern Aegean, Thessaly and Western

Greece, Western Macedonia). Out of the 1034 first level local authorities, one

fourth of them answered (257).

The main goal of the survey was to identify the existence of these

partnerships so that there would be a better general understanding about the

degree of the participation of the Greek local authorities in the emerging EU

multi-level governance system. This paper goes further and adopts a more

pragmatic approach, trying to answer some more specific questions such as:

Which are the most favourite transnational city-networks of which Greek cities have become members the last few years?

How many towns are members of these networks? Which regions host the most transnationally networked cities?

Furthermore, the analysis will try to reach the following sub-goals:

a. Provision of an overview of city-networks;

b. to identify typologies of activities carried out;

c. classification of city-networks according to the geographical scope and the

field of action;

d. to highlight the most active cities according to the number of networks

they belong to.



The steps followed in the analysis are the following:

a) Gathering of information through various sources (questionnaires, internet,

seminars, contact with municipal officers).

b) Systematisation of the information gathered.

c) Evaluation of the information retrieved through the creation of graphs and

tables.

5.2 Key findings

5.2.1 The profile of the city networks

The list of city networks found comprises 48 structures, active in different

sectors. In order to give some useful remarks we thought it could be of some

help grouping them according to the action field in which they occur. In order

to properly read the tables and graphs presented in the paper, it has to be

underlined that dividing the networks in groups, according to the area in

which they are actually active, is not an easy task to fulfill. Many of them

seem not to concentrate just on one specific field. Many are promoting

initiatives, which indeed space out, touching two or even three different

sectors. Culture seems to attract more resources from the municipalities

considered: 15 networks out of 48 are active in this field.

Figures referring to other fields of action:

a) Environment and energy: 7 networks.

b) Social policies: 7 networks.

c) (Sustainable) economic development: 5 networks.

d) IT and Innovation: 4 networks.

e) Intercultural Dialogue: 3 networks.

f) Civil Protection: 2 networks.



g) Urban development: 2 networks.

h) Health/consumer policy: 1 network.

i) Transport and mobility: 1 network.

j) Tourism: 1 network.

Fig.1

Number of Networks per Sector

15

7 7

54

32 2

1 1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Cultu

re

Envir

onme

nt an

d ene

rgy

Socia

l poli

cies

(Sus

taina

ble) e

cono

mic d

evelo

pmen

t

IT an

d Inn

ovati

on

Interc

ultura

l Dial

ogue

Urba

n dev

elopm

ent

Civil P

rotec

tion

Healt

h/con

sume

r poli

cy

Trans

port a

nd m

obility

Touri

sm

Sectors

Num

ber o

f Net

wor

ks

These data show us that cities do feel a need to focus their efforts through

structures able to organise common resources, using them more effectively.

Culture seems to attract more attention when looking at the numbers

concerning the sectors listed above. The surprise is the scarce attention paid

to issues in which Greece faces great competition. Apart from the city of

Athens, no other Greek city has taken seriously the issue of city-branding.

One could suspect that tourism and culture go hand in hand within local

agenda but it seems that this is not the case for Greek municipalities. In

contrast, environment and social policies figure prominently among the



priorities of the investigated local authorities. After all, the city network that

has attracted the attention of most of the local authorities is the Covenant of

Mayors (49 out of the examined 112 local authorities have contracted so far).

Furthermore, the vast majority of the partnerships investigated (73%) tend to

deal with just one main issue at a time. 35 out of the 48 networks are single-

thematic networks. Most of the organisations seem to be active in a specific

field. The remaining 27% (i.e. 13 networks) operate according to a multi-level

approach in different fields (see Fig.2).

Fig.2

Single-thematic Vs Cross-Sectoral City Networks

73%

27%

SINGLE-THEMATICNETWORKSCROSS SECTORALNETWORKS



In view of the new territorial reform (Kallikratis Programme)36 that the

Greek government has already put forward, there is an urgent need for a

future embracing attitude for all the new local authorities to realise how much

it would be necessary to not just having an improvement of the infrastructure

and effective physical planning. It would also be better to shape relationships

aiming at institutional integration (which are related to the development of

local administrative means and the capability of the local institutions to

interact with the inter-regional and international ones in the implementation

of strategic development tools). The model of territorial networks indicates

that the process of socio-economic development is a result of tight interaction

between different processes: a) the process of local networking, b) the

process of interregional and international networking, c) the dynamics of

productivity or the adoption of innovation, d) the accumulation of the local

experiences as well as of the organisational know-how and e) the process of

birth, growth and expansion of alliances and coalitions37. For instance, to

answer the question whether Greek cities are more interested in being part of

structures of more global scope or not, the following graph in Fig. 3 could be

useful.

Fig.3

36 The main element to Kallikratis Programme (L. 3852/2010) is that from 1st of January 2011 the 50 self-governed prefectures will give way to 13 larger self-governed regions. Similarly, 1,034 municipalities will be whittled down to 325. 37 See L.S.Rizzo, City Networks in the Euroregion, Paper presented at the EURA Conference Urban and Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial Government, Turin 18-20 April 2002, p.19.



Networks: Area of Intervention

12

25

1

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

World Europe Euroregion Inter-regional

As one may see above, among the 48 organisations taken under

consideration, the vast majority operate on a European level. The figures in

the table suggest that cities seem to be more interested in being members of

coalitions active in Europe. Whilst individually different, they share modern-

day concerns about issues such as cultural heritage, economy, health, major

environmental and social issues, intercultural dialogue and transport

contemporary in Europe. European networks provide most likely the needed

practical and programmatic support to policies or strategies the towns aim at

implementing

Documents

TheAthensID 9th Issue