Wolfgang Knapp ILS, Dortmund

1. Wolfgang Knapp ILS, Dortmund Urban Regional Guidance and Management Structures: a precondition for the competitiveness of metropolitan regions

2. A serious problem: existing territorial administrative- and steering-structures (typically fragmented among a range of levels and agencies) actual/potential functional city regions (constituted through socio-economic practices; with unstable boundaries that change with changing social practices)

3. The key challenge: ... to create a quasi-regional administrative ‘body’that enables regional actors to insti- tutionalize and consolidate management-, development- and marketing- activities on the actual (and potential) functional city-regional scale

4. Building new regionalinstitutional capacity: • Mobilisation, generating the impetus and power to create new relations and alliances, and develop new policy agendas • Creating new arenas, rules of engagement and modes of practice (institutional design) • ‘Mainstreaming’ in some form, in which the new relations and networks, and the new agendas become normalized and embedded in the flow of governance activity (Patsey Healey)

5. Organising capacities for metropolitan regions: an "organising capacity" is the capacity to involve all relevant stakeholders in order to develop collectively new ideas and policies, which support a sustainable development in metropolitan regions (Leo van den Berg et al.)

6. Leadership Political support Societal support spatio-economic conditions Vision & Strategy Private Sector Public Sector Performance

7. More city-regional co-operation and co-ordinationembedded in specific contexts • political-administrative structures on the national scale(more centralized states like France, UK and Ireland versus federal-states like Germany with strong local self-govern- ment) • political-administrative structures on the local scale(monocentric city-regions with an intra-urban polycentricity especially at the scale of the core-city versus inter-urban polycentric configurations without a clear leading city) • specific actor and power constellations, structures of interest and potential for compromise under the given circumstances (initiators and proponents versus opponents and critics)

8. Proponents and Opponents of city-regional co-operation / co-ordination: Proponents Opponents • central government/ federal government(fear creating a potential within the state which would change the existing geography of power) • core cities(in periods of economic prosperity) • suburban governments / outlying communities(fear losing power, influence, func- tions and revenues) • central government/ federal government(interested in modernisising administrative structures in metropolitan areas / expect to permit greater control over the local level) • core cities(in periods of losing economic capacity, population, and revenues)

9. Proponents and Opponents of city-regional co-operation / co-ordination: Proponents Opponents • Industrie and its actors(interested in simplifying political and administrative structures, and specific location systems) • Professionally involved actors(with specific objectives and inte- rests on new sales and advertising markets) • Middle-tier government and existing associations of local authorities(fear a loss of competencies and power especially through the establishment of new territorial authorities) • Experts(critisize new structures as democrati- cally deficient, too narrow in scope or too complex)

10. Only a few Types of city-regional co-operative Approaches • Informal or privately organised(fora, networks, PPPs., Ltds...) • Single function or single project institutionalised co- operation between a few entities(e. g. special-purpose organisational units in Germany; ‘syndicats intercommunaux à vocation unique’ in France) • Multisectoral co-operation between numerous authorities in the form of an association, covering various activities and services (e. g., obligatory multi-purpose associations in Germany;‘Communautés de villes’, ‘Communautés Urbaines’ in France; Regional Development Agencies) • (Sub-) Regional associations with elected or delegated members (e. g. Ile-de-France Région; Grater London Authority, Kommunalver- band Ruhr, Dublin Regional Authority)

11. On the hard way to city-regional organizing capacities: - a photo 2001 - London RheinRuhr Paris ? Dublin ? ? 1990

12. European Metropolitan Region RheinRuhr‘ –a ‘designer region’ without regional government but new regional associationalism in a persistent context of administrative and institutional fragmentation

13. London Region –no true regionalisation recognising the FUR, but a number of new regional institutions increasing the complexity of governance, with potential for competition and a new regional territoriality resulting in new boundaries dissecting the South East(ern) region and separating London with its Greater London Authority and high profile mayor from its hinterland

14. Dublin Region –a ‚landscape‘ of strong centralised local government, two regional authorities, and a range of organisations and semi-autonomous agencies of the central government looking for... new region - wide institutional arrangements

15. Paris Region – an advanced but unstable system of regional governance(built on increased fragmentation of political and economic players and a restructuring of their respective roles and relations)