TY - JOUR
T1 - Towards political cohesion in metropolitan areas
T2 - an overview of governance models
AU - Andersen, Hans Thor
AU - Damurski, Lukasz
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 (Hans Thor Andersen and Łukasz Damurski)
PY - 2022/6/1
Y1 - 2022/6/1
N2 - As cities grew beyond their administrative borders, the demand for metropolitan governance appeared. The last 50 years proved that there is no one, universal model of metropolitan governance as urban regions are very different all around the world. However, it seems quite obvious that if metropoles are to be the forefront of development, they need to provide a widely defined cohesion within their subordinate territories. Metropolitan political cohesion may be defined as a collaborative public governance which offers tailored managerial solutions for enhancing development based on the subsidiarity principle and the place‐based approach. Drawing on the lessons from major cities in North America and Europe: Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Hannover, London, Wrocław and Toronto the paper intends to dive into a few, selected cases of metropolitan government and the causes behind their failure and reappearance. How have various governments met the cardinal question of metropoles: to provide a resilient match between the functional urban region and the administrative structure? The answer to this question is not straightforward. Metropolitan authorities all over the world manage exceptionally complex systems, where the diversity of actors, complexity of relations and interdependences across an extended, fragmented and dynamic metropolitan region restrain governability. However some general trends in metropolitan governance may be outlined, regarding the recent history, main types of governance and legitimacy of metropolitan administration.
AB - As cities grew beyond their administrative borders, the demand for metropolitan governance appeared. The last 50 years proved that there is no one, universal model of metropolitan governance as urban regions are very different all around the world. However, it seems quite obvious that if metropoles are to be the forefront of development, they need to provide a widely defined cohesion within their subordinate territories. Metropolitan political cohesion may be defined as a collaborative public governance which offers tailored managerial solutions for enhancing development based on the subsidiarity principle and the place‐based approach. Drawing on the lessons from major cities in North America and Europe: Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Hannover, London, Wrocław and Toronto the paper intends to dive into a few, selected cases of metropolitan government and the causes behind their failure and reappearance. How have various governments met the cardinal question of metropoles: to provide a resilient match between the functional urban region and the administrative structure? The answer to this question is not straightforward. Metropolitan authorities all over the world manage exceptionally complex systems, where the diversity of actors, complexity of relations and interdependences across an extended, fragmented and dynamic metropolitan region restrain governability. However some general trends in metropolitan governance may be outlined, regarding the recent history, main types of governance and legitimacy of metropolitan administration.
KW - Governance
KW - Metropolis
KW - Metropolitan governance
KW - Political cohesion
KW - Territorial cohesion
KW - Governance
KW - Metropolis
KW - Metropolitan governance
KW - Political cohesion
KW - Territorial cohesion
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130949998&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.12775/bgss-2022-0012
DO - 10.12775/bgss-2022-0012
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85130949998
SN - 1732-4254
SP - 43
EP - 62
JO - Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series
JF - Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series
IS - 56
ER -