Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level
Governance: Governing Climate Change
through Transnational Municipal Networks*
KRISTINE KERN
Wageningen University, The Netherlands
HARRIET BULKELEY
Durham University
Abstract
This article focuses on a variant of multi-level governance and Europeanization, i.e.
the transnational networking of local authorities. Focusing on local climate change
policy, the article examines how transnational municipal networks (TMNs) govern in
the context of multi-level European governance. We find that TMNs are networks of
pioneers for pioneers.
Introduction
In recent years, much has been made of the growing ‘multi-level’ and
‘network’ character of European governance. In this article we focus on one
variant of such governing processes, the transnational networking of local
authorities. Transnational municipal networks (TMNs) are a particularly
interesting subject of investigation because they have a long tradition dating
back to the 13th century in the High Middle Ages (e.g. the Hanseatic League)
and are an increasingly prominent feature of European governance (Ewen and
Hebbert, 2007). TMNs have three defining characteristics. First, member
cities are autonomous and free to join or leave. Second, because they appear
* We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Anglo-German Foundation. We thank the
anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on a previous version of this article and Stefan Niederhafner,
Sandra Rechlin and Jost Wagner for research assistance. Please note that the views expressed in this report
are exclusively those of the authors.
JCMS 2009 Volume 47. Number 2. pp. 309–332
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA
to be non-hierarchical, horizontal and polycentric, such networks are often
characterized as a form of self-governance. Third, decisions taken within the
network are directly implemented by its members. In this respect TMNs differ
considerably from traditional associations or transnational NGOs which concentrate
on lobbying and mobilization. While the role of local authorities in
European integration has been discussed more frequently in acknowledgement
of the growing multi-level character of European governance (John,
2000; Le Galès, 2002), the emergence of TMNs has been widely neglected.
Most studies which mention such networks do not focus on them (John, 2000,
p. 888; Marshall, 2005, pp. 680–1), but tend to consider them solely in terms
of their role as lobbying agencies (Bennington and Harvey, 1998; Ward and
Williams, 1997, p. 440),1
and pay little attention to their internal dynamics.
This article takes a different perspective. We examine how networks
govern in the context of multi-level European governance under the conditions
of Europeanization and assess the factors which determine their governing
capacity. Do TMNs make a difference at European, national and local
level? Addressing such issues involves engaging with the theories of both
Europeanization and network governance. We argue that the development of
TMNs in Europe is part of a wider process of Europeanization. In order to
understand the nature and function of TMNs, we suggest that it is necessary
to go beyond current network theories and to engage more explicitly with the
issue of what networks do and how they achieve outcomes. To examine these
issues in depth, we concentrate on a specific type of TMN, i.e. those that focus
on climate protection – the Climate Alliance, Cities for Climate Protection
and Energie-Cités. While some of the features of these networks are distinctive,
we suggest that, due to the simultaneous emergence of a range of similar
networks in different policy areas and the links to wider dynamics of Europeanization,
the processes underlying the development and operation of these
networks have a more general applicability (Kern, 2001; Keiner and Kim,
2007; Kern and Löffelsend, 2008; Heinelt and Niederhafner, 2008).
In addition to conducting interviews with representatives of these networks
and carrying out analysis of them, the research project also included
case studies on three selected local authorities in the UK (Kirklees, Leicester
and Southampton) and three in Germany (Frankfurt am Main, Heidelberg and
Munich). These local authorities can be considered as ‘leaders’ in terms of
their development regarding local climate change strategies (Bulkeley and
Kern, 2006); each of them has been a member of multiple climate protection
networks over the past decade.
1
Research on the changing role of cities and towns within European multi-level governance and the
emergence of TMNs also tends to concentrate on a single policy area, namely the EU’s Structural Funds
(John, 2000; Schultze, 2003; Goldsmith, 2003; Marshall, 2005).
310 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Our study reveals that several factors are particularly significant in shaping
the internal and external governing capacities of these networks. Based on
the analysis of the various forms of governing capacities and how they are
interrelated, fundamental differences between active and passive network
members become evident because passive member cities are difficult to reach
via the networks. Although our findings suggest that TMNs are a new and
emerging form of Europeanization, they appear to be primarily networks of
pioneers for pioneers.
Section I of the article focuses on the changing role of cities in European
multi-level governance and how they are affected by Europeanization. The
structures and functions of TMNs in Europe and the climate change case
studies are described in the second section. Section III discusses different
forms of governing climate change through TMNs. Based on a comparison of
the three networks, we analyse the different forms of internal governing
capacities as well as the different means by which TMNs operate within the
context of multi-level governance. In conclusion, we discuss the factors that
appear to play a decisive role in the governing capacities of TMNs and
consider the implications for our understanding of the dual process of multilevel
governance and Europeanization.
I. Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance
The emergence of TMNs in Europe both reflects and constitutes two phenomena:
the multi-level nature of European governance and the dynamics of
Europeanization. To address first the issue of multi-level governance, as many
commentators have noted, the EU has developed into a system with multiple
levels or spheres of governance, including European, national and subnational
policy arenas (Hooghe and Marks, 2003; Bache and Flinders, 2004;
Bache, 2008). The concept of multi-level governance can be read in a narrow
way as shifting competencies between local, national and supranational governmental
institutions, or it can take into account not only traditional methods
of public regulation by the state, but also the entire range of actions and
institutions which provide order (including public–private partnerships, nonstate
actors and so on). Authority has not simply shifted upwards to European
institutions, it has become dispersed across multiple territorial levels and
among a variety of private and public actors (Rosamond, 2007). This includes
the transfer of authority from the national to the sub-national level (Pierre
and Peters, 2000, p. 77) because in many European countries government
has been increasingly decentralized and local competencies expanded. In
the resulting governance landscape, boundaries between different arenas of
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 311
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
politics have been blurred to the point of insignificance because many policy
actors are able to become active at different levels and pursue multi-level
strategies such as venue shopping (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Rosamond,
2007, p. 129; Repetto, 2006; Birkland, 2007, pp. 69–70).2
TMNs have
adapted to the opportunity structure provided by the European Union’s multilevel
system, which provides access to key decision-makers and resources
(Ladrech, 2005, p. 322).
The debate on Europeanization (Olsen, 2002; Featherstone and Radaelli,
2003; Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, 2005; Radaelli, 2006; Börzel and
Risse, 2007; Graziano and Vink, 2007; Bache, 2008) complements the analysis
of the European multi-level system by providing a sense of the means by
which multi-level governance is accomplished (Pollack, 2005, p. 384). Europeanization
encompasses not only the domestic impact of European-level
institutions but also the impact of the EU Member States’ actions on EU
institutions. These top-down and bottom-up dynamics (Ladrech, 2005, p.
319) are not limited to the relationship between the EU and its Member
States: these dynamics are also relevant to the relations between EU institutions
and local authorities (Schultze, 2003; Marshall, 2005, p. 671; Marshall,
2008). First, the EU’s legal and financial instruments have an impact on local
authorities (top-down vertical Europeanization). A prominent example of this
is environmental and sustainable development policy because EU decisionmaking
has become far more important than domestic policy-making in this
policy area. Second, local authorities have begun to influence EU decisionmaking
not only indirectly by lobbying at the national level through their
national associations but also directly at the European level (bottom-up
vertical Europeanization) (Rechlin, 2004; Heinelt and Niederhafner, 2008).
Third, European cities and towns are becoming more Europeanized because
they co-operate transnationally, exchange experiences and jointly develop
innovative solutions for problems with which they are similarly confronted
(horizontal Europeanization).
While associations of municipalities have become increasingly Europeanized
since the 1950s – witness the founding of the Council of European
Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) in 1951 – since the mid-1980s numerous
new organizations (such as Eurocities), which are based on the direct
membership of cities rather than the representation of national associations,
have supplemented the CEMR. This development can be explained by the fact
that there were almost no (direct) impacts of European legislation on subnational
governments before the Single European Act of 1986. This situation
2
This is the case, at least, for most first-pillar issues. However, the role of the nation-states remains strong
in the second and third pillars.
312 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
had changed fundamentally by the early 1990s and there is now almost no
area of local or regional policy which is not affected by European regulation
(John, 2000, p. 879; Woll, 2006, p. 458).
TMNs become Europeanized because they adapt their organizational
structures to EU decision-making structures. For example, TMNs open
offices in Brussels (Ercole et al., 1997, p. 231; Goldsmith, 2003, p. 124;
Kassim, 2005, p. 307), co-operate with each other to strengthen their influence
and solicit EU funding. At the same time, EU institutions – in particular
the European Commission – have become progressively more dependent on
interest groups, using them as external sources of information and expert
advice, and thus facilitating their access to European institutions (Goldsmith,
2003, p. 121; Eising, 2004; Heinelt and Niederhafner, 2008). Moreover
TMNs can help the Commission to implement EU policies because they do
not limit their activities to the aggregation and pursuit of their constituents’
interests but also stimulate the exchange of best practice and other experiences
between cities, and even develop their own standards which they
require their member cities to implement accordingly.
TMNs are therefore a potentially important constituent of both the structure
of European multi-level governance and its dynamics. However, the
nature and extent of the significance of TMNs within the EU system depends
to a large part on whether and how such networks are engaged in governing
processes. In order to analyse how and with what effect TMNs govern,
it is necessary to consider how such processes could be conceptualized. In
previous accounts TMNs have been variously labelled as intergovernmental
(Rhodes, 1997; Ward and Williams, 1997), inter-urban (Leitner and
Sheppard, 2002) or simply transnational (Bennington and Harvey, 1998)
networks. In all cases explicit or implicit reference is made to the concept of
policy networks as providing a framework for analysis (Ward and Williams,
1997, pp. 442, 460).
We suggest, however, that a policy network approach provides an inadequate
framework for analysing the nature, role and impact of TMNs for three
reasons. First, whereas TMNs are comprised of municipalities and a secretariat,
policy networks usually consist of a heterogeneous mix of actors
(Pattberg, 2007; Khagram and Ali, 2008). Second, in the main, policy networks
are considered to be linked by resource interdependencies; while
resources certainly provide some of the glue which holds TMNs together,
network relations are characterized more by cognitive than bargaining processes
(Börzel, 1998). Finally, in the literature on policy networks there is
some confusion as to what networks actually do, with emphasis usually
placed on trying to influence the behaviour of a (single) central state actor,
whereas TMNs undertake a variety of governing activities, including forms of
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 313
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
self-governing and external influence. Other network concepts, which have
been employed in the analysis of the governance of global environmental
issues, also seem inadequate for the task of assessing TMNs (Betsill and
Bulkeley, 2004) because the latter cannot be labelled as transnational advocacy
coalitions (Keck and Sikkink, 1998) or expert epistemic communities
(Haas et al., 1993). Our contention is, therefore, that in order to understand
TMNs as part of the multi-level European governance we need to move
beyond existing models and engage more explicitly with what networks do
and how they achieve their goals. First, however, we provide further detail on
the structure of TMNs in Europe and introduce our empirical case studies.
II. Transnational Municipal Networks in Europe
As indicated above, the marked increase in transnational networking among
municipalities started in the late 1980s (Ward and Williams, 1997, p. 454).
For example, Eurocities represents around 120 large cities in over 30 European
countries; in the Baltic Sea Region, the Union of the Baltic Cities has a
current membership of around 100 cities in all ten countries surrounding the
Baltic Sea; the Alliance in the Alps is a network comprising about 250 local
authorities and covering the entire Alpine region from France to Slovenia.
Most of these networks concentrate on two goals: they represent the interests
of their members, at European level in particular, and they facilitate the
exchange of experience and transnational learning among their constituents.
In the 1990s, European TMNs were characterized by dynamic growth and
strong differentiation. More recently many networks have entered a different
phase in their life cycle. There are some signs of stagnation, but the membership
of most networks has stabilized. In addition to these general trends,
TMNs, such as Eurocities and the Union of the Baltic Cities, share specific
structural and functional similarities, albeit with some marked differences.
The Structures and Functions of Transnational Municipal Networks
Three groups of actors can be identified in most TMNs: (1) an international
secretariat and national/sectoral co-ordinators; (2) a Presidency, Board and
General Assembly; and (3) member cities (see Figure 1). The secretariat,
which consists of a secretary or managing director and his or her staff,
assumes the functions related to the internal governing of the network, including
day-to-day routines, but is also in charge of external relations. One trend
in the development of networks has been the formation of sub-networks,
which specialize in a specific territory (usually that of a nation-state) or a
specific policy area. National co-ordination offices have been established in
314 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
some networks, while in others, the organizational structure is mainly based
on policy co-ordination offices. Furthermore, some project-oriented subnetworks
(usually with only a limited number of participating cities), which
are supported by special EU funding, have emerged within most networks.
The second common structural feature of TMNs is that they are headed
by (political) boards consisting of a president, various vice-presidents and
additional board members. These bodies are responsible for general decisionmaking
between General Assembly meetings. Board members represent their
city and are directly involved in local politics and policy-making. Board
members are usually powerful representatives (for example a mayor or vicemayor)
of the most active cities who push innovative approaches at local
level. They share a common interest in transnational learning and the
exchange of experience across national borders. Furthermore, board members
represent the network externally, for example, at international conferences,
and may even engage in direct lobbying, such as in the decision-making
processes of the European Commission or the European Parliament.
The third feature of TMNs is their member cities. Joining a TMN is seen
to have advantages for cities, ranging from the exchange of experience to
access to funding and the development of direct links between the local and
Figure 1: Structure of Transnational Municipal Networks
Source: Authors’ own data.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 315
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
the European levels. The representatives of the most active cities, which
are often founding members of the network, participate in meetings of the
General Assembly, contact the secretariat relatively frequently and build the
necessary bridges between the relevant local policy networks and the secretariat
and/or board. Policy changes on the ground depend on the existence of
such network brokers or policy entrepreneurs (Mintrom, 2000; Kingdon,
2003, p. 279; Zahariadis, 2003) who connect the TMNs with the local policy
network. In large networks like the Climate Alliance, the majority of the
member cities are relatively passive. Membership in this case may be only
symbolic – for instance, a city may have joined the network only after or
because neighbouring cities, similar cities or sister cities did so.
Despite their structural similarities the functional specialization of these
organizations can differ considerably. While peak associations like the CEMR
or networks like Eurocities or the Union of the Baltic Cities cover all important
local authority functions, other networks restrict their activities to a
specific policy field. In recent years TMNs have become more specialized.
One major reason why specialized municipal networks form is that many
cities now face similar problems, and the creation of institutions which
facilitate transnational policy learning becomes an important strategy in
developing and disseminating new policy concepts (Kern, 2001).
Transnational Municipal Networks in the Area of Climate Change
Three networks have emerged in the area of climate change policy in Europe
since the early 1990s: the Climate Alliance, Cities for Climate Protection and
Energie-Cités. Almost 1,400 European cities and towns, including many
capital cities, such as Amsterdam, Rome, Stockholm and Berlin, have joined
at least one of these networks.3
Both striking similarities and pronounced
differences emerge from a comparison of the three transnational networks.
First, all three networks were created in the early 1990s shortly before the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which put climate protection policy on the global,
European and national political agendas. Whereas all three networks have
climate protection policy as their respective raisons d’être, each network was
3
With around 1,100 full members in 17 European countries, the Climate Alliance, whose European
headquarters are located in Frankfurt am Main, is by far the largest of these networks. Cities for Climate
Protection (CCP) is an ICLEI initiative – a global TMN co-ordinated on a regional basis. ICLEI was
founded as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives in 1990; today it is known as
Local Governments for Sustainability. The ICLEI-Europe headquarters and CCP-Europe are based in
Freiburg, Germany. CCP-Europe comprises about 120 members in 16 European countries. Energie-Cités
has over 160 individual members in 25 European countries and has its headquarters in Besançon, France.
It has run its own office in Brussels for several years and has been sharing it with the Climate Alliance since
2007 (all data for 2008).
316 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
established and developed on the basis of considerably different underlying
reasons: Energie-Cités stemmed from a project funded by the EU Commission;
the Climate Alliance developed bottom-up and still displays the traits of
an NGO; and Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) is a global city network
with a European branch, CCP-Europe (Bennington and Harvey, 1998,
p. 159).
Second, the general goals of the networks are almost identical. The networks
seek voluntary commitments from municipalities for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, they try to enhance local capacities for addressing
climate change, they promote the exchange of experience and transfer of
know-how among their member cities and they represent the interests of their
constituents at national, supranational and international level. The methods
used by each network differ from those used by the others, with the differences
between the Climate Alliance and the Cities for Climate Protection
being most striking.
Third, after very dynamic phases of growth it appears that all three networks
have stabilized (Straßheim and Oppen, 2006). There are some differences
between the networks regarding their membership structure. The
Climate Alliance created the status of associated members, which are mainly
regions and NGOs; Energie-Cités has energy agencies and public utilities
among its membership; and Cities for Climate Protection consists exclusively
of municipalities. With regard to the size of the cities involved in the networks,
the members of the Climate Alliance include not only large metropolitan
areas but also many small and medium-sized towns and cities.
Fourth, in terms of the presence of the networks in different countries, a
clear territorial pattern has emerged (see Figure 2). Language appears to be a
crucial issue here: for example, the Climate Alliance faces serious problems
in expanding to certain countries (such as the UK or France) because the
network’s main working language is German. Although the Climate Alliance
is by far the largest TMN in the area of climate protection in Europe, most of
its member cities are located in continental Europe (Germany, Austria and
the Netherlands). Most of the members of Cities for Climate Protection, an
English-speaking network, are located in Finland and the UK where they run
national campaigns. Energie-Cités, which has chosen English and French as
working languages, has its stronghold in France. Since it has become difficult
to find new members in the old Member States of the European Union, all
three networks have begun to orient their activities towards central and
eastern Europe where potential member cities are easier to find. This development
can also be regarded as a dimension of Europeanization (Olsen, 2002;
Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, 2005) as TMNs have begun to adapt to EU
enlargement by extending their activities to the new EU Member States.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 317
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Figure 2: Members of Transnational Municipal Networks in the Area of Climate
Change Policy in Europe
Source: Authors’ own data.
318 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fifth, all three networks have a decentralized organizational structure. The
Cities for Climate Protection conduct national campaigns (in the UK, Finland
and Italy), the Climate Alliance has national co-ordination offices (e.g. in
Italy, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) and Energie-Cités has established
relatively independent national sub-networks (in France, Bulgaria,
Romania, Poland and the Ukraine). Within such structures, TMNs face the
challenge that they cannot use hierarchical authority to achieve the overall
network goals. Instead they must develop new modes of governing and it is to
these issues that we shall now turn.
III. Governing Climate Change through Transnational
Municipal Networks
Based on our empirical case studies, we find that TMNs have developed
forms of governing, through which they seek to influence both the nature of
the debate concerning climate protection and actions focused on this objective.
First, TMNs engage in various strategies of internal governing. Second,
in order to operate efficiently within a multi-level governance context (see
Figure 3), TMNs adopt various approaches of external governing, namely
influence, interdependence and intermediation. These forms of internal and
external governing are not unique features of the type of networks analysed
here in more detail (Triantafillou, 2007). They are also characteristic of other
TMNs, for example Eurocities and the Union of the Baltic Cities (Kern, 2001;
Joas et al., 2007).
Internal Governing: From Information Dissemination to Certification?
Internal (intraorganizational) governing is a form of self-governance, which
aims to recruit new members, stabilize the network and achieve network goals
through member cities. In the absence of the usual forms of authority afforded
to governmental actors in hierarchical relations of power – i.e. regulation,
sanction and force – networks rely on other forms of authority and persuasion.
The secretariat, along with leading cities in the network, plays a critical
role in orchestrating and enforcing mechanisms of internal governing. Based
on our analysis of climate protection networks in Europe, we would suggest
that there are three core strategies deployed for internal governing: (1) information
and communication; (2) project funding and co-operation; and (3)
recognition, benchmarking and certification.
Strategies of information and communication are the bread and butter of
TMNs. Networks are frequently established for the explicit purpose of creating
and sharing ‘best’or ‘good’practice, and municipalities indicate that the
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 319
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
opportunity to learn about ‘what works’ from other places is a key motivation
for their participation in networks. For example, Energie-Cités stated that
it acts as a conduit for the flow of information and examples through
their online good-practice database, the dissemination of good-practice
CD-ROMs, the circulation of a newsletter and the organization of ‘study
tours’ where groups of local officials and politicians can arrange to visit a
city in Europe to learn at first hand how local energy policies were created
(Energie-Cités, 2007). CCP-Europe produces good-practice case studies and
the Climate Alliance has pursued a similar strategy, developing a best practice
database and disseminating information on best practice which is published
regularly in its newsletter (‘project of the month’).
There are, however, two challenges confronting networks which employ
such strategies for internal governing. First, in the selection and production
of good- or best-practice models, networks go to different lengths to develop
case studies and examples, from simply gathering evidence and ideas from
members and other sources to proactively developing good practices with
municipalities. This laissez-faire approach ensures that a variety of examples
Figure 3: Governing Capacities of Transnational Municipal Networks
Source: Authors’ own data.
320 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
are available and that the evidence comes from the bottom up, but it provides
little guarantee of the quality, replicability and transferability of such
examples. The resulting models may thus be ‘sanitized’; members of municipalities
spoke frequently of the need to get behind the official storylines of
best practice in order to find the real story if any form of implementation was
to follow (Bulkeley, 2006). The second challenge posed by the use of strategies
of information and communication for internal governing lies precisely
in the process of uptake. As the networks have recognized, while municipalities
are keen to be involved in the production of best practice, there is less
evidence that best practice is actually taken up and acted on in a direct sense.
Instead, it is often merely used as a source of inspiration or device for
persuading others of the merits and potential of acting locally.
A more direct approach to internal governing used by the networks
involves project funding and co-operation. Transnational projects are seen by
the networks as a crucial means by which to improve municipal performance
with respect to climate protection. Networks seek to facilitate this process
either by providing means through which members can contact each other in
order to bid jointly for (usually EU) project funding, or by submitting bids
themselves together with their constituent municipalities. For example, three
German cities, Stuttgart, Bremen and Dresden, have been involved through
CCP-Europe in a project to examine the hidden subsidies given to motorized
private transport through local authority spending (CCP-Europe, 2004).
Recent projects which Energie-Cités have been involved in include, for
example, BELIEF (Building in Europe Local Intelligent Energy Forums)
which is co-financed by the European Commission under the Intelligent
Energy Europe programme. EU-funded projects, such as the co-ordination
and evaluation of the European Mobility Week (ClimateAlliance, 2007), have
become increasingly important for the Climate Alliance.
This strategy of internal governing works in two ways: first, it serves to tie
member municipalities more closely together through day-to-day dealings on
projects and to enhance these cities’ connection to the network upon which
they are reliant for access to resources to carry out particular projects. Second,
this kind of governing strategy assists networks in achieving their goals on the
ground by providing additional financial resources to enable local action,
which is not (necessarily) reliant on acquiring local resources and accessing
local networks. However, it is also a strategy which has limited effect across
the network. The process of applying for and delivering such projects is
resource-intensive and therefore primarily attracts the most active and established
members of TMNs. To a certain extent, rather than being a strategy of
engaging the membership as a whole, a project-based strategy of internal
governing serves to further cement the core of the network.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 321
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, benchmarking and certification entail more interventionist
approaches to internal governing which may be able to reach beyond the
network core. Strategies of recognition involve offering various types of
rewards for performance, including the listing of a municipality as an
example of good practice or creation of a competition for specific awards. The
Climate Alliance has developed the ‘Climate Star’ award for municipalities
across Europe and, in 2004, of a total of 203 entries of local authorities
from 17 countries, 22 municipalities received recognition for their efforts in
the area of renewable energy (Climate Alliance, 2005, p. 27). While such
schemes are clearly important to both the networks and their members, only
a limited number of municipalities can be recognized and this again tends to
offer incentives to already active cities rather than affecting the behaviour of
the more passive cities. Benchmarking is another performance-based strategy
but one which has clearly defined standards and which seeks to involve all
network participants. From its inception the CCP network has relied on a
series of benchmarks or milestones of municipal progress (Bulkeley and
Betsill, 2003). The milestone approach involves conducting an emissions
inventory, setting an emissions reduction target, formulating an action plan,
implementing policies and monitoring progress. The Climate Alliance has
developed an alternative approach. Its climate protection methodology for
monitoring progress consists of an action list referred to as the ‘10 Steps’,
the ‘Catalogue of Measures’ and the ‘Climate Alliance Indicators’. Such
approaches can offer a useful means by which the secretariat and members
can gauge improvement and on the basis of which climate protection policy
development can be standardized and implemented locally. More interventionist
approaches such as certification have been developed and tested at
national level, for example, in Switzerland. Over 160 Swiss municipalities
have been certified by an independent commission and have been awarded
the label ‘Energiestadt Schweiz’ (Swiss Energy City), based on the implementation
of at least 50 per cent of possible measures. Moreover, national
experiences in Switzerland, Austria and the German Federal State of North
Rhine-Westphalia have led to the development of a European scheme, the
‘European Energy Award’ (EEA).4
Although the more interventionist approaches such as benchmarking and
certification create peer pressure which appears to be a powerful tool in
promoting compliance, particularly among laggards (Lehtonen, 2005), all
three networks have only used such approaches to a limited extent. It would
appear that neither the above-mentioned national approaches nor the
4
The European Energy Award was developed within the 5th EU Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (RTD). Currently the IEE (Intelligent Energy Europe) project, BALANCE,
extends the implementation of the programme to include other European countries and regions.
322 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
development of the European Energy Award had an impact on the three
networks which still pursue their own ‘softer’ approaches. Interventionist
strategies are difficult to implement because TMNs lack the authority to force
their members to participate in benchmarking or certification exercises and to
impose sanctions on their members if necessary.5
Thus, certification is still
confined to the most active cities which have already launched many local
initiatives in the area of climate change policy and want to demonstrate their
progress. For the most active members of the network, the costs outweigh the
benefits from a positive image associated with certification.
Each of the strategies for internal governing – information and communication;
project funding and co-operation; recognition, benchmarking and
certification – pose their own challenges. At one end of the spectrum the more
laissez-faire approaches like information and communication are appealing in
that they demand fewer network resources and less intervention, but this is
countered by less certainty at network level as to what is being achieved and
for whom. At the other end of the spectrum the more interventionist
approaches can lead to an exclusive focus on the most active municipalities in
the network, alienating the rest who may not be able to commit themselves to,
or fit in with, the network ethos.
External Governing in a Multi-Level Context: Influence, Interdependence
and Intermediation
The success of TMNs in the European multi-level system depends not only on
internal governing capacities, but on creating the conditions for successful
intervention by municipalities with respect to climate change. This involves
seeking to influence governmental actors, forms of interdependence with
non-governmental actors and other TMNs and strategies for intermediation
between actors at the network level and at the municipal level (see Figure 3).
Here we consider how the three climate change networks have engaged with
each of these activities in turn.
TMNs influence governmental organizations at different levels. Within the
international climate change regime, climate change networks have been
granted observer status and hold side events to publicize the achievements of
their members and the possibilities for taking action at the annual Conference
of the Parties. Through these activities the networks, in particular the Cities
for Climate Protection and the Climate Alliance, seek to persuade the international
community to take a more proactive stance on addressing the climate
5
Even such soft forms of benchmarking have some downsides. Benchmarks become harder to implement
in the fuzzy world of emissions outside municipalities’ direct control, where accounting for emissions, and
the effects of particular actions to reduce them, is harder to achieve.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 323
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
change problem. Given the European focus of the networks under consideration
in this article, it comes as no surprise to discover that the European
Commission is the focus of considerable attention at international level. The
presence of the Energie-Cités office in Brussels bears testament to the emphasis
that it places on lobbying European institutions, including the Committee
of the Regions as well as the EU Commission and Parliament, as a core
network activity. Lobbying is facilitated through personal and frequent
contact with individuals in the relevant Directorates General of the Commission
as well as through ‘lunch discussions’ which are held on topical issues
at the Energie-Cités office with key officials, member municipalities and
partners (Energie-Cités, 2003, p. 7). The network regards itself as offering a
‘two-way flow’ of information, representing the knowledge and views of its
constituents to the Commission and advising its members on the changing
legislative and funding contexts. CCP-Europe and the Climate Alliance, in
contrast, do not lobby directly but seek instead to influence the Commission
by demonstrating what can be achieved through municipal governments.
However, they do take advantage of the opportunity structure and access
provided by the European Commission, for instance, by participating in
stakeholder consultation processes.
In addition to lobbying or participating in consultation processes all three
networks strive to obtain financial support for their projects. Although
funding by national governments still plays an important role and national
governments are critical actors (this is the case especially for CCP-Europe
which has established national campaigns), the European Commission has
gained considerable influence on the networks, in particular by making
project funding available. EU funding has become more important for the
daily work of all three networks. Because the membership fees of Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign are lower than those of the other networks, it is
even more dependent than the others on third-party funding, and about 45 per
cent of its revenues come from EU projects. However, even in the case of the
Climate Alliance and Energie-Cités membership fees only make up about 30
per cent of the total budget. This means that all three networks depend heavily
on governmental funding and to a large degree on European funding, and
could not maintain their services and campaigns without these resources.
Hence, all three networks not only try to influence the decisions taken at
European level, they are also influenced by EU institutions.
The interdependence of TMNs proves significant in this context. Interdependence,
that is the co-operation and competition between transnational
networks, is of special interest in relation to climate change because, unlike
most other areas of sustainable development in Europe, three networks are
active in this particular field. Networks have in the past competed for
324 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
members, but as they have established their membership in different countries
(largely on the basis of languages for the Climate Alliance and Energie-Cités
and through a focus on larger cities for CCP-Europe) competition has eased.
There are only a few European countries, i.e. in particular Germany, the UK,
Italy and the Netherlands, where at least two or even all three networks are
active. However, competition remains a feature of network interdependence
as they compete for funding, particularly from the European Commission,
and status as the leading European network of municipalities addressing
climate change. This competition cannot be explained by overlapping membership.
Energie-Cités, which based on our interviews and analysis appears to
be the network that has developed co-operative relations with both the other
networks, has the highest number of member cities which have also joined
at least one other network. In contrast, although only eight cities belong to
both the Climate Alliance and the Cities for Climate Protection, the relations
between these two networks appear to be most competitive. This may be
explained by the fact that they have taken similar approaches to internal
governing, but have chosen different methodologies.
Despite the evidence of competition between networks, there is also evidence
of co-operation. For example, the Climate Alliance and the EnergieCités
network have undertaken joint projects, for example the ‘Car Free Day’
and ‘Mobility Week’ campaigns. Co-operation between the networks was
enhanced when the board of the Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign (a
body sponsored by the European Commission to facilitate co-operation on
urban sustainability issues across Europe) was enlarged and the Climate
Alliance and Energie-Cités became members of its board.6
While the Campaign
had institutional funding from the Commission, the three networks
worked closely together within this new institutional framework. This in turn
facilitated co-operation between them. One example of a co-operative
endeavour which emerged from this more closely knit collaboration was an
integrated thematic working session of the Campaign on climate change and
energy, which took place in 2002, and was prepared jointly by the Climate
Alliance and Energie-Cités. After 2003, when the Commission decided to
cease funding the Campaign, this institutional framework dissolved. However
in that same year, at the request of some of their members, the three networks
formed the Climate Task Force of European Local Governments, which was
established with the core aim of providing a joint means of lobbying European
political bodies about the need for a municipal approach to the climate
change problem in Europe. In 2003, the membership of the Climate Task
Force comprised the three transnational municipal climate networks and 15
6
ICLEI was a member of the board from the outset.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 325
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
municipalities; by September 2003 it met at the European Parliament to lobby
on issues of co-generation, eco-design, energy services and the implementation
of the Electricity Directive. Since that time, however, there has been little
evidence of activity on the part of the Climate Task Force, although there
were calls at the Climate Alliance’s 2005 conference for the reinvigoration
of the network taskforce through co-operation with Energie-Cités and the
CEMR. Thus, it has proven relatively difficult to maintain co-operation
between the networks in the absence of EU support. However, the development
towards co-operation and convergence can be supported by the member
cities. Some cities (such as Heidelberg and Leicester), which are members of
several networks, have advocated closer working relations between networks
so that they can assume a more effective lobbying role in Europe.
For the municipalities themselves, the impact and influence of a network
is critically dependent on the nature of the intermediation between that
network and the broader local policy networks focusing on climate change
(Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003). In terms of the network governing capacity, the
position of a city within a network is not the only critical factor because the
relationship between the ‘intermediary’ actor and the local policy network is
equally important. If the intermediary actor is influential within the local
policy network, there is a better chance that transnational network initiatives
will be picked up and implemented within the city. Political support at local
level and the existence of policy entrepreneurs are, therefore, crucial for the
governing capacity of a network because they have a decisive influence on the
changes on the ground and provide the means through which the network
assesses progress. If such policy entrepreneurs are missing or marginalized, it
is almost impossible for the network to stimulate action on the ground. Thus,
due to variations in the position of intermediary actors, membership of a
network does not necessarily lead directly to action on the ground.
Some network members are highly active locally and transnationally,
holding influential positions within their respective municipalities and as
members of the boards of TMNs. This tends to be the case in the ‘pioneer’
municipalities – i.e. those which joined networks in the early stages of their
development and have taken an active role in network evolution. Such pioneers
contribute to the networks, for example, when they present their own
experiences, but they also benefit from the networks because they gain new
ideas, access to funding and legitimacy at local level. Membership fees are
not considered as a problem among pioneers because they pay off when the
municipalities participate in a project financed by the European Commission.
In both the UK and Germany the pioneers involved in our research project
adopted the position that the benefits of membership appear to outweigh any
costs, a position reinforced by the fact that most pioneers are members of
326 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
more than one network and use the specific services which each of these
networks provides. In terms of the most important network services, the cities
mention exchange of information and experience, facilitation of contacts,
assistance regarding EU proposals and project co-ordination and lobbying
activities, in particular in Brussels (Kern et al., 2005, pp. 85–86).
Passive network members, by contrast, often lack the financial, human and
political resources required to participate in network activities such as conferences,
funding bids and the implementation of network benchmarks.
Intermediary actors may have a relatively marginal position within local
policy networks, having joined such networks at a time when there was more
political support for climate change action. By the same token, without
proven success – in terms of recognition or funding from the network –
changing the status of TMNs locally is difficult to achieve. A negative spiral
can be established whereby passive membership leads to few rewards which
in turn leads to greater political marginalization. However, even in relatively
passive municipalities, membership is frequently used by the few climate
change advocates as a source of external legitimacy and inspiration (Bulkeley
and Betsill, 2003; Kern et al., 2005). This helps them to maintain their
activities even in situations characterized by financial stress, political disinterest
or active opposition to local action for climate mitigation.
The three elements of external governing discussed above, i.e. influence,
interdependence and intermediation, are intertwined. First, the influence of
TMNs depends on the interdependent relationships between networks. If
competition between networks dominates, networks will find it difficult to
influence European institutions. Conversely, both co-operative and competitive
behaviour between networks can be influenced by the EU, in particular
the Commission. Rivalry between TMNs increases when networks compete
for EU funding, while co-operation between them can be facilitated by EU
initiatives specifically aimed at network co-ordination, such as the funding of
the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign. Second, the interdependent
relationships between TMNs are affected by the intermediation
between a network and its members. The pioneering cities, which are most
often members of several networks, may push competing networks or competing
secretariats towards a more co-operative mode of interaction. An
example of this is the common taskforce of all three networks, founded to
improve lobbying activities at the European level. Third, the intermediation
between a network and its members has repercussions for the cities’ opportunities
to influence and be influenced by European institutions. Direct relations
between EU institutions and cities are usually restricted to the most
active cities which hold important positions in the network, such as the
presidency or vice-presidency, representing the network externally.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 327
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Conclusion
Overall, our results suggest that the forms of governing which TMNs employ
are critical for their success. TMNs have developed a range of strategies for
coping with the multi-level governance context of the EU. Their emergence
and development can be considered as emblematic of the dynamic of Europeanization,
i.e. being influenced by EU structures and institutions while
seeking to influence them. Although our findings are primarily based on the
analysis of three climate change networks, the development of other TMNs,
such as Eurocities or the Union of the Baltic Cities, suggests similar developments
in other policy areas (Kern, 2001; Joas et al., 2007; Keiner and Kim,
2007; Heinelt and Niederhafner, 2008). TMNs provide a means through
which the Commission can seek to achieve policy goals on the ground
without necessarily having to engage directly with nation-states. Whether
such networks reach their goals or fail to do so will depend on how they are
affected by Europeanization.
Three dimensions of the Europeanization of local authorities can be identified
here: first, top-down (vertical) Europeanization is the most obvious
form because cities are increasingly affected by European regulations which
they are required to implement. Our research shows that hierarchical structures
wherein local authorities which are located in specific nation-states
interact directly only with these are supplemented by direct relations between
local authorities and European institutions, in particular the Commission.
Second, bottom-up (vertical) Europeanization has developed as a reaction to
the increasing significance of EU initiatives for the local sphere, including the
development of TMNs, which represent their member cities in Brussels.
Third, horizontal Europeanization has become a common feature of local
authorities’ interaction in the European multi-level system. Cities learn from
one another when they jointly develop solutions for shared problems; they
compete with one another when they engage in benchmarking exercises or vie
for awards for their local activities.
The governing capacities of TMNs are critical to the networks’ success.
The three networks analysed here have not adopted interventionist
approaches but have assumed more laissez-faire approaches instead.
Although certification of member cities is the most promising innovation
designed to improve internal governing, it has been applied only by national
municipal networks. The governing capacities of TMNs are limited because
they do not have the authority to force their members to apply specific
strategies at the local level, nor do they have the authority to control and
sanction their members. These laissez-faire approaches, based on soft governing
tools, reinforce differing patterns of network participation between
328 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
leaders and laggards. In effect, our findings suggest that networks are networks
of pioneers for pioneers. Even among the cities which deliberately
joined a network it is easy to distinguish between a hard core of pioneers
and a periphery consisting of relatively passive cities which have scarcely
changed their behaviour since joining the network. While top-down (vertical)
Europeanization has similar effects on all European cities and towns, because
in many EU Member States local authorities are in charge of implementing
European legislation, bottom-up (vertical) Europeanization, which facilitates
the upload of innovative ideas and increases the autonomy of sub-national
actors, and horizontal Europeanization among the most active member cities
are clearly still privileges of the pioneers.
Correspondence:
Harriet Bulkeley
Durham University, UK
email h.a.bulkeley@durham.ac.uk
Kristine Kern
Wageningen University, The Netherlands
email kristine.kern@sh.se
References
Bache, I. (2008) Europeanization and Multi-level Governance (Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield).
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (eds) (2004) Multi-level Governance (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bennington, J. and Harvey, J. (1998) ‘Transnational Local Authority Networking
within the European Union: Passing Fashion or New Paradigm?’ In Marsh, D.
(ed.) Comparing Policy Networks (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Betsill, M. and Bulkeley, H. (2004) ‘Transnational Networks and Global Environmental
Governance: The Cities for Climate Protection Program’. International
Studies Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 471–93.
Birkland, T. (2007) ‘Agenda Setting in Public Policy’. In Fischer, F., Miller, G. and
Sidney, M. (eds) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis (Boca Raton: Taylor &
Francis).
Börzel, T. (1998) ‘Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy
Networks’. Public Administration, Vol. 76, pp. 252–73.
Börzel, T. and Risse, T. (2007) ‘Europeanization: The Domestic Impact of European
Union Politics’. In Jørgensen, K., Pollack, M. and Rosamond, B. (eds) Handbook
of European Union Politics (London: Sage).
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 329
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Bulkeley, H. (2006) ‘Urban Sustainability: Learning from Best Practice?’ Environment
and Planning A, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 1029–44.
Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M. (2003) Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability
and Global Environmental Governance (London: Routledge).
Bulkeley, H. and Kern, K. (2006) ‘Local Government and the Governing of Climate
Change in Germany and the UK’. Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 12, pp. 2237–59.
CCP-Europe (2004) Themes: Climate and Air (Freiburg).
Climate Alliance (2005) Annual Report 2004/2005 (Frankfurt/Main).
Climate Alliance (2007) Activity Report (Frankfurt/Main).
Eising, R. (2004) ‘Interest Groups and the European Union’. In Cini, M. (ed.)
European Union Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Energie-Cités (2003) ‘Info-Bulletin’, No. 26, Energie-Cités.
Energie-Cités (2007) ‘Info-Bulletin’, No. 33, Energie-Cités.
Ercole, E., Walters, M. and Goldsmith, M. (1997) ‘Cities, Networks, Euregions,
European Offices’. In Goldsmith, M. and Klausen, K.K. (eds) European Integration
and Local Government (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Ewen, S. and Hebbert, M. (2007) ‘European Cities in a Networked World during the
Long 20th Century’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol.
25, pp. 327–40.
Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C. (eds) (2003) The Politics of Europeanization
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Goldsmith, M. (2003) ‘Variable Geometry, Multi-level Governance: European Integration
and Subnational Government in the New Millennium’. In Featherstone, K.
and Radaelli, C. (eds) The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Graziano, P. and Vink, M. (eds) (2007) Europeanization: New Research Agendas
(Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Haas, P., Keohane, R. and Levy, M. (eds) (1993) Institutions for the Earth: Sources
of Effective Environmental Protection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Heinelt, H. and Niederhafner, S. (2008) ‘Cities and Organized Interest Intermediation
in the EU Multi-level System’. European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp. 173–87.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003) ‘Unraveling the Central State? Types of Multi-level
Governance’. American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 233–43.
Joas, M., Kern, K. and Sandberg, S. (2007) ‘Actors and Arenas in Hybrid Networks:
Implications for Environmental Policy-Making in the Baltic Sea Region’. Ambio,
Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 237–42.
John, P. (2000) ‘The Europeanization of Sub-national Governance’. Urban Studies,
Vol. 37, No. 5–6, pp. 877–94.
Kassim, H. (2005) ‘The Europeanization of Member State Institutions’. In Bulmer, S.
and Lequesne, C. (eds) The Member States of the European Union (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Keck, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in
International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
330 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Keiner, M. and Kim, A. (2007) ‘Transnational City Networks for Sustainability’.
European Planning Studies, Vol. 15, No. 10, pp. 1369–95.
Kern, K. (2001) ‘Transnationale Städtenetzwerke in Europa’. In Schröter, E. (ed.)
Empirische Policy- und Verwaltungsforschung. Lokale, nationale und internationale
Perspektiven (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).
Kern, K. and Löffelsend, T. (2008) ‘Governance beyond the Nation State: Transnationalization
and Europeanization of the Baltic Sea Region’. In Joas, M., Jahn, D.
and Kern, K. (eds) Governing a Common Sea: Environmental Policies in the
Baltic Sea Region (London: Earthscan).
Kern, K., Niederhafner, S., Rechlin, S. and Wagner, J. (2005) Kommunaler Klimaschutz
in Deutschland – Handlungsoptionen, Entwicklung und Perspektiven.
WZB Discussion Paper SP IV 2005-101, Berlin.
Khagram, S. and Ali, S. (2008) ‘Transnational Transformations: From
Government-Centric Interstate Regimes to Cross-sectoral Multi-level Networks
of Global Governance’. In Park, J., Conca, K. and Finger, M. (eds)
The Crisis of Global Environmental Governance (London/New York:
Routledge).
Kingdon, J. (2003) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (NewYork: Longman).
Ladrech, R. (2005) ‘The Europeanization of Interest Groups and Political Parties’. In
Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (eds) The Member States of the European Union
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lehtonen, M. (2005) ‘OECD Environmental Performance Review Programme.
Accountability (f)or Learning?’ Evaluation, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 169–88.
Leitner, H. and Sheppard, E. (2002) ‘The City is Dead, Long Live the Net: Harnessing
European Interurban Networks for a Neo-liberal Agenda’. Antipode, Vol. 34,
No. 3, pp. 495–518.
Le Galès, P. (2002) European Cities. Social Conflicts and Governance (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Marshall, A. (2005) ‘Europeanization at the Urban Level: Local Actors, Institutions
and the Dynamics of Multi-level Interaction’. Journal of European Public Policy,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 668–86.
Marshall, A. (2008) ‘Local Governance’. In Bache, I. and Jordan, A. (eds) The
Europeanization of British Politics (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Mintrom, M. (2000) Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice (Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press).
Olsen, J. (2002) ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’. JCMS, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp.
921–52.
Pattberg, P. (2007) Private Institutions and Global Governance: The New Politics of
Environmental Sustainability (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State (Houndmills:
Macmillan).
Pollack, M. (2005) ‘Theorizing the European Union: International Organization,
Domestic Polity, or Experiment in New Governance?’ Annual Review of Political
Science, Vol. 8, pp. 357–98.
CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 331
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Radaelli, C. (2006) ‘Europeanization: Solution or Problem?’. In Cini, M. and Bourne,
A. (eds) Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies (Houndmills: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Rechlin, S. (2004) ‘Die deutschen Kommunen im Mehrebenensystem der Europäischen
Union – Betroffene Objekte oder aktive Subjekte?’. WZB Discussion Paper
SP IV 2004-101, Berlin.
Repetto, R. (ed.) (2006) Punctuated Equilibrium and the Dynamics of US Environmental
Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Rosamond, B. (2007) ‘New Theories of European Integration’. In Cini, M. (ed).
European Union Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. (eds) (2005) The Europeanization of Central
and Eastern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Schultze, C. (2003) ‘Cities and EU Governance: Policy-Takers or Policy-Makers?’
Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 121–47.
Straßheim, H. and Oppen, M. (2006) Lernen in Städtenetzwerken: Kooperation –
Konflikte – Kompetenzentwicklung (Berlin: Edition Sigma).
Triantafillou, P. (2007) ‘Governing the Formation and Mobilization of Governance
Networks’. In Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (eds) Theories of Democratic Network
Governance (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Ward, S. and Williams, R. (1997) ‘From Hierarchy to Networks? Sub-central
Government and EU Urban Environment Policy’. JCMS, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 439–
64.
Woll, C. (2006) ‘Lobbying in the European Union: From Sui Generis to a Comparative
Perspective’. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 456–69.
Zahariadis, N. (2003) Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Political DecisionMaking
in Modern Democracies (Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press).
332 KRISTINE KERN AND HARRIET BULKELEY
© 2009 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd