Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpp20
Journal of European Public Policy
ISSN: 1350-1763 (Print) 1466-4429 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpp20
Europeanization at the urban level: Local actors,
institutions and the dynamics of multi-level
interaction
Adam Marshall
To cite this article: Adam Marshall (2005) Europeanization at the urban level: Local actors,
institutions and the dynamics of multi-level interaction, Journal of European Public Policy, 12:4,
668-686, DOI: 10.1080/13501760500160292
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500160292
Published online: 17 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 984
Citing articles: 45 View citing articles
Europeanization at the urban level:
local actors, institutions and the
dynamics of multi-level interaction
Adam Marshall
ABSTRACT EU initiatives provide urban institutions and actors across Europe
with new and unprecedented access to information, legitimacy, and not least,
financial support. From established local authorities to fledgling neighbourhood
partnerships, actors across the urban spectrum see increased European involvement
as a central component of innovative governance.
This paper proposes a theoretical framework to assess whether European working
provokes shifts in the institutionalized norms, beliefs, and values of urban actors,
focusing in particular on British cities. In doing so, the paper elaborates a fourpart
typology of Europeanization at the urban level, and subsequently applies this
typology to the empirical cases of Birmingham and Glasgow. It then attempts to
draw some preliminary conclusions about how involvement in EU Structural
Fund programmes affects long-standing practices in cities in Britain and across the
continent.
KEY WORDS Britain; Europeanization; local authorities; networks; partnership;
urban governance.
1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of Europeanization today occupies an important space in the study
of European integration and comparative politics, and has served to reinvigorate
debate about the impact of the European Union (EU) on governance at and
below the level of the nation-state. There is an ever-growing body of theoretical
debate and empirical evidence which suggests that, indeed, ‘Europeanization
matters. In nearly every case, Europeanization has led to distinct and identifiable
changes in the domestic institutional structures of member-states’ (Risse et al.
2001: 1). However, can the models developed to analyse the phenomenon of
Europeanization be applied at multiple territorial levels? Are the theoretical
underpinnings of the relatively new Europeanization research agenda mature
enough to explain or predict subtle forms of domestic institutional change?
This paper argues that, thanks to the unique role played by cities in both
Journal of European Public Policy
ISSN 1350-1763 print; 1466-4429 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http:==www.tandf.co.uk=journals
DOI: 10.1080=13501760500160292
Journal of European Public Policy 12:4 August 2005: 668–686
territorial and political hierarchies, it is critical to articulate and test a framework
for the evaluation of the phenomenon of Europeanization at the urban level.
In cities, Europeanization results from intensified political and economic
interaction between actors at every conceivable territorial level. Access to the
European Structural Funds exposes a diverse array of local actors to EU institutions
and norms such as programming, partnership and stringent accounting
procedures, often for the first time. Similarly, participation in transnational
organizations and networks enables individual cities to make their presence
felt at EU level. Even supposedly symbolic arrangements, such as twinning
and cultural exchange, foster changes in the behaviour of urban actors vis-a`-vis
the EU. These diverse points of contact between the European and urban
territorial systems show that local-level Europeanization is not an easily definable
or reducible phenomenon, nor can it merely be subsumed into broader discussion
on regional Europeanization. In short, urban- and metropolitan-level
Europeanization requires an analytical paradigm that enables researchers to test
the salience of EU influences on local institutions and actors.
This paper seeks to develop our understanding of the process of urban
Europeanization, focusing specifically on the experience of two British cities.
Evidence from Birmingham and Glasgow suggests that there is a distinct, twoway
process of Europeanization occurring at the urban level, driven primarily
by the availability of large quantities of EU Structural Funding – the instrument
whereby EU ‘adaptational pressures’ are brought to bear on urban institutions
and actors. The selection of two cities which have benefited from Structural
Funding will allow us to test the assertion that a strong positive correlation
exists between the presence of EU financial assistance and the magnitude of
Europeanization in urban areas.
First, the paper devotes two sections to explaining why it is important to
evaluate Europeanization at the urban level, and develops a framework that
allows researchers to study the phenomenon’s effect in cities. Second, it examines
four types of Europeanization in Birmingham and Glasgow, simultaneously
revealing that it is critical to differentiate between regional adaptation, one of the
chief themes of the evolving Europeanization research agenda, and the more
subtle types of adjustment occurring within cities and metropolitan subregions.
Finally, the paper draws several preliminary conclusions about the
ways in which Europeanization affects embedded norms and practices in
cities benefiting from EU Structural Fund programmes. As plans for a wider
and deeper EU progress, interaction between local actors and Brussels will
become increasingly dynamic – rendering urban-level Europeanization an
ever-stronger influence on local affairs.
2. WHY ISOLATE EUROPEANIZATION AT THE URBAN LEVEL?
The phenomenon of Europeanization has previously been studied at both
national and regional territorial levels, suggesting that there are different types
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 669
of adaptational pressures and mediating institutions operating within different
tiers of governance. This assertion rests in large part on arguments emanating
from the ‘New Regionalist’ school, which posits that the territorial framework
of society is presently being deconstructed and rebuilt in unprecedented
ways. Michael Keating, for example, argues that the emergence of stronger
sub-national identities in recent years has promoted a ‘reterritorialization’ of
European space (Keating 1997, 2001). Referring specifically to the urban
level, Keating states that
city-regions are becoming more heterogeneous, multi-cultural and pluralist.
New demands are being placed on the political agenda, from strategies of
economic development, through environmental concerns, to issues of social
justice and identity politics. Yet the policy options available to city-regions
as political systems are constrained by the external competitive environment.
Here lies the dilemma of contemporary urban and regional politics.
(Keating 2001: 387)
Thus, the internal and external constraints that urban areas face are unique, and
cannot simply be compared to the pressures experienced by constitutional
regions, rural areas or small towns.
Numerous observers, including sociologists, planners and political scientists,
emphasize the distinctiveness of cities vis-a`-vis other territorial levels of governance
and organization (Harding 1997; Heidenreich 1998; Smith 1998). Neil
Brenner cogently notes that European geography has become ‘a highly
uneven mosaic of relatively distinctive urban-regional economic spaces’
(1999: 445), a comment echoed by European Commissioner for Regional
Policy Michel Barnier, who stated that cities must serve as ‘points d’appui
pour une politique de re´e´quilibrage du territoire communautaire’ (Speech, Lille,
2 November 2000). Similarly, Le Gale`s and Harding (1998) see today’s European
city as a ‘player’ no longer overwhelmed by the state, while Le Gale`s (2002)
consecrates a large portion of his most recent book to the augmented role of the
city in an ever-more complex and fragmented system of European governance.
Commentators and scholars across the fields of political science, geography,
planning and economics all agree that urban governance has specific characteristics
that distinguish it from the broader study of sub-national politics.
Thanks to the unique nature of urban governance, I argue that it is critical to
isolate the phenomenon of Europeanization in cities from sub-national
Europeanization in more general terms. The highly specific opportunities and
constraints which shape urban institutions and actor behaviour mean that existing
models for the assessment of Europeanization at the sub-national level
cannot simply be applied to cities without modification. By developing and
testing an analytical framework for urban-level Europeanization, the following
sections seek to provide a generalizable but context-sensitive ‘tool-kit’ that
allows researchers to predict and explain how pressures for Europeanization
affect local- and neighbourhood-level actors across the EU.
670 Journal of European Public Policy
3. ‘URBAN EUROPEANIZATION’ – A NEW ANALYTICAL
PARADIGM
In recent years, a huge quantity of research focused on the role of sub-national
governments in European affairs has indicated the existence of a process of Europeanization
within the nation-state (Bache et al. 1996; Bomberg and Peterson
1996, 1998; Goldsmith and Klausen 1997; Goldsmith and Sperling 1997;
John 1996a, 1996b, 2000, 2001; A. Smith 1998; R. Smith 1999). However,
the concept of domestic-level Europeanization ‘lacks a paradigmatic consistency’,
and is often employed as an explanatory factor for changes in institutional
structures or actor behaviour without careful elaboration (Olsen 2002; Harmsen
and Wilson 2000). How, then, can the very general concept of ‘Europeanization
as domestic adaptation’ be made more relevant to the urban context?
Whereas some authors, such as Benz and Eberlein (1999), have defined the
challenge that Europeanization poses to cities and local actors, it is necessary
to define the term itself in order to understand its impact at the urban level.
Peter John, for example, calls Europeanization
a process whereby European ideas and practices transfer to the core of local
decision-making as well as from local policy-making arenas to the supranational
level. The European function is a means whereby public authorities
can innovate and initiate policies and programmes in the context of transnational
co-operation and European policy-making.
(John 2001: 73)
According to this definition, Europeanization at the local level has both
‘download’ and ‘upload’ components, and goes beyond Benz and Eberlein’s
narrowly tailored focus on the ‘download’ of EU regional and structural policies.
In addition to the exogenous influences exercised by the European Commission
and other supranational bodies on local government, there is also a mechanism
whereby local innovations – such as best practice in physical regeneration or
social inclusion – can be assimilated into EU policy frameworks over time.
In order to assess the impact of Europeanization at the urban level, a critical
observer can examine the policies, practices and preferences affected by interaction
with the EU (Bache 2003). However, in order to account for the
unique political networks dominating territorial politics at the urban level, it
is necessary to add a fourth category – participants. EU-financed programmes,
largely because of their requirements for long-term partnership working, force
the expansion of the number of players at the local decision-making table,
bringing non-governmental organizations, representatives from the community
and voluntary sectors, business leaders, and other social partners into the
increasingly complex world of urban governance (Marshall 2003a, 2003b;
Bache 2000; A. Smith 1998; Le Gale`s 2002). These new participants often
play a crucial role in urban governance, and their EU-mandated presence alongside
established local actors catalyses bottom-up pressure for institutional change
over time.
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 671
Taking the definitions and analytical tools discussed above as a starting point,
it is possible to articulate a working definition of Europeanization at the urban
level which can be applied to any European city engaging with political initiatives
and pressures from the European level:
1 ‘Download Europeanization’: Changes in policies, practices, preferences or
participants within local systems of governance, arising from the negotiation
and implementation of EU programmes.1
2 ‘Upload Europeanization’: The transfer of innovative urban practices to the
supranational arena, resulting in the incorporation of local initiatives in
pan-European policies or programmes.
Whereas scholars of Europeanization at the national level often focus principally
on ‘upload’ (Bomberg and Peterson 2000), or the myriad examples of ‘download’
from European to domestic political systems (see, inter alia, Bulmer and
Burch 2000; Goetz and Hix 2001), I shall attempt to address both processes
with specific reference to examples drawn from the cities of Birmingham and
Glasgow. The ‘European turn’ experienced by urban institutions and actors is
a unique process which can only be examined by combining elements of the
Europeanization approach with a nuanced understanding of urban governance,
local dynamics, and domestic contextual factors.
It is crucial to address the foundational assumptions which underpin the
definition elaborated above. First, and foremost, urban-level Europeanization
is inextricably linked to the new institutionalist school in comparative politics
(March and Olsen 1989, 1998; Steinmo and Thelen 1992; Hall and Taylor
1996; Bulmer 1994, 1995; Lowndes 2001, 2002; Harmsen 2000). As Green
Cowles et al. note, ‘domestic institutions represent long-standing habits of
doing things. In this sense, the possibilities for institutional change are pathdependent’
(2001: 3). Thus, within all European cities, one must account for
the presence of ‘mediating institutions’ at multiple territorial levels, as these
attenuate processes of Europeanization and ensure that unique and long-standing
patterns of local governance are not subsumed into a single, reductionist
paradigm. Building on a model articulated by Green Cowles et al. (2001), I
argue that urban engagement with EU policies results in a four-stage pattern
of interaction and adjustment:
Europeanization at the urban level
1 EU initiative (Structural Fund/Community Initiatives/Urban Pilot
Projects) !
2 Adaptational pressures (‘degree of fit’ between EU/domestic norms) !
3 Mediating institutions (local, regional, national institutional context) !
4 Urban structural change (institutional shifts/governance change)2
672 Journal of European Public Policy
In Britain, for example, ‘mis-fit’ (Bo¨rzel and Risse 2000; Radaelli 2000;
Green Cowles et al. 2001) between the cohesion-oriented principles of EU policies
and the competition-based urban policy pursued by central government3
since the 1980s ensured that adaptational pressures arose in cities where domestic
and European regeneration initiatives existed side by side. Using the definition
of urban-level Europeanization articulated above, it is possible to examine
the types of structural change wrought by this ‘mis-fit’ despite the strength of
extant institutional norms throughout the hierarchy of territorial governance.
The networked governance paradigm, advanced most eloquently by Rod
Rhodes (1997), represents the second pillar underpinning the concept of citylevel
Europeanization. As cities across Britain and Europe undergo an inexorable
shift from hierarchical government to a more horizontal and flexible form of
governance (see, inter alia, Stewart and Stoker 1995; Stoker 1999), diverse
actor networks and resource dependencies begin to characterize urban politics
and especially the management of regeneration initiatives. 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 encouraging greater multi-level
territorial interaction. Thus the Europeanized city is, invariably, also a networked
city, as the examples below will show.
Four varieties of Europeanization can be analysed in cities which have significant
involvement with EU Structural Funds and institutions:
. Europeanization of local government (download);
. Europeanization of non-statutory actors involved in processes of urban
renewal and governance (download);
. Europeanization of local regeneration partnerships and networks (download);
. Europeanization that engenders dissemination of local practices to the supranational
level, and thus to other cities via transnational networks (upload and
‘crossload’ ).
By ‘significant involvement’, I refer principally to participation in EU Structural
Fund programmes, the URBAN Community Initiative, and Urban Pilot
Projects, all of which require detailed long-term interaction with the European
Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO). It would
be distinctly more difficult to investigate and subsequently analyse processes of
Europeanization in wealthier cities such as London, Paris or Milan, where
inconsistent (or non-existent) involvement with EU programmes renders
urban actors and institutions far less likely to face the sort of adaptational pressures
seen in beneficiary cities like Liverpool, Lille, Berlin or Cardiff. The potential
for policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996; Evans and Davies 1999)
between European and urban levels exists principally in those cities which
face the daily challenge of supranational interaction with Brussels officialdom.
Birmingham and Glasgow, with their long histories of European activism
and Objective 2 Structural Fund involvement, are thus ideal case studies for
an examination of Europeanization at the urban level. The empirical research
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 673
upon which this short investigation is based was carried out between December
2000 and December 2002, and involved a broad array of semi-structured interviews,
close reading of primary source documentation from European, national
and local sources, and extensive literature review.
4. URBAN EUROPEANIZATION IN BRITAIN:
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
In the cities of the United Kingdom, Europeanization takes place against a
backdrop of severe domestic institutional constraints. As Radaelli notes, these
constraints cannot simply be dismissed, since ‘the analysis of the effects
of European public policy on national policy systems should be conducted in
parallel to the investigation of endogenous processes’ (2000: 22). Unlike
many of their continental counterparts, British local authorities lack
constitutional standing, possess relatively few competences, and are subject to
a restrictive ultra vires rule which prevents them from taking action outside
those responsibilities expressly granted to them by the UK Parliament. Although
considered the most powerful British local governments by virtue of their
population size and relative importance to the national economy, urban
authorities across the United Kingdom have watched their influence decrease
as quangos and private firms have taken over many aspects of policy
implementation and service delivery over the past twenty years (Skelcher
1998; Davies 1996; Stewart and Stoker 1995). Cities watched helplessly as
successive central governments used their power to reform subnational
government repeatedly in 1975, 1986 and 1995. These reforms first created,
and then eliminated, upper-tier metropolitan authorities which had significant
strategic planning and economic development functions. As a result, central
cities were cut off from their suburban hinterlands and forced to develop
narrower policies for everything from economic regeneration to European
engagement. At the same time, central government reduced the global financial
allocation to urban local authorities for regeneration and renewal, forcing cities
to compete with each other for a share of an ever-dwindling resource pie (Bailey
1995; Harding et al. 1994). The old redistributive Urban Programme became a
competitive Single Regeneration Budget, and local councils had to contribute
match-funding to regeneration schemes above and beyond their own capabilities
(Pierre 1998). Additionally, public–private partnerships became the principal
vehicles for regeneration, although the type of partnership envisaged by
Thatcherite planners was driven solely by economic considerations rather
than the holistic, social motives underpinning EU Structural Fund partnerships
(Oatley 1998).
The perilous financial state and political independence of British cities has
been further complicated since the enthronement of New Labour in 1997. A
slew of central government initiatives, most emanating from the Prime Minister’s
Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal Units,4
have continually
moved the goalposts and criteria for urban regeneration programmes, confusing
674 Journal of European Public Policy
local actors who depend on central government funding in order to carry out
neighbourhood and city-wide regeneration initiatives (Leach and Percy-Smith
2001; Hill 2000; Stewart 2000). The financial ‘squeeze’ is not the only one
with which local authorities have had to contend, however; devolution in
Scotland and Wales, coupled with an on-going and asymmetrical plan for
top-down regionalization in England, have forced urban governments
nationwide to share many of their competences with new meso-level institutions
(Bogdanor 1999; Keating 2001). In summary, urban governments and local
actors across the United Kingdom have to contend with the difficulties of domestic
institutional flux while simultaneously reacting to European programmes.
The constantly shifting institutional tableau surrounding urban governance
has had a profound impact on the way in which city councils and actors
approach the EU. Urban local authorities and their non-statutory partners are
stretched to the limit; pressures for Europeanization thus face a broad array
of ‘mediating institutions’ at the national level which militate against largescale
deviation from domestic norms. British local authorities have repeatedly
looked to the European Commission as a sort of counter to Whitehall, lobbying
for Commission intervention in order to ensure that the principles of partnership,
programming, concentration, subsidiarity, and especially additionality are
respected (McAleavey and Mitchell 1994; McAleavey 1995; Dardanelli 1999).
UK central government efforts to undercut additionality in the 1980s and 1990s
actually prompted greater activism by local authorities; thus, central government
efforts to retain absolute control of Structural Funding encouraged rather than
constrained Europeanization at the local level. Birmingham and Glasgow, for
example, consistently lobbied the Commission for greater local input during
the agenda-setting, negotiation, implementation and evaluation phases of EU
programmes as a counter to central government’s gatekeeping.
Despite the fact that many urban authorities in the UK have looked to the
EU for support in their battle for greater subsidiarity and locally designed
regeneration programmes, ‘the Commission can only go so far in shaping
central–local relations in the UK. While it can create networks and encourage
others, involve a wide range of actors, and participate itself, the Commission can
do little to shift the long-standing power dependencies between central and local
government’ (Bache et al. 1996: 317). This is undeniably true. Institutional
constraints and the power of central government notwithstanding, it is
equally difficult to disagree with the conclusion that ‘the effect of EU directives
and finance was to precipitate a growing Europeanization of UK sub-national
government’ over time (John 1996b: 133). Financial ‘gatekeeper’ or not
(Bache 1998, 1999), Whitehall has not stopped European notions of partnership
and long-term programming from gaining ground among urban actors
in Britain despite its best efforts to ensure the continued pre-eminence of domestic
models.5
While these EU principles are certainly adapted to the distinct
national context into which they are inserted – such as the traditionally
strong role of UK central government vis-a`-vis local actors – they nonetheless
provoke important changes in British urban governance.
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 675
5. DOWNLOAD EUROPEANIZATION: THE IMPACT ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
Change within local authorities
The first category of ‘download’ Europeanization occurs within the formal institutions
of local government. In both Birmingham and Glasgow, local authorities
adjusted to European norms of direct lobbying, partnership working
and long-term strategic programming in order to benefit from the ‘carrot’ of
Structural Funding. Birmingham City Council (BCC) was one of the first
local authorities to mobilize in Europe, opening its first representative office
in Brussels in 1984 and using EU leverage to secure an Integrated Development
Operation for regeneration as early as 1985 (Martin and Pearce 1992; Martin
1998). Glasgow, a key player within the powerful Strathclyde Regional
Council (SRC),6
followed in 1985 and expanded its involvement in ensuing
years thanks to activism on the part of SRC leader Charles Gray. Local authorities
in both cities established units dedicated exclusively to European
working, ensuring continuous flows of information between Brussels and city
fathers while simultaneously developing a crucial lobbying function for regeneration
programmes. In part thanks to their early European efforts, the two
conurbations secured the largest packages of EU Structural Funding
in England and Scotland respectively during both the 1994–1999 and
2000–2006 programming periods.
During the past decade, European working has been mainstreamed within
both BCC and Glasgow City Council (GCC). BCC’s European and International
Division bids for and administers Structural Fund projects, liaises
with other regional actors in the West Midlands, and actively engages with
regional and multi-level networks in order to promote economic development
and continued European interest in the city. GCC has incorporated European
personnel and resources into an integrated Department of Development and
Regeneration Services, creating a single division for regeneration projects that
links European, municipal and domestic renewal projects together for urban
and structure planning purposes. These departments go far beyond the simple
administration of Structural Funding; instead, they reflect the internalization
of the European Commission’s principle of programming, which favours holistic
and strategic approaches to regeneration and economic development (CEC
1997a, 1997b, 1998). Downward adaptational pressures have thus brought
about internal change within urban councils, despite the existence of significant
domestic institutional constraints on local authority actors at European level. As
a prominent Birmingham politician intimated,
I would argue that Birmingham’s European linkage is not simply one of drawing
down funding. Instead, it’s very much more a process of moving from a
parochial city to becoming a city which sees itself in a European league of
cities. We talk about our competitiveness and our future in European terms.
(interview, 24 October 2002)
676 Journal of European Public Policy
This re-visioning has been accomplished in Birmingham and Glasgow through
the vehicle of the EU Structural Funds – which serve, in effect, as the delivery
vehicle for adaptational pressures and as a catalyst for significant institutional
adjustment within urban local authorities.
Europeanization’s role in increasing urban–regional
interdependencies in Britain
Birmingham and Glasgow, like many other cities, lie at the heart of larger
metropolitan regions, where their sheer size relative to neighbouring authorities
has led to a great deal of mutual distrust. Regional management of successive
Structural Fund initiatives – a bedrock requirement of European Commission
regulations – has, however, served to lessen intra-metropolitan rivalries and has
assisted in the development of regional governance perspectives. European programmes
have pressured previously parochial urban authorities into adopting a
regional perspective for the purposes of regeneration, economic development
and planning. While UK urban authorities do not engage in European high
politics, unlike sub-national authorities in some other member states, ‘more
important for UK local government is the part they have played in shaping
regional plans, such that they have become recognised as true if not equal partners
in the policy implementation and management processes at the regional
level’ (R. Smith 1999: 166).
This statement is borne out by evidence from our two case cities, where the
strategic capacity of local authorities as drivers of regional cohesion appears to
have increased as European ideas on partnership and programming were ‘downloaded’.
As one practitioner remarked, ‘the European element has forced regional
identity development. Look at the fact that the Birmingham City Council leader
is President of the Committee of the Regions’ (interview, Local Government
International Bureau, 21 June 2002). The European links pioneered by BCC
in the 1980s and early 1990s have now matured into a broader regional partnership
exemplified by the creation of a joint West Midlands in Europe office and a
locally based West Midlands European and International Forum, which collaborate
with the regional Structural Fund partnership on issues related to regeneration
and strategic planning. Similarly, SRC’s EU-level efforts allowed
Glasgow and neighbouring authorities to build the unique, 300-member Strathclyde
European Partnership (SEP) and the flexible West of Scotland European
Consortium (WoSEC) where common regional positions on European issues
are developed. These institutions have developed despite the abolition of
regional government in greater Glasgow, indicating the influence of the EU
ideal of meso-level partnership on metropolitan governance. As one regeneration
professional in the city noted,
There’s almost a sense in which the European programme is filling a vacuum
in terms of economic development for a regional consciousness . . . the role of
the Strathclyde partnership is to say that you may be undermining something
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 677
happening somewhere else. It allows an awareness that will hopefully impact
on what’s done to make sure you get maximum effect.
(interview, SEP, 25 February 2002)
Similar sentiments were forthcoming in Birmingham, where the construction of
a regional consciousness around the ‘engine’ of the central city has been assisted
by on-going Europeanization: ‘Birmingham now operates not as a city, but as
a city-region. In an economic strategy sense, we have moved from a city
to a regional perspective’ (interview, BCC, 24 October 2002). European
adaptational pressures have thus incentivized urban councils to adopt more
strategic and partnership-based methods of working, despite the existence of
the Whitehall ‘gatekeeper’ and continuing domestic institutional flux.
6. DOWNLOAD EUROPEANIZATION: NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND LOCAL ACTORS
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), operating at both community and
metropolitan level, have also adjusted their approach to regeneration in response
to EU initiatives. The experience of bidding for European Social Fund monies,
coupled with extensive participation in both regional Programme Monitoring
Committees, lent a new prominence to groups such as the Birmingham Voluntary
Service Council and the Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector. The
requirements of the Structural Funds greatly enhanced the decision-making
role of grass-roots organizations in both project planning and implementation.
In the words of one interviewee, ‘the Structural Funds have transformed the face
of Birmingham. The social partners have realized this too . . . There’s a lot of
networking between all these different organizations. Time and again you
meet people with two, three, four, five different hats linked to European
activity’ (interview, West Midlands in Europe, 29 May 2002). Driven by
Birmingham’s vocal third sector, community actors from across the region
established the West Midlands European Network and Regional Action West
Midlands to express the will of the community and voluntary sectors in
European and domestic issues, respectively. A one-time top BCC civil servant
commented that
Absolutely, there is a ratchet effect. That level of investment has increased the
pluralism, the number of voluntary organizations, in Birmingham – this is
partly down to Structural Funds input. The security of some of these
bodies has also been helped by Structural Funds money. And it’s produced
a bigger generation of people used to working in such organizations.
(interview, 25 June 2002)
In Glasgow, meanwhile, non-governmental actors today account for approximately
half of the membership of the Strathclyde European Partnership, and
play a significant role in the project selection and implementation stages of
EU-funded and domestic urban regeneration projects (SEP 2001).
678 Journal of European Public Policy
The Europeanization of NGOs has not, however, been limited to third sector
participation in city- and region-wide structures. Even at the neighbourhood
level, community groups have become linked into multi-level EU networks
which hand out financial assistance in return for adherence to the principles
of partnership and strategic programming. The URBAN Community
Initiative – which operated in North Glasgow and in Birmingham’s
Sparkbrook area between 1997 and 1999 – is one such example. Although
small in budgetary terms, these programmes prompted substantial engagement
on the part of community organizations which previously had no political or
financial links beyond local government level. ‘There is a kind of institutional
culture that is overwhelming’, noted one interviewee, but ‘in the long term,
however, things are shifting in favour of the social partners’ (interview, West
Midlands in Europe, 29 May 2002). Thus at both metropolitan and neighbourhood
level, the ‘download’ of European norms of partnership has facilitated
participatory modes of working that spur on the transition from urban
government to governance.
7. DOWNLOAD EUROPEANIZATION: LOCAL REGENERATION
PARTNERSHIPS
The increasing participation of non-governmental actors in European initiatives
has proceeded hand in hand with the development of a wide array of local
regeneration partnerships in both Birmingham and Glasgow. Although targeted
partnership initiatives have existed in both cities since the mid-1970s, in
response to economic crisis, their organization prior to the arrival of European
funding and norms was quite different. Whereas Birmingham historically
favoured public–private initiatives, focused principally on the construction of
‘flagship’ city-centre venues (Loftman and Nevin 1998), endogenous models
of partnership in greater Glasgow focused more extensively on social inclusion
and employment needs in the city’s most deprived areas (Pacione 1995). Fifteen
years’ eligibility for European Structural Funding, however, has caused actors in
both city-regions to adjust their partnership structures in ways that reflect
greater convergence with the norms of partnership promoted by the European
Commission. In the city of Glasgow, this process entailed the mainstreaming of
European, national and local visions of partnership into a single overarching
concept known as the Glasgow Alliance. Itself a broad, consensus-based
partnership, the Alliance charts strategic policy and facilitates access to
funding and decision-making for its constituent partnership areas. ‘One of
the greatest legacies and impacts of the [EU] partnership model’ in Glasgow,
noted one programme manager, ‘is that as a result of the West of Scotland
Objective 2 programme, the local economic development companies have
sprung up and become a significant force . . . the community approach has
showed people a direction, a way that they can work together to create a
lasting benefit’ (interview, SEP, 25 February 2002).
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 679
Without the Structural Funds as a project catalyst and enabler, most Glasgow
and Birmingham local regeneration companies would never have become fixtures
of the urban institutional landscape. As a former top BCC official
remarked, EU assistance ‘will probably leave a widely distributed and enhanced
understanding of what works and doesn’t work, drawing partners together – in
sum, the skills of coalition-building’ at the micro level (interview, 25 June
2002). There is a significant degree of optimism that urban regeneration partnerships,
although started with EU funding, have become broadly institutionalized:
‘They have built in structures and partnerships that will live on, operating
with the local authorities and the NGOs’, noted a Local Government International
Bureau interviewee, who insisted that: ‘the small community groups
are doing the best work – the local authority is saying they have a commitment
to these groups, and will divert the money there’ (interview, 21 June 2002).
While these partnerships continue to reflect the embedded institutional characteristics
of their respective cities, they also display a commitment to joint working,
capacity-building and holistic thinking that is less evident in non-beneficiary
cities across Britain.7
Whereas many British urban authorities seem to operate
to the hymn sheet prepared by central government, those drawing down
funding from the EU display a more strategic approach, reflecting their
higher degree of Europeanization. In effect, involvement with the Structural
Funds has prompted many British urban partnerships to think ‘outside the
box’ to bring scarce resources together in order to provoke community business
development, employment, innovative social projects and physical regeneration.
8. UPLOAD AND CROSSLOAD EUROPEANIZATION:
NETWORKS AND EU INSTITUTIONS
Successive Structural Fund programmes in Birmingham and Glasgow have also
been accompanied by significant ‘upload’ Europeanization. As acknowledged by
local political leaders and regeneration practitioners, actors in both cities have
been keen to feed their experiences back to supranational bodies in order to
fine-tune European economic development and regeneration programmes. As
one interviewee at Scottish Enterprise Glasgow remarked, ‘We’re not doing it
just for funding purposes – best practices and learning are also very important.
We must swap information in order to develop Glasgow as a European city and
build a higher, more complete identity. Hence our willingness to submit to an
OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] external
critique’ (interview, 1 March 2002). Birmingham, meanwhile, uses its position
as a founder member and key contributor to the EUROCITIES network in
order to upload and crossload information about its regeneration successes
and failures. Through its leading role in the West Midlands in Europe lobbying
partnership, and the fact that the leader of the City Council is also President of
the Committee of the Regions, Birmingham’s civic leaders have developed a
wide array of channels to ensure the ‘upload’ of their views and practices to
the supranational level.
680 Journal of European Public Policy
In addition, both cities are now actively working to share their extensive
European experience with their counterparts in the accession states by
crossloading best practice using transnational networks and the financial
resources provided by the INTERREG Community Initiative. Glasgow, via
the Strathclyde European Partnership, has developed strong links with regions
in Poland and Hungary, providing training to local authority and NGO personnel
involved in regeneration, partnership formation, and local capacity-building
(SEP 2001).The city’s urban renewal innovations have been so widely discussed
that Glasgow is now the subject of an extensive OECD ‘Urban Renaissance’
report, which serves as a vehicle for the ‘upload’ of the city’s regeneration
model (OECD 2003). Birmingham and the West Midlands conurbation are
also involved in Eastern Europe, and have developed a high profile in the
Council of Europe’s Congress of European Municipalities and Regions in
order to crossload their own experiences and preferences vis-a`-vis regeneration
and partnership creation. As one local government observer noted, ‘we know
that we can’t just say we want this or that from Brussels . . . we need to build
national and cross-national alliances . . . we’ve done a lot of background work
which could develop the arguments’ (interview, West Midlands Local Government
Association, 24 October 2002). Although this perspective has taken time
to build, it today drives urban and regional actors in UK beneficiary cities to
pursue a more visible profile at European level (Benington and Harvey,
1999) as there is an increasing recognition that policy preferences can be
‘uploaded’ via on-going EU programmes and initiatives.
9. EARLY CONCLUSIONS: EUROPEANIZATION AT THE
URBAN LEVEL
This short article has developed a framework for the analysis of Europeanization
at the urban level, and has tested that framework on two British cities which
have histories of involvement with EU institutions and regional policy
programmes. Clear processes of ‘download’ and ‘upload’ Europeanization
were identified in both Birmingham and Glasgow, where both entrenched
local government structures and less stable micro-level actors were affected by
the adaptational pressures that arose from EU Structural Fund programmes.
Unlike existing analytical paradigms, the novel framework for urban-level
Europeanization articulated at the start of this paper proved useful to
understanding actor behaviour and the dynamics of multi-level interaction
within the extremely complicated British urban system.
While the empirical analysis above captured the salience of Europeanization
in the two city-regions, it also showed that adaptational pressures catalysed by
EU policies have not single-handedly provoked large-scale urban governance
change. Although European–urban interaction certainly shifted modes of
working at the urban level and enabled local actors to articulate positions independent
of other tiers of territorial governance, these value shifts seemed largely
confined to European working. The research cited here shows that there has been
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 681
only a limited amount of ‘spill-over’ into domestic urban regeneration
programmes, which continue to operate according to the path-dependent institutional
norms and priorities dictated by the nation-state (see also Marshall
2003a). Differences between European and national understandings of urban
governance and regeneration policy, especially in less communautaire countries
like the United Kingdom, will increase in political significance in the not-toodistant
future – especially since the EU is likely to gain additional power over
aspects of environmental protection and urban affairs.
Although the empirical material presented above concentrated on British
city-regions, the analytical model used to explore and explain urban Europeanization
in Birmingham and Glasgow is generalizable. The framework articulated
above can easily be used to examine the degree of ‘fit’ between existing
institutions and EU requirements in other European urban areas, provided
that the cities selected satisfy the criterion of ‘significant involvement’ with
EU programmes and institutions. Processes of download and upload
Europeanization, catalysed by adaptational pressures from above and mediated
by existing institutions at the domestic level, are by no means limited to the
cities of the British Isles alone. Similarly, the theoretical framework upon
which the concept of ‘urban Europeanization’ is predicated includes concepts
such as new institutionalism and network governance, which have been
deployed to explain and predict sub-national political behaviour across
Europe. As adaptational pressures from the EU build in cities across the continent,
‘urban Europeanization’ represents a salient driver for change from
Budapest to Berlin to Bristol and beyond – and therefore must be accorded
the same level of academic attention as the study of Europeanization at
other territorial levels.
Address for correspondence: Adam Marshall, Centre of International
Studies, University of Cambridge, 17 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1RX, UK.
email: ajbm2@cam.ac.uk
NOTES
1 This definition owes much to work undertaken by Ian Bache (2002, 2003), which I
have adapted here.
2 Adapted from Green Cowles et al. (2001).
3 See, inter alia, Leach and Percy-Smith (2001); Stoker (1999); Stewart (2000).
4 Now housed in ODPM, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
5 See, amongst others, Tewdwr-Jones and McNeill (2000); Heinelt and Staeck (1999).
6 The regional authority, which undertook the majority of European working from
1975 to 1996 on behalf of Glasgow District Council. When regional councils
disbanded in 1996, European competences and personnel transferred to the new
unitary Glasgow City Council. For more, see McAteer (1997); Colwell and
McLaren (1999).
7 One such example is Bristol, which has had huge difficulty developing strong
partnerships and integrated regeneration programmes. For more see, inter alia,
Oatley and Lambert (1999).
682 Journal of European Public Policy
REFERENCES
Bache, I. (1998) The Politics of European Union Regional Policy: Multilevel Governance or
Flexible Gatekeeping?, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Bache, I. (1999) ‘The extended gatekeeper: central government and the implementation
of EC regional policy in the UK’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(1): 28–45.
Bache, I. (2000) ‘Government within governance: network steering in Yorkshire and the
Humber’, Public Administration 78(3): 575–92.
Bache, I. (2002) ‘Europeanization: a governance perspective’. Paper presented to the
ESRC/UACES Study Group on the Europeanization of British Politics and
Policy-Making, Sheffield, 29 November 2002.
Bache, I. (2003) ‘Europeanization: a governance approach’. Paper presented to the
EUSA 8th Biennial Conference, Nashville, March 2003.
Bache, I. et al. (1996) ‘The European Union, cohesion policy and sub-national
authorities in the United Kingdom’, in L. Hooghe (ed.), Cohesion Policy and
European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bailey, N. (1995) Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy, London: UCL Press.
Benington, J. and Harvey, J. (1999) ‘Networking in Europe’, in G. Stoker (ed.), The
New Management of British Local Governance, London: Macmillan.
Benz, A. and Eberlein, B. (1999) ‘The Europeanization of regional policies: patterns of
multi-level governance’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(2): 329–48.
Bogdanor, V. (1999) Devolution in the United Kingdom, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (1996) Decision-Making in the European Union: Implications
for Central–Local Government Relations, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (1998) ‘European Union decision making: the role of
subnational authorities’, Political Studies 46(2): 219–35.
Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (2000) ‘Policy transfer and Europeanisation: passing the
Heineken test?’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation, Belfast, No. 2/2000.
Bo¨rzel, T. and Risse, T. (2000) ‘When Europe hits home: Europeanisation and
domestic change’, EUI Working Papers, No. RSC 2000/56.
Brenner, N. (1999) ‘Globalization as reterritorialization: the rescaling of governance in
the European Union’, Urban Studies 36(3): 431–451.
Bulmer, S. (1994) ‘The governance of the European Union: a new institutionalist
approach’, Journal of Public Policy 13: 351–80.
Bulmer, S. (1995) ‘Four faces of European Union governance: a new institutionalist
research agenda’, European Policy Research Unit Paper No. 2/95, Manchester:
University of Manchester.
Bulmer, S. and Burch, M. (2000) ‘Coming to terms with Europe: Europeanisation,
Whitehall and the challenge of devolution’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation,
Belfast, No. 9/2000.
CEC (1997a) Europe’s Cities: Community Measures in Urban Areas, Luxembourg:
Eur-OP.
CEC (1997b) Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union, COM (97) 197 Final,
Brussels: CEC.
CEC (1998) Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for
Action, Brussels: CEC.
Colwell, A. and McLaren, G. (1999) ‘The Scottish experience of preparing and
implementing Structural Fund programmes’, Scotland Europa Papers, No. 18.
Dardanelli, P. (1999) ‘Implementing subsidiarity: regional policy from a British
perspective’, Regional and Federal Studies 9(2): 69–88.
Davies, H. (ed.) (1996) Quangos and Local Government: A Changing World, London:
Frank Cass.
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 683
Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (1996) ‘Who learns what from whom: a review of the
policy transfer literature’, Political Studies 44: 343–57.
Evans, M. and Davies, J. (1999) ‘Understanding policy transfer: a multi-level, multidisciplinary
perspective’, Public Administration 77(2): 361–85.
Goetz, K. and Hix, S. (eds) (2001) Europeanised Politics? European Integration and
National Political Systems, London: Frank Cass.
Goldsmith, M. and Klausen, K. (eds) (1997) European Integration and Local
Government, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Goldsmith, M. and Sperling, E. (1997) ‘Local governments and the EU: the British
experience’, in M. Goldsmith and K. Klausen (eds), European Integration and
Local Government, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Green Cowles, M. et al. (eds) (2001) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and
Domestic Change, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hall, P. and Taylor, R. (1996) ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’,
Political Studies 44: 936–57.
Harding, A. (1997) ‘Urban regeneration in a Europe of the cities’, European Urban and
Regional Studies 4(4): 291–314.
Harding, A. et al. (eds) (1994) European Cities Towards 2000: Profiles, Policies and
Prospects, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Harmsen, R. (2000) ‘Europeanization and governance: a new institutionalist
perspective’, in R. Harmsen and T.M. Wilson (eds), Europeanization: Institutions,
Identities and Citizenship, Yearbook of European Studies No. 14, Amsterdam/
Atlanta: Rodopi Press, pp. 51–81.
Harmsen, R. and Wilson, T.M. (eds) (2000) Europeanization: Institutions, Identities
and Citizenship, Yearbook of European Studies No. 14, Amsterdam/Atlanta:
Rodopi Press.
Heidenreich, M. (1998) ‘The changing system of European cities and regions’,
European Planning Studies 6(3): 315–32.
Heinelt, H. and Staeck, N. (1999) ‘Capacity for action at the local level’, in B. Blanke
and R. Smith (eds), Cities in Transition: New Challenges, New Responsibilities, London:
Macmillan.
Hill, D. (2000) Urban Policy and Politics in Britain, London: Macmillan.
John, P. (1996a) ‘Centralisation, decentralisation and the European Union: the
dynamics of triadic relationships’, Public Administration 74: 293–313.
John, P. (1996b) ‘Europeanisation in a centralising state: multi-level governance in the
UK’, Regional and Federal Studies 6(2): 131–144.
John, P. (1997) ‘Sub-national partnerships and European integration – the difficult
case of London and the South East’, in J. Bradbury and J. Mawson (eds), British
Regionalism and Devolution: The Challenges of State Reform and European Integration,
London: Jessica Kingsley and the Regional Studies Association.
John, P. (2000) ‘The Europeanisation of sub-national governance’, Urban Studies
37(5–6): 877–94.
John, P. (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe, London: Sage.
Keating, M. (1997) ‘The invention of regions: political restructuring and territorial
government in Western Europe’, Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy 15: 383–98.
Keating, M. (2001) ‘Governing cities and regions: territorial restructuring in a global
age’, in A. Scott (ed.), Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Leach, R. and Percy-Smith, J. (2001) Local Governance in Britain, London: Palgrave.
Le Gale`s, P. (2002) European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Le Gale`s, P. and Harding, A. (1998) ‘Cities and states in Europe’, West European Politics
21(3): 120–45.
684 Journal of European Public Policy
Loftman, P. and Nevin, B. (1998) ‘Pro-growth local economic development strategies:
civic promotion and local needs in Britain’s second city, 1981–1996’, in T. Hall and
P. Hubbard (eds), The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and
Representation, Chichester: John Wiley.
Lowndes, V. (2001) ‘Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institutional theory seriously in urban
politics’, Urban Studies 38(11): 1953–71.
Lowndes, V. (2002) ‘Institutionalism’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds), Theory and
Methods in Political Science, 2nd edn, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions, London: Free Press.
March, J. and Olsen, J. (1998) ‘The institutional dynamics of international political
orders’, International Organization 52(3): 943.
Marshall, A. (2003a) ‘European regional policy and urban governance: assessing reform
and renewal in Britain and Ireland’. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Cambridge.
Marshall, A. (2003b) ‘Urban and local governance: the growing European dimension’,
Journal of European Public Policy 10(3): 478–85.
Martin, S. (1998) ‘EU programmes and the evolution of local economic governance in
the UK’, European Urban and Regional Studies 5(3): 237–248.
Martin, S. and Pearce, G. (1992) ‘The internationalisation of local authority
economic development strategies: Birmingham in the 1980s’, Regional Studies
26(5): 499–503.
McAleavey, P. (1995) ‘European Regional Development Fund expenditure in the UK:
from additionality to “subtractionality”’, European Urban and Regional Studies 2(3):
249–253.
McAleavey, P. and Mitchell, J. (1994) ‘Industrial regions and lobbying in the Structural
Funds reform process’, Journal of Common Market Studies 32(2): 237–48.
McAteer, M. (1997) ‘The end of the regional experiment? Some implications of
Scottish local government reorganisation for English regions’, Policy and Politics
25(1): 61–69.
Oatley, N. (ed.) (1998) Cities, Economic Competition and Urban Policy, London: Paul
Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Oatley, N. and Lambert, C. (1999) ‘Local capacity in Bristol: tentative steps toward
institutional thickness’, in Blanke and Smith (eds), Cities in Transition: New
Challenges, New Responsibilities, London: Macmillan.
OECD (2003) Urban Renaissance – Glasgow: Lessons for Innovation and Implementation,
Paris: OECD.
Olsen, J. (2002) ‘The many faces of Europeanisation’, Journal of Common Market
Studies 40(5): 921–52.
Pacione, M. (1995) Glasgow: The Socio-spatial Development of the City, Chichester:
John Wiley.
Pierre, J. (ed.) (1998) Partnerships in Urban Governance – European and American
Experience, London: Macmillan.
Radaelli, C. (2000) ‘Whither Europeanisation? Concept stretching and substantive
change’, European Integration Online Papers, vol. 4, no. 8.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Risse, T. et al. (2001) ‘Introduction’, in M. Green Cowles et al. (eds), Transforming
Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
SEP (2001) Western Scotland Objective 2 and Transitional Programme 2000–2006.
Single Programming Document, Glasgow: SEP.
Skelcher, C. (1998) The Appointed State: Quasi-Governmental Organisations and
Democracy, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Smith, A. (1998) ‘The sub-regional level: key battleground for the Structural Funds?’, in
P. Le Gale`s and C. Lequesne (eds), Regions in Europe, London: Routledge.
A. Marshall: Europeanization at the urban level 685
Smith, R. (1999) ‘European Union policies and funds – the role of urban government
in England’, in Blanke and Smith (eds), Cities in Transition: New Challenges, New
Responsibilities, London: Macmillan.
Steinmo, S. and Thelen, K. (1992) ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’,
in S. Steinmo et al. (eds), Structuring Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Stewart, J. (2000) The Nature of British Local Government, London: Macmillan.
Stewart, J. and Stoker, G. (1995) ‘Fifteen years of local government restructuring
1979–1994: an evaluation’, in J. Stewart and G. Stoker (eds), Local Government
in the 1990s, London: Macmillan.
Stewart, J. and Stoker, G. (eds) (1995) Local Government in the 1990s, London:
Macmillan.
Stoker, G. (ed.) (1999) The New Management of British Local Governance, London:
Macmillan.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and McNeill, D. (2000) ‘The politics of city-region planning and
governance – reconciling the national, regional and urban in the competitive
voices of restructuring’, European Urban and Regional Studies 7(2): 119–34.
Final version accepted for publication 21/6/04
686 Journal of European Public Policy