Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
105
Local Government and European integration
– beyond Europeanisation?
Marius Guderjan
Manchester Metropolitan Unversity
M.guderjan@mmu.ac.uk
Abstract
Amongst the range of studies focusing on the Europeanisation of
various types of local government across Europe, only a few attempts
have been made to address European integration from a local
government perspective. European integration triggers top-down and
bottom-up (as well as horizontal) Europeanisation processes of local
government, but it is not clear how local actors feed back into the
dynamics of integration. The paper, therefore, explores how the
engagement of local authorities and their agents has led to a greater
role of local governments within the formal set-up of the EU.
Moreover, integration from a local government perspective needs to
account for the evolution of interactive policy styles and cooperative
modes of governance amongst institutions and actors from multiple
levels of government. Notwithstanding the limited scope of local
engagement and the role of national governments as powerful
gatekeepers, local mobilisation has achieved modest success in
modifying integration. The relationship between the European and the
local level may be best understood in the light of a blurred, compound
policy arrangement involving actors from different levels.
Key Words: European integration, local government, Europeanisation,
multilevel governance, Fusion
Introduction
Since the early 1990s with the completion of the single market, the European
integration process has significantly affected local governments across Europe.
The implementation of EU legislation and the European Regional and
Cohesion Policy have led to Europeanisation processes at the local level,
whereby local authorities became increasingly aware of the EU’s influence on
their practice, and as a consequence they adapted their politico-administrative
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
106
structures. The impact of European integration, however, is not a one-way
street. EU membership has also provided local authorities with windows of
opportunity that changed local decisions and encouraged municipal
entrepreneurship to promote local concerns at the European stage (Fleurke and
Willemse, 2006: 85; Goldsmith and Klausen, 1997: 1 et seq.; Marshall, 2005:
669; Martin, 1997: 63; Sturm and Dieringer, 2005: 282). Consequently, a new
quality in the relationship between the local and the European level has been
achieved, which raises a number of questions. How do we need to understand
the relationship between the European and the local level? Is it a matter of
Europeanisation or of European integration at the local level? How do we need
to understand Europeanisation and integrative processes at the local level? And
how do these processes affect the relationship between both layers of
government?
A number of studies have looked at the implications of integration on local
authorities within individual member states (see for example Alemann and
Münch, 2006; Goldsmith, 1997; Guderjan, 2011; John, 1997; Le Galès and
Lequesne, 1998; Loughlin, 2001; Marshall, 2008; Mather, 2000; Mawson,
1998; Montin, 2011; Rechlin, 2004; Witte, 2011). Other works have researched
Europeanisation processes within cities (see for example Hamedinger, 2011;
Heinelt and Niederhafner, 2008; Marshall, 2005; Schultze, 2003), the
implementation of EU legislation by local authorities, the allocation of
Structural Funds and horizontal activities through local governance networks
(see for example Bennington and Harvey, 1999; Goldsmith, 2011: 35; Heiden,
2011; Karvounis, 2011; Martin, 1997; Zerbinati, 2004; Zerbinati and Massey,
2008). Notwithstanding the value of these studies, insights of isolated case
studies remain partial and can hardly account for a differentiated picture of
integration processes at the local level (Martin and Pearce, 1999: 33 et seq.).
Fifteen years after Goldsmith and Klausen (1997) addressed the need for an
overall theoretical perspective of the change of local governments in the light
of European integration, there is still a lack in such attempts. This article thus
explores potential dynamics relationship between the local and the European
level beyond Europeanisation processes. It seeks to do so by suggesting how
integration from a local government perspective needs be approached and
conceptionalised. This article begins with an overview of Europeanisation
concepts in relation to local government and discusses they differ from
approaches dealing with the dynamics of European integration. It is suggested
to understand integration from a local government perspective as an evolving,
yet not omni-present and ever-lasting pattern of cooperation and interaction
between actors from multiple levels. In order to support this perspective, this
article looks at top-down and bottom-up dynamics, as well as their potential
impact on the formal acknowledgement of local governments within the EU’s
polity, and the design and delivery of its policies.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
107
This article concludes that even though national governments remain in charge
of the major decisions about the EU’s policies and polity, and municipalities
engage in a fairly limited range of policy areas, local actors feed into the
multilevel realities of the EU. However, whilst there is clear evidence for
various Europeanisation processes at the local level, the impact of the latter on
European integration is less straightforward and differs across member states,
time and policy areas. Nonetheless, whereas Intergovernmentalism and the
Multilevel Governance approach (MLG) engage more with debates about shifts
of power amongst territorial levels, the study of local government shows that a
theoretical perspective of multilevel integration benefits from an additional
focus on the interplay between actors and institutions from different levels
within compound governance arrangements.
European integration of local government beyond Europeanisation –
theoretical considerations
In relation to the study of local government (as well as generally)
Europeanisation encompasses a range of different meanings within the
academic literature. The most common usage includes downloading processes
as changes in policies, practice and preferences within cities; bottom-up
mobilisation as the transfer of innovative urban practices to the supranational
arena; horizontal processes of Europeanisation for local authorities, which
involve cooperation and the exchange of best practice and innovations through
transnational networks; and organisational adaptation within the politicoadministrative
structure of local authorities (see De Rooij, 2002: 449; Heinelt
and Niederhafner, 2008; Kern and Bulkeley, 2009: 312; Marshall, 2005: 672;
Van Bever, Reynaert, and Steyvers, 2011a: 16 et seq.). John (2000: 881 et seq.;
2001: 72) identifies different stages of Europeanisation of local governments,
whereby the lowest step of his ‘ladder’ means the absorption in a top-down
manner, followed by bottom-up and horizontal activities. The highest level of
municipal Europeanisation is marked by the incorporation of European ideas
and practices into the core of the local policy agenda.
Notwithstanding the differences in these understandings of Europeanisation, all
of them have in common that they are the result of integration and address the
corresponding adaptation of activities and institutions within the member states
(Vink and Graziano, 2007: 3 et seq.; Börzel and Risse, 2000: 1).
Europeanisation and integration thus are distinct phenomena. Europeanisation
is a post-ontological phenomenon following the actual ontological matter, ergo
European integration (Radaelli, 2003: 33). Since the former is not an
explanatory theory itself (Olsen, 2002: 921 et seq.), its application as an
empirical tool requires embedding it within a wider context of integration in
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
108
order to understand the causality of Europeanisation (Bulmer, 2007: 46 et seq.;
Radaelli, 2003: 27 et seq.). Whilst most studies of local-supranational relations
have highlighted the Europeanisation of local government, hardly any efforts
have been made to explore how municipal actors and institutions relate to the
overall system of governance. Europeanisation may be a means through which
multilevel governance is accomplished (Pollack, 2005: 348), but does the
Europeanisation of local government go in hand with a ‘municipalisation’ of
European governance? This would include mutual exchange and socialising
processes between the European and local level, and in particular changes in
the dynamics of European policies and polity.
Since local government actors are for obvious reasons not the major actors in
shaping the evolution of the EU, they provide an example of how integration is
modified through and within compound policy arenas in which various
stakeholders from different levels engage and interact. Although national
governments remain the key players, some of their influence within EU policymaking
has partly shifted to the supranational and the subnational levels of
government (Hooghe and Marks, 2001: 77 et seq.). Hooghe and Marks (1996;
2001; 2003; 2004; 2010) suggested that interconnected political arenas have
evolved, and power and competencies have spread across multiple centres of
governance. Notwithstanding the relevance of the Multilevel Governance
approach for the study of subnational government (which will be discussed in
the author’s forthcoming work), this article engages less with the shift of power
between territorial levels, as suggested by MLG type 1, but more with a
‘complex set of overlapping and nested systems of governance involving
European, national, regional and local actors, and networks’ (Loughlin, 2001:
20), which also reflects MLG type 2. This is partly the case, because not every
local authority within every member states has become part of a fully-fledged
multilevel governance system as promoted by MLG type 1 (see for example
Bache, 1998; Martin and Pearce, 1999: 46).
The study of integration from a local government perspective benefits by
looking at how active local actors and agents evoke new dynamics of
integration rather than how local governments in general are forceful drivers of
integration. Benz and Eberlin (1999: 332 et seq.) argue that multilevel
governance develops through patterns of ‘loose coupling’ without relying on
binding mandates or formal decision-making. Institutional and power-related
tensions caused by resource dependencies and control mechanisms between
different levels set structural limits to the formation of multilevel governance.
Therefore, multilevel governance needs to be understood in the context of
cognitive (instead of political), communicative and negotiation processes, as
well as of coalition- and network-building (ibid.). Such an understanding of
integration also goes in line with the Fusion approach developed by Wessels
(1992, 1997, 2003) and Miles (2005, 2007), which focuses on moments of
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
109
political and functional blurring amongst different levels government. Like
MLG, Fusion argues against a strict analytical separation between domestic
and international politics in the context of European policies. In the course of
integration, the European and domestic policy arenas have become
interconnected, whereby subnational actors bypass central governments and
operate in a blurred system of multilevel governance that is outside their
national borders (Hooghe and Marks, 2001: 4; Lindh et al., 2009: 37).
In order to see whether the role of local government within the EU is merely a
matter of Europeanisation processes or whether it is part of a wider integrative
dynamic, whereby the ‘hierarchical management by the state is replaced by
cooperation between state, local and social actors’ (Benz et al., 2000: 19); this
article gives a short overview of top-down and bottom-up Europeanisation
processes at the local level, which are subsequently linked to their potential
impact on European integration. This is assessed against developments in the
acknowledgement of local governments within the EU’s polity, as well as in
the design and delivery of its policies. Thereby, the primary focus lies on the
evolution of cooperative and interactive patterns amongst actors from different
levels of government, which can be interpreted as modification of European
integration.
European integration of local government beyond Europeanisation –
empirical evidence
Europeanisation
Downloading and uploading (as well as horizontal and adaptation) dynamics
are major indicators for integration. In a first step, these processes are the
consequence of the EU’s evolution. As they also feed back and potentially
modify the logic of integration, the following provides a short outline of them
in order to link them back to changes in the EU’s polity and policy style.
With the Single European Act in 1987 and the completion of the common
market, the legal impact on local authorities rose continually, as the free
movements of goods, persons, services and capital had to be implemented
(Münch, 2006: 127; Rechlin, 2004: 16 et seq.). As local authorities are a major
administrative capacity within the member states, the increasing scope and
number of EU policies has led to a corresponding impact on the local level
(Goldsmith, 1997: 5 et seq.; 2003: 121 et seq.). Around three quarters of EU
outputs are implemented at the subnational, and particularly at the local level
(Bever, Reynaert and Steyvers, 2011a: 16), and directives directly apply for
local governments, in case nationals or regional governments have not
transferred them into domestic law. Cities, for example, enforce EU legislation
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
110
in fields, such as public procurement, state aid, regional policy, social and
health policy, equal opportunities and anti-discrimination, vocational training,
food and health control, the environment, energy and transport etc. (Schultze,
2003: 123).
The three major fields relevant for local governments include legislation related
to the internal market, environmental law, regional and cohesion policy.
Particularly in the area of competition and state aid, the EU holds exclusive
competences and produces regulations, which are directly applicable at the
local level (Goldsmith, 2003: 121; John, 2000: 879; Wollmann and Lund, 1997:
64). The impact of environmental legislation on local authorities is direct and
of great significance, because in many cases they have to implement and
control it within their territory (Witte and Nutzenberger, 2006: 154 et seq.). In
addition to such legal acts, the EU also operates through programme and
funding schemes to promote European policy objectives. Although the EU’s
regional and cohesion policy is part of the new opportunity structure that local
authorities can deploy, these policies still require compliance. In order to
qualify for funding, local governments have to meet certain eligibility criteria,
follow given strategies or aim for specific objectives (Van Bever, Reynaert and
Steyvers, 2011a: 18, De Rooij, 2002: 453).1
The instruments of the regional
and cohesion policy for 2007-2013 have been subordinated to the Lisbon
priorities, such as economic competitiveness and growth. Subsequently, the
new Europe 2020 strategy also provides an important reference for local
governments because it continues and even extends the function of the Lisbon
Agenda as the framework for the regional and cohesion policy (see BBSR,
2011).
Due to the new opportunity structure provided by the EU’s regional and
cohesion policy, local authorities have possibilities to interact with institutions
at different levels. The can take individual action, or more common rely on
their domestic municipal associations and umbrella organisations and
participate in transnational networks, such as the Council of European
Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), EUROCITIES and other transnational
networks (Benington and Harvey, 2001: 204; De Rooij, 2002: 449; Heinelt and
Niederhafner, 2008: 173 et seq.). Compared to national governments, the
Commission’s divisional structure is less entrenched, but more open towards
interest groups. Although the Commission does not offer institutionalised
access to local actors, it seeks to legitimise its activities with input from
regional and local government (Benington and Harvey, 1999: 204). Moreover,
as the Commission relies on information on policy needs and information from
1
Examples hereof are multiannual running-times of programmes, joint preparation,
implementation and monitoring through multilevel partnerships, additionally of financial
means and co-financing between the EU and the partners within the member states (John,
2000: 880; Marks, 1993: 395 et seq.; Timm, 2006: 120).
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
111
local government alternatively to that of national governments, it developed an
interest in working with the local level (Goldsmith, 2003: 121). This in turn
created opportunities for bottom-up activities (Schultze, 2003: 123 et seq.), and
even fostered mutual alliances when the local level would conflict with their
central government. Additionally, local actors participate in the EP’s
intergroups and they lobby across different party groups (Heinelt and
Niederhafner, 2008: 175 et seq.).
However, only a ‘small European avant-garde’ of local actors operates at the
European level to influence political and legal decisions. Most local actors
perceive the EU as too far away and do not understand how the EU works
(Witte, 2011: 279 et seq.). How effectively the new opportunities can be
exploited depends the position of local authorities in their domestic context, as
well as on the situation within these authorities; for example, the availability of
financial and personnel resources or personal contacts to relevant actors (De
Rooij, 2002: 449). Although central governments dominate the activities of
local governments, especially in unitary states (Goldsmith, 2003: 125), local
authorities occasionally bypass their intra-state arrangements and directly
address the European level. At the same time, however, they seek to cooperate
with their regional and national government as part of a complementary
strategy. The simultaneous deployment of intra-state (cooperative
paradiplomacy) and extra-state (bypassing paradiplomacy) channels of interest
representation increases the prospects of successful interest promotion
(Tatham, 2010: 76 et seq.).
The top-down impact of EU certain policies as well as the opportunity structure
of the regional and cohesion policy, and the Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020
define the areas in which the evolution interactive policy styles is primarily
relevant. The strong gatekeeper role of national and regional governments leads
to a two-fold mobilisation strategy of local actors dependent on the existing
tensions in the relation between territorial levels within a member state. The
combination of cooperative and bypassing diplomacy leads to varying patterns
of interaction and to blurred policy outcomes. This is elaborated at a later point.
European integration of local governments – a polity perspective
Due to the joint efforts of municipal actors across the EU in the forerun to the
failed Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty has been a major success of the
joint efforts of local actors across different member states (Münch, 2006: 247).
In particular the German and Austrian municipal associations together with the
CEMR have been able to address their demands at an early stage of the
Constitutional Convention. Not only was the president of the Convention, the
former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, also the president of the
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
112
CEMR, the vice-president Heinrich Hoffschulte represented the CEMR in
Convention in a very engaged manner, because d’Estaing had to temporarily
resign from his presidency during the Convention. The demands of the
municipal representatives included the acknowledgement of the right to local
self-government; the extension of subsidiarity to local government; the
protection of the delivery of services of general interest through local
authorities; and a stronger role for the CoR. The Lisbon Treaty meets most of
these concerns (Zimmermann, 2006).
It is the first European treaty that explicitly refers to the local level, which
indicates the growing significance of local government in the integration
process. Under Article 4.2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the EU for
the first time acknowledges the right to local self-government for the first:
The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the
Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their
fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of
regional and local self-government.
According to Hoffschulte (2006: 63), the Lisbon Treaty manifests the
constitutional recognition of a ‘Europe of four levels’. Though the Maastricht
Treaty subsidiarity introduced the principle of subsidiarity to safeguard
competences at the national level, Article 5.3 (TEU) extends subsidiarity to the
regional and the local level:
Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall
within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in
so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level
or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale
or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
Whereas the ‘new‘ subsidiarity clause is not supposed to change local-central
relations within member states, it does protect local freedoms and flexibilities
vis-à-vis the EU and allows the CoR to invoke the principle in front of court
(Flynn, 2005: 6). The question is whether subsidiarity stands in a trade-off
against integration. Previously, the Court of Justice tended to ignore
subsidiarity as a legal principle in favour of driving integration forward and
legitimising EU action. However so far there was no legal case where new
subsidiarity clause has been applied. The right to defend subsidiarity before
court potentially creates greater mutual awareness between the local and the
European level. The Commission would have to put greater emphasis on local
competences, whilst local actors might engage more with the EU to prevent or
shape legislation according to their interests. Thus, instead of blocking
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
113
integration, subsidiarity may add a new quality to it by fostering cooperation
between actors and institutions from different levels of government. The formal
acknowledgement of the local level indicates that European integration is
increasingly considering the role of regional and local governments.
Besides these explicit Treaty references to the local level, Articles 14 (former
Art. 16) and 106.2 (former Art. 86.2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
EU (TFEU), the protocol on services of general interest, as well as Article 36
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union provide the legal
basis for directives and regulations that define delivery services of general
economic interest in relation to national practice and European competition
law. Since local authorities either maintain companies or commission
companies to deliver public services, Article 107.2 (TFEU) (former Art. 87.2)
lists the conditions under which state aid is compatible EU law without
disturbing the internal market as foreseen in Article 107.1, and Article 93
allows for public aids for the provision of public transport (Münch, 2006: 130
et seq.; Waiz and Alkan, 2006: 138 et seq.).
With regard to the EU’s institutional arrangement, the CoR is the only body
through which local representatives formally participate in European policymaking.
Contrary to ‘common’ interest groups, the CoR is assembles elected
government representatives from European regions and localities (Neshkova,
2010: 1195). The policy fields where the CoR is consulted on a non-binding
basis involve: education; culture; public health; social policy; trans-European
networks for transport; employment policy; vocational training;
telecommunication and energy; environment; economic and social cohesion.
The extent to which the CoR exerts influence varies across policy areas and
depends on the regional relevance (Neshkova, 2010: 1196 et seq.; Wagstaff,
1999).
Though the CoR holds fewer powers than the EP, the Council and the
Commission, its influence has grown over time. With the Lisbon Treaty, the
CoR received the power to enforce the principle of subsidiarity vis-à-vis other
EU institutions before the Court of Justice, albeit it is not clear yet how the new
role of the CoR will be realised in practice. Although the official policy
statements of the CoR struggle to attract the interest of the main institutions,
and despite the difficulties in assessing to what degree the Commission actually
considers the recommendations of the CoR, the latter developed to a key
advisor on issues of regional competence (Jahn and Derenbach, 2006: 55).
Neshkova (2010) systematically examined the influence of the CoR within
consultation procedures, and found that through the CoR subnational
governments are effectively involved in EU decision-making.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
114
With the establishment of the CoR, local governments entered the European
Politikverflechtung and the compound through which policies can be
coordinated at multiple levels of government (Jahn and Derenbach, 2006: 48).
Because local actors are still dependent on the good will of the Commission
and the EP to get their voice heard at the European level, some municipal
representatives push for the expansion of procedures and institutions to
guarantee their involvement at the European level. However, the capacity of
local governments to initiate new procedures and structures is limited and
depends on the national governments. The CoR has upgraded its position
within the Union’s institutional set-up through its engagement with other EU
institutions rather than through formal provisions. Whether its new role as an
agent for subsidiarity means that local governments will actually become more
important for the direction of integration has to be seen in the future.
Nevertheless, though some may argue that local actors are still marginalised in
the EU’s polity, it cannot be denied that since the Maastricht Treaty local
governments have acquired an increasing role the EU’s institutional and
procedural set-up. Key actors from central governments are limiting formal
participation rights of local representatives within the EU, the mobilisation of
the latter has led some modifications in the Union’s polity.
European integration of local governments a policy perspective
Despite the increasing recognition of local government in the EU’s formal setup,
the joint design and delivery of policies at least equally important for the
emergence of compound multilevel governance arrangements. Through the
implementation of EU policies municipalities hold a great share in the success
of the integration process (Derenbach, 2006: 77). Nonetheless, downloading
does not manifest integration per se, when it is only part of a one-sided
relationship between the European and the local level. In fields where local
authorities hold decision-making competences, European policies create an
incentive to engage in the wider integration process. Although the influence of
the subnational level is for the most limited to the initial preparation of EU
policies, according to Schultze (2003: 135), ‘this participative mode of
governance, which has superseded earlier forms of hierarchical and cooperative
governance, implies significant changes to the ‘logic of influence’ in EU
decision-making and a triangulation of relationships in the evolving EU polity.’
European integration affects the relations between different territorial levels by
increasing potential coalitions for strategic action and simultaneously creating
a new complexity of governance arrangements. As John (2001: 71) states:
In the view of many observers the impact of the EU is not just an
amalgam of policy responses and short-term strategies to obtain
extra public funds. Rather, European-level institutions and policies
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
115
transfer ideas and working practices in a manner that moves local
decision-making away from national and hierarchical forms of
politics towards more negotiated and interdependent practices that
blur the impact of tiers of government and involve a wide range of
interest groups.
In turn, supranational decision-making is increasingly subject to the influence
of engaged local government actors. The EU’s regional and cohesion policy,
and its economic strategies - Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020 - are direct
points of reference for local governments to engage in EU policies. With the
reforms of the European Structural Funds in 1988, the allocation of funds was
decentralised by introducing the partnership principle for the implementation
of funding programmes. National governments remained in charge of the final
decisions on the allocation and monitoring of funds, but they were supposed to
work in partnerships with local and regional authorities (and other societal
actors) in order to realise the objectives of the Structural Funds (Conzelmann,
1995: 134).
According to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93, Article 4.1:
Community operations shall (…) be established through close
consultations between the Commission, the Member State
concerned and the competent authorities and bodies - including,
within the framework of each Member State's national rules and
current practices, the economic and social partner, designated by
the Member State at national, regional, local or other level, with all
parties acting as partners in pursuit of a common goal. These
consultations shall hereinafter be referred to as the "partnership".
The partnership shall cover the preparation and financing, as well
as the ex ante appraisal, monitoring and ex post evaluation of
operations.
The partnership principle has provided local actors with legitimacy and
opportunities to get involved in EU affairs (Conzelmann, 1995: 135; John,
2001: 69), fostered the participation of local authorities within transnational
organisations and networks, and changed the relationship between the local and
the European level (Marshall, 2008: 669). How the configuration of
partnerships works within different member states depends on the national
politico-administrative arrangements, the approach taken by national
governments towards partnership, as well as on the Commission’s ability to
enforce partnership vis-à-vis national governments. Thus, not all member states
have decided to relax the ‘hierarchical command-and-control form’ within the
implementation process of the EU’s regional policy (Conzelmann, 1995: 135-
139).
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
116
In some member states the regional and cohesion policy provided local
governments with more possibilities to interact with higher levels of
government. The White Paper on European Governance from 2001 was a
further effort of the Commission, the European Parliament and the CoR to
enforce true partnership between different levels of government. The White
Paper acknowledges a holistic and strategic approach for the formulation and
implementation of policies that integrates different levels of government,
which would include systematic dialogues with regional and local
representatives (Atkinson, 2002: 782 et seq.; Karvounis, 2011: 215 et seq.;
Reilly, 2001: 1).
Because the White Paper also failed to achieve a new style of joint governance
(Münch, 2006: 174), its underlying ideas were complemented b the Systematic
Dialogue in 2004. This was sought to provide local and regional government
organisations with exclusive access to the Commission within the early
decision-making process in order to improve policy-implementation (Heinelt
and Niederhafner, 2008: 175; Leitermann, 2006: 335): ‘The aim is to involve
the local actors as far upstream as possible in the decision-making process so
that fuller account will be taken of their opinions on Community policies with
a significant regional and local impact.’ (see Europa, Summaries of EU
legislation) The Systematic Dialogue was an important initiative to include
subnational representatives within EU policy-making and it emphasised the
privileged role of local and regional authorities. Although the first meetings of
with the President of the Commission (first Prodi, then Barroso) were
disappointing for most local participants and did not allow for a real dialogue,
the Systematic Dialogue shows how national and European municipal umbrella
organisations have become relevant points of expertise for the Commission
(Münch, 2006: 242 et seq.).
In addition to the Commission’s commitment to greater involvement of
subnational governments, the CoR (see 2009) ambitiously published its own
white paper on Multilevel Governance:
Multilevel governance is not simply a question of translating
European or national objectives into local or regional action, but
must also be understood as a process for integrating the objectives
of local and regional authorities within the strategies of the
European Union. Moreover, multilevel governance should
reinforce and shape the responsibilities of local and regional
authorities at national level and encourage their participation in the
coordination of European policy, in this way helping to design and
implement Community policies.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
117
The White Paper provides a good example for the self-assurance of local and
regional governments to be recognised as part of a system that evolves across
multiple levels of government. However, when even Commission and EP
struggle to enforce cooperative-modes of policy making across different levels,
without significant support of the member states’ governments, the CoR’s
prospect are rather bleak.
Through the Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020 the ideas of partnership and
dialogue also entered the EU’s economic strategies, whereby the local level has
gradually taken a greater role for the delivering of policy goals (Van Bever,
Reynaert and Steyvers, 2011b: 236 et seq.). Europe 2020 (see European
Commission, 2010) explicitly states:
All national, regional and local authorities should implement the
partnership, closely associating parliaments, as well as social
partners and representatives of civil society, contributing to the
elaboration of national reform programmes as well as to its
implementation.
Additionally, the Commission emphasises the need to include local authorities
into the implementation of Europe 2020:
Dialogue between national, regional and local government will
bring the EU’s priorities closer to people, strengthening the feeling
of ownership needed to get everyone involved in moving Europe
towards the 2020 targets. In many EU countries, the regional or
local authorities are responsible for policy areas linked to the
Europe 2020 strategy such as education and training,
entrepreneurship, labour market or infrastructure. (See European
Commission, Europe 2020)
Though the actual implications for the implementation are not yet clear, the
regional and local levels show a strong ambition to be involved in the design
and delivery of Europe 2020 as permanent partners. Under the Covenant of
Mayors, for example, local authorities across Europe have voluntarily
committed themselves to exceed the Commission’s objective of reducing 20
per cent of CO2 emissions until 2020. This is also part of a wider horizontal
dynamic of the Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. Transnational partnerships
between municipalities and the realisation of social and territorial cohesion
through programmes and projects at the local level contribute to European
integration (Derenbach, 2006: 77), since they enable local governments to feed
innovative policies into the EU’s agenda (John, 2000: 882; 2001: 72).
A consultation of the CoR on Europe 2020 has shown a great interest of
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
118
regional and local authorities in the new agenda. However, although regional
and local governments call for the new approach to overcome economic
recession and territorial disparities across Europe, they express doubts about
the effectiveness of Europe 2020. One of the main concerns addresses the lack
of practical efforts to implement the flagship targets of Europe 2020 in
cooperation between national, regional and local authorities. Instead of
promoting partnerships sufficiently, alike the Lisbon Strategy, Europe 2020 is
criticised for being decided upon in hasty, top-down manner without taking
into account the role of subnational governments. As a consequence, regional
and local authorities seek to contribute to the design and implementation of
Europe 2020 as permanent partners, and call for greater cooperation with
national governments (see Committee of the Regions, 2010a; Committee of the
Regions, 2010b).
In order to overcome the deficits of Europe 2020, the CoR promotes a
Territorial Pact of Regional and Local Authorities on Europe 2020 Strategy, as
proposed by the EP (see European Parliament, 2009):
The European Parliament ‘…calls for the multi-level governance principle to be integrated into
all phases of design and implementation of the EU2020 Strategy to ensure real ownership of
the results by the regional and local authorities, which have to implement it; highlights in this
connection the proposal for a ‘Territorial Pact of Local and Regional Authorities for Europe
2020’ to encourage regions and cities to contribute to the successful achievement of the
objectives of the 2020 Strategy;’
Under such a pact, local, regional and national authorities would have to
coordinate relevant policies in the context of Europe 2020. This may include
legal and financial provisions, as well as adapting governance arrangements to
deliver policies more effectively (see Committee of the Regions, 2010b;
Committee of the Regions, 2010c). Despite the demands of subnational actors
and willingness of the Commission and the EP to grant local governments a
greater role within the preparation and delivery of European policies, such
efforts still lack in implementation.
The introduction of the partnership principle and the subsequent policy
initiatives, such as the two White Papers, the Systematic Dialogue, Lisbon
Agenda, Europe 2020 and Territorial Pact, indicate a growing relevance for
local actors within at least the delivery of EU policies. Commission, EP and
CoR have pushed for a new policy style that integrates different levels not only
for the implementation, but also for the preparation of policies. Despite the
formal commitment to such measures, effective cooperation between different
levels is still at an early stage and lacks in effective realisation. Whilst
subnational actors have struggled to become involved in the design of the
programmes of the regional and cohesion policy, the pressure to meet the
Lisbon and Europe 2020 objectives has pushed European governance and
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
119
polity further towards a system of negotiation and cooperation processes
involving European, national, regional and local actors (Grimm, 2011: 1528 et
seq.).
National governments remain strong gatekeepers for local activities, and the
ability of local actors to effectively participate in European policy-making
depends on the constitutional and political arrangements within the member
states (Atkinson, 2002: 785 et seq.). At the same time, there has been a change
in EU policy-making, whereby the agenda-setting and decision-making powers
of EU institutions and national governments does not automatically lead to a
dominating position or to full control over policy outcomes anymore (see for
example Fairbrass and Jordan 2004). Instead, local government networks, for
example, can exert joint control over policy outcome by initiating proposals
which serve as references for decision-making and implementation (Schultze,
2003: 135). This development is not only an issue of Europeanisation of local
government, but also involves a certain level of ‘municipalisation’ of EU
policies. Though a fully-fledged multilevel system of joint governance
arrangements has not emerged through the outlined policy initiatives and local
actors are excluded from major decisions about the EU’s macro-trajectories,
beneath the surface local actors contribute to new patterns of integration.
Conclusion
The article sought to offer a perspective of European integration from a local
government perspective beyond the prevailing focus on Europeanisation
processes. As the EU’s legal, financial and political impact has led to
corresponding bottom-up mobilisation in order to influence EU policies, the
interplay between downloading and uploading (as well as horizontal)
Europeanisation has fed into the dynamics of European integration. The impact
of cooperative and bypassing diplomacy has modified the EU’s polity, which
is indicated by the emergence of the CoR, the formal recognition of local selfgovernments
in the Lisbon Treaty, and the extension of subsidiarity to the local
and regional level, which may require deeper cooperation and even integration
of multiple territorial levels.
Arguably more relevant for evolving integrative patterns is the attempt to foster
joint preparation and delivery of European policies, in particular of regional
and cohesion policy, and the Lisbon and Europe 2020 objectives, through
compound governance arrangements. The White Paper on Governance,
Systematic Dialogue, White Paper on Multilevel Governance and Territorial
Pact have sought to establish multilevel partnerships. However, despite such
initiatives, the formal commitment to the local level does not necessarily bring
effective changes of practise. Only a small European avant-garde of local actors
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
120
engages in European affairs (Witte, 2011: 279), and EU actors may still be
somehow ‘blind’ towards municipal concerns. At the same, EU membership
does not always make a noticeable difference in the relationship between local
and central government within a member state (John, 2000: 878 et seq.).
Multilevel partnerships still lack in effective implementation at European level,
as well as within member states. Control and power over policy-making
remains a key determinant in the design and implementation of EU policies,
and local actors are facing political or bureaucratic resistance from national
executives, which defend their powers vis-à-vis enhanced multilevel
governance.
Nonetheless, although national actors may slow down the involvement of
subnational authorities, they may find it increasingly difficult to oppose socioeconomic
pressures and supra- and subnational trends affecting the realisation
of common policy objectives. Local actors are excluded from most major
decisions about the Union’s macro-policy and -polity developments, but they
have an impact dynamics of integration, which is modest and limited in scope.
Instead of neglecting the role of local actors within the integration process or
over-emphasising the shift of powers amongst territorial levels, study of
European integration from a local government perspective needs to look at
interactive, cooperative policy arrangements involving actors and institutions
from multiple levels of government.
The EU and member states do not act indepedently from each other anymore,
but increasingly fuse vertically and horizontally in a common policy cycle
(Rometsch and Wessels, 1996: 328 et seq.). A number of local actors have
entered these compound, blurred governance arrangements, or
Politikverflechtung (Derenbach, 2006: 78; Scharpf, 1985) respectively. The
compound polity, however, is not finished yet and instead of having all groups
of actors involved in the European policy-cycle, the existing elites decide who
are allowed to enter (Miles; 2005: 41). Corresponding empirical studies need
to operationalise the hypothesis of a compound multilevel system through
which local actors fuse into the EU, for the study of different member states, as
well as of different policies.
Bibliography
Alemann, Urich von, and Münch, Claudia. 2006. Europafähigkeit der
Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union. Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
121
Atkinson, Rob 2002. “The White Paper on European Governance:
Implications for Urban Policy,” European Planning Studies 10 (6): 781-792.
Bache, Ian 1998. The Politics of EU Regional Policy: Multi-level Governance
or Flexible Gatekeeping?. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
BBSR (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung). 2011.
Transnationale Zusammenarbeit und Europe 2020 – Beitrag der INTERREG
IV B-Projekte zur Strategie “Europa 2020”. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und
Raumordnung: BBSR-Bericht 7/2011.
Benington, John, and Harvey, Janet. 1999. “Networking in Europe,” in Gerry
Stoker, ed., The New Management of British Local Governance, pp.197-221.
Hampshire: Macmillan.
Benz, Arthur, and Eberlin, Burkhard. 1999. “The Europeanization of regional
policies: patterns of multi-level governance,” Journal of European Public
Policy, 6 (2): 329-348.
Benz, Arthur, Fürst, Dietrich, Kilper, Heiderose, and Rehfeld, Dieter. 2000.
Regionalisation - Theory, Practise and Prospects in Germany. Stockholm:
SIR.
Börzel, Tanja A., and Risse, Thomas. 2000. “When Europe Hits Home:
Europeanization and Domestic Change,” European Integration online Papers 4
(15).
Börzel, Tanja A., and Risse, Thomas. 2003. “Conceptualizing the Domestic
Impact of Europe,” in Kevin Featherstone, and Claudio M. Radaelli, eds., The
Politics of Europeanization, pp.57-82. Oxford: University Press.
Committee of the Regions. 2009. The Committee of the Regions’ White paper
on Multilevel Governance. Own-Initiative Opinion: 89/2009.
Committee of the Regions. 2010a. Your Voice on Europe 2020 – Key
Findings, Assessment and Policy Implications. Consultation.
Committee of the Regions. 2010b. Stronger involvement of Local and
Regional Authorities in the Europe 2020 strategy. Resolution: 199/2010.
Committee of the Regions. 2010c. Territorial Pacts: Making the Most of
Europe 2020 through Partnership. Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform.
1003/FEB2011/EN.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
122
Conzelmann, Thomas. 1995. “Networking and the politics of EU regional
policy: Lessons from north Rhine-Westphalia, Nord-Pas de Calais and North
West England,” Regional & Federal Studies 5 (2): 134-172.
Derenbach, Rolf. 2006. “Die stärkere Einbindung der lokalen
Gebietskörperschaften in das europäische Aufbauwerk: Partnerschaft im
Modell der “multilevel governance” statt zunehmender Entfremdung,” in
Ulrich von Alemann, and Claudia Münch, eds., Europafähigkeit der
Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union, pp.77-101.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
De Rooij, R. 2002. “The impact of the European Union on local government
in the Netherlands,” Journal of European Public Policy 9 (3) 447–467.
Europa, Summaries of EU legislation, Management of regional policy.
Dialogue with associations of regional and local authorities.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/management/g24228_
en.htm. Accessed March 10, 2012.
European Commission, Environment Directorate-General. Policies.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policies_en.htm. Accessed March 10, 2012.
European Commission, Europe 2020. Who does what – EU Member States.
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/who-does-what/member-states/index_en.htm.
Accessed March 10, 2012.
European Parliament. 2009. Good Governance and EU regional policy Resolution
of 14 December 2010 on good governance with regards to the EU
regional policy: procedures of assistance and control by the European
Commission. 2009/2231(INI).
Fairbrass, Jenny, and Jordan, Andrew. 2004. “Multi-level Governance and
Environmental Policy”, in Ian Bache, and Matthew Flinders, eds., Multi-level
Governance, pp.147-164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fleurke, Frederik, and Willemse, Rolf. 2006. “Measuring local autonomy: A
decision-making approach,” Local Government Studies 32 (1): 71-87.
Flynn, Brendan. 2005. Reformed Subsidiarity in the Constitution for Europe –
Can it deliver on expectations? European Institution for Public
Administration. Working paper 2005/W/07.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
123
Goldsmith, Michael. 1997. „British Local Government in the European
Union,“ in Jonathan Bradbury, and John Mawson, eds., British Regionalism
and Devolution – The Challenges of State Reform and European Integration,
pp.215-234. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Goldsmith, Michael, and Klausen, Kurt K. 1997. European Integration and
Local Government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Goldsmith, Michael. 2003. “Variable Geometry, Multilevel Governance:
European Integration and Subnational Government in the New Millenium,” in
Kevin Featherstone, and Claudio M. Radaelli, eds., The Politics of
Europeanization, pp.112-133. Oxford: University Press.
Goldsmith, Michael. 2011. “Twenty Years On: The Europeanization of Local
Government,” in Eline Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers,
eds., The road to Europe – Main street or backward alley for local
governments in Europe?, pp.31-49. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Grimm, Heike. 2011. “The Lisbon Agenda and Entrepreneurship Policy:
Governance Implications from a German Perspective,” Public Administration
89 (4): 1526-1545.
Guderjan, Marius. 2011. “A Fusion Perspective on European Integration of
Local Government in Baden-Württemberg,” in Eline Van Bever, Herwig
Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers, eds., The road to Europe – Main street or
backward alley for local governments in Europe?, pp.139-164. Brugge:
Vanden Broele.
Hamedinger, Alexander. 2011. “‘Resisting Europeanization?’ Continuities
and Changes in Governance in Vienna,” in Eline Van Bever, Herwig
Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers, eds., The road to Europe – Main street or
backward alley for local governments in Europe?, pp.93-117. Brugge: Vanden
Broele.
Heiden, Nico van der. 2011. “A Multi-level Governance Analysis of Urban
Foreign Policy. The Role of the EU in City-to-City Cooperation,” in Eline
Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers, eds., The road to Europe –
Main street or backward alley for local governments in Europe?, pp.189-210.
Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Heinelt, Hubert, and Niederhafner, Stefan. 2008. “Cities and Organised
Interest Intermediation in the EU Multilevel Governance,” European Urban
and Regional Studies 12 (2): 173-187.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
124
Hoffschulte, Heinrich. 2006. “Kommunen in Europa – Die bürgernahe Basis
in einem “Europa der vier Ebenen,” in Ulrich von Alemann, and Claudia
Münch, eds., Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in der
Europäischen Union, pp.58-76. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hooghe, Lisbeth. 1996. Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building
Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: University Press.
Hooghe, Lisbeth, and Marks, Gary. 2001. Multi-Level Governance and
European Integration. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hooghe, Lisbeth, and Marks, Gary. 2003. “Unravelling the Central State, but
How? Types of Multi-Level Governance,” The American Political Science
Review 97 (2) 233-243.
Hooghe, Lisbeth, and Marks, Gary. 2010. “Types of multi-level governance,”
in Henrik Enderlein, Sonja Wälti, and Michael Zürn, eds., Handbook on Multilevel
Governance, pp.17-31. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Jahn, Helmut M., and Derenbach, Rolf. 2006. “Der Ausschuss der Regionen
(AdR) und die Berücksichtigung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips zugunsten der
Regionen und Kommunen,” in Ulrich von Alemann, and Claudia Münch, eds.,
Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen
Union, pp.48-57. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Jeffery, Charlie. 2000. “Sub-National Mobilization and European Integration:
Does it Make Any Difference?,” Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (1):
1-23.
John, Peter. 1997. “Sub-National Partnerships and European Integration – The
Difficult Case of London and the South East,” in Jonathan Bradbury, and John
Mawson, eds., British Regionalism and Devolution – The Challenges of State
Reform and European Integration, pp.235-253. London: Jessica Kingsley.
John, Peter. 2000. “The Europeanisation of Sub-national Governance,” Urban
Studies 37 (5-6): 877-894.
John, Peter. 2001. Local Governance in Western Europe. London: Sage.
Karvounis, Antonios. 2011. The Europeanization of the Local Government in
the EU Multi-level Governance System: The City Networking Paradigm and
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
125
the Greek Case,” in Eline Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers,
eds., The road to Europe – Main street or backward alley for local
governments in Europe?, pp.211-231. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Kern, Kristine, and Bulkeley, Harriet. 2009. “Cities, Europeanization and
Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change Through Transnational
Municipal Networks,“ Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2): 309-332.
Ladrech, Robert. 2010. Europeanization and National Politics. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Le Galès, Patrick, and Lequesne, Christian. 1998. Regions in Europe. London:
Routledge.
Leitermann, Walter. 2006. “Kommunale Interessenvertretung im Rahmen des
Rates der Gemeinden und Regionen Europas,” in Ulrich von Alemann, and
Claudia Münch, eds., Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in
der Europäischen Union, pp.333-338. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Lindh, Magnus, Lödén, Hans, Miles, Lee, Räftegard, Curt, and Stegmann
McCallion, Malin. 2009. Fusing Regions? Sustainable Regional Action in the
Context of European Integration. Nordic Council of Ministers Research
Programme Report 2009: 8. Stockholm: Nordregio.
Loughlin, John. 2001. Subnational Democracy in the European Union.
Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marks, Gary. 1993. “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC,”
in Alan W. Cafruny, and Glenda G. Rosenthal, eds., The State of the
European Community, pp.391-409. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Marks, Gary, and Hooghe, Lisbeth. 2004. “Contrasting Visions of Multi-level
Governance,” in Ian Bache, and Matthew Flinders, eds., Multi-level
Governance, pp.15-30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, Adam. 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.
Marshall, Adam. 2008. “Local Governance,” in Ian Bache, and Andrew
Jordan, eds., The Europeanization of British Politics, pp.98-115. Hampshire:
Macmillan.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
126
Martin, S. 1997. “The Effects of EU Regional Policy on Local Institutional
Structures and Policies,” in John Bachtler, and Ivan Turok, eds., The
Coherence of EU Regional Policy, pp.51-65. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Martin, Steve, and Pearce, Graham. 1999. “Differentiated multi-level
governance? The response of British sub-national governments to European
Integration,” Regional & Federal Studies 9 (2): 32-52.
Mather, Janet. 2000. The European Union and British Democracy – Towards
Convergence. London: MacMillan Press.
Mawson, John. 1998. “Britain – The rise of the regional agenda to combat
increased fragmentation?,” in Patrick Le Galès, and Christian Lequesne, eds.,
Regions in Europe, pp.218-238. London: Routledge.
Miles, Lee. 2005. Fusing with Europe?: Sweden in the European Union.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Miles, Lee. 2007. The Nordic States and the European Union: The Conceptual
Utility of Fusion. Paper presented at the FUSE-EUROPA Panel, Nordic
International Studies Association (NISA) conference in Ødense, Denmark,
23-25 May 2007.
Montin, Stig. 2011. “Swedish local government in multi-level governance,” in
Eline Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers, eds., The road to
Europe – Main street or backward alley for local governments in Europe?,
pp.71-92. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Münch, Claudia. 2006. Emanzipation der lokalen Ebene? Kommunen auf dem
Weg nach Europa. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Neshkova, Milena I. 2010. “The impact of subnational interests on
supranational regulation,” Journal of European Public Policy 17 (8): 1193-
1211.
Olsen, Johan P. (2002) “The Many Faces of Europeanisation,” Journal of
Common Market Studies 40 (5): 921-952.
Pollack, M. 2005. “Theorizing the European Union: International
Organization, Domestic Polity, or Experiment in New Governance?,” Annual
Review of Political Science 8: 357-398.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
127
Radaelli, Claudio. M. 2003. “The Europeanization of Public Policy,” in Kevin
Featherstone, and Claudio M. Radaelli, eds., The Politics of Europeanization,
pp.27-56. Oxford: University Press.
Radaelli, Claudio M., and Pasquier, Romain. 2007. “Conceptual Issues,” in
Paolo Graziano, and Maarten P. Vink, eds., Europeanisation – New Research
Agendas, pp.35-45. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rechlin, Sandra. 2004. Die deutschen Kommunen im Mehrebenensystem der
Europäischen Union – Betroffene Objekte oder aktive Subjekte? Discussion
Paper, Social Science Research Center Berlin.
Reilly, Adrian. 2001. “The EU White Paper on Governance: The Implications
of Misguided Assessment for UK Subnational Authorities,” Local
Government Studies 27 (4): 1-18.
Rometsch, Dietrich, and Wessels, Wolfgang. 1996. The European Union and
its Member States – Towards Institutional Fusion?. Manchester: University
Press.
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1985. “Die Politikverflechtungs-Falle. Europäische
Integration und deutscher Föderalismus in Vergleich,” in Politische
Vierteljahresschrift 4: 323-356.
Schultze, Claus J. 2003. “Cities and EU governance: policy-takers or policymakers?,”
Regional & Federal Studies 13 (1): 121-147.
Sturm, Roland, and Dieringer, Jürgen. 2005. “The Europeanisation of Regions
in Eastern and Western Europe: Theoretical Perspective,” Regional & Federal
Studies 15 (3): 279-294.
Tatham, Michael. 2010. “With or without you? Revisiting territorial statebypassing
in the EU interest representation,” Journal of European Public
Policy 17 (1): 76-99.
Timm, Jörn. 2006. “Die Reform der europäischen Strukturpolitik aus
kommunaler Sicht,” in Ulrich von Alemann, and Claudia Münch,
Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen
Union, pp.119-130. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften,
Van Bever, Eline, Reynaert, Herwig, and Steyvers, Kristof. 2011a. “The road
to Europe – Main street or backward alley for local governments in Europe?,”
in Eline Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers, eds., The road to
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
128
Europe – Main street or backward alley for local governments in Europe?,
pp.13-30. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Van Bever, Eline, Reynaert, Herwig, and Steyvers, Kristof. 2011b. “Together
we are strong(er). Cross-border cooperation in a EU multi-level system,” in
Eline Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof Steyvers, eds., The road to
Europe – Main street or backward alley for local governments in Europe?,
pp.233-253. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Vink, Maarten P., and Graziano, Paolo. 2007. “Challenges of a New Research
Agenda,” in Paolo Graziano, and Maarten P. Vink, eds., Europeanisation –
New Research Agendas, pp.3-20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wagstaff, Peter. (1999) Regionalism in the European Union. Exeter: Intellect
Books.
Waiz, Eberhard, and Nutzenberger, Klaus M. 2006. “Kommunale Gestaltung
der Daseinsversorgung im Europäischen Binnenmarkt,” in Ulrich von
Alemann, and Claudia Münch, eds., Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die
lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union, pp.131-152. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
Wessels, Wolfgang. 1992. “Staat und westeuropäische Integration. Die
Fusionsthese,” in Kreile, M., ed., Die Integration Europas, pp.36-61. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Wessels, Wolfgang. 1997. “An Ever Closer Fusion? A Dynamic
Macropolitical View on Integration Processes,” Journal of Common Market
Studies 35 (3): 267-299.
Wessels, Wolfgang. 2003. Fifteen into One?: The European Union and Its
Member States. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Witte, Sonja, and Nutzenberger, Klaus M. 2006. “Die Auswirkung des
europäischen Umweltrechts auf die kommunale Ebene,” in Ulrich von
Alemann, and Claudia Münch, eds., Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die
lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union, pp.153- 164. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
Witte, Sonja. 2011. “The (German) Local Level as an Actor in European
Lobbying. Involvement and Impact of the Local Level in the European
Policy-Making Process,” in Eline Van Bever, Herwig Reynaert, and Kristof
Steyvers, eds., The road to Europe – Main street or backward alley for local
governments in Europe?, pp.279-298. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Political Perspectives 2012, volume 6 (1), 105-128
129
Wollmann, Helmut, and Lund, Silke. 1997. “European Integration and the
Local Authorities in Germany: Impacts and Perspectives,” in Michael
Goldsmith, and Kurt K. Klausen, eds., European Integration and Local
Government, pp.57-74. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Zerbinati, Stefania. 2004. “Europeanization and EU funding in Italy and
England. A comparative local perspective,” Journal of European Public Policy
11 (6): 1000-1019.
Zerbinati, Stefania, and Massey, Andrew 2008. “Italian and English Local
Funding Networks: Is there a Winning Formula?,” Local Government Studies
34 (1): 81-104.
Zimmermann, Uwe. 2006. “Die Europäische Verfassung – Eine Bilanz aus
kommunaler Perspektive,“ in Ulrich von Alemann, and Claudia Münch, eds.,
Europafähigkeit der Kommunen – Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen
Union, pp.25-47. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.