This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Challenges and Perspectives on Metropolitan Governance in Athens

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Panagiotis Getimis ()
Nikolaos Hlepas ()
Abstract

The fragmentation of local government structures (more than 120 municipalities), combined with the traditional ‘sectoral federalism’ within a centralist state, the lack of visible democratic legitimacy and political responsibility for the whole region, could not foster the implementation of coherent policies for the metropolitan area of Athens. For a long period, the rising socioeconomic complexity combined to a growing deficit of social capital and urban identity, as well as to several self-referential organizations and particularistic interests had led to a series of failures and blockades. The governability-problems of Athens have been a legend for many years. Economic recovery and an unprecedented mobilization due to the city’s nomination for the Olympic Games (in 1996), gave new hope to citizens and stakeholders that had continually been frustrated. Large-scaled projects (with pressing needs for private capital and expertise), a growing voluntary sector and self-confident local leaders shaped new, more “open†networks of metropolitan policies. The success of new, result-oriented metropolitan coalitions in and for Athens has in deed been remarkable: The “face and the image of the city†has drastically changed, while the achievement of effectively organizing the games in a small country should not be under-estimated. The “mega-project†of the Games created a strong public awareness, new platforms and new agendas of public deliberation. During the games, the city revealed the “hidden treasure†of Athenian civil society that proved to be much stronger than expected. Soon after, the need to conceptualize a ‘modern’ scheme of metropolitan governance became a part of the political debate. The need for metropolitan reform is widely accepted but public debate on alternative scenarios seems to postpone the starting point. For the moment, the danger of a “back to normal businessâ€-effect is growing. An environment of non-continuity and disruption, distrust and non-transparency seems to rise again. How could the perspective of metropolitan integration through governance be still kept alive in Athens? How are the positive effects of “mega-projects†for metropolitan governance to be evaluated and further advantaged in cases like the one of Athens?

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa06/papers/845.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa06p845.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Aug 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p845

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Web page: http://www.ersa.org

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Gunther Maier).

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. G Stoker & K Mossberger, 1994. "Urban regime theory in comparative perspective," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 12(2), pages 195-212, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 1000 archives contribute their bibliographic data to RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-10-17.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.