IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/bineur/qt9km4z5vf.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Governing the Capital — Comparing Institutional Reform in Berlin, London and Paris

Author

Listed:
  • Schroeter, Eckhard
  • Roeber, Manfred

Abstract

The paper examines institutional changes in the political and administrative structures governing the cities of Berlin, London and Paris. In doing so, it analyzes the extent to which convergent trends – driven by forces related to increased international competition and European integration – have shaped recent reforms of the governance systems of these European capital cities. In particular, the analysis focuses on the vertical dimension of centralization vs. decentralization as reflected in the power balance between city-wide authorities and lower-tiers of government (such as Bezirke, boroughs or arrondissements). In view of the two-tier system of government, there are many clear lines of comparison between the sample cities. Traditionally, however, in each case government reform has followed conspicuously different routes. While Paris represents a classical example of a centralized-unitary city government, London’s system of government – despite the recently installed Greater London Authority – illustrates vividly a pluralistic and borough-centered approach. On the spectrum between these polar ends, Berlin’s variant of urban governance appears to take a middle position featuring both a well-established city-wide government and a relatively autonomous – and recently strengthened – level of district authorities. The sample cities also capture and encapsulate three distinct national and urban administrative cultures which are expected to be significant factors in shaping institutional developments by defining a corridor of path-dependent reform trajectories.

Suggested Citation

  • Schroeter, Eckhard & Roeber, Manfred, 2004. "Governing the Capital — Comparing Institutional Reform in Berlin, London and Paris," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt9km4z5vf, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:bineur:qt9km4z5vf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9km4z5vf.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Ross, 2001. "London: Management Philosophy of the Greater London Authority," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 35-42, October.
    2. William F. Lever & Ivan Turok, 1999. "Competitive Cities: Introduction to the Review," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 36(5-6), pages 791-793, May.
    3. Neil Brenner, 1999. "Globalisation as Reterritorialisation: The Re-scaling of Urban Governance in the European Union," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 36(3), pages 431-451, March.
    4. Ross, Stephen A, 1973. "The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 134-139, May.
    5. March, James G. & Olson, Johan P., 1983. "Organizing Political Life: What Administrative Reorganization Tells Us about Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(2), pages 281-296, June.
    6. John Friedmann, 1986. "The World City Hypothesis," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 69-83, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Rutherford, 2005. "Networks in Cities, Cities in Networks: Territory and Globalisation Intertwined in Telecommunications Infrastructure Development in Europe," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(13), pages 2389-2406, December.
    2. Diane E. Davis & Kian Tajbakhsh, 2005. "Globalization and Cities in Comparative Perspective," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 89-91, March.
    3. Paul Waley, 2007. "Tokyo-as-World-City: Reassessing the Role of Capital and the State in Urban Restructuring," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(8), pages 1465-1490, July.
    4. Hao Chen & Qiyan Wu & Jianquan Cheng & Zhifei Ma & Weixuan Song, 2015. "Scaling-up Strategy as an Appropriate Approach for Sustainable New Town Development? Lessons from Wujin, Changzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Yanpeng Jiang & Paul Waley & Sara Gonzalez, 2016. "Shanghai swings: The Hongqiao project and competitive urbanism in the Yangtze River Delta," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(10), pages 1928-1947, October.
    6. David Bell & Jon Binnie, 2004. "Authenticating Queer Space: Citizenship, Urbanism and Governance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(9), pages 1807-1820, August.
    7. Peter J. Taylor & Michael Hoyler & Raf Verbruggen, 2010. "External Urban Relational Process: Introducing Central Flow Theory to Complement Central Place Theory," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(13), pages 2803-2818, November.
    8. Giuseppe Mazzeo, 2012. "Impact of high speed trains on the hierarchy of European cities," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 32(2), pages 159-173, September.
    9. Khan Shahed & Khan Megumi & Kyung An Sang, 2019. "Response to urban challenges by global cities within developmental states: The case of Tokyo and Seoul," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 55(4), pages 369-390, December.
    10. Mössner Samuel & Freytag Tim, 2014. "Setting the Ground for Global City Formation: Neoliberalisation and Local Elites in Frankfurt on the Main," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 33(4), pages 81-88.
    11. Richard Child Hill & Kuniko Fujita, 2003. "The Nested City: Introduction," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(2), pages 207-217, February.
    12. Asato Saito, 2003. "Global City Formation in a Capitalist Developmental State: Tokyo and the Waterfront Sub-centre Project," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(2), pages 283-308, February.
    13. Ayda Eraydin, 2008. "The Impact of Globalisation on Different Social Groups: Competitiveness, Social Cohesion and Spatial Segregation in Istanbul," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(8), pages 1663-1691, July.
    14. Thomas J Sigler & Kirsten Martinus, 2017. "Extending beyond ‘world cities’ in World City Network (WCN) research: Urban positionality and economic linkages through the Australia-based corporate network," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(12), pages 2916-2937, December.
    15. Diane E. Davis, 2005. "Cities in Global Context: A Brief Intellectual History," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 92-109, March.
    16. Karbowski, Adam, 2009. "The corporate governance implications for China," MPRA Paper 73625, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Batory Agnes & Svensson Sara, 2019. "The fuzzy concept of collaborative governance: A systematic review of the state of the art," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 28-39, December.
    18. Adi Masli & Matthew G. Sherwood & Rajendra P. Srivastava, 2018. "Attributes and Structure of an Effective Board of Directors: A Theoretical Investigation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 485-523, December.
    19. Ernest Dautovic, 2019. "Has Regulatory Capital Made Banks Safer? Skin in the Game vs Moral Hazard," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 19.03, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    20. Xin Qu & Majella Percy & Fang Hu & Jenny Stewart, 2022. "Can CEO equity‐based compensation limit investment‐related agency problems?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2579-2614, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:bineur:qt9km4z5vf. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/ies/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.