1. Metropolitan Governance: A new topic and an old debate§1.1 Research questions and methods §(Hubert Heinelt, Eran Razin and Karsten Zimmermann)§Metropolitan regions have increasingly become a focal point in the political as well as scholarly debate. On the one hand, metropolitan change is related to challenges resulting from globalization and increased societal diversity and fragmentation in densely populated urban areas. On the other hand, newly established metropolitan-governance arrangements have pro-found political and economic implications (see, for instance, Hoffmann-Martinot and Sellers 2005; Heinelt and Kübler 2005a). Public actors (from local government to agencies of upper-level government) are interlinked in these arrangements in complex formal and informal networks with private companies, business associations, trade unions and a multitude of civil society organizations. §1.1.1 Putting the debate into context§The restructuring of the political sphere at the metropolitan level can be related to the general debate on statehood and on how to govern modern societies (see Heinelt 2010, chapter 6) as well as to the diagnosis of a shift from government to governance. In this debate doubts are raised about the capacity of the political system to govern modern society at all. However, assuming that it is possible to govern modern societies, the relevance of formal hierarchical political-territorial structures is questioned and growing emphasis is given to horizontal networks (Barlow 1991; Razin 1996; Pierre 2000; Pierre and Peters 2000; Benz 2004). Furthermore, an old comment by Dahl and Tufte (on the issue of size and democracy) remains relevant, namely: "Different problems require political units of different size" (Dahl and Tufte 1973, 135). This leads to the conceptualization of a system of vertically layered territorial political units reaching from the local to the global level which is complemented by functionally determined (sectoral) political entities overlapping vertically and also breaking through single territorial levels. In such a flexible political geometry problems are taken up and addressed by different spatially related political units depending on specific and usually spatially determined challenges as well as the means to tackle them.§From a critical perspective it is argued that such a "flexible political geo-metry" creates a window of opportunity for political 're-scaling' (Swynge-douw 1998; 2000) and a "jumping of scales" (Smith 1984). In this respect it seems possible for actors to shift competencies and terrains of policy interventions upwards or downwards and to determine specific "spatio-temporal fixes" of governance (Jessop 2002) that meet their interests. §"This process of 'jumping of scales' [ ] is not neutral in terms of power relations. In fact, with changing scalar configurations, new groups of participants enter the frame of governance or re-enforce their power position, while others become or remain excluded" (Swyngedouw et al. 2002, 115). §1.1.2 Outline of the research questions§Against the background of this debate (which will be reflected in more detail in Section 1.2) we start from the observation that the reconstruction of statehood leads metropolitan governance along diverse paths. It can encourage decentralization and complex networks of governance. How-ever, it can also lead to privatization and concentration of power in the hands of central government agencies, and to the imposition of (different kinds of) reforms on local government. It can also lead to the (re-) establishment of a public authority complemented by a democratic re-presentative body at the metropolitan level based on (endogenous) political choices by local actors.§Our first research question concerns whether or not these different paths depend on national specificities of the institutional setting (especially regarding the distribution of power and competencies between different territorial levels of

Content§Content5§List of Tables and Figures7§Acknowledgements9§1. Metropolitan Governance: A new topic and an old debate10§1.1 Research questions and methods10§1.2 Metropolitan governance: the academic debate21§1.3 Factors influencing the development of various metropolitan arrangements31§2. The institutional setting of metropolitan-governance arrangements: Local government in Germany and Israel38§2.1 Local government in Germany38§2.2 Local government in Israe 157§3. Metropolitan governance arrangements and their development §in the case studies79§3.1 Frankfurt/Rhine-Main: Governance without coordination?79§3.2 Institutional innovation in metropolitan governance: §The Rhine-Neckar region115§3.3 The institutionalization of a metropolitan region: §The region of Hanover137§3.4 Munich: A fragmented though well-functioning §governance arrangement?167§3.5 Metropolitan governance in Stuttgart: §New Regionalism par excellence?189§3.6 Tel Aviv: The scope for metropolitan governance §in a metropolitan state206§3.7 Haifa: A metropolitan region without metropolitan §identity in the shadow of Tel-Aviv229§4. Comparative Reflections246§4.1 Comparative reflections on metropolitan governance §in Germany and Israel246§4.2 Variations in metropolitan governance in the two §countries: An explanation255§4.3 The effectiveness of various metropolitan governance arrangements293§4.4. The democratic quality of different metropolitan§governance arrangements309§References328§List of Contributors352

Dit product is op dit moment niet op voorraad in een van onze vestigingen.