the europeanization of urban governance in greece: a dynamic and contradictory process

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 October 2014, At: 16:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

The Europeanization of urbangovernance in Greece: a dynamic andcontradictory processPanagiotis Getimis a & Despoina Grigoriadou aa Institute of Urban Environment and Human Resources (UEHR) ,Panteion University , 14 Aristotelous Str, Kallithea, 17671, GreecePublished online: 14 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Panagiotis Getimis & Despoina Grigoriadou (2004) The Europeanization of urbangovernance in Greece: a dynamic and contradictory process, International Planning Studies, 9:1,5-25, DOI: 10.1080/1356347042000234952

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000234952

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1356347042000234952

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000234952

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1,5–25, February 2004

The Europeanization of Urban Governance in Greece: ADynamic and Contradictory Process

PANAGIOTIS GETIMIS & DESPOINA GRIGORIADOU

Institute of Urban Environment and Human Resources (UEHR), Panteion University, 14Aristotelous Str., Kallithea, 17671, Greece

ABSTRACT The introduction of EU funding programmes in Greek cities has led to new forms ofgovernance, mainly including the emergence of new institutions for partnerships and citizens’participation. Based on theories of Europeanization and on theories of re-scaling, this paperexamines the magnitude and the direction of change in Greek urban policy. It suggests that thenew institutions emerging from the Europeanization process face a number of constraints andcontradictions emanating from the Greek political system. Empirical evidence shows that threeendogenous factors of the Greek political system had impacted negatively upon these partnerships,favouring short-term institutionalization, unequal power relations inside the partnerships and lackof trust and commitment. These factors amount to the financial and political dependence of localauthorities to the state, the weak civil society and, finally, the individualistic political culture.However, processes of policy learning and capacity building have also arisen, presenting newchallenges for the transformation of urban policy.

Introduction

The introduction of a number of European Union (EU) funding programmes forcities has paved the way for new forms of governance, namely partnerships,aiming at sharing responsibility and action between the traditional urbanpolitical elite and other actors of urban society, such as actors from the privatesector and the community. In addition, these programmes have promoted newpolicies related to sustainable urban development. Across Greek cities also, theintroduction of the EU structural policy and European Commission programmeshas prompted the emergence of new forms of cooperation between local author-ities and socio-economic city-based forces for the implementation of urbansustainability.

The aim of this paper is to explore the dynamic impact of the EU programmesand funding conditions on the emergence of new institutions for partnershipand community involvement aiming at the promotion of sustainability in Greekcities. Its principal hypothesis is that the new policies and networks stemmingfrom the Europeanization process face a number of constraints and contradic-tions emanating from the Greek political system. Consequently, our maininterest is to understand the magnitude and direction of change in these newinstitutions and policies by placing the discussion within the context of thetheoretical debate for the Europeanization of domestic policies.

1356-3475 Print/1469-9265 Online/04/010005-21 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1356347042000234952

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

6 P. Getimis & D. Grigoriadou

In this paper, we only consider Europeanization as the ways in which nationalpractices are affected by the EU. We do not consider the ways in whichEuropeanized national institutions and actors impact upon the EU entity. Inlight of that approach, we investigate the extent to which urban governance isaffected by the EU and the factors that challenge the EU impact. We mainlyfocus on three factors: the historical shaping of intergovernmental relations, thetraditional role of civil society and the private sector in the urban political arena,and finally the political culture. On the basis of these factors, we try to explainthe ‘singular’ implementation of the EU principles concerning partnerships,community involvement and sustainability in the Greek cities.

Drawing upon the existing literature (Borzel, 1999; Heritier & Knill, 2001)concerning the possible outcomes of Europeanization (inertia, absorption, trans-formation and retrenchment), we conclude that the Greek urban governancecase indicates changes of absorption; in fact the domestic structures and policy-making process indicate a mixture of resilience and flexibility. Although, Greekurban governance absorbs certain fundamental changes, it maintains the essen-tial political structures and the traditional political behaviour logic.

Seeking answers to the research questions raised above, the paper is struc-tured in the following four sections. The first section introduces the concept ofEuropeanization and presents the recent literature on the Europeanization ofurban governance. The second section looks at the EU promotion of partnership,community involvement and sustainability principles and their relation to theurban policy-making. The third section outlines the specificity of the Greekurban political system and assesses the extent of Europeanization in specifichorizontal partnership forms that promote sustainable policies. The fourthsection provides evidence concerning the assessment of the Europeanization ofurban governance analysing two case studies: the role of community involve-ment in the implementation of Local Agenda 21 in the city of Maroussi and thenature of a horizontal partnership form in eastern Thessaloniki.

Europeanization of Domestic Policy and Policies: Some Conceptual Consider-ations

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the ways in whichEuropean integration impacts upon the domestic institutions and policies of themember states. Even if all studies clearly demonstrate that ‘Europe matters’ todomestic institutions, a lot of controversy remains concerning the ways and thedegree of Europeanization (Borzel, 1999).

By the term Europeanization we refer to a set of processes through which theEU political, social and economic dynamics become part of the logic of domesticdiscourses, identities, political structures and public policies (Radaelli, 2000). Forthe needs of this paper, the dynamics of Europeanization will be confined onlyin the domain of political structures and policies. Although we believe that thecognitive dimensions of politics and identities are integral to the political system,our data do not allow a deeper investigation of the above domains.

In the literature, Europeanization is often conceived as a resource-dependentprocess. This model supports the suggestion that the EU can be conceived as apolitical and economic opportunity structure that changes the distribution ofpower between domestic actors, favouring one group over another or increasingthe mutual dependency between them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Europeanization of Urban Governance 7

Nevertheless, resource dependency approaches largely ignore the ways inwhich the patterns of domestic interaction and policy-making processes adapt tothe challenges of Europeanization. Focusing on European integration and con-vergence, resource dependency approaches do not take into account thedivergence, the persistence, the varying responses and robustness of domesticpolitical institutions and structures against the adaptational pressures of the EU.Adopting a more bottom-up approach, this paper argues that the differentpolitical structures of each member state operate as a filter, which refractsEuropeanization in different directions and styles. The authors of this approachstress the ways and the degree in which the European policy has had adifferential impact, with domestic responses to EU policies varying considerablyacross policies and countries (Borzel, 1999; Heritier & Knill, 2001; Knill, 2001).

However, there is an inconsistent and unsystematic theoretical picture in thevarying explanations developed to explain the different impact of Europe ondomestic structures. There are a number of studies which rely on the institu-tional compatibility of European and domestic arrangements, while otherwriters focus on the affected opportunity structures and interest constellations.Finally, there are some that emphasize the impact of the EU on the beliefsystems, ideas and expectations of domestic actors (Balme, 1994; Negrier, 1995;Knill, 2001). In this paper, we are going to link the different factors giving specialattention to the institutional political context, the patterns of interest intermedi-ation of domestic urban actors and, finally, the political culture.

Regarding in particular the studies of the impact of European institutionsand policies on urban governance, the traditional conceptualization of theEuropeanization process is basically concerned with developments at the supra-national level. Such conceptualization analyses the extent to which the Europeanintegration changes the power relations between state, regions and the EU.Proponents of intergovernmentalist approaches suggest that the Europeaniza-tion enhances the autonomy of national governments vis-a-vis domestic actors(Moravcsik, 1995). This argument is challenged by another group of scholarswho, following neofunctionalist or supranationalist approaches to Europeanintegration, suggest that European policy-making provides regions with addi-tional resources, which in turn enable them to bypass their nationalgovernments by gaining direct access to the European political scene (Keating &Jones, 1995). According to these scholars, the slogan ‘Europe of the Regions’implies that national institutions will be weakened by the growing power ofsupra-national institutions (e.g. EU) as well as of sub-national institutions (e.gregions and cities). The latter will be gradually transformed into legitimatedEuropeanized institutions with direct access to the European policy-making,assuming that nation-states are going to decline in importance. However, in anext step, the followers of this approach claim that European integration doesnot equally strengthen the role of sub-national authorities in European politics.In contrast, they acknowledge that regions diverge in their capacity to use theresources offered by European policy-making.

Finally, a third group of scholars, deriving from a zero-game approach, doesnot accept the strengthening nor the hollowing out of the state but supports theemergence of a European system of multi-level governance where European,national and sub-national actors share the political power. In particular, thisapproach emphasizes the absence of a centre of accumulated authority. “Instead,variable combinations of governments on multiple layers of authority—

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


European, national, and sub-national—form policy networks for collaboration”(Hooghe, 1996, p. 18; Marks, 1996). The proponents of multi-level governancefocus on the interdependence and networking of the different levels of politicalorganisation—European, national and local—and they support new types ofpolitics that enhance the interconnections and synergies between them. Onemain contribution to this approach is Marks’s (1992) argument stressing theprocess of the regions’ influence on EU politics. He argues that the empower-ment of local and regional policy-making does not just occur in negotiationsover treaties. More significantly, the sub-national bodies influence EU policy-making through their daily interactions with other levels of government andtheir responsibility to implement EU policies.

Amongst the multitude of approaches that have contributed considerably tothe understanding and the analysis of the complexity of the spatial dynamics ofEuropeanization is economic and political geography emphasizing the conceptof scale. The components of this approach stress the re-scaling of economic,social, political processes and state practices and structures (Swyngedouw, 1997;Brenner, 1999). As Brenner (1999, p. 1) points out “various dimensions of urbangovernance in contemporary Europe are analysed as expressions of a politics ofscale that is emerging at the geographical interface between processes of urbanrestructuring and state territorial restructuring”. In particular, interest has cen-tred on the social construction of territorial relations using practices such asjumping scales and negotiation and the political importance of the process ofrescaling of social practices in terms of strategies of empowerment and disem-powerment of social groups. Hence, the concern has been to analyse how EUpolicies express the shift of power and new power relations and how policiesinfluence the redefinition and/or the construction of new spaces. For instance,certain authors explain the transformation processes and the new political orderin the EU, by giving emphasis to the neglected significance of civic interestintermediation and the sectoral composition of the political system (Heinelt,2002). In this context, “participatory governance” in the multi-level frameworkis examined as an alternative process which coexists with hierarchies (state) andmarket-led solutions (Getimis & Kafkalas, 2002). For these authors, new forms ofmulti-level governance do not always lead to the enhancement of opportunities,mobilisation of resources, and to effective and legitimate outcomes but often arecompleted with failure of targets and outcomes concerning democratic partici-pation, social inclusion and legitimacy. Others point to the uneven developmentof EU countries and the asymmetric power relations among inter-urban networkactors (Leitner et al., 2002) while some authors stress the capacity of partnershipsto create new geographical, political and social spaces (Howitt, 2000). Forinstance, they study the emergence of citizens’ organizations at the neighbour-hood level and ecological NGOs as new forms of political and geographicalre-scaling.

The integration assumptions leading to the study of the vertical relationsbetween regions, nation-states and the EU, as well as to their transformation, arerecently enriched by studies focusing more systematically on the horizontalchanges of the domestic urban policy process due to the impact of EU policy.According to these approaches, significant importance has been attributed to thedegree of acceptance or resistance of domestic urban political institutions andstructures illustrating the importance of domestic factors in adapting to Eu-ropean principles and funding conditions (Borzel, 1999; Bache, 2000). The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


concept of ‘goodness of fit’ between the Europeanization process of policy-making, on the one hand, and the domestic (national, regional, local) institu-tional settings, rules and practices, on the other, has been developed and testedempirically in order to identify the different adaptational pressures that dom-estic institutions and policy structures are expected to face in order to complywith European rules and practices (Borzel, 2001, 1999; Cowles et al., 2001).Moreover, different stages regarding the extent to which domestic local politicsand policies adapt to European policy are elaborated. According to John’s (1994)scheme regarding the “ladder of Europeanization”, there are many stages untilthe establishment of a fully Europeanized local authority. The development ofnetworking and partnerships, as well as the incorporation of European ideas andpractices into local policy-making, are crucial factors for the adaptation of localpolitics to EU policy.

Europeanization broad changes can be discerned in two domains of urbanpolitics. The first is related to the transition of traditional urban governmenttowards urban governance focusing on new horizontal partnerships, networkingand community involvement in policy formulation and decision-making. Inparticular, divisions and conflicts between different politico-administrative unitsand between public and private actors have to be eliminated for urban resourcesto be mobilized and the potential for action regarding access to EU funding tobe utilized (Benz & Eberlein, 1998). The effect is the empowerment of politics atthe local level and their transformation from nationalized and hierarchical formsof politics towards more negotiated and independent practices in a manner thatinvolves urban society and a wide range of interest groups (Peter, 2000).

The second one concerns the reorientation of urban policy away from frag-mented actions of arbitrary development towards integrated local action plansand initiatives for sustainable development policies, which contribute to theimprovement of quality of life in cities and the preservation of the urbanenvironment. Strategic sustainable urban development very often implies acommitment to a shared vision of urban change, requiring a combination ofresources from different sectors—public, private and community.

However, the degree and the ways adopted for the introduction of thesechanges in urban politics vary in each member state due to a number of factorssuch as the substantially different centre–periphery relations, the establishedconstellation of urban power and the dominant political attitudes and beliefs. Asa result, an attempt will be made to combine different theoretical approaches,such as neo-institutionalist theory (namely historic institutionalismal), historicsociology, theories of political culture and interest organization, in order tore-evaluate the importance of urban politics, history and culture in the study ofthe Europeanization of urban governance. Regarding the impact of EU pro-grammes on urban policy-making Balme notes that the aforementioned politiesare subjected to national parameters because they stem from politically definedterritorial stakes marked by the history and the culture (Balme, 1994, p. 24).

Sustainable Urban Development and the Partnership Principle in the EU Policy

The promotion of sustainable urban development and the implementation of thepartnership principle are two complementary, mutually reinforcing goals of EUpolicies aiming at successful urban governance. The former seeks the protectionand improvement of the urban environment so as to improve the quality of life,safeguard human health and protect local and global ecosystems. This is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


achieved through the strengthening of partnership building. In particular, theestablishment of good urban governance entails the vertical integration ofactivities at different levels of government and better horizontal integration atthe local level among the concerned organizations and citizens. In accordancewith EU policies, partnership building emerges as a crucial factor for improvingthe quality of life in the cities and for managing the urban environments in moresustainable ways (Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2001). For example, theprogrammes Urban and Life for the development and implementation of Com-munity environmental and urban regeneration policies have had a catalyticeffect on urban policies and partnership formation.

Furthermore, the White Paper on European Governance of July 2001 isindicative of the importance the EU places on community involvement as anintegral part of good governance. In this paper, the European Commissionstrongly argues that extensive citizens’ participation should be ensured through-out the policy chain from design to implementation. Consequently, the WhitePaper’s proposals are underpinned by two good governance principles: open-ness and participation (Knodt, 2002). However, the implementation of Agenda21 has already introduced the principle of citizens’ participation in the EUpolitical agenda. Many of the European Community’s programmes and policieshave been based on the principle of the active involvement of the concernedgroups throughout the relevant procedures. Consequently, civil society has beengiven specific mechanisms for participating in the development and implemen-tation of Community policies (European Commission [EC], 2000).

According to the EU, a number of interdependent factors explain the import-ance of the implementation of these principles: (a) the establishment of a morebalanced European urban system as a precondition for economic and socialcohesion; (b) the reinforcement of the cities constituting the locomotive of theEuropean economy; (c) the achievement of the new EU commitments andobligations vis-a-vis the global environment;1 and (d) the resolution of complexand interrelated urban problems and the maximization of the urban potential,both of which are undermined by the predominance of traditional sectoralapproaches and the fragmentation of powers and responsibilities across variouslevels of government (EC, 1998).

The Structural Funds constitute the main funding mechanism for urbanpartnerships promoting sustainability in the EU. More specifically, partnershipis one of the key principles underlying the Structural Funds. From the 1988reform on structural policy, which introduced the principle of partnership as aninstitutional basis for implementation, to the recent 1999 reform, the definitionof partnership has been broadened. In the 1988 reform, partnership in line withthe principle of subsidiarity was defined as close consultation for the pursuit ofcommon goals between the Commission, the concerned member states and thecompetent authorities, which are familiarized with the problems of disadvan-taged regions. In subsequent reforms, a broader approach of partnership wasadopted to ensure the involvement of all the concerned partners, such aseconomic and social partners and environmental and non-governmental agen-cies. Subsequently, the 1999 Regulation abandoned the 1988 decentralizedapproach to partnership for a wider approach that addresses all concernedbodies (Bache, 2000; Bollen, 2000).

Although partnership formation is a substantial prerequisite for the im-plementation of the Structural Funds, a recent report funded by the European

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Commission (Keller et al., 1999) underlines the existence of significant variationsand differences in the implementation of the partnership principle amongthe member states. In particular, this report indicates that where memberstates have little experience in partnership formation, the EU requirements haveoften ‘kick-started’ processes of partnership building. Regarding the compositionof these partnerships, it is argued that the role of social partners and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has often been limited. To explain thesevariations, a number of factors have been proposed. Of particular importance arethe national institutional and cultural traditions, the well-established corporatistmodels and prior experience in partnerships.

The Europeanization of Urban Governance in Greece: A Dynamic Relation

As discussed in the first part, the analysis of the effects of European policies onthe local political system should be conducted in parallel to the investigation ofendogenous institutions and processes. Thus, this section discusses the impact ofdomestic factors on the implementation of European projects and requirementsin the Greek cities. Special attention is given to those features of the politicalsystem that influence partnership formation and the involvement of the com-munity in requirements of European projects. The first part of this sectionaddresses three main features of the Greek political system that directly orindirectly affect the urban government in Greece:2 (a) the structure of the stateand the intergovernmental relations, (b) civil society and culture, and (c) theorganization of interest intermediation. On the basis of these features, anassessment of the impact of the Europeanization process on the systems of urbangovernance is attempted in the second part of this section.

Main Features of the Greek Political System

In order to explain how urban governance in Greece responds to Europeanpolicies and principles, a detailed understanding of the national and localpolitical system is required. The following features are of particular relevance tothis discussion.

State structure and intergovernmental relations. The historically constructed rela-tions between the state and the local authorities, which are very much related tothe established balance of powers and the distribution of financial resourcesamong the domestic actors, may play a crucial role as facilitator or inhibitor ofurban governance’s adaptation to the requirements of EU funding. The highlycentralized and hierarchically organized state and the lack of a viable system ofsub-national governance are generally considered as the main characteristics ofGreek intergovernmental relations. As many Greek social scientists have under-lined (Verney & Papageorgiou, 1993; Ioakimidis, 1998), the Greek state is themost centralized and interventionist state in the EU, demonstrating strongresistance to decentralization. Examples of this centralized character may befound in the delayed establishment (only in 1994) of a second-tier elected localgovernment despite the introduction of the relevant form in 1986, the persistentreluctance of the state to rationalize the system of local government finance andcompetencies distribution, as well as the central role of the state in monitoringthe European programmes’ allocations to the local authorities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


All these have led to the extreme disempowerment of local government. Morespecifically, the financial dependence of sub-national authorities on the centralstate transfers, the functional overlapping of competencies, the controlled andcentralized planning development, and the role of political parties as mediatorsbetween the central administration and the municipalities are typical of Greekintergovernmental relations and have led to the emergence of an administra-tively weak, highly party-politicized and state-dependent local government.Despite several reforms during the last two decades, local government continuesto develop vertical, party-dominated relations of hierarchy and dependence withthe state pursing increased resources and clearly defined competencies. Withinthis framework of dependent vertical networks that characterize centre–periph-ery relations, the development of horizontal relations and partnerships isdifficult to achieve (Paraskevopoulos, 2001). “Vertical patterns are usually highlystructured by clearly defined contacts, charters, laws, administrative policies andprocedures. They are usually bureaucratically organised.[…]. As a result, hori-zontal integration, particularly at the local level, is difficult to achieved” (Aldrich& Whetten, 1981, p. 389).

Local corporatism and clientelistic relations. The above presented highly central-ized and interventionist features of the Greek state are accompanied by a weakcivil society. In the Greek literature, the subordination of the civil society to thestate and the national parties is often perceived as the principal factor for thelimited development of NGOs and social movements at the national and locallevels. The gap between the weak civil society and the strong state is filled bythe emergence of clientelistic relations which function as the main informalchannels of political integration and participation of society in the publicadministration and the political system (Mouzelis, 1995). Instead of the develop-ment of horizontal intermediary groups and collective organizations in civilsociety, the clientelistic relations promote vertical and individualistic relationsbetween citizens and national–local politicians and bureaucrats. Furthermore, inthe 1980s, the clientelistic networks abandoned their traditional paternalisticcharacter and became bureaucratic clientelistic networks (Lyritzis, 1993). Theemergence of this particular type of clientelistic relations is directly related to theemergence of mass parties that use the state and public administration toallocate resources to their electorates. The party in power functions as acollective patron, which satisfies the demands of the electorate. Consequently,during the last two decades, the political parties as vehicles of political clien-telism have played a decisive role in the uncontrolled expansion of the inefficientstate bureaucracy, as well as in the integration of civil society in the politicalsystem.

At the local level, the use of the clientelistic networks by the local authoritieshas proved to be particularly useful. First of all, it has been a precious tool fortheir legitimation and political empowerment vis-a-vis the citizens. The clien-telistic relations between the local political elite and civil society constitute acommon feature in the Greek cities. Furthermore, the clientelistic relationsbetween local authorities and the state have been a useful tool for the financiallyweak local authorities to gain access to more resources. Finally, the clientelisticrelations help the local authorities to function as a transmission belt of the localdemands to the national level (Tsoukalas, 1981; Chlepas, 1994; Christophilopou-lou, 1996). In this last process, the mayors, by using their contacts with other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


political party deputies, fulfil local needs and achieve the objectives of citizens’favours. Consequently, the reproduction of patronism and clientelistic relationsbetween the state and local authorities, as well as between the local authoritiesand the local civil society, restrict community involvement and interest partici-pation in local political affairs since the citizens’ demands are satisfied byinformal procedures (Verney, 1994). In brief, the well-established, party-domi-nated clientelistic relations, upon which the political system has beentraditionally based, due to their mediating function, have determined Greekstate–society and centre–periphery relations (Paraskevopoulos, 2001).

Local corporatism is another phenomenon that plays a significant role in localdecision-making3 (Tsoukalas, 1986; Mavrogordatos, 1988; Kioukas, 1994). In theGreek cities, a number of actors, such as private interest groups (medium sizeenterprises, the construction companies and the study’s bureaux), party elitesand elected politicians use the national and EU projects and funds not only forthe development of the cities but also for the satisfaction of their own interests(Psychopedis & Getimis, 1989). However, the interests are loosely organized andfragmented according to each actor’s party affiliation. Thus, only those actors ineach interest group that share the mayor’s party affiliation have the power toinfluence the local decision-making. In fact, citizens and interest groupsuncontrolled by the party system and the personalistic network of the mayor’scabinet4 are excluded from the decision-making process. From the analysis ofthe clientelistic relations and the local corporatist phenomena, we drawthe conclusion that the Greek cities lack the norms of reciprocity, mutualtrust, collective and civil engagement, which constitute essential elements ofcivicness and the base for successful public–private partnerships (Schmitter,2002).

Political culture. The clientelistic political system, the weak civil society and theparty-dominated administration seem to be closely linked to an extremelyindividualistic political culture. In particular, the Greek political culture ischaracterized by a strong politicization of citizens and an individual-particular-istic conception of politics (Demertzis, 1990; Mouzelis, 1997). The citizens’ stronginterest in the political life and the predominance of the political language in thiseveryday life contradict their low participation in the public space and thelimited emergence of collective action. The particular forms of political behav-iour and activation of citizens encourage the development of individualisticfeatures that are expressed via clientelistic networks (Demertzis, 1994) andbehavioural models, e.g. ‘free rider’ (Tsoukalas, 1993). Simply put, they seek thesatisfaction of their own personal interests. The superficial preoccupation ofcitizens with and their restricted participation in public affairs demonstrate theGreek perception of politics. According to this perception, the public space isstrongly related to the resolution of one’s personal problems by one’s owninitiatives (Padelidou-Malouta, 1990). However, recently, due to incrementalEuropeanization, there are signs of emergence of new social movements andNGOs, which are not dominated by party politics and which challenge estab-lished patterns of interest representation and civic participation (Mouzelis, 1995).

This part has demonstrated that the combination of a centralized state struc-ture with a weak civil society and a state-dependent local government has ledto hierarchical clientelistic networks, party-dominated political relations, anindividualistic and confrontational culture and phenomena of local corporatism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


These features not only constitute major constraints for partnership formationand community involvement forms but also influence the nature of the existinginstitutions of cooperation and citizens participation as they are reproducedinside the institutions and they are, thus, shaping their nature.

The Europeanization of Urban Governance

This part deals with the influence of EU policies and their funding requirementson partnership formation and on the emergence of patterns of civic participationin the process of urban policy-making. In addition, a first attempt to assess thelevel of the EU’s influence on new forms of urban governance and their natureis being made, taking into account the above considerations and the existingliterature.

In Greece, European integration has greatly affected both the Greek politicalsystem and local governance. Most of the Greek social scientists support the factthat Europeanization has been a crucial component of domestic institutional andbehavioural change in political and social organization (Diamadouros, 1996;Ioakimidis, 1998). However, legal compliance and institutional adjustments toEU regulations and directives are slow and gradual. Greece constitutes a ‘worstfit’ case (according to the Europeanization typology), which means that strongpressures in the country hinder extensive changes in the processes and struc-tures of governance.

European integration and adaptation have significant effects on urban gover-nance both directly and indirectly. Directly, through the adoption of Communityprojects’ requirements and regulations (Leader, Urban, Save, Thermie, RegionalPrograms,5 etc.) by local authorities as well as through their participation inEuropean Urban Networks.6 Indirectly, through changes in the national legisla-tive framework with regard to decentralization7 and empowerment of localauthorities.8

Concerning the effects of EU policy on changes related to actors, institutionsand policies within the urban political context, three major innovations can beidentified: (a) the introduction of sustainable development in urban politics; (b)the development of partnerships between public and private actors; and, finally;(c) the emergence of participatory institutions in the urban decision-makingprocess.

Sustainable urban development. Since the mid-1990s, sustainable developmenthas been introduced into the political agenda. Although the principle of sustain-ability is always mentioned in charters and laws, it remains mostly at aspeculative level rather than being a specific practice in policy-making andplanning. As Fousekis and Lekakis (1998, p. 226) point out “the response ofGreece to the challenge of sustainable development has been limited andfragmented”. Only recently, the public sector has demonstrated a growinginterest in sustainability. This derives mainly from the principles of the EUStructural Funds, which are entirely incorporated in the National DevelopmentPlan 2000–2006 (it was followed by the 3rd Community Support Framework—CSF).9 In the National Development Plan, national policies in several fields, suchas tourism and physical planning, include legislation, regulations and recom-mendations on sustainable development, environmental protection, culturalheritage management, land-use control of sensitive areas, etc. In addition, two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


legislative reforms affect directly sustainable urban development. The first oneis the ‘Sustainable Urban Development’ (Law 2508—New Ekistic Law), whichlays down the guidelines, procedures and forms of urban planning, aiming atthe balanced and sustainable development of cities and settlements. Second,significant improvements have also been made in the legislative framework forRegional Planning, introducing the principles of sustainability and balanceddevelopment at the national and local levels.

Finally, most recently, the report of the Ministry of Environment, PhysicalPlanning and Public Works (YPEHODE) titled ‘National Policy for SustainableDevelopment’ (2003) outlines the main strategic guidelines for the integration ofsustainable principles into sectoral policies and practices. Although efforts havebeen made towards a sustainable convergence with EU and international organi-zations’ regulations and obligations, there are still important delays and deficits.First of all, there are delays over the legal compliance to the European environ-mental acquis due to bureaucratic procedures of the centralized administrativesystem. Furthermore, the lack of enforcement of the sustainability principles inthe implementation of sectoral policies owes to the resistance of the inherentsectoral logic refusing the internationalization of environmental costs and ob-structs the adaptation to EU policies. Finally, the sectoral fragmentation and theabsence both of sufficient administrative capacity and financial resources toimplement environmental protection projects discourage the development of aneffective sustainable strategy (OECD, 1999).

Table 1 offers a brief account of the progress made in the implementation ofurban sustainable policies over the last decade in Greece. Most of the followingregulations and declarations are drawn up in line with the objectives andprinciples of EU regulations and international organisations.

As a result, local authorities’ plans and policies often include actions relatedto sustainable developments, which are funded by relevant national and EUprogrammes. However, these actions are fragmented and temporary and theyare revoked as soon as the programme’s financial resources are drained. More-over, the party-dominated local authorities cannot effectively promotesustainable policies on their own because they have restricted financial andhuman resources and they are subject to the electorate’s demands and pressures.

For instance, the failure of the implementation of the URBAN project, whichaims to solve the problems of the downgraded urban areas of Drapetsona andKeratsini (Getimis & Georgantas, 2001), stresses the difficulties and constraintsof local authorities to undertake sustainable policies. As Borzel (1999) noticed,European integration is more difficult in countries where the achievement ofchanges seriously questions central features of national and local governance.

Another example is the implementation of Local Agenda 21 in Greece. Thedevelopment of ‘Local Agenda 21’ schemes has been considerably delayedcompared to other European countries due to several reasons that are directlyrelated to the constraints of urban governance. In particular, the main impedi-ments are the absence of explicit information, adequate knowledge and trainingof local partners with regard to sustainable development as well as the lack ofa legitimate mandate and the financial and organizational incapacities of localauthorities to develop Local Agenda plans. Finally, the obscure and overlappingresponsibilities of different levels of government that disperse the available stockof resources also inhibit their implementation (Sustainable Urban Tourism[SUT], 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 1. The national policy agenda changes on urban sustainable development,1994–2004

Sectors Degree of change

Shelter Limited changes have occurred. These changesconcern urban planning and the institutionalframework regulating construction activity.

Social development and poverty The National Action Plan for Employment startederadication in 1994 established a system of institutions and

practices providing local authorities with thefinancial resources for combating unemploymentand social exclusion, mainly of the young, women,the disabled and immigrants.

Environmental management The new Ekistic law, the legislative framework forRegional Planning, the regional programmes forwater resources management and, finally, the anti-pollution measures have improved the urbanenvironment in selected cities. In addition, localactions plans and initiatives for the improvementof the quality of life in cities were developedwithin the framework of European andinternational programmes, such as Local Agenda21, Urban and Habitat II Agenda promoting andimplementing the principles of sustainability inurban areas. However, these initiatives still remainfragmented and limited.

Economic development The priority given to the empowerment of smalland medium enterprises and women’sentrepreneurship has provided local authoritieswith the financial resources to support unemployedpersons by helping them create their own smallenterprises and by improving the position ofwomen in the labour market.

Administrative changes in local The Ioannis Kapodistrias programme that mergedgovernment the existing primary level local authorities into

broader geographical and administrative units hasstimulated the effectiveness of local government.This programme was funded by EPTA, a fundinginstrument that contains several sub programmesand political measures supporting the restructuringprocess during 1997–2002. In addition, theintention of the national government to establishmetropolitan institutions in the two biggest citiesof Greece (Athens, Thessaloniki) will alsocontribute to the improvement of the quality ofcitizens’ lives.

Partnerships and citizen participation. In the 1980s, the ability given to localgovernments to create municipal enterprises involving public and private actorswas an important step towards the establishment of partnerships, with far-reach-ing effects on getting access to and managing EU resources. Althoughpartnerships among public actors at different levels are quite common, theformation of horizontal partnerships including social and private actors fromthe local community is limited. Moreover, despite the fact that recently thenumber of partnerships has been increased, their success is still limited. Broadly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


speaking, the predominance of the public sector in public–private partnerships(local authorities, Chamber of Commerce and public municipal enterprises), theextensive governmental intervention in urban politics through the allocation ofEU programmes’ resources, the overlapping of responsibilities between differentlevels of government and, finally, the party-dominated urban political elite aswell as the bureaucratized municipal technocrats hinder the establishment ofdynamic public–private partnerships. In addition, the institutionalization ofthese partnerships with prescribed identified roles and fixed rules limits theirflexibility and restrains their efficiency.

It should also be noted that the factors promoting partnership building are atthe same time restrictive to their success. In particular, the formation of partner-ships is based on the opportunity they have to increase their budget throughtheir involvement in EU programmes and the need to bypass organizational andinstitutional complexities of the municipality. So, it is therefore evident thatpartnership formation does not emanate from an endogenous need to combineresources in order to solve a problem that requires the involvement of severalactors, but from an exogenous factor. As a result, within the partnerships,procedures often become extremely slow, political conflicts are often raised,sectoral interests predominate and strategic programming is set aside due tointerest pressures. On the other hand, the private sector feels particularlyreluctant to cooperate and invest, delaying further the process of partnershipbuilding.

Another major reform concerning urban governance is the emergence ofcitizens’ participation in decision-making on local issues. Thus, for the first time,prefectural councils and directly elected district and neighbourhood councilshave been created in sub-municipal levels. However, these efforts were notparticularly successful due to their instrumentalization from clientelistic rela-tions and their domination by strong influential professional groups at the locallevel, such as architects and engineers (Verney & Papageorgiou, 1993; Grigori-adou, 2000).

Community Involvement in Maroussi City and Partnership Formation ofAnatoliki SA: Exploring Variations of the Europeanization Process

In this section two case studies are analysed, the implementation of Agenda 21by the city of Maroussi and the partnership formation by a number of neigh-bouring local authorities and private actors in eastern Thessaloniki. In bothcases, new forms of urban governance have emerged due to the implementationof European projects. The projects required extended partnerships or communityinvolvement, awareness and institutional mobilization at the urban level. In thefirst case, the city of Maroussi provides a good example for the study of theconstraints that inhibit citizens’ participation in the process of urban decision-making, while the second case reveals the variations in urban partnerships, theircomposition and practices with regard to the changes that have been made onactors, resources and institutions.

The following data and their elaboration are based on semi-structured inter-views conducted with a limited number of interviewees, namely the persons incharge of each policy initiative, as well as on secondary analysis of reports andmeetings’ proceedings. In particular, the interviewees were the coordinators ofthe policy initiatives and they played a crucial role as experts in the organization

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


and implemetation of these initiatives. These interviews, conducted just after thecompletion of both initiatives aimed at exploring the gap between the institu-tional rules that underpin the policy initiatives and the actual behaviour of theactors involved in the policy-making process. In addition, an effort was made toinvestigate the main reasons for the development of these initiatives and theproblems, as well as the opportunities, arising concerning their innovativecharacter in terms of partnerships and citizens’ participation and their contentsand objectives in terms of sustainability principles.

The Case of Maroussi City: Agenda 21 and Community Involvement

Brief description. In 1996, the municipalities of Maroussi and Halandri in Attikilaunched the first pilot ‘Local Agenda 21’ project in Greece. It was named“Co-operation between local authorities concerning sustainable developmentand the implementation of Local Agenda 21” and it was financed by theMinistry of the Environment (YPEHODE) and the European Union (Programme‘LIFE’ of DGXI). The two municipalities developed the programme with theassistance of the Greek Association of Local Authorities (KEDKE). The project,which finished in 1999, dealt primarily with the fields of urban environment,transport, energy saving, waste management, ‘green’ purchasing, environmentaleducation, parks–gardens and local democracy. Local Democracy runs across allthe above sector policies as it is one of the main principles for the implemen-tation of Local Agenda 21. This is clearly stated in Agenda 21—The First 5 Years(EC, 2000): “Critical to the implementation of Agenda 21 will be the commitmentand genuine involvement of social actors.”

Analysis of citizens’ participation. Regarding local democracy, the municipality ofMaroussi planned two main activities. The first one refers to the provision ofinformation to the citizens about local problems and policies. Special attentionwas given to information on sustainable development and to the citizens’environmental sensitization. The second activity is related to the establishmentof participatory institutions in which working groups of citizens would discussand take decisions about the future of their city. Apart from their deliberativerole, the participatory institutions would also function as a permanent channelof communication between citizens and local authority.

Thus, eight citizens’ groups were formed, in accordance to eight sector policieswhere several problems had been identified, i.e. social services, education andtraining, strategic urban planning and transports, culture, security, environmen-tal management and education, quality of life, economy and urban development.For six months, the groups had regular meetings supported by a TechnicalSecretariat staffed by specialized municipal personnel in each policy sector.During this period, the citizens were informed of the problems and efforts madeto resolve them, discussed and exchanged views, evaluated the existing policiesand adopted a full declaration with propositions and directions for their amelio-ration. The suggestions were gathered and published in a volume that referredto strategic and sustainable development of Maroussi city.

Although these participatory processes are quite innovative, a closer analysisof the composition and function of the working groups makes clear the repro-duction of the established ways of interest representation in urban governanceand the absence of substantial community involvement. Accordingly, a first call

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


by letter to all citizens asking for their participation in the groups was notfruitful (interview with the officer in charge of Agenda 21). Due to low response,the mayor decided to invite certain actors with whom the mayor and themunicipal council maintained formal and informal networks of communicationand cooperation. These networks were political (supporters of the mayor’sparty), economic (contracting out public works) and personal. Furthermore, themayor invited reputable citizens such as writers and artists. The second call wasmore successful, and it led to the composition of a small number of groups.

The selective composition of the discussion groups according to political andpersonal criteria demonstrates, once again, the traditional role of political partiesand the mayor’s political power to involve his personal network in the munici-pal policy-making. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the participants’profession indicates the correspondence between profession and the sectorpolicy in discussion. For example, among the 15 members of the discussiongroup on urban planning and transport there were nine architects, two engineersand one planner. In the same way, among the 19 members of the discussiongroup on culture, nine were artists and six were social scientists. The partici-pants’ professional identity demonstrates the traditional powerful role of certainprofessional groups in urban decision-making as well as the sectoral approachof policy-making. As a result, the composition of the discussion groups is not anindicative example of the so-called ‘participatory local democracy’ since thecitizens and the potential holders in each policy sector were absent.

A second remark is directly related with the weak development of NGOsactivated at the level of the cities and the systematic ignorance of the fewexisting ones by the local authorities. Neither individual citizens nor socialgroups have reacted against the way that the participatory institution wasorganized. Participants in the discussion groups were not spokespersons ofnon-profit, at least semi-voluntary, organizations but individual persons, legit-imized by their professional identity and their relations with the municipality toact on behalf of all citizens. In addition, the low response of citizens in thesuccessive calls for participation can be explained by the traditional lack of socialcapital (Putman et al., 1993) such as trust, norms and civic engagement and thefulfilment of this lack by individualistic political behaviour and clientelisticnetworks. However, the citizens’ mistrust towards collective action via munici-pal participatory institutions is reinforced by the mayor and his party’s use ofthe participatory institutions for the legitimation of their policies. This hadalready happened in the neighbouring councils during the 1980s.

Finally, the participatory institutions terminated their operation with theending of ‘Agenda 21’. The only possibility of community involvement inMaroussi city today is the ability of citizens to send their complaints into amunicipality’s department responsible for the quality of services provided. Thisdemonstrates the extent to which the implementation of a European programmehas changed the practices and behaviours in the urban political system.

The Case of Anatoliki SA: The Impact of EU Programmes on Partnership Building

Brief description. Anatoliki SA is the Development Agency of eastern Thessa-loniki that coordinates and implements actions related to the promotion of acomprehensive economic, social and cultural development of the region throughthe development, exploitation and protection of natural and human resources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Anatoliki SA has promoted activities in the following fields: human resources,environment and infrastructure, energy, rural development, new technologiesand information technology, local authorities and business support. The bodiesinvolved in the corporate structure of Anatoliki SA constitute a combination ofpublic, private and social stakeholders of the concerned areas: the second tier oflocal government (prefecture) of Thessaloniki (19.90%), 15 municipalities andMunicipal Enterprises (59.53%), the SME Chamber and the Professional Chamberof Thessaloniki (6.06%), cooperatives (2.13%) and 20 private companies in theregion (12.38%). All participants are permanently represented on the Board ofDirectors of Anatoliki SA. The Development Agency is primarily financed byEuropean programmes and initiatives and secondly by national programmes. Theagency is a newly established partnership (May 1995) and it has elaborated withsuccess a number of sustainable development policies.

The Ministry of Environment, as coordinator of the national preparations for the2002 Johannesburg Conference, adopted the actions of Anatoliki SA as the Greekproposal within the framework of the initiative ‘101 Ways for Sustainable Devel-opment’. In particular, the motive for the establishment of Anatoliki SA, itsconstitution and its activities very much follow the principles of Agenda 21 andconstitute a comprehensive approach to sustainable development at the locallevel. According to the relevant Ministry’s report, the Agency constitutes one ofthe rare examples in Greece of an urban partnership that brings together thepublic, private and social stakeholders of a region.

Analysis of partnership form. The partnership’s composition clearly demonstratesthe dominance of the public sector. Local authorities (municipalities and prefec-ture) and their enterprises hold 80% of the shares, leaving only 12.40% to theprivate sector. In addition, civil society’s organizations are absent not only asequal partners but also as advisory agents in decision-making and implemen-tation. According to one interviewee (phone interview with the officer in chargeof the Department of the Environment) when asked about the role of communityinvolvement in the partnership’s project, “once or twice there was an effort towardsinvolving them but it was something informal and not well organised, so itfailed”. Consequently, the partnership’s composition reflects a weak civil society,a reluctant private sector vis-a-vis local authorities’ initiatives for partnershipbuilding and a public sector strong and unwilling to cooperate with social actors.

Three mayors, who had good personal relations and were supported by thesame governmental party, took the initiative for the establishment of the partner-ship. However, it seems that personal relationships and party affiliation have beenthe main criteria for the integration of other municipalities in the partnership.Thus, a political control of the partnership has been ensured. A second criterionhas been the need for joint action in an area where more than one stakeholder isadministratively involved. The participation of prefecture, apart from the benefitsit has brought as money provider, has facilitated also a number of institutionalissues related to the overlapping of responsibilities with local authorities. Finally,the involvement of the private sector has been secured for financial reasons, aswell as for gaining access to expertise resources. A detailed study of the stakehold-ers in the private sector demonstrates the dominance of construction companies,expertise bureaux and private educational and training organizations.

Furthermore, the unequal resources and size of holders have led to internalhierarchical devices distributing leading roles between the prefecture and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


three municipalities initiating the partnership and attributing to the rest of themunicipalities and the private sector a secondary role. It is indicative of the closeinterconnection between the three municipalities and the prefecture that the cur-rent prefect was the mayor of one of them before his resignation for the prefect’sposition. However, in projects that are directly related to their interests, the pri-vate sector, the small municipalities and the cooperatives play a more active rolein the process of decision-making and at the implementation stage. In these cases,they are trying to gain more and more advantages from the project. The represen-tatives of the SME Chamber and the Professional Chamber of Thessaloniki playthe role of neutral experts.

The catalytic factor for the establishment of this partnership has been the accessto more EU funding to promote local economic development. An interviewee(interview with the officer in charge of the Department of the Environment)remarked that there was a need for attracting funds and that the attempt wouldhave stood more chances of success if more than one stakeholder were involved.So, the incentive for the establishment of the partnership does not emanate froma need to join efforts for solving a problem of the area but by the external factorof EU funds. The need for access to external funding is directly related to thelimited state-dependent financial resources of the local authorities. This is a com-mon feature in Greece. Consequently, a lot of policies are fragmented and themajority of the partnerships are formed only temporarily.

The need for more funds also explains the relationships among the stakeholdersin the partnership. One of the main conflicts has been the distribution of funds—‘who will get more funds’—as the implementation of projects eventuallysurpasses the traditional administrative limits of each municipality and involvesmany actors. The existence of a conflicted culture and the absence of mutual trustand collective effort become apparent with every holder entering the partnershipseeking the satisfaction of his own sectoral demands and not the benefits of thecommunity at large. Mistrust is reinforced by the lack of previous participatoryexperience. For the local authorities, the partnerships, which extend outside theirown cities and control, are perceived as a necessary evil for getting access to morefunding.

In conclusion, although the implementation of the EU partnership principle hasled to extensive partnership building for urban governance, domestic politicalfactors have eventually shaped the nature of the partnership forms by integratinghistorically constructed and well-established patterns of political exchange andpractices between the various actors in urban policy-making.

Conclusion

The present paper has explored the response of domestic urban policy and poli-cies on the impact of the EU programmes. In particular, this paper focused on theextent of the EU impact on partnership formation and community involvementfor promoting sustainability and tried to explain variations in the transformationpatterns. It has demonstrated that Europeanization takes place in the Greek cities,especially in the field of partnership formation and community involvement forthe promotion of sustainability. The EU programmes, through the provision offinancial resources and new organizational principles, constitute the main vehicleof Europeanization. However, it has been argued that three endogenous factorsdefine the final outcome.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


In particular, evidence suggests that the established intergovernmental rela-tions, the limited role of civil society in urban politics, as well as the individualisticpolitical culture reproduce the lack of mutual trust and the lack of commitment tocollective goals and hinder the equal participation of the stakeholders in thepartnership forms. Instead, party politics are dominant, sectoral interests andclientelistic networks complicate and delay the implementation process, and thelocal authorities control the policy-making and undermine the role of other part-ners. In addition, fragmented policies emerge due to policies’ selection accordingto funding opportunities. Furthermore, concerning community involvement, aweak civil society combined with a reluctant local government strengthens thedominance of influential professional groups and the role of the political partiesin the urban decision-making.

In addition, some remarks can be made concerning the future of partnershipsin Greek cities. The first one is related to recent changes in the legislation frame-work concerning the concession agreements (334/2000) between local authoritiesand the private sector. This change offers new opportunities in the establishedforms of cooperation in urban decision-making. A second remark concerns policylearning. Previous experience in cooperation forms and problems could lead theway to better partnerships in the future. Finally, the consolidation of technocratsin partnership formation could contribute to the overcoming of political andinterest constraints and lead the partnerships to the solid adaptation to the EUpartnership principle.

The dependence of the Europeanization process on a number of domestic struc-tures and institutions identified in the Greek cities could elicit a number of lessonsfor European policy. Firstly, the development of local partnerships and networksconstitutes a crucial factor for the reinforcement of institutional learning and theemergence of a cooperative culture between the actors involved in policy-making.Secondly, pre-existing differentiation in institutional building and institutionalcapacity in each urban context should be balanced by mechanisms of knowledgetransfer and learning paths from cities which have experienced democratic andeffective policies to cities lagging behind. Thirdly, there is a need for more coher-ent and integrated European policies that promote complementarity amongsectoral policies at all levels of government in order to avoid fragmentation inlocal development policies. This is most important for less-favoured urban set-tings in terms of traditions of cooperative culture, capacity building and theinitiation of strategic and autonomous plans of local development. Finally, mech-anisms of evaluation and continuity are important for the stability of newinstitutions and policy networks stemming from ad hoc EU projects and pro-grammes in order to achieve sustainable policy outcomes.

Notes

1. The pursuit of sustainable development through partnerships and community involvement atthe urban level of governance by the EU has had a powerful impetus from the follow-up of theidea of Local Agenda 21 (action plan adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992).

2. In Greece, there are mainly three levels of sub-national government: the regions (NUTS II), theprefecture (NUTS III) and the municipalities. Given that the regions (peripheries) are adeconcentrated public institution and were established for the purposes and under the pressureof the implementation of European Regional Policy only in 1986, the prefecture and the first tierof local government having elected bodies, constitute the traditional forms of decentralizedgovernment in Greece.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


3. It is claimed that the model of corporatism prevailing in the Greek society is that of statecorporatism, according to which the various syndicalist organizations have been created by stateelites and they are under state control (at least until the beginning of 1990) (Mavrogordatos, 1988),while other social organizations and movements such as women, environemental or consumermovements either are controlled by party or state bureaucracies or they are marginalized andignored by the state (Sotiropoulos, 1996).

4. Urban governance in Greece is characterized by a strong mayoral system in which the mayor withthe support of municipal council majority has full control over decision-making and policyimplementation.

5. Regional Programmes aim to cope with Community Regulations of Structural Funding and theimplementation of Community Support Frameworks (Kafkalas & Andrikopoulou, 2002).

6. A number of local authorities participate in European networks and international initiativestowards sustainable development, such as Car Free Cities, Eurocities, European Common Indica-tors Initiative, Urban Audit, etc. The participation of local authorities in networks and initiativesenables them to become familiarized with new urban policies and different administration cul-tures, while it facilitates knowledge exchange, institutional learning and capacity building(Verney, 1994; Georgouli, 1997).

7. The process of building decentralized structures was rather slow. It started in the 1980s on thebasis of national initiatives, prior to the introduction of any European regulation. However, thedecentralization process and the rationalization of local administration were intensified in the1990s due to the obligation of Greece to follow the principles of subsidiarity and of regionalplanning.

8. The programme ‘Ioannis Kapodistrias’ is the most recent significant attempt with regard to theadministrative reorganization of local authorities. It is the compulsory merger of first tier author-ities in order to enable them to solve the problems that derive from their excessive fragmentation.As a result, 1033 first tier local authorities have been established.

9. The CSF provides significant resources for the economic development of Greece. The tightfinancial situation of the country during the last decade had prevented the implementation ofpolicies without CSF funding. As a result, the CSF guides and finances the overall developmentstrategy of the national economy, replacing all other types of development plans (Kafkalas &Adrikopoulou, 2002, p. 13).

References

Aldrich, H. & Whetten, D. (1981) Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: making the most ofsimplicity, in: P. Nystrom & W. Starbuch (Eds) Handbook of Organizational Design, pp. 385–408(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Bache, I. (2000) Europeanisation and Partnership: Exploring and Explaining Variations in Policy Transfer,No. 8, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation.

Balme, R. (1994) Le territoire en Europe au prisme de ses paradigmes, in: R. Balme et al. (Eds) Leterritoire pour politiques: variations europiıennes (Paris: l’Harmattan).

Benz, A. & Eberlein, B. (1998) Regions in European Governance: The Logic of Multi-level Interaction,Working Paper PSC No. 98/31 (European University Institute).

Bollen, F. (2000) Preparing for the EU Structural Funds: role and opportunities for sub-nationalauthorities and nongovernmental organisations, in: European Union Enlargement and the OpenSociety Agenda: Local Government and Public Administration (Budapest: Open Society Institute, LocalGovernment and Public Service Reform Initiative).

Borzel, T. (1999) Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation to Europeanisation inGermany and Spain, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(4), pp. 573–596.

Brenner, N. (1999) Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in theEuropean Union, Urban Studies, 36(3), pp. 431–451.

Borzel, T. (2001) Europeanization and territorial institutional change: toward cooperative regional-ism?, in: M.G. Cowles et al. (Eds) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change,pp. 137–158 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

Chlepas, N. (1994) The Multi-level Local Government (Athens: Sakkoulas).Christophilopoulou, P. (1996) Field administration and local government in the Greek Nomos, Greek

Political Review, March, No. 7, pp. 124–153.Cowles, G.M. & Thomas, R. (2001) Transforming Europe: conclusions, in: M.G. Cowles et al. (Eds)

Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, pp. 217–237 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-sity Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Demertzis, N. (1990) The Greek political culture in ’80s, in: C. Lyritsis & I. Nikolakopoulos (Eds)Elections and Political Parties in ’80, pp. 70–96 (Athens: Themelio).

Demertzis, N. (1994) The ideologie of Nationalisme, in: Nation-State-Nationalism, Symposium of theAssociation of Greek Studies, School Moraitis, 21–22 January, pp. 67–116.

Diamadouros, N. (1996) The influence of the European Union on the domestic structures, in: Greecein the European Union. Evaluation of the First Fifteen Years, pp. 229–243 (Athens: Papazisis).

European Commission (EC) (1998) Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Frameworkof Action [http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int/urban/forum/ftp/fr en mn.doc].

European Commission (EC) (2000) Agenda 21—The First 5 Years [http:dReuropa.eu.int/europeancommission/environement/European Union and Agenda 21.doc].

Georgouli, S. (1997) Local and Regional Government in the EU (Athens: Sakkoulas).Getimis, P. & Georgantas, E. (2001) Too many stakes, a few holders, but no partners, unpublished paper

presented at 8th International Conference of the Regional Studies Association, Gdansk, Poland.Getimis, P. & Kafkalas, G. (2002) Participatory governance in a multi-level context: comparative

analysis of policy-making and empirical evidence on the pursuit of innovation and sustainability,in: P. Getimis et al. (Eds) Participatory Governance in a Multi-level Context: Concepts and Experience(Budrich).

Grigoriadou, D. (2000) The influence of European Programs on the democratisation of urban politicalinstitutions, Review of Local Government, No. 2, pp. 136–144.

Heinelt, H. (2002) Civic perspectives on a democratic transformation of the EU, in: J. Grote & B.Gbikpi (Eds) Participatory Governance, Political and Societal Implications (Opladen: Leske & Budrich).

Heritier, A. & Knill, C. (2001) Differential responses to European policies: a comparison, in: A.Heritier et al., Differential Europe. New Opportunities and Constraints for National Policy-Making,pp. 257–294 (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).

Hooghe, L. (1996) Building a Europe with the regions: the changing role of the European Com-mission, in: L. Hooghe (Ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-levelGovernance, pp. 89–126 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Ioakimidis, P. (1998) The European Union and the Greek State (Athens: Themelio).John, P. (1994) The Europeanisation of British Local Government: New Management Strategies (Luton:

Local Government Management Board).Kafkalas, G. & Andrikopoulou, E. (2002) Greek regional policy in the context of Europeanization:

1961–2000, unpublished paper.Keating, M. & Jones, B. (1995) The European Union and the Regions (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Keller, I., Batterbury, S. & Stern, E. (1999) The Thematic Evaluation of the Partnership Principle: Final

Synthesis Report (London: The Tavistock Institute, Evaluation Development and Review Unit).Kioukas, D. (1994) Interests’ Organisation in Greece (Athens: Exandas).Knill, C. (2001) The Europeanization of National Administrations (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).Knodt, M. (2002) Regions in multilevel governance arrangements: leadership versus partnership, in:

J. Grote & B. Gbikpi (Eds) Participatory Governance (Opladen: Leske & Budrich).Leitner, H., Pavlik, C. & Sheppard E. (2002) Networks, governance and the politics of scale:

inter-urban networks and the European Union, in: A. Herod & M.W. Wright (Eds) Geographies ofPower, pp. 274–303 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).

Lyritzis, C. (1993) PASOK in power: from ‘Change’ to ‘Disenchantment’, in: R. Clogg (Ed.) Greece,1981–1989: The Populist Decade, pp. 26–46 (London: Macmillan).

Marks, G. (1996) Exploring and explaining variation in EU cohesion policy, in: L. Hooghe (Ed.)Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-level Governance, pp. 367–422 (Oxford:Oxford University Press).

Mavrogordatos, G. (1988) Between Pityokamptes and Prokroustes: Employers’ Organisations in Contempor-ary Greece (Athens: Odysseas).

Ministry of the Environment (2001) National Report of Greece for Habitat Agenda (Athens).Moravcsik, A. (1995) Liberal intergovernmentalism and integration: a rejoinder, Journal of Common

Market Studies, 4(33), pp. 611–628.Mouzelis, N. (1995) Greece in the twenty-first century: institutions and political culture, in: D. Costas

& Th. Stavrou (Eds) Greece Prepares for the Twenty-First Century, pp. 17–34 (Washington, DC: JohnHopkins University Press and Woodrow Wilson Centre Press).

Mouzelis, N. (1997) Modernity, late development and civil society, in: J.A. Hall (Ed.) Civil Society:Theory, History, Comparison (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Negrier, E. (1995) Int�gration europ�enne et �changes politiques territorialis�s, Pole Sud, No. 3,pp. 38–54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


OECD (1999) Conclusions and Recommendations, Working Party on Environmental Performance (Paris:OECD).

Padelidou-Malouta, M. (1990) The Greek political culture: aspects and approaches, Review of SocialResearch, Summer, No. 75A, pp. 18–57.

Paraskevopoulos, C. (2001) Interpreting Convergence in the European Union (London: Palgrave).Peter, J. (2000) The Europeanisation of sub-national governance, Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 877–894.Psychopedis, K. & Getimis, P. (1989) Regulations of Local Problems (Athens: Institute of Mediterranean

Studies).Putnam, R.D. with Leonardi R. & Nanetti R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern

Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Radaelli, C. (2000) Whither Europeanization? Concept stretching and substantive change, paper

presented to the Political Studies Association’s Annual Conference, London.Schmitter, P. (2002) Participation in governance arrangements: is there any reason to expect it will

achieve sustainable and innovative policies in a multilevel context?, in: J. Grote & B. Gbikpi (Eds)Participatory Governance (Opladen: Leske & Budrich).

Sotiropoulos, D. (1996) Civil society and State in the third Greek democracy, in: Ch. Lyritsis et al.(Eds) Society and Policy, Aspects of the Third Greek Democracy (1974–1994) (Athens: Themelio).

Sustainable Urban Tourism (SUT) (2002) Country Framework Assessment, research project of key action‘City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage’, Contract No. EVK4-CT-1999-00001.

Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (2001) Implementing the Habitat Agenda. The European UnionExperience, European Union Publications (Stockholm: Ministry of Environment).

Swyngedouw, E. (1997) Excluding the other: the production of scale and scaled politics, in: R. Lee& J. Wills (Eds) Geographies of Economies, pp. 167–176 (London: Arnold).

Tsoukalas, K. (1981) Social Development and State (Athens: Themelio).Tsoukalas, K. (1986) State, Society and Labour in Postwar Greece (Athens: Themelio).Tsoukalas, K. (1993) Free riders in Wonderland; or Of Greeks in Greece, Greek Political Review,

January, No. 1, pp. 9–52.Verney, S. (1994) Central–local governments relations, in: P. Kazakos & P.C. Ioakimidis (Eds) Greece

and the EC Membership Evaluated (London: Pinter).Verney, S. & Papageorgiou, F. (1993) Prefecture councils in Greece: decentralisation in the European

Community context, in: R. Leonardi (Ed.) The Regions and the European Community: The RegionalResponse to the Single Market in the Underdeveloped Areas, pp. 109–138 (London: Frank Cass).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 16:

07 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the europeanization of urban governance in greece: a dynamic and contradictory process

Documents