Towards political cohesion in metropolitan areas. An overview of governance models

Abstract

As cities grew beyond their administrative borders, the demand for metropolitan governance appeared. The last 50 years proved that there is no one, universal model of metropolitan governance as urban regions are very different all around the world. However, it seems quite obvious that if metropoles are to be the forefront of development, they need to provide a widely defined cohesion within their subordinate territories. Metropolitan political cohesion may be defined as a collaborative public governance which offers tailored managerial solutions for enhancing development based on the subsidiarity principle and the place‐based approach. Drawing on the lessons from major cities in North America and Europe: Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Hannover, London, Wrocław and Toronto the paper intends to dive into a few, selected cases of metropolitan government and the causes behind their failure and reappearance. How have various governments met the cardinal question of metropoles: to provide a resilient match between the functional urban region and the administrative structure? The answer to this question is not straightforward. Metropolitan authorities all over the world manage exceptionally complex systems, where the diversity of actors, complexity of relations and interdependences across an extended, fragmented and dynamic metropolitan region restrain governability. However some general trends in metropolitan governance may be outlined, regarding the recent history, main types of governance and legitimacy of metropolitan administration.