Printexemplare bestellen


Kontakt für Fragen zur Bestellung von Publikationen:

Heidi Espei
Tel.: +49 30 39001-253
Fax: +49 30 39001-275

Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH
Zimmerstraße 13-15
10969 Berlin

eBooks bestellen

Europe and German Cities - Editorial

Werner Heinz

Europe and German Cities - Editorial


Cities and the European Union (EU) are two groups of players which could hardly be more different. The chief difference is that cities have been present on the European political and economic stage for centuries, whereas Europe has a very short history as a politico-economic institution.

The roots of this legacy go back to the High Middle Ages. In the second half of the 12th century there was a veritable boom in urban development throughout the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Vogt-Lüerssen 2001 (1)). Free Cities like Cologne, Frankfurt am Main and Mainz sent voting representatives to Reichstag assemblies, and the territories under their in northern Italy jurisdiction sometimes extended well beyond city walls. At the same time, powerful city-states like Venice and Genoa, with far-reaching political, military and ecclesiastical influence, were coming into their own.

From the 12th century onwards city alliances and leagues were formed, usually with the aim of extending members' customs, judicial, taxation and coinage rights (cf. Keller) so they could gain more autonomy from their feudal lords, the emperor and the dukes, intensify trade between members and secure trade routes. The most famous alliances were the historically unparalleled Hansa, which numbered 90 member cities and towns at its acme (cf. Mottek), the League of Rhenish Towns with over 70 member cities and the Westphalian League (visitädtebund, as of: 05/12/05).

After a prolonged period of relative stagnation, cities and municipalities experienced an unprecedented surge in growth over the course of the 19th century. Industrialization and emigration to urban areas combined with a rapid upturn in population over just a few decades led to an often dramatic rise in the number of urban residents and to the successive emergence of modern-day settlement patterns. While this quantitative growth was taking place, towns and cites also became "sources of sweeping change in society and state (and) testing grounds for the economic, social and cultural activity" (Bogumil 2005, p. 515) of the burgeoning bourgeoisie. In 1808 the reform-minded Prussian statesman Baron vom und zum Stein introduced local self-government to the Prussian municipal code, precipitating a continual increase in task-sharing between state and local authorities and establishing the distinguishing trait of German cities and municipalities that endures to this day. Cities and municipalities continued to amalgamate in this period, initially at regional or Land level, and then, with the establishment of the German Association of Towns and Cities in 1905, at national level. This association still exists today and celebrated its 100th birthday in May 2005.

Though calls to make Europe a single political entity, a fusion of existing empires, principalities, and, later, nation states, have been repeated intermittently since the 13th century, they have never been put into action. The common goal of every early plan for unification was to establish an internal, i.e. European, unity to strengthen its position vis à vis outside enemies such as non-Christians and heathens during the Crusades, and Turkish invaders in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The bellicose conflicts on European soil from the 16th century onward also contributed to the formulation of a series of large-scale unification plans. These schemes were aimed at securing lasting peace in Europe through supranational organizations (cf. Franz 2004, p. 32).

In the course of the 19th century the industrialization which spread from Britain and the sweeping political demands being made in the wake of the French Revolution left Europe let to radical economic, political and social charges in Europe. The main outcomes of this were an on going transformation from primarily agrarian-based production to industrial manufacturing, the social disharmony and displacement which came with structural change (the shift from an estate-based to a property-driven society), the disintegration of the old political order wrought with power struggles and the clash between revolution and restoration, and the formation of European nation states.

These developments resulted in a myriad of ideas for unifying Europe which pursued an assortment of aims, from restoring the old regimes to "reorganizing European society" (cf. Cassen 2003, p. 2), from reiterating existing demands for separation from, and fortification against, external forces like, as de Tocqueville points out, "the duality of the emerging world powers America and Russia" (Franz 2004, p. 33), to establishing "superregional economic and currency unions" (Detsch).

The debate on a single Europe, shaped by an array of motives and interests, was, however, short-lived. "During the flurry of nation-building in the second half of the 19th century and the decay of the old European state order [debate on Europe] dwindled significantly, the nation as a unified community coalesced the passions of its citizens" (Franz 2004, p. 33). The idea of a single Europe had been, "as Bismarck noted, reduced to a geographic footnote" (Plessen 2003, p. 37 ff., quoted from Franz 2004, p. 33). It was first considered earnestly again in the interwar period following World War I. Of the many plans and initiatives only one, the Pan-Europa Movement founded by Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, achieved lasting importance. Political and economic unification of the European states with a single currency was intended to help Europe regain the leading role in world politics which it had lost to the new superpowers Russia and the United States as a result of the First World War. These unification ideas received particularly strong political support from Aristide Briand during his stints as French prime minister. He held the view that "Europe's political and economic problems can only be overcome in a concerted effort" (cf. Franz 2004, p. 35) and came out in support of establishing a United States of Europe in his now famous Mémorandum sur l'organisation d'un régime d'union fédérale europeénne (cf. Cassen 2003, p. 2). The Great Depression and the rise of authoritarian nationalist regimes in Europe thwarted the implementation of this vision.

After the catastrophic impact of the Second World War, however, radical change came as far as municipalities and the idea of a politically unified Europe were concerned.

The political reorganization of Germany after 1945 put in place the principles of local self-government based on those of Prussian reformer Baron vom und zum Stein which are still valid today. Following the Gleichschaltung of cities and city associations in the Nazi period, cities were now - at first only in the Länder municipal constitutions - construed as "the foundation of a democratic state"(2) and were endowed with the appropriate rights. At national level, the principle of municipal self-government and the municipal associations reestablished after the war were firmly anchored in Article 28 of the German Basic Law in force from 1949.

During Germany's reconstruction, cities once again became potent and influential players. City and town residents strongly identified with their municipalities (voter turnout in municipal elections reflects this), leading local politicians enjoyed similar popularity. Important chancellors like Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, and several federal ministers too, started out as mayors or senators in German metropolises. Cities were quick to enter the European stage as well. In the spirit of international understanding and reconciliation with former WWII adversaries, a number of city partnerships were made, including more than 2,000 with French and over 500 with British municipalities (cf. RGRE 1998, p. 9). Changes in global markets, economic structural transformation and discontinuity, the end of longstanding growth, heightened social discord and a constant rise in duties put municipalities under increasing pressure from the 1970s onward. More and more often, there were declining or inadequate resources and funds available to address escalating problems and added obligations. Many cities found themselves increasingly losing legitimacy in the eyes of their residents.

After unification of the two Germanies in 1990 and the successive politico-economic transformation of the Eastern Bloc, many cities believed they had come out on top (again). West German cities experienced a boom, if only short-term, in economic and demographic development, while East German cities envisaged "the blossoming landscapes" which had been promised them within a year.

European unification, which would at this time remain a less than ideal construct, began with a series of anti-nationalistic and pro-European considerations shortly after the war ended. These deliberations shared the common goal of averting yet another European disaster. This is why, in September 1946, Winston Churchill advocated the creation of a "United States of Europe" on the basis of Coudenhove's and Briand's pan-European plans (cf. Mickel 1994, p. XXIII). Avoiding the scourge of another war and creating a buffer against the "Soviet threat" (ibid.) were two major aims of unity. Beyond establishing a protective barrier, the US State Department's conception for Europe was prominently driven by economic considerations, i.e. expanding and strengthening US trade relations. For this reason European Recovery Program (ERP) reconstruction aid was made subject to a number of conditions geared towards economic cooperation between countries participating in the ERP, i.e. "gradually eliminating customs and establishing a customs union" and "participation in an Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC)" (Detsch), which would also administer ERP loans. Unlike in previous years, this time around unification did not stall at abstract deliberations and demands. Establishing the OEEC (after 1961 OECD) in 1948 (with 17 member states) was the first concrete step. It was the "first collective European organization in the postwar period" (Mickel 1994, p. XXV).

Scholars consider the Hague Congress of 1948 a large-scale attempt to foster European decision-making without US dominance. As a result of the congress the Council of Europe was formed a year later; "an association of states without independent authority, yet (wielding) heavy international clout" (ibid.). Other advances largely directed at forming a tighter economic union between member states were (cf. ibid.):

  • setting up the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, as laid out in the Schuman declaration and the concomitant creation of a common market without duty or trade restrictions for key raw materials, member states were the Benelux countries, Germany, France and Italy;
  • establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) in accordance with the Treaties of Rome which came into force in 1958;
  • the 1968 merger of the ECSC, the EEC and Euratom to form the "European Communities" which were joined by six other European nations by 1990.

By and large, political decision-making structures were left unaltered by the increased economic integration and cooperation among member states. National interests and the pursuit off national agendas continued to take precedence. "Individual states still retain a political monopoly" (ibid., p. XXVII). Transnational parties were nonexistent and established European organizations exhibited a glaring lack of democratic structures.

The supreme decision-making body was and is the European Council, the name given the European summits of state and government leaders from EU member states and the president of the European Commission. But the European Parliament, the EU's only democratically legitimate organ after the institution of direct election of its members in 1979, lacked "the legislative and political capability to satisfy its own claim to represent citizens' interests" (ibid., p. 133). Beyond this, for a long time the lowest level of democratic decision-making, that of cities and municipalities, played no or at best only a modest role in the European institutional system.

Plans presented by the European Council in the first half of the 1980s to "establish a European Union" culminated at the end of 1991 in the heavily German and French influenced "Treaty on European Union" (Maastricht Treaty) which entered into force on 1 November 1993.

The establishment of the European Union meant cities and municipalities were faced with a novel situation. Europe, which for centuries had been an imaginary construct, a mere chimera of mainly elite circles, had now joined the federal government and the Länder as yet another supramunicipal player influencing events at local level. Initially, there was no precise perception of what the form and extent of this influence might be.

While the treaty was being negotiated in 1991, the German Association of Cities had already done a survey on "Cities and the European Union", hoping to better serve its members on questions of European affairs. In line with municipal work being done on European issues at that time, questions about the municipal organization of EU-oriented activities, information-gathering and experiences to date with aid from the EU Structural Funds were the focus. A German Institute of Urban Affairs study (Franke/Heinz 1997) dealing with similar questions was conducted five years later. It showed that EU aid programmes, invitations to tender, grant applications and existing projects were core municipal interests. In times of increasing gaps between municipal problems and available budgets, the European Union was increasingly seen as a "bountiful" aid institution. Local authorities felt they could lobby for EU funding more effectively by collaborating in multinational city networks, which were founded in rapid succession throughout the 1990s, (cf. Wiedemann/Heinz 1995) and by establishing offices representing municipalities at European Union headquarters in Brussels (see the Articus article in this issue).

However, measures initiated by the European Commission which affected the legislative processes of its member states soon demonstrated to cities and municipalities that the EU is not solely a provider of aid which can be employed to compensate for cuts at national level. More and more areas of local government activity - recent estimates assume around 60% - are affected by directives and regulations formulated by the Commission (see the articles from Esser, Hobe and Articus in this issue). As the current debate surrounding the services directive in the internal market shows, this influence not only affects form and content, it has structural consequences too. The directive on services, which aims to create a single market for services in Europe, has led to the deregulation and privatization of municipal services. This is why the heaviest opposition to the directive has come from municipal politicians (see the Häupl article in this issue) and economic representatives.(3) They are anxious that German cities and municipalities may lose a large portion of their self-government rights and their democratically legitimated freedom to act. This begs the question whether local authorities, often lauded as "engines of development", will for evermore become mere executive bodies for supranational organizations like the EU.

The process of European unification began in 1951 with the "Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, (ECSC)". After the "intermediate stations" (Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung [Press and Information Bureau of the German Federal Government] 1992, p. 21) of ECC and EC, it experienced a "qualitative leap" (Mickel 1994, p. 365) towards "realizing a European Union" with the "Treaty on European Union" (Maastricht Treaty). Economic goals and motives have remained top priority but, "the resolutions made at Maastricht? [nonetheless] bind other political fields to the European integration process and are gradually ushering certain areas towards European uniformity" (ibid.). Common foreign and security policy and close cooperation in judiciary and internal affairs policy were to become additional pillars of the European Union (see the Esser article in this issue). Also foreseen are the creation of an economic and monetary union culminating in a common currency and the establishment of a European Central Bank (ECB), the introduction of new EU legislative processes meant to augment the rights and jurisdiction of the European Parliament (Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung 1992, p. 22) and the formation of a "Committee of the Regions" to advise on EU legislation.

EU politics to date has been marked by a clear ambivalence which seems to fit perfectly with the title of a conference held in Amsterdam in September 2005: Competing and Caring. Military competition, the unifying motive of past centuries, has made way for economic competition. Again, internal unification (common market) should bolster Europe's competitive position internationally (in North America, Europe, Southeast Asia and the Pacific). Funding and measures utilized for this purpose adhere to the principles of neoliberalism and are geared towards deregulation and liberalization of what, until now, have been national policies (especially in economic and social areas). The 2000 Lisbon Declaration best illustrates this side of EU politics and its strategic aim to make the European economic area the "most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economic area in the world" (4) .

On the other hand, with its funds (e.g. the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund), Community initiatives (URBAN and INTERREG are some examples) and aid programmes (e.g. ECOS), the EU hopes to promote improved environmental and social policies. Gaps, both wide and narrow, are to be closed, development of disadvantaged areas fostered, environmental quality and protection improved and advancement in multiple sectors secured. The sustainability strategy decided upon by the European Council in Gothenburg in 2001 champions the last of these aims in particular. According to Heide Rühle, a MEP, this strategy is more of a Scandinavian-defined phase (i.e. concentrating on social and environmental issues) for the European Parliament and its work. Since ten more European nation states joined the EU in May 2004, however, it appears this strategy has been abandoned for a phase unequivocally determined by expansion and economics.

For many centuries cities were potent actors and a political Europe existed as an imaginary construct at best. However, in a short span of time agreements and resolutions at national level have made this construct itself a powerful player which influences cities and municipalities in a myriad of ways. How does this influence manifest itself concretely? What consequences does this have for cities and municipalities and their defining trait: local self-government? What can or should cities do to guarantee their political independence? These and other questions relevant to municipalities and their representatives will be pursued from varying angles in this German Journal of Urban Studies (DfK) special issue. The three theoretically-oriented articles at the start of this issue shed light on the political, economic and legal implications of the Union for cities and municipalities. In the three articles that follow we will hear the municipal side: from the president of the foremost national association of German metropolises (German Association of Towns and Cities) and the mayors of two non-German cities.

In his introductory article Josef Esser undertakes a complex analysis of the "qualitative leap" towards a self-contained European political system and the "transformation of statehood as we know it" which accompanies this jump. The growing level of Europeanization in an increasing number of policymaking and activity areas of local government is, however, counteracted by the fact that EU member states continue to exist "as sovereign nations with their own national, social and political agendas". As Esser shows while alluding to the governance debate, forming opinions on issues and decision-making processes carried out in this multilevel system which extends to other subnational local authorities is influenced by a wide array of players. However, the coordination and negotiation systems exhibit the lack of democratic structures that results. Taking the work of Fritz W. Scharpf as a basis, Esser demonstrates that in the process of expanding European regulation one can differentiate between two forms of integration: a "negative" and a "positive"; though of the two the "negative", i.e. the "market creating" form, predominates. Efforts for "positive", more "market correcting" integration, on the other hand, have been at "almost a complete standstill up to now".

Proceeding from this established and multifaceted examination of some of the central aspects of the progressing EU integration and regulation process, Esser delves into the effects these processes have on the subnational level of the German federalist system. He concludes that so far subnational political authorities and their organs can be counted among the losers in the Europeanization process. The rights of the Bundesrat, the German upper house, to influence this are limited, the Länder forfeit even more authority and the Committee of the Regions, where the Länder are enjoy strong representation, cannot counterbalance this; its influence is considered "insignificant or mediocre".

Local government, whose political leeway is already limited by federal and Länder law, is now subject to another superordinate administrative level, the European Union. As a consequence of the "intensity of regulation" at municipal level, local authorities are being affected by the Europeanization of a progressively growing number of public works areas. Cities, however, are not integrated into the European political consensus-building and decision-making process. Their only access to EU organs is through the Länder and the federal government. Municipalities have reacted to this unsatisfactory situation by establishing their own information and lobbying channels, creating different ways to exert influence. Esser says local authorities should attempt to "erect their own institutions and procedures beyond existing EU institutions, to discuss their vital, active, policymaking and executive roles in European governance and to develop common strategies" so they can increase and realize their clout and become "bottom-up champions of European integration".

According to Stephan Hobe, who writes on the legal effects of the EU, the European Union has created an association of states which preserves the statehood of its members but imposes cooperative obligations on them at the same time. On the basis of the European Treaties, the Union has created a new body of secondary European law in the form of directives and regulations which are immediately valid (in part after the signatory states have made them national law) and take precedence over national law. In Hobe's view, neither the established Community treaties nor secondary legislation has much to say about municipalities. Owing to the specific constitutional structure of the Federal Republic of Germany, municipalities access to the EU is via a third party: the Länder, to which municipalities are constitutionally designated, must lobby the federal government, the real player in the European integration process, to act as a fiduciary in the interests of both the Länder and the municipalities.

Presenting a series of cases, Hobe shows how European secondary legislation can infringe upon local self-government, the constitutionally-guaranteed core sphere of municipal activity. Municipalities, however, enjoy no legal protection against possible infringements. Partial protection is provided for basic public services in municipalities by Article 86 of the EC Treaty.

The failure of the EU Constitutional Treaty has rendered ineffectual the improvements planned for municipalities at EU level, such as strengthening the subsidiarity principle, which in its current manifestation in EU law has no relevance to local government, and equipping the Committee of the Regions with more than just the rudimentary rights it now has. Municipalities will hardly be able to represent themselves independently at European level or effectively shield their right to local self-government from EU attacks. This is why Hobe refers back to a demand he made in 2001: to institutionalize municipal participation in EU legislation by reformulating the Law on the Cooperation between the German Federal Government and the Länder in matters relating to the European Union.

The article by Martin Gornig examines the threat of a double polarization through Europeanization. He proceeds by considering the economic potential between and within cities and then looking at income structures in urban areas. An introductory section sketches the main factors of current municipal system development processes in Europe, from concentration to deconcentration: on the one hand, sectoral structural upheaval and the growing significance of tertiary control functions, and on the other, the effects of European integration, from the institutional easing of trade restrictions to the recent EU expansion.

According to Gornig, the theoretically inferable consequences of this development - an increased spatial concentration in regions which are traditionally stable - is evidenced by actual developments. In the article a series of city regions, from Munich to Frankfurt am Main and Düsseldorf to Hamburg, are shown to have experienced much more dynamic development than the national average. Gornig sees the determinant cause for this in a shift in these cities' economic base to national and international services due to the processes of industrialization and Europeanization.

Tertiarization, Europeanization and their consequences have drastically affected city income and social structures. Though cities were able to function as "integration machines" until well into the 1970s due to the combined effects of economic growth and municipal regulation, income discrepancies have become more acute since 2000. This is a consequence of growing unemployment and a heavy increase in low-wage jobs. These are two notable developments of Europeanization, the intensified exchange of goods and services across borders and the subsequent crowding out of basic production phases.

Against this backdrop cities are under enormous pressure to act, feeling forced to jockey for position among European competitors. They also have a stake in nurturing social cohesion within their jurisdictions. According to Gornig, cities can only perform these tasks if they receive the necessary financial resources.

The perspective of municipal experts is introduced in the article by Stephan Articus, who speaks about where cities stand in the eyes of a major municipal association, the German Association of Towns and Cities. After touching on the legal and funding policy measures and possibilities of the EU which impact municipalities, Articus centres his attention on current municipal reaction models, on "individual" and "collective" strategies. "Individual" strategies, ranging from constructing local information systems to gaining profile in the competitive European cityscape, are measures which individual cities can undertake. City networks of varying types which present their members' range of interests to organs of the EU are considered "collective" strategies. Examples are the Federal Consortium of Leading Municipal Associations, the work done by the German Association of Cities European Office in Brussels and the Europe-related activities associations do internally. Articus counts city and expert networks as "collective" strategies, ascribing particular importance to the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP), the European Local Authorities Network (ELAN) and EUROCITIES. The article concludes with a call to intensify municipal reaction models, both individual and collective, and to further reduce the dissonance among local authorities in Europe.

Gérard Collomb, a manifold representative of the municipal level as Mayor of Lyon, President of the Communauté Urbaine Grand Lyon and Vice President of EUROCITIES, argues for bolstering cities at national and European level. In Collomb's estimation, cities, above all in Europe with its high degree of urbanization, are at the forefront of, and driving forces behind, advancement. They are teeming with economic, social and cultural potential, yet at the same time they are the harbingers of key societal problems. Cities should therefore play a more central role at both national and European level. To achieve this goal, cities should "overcome their overt competitiveness" and make efforts to speak with "one voice" in order to put "more pressure on national and European institutions". Steps and measures Collomb considers necessary are creating forms of cooperation which address problems of the day at municipal and regional level (preferably in the form of urban-regional authorities), strengthening partnerships with other European metropolises, improving municipal lobbying initiatives and cooperation through national city associations and international city networks. The EUROCITIES network is assigned major significance. According to Collomb, the network's activities contributed to the fact that cities and their interests were paid more attention in the EU Constitutional Treaty.

These advances aside, Collomb continues, cities must continue to champion their interests so they will be duly heard whenever EU policies and programmes affecting them are formulated. In this respect it would be advantageous to establish an open and consistent dialogue "between representatives of local and regional authorities, national governments, the Commission and European institutions".

Michael Häupl too, Mayor and State Governor of Vienna and President of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), casts his vote for stronger observance of cities on the part of the EU. In contrast to Collomb, he does not argue solely on the basis of the magnitude and value of cities, he instead offers a clear critique of current EU policies and their scope. Häupl sees the success of a unified Europe in "an above-average level of education and vocational training at all levels of society, good job prospects, low unemployment, a high and rising level of social welfare from the cradle to the grave" etc., yet he cannot detect a safeguard for this in current EU policy. The economic and fiscal policy of the European Central Bank follows neoliberal principals; the European Social Model is in danger of being condemned to insignificance. Europe is dominated by the free market ideas of the European Commission and the European Council. Citizens, just like cities and the European Parliament, have played only a very marginal role in European policymaking.

Häupl also deals critically with the future of public services and the progressive liberalization and privatization of services being undertaken in Brussels. In his opinion, the services directive currently on the table is an example of the discrepancy between European Commission policies and the interests of cities and municipalities' as well as those of citizens and representatives of the European Parliament. A policy of "liberalization based purely on economic considerations" cannot bring about improved standards of living. Quite the contrary. Vienna offers an example of how a comprehensive range of public services can ensure better quality of life.

According to Häupl, local authorities must get involved in foreign affairs if they are to have any influence on European Union policymaking. Some approaches have already been sketched. They include lobbying in Brussels, increasing cooperation with EU parliamentarians and forging links with various national and foreign authorities. Apart from cooperating with Austrian Länder (for example in rejecting the liberalization of public services), alliances with other European metropolises are strongly recommended (from cooperation between capital cities to networks like EUROCITIES and CEMR). "The European Union will have to get used to city and municipal councils having their say in European politics." Häupl, like Articus and Collomb, sees initial success of these activities in changes and improvements" due to the increased involvement of regions and local authorities" included in the European Constitutional Treaty. Europe should, as Häupl concludes in his article, be more than a "free trade area" which puts goals like "cost reduction" and "deregulation" at the fore. Instead, one should act in the spirit of the words of one of the EU's founding fathers, Jean Monnet, "building union among people, not cooperation between states".

All authors in this issue clearly show that the European Union is not a completed project but a political process which takes a twisting and turning path, as the recent referenda in France and the Netherlands that have put the Constitutional Treaty in doubt exhibited. The articles are largely in agreement that cities and their interests have received very little consideration from EU organs and in the formulation of political aims and programmes. The EU's institutional makeup offers little or no space for cities and municipalities. This is why the authors advocate strengthened municipal institutions and more representation in the policymaking and decision-making processes of the EU and its organs. They argue too for the elimination of the often highly-competitive dissonance between cities regarding the EU, in order to make way for consensus-oriented attitudes.



(1) Cf. (as of: 5 December 2005). (back)

(2) Hessische Gemeindeordnung (Hessian Municipal Code), Article 1, see Schneider/Ramb (1977, p. 11). (back)

(3) A general representation of opinions can be found in: Stellungnahme des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats der Gesellschaft für öffentliche Wirtschaft, Zur Beibehaltung kommunaler Dienstleistungen in der Europäischen Union, Manuscript, Berlin 2004. (back)

(4) European Council (Lisbon), Presidency Conclusions, 23-24 March 2000: (05/12/05). (back)



 Bogumil, Jörg (2005), Kommune/Kommunale Selbstverwaltung, in: Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Hannover, S. 515. (back)

 Cassen, Bernard (2003), Wo endet Europa?, in: Le Monde Diplomatique, Nr. 6956 vom 17/01/03. (back)

 Detsch, Roland, Europapläne, Ideen und Konzepte zur Einigung Europas, in: (Abruf am 05/12/05). (back)

 Franke, Thomas/Heinz, Werner (1997), EU-Aktivitäten deutscher Städte und Gemeinden, Berlin (Difu-Materialien, Band 6/97). (back)

 Franz, Monika (2004), Fundamente Europäischer Identität, Teil II, in: BLZ-Report, Nr. 3 (2004). (back)

 Keller, Bernhard, Weitere Städtebünde in Deutschland - das Beispiel des Rheinischen Bundes, in: Hanse__-_Handelsgebiete/_Hanse__-_Kaufleute/_hanse__-_stadtebunde.html(Abruf am 05/12/05). (back)

 Mickel, Wolfgang W. (Hrsg.) (1994), Handlexikon der Europäischen Union, Köln. (back)

 Mottek, Hans (1974), Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands, Band I, Berlin. (back)

 von Plessen, Marie-Louise (Hrsg.) (2003), Idee Europa. Entwürfe zum "Ewigen Frieden": Ordnungen und Utopien für die Gestaltung Europas von der pax romana zur Europäischen Union. Eine Ausstellung als historische Topographie, Berlin. (back)

 Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung (Hrsg.) (1992), Europa 2000, Schritte zur Europäischen Union, Köln. (back)

 Rat der Gemeinden und Regionen Europas (RGRE)/Deutsche Sektion (Hrsg.) (1998), Die Partnerschaften der Städte, Gemeinden und Kreise, Köln. (back)

 Schneider, Gerhard/Ramb, Heinz (1977), Hessische Gemeindeverfassung, in: Hessischer Städte- und Gemeindebund (Hrsg.), Kommunale Schriften für Hessen, Band 2. (back)

 Vogt-Lüerssen, Maike (2001), Der Alltag im Mittelalter, Mainz. (back)

 Wiedemann, Uwe/Heinz, Werner (1995), Europäische Städtenetzwerke, Berlin. (back)

[index | next article]

Weitere Verweise auf diesen Beitrag: