Implications of Metropolitan Policy Mobility: Tracing the Relevance of Travelling Ideas for Metropolitan Regions

  • Carola FrickeEmail author


This chapter traces the implications of policy mobility for metropolitan regions. It addresses the context and conditions of policy movements while reflecting on the consequences of mobile policy ideas from the perspective of metropolitan regions. To understand the impacts of metropolitan policy mobility, this chapter first asks who profits from the increased travelling of ideas. This is important because the winners of transnational policy mobility form an elite of metropolitan regions with the capacity, resources and interest to act beyond their national and regional boundaries. Second, the chapter suggests an explorative perspective on where policy mobility is leading the political development of metropolitan regions. Accordingly, the chapter moves away from a focus on transferred ideas and transfer mechanisms towards the reception and adaptation of travelling policies in the local context. Finally, the chapter sheds light on the relevance of policy mobility for everyday routines and formal procedures in metropolitan regions. This includes not only examining the implications for policymaking on metropolitan issues at other scales, but also the possibilities of policy failure.


Travelling of ideas Policy mobility Implications for ordinary metropolitan regions Policy failure 


  1. Agence d’Urbanisme de Lyon. (2016). Les cahiers de la gouvernance métropolitaine: Présentation synthétique de 11 villes européennes [The metropolitan governance notebooks: A summary of 11 European cities]: Lyon, Leipzig, Hamburg, Munich, Barcelona, Turin, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Brusells, Stockholm, Manchester. Accessed April 15, 2019..
  2. Belmessous, F. (2008). La fabrique d’un territoire communautaire: Des lieux, des projéts, des représentations et des politiques [The making of a community territory: Places, projections, representations and policies]. Accessed April 15, 2019.
  3. Benz, A., & Frenzel, A. (2002). Institutional policies in a federal state: The creation of the Association of the Urban Region of Stuttgart. In B. Jouve, & C. Lefèvre (Eds.), Local power, territory, and institutions in european metropolitan regions (pp. 153–174). London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  4. Böhme, K., Richardson, T., Dabinett, G., & Jensen, O. (2004). Values in a vacuum? Towards an integrated multi-level analysis of the governance of European space. European Planning Studies, 12(8), 1175–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boino, P. (Ed.). (2009). Lyon: La production de la ville [Lyon: The production of the city]. Marseille: Parenthèses.Google Scholar
  6. Brenner, N. (2003). Standortpolitik, state rescaling and the new metropolitan governance in Western Europe. disP—The Planning Review, 152(1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, N. (2011). Urban policy mobility, anti-politics, and histories of the transnational municipal movement. Progress in Human Geography, 36(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska, & G. Sevón (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, K., Coenen, L., Acuto, M., & Gleeson, B. (2019). Reconfiguring urban governance in an age of rising city networks: A research agenda. Urban Studies. Scholar
  11. Denters, B., & Mossberger, K. (2006). Building blocks for a methodology for comparative urban political research. Urban Affairs Review, 41(4), 550–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández de Losada Passols, A., & Calvete Moreno, A. (2016). Management of EU Structural Funds by European Metropolitan Areas and Cities—Barcelona Study Barcelona: Barcelona Metropolitan Area, AMB.Google Scholar
  13. Fichter, H. (2002). Regionale handlungsfähigkeit im Europäischen wettbewerb: Spezifische ausprägungen regionaler governance-formen am beispiel dreier Deutscher metropolregionen [Regional capacity to act in European competition: Specific characteristics of regional forms of governance exemplified by three German metropolitan regions]. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 6(7), 313–324.Google Scholar
  14. Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fricke, C. (2017). Metropolitan regions as a changing policy concept in a comparative perspective. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 75(3), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricke, C. (2020). European dimension of metropolitan policies: Policy learning and reframing of metropolitan regions. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Galimberti, D. (2015). Gouverner le développement économique des territoires: entre politique et société. Une comparaison des régions de Lyon et Milan [To govern the economic development of territories: between politics and society. A comparison of the regions of Lyon and Milan] (1970-2011). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Milan-Bicocca.Google Scholar
  18. Galland, D., & Harrison, J. (2020). Conceptualising metropolitan regions: How institutions, policies, spatial imaginaries and planning are influencing metropolitan development. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 1–21). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harding, A. (2007). Taking city regions seriously? Response to debate on city-regions: New geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(2), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Healey, P. (1998). The place of ‘Europe’ in contemporary spatial strategy making. European Urban and Regional Studies, 5(2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healey, P. (2004). The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Healey, P. (2011). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Planning Theory, 11(2), 188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heiden, N. (2010). Urban foreign policy and domestic dilemmas: Insights from Swiss and EU City-Regions. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  25. Héritier, A. (2001). Differential Europe: The European Union impact on national policymaking. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Initiativkreis Europäische Metropolregionen in Deutschland [IMK]. (2013). Governance-Modelle der Europäischen Metropolregionen in Deutschland im Überblick [An overview of the governance models of European metropolitan regions in Germany]. Accessed April 15, 2019.
  27. Jong, M. (2013). China’s art of institutional bricolage: Selectiveness and gradualism in the policy transfer style of a nation. Policy and Society, 32(1), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jouve, B. (2005). From government to urban governance in Western Europe: A critical analysis. Public Administration and Development, 25(4), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kübler, D., & Piliutyte, J. (2007). Intergovernmental relations and international urban strategies. Constraints and opportunities in multilevel polities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(3), 357–373.Google Scholar
  30. Landtag Baden-Württemberg. (1994). Gesetz über die Errichtung des Verbands Region Stuttgart. Verkündet als Artikel 1 des Gesetzes über die Stärkung der Zusammenarbeit in der Region Stuttgart vom 7. Februar 1994 [Law on the establishment of the Verband Region Stuttgart. Proclaimed as Article 1 of the Law on Strengthening Cooperation in the Stuttgart Region of 7 February 1994]. Stuttgart: Gesetzesblatt für Baden-Württemberg.Google Scholar
  31. Lang, T., & Török, I. (2016). Metropolitan region policies in the European Union: Following national, European or neoliberal agendas? International Planning Studies, 22(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Le Galès, P. (2002). European cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lefèvre, C. (2004). Paris et les Grandes Agglomérations Occidentales: Comparaison des Modèles de Gouvernance [Paris and the Major Western Agglomerations: Comparison of Governance Models]: Barcelona, Berlin, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Manchester, Milan, Montreal, Rome, Stuttgart, Toronto, Paris. Paris: Paris City Hall, Extramuros.Google Scholar
  34. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (Eds.) (2011). Mobile urbanism: Cities and policymaking in the global age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012). Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘studying through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mukhtarov, F. (2014). Rethinking the travel of ideas: Policy translation in the water sector. Policy & Politics, 42(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Payre, R. (2010). The importance of being connected: City networks and urban government—Lyon and Eurocities (1990-2005). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(2), 260–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peck, J. (2011). Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 773–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petrin, J., & Knieling, J. (2009). Das bildversprechen der metropolregion: Potenziale und risiken einer bildmächtigen raumkategorie [The image promise of the metropolitan region: The potentials and risks of a powerful spatial category]. In J. Knieling (Ed.), Metropolregionen: Innovation, Wettbewerb, Handlungsfähigkeit (pp. 300–322). Hannover: Verlag der ARL.Google Scholar
  40. Pinson, G., & Vion, A. (2000). L’internationalisation des villes comme objet d’expertise [The internationalization of cities as an object of expertise]. Pôle Sud, 13(1), 85–102.Google Scholar
  41. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmitt, P. (2020). Learning from elsewhere? A critical account on the mobilisation of metropolitan policies. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 79–96). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Sellers, J. M. (2005). Re-placing the nation: An agenda for comparative urban politics. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 419–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soldatos, P., & Michelmann, H. J. (1992). Subnational units? Paradiplomacy in the context of European integration. Journal of European Integration, 15(2–3), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stein, C., Michel, B., Glasze, G., & Pütz, R. (2017). Learning from failed policy mobilities: Contradictions, resistances and unintended outcomes in the transfer of ‘business improvement districts’ to Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stone, D. (2017). Understanding the transfer of policy failure: Bricolage, experimentalism and translation. Policy & Politics, 45(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wildavsky, A. B. (1987). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Zimmermann, K. (2020). From here to there: Mapping the metropolitan politics of policy mobilities. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 97–115). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations