Abstract
The whole volume consists of the analysis of some big cities of central Europe, where some complex urban interventions are examined (see Fig. 1.1 and Table 3.1). This chapter has the target of homogenizing the case studies and creating a unique field of comparison between heterogeneous situations. The treatise has the purpose of finding some specific points in the different cases and their impact on the general model presented. Similar (or assimilable) Communitarian “rules” are particularly interesting elements, as well as a new urban competition that derives from globalization, through which an attraction or a loss of value, and therefore of competitive advantage, can occur to one city’s advantage and to another city’s detriment. All these things lead to a treatise developing within two different sections: homogeneity of the treatise (Sect. 3.1) and impact with the proposed model (Sect. 3.2). Several elements have been considered and it has been attempted to reorganize them by some specific points. An effort has also been made, besides the case studies, to consider some incidents that could be related to the cases. In view of eight cases of metropolitan areas, therefore, twelve different incidents have been added with the aim to activate a benchmark between the main case and other situations considered homogeneous to it. The eight cases refer to four European countries,1 located in central Europe, selected on the basis of their size: almost all are metropolitan areas with the highest number of inhabitants and the highest population density in their respective countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary.
- 2.
SWG sold 178 m2 houses plus a little garden for €2,100 for m2 (that is a total cost of €374,000).
- 3.
See Dalla Longa (1997).
- 4.
Some details expressed in the call for tender were as follows: (a) within 9 months from the adjudication, the detailed plan has to be drafted for the publication; (b) within 6 months from the execution of the detailed plan, the executive project has to be presented concerning the realization and general works; (c) within 12 months from the execution of the Detailed Plan the project concerning at least 30% of the area (SU) has to be drafted; (d) within 12 months from the approval of the planning convention the primary urbanization (UI) and general works have to be started; (e) within 18 months from the approval of the Planning Convention the construction works related to point (c) have to be started; (f) the new buildings must be destined to high-tech start-ups as indicated in an attachment and consistent with the dynamic vision of development of the city (mechanics districts, etc.).
- 5.
A significant comparison can be made with Hamburg.
- 6.
Atkearney (2005)
- 7.
This was done under the supervision of the Provincial Heritage Conservator.
- 8.
As in Italy Finlombarda and Finpiemonte.
- 9.
Poland was not part of the European Union in the concerned period.
- 10.
Regional governing body measure of November 5, 2007, which liquidated four different existing parts (ERSAC – agriculture, ERSVA – crafts, ASC – territorial marketing, EFI – innovation).
- 11.
They are five different departments.
- 12.
The surface of the Hamburg federal state (Lander) is 755 km2, Rome is 1,285 km2, Milan and Turin respectively are 182 and 130 km2.
- 13.
According to a study of the company AtisReal Auguste Thouard on 18 national markets (Edilizia e Territorio 2005, n.22).
- 14.
Other functions are: (a) to intervene in revitalization areas in several ways; (b) to intervene in situations of decline and crisis; (c) to develop single projects, as already mentioned; (d) to propose the planning processes; (e) to sustain the local economy; (f) to develop estates for the quarter; (g) to provide a massive modernization of old buildings; (h) to administer the pilot interventions’ estates; (i) to give assistance to the tenants on urban renewal; (j) to draft reports and feasibility studies; (k) to draft projects for private investors; (l) to intervene on various issues concerning authorizations.
- 15.
Ferencváros (Budapest), Im Raiser (Stuttgart), Krakow Soda Works (Krakow).
- 16.
The issue is the border between the planning, which can be referred only to the preliminary study, and neither to the definitive nor to the executive; but even on the preliminary there can be confusion and uncertainty.
- 17.
The case is dated 2003, the judgement is dated 2005 (Court of Justice, sentence C-26/03).
- 18.
It is not a contract because there is no compensation against a service, but there is the entrepreneurial risk supported by ASM related to a service remunerated through the tariffs.
- 19.
The case is dated 2003, the judgement is dated 2005 (Court of Justice, sentence C-458/03).
- 20.
Societé d’èquipement du départment de la Loire (SEDL).
- 21.
The case is dated 2005, the judgement is dated 2007 (Court of Justice, sentence C-220/05). Several hints emerge from the sentence, even if not of primary importance for our dissertation, treated hereafter: (1) the contract concluded with the SEDL is on services; according to the Court of Justice, it should be on works, since within the whole entrustment process the part concerning works is more extended than the one concerning services. Actually this problem would be solved if the different interventions are separated through different types of competition. (2) In order to define if the contract is over the communitarian threshold (€5,287,000 in 2007) to know if the competition has to follow the communitarian rules, it is necessary to consider not only how much the Municipality will pay the SEDL, but also all the revenues coming from third subjects.
- 22.
The case is dated 2005, the judgement in dated 2007 (Court of Justice sentence C-295/05). It is recognized as in-house even when a public partner has the minority of shares (1% of the capital, the region), since it has been verified the lack of any decisional autonomy of the company on the tasks conferred to it from the region.
- 23.
This interpretation seems to be confirmed also by the juridical case C-295/05 (see previous note) with some differences with previous causes and openness to some in house forms. The court of justice states again that the created company must have the role of a pure executor and not an autonomous role, due to the concept of “equivalent control” which anyway still needs some improvements.
- 24.
Traditionally, PPPs have been more common in fields such as IT, tourism, housing, commercial development of city centres, health (including private clinics, medical, wellness, and fitness services) and the environment. There are also innovative experiences in areas such as transports or urban regeneration. Participation in PPPs in many cases will require the strengthening of the capacities in planning and financial engineering (Commission European, 2005).
- 25.
This is based on the following principle:
$$A = \sum\nolimits_{{\rm i} = 1}^{{\rm n} = 8}({\rm It}_{{\rm i}} / 100)^{\ast} PPP_{{\rm i}}; B = \sum\nolimits_{{\rm i} = 1}^{{\rm n} = 8}\left[\frac{{\rm It}_{{\rm i}}\ast({\rm PPP}_{{\rm i}} / 100)}{{{\rm A}}}\right]\ast100$$It = Total investment, including the PPP percentage in every single case;
A = resources referable to a PPP as the sum of all the cases;
PPP = PPP percentage in every single case;
N = single cases (1 = Budapest1; 2 = Stuttgart; 3 = Berlin; 4 = Krakow; 5 = Hamburg; 6 = Milan; 7 = Turin; 8 = Budapest2);
B = PPP resources equivalent to 100 as the sum of resources of a PPP in every single case.
- 26.
In this case, we are not in the context of the community regulations yet.
- 27.
Site risk; design; construction and commissioning risk; operating and maintenance risks; financial risks; uptake/patronage risks; force major risks; legislative risks.
References
Akintoye, A., Beck, M., & Hardcastle, C. (2003). Public Private Partnership: Managing Risks and Opportunities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alcock, P., & Scott, D. (2002). Partnership with the voluntary sector: can compact work. In: C. Glendinning, M. Powell, & K. Rummery (Eds.), Partnership, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare. Bristol: The Policy.
Almqvist, R., & Hogberg, O. (2005). Public-private partnerships in social services: the example of the City of Stockholm. In: G. Hodge, C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Amin, A., & Thrift, N., (2002). Cities. Reimagining the Urban (pp. 84 sgg.). Cambridge: Polity.
Atkearney, A. T. (2005) FDI Confidence Index Vol. 8. Washington DC: Global Business Policy Council.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 33(3)
Atkinson, R., & Bridge, G. (2005). Gentrification in a Global Context. London: Routledge.
Atkin, B., & Brooks, A. (2005). Total Facilities Management, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing
Bartley, B., & Treadwell Shine, K. (2003). Competitive city: governance and the changing dynamics of urban regeneration in Dublin. In: F. Moulaert, A. Rodríguez, E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bazzoli, G., Stein, R., Alexander, J. A., Conrad, D. A., Sofaer, S., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Public-Private Collaboration in Health and Human Service Delivery: Evidence from Community Partnerships. New York: MMF.
Becker, F., & Patterson, V. (2005). Public-private partnership. Public Performance and Management Review, 29/2.
Begg, I., (2002a). ‘Investability’: The key to competitive regions and cities? Regional Studies, 36(2)
Begg, I. (2002b). Urban Competitiveness: Policies for dynamic cities. Bristol: The Policy.
Beider, H. (2007). Neighbourhood Renewal Housing Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Belil, M. (2002). The Development of territorial capital social transformation of the city of Barcellona, in OCDE (2002). In: Glasgow: Lesson for Innovation and Implementation. Danvers: OCDE.
Bennett, E., Grohmann, P., & Gentry, B. (1999). Public-private partnership for the urban environment: option and issues. New York, PPPUE Working Paper, Series vol. 1 – UNDP/PPPUE and Yale University.
Bertrand, N., & Kreibich, V. (2006). Europe’s City-regions Competitiveness. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Blomgren Bingham, L. (2006). The new urban governance: processes for engaging citizens and stakeholders. Review of Policy Research, 23, 4.
Boardman A.E., Poschmann F. & Vinning A. R. (2005). North American Infrastructure P3s: examples and lessons learned, in G. Hodge & C. Greve (eds), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnership cit.
Boddy, M. (2002a). Linking competitiveness and cohesion. In: I. Begg (Ed.), Urban Competitiveness: Policies for dynamic cities. Bristol: The Policy.
Boland, P. (2007). Unpacking the theory-policy interface of local economic development: an analysis of Cardiff and Liverpool. Urban Studies, 44(5/6).
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (Eds.), (2002) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2003) Control and legitimation in government accountability processes: the private finance initiative in the UK. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1), 23–48.
Bult Spiering, M., & Dewulf, G. (2006). Strategic Issues in Public-Private Partnerships. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caldeira, T. P. R. (2001). City of Walls. Los Angeles: University of California.
Camagni, R. (2002). On the concept of territorial competitiveness sound or misleading? Urban Studies, 39(13)
Camagni, R. (2004). Uncertainty, Social Capital and Community Governace: The City as a Milieu. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Castells, M. (1979). The Urban Question. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
Castells, M., & Himanen P. (2002). The Information Society and Welfare State. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Chandler, D. (1990). The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Christiaens, E., Moulaert, F., & Bosmans, B. (2007). Development strategies? The case of antwerp and the neighbourhood development association ‘BOM’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3).
Clark, T. N. (2004). The city as an Entertainment Machine, London, Emerald Porter M.E. (1998), District and competitiveness. Harward working paper Research with W.H. Ingham (published in an Italian book).
Clark, T. N., Lloyd, R., Wong, K. K., & Jain, P. (2004). In: T. N. Clark (Ed.), Amenities drive urban growth: a new a new paradigm and policy linkages. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cole, A., & John, P. (2001). Local Governance in England and France. London: Routledge.
Commission European. (2005). Cohesion Policy and Cities: The Urban Contribution to Growth and Jobs in the Regions. Working paper, Brussels, 23.11.2005.
Cooke, P.,& Schwartz, D. (2007) (Eds.), Creative Regions: Technology, Culture and Knowledge Entrepreneurship. Abingdon: Routledge.
Couch, C. (2003). Urban Regeneration in Liverpool. In: C. Couch, C. Fraser, & S. Percy (Eds.), Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coulson, A. (2005). A Plague all your Partnership: theory and practice in re generation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2).
Dalla Longa, R. (2006). Urban Models. paper presented at the Krakow CoUrbIT Conference 15th December 2006.
Dalla Longa, R., & Vecchi, V. (2007). Urban transformation and competitiveness. Economia and Management, 5, 11–22.
Dalla Longa, R. (1997). Management delle opera publiche (pp. 81–83). Milano: Etas Libri.
Daniels, P. W., & Bryson, J. R. (2005). Sustaining business and professional services in a second city region. The Service Industries Journal, 25(4).
Denton Wilde Sapte (2006). Public-Private Partnership, London, Euromoney Institutional Investor
Duffy, H. (1995). Competitive Cities: Succeeding in the Global Economy. London: Spon.
Du Gay, P., & Pryke, M. (2002). Cultural Economy. London: Sage.
Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebvre. London: CIPG.
Evans, J., & Bowman, D. (2005). Getting the contract right. In: G. Hodge, & C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2005a). Cities and the Creative Class. London: Routledge.
Gamm, L., & Benson, K. (1998). The influence of governmental policy on community health partnership and community care networks: Am analysis of three cases. Journal of Healtth Politics, Policy, and Law, 23(5), 771–794.
Glaser, E., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2004). Consumers and cities. In: T. N. Clark (Ed.), The city as an Entertainment Machine. London, Emerald.
Goldenkoff, R. (2001). Opportunities and challenges of public-private partnership, Public Manager, 30(3), 31–36.
Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, S., Milgrom, R., & Schmid C. (2008). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
Greve, C., & Ejersbo, N. (2002). When public-private partnership fall. Paper for Nordisk Conference, 29 November – 1 December 2002, Odense, Denmark.
Greve, C., & Hodge, G. (2005). Introduction. In: G. Hodge, & C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K. (2005). Are public private partnership value for money? Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345–378.
Grogan, P. S., & Proscio T. (2001). Comeback Cities. CO, USA: Westview.
Haggett, P. (2001). Geography. UK: Pearson Education.
Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2005). Introduction. In: G. Hodge, & C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2007). Public-private partnership: an international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545–558.
Jayne, M. (2006). Cities and Consumption. London: Routledge.
Jones, A. (2000). Networks, Location and Innovation in Business: Some Survey Evidence from London. Paper, South Bank University, Local Economic Policy Unit.
Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E. H. & Koppenjan, J. (1997). (Eds), Managing Complex Networks, London, Sage
Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partnership: an analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money and Management 23(3), 137–146.
Klijn, E. H., Edelembos, J., & Hughes, M. (2007). Public-Private Partnership: a Two-Headed Reform. A comparative of PPP in England and the Netherlands. In: C. Pollitt, S. Van Thiel, V. Homburg (Eds.), New Public Management in Europe, Houndmills-Hampshire. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2005). The formation of public-private partnerships: lesson from nine transport infrastructure projects in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 83(1), 135–157.
Koven, S. G., & Strother, S. (2005). Public-private partnership for economic development. In: J. Rabin (Ed.), Public Administration and Public Policy. London: Taylor & Francis.
Krugman, P. (1997). Pop Internationalism. Cambridge: MIT.
Leazes, F. J., & Motte, M. T. (2004). Providence, the Renaissance City. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Lefebvre, H. (2003). The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.
Le Galès, P. (2002). European Cities, Social Conflicts and Governance: Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Lever, W. F. (2002). The knowledge base and the competitive city. In: I. Begg (Ed.), Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities. Bristol: The Policy.
Link, A. N. (2006). Public/Private Partnership: Innovation Strategies and Policy Alternatives, Leipzig, Springer
Malmberg, A., Malmberg, B., & Lundequist, P. (2000). Agglomeration and firma performance. Economies of scale, localisation, and urbanisation among Swedish export firms. Environment and Planning A, XXXII, pp. 305–321.
Marcuse, P. (2005). Space in the globalizing city. In: N. Brenner, & R. Keil (Eds.), The Global Cities Reader. London: Routledge.
Matarazzo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (1997). Meta-analysis for comparative environmental case studies. Methodological issues. International Journal of Social Economics, 24(7-9), 799–811.
McQuaid, R. W. (2002). The theory of partnership: why have partnership. In: S. P. Osborne (Ed.), Public private partnership. Routledge: London.
Merna, T. & Njiru, C. (2002). Financing Infrastructure Projects, London, Thomas Telford
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets. Heidelberg: Springer.
Miles, S. (2005). ‘Our Tyne’: Iconic regeneration and the revitalisation of identity in Newcastle Gateshead. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 913–926.
Miller, D. L. (2002). Lewis Munford: a life. New York: Grove.
Montgomery, J. (2003). Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban Regeneration. Paper presented to the Planning Institute of Australia National Congress, Adelaide.
Negus, K. (2002). Identities and industries: the cultural formation of aesthetic economies. In: P. Du Gay, & M. Pryke (Eds.), Cultural Economy. London: Sage.
Nelson, S. (2001). The nature of partnership in urban renewal in Paris and London. European Planning Studies, 9(4), 483–502.
Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business. When the map changes the landscape. West Sussex: Wiley.
Novy, A., & Hammer, E. (2007). Radical innovation in the era of liberal governance the case of Vienna. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3), 210–222.
OECD. (2008). Public-Private Partnerships: In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value for Money. Washington DC: OECD.
Osborne, S. P. (2002). (Ed.), Public private partnership. London: Routledge.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (1995). Business goes local: dissecting the ‘business agenda’ in Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19(1), 55–78.
Pinder, D. (2005). Vision of the City. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Pollit, M.G. (2005), Learning from UK Private Finance Initiative experience, in G. Hodge & C. Greve (eds), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnership cit.
Pongsiri, N. (2002). Regulation and public-private partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(6), 487–495.
Porter, M. (1995). The competitive advantages of the inner city. Harvard Business Review, 73, 53–71.
Porter, M. E. (1998). District and competitiveness. Harward working paper Research with W.H: Ingham (published in an Italian book).
Porter, M. (2003). The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies, 37(6/7), 545–578.
Purdue, D. (2005). Performance management for community empowerment networks. Public Money & Management, 25, 123–130.
Raco, M. (2003). Remaking place and securitising space: Urban regeneration and the strategies, tactics and practices of policing in the UK. Urban Studies, 40(9), 1869–1887.
Sagalyn, L. B. (2007). Public/Private development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 7–22.
Saves, E. S. (2000). Privatization and Public-Private Partnership. New York: Chathman House.
Savitch, H. V., & Kantor, P. (2002). Cities in the International Marketplace: the Political Economy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional Advantage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 83(3), 573–596.
Steinberger, P. J. (1985). Ideology and the Urban Crisis. New York: Suny.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2000). Public-private partnership in the European Union: officially suspect, embraced in daily practice. In: S. P. Osborne (Ed.), Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective. London: Routledge.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme? Public Administration Review, 62(2), 197–205.
Torisu, E. (2007). Competitive Cities. Paris: OECD.
Torres, L., & Pina, V. (2001). Public-private partnership and private finance initiatives in the EU and Spanish local governments. The European Accounting Review, 10(3), 601–619.
Turok, I. (2004). Cities, regions and competitiveness. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1061–1075.
Van Boxmeer, B., & Van Beckhoven, E. (2005). Public-private partnership in urban regeneration: A comparison of Dutch and Spanish PPPs. European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(1), 1–16.
van den Berg, L., Braun, E., & van der Meer, J. (2007). National Policy Responses to Urban Challengers in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
van Dijk, M. P. (2006). Managing Cities in Developing Countries: The Theory and Practice of Urban Management. Camberley: Edward Elgars.
Ward, K., & Jonas, A. (2004). Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: a critical reinterpretation of the new regionalism. Environment and Planning A, 36(12), 2119–2139.
Williams, G., & Batho, S. (2005). Reinforcing Commercial Competitiveness through City Centre Renewal. In: D. Adams, C. Watkins, & M. White (Eds.), Planning, Public Policy & Property Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wood P. (2006), Urban Revival and Knowledge-Intensive Services. The case of the English ‘Core Cities’. In: J.W. Harrington and P. Daniels, knowledge – Based Services, Internationalization and Regional Development, Aldershot – Hampshire, Ashgate
Yescombe, E. R. (2007). Public-Private Partnerships. London: Elsevier.
Ysa, T. (2007). Governance forms in urban public-private partnerships. International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 35–57.
Zhang, X. Q, & Kumaraswany, M. M. (2001). Proposed support framework for the procurement of public-private partnered infrastructure projects. In: A. Singh (Ed.), Creative Systems in Structural and Construction New York Engineering. London: Taylor & Francis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Longa, R.D. (2009). Impact of the General Model on Specific Case Studies. In: Globalization and Urban Implosion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70512-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70512-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-70511-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70512-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)