Twin cities in the process of metropolisation

This article was downloaded by: [Erasmus University]On: 16 April 2015, At: 01:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Urban Research & PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurp20

Twin cities in the process ofmetropolisationEvert Meijersa, Marloes Hoogerbruggea & Koen Hollanderb

a Department of Urban and Regional Development, Faculty ofArchitecture and the Built Environment, Delft University ofTechnology, Delft, The Netherlandsb European Metropolitan Network Institute, The Hague, TheNetherlandsPublished online: 09 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Evert Meijers, Marloes Hoogerbrugge & Koen Hollander (2014) Twincities in the process of metropolisation, Urban Research & Practice, 7:1, 35-55, DOI:10.1080/17535069.2013.827906

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.827906

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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 &

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17535069.2013.827906&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-09-09

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17535069.2013.827906

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.827906

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15

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

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

Urban Research & Practice, 2014Vol. 7, No. 1, 35–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.827906

Twin cities in the process of metropolisation

Evert Meijersa*, Marloes Hoogerbruggea and Koen Hollanderb

aDepartment of Urban and Regional Development, Faculty of Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; bEuropean MetropolitanNetwork Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

Metropolisation is understood here as the process through which a loose collec-tion of proximally located cities starts to become more functionally, culturally andinstitutionally integrated. It can be assumed that in theory metropolisation enhancesperformance, and indeed this conviction underlies many European metropolitan devel-opment strategies. Yet little is known about how this potential is realised in prac-tice. This paper explores the process of metropolisation in three European ‘twincities’: Linköping–Norrköping (Sweden), Rotterdam–The Hague (Netherlands) andGdansk–Gdynia (Poland). We find preliminary evidence that metropolisation is anupward spiral of integration in which policy-makers play an active role.

Keywords: city networks; complementarities; agglomeration economies; functionalintegration; territorial identities; metropolitan governance

1. Introduction

Cities do not function in isolation. New paradigms in urban studies and planning empha-sise the importance of cities’ embeddedness in networks of all kinds – business, capital,knowledge, people, goods – for their performance (Castells 1996; Massey, Allen, and Pile1999; Sassen 2002; Taylor 2003; Hall and Pain 2006; Neal 2012). While traditionally therehas been much emphasis on global networks of large, metropolitan cities, nowadays there isalso more interest in relationships between cities that are located close to each other. Suchclusters of close, but once distinct and independent, cities form polycentric metropolitanareas (see, e.g., special issues by Dieleman and Faludi 1998; Kloosterman and Musterd2001; Halbert, Pain, and Thierstein 2006; Hoyler, Kloosterman, and Sokol 2008; Sýkora,Mulícek, and Maier 2009). It is generally believed that in such collections of proximallylocated cities, the cities will become increasingly dependent on each other, and hence lessself-sufficient, due to the continuing expansion of the geographical scope of social andeconomic processes, and this will in turn reinforce the process of integration (Champion2001; De Goei et al. 2010).

In theory, significant economic advantages can be attributed to such integratedpolycentric metropolitan areas. Most exciting, perhaps, is the idea that a polycentric urbansystem avoids having the disadvantages of agglomeration, such as congestion, pollutionand crime, while at the same time, networks and integration between the cities that make

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15

mailto:[email protected]

36 E. Meijers et al.

up the polycentric metropolitan area may enable them to organise agglomeration benefitsof a magnitude that would not normally be found in cities of this size. There appears to besome validity to the argument (Meijers 2008; Meijers and Burger 2010). Greater special-isation is a second economic advantage of polycentric metropolitan areas (Cowell 2010;Franz and Hornych 2010), and may prevent the, rather common, duplication of low-orderurban functions in polycentric metropolitan areas. A final economic advantage may be thatoutside the economic core zones, networks between towns and cities in more rural areascan ensure that viable markets and important (social) services can be maintained, as is pro-posed in the European Spatial Development Perspective (COM 1999) and the Green Paperon Territorial Cohesion (COM 2008). In such areas, small polycentric ‘metropolitan’ areascould be a solution to the trend of scaling up and concentrating public and private servicesin order to achieve efficiency gains, which often see smaller cities left with fewer suchservices.

The increasing interest in polycentric metropolitan areas in the scientific literature islinked with the rise in the number of polycentric metropolitan areas as a policy-conceptthroughout Europe. Waterhout, Zonneveld, and Meijers (2005) made an inventory of suchpolicies, showing that the concept of polycentric metropolitan areas is widespread and thatthere are strong indications that, since then, the number of countries and regions address-ing polycentric metropolitan areas has increased considerably (e.g. Rossignolo and Toldo2008; Finka 2009; Maier 2009), although this does in part seem to be due to a ‘rebranding’of more traditional policies (Radvánszki 2009; Sýkora, Mulícek, and Maier 2009).

The reason that polycentricity in general is a popular concept in regional developmentlies in its assumed ability to reconcile the different overarching interests of cohesion andcompetiveness. Urban stakeholders in polycentric metropolitan areas consider the ‘pool-ing of resources’ to be one of the main potential benefits of polycentric metropolitan areas(Eurocities’ Working Group Metropolitan Areas 2011), whereas a recent expert group ofMETREX (The Network of European Metropolitan Regions and Areas 2010) saw furtherpolycentric development as instrumental to combatting excessive urban sprawl and climatechange, and helping to promote economic competitiveness and target-oriented labour divi-sions. Egermann (2009) considers the exploitation of the joint critical mass of the cities inpolycentric metropolitan areas, and the consequent increase in visibility, mass and powerin the international competition, as the great policy challenge for polycentric metropolitanareas.

However, despite all the potentialities that have been assumed to be possible byscholars and policy-makers, little is known about how the advantages of polycentricityactually materialise in urban practice. Studies carried out within the ESPON and Interregprogramme and the applied studies of European city groupings such as METREX andEurocities confirm that cities struggle to translate these assumed and largely theoreticalpotentialities of polycentric metropolitan areas into feasible and efficient policies that allowthem to reap these potential advantages.

In this paper, we will seek to narrow this gap between theory and practice by exam-ining what we call ‘the process of metropolisation’ in a number of European polycentricmetropolitan areas, which, given the equilibrium between the two main cities in each ofthem, could also be referred to as ‘twin cities’, thereby obviously drawing an analogywith the well-known ‘Twin Cities’ in the United States (Minneapolis–St.Paul), which haveclearly progressed a long way down the road of metropolisation. Following our generalobservation that networks increasingly determine the performance of cities, we hypothe-sise that the extent to which cities within polycentric metropolitan areas are networked,or integrated with each other, is an essential factor in how far they will reap the assumed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15

Urban Research & Practice 37

advantages of polycentricity (Meijers, Hoekstra, and Aguado 2008). In our conceptuali-sation of metropolisation, we consider the mutual dependence of functional, cultural andinstitutional integration, as well as how these forms of integration relate to performance.The objective of this paper is therefore to explore whether a process of metropolisation canbe identified in the case of our twin cities and to assess the role of policy in fostering theprocess of metropolisation.

To achieve this objective, we will examine the process of metropolisation in threeEuropean ‘twin cities’: Linköping–Norrköping in Sweden, Rotterdam–The Hague in theNetherlands and the TriCity Region (Gdansk–Gdynia–Sopot) in Poland. Obviously, thename of the latter indicates the existence of three rather than two cities, but in reality,Gdansk and Gdynia dominate this polycentric metropolitan area. We begin with a furtherexplanation of our conceptualisation of metropolisation, and present the resulting frame-work for analysis in Section 2. Following a more general introduction to the case studiespresented in Section 3, Section 4 will present our analyses for our three case studies.Section 5 will conclude by providing a synthesis of our findings and reflecting on ourconceptualisation of the process of metropolisation. We will explicitly address the role ofpolicy-makers in this process.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Metropolisation and performance

Without networks to link them, polycentric metropolitan areas are little more than loosecollections of cities that happen to be located close to one another. In fact, without net-works it is hard to imagine any benefit at all to being located close to another city becauseopportunities to ‘borrowed size’ (Alonso 1973) from each other will remain unexploited.It will be hard to profit from shared agglomeration economies when the mass, which is nec-essary for these agglomeration advantages to develop, remains fragmented in spatial terms.The presence of such agglomeration economies is closely linked to size. In a meta-analysisof the estimates of urban agglomeration effects, Melo, Graham, and Noland (2009) foundthat in the Western world the average elasticity of size is 5.8%. This means that, on aver-age, a city that is twice as large has a labour productivity that is 5.8% higher. If a city ina polycentric metropolitan area is not related to the other cities, they will not ‘borrowedsize’ from each other because they are separate urban systems; in fact, one may wonderwhether it is right to identify them as one polycentric metropolitan area at all in this situ-ation. However, if the cities are able to organise and exploit their joint critical mass, it islikely that they will enjoy more agglomeration economies, which will then translate intohigher labour productivity. This will happen when, for instance, the labour markets of theindividual cities become fully integrated and the supply and demand for labour will be bet-ter matched, thereby enhancing productivity. Likewise, integration within the polycentricmetropolitan area implies a larger support base for (higher-order) urban amenities andservices, and better infrastructure, such as airports or a metropolitan light-rail system.Similarly, the variety of residential and business environments is likely to increase andthe industrial mix of the metropolitan area can become more diversified, making the citymore resilient to economic shocks. All this will make a metropolitan area more attractive,especially to highly productive and often mobile, skilled and knowledge workers. In thewords of Glaeser (2011), large cities make us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and hap-pier. Integration between the cities in a polycentric metropolitan area is necessary if theyare to benefit from similar advantages of scale; if they do not integrate, the competitivenessgap between large cities will grow.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


2.2. The process of metropolisation

We hypothesise that in order to achieve agglomeration economies of a higher order thanthe cities in a polycentric metropolitan area would achieve individually, it is essential thatthey engage in a process of metropolisation. Metropolisation is a rather ill-defined euro-English term and various interpretations circulate. First, it is a rather common term inthe French literature, where it refers to the concentration of activities and population invery large cities and its consequent impacts. A much more focused conceptualisation isprovided by Krätke (2007, 1), who links metropolisation to ‘the selective concentrationof research-intensive industries and knowledge-intensive services on metropolitan regionsand major urban agglomerations’. There is another interpretation of metropolisation, whichis less linked to concentration, but rather to the integration and consolidation of frag-mented urban areas on a regional scale (Ascher 1995; ETH Basel 2010; Cardoso andMeijers 2013). It departs from the notion that what is urban nowadays spreads over awider metropolitan territory, due to centrifugal forces dispersing urban functions overa large territory, as well as extending or hinterlands of cities, thereby incorporatingother urban centres and the simultaneous merging of existing urban fragments in thislarger territory as a consequence of the scaling-up of social and economic processes (cf.Champion 2001). Metropolisation unites this increasingly fragmented metropolitan space,and hence can be considered the path to functional, institutional and cultural integrationof large urbanised regions. More specifically in the context of twin cities, metropolisationaddresses the process of merging between the cities. Metropolisation then is the processin which a perhaps loose collection of neighbouring cities gains in terms of perfor-mance through increased functional, cultural and institutional integration. Hence, it isabout organising networks between close-by cities that knit these cities closer together(Batten 1995; Rossignolo and Toldo 2008). Furthermore, we assume that the functional,cultural and institutional dimensions of integration relate positively to one another, mutu-ally reinforcing one another, meaning that metropolisation occurs in an upward spiral, seeFigure 1.

Three different dimensions of integration, or networking, can be defined in the processof metropolisation. First, there is the functional dimension, which addresses the func-tional relationships between the cities within a polycentric metropolitan area, which cantake the form of flows of people, goods, capital, information, etc. Regions that are highlyfunctionally integrated function as one daily urban system.

Figure 1. The process of metropolisation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


Second, the cultural dimension pertains to people’s identification with and attach-ment to the wider metropolitan area. This concerns the extent to which the inhabitantsof polycentric metropolitan areas share a feeling of belonging together, and whether theyrecognise the polycentric metropolitan area as a relevant territorial entity in their personallife, while firms may consider it an appropriate territorial entity by which they can orienttheir activities.

Third, there is the institutional dimension of integration. Many (spatial) issues requirean approach that is formulated and implemented on multiple scales and/or across admin-istrative tiers. This dimension addresses the extent to which regional coordination andcooperation have developed, thereby focusing not just on public actors, but also includingprivate and public–private platforms for coordination.

We assume that these dimensions of integration do not function separately. On thecontrary, they may be strongly linked and reinforce one another: the more activities areundertaken across the whole polycentric metropolitan area (functional), the more peopleare likely to identify with this polycentric metropolitan area (cultural), and the larger theneed and support for regional governance (institutional), which may lead to investment thatallows easier travel within the metropolitan area, which in turn will foster more regionalactivity patterns of people and firms (functional), and so on. Likewise, these factors mayalso influence each other negatively.

By necessity, our analysis of this conceptualisation of metropolisation will be explo-rative, because these links between these dimensions are relatively underexplored in theliterature. This is probably due to the multidisciplinary approach that is required to under-stand these relationships. For instance, the relation that attachment and identity have withactivity- and travel patterns is far from settled (Paasi 2003; Gustafson 2009; Lewicka2011). The debate on such ‘people-place’ relations seems stuck in conceptual and defi-nitional questions (Paasi 2009; Lewicka 2011). In addition, although cultural features areconsidered of great relevance to metropolitan governance (Visser 2002; Lee, Feiock, andLee 2012), hardly any attention is paid to how regional identification affects support forsuch governance. Likewise, the discrepancy between functional areas and administrativeareas has been emphasised frequently (Cörvers, Hensen, and Bongaerts 2009), but researchinto their interdependencies is thin on the ground. In the remainder of this paper, we willtest this hypothetical model of metropolisation for the three ‘twin city’ case studies.

3. Research method

To test our hypothesis of metropolisation, we employ a case study approach by studyingthree European ‘twin cities’ in more detail. By ‘twin cities’, we mean two cities that arelocated in close geographic proximity to one another and were once quite distinct andindependent, but have grown into each other over time. The process of growing togetheris not necessarily physical, as it may also include the three dimensions of metropolisation.In addition, although two cities may form the basis for such a metropolitan area, there arelikely to be other smaller cities and towns in the vicinity too. What these twin cities havein common is that they are clear examples of what Champion (2001) calls ‘fusion-mode’polycentric metropolitan areas – there is not one city that clearly dominates the othersin all respects. In fact, we selected three twin cities in which the size distribution of themain anchor cities is very balanced: Linköping–Norrköping in Sweden, Rotterdam–TheHague in the Netherlands and the TriCity Region (Gdansk–Gdynia–Sopot) in Poland (seeFigure 2). Obviously, the process of metropolisation can be studied in metropolitan areaswith more than two anchoring cities, but choosing twin cities reduces complexity, while

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


Figure 2. Case studies.Source: ESRI/National Geographic World Map.

the principles of metropolisation remain basically the same. Table 1 provides descriptivestatistics on these three regions. Clearly, these twin cities vary in terms of size: the Swedishcase, also referred to as the Swedish twin cities, is a fairly small metropolitan area, theDutch one quite large and the Polish case takes an intermediate position. These differences,next to national institutional differences, and the distribution of these cities over differentparts of Europe provide for a multifaceted view of the metropolisation processes understudy.

To assess the degree of functional, cultural and institutional integration in each ofthe twin cities, we used various sources. Obviously, this includes our own observationssince we visited the three regions extensively. While visiting, we interviewed stake-holders from policy practice, such as public officials involved in urban and regionaldevelopment, economic development, spatial planning and transportation. This includedrepresentatives of different tiers of the government. We also spoke to representatives ofmetropolitan development associations, representatives from the regional business com-munity, such as leaders of business organisations and investment agencies, as well aschambers of commerce. In addition, we had discussions with professors from local uni-versities who address metropolitan development in their research. In total, we held 14,15 and 21 interviews, respectively, in Linköping–Norrköping, Rotterdam–The Hague andGdansk–Gdynia–Sopot. A full list of interviewees is provided by EMI (2012). Besidesconducting interviews, we studied the scientific literature addressing the development ofthe case study regions, and studied local and regional development plans and strategies, aswell as relevant sectoral policies. Helpful for our assessment of the level of metropolisationwas also our ability to compare our experiences and information gathered across the threeregions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


Tabl

e1.

Des

crip

tive

stat

isti

csTw

inC

itie

s.

Twin

Cit

yre

gion

Cit

yPo

p.m

unic

ip.

Pop.

aggl

om.

Pop.

FU

APo

p.tw

inci

ties

GD

P/ca

pita

Man

ufac

turi

ng&

cons

truc

tion

Tra

de&

tran

spor

tati

on

Ser

vice

s,in

cl.p

ubli

cad

min

.

Lin

köpi

ng–

Nor

rköp

ing

Lin

köpi

ng14

513

318

535

329

29.7

%18

.2%

50.1

%N

orrk

öpin

g12

912

216

830

Rot

terd

am–T

heH

ague

Rot

terd

am59

310

2513

4621

3536

25.1

%25

.6%

47.9

%T

heH

ague

489

574

789

3810

.7%

23.4

%64

.0%

Gda

nsk–

Gdy

nia

Gda

nsk

456

519

996

996

927

.5%

31.1

%40

.8%

Gdy

nia

248

300

Sou

rce:

ES

PO

N20

07D

atab

ase

proj

ect-

FU

Ain

dica

tors

;add

itio

nalp

opul

atio

nin

form

atio

nE

uros

tat.

Dat

aco

ncer

ns20

06.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


In general, testing the process of metropolisation requires focusing on (a) linkingthe three dimensions of integration and (b) linking these three dimensions of integrationtogether with metropolitan performance. Here, our focus is on the linkages between thethree dimensions and on the role policy-makers play in fostering this integration. To struc-ture our empirical analysis, we present an assessment of the three dimensions of integrationfirst, and will then discuss how they relate to one another in the concluding section.

4. Case studies

4.1. Linköping–Norrköping

Linköping and Norrköping lie at the heart of Sweden, some 200 km southwest ofStockholm. The city of Linköping is the capital of the county of Östergötland. The countyconsists of 13 municipalities, covers an area of about 10,000 km2 and has approximately430,000 citizens. Linköping and Norrköping are the largest cities in the county and havearound 130,000 inhabitants each. The distance between the cities is about 40–45 km(Figure 3).

Spatial-functional integration

The distance between Linköping and Norrköping can be covered in less than half an hourby car. Shuttle trains run every 20 minutes and there are long-distance trains that call atboth cities. All the interviewees agreed that the level of interaction between the two cities

Figure 3. Linköping–Norrköping.Source: ESRI/National Geographic World Map.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


and the surrounding municipalities has been rising steadily over the years. In a way, thisprocess is fostered by their relatively isolated location within Sweden and the absence ofother large cities in the surroundings (the lack of ‘intervening opportunities’); the two citiesnaturally orient themselves towards each other. In Sweden, there is an official delimitationof labour markets based on commuting data, and the labour markets of both cities are aboutto be merged according to this official delimitation, which evidences increased integration.The labour markets of both cities seem to complement one another naturally in their localeconomies. Linköping is oriented more towards research & development (R&D), govern-ment and other business functions, whereas Norrköping is strong in avant-garde culturalbusinesses (media and visualisation), transport and industry. This natural specialisation islikely to encourage economic development in both cities, as together the cities offer a morediverse business environment, and thus seem able to cater to the diverse locational needsthat business have. Complementarities underlie the basis of functional interactions too, asthe cities provide assets and amenities to the inhabitants of both cities (cf. Ullmann 1956).However, there are also duplications. Both cities have developed rather similar out-of-townshopping malls. Another example is the airport. Both cities have airports with limited con-nections, and it could be argued that it would be more efficient to operate one airport forboth cities.

The cities and their surroundings also complement each other from a residential per-spective. Whereas Linköping has a more ‘small-town’ character, Norrköping has alwaysbeen the cultural capital of the region with a more urban atmosphere and amenities. A cen-tury ago, it was the third largest city in Sweden and this history is still visible today inthe rich industrial heritage that characterises the city. The surrounding smaller towns andvillages offer an attractive environment, particularly for families.

Several initiatives have set out to exploit these complementarities, thereby foster-ing functional integration. One clear example is the opening of a new campus of theLinköping University, itself located on a campus outside of Linköping, right in the heartof Norrköping, occupying industrial heritage buildings with metropolitan charm. At thiscampus, Linköping University concentrated studies and research that thrive in a moremetropolitan climate, such as arts and media. Students often follow courses on both cam-puses, and a free bus shuttle operates between both locations. It would seem that a newgeneration is reaching adulthood for whom making use of facilities and amenities in bothcities is quite normal.

Another initiative that has fostered integration is the reorganisation of the health-caresystem. To achieve efficiency gains, hospital care was reorganised in such a way that thehospitals in Linköping and Norrköping, as well as in the larger towns of surrounding coun-ties, are now more specialised and complementary. This means that one has to travel furtherfor specific types of medical care, since not every type of care is provided locally. In addi-tion to efficiency gains, this specialisation also leads to better and more efficient medicalcare, because medical staff can be more specialised. This is a clear example of a sectoralpolicy that happens to foster metropolisation as a side-effect.

Cultural integration

Traditionally, rivalry between the cities of Linköping and Norrköping and their inhabitantswas common, but interviewees suggested that nowadays the feelings of rivalry are becom-ing a sort of folklore. This is even manifesting itself in sports, the traditional realm ofrivalry, as the business clubs of the professional ice-hockey, soccer and basketball clubs ofLinköping and Norrköping have merged. This has prevented strong competition for limited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


sponsorship funding and provided a meeting platform for local business in both summerand winter. Note that both cities had complementary facilities for sports, which allowedfor such an arrangement. However, we did detect some feelings of rivalry, or neglect, asso-ciated with the fact that Linköping had had better deals over the past decades, with centralgovernment organisations being located in the city (computing centres, military defence,a new university), whereas in Norrköping manufacturing companies were closing down.Despite some minor rivalry within the region, however, the cities have been successful inpresenting themselves to the outside world jointly, using a variety of brands, for example‘the twin cities of Sweden’, the ‘East Sweden Business Region’ or ‘Sweden’s fourth largestcity-region’. The latter brand, coined in policies a couple of years ago, is now no longerconsidered sufficiently appealing – after all, who wants to be fourth? It is also helpful thatboth cities are part of the same cultural-historical and administrative territorial entity.

Institutional integration

The fact that both cities are part of the same regional administrative authority (Östergötlandcounty) means that this is the best positioned governmental body to foster cooperation,coordination and integration between the cities, as well as with surrounding localities, whowelcome such regional initiatives. In the case of Östergötland, policy-making on manyregional development issues is delegated to the Regional Council (called Östsam). Östsamacts as a platform in which all municipalities of Östergötland participate and coordinatetheir activities. The Regional Council focuses on spatial development planning, cultureand creativity, entrepreneurship and employability, and it coordinates the promotion of theregion to the outside world. Consensus is considered very important. The Regional Councilwas responsible for the strategy to become the ‘fourth largest city-region in Sweden’, forinstance, with the objective of creating a single functional region, promoting the integrationof the two cities’ labour markets.

The municipalities of Linköping and Norrköping are also cooperating to an increasingextent. Both cities are home to the same university and this has led to the realisation that,at least when it comes to the development of the university, cooperation is vital. The twocities are also the first in Sweden to produce a joint municipal zoning plan in which spatialdevelopments is coordinated. Stockholm is regarded as a common competitor, which cre-ates a sense of urgency to cooperate. Both cities feel that their region must be sufficientlyattractive to enter into competition with Stockholm and avoid a centripetal process.

Currently, plans are being discussed to enlarge the county as part of local governmentreforms to limit the number of regional authorities in Sweden. This may unbalance thenew region and the activities that seek to promote regional integration. Opinions on howthe region should be enlarged differ between Linköping and Norrköping. Norrköping istraditionally more focused on the northern and eastern areas, whereas Linköping is moreoriented towards the south and the west.

4.2. Metropoolregio Rotterdam–The Hague

The Metropoolregio Rotterdam–The Hague is located in the western part of theNetherlands. The port city of Rotterdam and the seat of national government, TheHague, are the main cities in an area that also takes in other medium-sized citiessuch as Zoetermeer and the university town of Delft, as well as smaller municipalities.Around 2.1 million people live in the 24 municipalities that constitute the Metropoolregio(Figure 4). Nevertheless, the region does not form a ‘closed system’, because other cities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


Figure 4. Rotterdam–The Hague.Source: ESRI/National Geographic World Map.

such as Leiden and Dordrecht are located nearby. The Metropoolregio seems to be apragmatic choice for governmental cooperation, since these municipalities used to belongto the distinct city-regions of The Hague and Rotterdam, which are soon to be merged.Discussions about the Metropoolregio Rotterdam–The Hague began relatively recently(2009), as a response to studies and political preferences that state that the Randstad asa region is too large to be a truly functional single entity. The Metropoolregio is a new con-cept put forward by the mayors of the two large cities, which builds on a longer traditionof cooperation in the south-western wing of the Randstad. The strategy developed jointlyby the municipalities has three strands. The first strand is to exploit the potential of beinga single daily urban system by improving internal connectivity. The second is to make bet-ter use of, and invest in the knowledge and innovation potential of the region. The thirdstrand is to improve the exploitation of the services and amenities offered in the region.To implement the strategy, the three strands are elaborated into ‘pillars’ for which concreteactions are listed, with two politicians from the region taking responsibility for each ‘pillar’(problem owners).


Around 500,000 people commute within the region every day either by public transport orby car, and this is facilitated by a dense network of road and rail infrastructure. Although

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


inhabitants from some municipalities remain oriented towards one of the major cities,the major cities themselves and the municipalities in between, which have grown fastrapidly in recent decades, are clearly increasingly oriented towards both cities. In orderto encourage the development of the region into a more efficient daily urban system,the aim is to increase the capacity of infrastructure and reduce travel times within thearea. RandstadRail, a highly successful new light rail connection between Rotterdam andThe Hague, ensures that the metro and tramway systems of both cities are now fullyintegrated. The Metropoolregio is lobbying hard to become a single transport authority,which implies that the 24 municipalities (rather than the province they are part of) wouldshare public transport funding. Another important improvement will be the completionof the last 7 km of the A4 motorway between Delft and Schiedam, which means thatthere will be two motorways linking Rotterdam and The Hague, allowing for more reliableaccess.

Some initiatives seek to increase the integration of the region by leveraging thecomplementarities within the region. For instance, the three universities (Leiden, Delft andRotterdam) have begun to collaborate more intensively, as have other educational insti-tutes since this allows for greater specialisation. The municipalities are also discussing a‘metropoolpas’, which will give the holders a significant discount on entrance fees to publicand private cultural and leisure activities (currently both the cities have their own separatediscount cards). This is likely to broaden the support base for these amenities and services,while also making residents more aware of all the leisure opportunities on offer within theregion as a whole. Generally, the complementary economic profiles of Rotterdam (transportand logistics; manufacturing; business services) and The Hague (government; internationalorganisations) are considered an asset, and this separation certainly prevents competitionand thus facilitates cooperation. However, the dominant economic specialisations do nothave much in common, limiting inter-firm relationships. It seems that the Metropoolregiois primarily relevant as a single labour market, and for amenities and services, but notnecessarily for partnerships between firms.


Despite some joint (international) marketing on the part of the region that may ‘trickledown’ to citizens in the long term, there is clearly not (yet) one regional identity in theMetropoolregio since territorial identities are very much linked to the individual cities,especially old cities such as Rotterdam, The Hague and Delft. Suburban municipalities likeRijswijk or Wassenaar (near The Hague) or Capelle aan den IJssel (bordering Rotterdam)are more oriented to their larger neighbours. The inhabitants of Rotterdam are proud oftheir down-to-earth approach, which is linked to the harbour and industry. The Westlanddistrict forms a distinct area with a high degree of entrepreneurship in horticulture and astrong sense of community. These strong local identities are considered an asset, addingto diversity in the region. However, there is some fear that this diversity may lead to lessawareness of, and consequently less utilisation of, the opportunities provided across thebroader metropolitan region. The cultural differences between The Hague and Rotterdamalso come to the fore in their marketing policies, with two separate investment agenciesfor the Rotterdam and The Hague area. Currently, campaigns are focusing on raising thisawareness. The example mentioned earlier of the ‘metropoolpas’ is one of the projects thatmay increase feelings of belonging together. Another has been the renaming of ‘RotterdamAirport’ into ‘Rotterdam The Hague Airport’. This is a powerful message to the public thatboth cities share a strategically important asset.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15



What began as informal cooperation between several cities for particular projects, theMetropoolregio is nowadays a platform with strategies, policies and a proposal for alegitimate institutional structure. Although cooperation has taken off at a fast pace, itis difficult to achieve a full focus on the Metropoolregio among politicians and policy-makers. This can be explained by the diversity and complexity of the region, which isfunctionally not a ‘closed system’. The mayors of Rotterdam and The Hague have been thecatalyst for the metropolitan initiative. Without the strong political commitment of thesepolitical leaders, the current close cooperation between cities would have been much lesslikely. Some smaller municipalities are hesitant to comply with strategic decisions madeat the Metropoolregio level, because they fear being overwhelmed by the two large cities.Consequently, the form of the cooperation itself is being hotly debated: how should variousstakeholders be included and at which level? And to what extent should each municipalityhave a say in the decision-making process? To resolve these questions, a three-ring-modelhas been introduced that distinguishes the different levels of institutional integration andeach regional issue is allocated to one of these forms:

(1) Mandatory cooperation between the 24 municipalities whereby budgets, tasks andresponsibilities are shared and designated

(2) Mandatory cooperation and joint decision-making by the 24 municipalities withoutshared budgets

(3) Voluntary cooperation between certain municipalities and businesses, knowledge-and research institutions, which are not part of the metropolitan region

In principle, this three-ring model provides a way to incorporate other partners intothe process. However, the overlap with existing platforms for regional cooperation andcoordination complicates the picture. On a larger scale, many municipalities within theMetropoolregio also participate in the ‘South Wing platform’, which also includes citiessuch as Leiden and Dordrecht. This platform focuses on coordinating economic policies,urban/green development and transport planning. Finally, there is the relationship withthe Province of South-Holland. Although the province is supportive of a further institu-tional integration within the region, they are not enthusiastic about assigning the transportauthority to the Metropoolregio. In fact, rather than being a supporting partner (such asin the case of Linköping–Norrköping), the province has been very hesitant to support theMetropoolregio because it challenges its own competencies over the spatial developmentof the region.

4.3. TriCity region

The three cities included in the TriCity region are Gdansk, Gdynia and Sopot, with theformer two being significantly more populous than the latter. Almost one million peoplelive in the TriCity Region; Gdansk has about 460,000 residents, Gdynia 250,000, Sopotonly 38,000. The three cities are located in close proximity to one another with a distance of22 km from the city centre of Gdansk to the centre of Gdynia, and the city of Sopot situatedbetween them (Figure 5). The TriCity Region is northern Poland’s largest academic andscientific centre as well as its main cultural centre. Gdansk is the leading city but Gdyniais a strong competitor with a comparable economic and demographic profile. The historyof the region is highly relevant to understand the cultural dynamics within the region. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


Figure 5. TriCity region.Note: ESRI/National Geographic World Map.

city of Gdynia was founded to be a competitor to the city of Gdansk during the inter-warperiod. The ‘Free City of Danzig’ was a semi-autonomous German city-state that existedbetween 1920 and 1939. Due to disagreements over the joint use of the port of Gdansk,the Polish government of the time decided to build its own port, which it located at whatwas then the small Polish seaside resort village of Gdynia. Gdynia was built from scratchand grew quickly from 6000 to 250,000 inhabitants. Consequently, it was considered apowerful symbol of the ‘reborn’ Poland.


All interviewees indicated that the region enjoys relatively strong functional integration interms of the labour market, the use of amenities and services and business relations. A sub-stantial number of firms and people already think and act ‘regionally’. They do not seemto be hampered by municipal boundaries and many of them consider the TriCity Regionas one regional functional entity rather than three different cities. Obviously, this is madeeasier by the short distances between them, and in fact it is hard to tell where one city startsand the other ends when travelling on the SKM train line between Gdansk and Gdynia. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


train can be seen as the public transport backbone of the TriCity Region. It runs frequentlybetween the cities and is extremely busy, especially during rush hours. The high degreeof functional integration between the cities also becomes evident through the presence oftraffic jams resulting from a lack of road capacity, also due to rapid increases in car own-ership. Current infrastructure plans by regional and national government include a newring road, better connections with the suburbs and new rail infrastructure (the PomeranianMetropolitan Railway) linking Gdansk and its airport with an existing line towards Gdynia,passing through several suburbs.

In sectoral terms, the cities of Gdansk and Gdynia have fairly similar economic profiles,and this fosters labour market integration and inter-firm relationships. Historically, ship-building has been a dominant economic sector in both cities. Nowadays, the port-relatedsector remains relevant, but, as almost everywhere, the service sector’s share of the localeconomy has increased.


One may be tempted to see the ‘TriCity Region’ label simply as a modern marketing con-cept, but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the label ‘TriCity Region’has already been in circulation for decades and its origins, sometime during the post-warperiod, are hard to trace. The name tended to be used informally by inhabitants to indicatefrom which part of Poland they came. More recent attempts to market the region have beenhampered by the strong, historically rooted rivalry. For instance, it has proven to be hardto reach an agreement on which brand name to use. The city of Gdansk is convinced that‘Gdansk’ is the strongest brand for the entire region, and prefers this over other optionssuch as the ‘TriCity Region’ or ‘Pomeranian region’. Gdynia, however, likes to have itsname in the brand too. This rivalry is grounded in the historically strong local identities,Gdynia being considered a ‘true’ Polish city, even though Gdansk has lost most of itsGerman identity with former German inhabitants having been replaced by people fromcentral Poland and what is now Latvia and the Ukraine after World War Two. The fact thatto date there has not been a very strong feeling of belonging together is also evident fromthe local mayoral elections in which mayors have been elected who had political agendasthat were opposed to the neighbouring city.


Institutional integration within the TriCity Region is fairly weak due to the lack of politicalwill to join forces. After the reform of Poland in 1989 a process of decentralisation wasstarted, which gave the local government level substantial powers. Nowadays, municipali-ties are reluctant to hand over some of their recent power to higher levels of government.In comparison to the local governments, the regional government is rather weak since theydo not have the (financial) means to influence developments. Given this situation, it is per-haps understandable that it will take some time for politicians to realise the advantages ofcooperation and coordination, although the lack of it has proven to be detrimental to bothcities – for example there is a lack of cooperation between the port authorities of both cities.Although the two ports used to have fairly complementary roles in that Gdynia handledcontainers and Gdansk predominantly bulk cargo, Gdansk built a large new container ter-minal in 2007. At present, the capacity of both container terminals in Gdynia and Gdanskis far from fully utilised. There are stories of ships that, on approaching the area, beginto negotiate with both ports and then opt for the one that promises the cheapest handling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


of their containers. A similar issue arises with the airports. The centrally located GdanskLech Walesa Airport, in which both cities have shares, will soon face competition fromanother airport located to the north of Gdynia that the city of Gdynia wants to develop.Obviously, it is doubtful whether a metropolitan area of just one million inhabitants needsor can support two seaports and two airports.

Taking account of the increasing focus of the Polish national government on metropoli-tan areas, the city of Gdansk decided in 2011 to initiate a metropolitan area by setting upthe Gdansk Metropolitan Area Association. From an outsider’s perspective, it is surprisingthat Gdynia is not part of this metropolitan area and this is also contrary to the regional gov-ernment development plan. As a reaction to the Gdansk Metropolitan Association, Gdynialaunched its own metropolitan association with surrounding towns. The regional govern-ment is not involved in either of the associations, since they do not want to support separateinitiatives by the cities; they would like Gdansk and Gdynia to work together within onemetropolitan association. Since both metropolitan associations have only recently beenestablished, it remains to be seen how they will develop in the coming years.

5. Synthesis

5.1. Different levels of metropolisation

Table 2 summarises our assessment of the current level of spatial-functional, cultural andinstitution integration in the three twin cities. This assessment is made on the basis of twodimensions, one comparing the three types of integration and the other comparing the threeregions. Although Table 2 provides perhaps a somewhat rough classification, it does pro-vide some insight into the degree to which the process of metropolisation can be witnessedin the three regions. It seems fair to conclude that the process of metropolisation has pro-gressed further in Linköping–Norrköping and Rotterdam–The Hague than in the TriCityRegion. Still, it also seems that there is substantial scope for further integration in the for-mer two regions, which seem about halfway through the process of metropolisation. To saythat Rotterdam–The Hague is already a single daily urban system is perhaps an overstate-ment, but functional integration is already strong. The Polish TriCity Region appears tobe in the initial stage of the process of metropolisation. However, it is also hard to com-pare the level of functional integration between the three cases, since distances between thecities vary, as does the number of ‘competing destinations’ outside the metropolitan areas,as well as the sizes of the cities themselves, which requires us to differentiate betweenabsolute and relative flows between cities.

Cultural integration seems to have developed the furthest in Linköping–Norrköping,who clearly feel that they are ‘in it together’, and jointly work to enhance their regionalcompetitiveness. It remains questionable whether the sense of belonging together is feltonly among stakeholders or by the public at large too. Institutional integration has alsodeveloped furthest in the Swedish and Dutch cases, though due to very different reasons.Linköping–Norrköping benefits from the fact that both cities are located in the same

Table 2. Assessment of levels of integration.

Level of integration/Case studies Functional Cultural Institutional

Linköping–Norrköping Weak Modest ModestRotterdam–The Hague Strong Weak ModestTriCity Region Modest Very weak Very weak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


cultural-historic administrative region, and this regional scale (is allowed to) plays an activerole in regional cooperation and coordination. Although the same holds for Rotterdam–The Hague, here the regional provincial level is being bypassed by the municipalities,and instead they are building on a history of cooperation between local jurisdictions.As a result, cooperation in Linköping–Norrköping is more project-oriented, whereas inRotterdam–The Hague the discussion is more about the institutional form and guidelinesfor cooperation. However, this is perhaps to be expected given that cooperation only startedin 2009. Institutional cooperation is being developed in the TriCity Region, but not betweenthe major cities. Here, the regional government is willing to take a leading role, but facesinstitutional constraints.

5.2. Reflections on the concept of metropolisation

In this paper we have proposed a conceptualisation of the process of metropolisationthat assumes that the functional, cultural and institutional dimensions of integration arepositively related to one another, so that they mutually reinforce (or weaken) one anotherand the process of metropolisation will take the form of an upward spiral. From Table 2,it seems fair to suggest that there does indeed appear to be such an interrelationship, ashigher levels of one type of integration generally come accompanied by higher levels ofanother type of integration, whereas one case presents several lower scores. However, theseare rather explorative findings, given the limited number of cases involved. Obviously,this also holds for our consideration of the individual relationships between the threedimensions below.

Functional and cultural integration

In our case studies, we did not find much evidence for a positive correlation betweenspatial-functional and cultural integration. Although the regional identity of citizens and, toa lesser extent, stakeholders is generally weak, or at best modest, they appear to act region-ally in terms of spatial behaviour. The most obvious case is the TriCity Region, which isa weak entity in cultural terms, but functionally quite strongly interlinked. Moreover, inRotterdam–The Hague, the territorial identity of citizens is still very much linked to theirhome city, but this does not appear to be an impediment to regional spatial behaviour.It would appear necessary to make a distinction between ‘attachment’ to places (an emo-tional bond with a place) and ‘identification’, which relates to one’s recognition of oneselfas a part of a physical space (Rollero and De Piccoli 2010). These two are not necessarilyrelated. It would seem that in our cases ‘attachment’ is related to the individual cities, butthat this does not hamper the development of identification with the polycentric metropoli-tan area. Theoretically, the latter should lead to a more regional pattern of spatial behaviour,although the causality may also run in the other direction. This calls for a refinement of ourconcept of metropolisation, which makes this distinction.

Functional and institutional integration

There appears to be some link between the institutional arrangement for metropolitangovernance and the extent of functional integration, and this can work in two direc-tions. A relatively strong level of functional integration in Rotterdam–The Hague hasprovided the incentive for more regional cooperation and coordination, but in Linköping–Norrköping, a political desire to become a more recognisable functional metropolitan entity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


in order to compete jointly against other metropolitan areas has led to initiatives that fosterfunctional integration. In both the Swedish and Dutch cases, metropolisation is consid-ered an explicit strategy that is founded on increased functional integration, made possiblethrough institutional cooperation, which in turn is justified by existing strong functionalrelationships. Again, in the Polish TriCity Region there is a different picture. One perspec-tive is that strong functional relationships in the TriCity require institutional integration tocoordinate development at the regional level, but this has not been forthcoming so far (atleast not between the major cities). Taking a different perspective, one could also arguethat institutional integration is not necessary to develop the region into a daily urban sys-tem, since it is already functioning as such. However, political rivalry is clearly leading tosuboptimal outcomes for the region (e.g. the overcapacity of seaports and airports). Thefact that the cities’ economic profiles are similar, in contrast to Linköping–Norrköpingand Rotterdam–The Hague, adds to the sense of rivalry and further impedes institutionalintegration.

Cultural and institutional integration

The lack of a relationship between functional and institutional integration in the TriCityRegion can be explained by historical-cultural factors, which thus appear to play a medi-ating role in the process of metropolisation. Although cultural factors do not seem to bedirectly related to functional integration (certainly not feelings of attachment), they doappear to be related to institutional integration, and therefore indirectly to functional inte-gration. The mayor of Gdynia was recently re-elected based on a political agenda thatexploited historical rivalry with Gdansk, hence building on the strong localism of inhabi-tants of Gdynia. It means that he is now virtually committed to non-cooperation at the scaleof the metropolitan area, which has become evident through the establishment of separatemetropolitan associations for Gdynia and Gdansk. Similarly, strong local attachments inthe Rotterdam–The Hague Metropoolregio appear to be a barrier to institutional integra-tion because for some local politicians the regional cooperation is hard to sell. Part of thecooperation, however, is joint marketing for the region that is geared towards enhancingthe identification of people with the region by providing information on opportunities foremployment, education and especially leisure that can be found in the wider area. Again,this suggests that both types of integration may reinforce one another. Moreover, if theregion also becomes a political arena, and hence more frequently mentioned in the media,it is likely to become more strongly culturally embedded. The cultural dimension is clearlyimportant for the support provided by the public at large to regional cooperation and coor-dination. Our impression was that politicians often feel reluctant to engage in regionalcooperation because of their perception that strong local identities stand in the way ofsuch cooperation. However, as long as ‘regional identity’ (cognitive) and ‘local attach-ment’ (affective) are not confused, this should not stand in the way of such cooperation.In the case of Rotterdam–The Hague and Linköping–Norrköping, strategies that promotea regional identity are also more externally (business) oriented than internally towards thecitizens and firms already located in the region. The implicit hope of politicians and policy-makers is that the effects of an externally oriented branding policy may gradually ‘trickledown’ to the inhabitants and firms within the metropolitan area too.

Our exploration of metropolisation provides us with several possibilities for refiningits conceptualisation. It appears wise to distinguish an affective and cognitive culturaldimension when discussing the cultural feeling of belonging together in a polycentricmetropolitan area. Historical factors also need to be taken into account when explaining

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


the cultural dimension of metropolisation. In addition, cultural factors may only have anindirect effect on spatial behaviour.

5.3. Metropolisation as a strategy in urban practice and research

Cities in polycentric metropolitan areas are facing the challenge of entering the spiral ofmetropolisation and move up in this spiral by fostering functional, cultural and institutionalintegration, enabling them to reap the benefits of agglomeration by jointly borrowing sizefrom each other. As is clear by now, urban policy-makers play a substantial role in theprocess of metropolisation in the sense that we have found many examples, especiallyin Rotterdam–The Hague and Linköping–Norrköping, of concrete actions aimed at fos-tering and facilitating functional, cultural and institutional integration, which may have amultiplicative effect through their interrelationships. At the same time, one should realisethat it is not simply about developing platforms for regional cooperation and coordina-tion, but rather about the actions taken in the context of these platforms that may fosterfunctional and cultural integration, and eventually, the performance of the region at large.It is not just governmental actors that can stimulate the process of metropolisation. It hasalso been shown how semi-public actors such as universities and hospitals can, sometimesunwittingly, contribute to the process of metropolisation. The same obviously holds forprivate-sector actors such as firms that may, for instance, take the polycentric metropolitanarea as their territorial organising principle rather than a single city. Overall, in our inter-views, we found that the advantages of metropolisation are assumed to be present, but at thesame time they remain rather intangible or highly theoretical to many local policy-makersand politicians. Further research needs to shed light on this relationship.

More generally, the concept of metropolisation is still highly hypothetical. However,it does provide a framework within which we can assess and compare levels of differ-ent dimensions of integration, which is essential to developing empirically based regionaldevelopment strategies for twin cities and polycentric metropolitan areas more generally.Empirically, and in addition to the relationship between metropolisation and performance,future research needs to address the relationship between the different dimensions of inte-gration. This will require a multi-disciplinary approach. Particular attention should also bepaid to the dimension of time. An exploration of the process of metropolisation necessitatesa longitudinal study to see how one dimension affects the others. This may be facilitatedthrough a more quantitative research approach of the three dimensions.

ReferencesAlonso, W. 1973. “Urban Zero Population Growth.” Daedalus 109: 191–206.Ascher, F. 1995. Métapolis ou l’avenir des villes. Paris: Odile Jacob.Batten, D. 1995. “Network Cities: Creative Urban Agglomerations for the 21st Century.” Urban

Studies 32: 313–327.Cardoso R., and E. Meijers. 2013. “European Second-tier Cities and the Prospects of

Metropolisation: the Case of Porto.” Paper presented at the 9th European Urban & RegionalStudies Conference, Brighton, July 10–12.

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Champion, A. 2001. “A Changing Demographic Regime and Evolving Polycentric Urban Regions:

Consequences for the Size, Composition and Distribution of City Populations.” Urban Studies38: 657–677.

COM (Commission of the European Communities). 1999. European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU .Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


COM (Commission of the European Communities). 2008. Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion:Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength. Brussels: European Commission, DG RegionalPolicy.

Cörvers, F., M. Hensen, and D. Bongaerts. 2009. “Delimitation and Coherence of Functional andAdministrative Regions.” Regional Studies 43 (1): 19–31.

Cowell, M. 2010. “Polycentric Regions: Comparing Complementarity and Institutional Governancein the San Francisco Bay Area, the Randstad and Emilia-Romagna.” Urban Studies 47: 945–965.

De Goei, B., M. Burger, F. van Oort, and M. Kitson. 2010. “Functional Polycentrism and UrbanNetwork Development in the Greater South East UK: Evidence from Commuting Patterns,1981–2001.” Regional Studies 44 (9): 1149–1170.

Dieleman, F., and A. Faludi. 1998. “Polynucleated Metropolitan Regions in Northwest Europe.”European Planning Studies 6: 365–377.

Egermann, M. 2009. “The Saxon Triangle – a Polycentric Metropolitan Region from an Actor-oriented Perspective.” Urban Research & Practice 2 (3): 269–286.

ETH Basel. 2010. Metropolitanregion Zürich. Der Zurichsee als Projekt. Zürich: ZürcherHandelskammer und Verlag NZZ.

EMI (European Metropolitan network Institute). 2012. A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agendaon Polycentric Metropolitan Areas. The Hague: EMI.

Eurocities’ Working Group Metropolitan Areas. 2011. Cities Co-operating Beyond their Boundaries:Evidence through Experience in European Cities. Brussels: Eurocities.

ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observatory Network). 2007. ESPON Project 1.4.3. Study onUrban Functions. Luxembourg: ESPON.

Finka, M. 2009. “Sustainable Territorial Development and Concepts of Polycentricity in SlovakTerritorial Development.” Urban Research & Practice 2 (3): 332–343.

Franz, P., and C. Hornych. 2010. “Political Institutionalisation and Economic Specialisation inPolycentric Metropolitan Regions: The Case of the East-German ’Saxony Triangle.” UrbanStudies 47: 2665–2682.

Glaeser, E. 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter,Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York: The Penguin Press.

Gustafson, P. 2009. “Mobility and Territorial Belonging.” Environment and Behavior 41: 490–508.Halbert, L., K. Pain, and A. Thierstein. 2006. “European Polycentricity and Emerging Mega-city

Regions: ‘One Size Fits All’ Policy?” Built Environment 32 (2): 194–218.Hall, P., and K. Pain. 2006. The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe.

London: Earthscan.Hoyler, M., R. Kloosterman, and M. Sokol. 2008. “Polycentric Puzzles – Emerging Mega-

City Regions Seen through the Lens of Advanced Producer Services.” Regional Studies 42:1055–1064.

Kloosterman, R., and S. Musterd. 2001. “The Polycentric Urban Region: Towards a ResearchAgenda.” Urban Studies 38 (4): 623–633.

Krätke, S. 2007. “Metropolisation of the European Economic Territory as a Consequence of UrbanAgglomerations in the Knowledge Economy.” European Planning Studies 15 (1): 1–27.

Lee, I., R. C. Feiock, and Y. Lee. 2012. “Competitors and Cooperators: A Micro-Level Analysis ofRegional Economic Development Collaboration Networks.” Public Administration Review 72(2): 253–262.

Lewicka, M. 2011. “Place Attachment: How Far have We Come in the Last 40 Years?” Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 31 (3): 207–230.

Maier, K. 2009. “Polycentric Development in the Spatial Development Policy of the CzechRepublic.” Urban Research & Practice 2 (3): 319–331.

Massey, D., J. Allen, and S. Pile, eds. 1999. City Worlds. London: Routledge.Meijers, E. 2008. “Summing Small Cities Does Not Make a Large City: Polycentric Urban Regions

and the Provision of Cultural, Leisure and Sports Amenities.” Urban Studies 45: 2323–2342.Meijers, E., and M. Burger. 2010. “Spatial Structure and Productivity in U.S Metropolitan Areas.”

Environment and Planning A 42: 1383–1402.Meijers, E., J. Hoekstra, and R. Aguado. 2008. “Strategic Planning for City Networks; the Emergence

of a Basque ‘Global City’?” International Planning Studies 13 (3): 239–259.Melo, P., D. Graham, and R. Noland. 2009. “A Meta-analysis of Estimates of Urban Agglomeration

Economies.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 39: 332–342.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15


METREX Expert Group on Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity. 2010. Intra-metropolitanPolycentricity in Practice – Reflections, Challenges and Conclusions from 12 EuropeanMetropolitan Areas. Glasgow: METREX

Neal, Z. 2012. The Connected City: How Networks are Shaping the Modern Metropolis. New York:Routledge.

Paasi, A. 2003. “Region and Place: Regional Identity in Question.” Progress in Human Geography27 (4): 475–485.

Paasi, A. 2009. “The Resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’: Theoretical Perspectivesand Empirical Observations on Regional Dynamics in Europe.” Review of International Studies35 (S1): 121–146.

Radvánszki, A. 2009. “Old Wine in a New Bottle? The Hungarian Approach to Polycentric TerritorialDevelopment.” Urban Research & Practice 2 (3): 308–318.

Rollero, C., and N. de Piccoli. 2010. “Place Attachment, Identification and Environment Perception:An Empirical Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 198–205.

Rossignolo, C., and A. Toldo. 2008. “The Polycentric ‘Vocation’ of European Territories, Towardsthe Construction of the Italian North West and Other Networking Stories”. In The Re-creationof the European City; Governance, Territory & Polycentricity, edited by R. Atkinson and C.Rossignolo, 65–89. Amsterdam: TechnePress.

Sassen, S, ed. 2002. Global Networks, Linked Cities. London: Routledge.Sýkora, L., O. Mulícek, and K. Maier. 2009. “City Regions and Polycentric Territorial Development:

Concepts and Practice.” Urban Research & Practice 2 (3): 233–239.Taylor, P. 2003. World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis. London: Routledge.Ullman, E. 1956. “The Role of Transportation and the Basis for Interaction.” In Man’s Role in

Changing the Face of Earth, edited by W. Thomas, 862–880. Chicago, IL: The University ofChicago Press.

Visser, J. A. 2002. “Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban Regions, Toward aCultural Model of Interlocal Relations.” American Review of Public Administration 32 (1):40–65.

Waterhout, B., W. Zonneveld, and E. Meijers. 2005. “Polycentric Development Policies in Europe:Overview and Debate.” Built Environment 31 (2): 163–173.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Era

smus

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:45

16

Apr

il 20

15

Documents

Twin cities in the process of metropolisation