RECYCLING EUROPE on the Effectiveness of Cycling Policies and the Interplay Between Urban, National and European Levels of Policymaking
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RECYCLING EUROPE On the effectiveness of cycling policies and the interplay between urban, national and European levels of policymaking Master Thesis Max Lugtenborg European Studies – Governing Europe Universiteit van Amsterdam 2017 Recycling Europe On the effectiveness of cycling policies and the interplay between urban, national and European levels of policymaking MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam Max Lugtenborg 10070737 [email protected] Main Supervisor: Dr. G. J.A. Snel Second Supervisor: Prof. J.T. Leerssen 3 July 2017 1 Table of contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Theoretical framework 6 2.1. Theories of European integration 6 2.2. Multi-level governance and Europeanization 7 2.3. Urban dimension 9 2.4. Governing principles 11 3. Method 13 3.1. Policy effectiveness 13 3.2. Data collection 15 4. Case studies 16 4.1. Introduction 16 4.2. Amsterdam 16 4.3. Copenhagen 25 4.4. Berlin 32 4.5. European Union 39 5. Analysis 47 5.1. Roundup: the functioning of current cycling policies 47 5.2. Added value 48 5.3. Tension between European, national and urban policymaking 51 6. Conclusion 53 7. References 55 2 1. Introduction “Our struggle for global sustainability will be won or lost in cities” – Ban Ki-Moon Cities nowadays find themselves at the forefront of many of our major challenges. The biggest problems facing Europe today, i.e. flows of migrants, terrorism or climate change, appear most acute in its cities. Because it’s at these sites that these challenges become urgent and empirical, cities can and have to act on them. Their governments are directly confronted with these issues and therefore have more practical knowledge. Therefore, they prove more capable to act than their national counterparts (Sassen, 2012). National governments prove rather reluctant in tackling these issues, due to great internal ideological differences. Cities on the other hand are pragmatic and their governments consist of problem solvers (Vermeulen, 2013). Cities today are rapidly becoming powerful and omnipresent factors in European and global politics. Although diplomacy is traditionally linked to the nation states, cities now find themselves increasingly capable of organising their own foreign contacts, through processes of globalization and Europeanization, independently from their respective nation states (Heinelt & Niederhafner, 2008). The European Union, at the same time, struggles with a democratic deficit and the rise of Eurosceptic voices throughout the entire continent. The discussion that appears dominant is about the question of whether we want more or less European integration. This question proves to be deeply ideological and moreover one we cannot simply solve. It is my personal conviction that we’ve reached a dead end. I therefore feel we should leave the more/less discussion and start thinking about a different kind of European integration (New Pact for Europe, 2013). Inspired by Benjamin Barber and Ulrike Guèrot, I think more value might have to be attached to the important role cities can play in a future European system. Barber argues that cities, and the mayors that run them, offer the best forces of good governance. As national governments are unable to fully collaborate, due to issues with borders and sovereignty, he declares the nation state to be dysfunctional and obsolete. Cities, on the contrary, do not have to deal with these issues and are the primary sources of cultural, social and political innovation. Barber therefore pleads for a Global Parliament of Mayors (Barber, 2013). Guérot also suggests moving away from the question of more or less European integration, as Member States, according to her, keep hanging on to their national interests, which resists European cooperation. Although her initial focus lies on regions, rather than cities, her argument attaches a significant weight to cities as well. She argues that Europe should be subdivided into smaller sections that can better connect to 3 urban needs and interests. This would provide Europe with the legitimacy it currently lacks (Guérot, 2015). These ideas are rather radical but might be used as inspiration. Popular trust in European administrators is low, whereas citizens feel far more confidence towards their local policymakers. This recently has sparked a renewed interest in cities from the European Union. The Union increasingly acknowledges the value of cities as potential partners for addressing European problems and achieving the EU’s big-picture goals. Although subnational authorities are relevant actors in the EU participatory governance system, they’re not formally represented in any Union institution. This is in contrast to their national counterparts, who find themselves represented in the Council. With the introduction of the Urban Agenda for the EU, the EU now seems to acknowledge the role of cities. Through various partnerships, the programme aims to involve cities and ensure that they get their say in European policymaking. Legislation needs to better reflect urban needs, practices and responsibilities. These partnerships focus on improving regulation, funding and the exchange of knowledge (Urban Agenda for the EU, 2016). In the wake of this trend, the European Union just now starts to develop an active interest in cycling (European Ministers for Transport, 2015). As cycling is connected to a wide variety of benefits, ranging from the environment and people’s health to the economy and social inclusion, the conviction exists that the promotion of cycling can make a significant contribution to various EU objectives, such as the Europe 2020 targets regarding employment or climate change (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017). Policy in cycling belongs to the responsibilities of local governments and subsequently formally falls outside of the competences of the European Union. However, cities might benefit from coordinated EU action in this area. To this day, the Union lacks such coordinated action. Research questions This thesis first of all tries to answer the question of why a European policy in this area is practically non-existent. Would such policy perhaps be ineffective or are cities simply more capable of doing this themselves? And how should we interpret this sudden interest of the EU in cycling? These questions will be answered through the examination of three well- known European bicycle-friendly cities, namely Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin. Their bicycle policies will be thoroughly analysed and subsequently related to a potential European policy concerning the matter. It will become clear what European interference in this area could bring to the table. The main question of this thesis, however, concerns the relationship and possible tension between urban and European policymaking. In order to formulate an answer, the findings of the former questions will be placed into a broader discussion on the European 4 project. Is it possible or desirable to think of a future European Union paying more attention to cities? Thesis structure The thesis will be structured as follows: first a theoretical framework will be outlined, clarifying European Union policymaking and its governing principles. Then, a short chapter will explain the method used for analysing the various case studies. Subsequently, an in- depth analysis will be made of the cycling policies in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin. Also, the current opportunities and possibilities for cycling in Union policy will be explained. In the final chapters, the findings regarding cycling policy will be placed into the broader discussion on European integration. 5 2. Theoretical framework Our understanding of European Union policymaking is largely shaped by theory. An understanding of the main EU related theories is therefore necessary. Pollack identifies three main strands: theories of European integration and their implications for policymaking; theories focusing on the federal aspects of the European Union; and theories examining the governance approach towards the Union (Pollack, 2005). Taken together, these theories provide various distinctive questions and hypotheses about the key actors and the dominant processes of EU policymaking. These can be used to analyse the participants, processes and policies that can be observed in the European Union. A main theory about European integration might not exist. Instead EU policymaking may differ considerably across various issue areas. 2. 1 Theories of European integration The European project has been examined through multiple approaches. The main debate has been that between the neo-functionalists and the intergovernmentalists. Neo-functionalism The process of European integration initially was explained by neo-functionalists. Neo- functionalist theory, elaborated by Ernst Haas among other scholars (Haas, 1961; Lindberg, 1963; Lindberg & Scheingold, 1970) observed a process of functional spillover. Spillover refers to the mechanism by which integration in one area creates the conditions and incentives for integration in a related policy area. For example, the decision by European governments to place a certain sector, such as coal and steel, under the authority of a central governing body could only be fully achieved by also integrating transport policies (Rosamond, 2000). Neo-functionalists therefore predicted that sectoral integration would subsequently produce unintended and unforeseen consequences and would promote further integration in related policy areas (Pollack, 2005). George identified