12
vary from one country to another. To go into detailed administrative and financial aspects
would stretch beyond the framework of this inventory of national urban policy. Instead,
we will confine ourselves to a bird’s eye view of aspects that may help us compare and
interpret national urban policy. To that end, we propose to look successively at the
administrative structures, the degree of (de)centralisation of public responsibilities, urban
finance, and the emergence of metropolitan authorities.
Administrative structures
Of the twelve unitary states, France, Italy and Spain have four levels of administration.
Quite recently (in the 1970s), these countries considerably strengthened the regional level,
primarily because they wanted to decentralise certain competencies. In 1978, Spain
reinforced the intermediate level (17 autonomous communities) to such an extent that a
“quasi-federal constitutional setting” can be said to have ensued [Pola, 1996]. Three-tier
structures are found in the three northern countries, the Netherlands, and very recently in
Ireland and Greece. In most of these countries the intermediate level count for less than
the local level in task load, budget, and influence. That is specifically true of the three
northern countries, where local autonomy is strong. Ireland introduced an intermediate
level (regions) in 1994, likewise inspired by the need for more decentralisation. As a
matter of fact, until 1996 Greece had known only one level, the central one. Local
authorities acted primarily as executors of the state policy. By now, decentralisation is on
the wax here too, formal responsibilities having been bestowed on 54 provinces, and
equal competencies given to some municipalities. Finally, as far as the unitary states are
concerned, there are the two-tier states: the United Kingdom, Portugal and Luxembourg.
The United Kingdom is not fully two-tier, however. Above the diversity of local
administrative units (London boroughs, metropolitan districts, unitary councils and
districts), there is in parts of England an intermediate level (counties). Remarkably
enough, about ten years ago, the intermediate level was present throughout the United
Kingdom (in the shape of metropolitan counties and regional councils). The United
Kingdom is the only member state where the central authority has retrieved
responsibilities from the local administrative levels. In Portugal, the creation of regions
has been in discussion since the 1970s, but so far without concrete results. In the three
federal states, Germany, Austria and Belgium, the intermediate level (Lander in the
German-speaking countries) has in fact responsibilities that compare to those of the
national governments in the unitary states. Austria has three administrative levels.
Germany counts two levels in the Lander of Hamburg and Bremen, three levels in the
larger cities in the remainig Lander, and a second local level in the non-urban areas to co-
ordinate the municipalities. The Belgian administrative structure is beyond doubt the
most complicated within Europe, with not only three regional units (Flanders, Wallonia
and the Brussels region) but also three cultural units (communities based on linguistic
differences), which do not fully coincide. Belgium has four administrative levels, of
which the provinces carry the least weight.
Centralisation versus decentralisation: urban autonomy
In the preceding text, the increasing decentralisation of responsibilities has already been
referred to. The decentralisation works out differently, however, on the position of the
towns. The opportunities for local authorities to develop an autonomous policy are still