14
Among the purely local taxes, property tax is the most common, albeit in very divergent
shapes. Income taxes exclusively for local use occur in the Scandinavian countries and
Belgium. Business tax is usual in the French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and -
until recently- Austrian cities, and its application is very diverse (for instance on value
added, jobs, ’fiscal potential’, profits, etc.). Finally, local authorities levy taxes on specific
items of consumption as well as on specific transactions. "The Netherlands deserve to be
singled out for its environmental taxes" (Pola, 1996), a kind of tax hardly yet considered
in the rest of Europe. From various national reports, the existing financial framework can
lead to biased relations, because insufficient account is taken of the measure in which the
spending of ’impoverished’ local units is covered by revenue. Especially the large central
cities in Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, appear to
encounter difficulties of that kind, which can frustrate their policy actions. In the
Netherlands (recently), France, Austria, Finland, Belgium (recently), Sweden and
Luxembourg methods of equalisation or compensation have been developed to relieve or
solve such problems.
EU-funding
About 80 cities appear to profit from EU-URBAN community initiative. This programme
is considered useful for its integral approach, but makes little spatial or financial impact
to contribute significantly to the solution of urban problems. A greater impact is evidently
due to the funds set aside for the Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions. That impact is
highly appreciated notably in the Objective-1 areas (in Portugal, Ireland and Spain, for
example). Some national reports do point out that EU funds are project-oriented rather
than strategic (United Kingdom and Portugal), and focus too much on situations of crisis
and too little on cities needing support for their innovative potential (Portugal). In Italy
(the south), it appeared that only between 16 and 20 per cent of the structural fonds end
up in cities; the deficient sectorial weigh-off on the national level results in lack of
support on the local level. The financial influence of the EU on the towns is judged to be
‘modest’ in other than Objective-1 countries. The status evidently attached to the
designation as an European project does seem highly appreciated in some instances
(United Kingdom). The three recently (1995) joined member states have not yet formed
an opinion about the financial impact of the EU on their towns. Only Sweden mentions
the INTERREG II programme, which gives financial support to the border crossing
Oeresund project.
The emergence of metropolitan authorities
In various countries (notably Spain, Austria and the Netherlands) the existing
administrative framework is considered as a complicating factor for the adjustment of
supra-local tasks on the metropolitan level. The counterproductive effects of intra-
regional competition (for companies and people, or by means of tax facilities) are also
pointed out. Research has disclosed the eminent importance of the efficient and effective
integration of organising capacity in metropolitan administration (van den Berg, Braun,
van der Meer, 1997). Some form of administration and management on the level of the
functional urban region seems an attractive proposition in that context. While such a
model is applauded by many, the European practice displays very few successful