comparison of the administrative and financial circumstances. After that the attention
shifts to similarities in what the national governments consider to be urban issues and
challenges, followed by a discussion of the main features of national urban policy in the
European Union.
2.2 National spatial development patterns
A complexity of social, cultural, economic, technological and political changes underlies
the processes of growth and decline of the European cities. When we compare the urban
dynamics and spatial patterns internationally, we find wide differences as well as striking
similarities among the regions of one country and among the regions of different
countries. The first conclusion, supported by international literature on the subject, is that
the evolving urban systems and patterns are largely nationally determined and that
national frontiers still form the dividing line between sometimes far divergent spatial
patterns. Some significant differences among the member states have to do with their
degree of urbanisation, the balance in their urban system, the phase of urbanisation in
which their cities find themselves, and of course the social-economic position and
performance of the various towns and the way that position has found spatial expression.
We shall now briefly discuss differences as well as similarities in the spatial structures,
with special attention to the situation of, and within, towns.
Degree of urbanisation
To make a straightforward comparison of the degree of urbanisation in which countries
find themselves seems hardly possible, for almost all countries define ’urbanised’ in their
own special way. The definitions vary from more than 200 inhabitants in Sweden to over
10,000 in such countries as German, Greece and the Netherlands. If the degree of
urbanisation is judged by the proportion of population living in (large) towns, the -hardly
surprising- conclusion is that Europe counts strongly urbanised countries (such as
Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark) and slightly urbanised
ones (Sweden, Finland, Austria, Portugal and Ireland), as well as a number of countries
occupying a position between the two extremes (Italy, France, Spain, Greece and
Luxembourg). In spite of wide differences a common trend can be observed, namely, a
continuous concentration of people (and economic activities) in the major urban regions,
which therefore go on expanding their sphere of influence. Especially in the last decade,
even the least urbanised countries have registered a strong expansion of both the largest
cities and the regional centres. Ever more Europeans have come to live in an urban
environment and the process seems to be intensifying. In some still hardly urbanised
countries (Spain, Portugal, Austria, Greece, etc.) the ongoing concentration is confining
some rural areas to the periphery.
National urban systems
Urban systems in Europe show very different forms as well. Most countries have not
reached a balanced urban system in which the various levels of the urban hierarchy are
adequately filled. In most of the countries a primate city (always the capital) dominates
the urban system. London, Paris, Dublin, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Vienna, Stockholm,
Helsinki, Athens and Luxembourg are such distinctly primate cities. In Spain, the towns