Legitimising identity discourses and metropolitan networks: urban competitiveness versus territorial protection

Abstract

The growing economic importance of urban networks transforms the political relations in metropolitan regions. New forms of regional cooperation emerge, but many municipalities outside the cities which have become a vital part of metropolitan networks resist this urban led development. This paper analyses why while the importance of areas outside the cities for metropolitan regions has increased, many oppose this and regard this as an unwanted urban incursion threatening the interests and identities of their communities in well-established territories. This paper analyses the backgrounds of these political conflicts by looking at the different perspectives on identity and legitimacy. It develops a typology of the different legitimising identity discourses used by urban and non-urban administrations to promote or resist cooperation in metropolitan regions. There is a clear and coherent contrast between backward and inward looking 'thicker', and forward and outward looking 'thinner' legitimising identity discourses. These are based on opposing views on nine related aspects which help to better understand the deep roots of the opposition between urban competitiveness and territorial protection. The typology of different legitimising identity discourses is a useful tool to analyse the growing resistance in more peripheral regions to the further strengthen the global competitiveness of metropolitan regions. The examples in this paper of how legitimising identity discourses are used in the Netherlands-where economic policies like in many other countries focus on the strengthen of metropolitan regions-showed not only how these divisions fuel conflicts, but also how these are sometimes bridged through cooperation legitimised by a partially shared identity discourse.

Towards a Neomedieval Urban Future: Neoliberal or Sustainable?

“…Neomedievalism "promises to avoid the classic dangers of the system of sovereign states by a structure of overlapping authorities and criss-crossing loyalties that hold all peoples together in a universal society, while at the same time avoiding the concentration of power inherent in a world government" [33]. All political actors are in a neomedievalist structure part of an overarching global society, but this is not based, as during the Cold War, on institutionalised political relations between sovereign states, but must rely more on a moral authority grounded in shared values and attitudes [10,11,13,[34][35][36][37]. This can be based on different, or even competing, value systems, like neoliberal economic dogma, or on a normative framework centred on sustainability.…”

“…At the same time as the polarisation between urban and provincial communities increases, the zones outside the cities have become more important for the success of the urban economy [10]. Cities increasingly depend on the active cooperation of non-urban municipalities to strengthen the complementarity in metropolitan networks and further increase their attractiveness and competitiveness.…”

“…As this shift from economic to ecological policies occurs, these divisions between the urban elites and the rest of country deepen. Policies to reduce CO 2 emission based on renewable energy and the transformation from a wasteful linear to a more circular economy, will be primarily realised outside the cities and thus further strain the relation between cities and their neighbouring regions [10].…”