The Legitimation of Planning Processes as a Challenge to Metropolitan Governance

Abstract

This study identifies three types of legitimation from the literature that can be applied within metropolitan governance in the contested sphere of spatial planning: input legitimation, throughput legitimation, and output legitimation. The reason for discussing different forms of legitimation within metropolitan governance is that, globally, only a relatively few metropolitan regions are governed directly through a single elected tier of government such as a regional council. Thus, governance mechanisms in most metropolitan regions involve some form of joint working or cross border governance initiatives that have to be legitimized in the absence of a single overarching elected council covering the whole metropolitan area. The main question discussed in this paper is, therefore, whether all three types of legitimation identified are utilized to legitimize governance mechanisms at the metropolitan scale with a specific focus—as a core part of metropolitan governance—on spatial planning processes and projects. In conceptual terms, our typology structures fuzzy lines of legitimation across the three (the “how”, “who” and “what”) suggested aspects of metropolitan governance in the literature. From this point, we draw on cross-case reviews of variables involved in the design, application, and outcome of input, throughput, and output legitimation in Germany and England, chosen because neither has a formal tier of metropolitan-wide government despite their differences in terms of their highly regionalised and highly centralised national government contexts respectively. This relational methodology helps us to learn about the contextual dynamics of how the three types of legitimation might reinforce one another in different international settings, leading to the overall conclusion that they will work best in combination, although output legitimation has a distinctive capacity to work in less formal settings.

Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region

“…In 2005, official recognition beyond the regional level-the acknowledgment of the EMR by the MKRO-boosted the regional identity and increased the visibility of the MRN in Europe as well as in international society (the Verband interview, 2021). Although this recognition has not resulted in additional financial or personnel expenditures directly from the federal government [70], it has raised confidence and interest from the political and economic social levels, which have strengthened its regional competitiveness.…”

A centennial review of the English regional question: Whose policy space is it?

“…Non-statutory Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) of civic and business leaders were established to provide city-regional leadership, not only for housing (HM Government 2010) but also for the government's bid-based funds such as Enterprise Zones, a Regional Growth Fund for employment and a Growing Places Fund for infrastructure (DCLG 2011). Proposals to establish a LEP in any given area were subject to government ratification; as with the RDAs before them, government assent was required to formalise the composition of their boards (Deas and Pugalis 2014;Growe, Baker, and Ziafati Bafarasat 2020). LEPs emphasize supply-side support and place promotion to help deliver UK national industrial policy, but do not play a role in the design of national and sub-national economic strategies (Peck et al 2013).…”

“…promote regional institutions to work together and deliver cross-cutting policies and services (Growe, Baker, and Ziafati Bafarasat 2020). However, if regional governance is synonymous with regional authority that might challenge hierarchical central power, why would central governments risk promoting it?…”