Country Report Germany

Document Sample
Country Report Germany Powered By Docstoc
					    Participation, Leadership and Urban Sustainability


                   Country Report

                       Germany


                    January 21th, 2004




Björn Egner, Michael Haus, Hubert Heinelt, Christine König,




               Institute for Political Science
            Darmstadt University of Technology

                      Residenzschloß
                    D-64283 Darmstadt
                   tel.+49 6151 16 2242
                   fax +49 6151 16 4602
            eMail: heinelt@pg.tu-darmstadt.de
                                                                                                                                    2


Table of contents

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4
2. National Context...................................................................................................................6
3. The city case studies ...........................................................................................................15
   3.1 Hannover ..................................................................................................................15
   3.1.1      Context .............................................................................................................15
   3.1.2      Building Kronsberg. Achieving social inclusion through citizen
              participation in a new city quarter ....................................................................27
   3.1.3      Hannover Impuls. Achieving economic competitiveness by involving major
              companies in an innovative local business development plan .........................45
   3.2 Heidelberg ................................................................................................................61
   3.2.1      Context .............................................................................................................61
   3.2.2      District development planning. A participatory and decentralised way of
              urban planning ..................................................................................................73
   3.2.3      Dialogical stimulation of the local economy. Creating networks with local
              business community .......................................................................................103
4. Comparative conclusions..................................................................................................117
   4.1 The cities ................................................................................................................117
   4.2 The policy areas......................................................................................................120
5. References ........................................................................................................................123
6. Appendix ........................................................................................................................134
   6.1 Results of the PLUS survey....................................................................................134
   6.2 Lists of Interviews ..................................................................................................151
   6.3 Arenas and Rules ....................................................................................................153
   6.4 Tables and Figures..................................................................................................157
                                                                                          3


Preface


This is the report of the German case studies of the PLUS (“Participation, Leadership and
Urban Sustainability”) project funded by the European Commission under the 5th Frame-
work Programme on Research and Development. The same format has been adopted in all
nine country reports of this international project, and the research has responded to a com-
mon set of concepts and ideas about leadership and communities. Inevitably this means
that some of the arguments and some of the language is not a clear as it might be – the re-
port is written for an international audience as well as a domestic one. For readers who
want to get at the meat of the report quickly we advise to read sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 as
an introduction and then jump to the findings and lessons in section 4.

The cities of Hannover and Heidelberg have been co-operative and helpful partners and we
are most grateful for the input of citizens, officers and elected leaders. We have exposed
the challenges facing both cities. Both cities are innovating in various ways and we hope
that we have recorded their attempts to manage change in a constructive and positive way.
Our hope is that analysis and the lessons drawn will be helpful both locally and in a more
generalised way at national and European levels.

Darmstadt, January 2004


Björn Egner, Michael Haus, Hubert Heinelt, Christine König
                                                                                           4



1. Introduction
Both German cities, Hannover and Heidelberg, were chosen as case studies because of the
their specific features on sustainabiliy, urban leadership and community involvement.

Despite the directly elected mayor is a relatively new phenomenon in the state of Lower
Saxony, the Lord Mayor of its capital Hannover is in office now for more than 30 years
and thus is the longest-serving Lord Mayor in Germany. Serving as a representational hon-
orary Lord Mayor since 1972, Herbert Schmalstieg was re-elected in the 1996 and 2001
direct elections, now comprising the roles of the head of the city administration, council
member by law and representational functions. He also was vice president and president of
the Association of German cities (“Staedtetag”).
Hannover also has a long tradition of voluntary community involvement, mainly in city
development policy. Round tables, citizen district meetings and other kinds of involvement
procedures as well as special citizens’ contact points are common elements of the city’s
policy-making in the last decades.

In Heidelberg, the directly-elected mayor is a traditional element of politics on the local
level. The Lady Mayor of Heidelberg, Beate Weber, is in office since 1990 and is one of
the few Lady Mayors in Germany. She was personally honored several times for her eco-
logic engagement in international organisations such as UNDP and UNESCO and received
the “environmental prize 1997 – future of work” for her efforts to coordinate and combine
initiatives in the fields of labour and environment policy. She also was also elected
“woman of the year” of a famous German TV magazine in 1996. Heidelberg obviously is
exceptional among the German cities. It has been prized several times for successful and
innovative efforts in achieving more sustainable policies. In the last years the city of Hei-
delberg for example became “federal capital of environmental protection” 1996/97, got the
European Sustainable City Award 1997, and was adopted with three other cities as a
“model city” for the federal program “experimental housing and urban development” ana-
lysing urban development according to the principles of sustainability.

Additional reasons for the selection of the cities can be found in the difference between
them. Since Hannover is the capital of one of the German states and one of the biggest cit-
ies in Germany with a corresponding infrastructure (e.g. an international airport), Heidel-
berg is rather small in comparison and one of the some cities of the surrounding economic
region. On the other hand, Heidelberg comprises the status of a city and a county at the
same time, while Hannover is a member city of the Hannover region established in 2001.
The two cities are in two different states (Hannover in Lower Saxony in the northern part,
Heidelberg in Baden-Wuerttemberg in the southwestern part of Germany), which also
means that there are different political cultures, different municipality codes and different
traditions that are influencing the decision making on the local level. Since both Lord
Mayors are Social Democrats, their political environment is different. The city of Han-
nover was always governed by a Social Democrat since the end of world war II, and today,
the Lord Mayor can still rely on his “own majority” in the council, which means that he is
supported by a like-minded “red-green” council coalition. In Heidelberg, there is no spe-
cific tradition of Social Democratic leaders. Additionally, there is no fixed council coali-
tion, so that the Lady Mayor is forced to seek for a specific majority within every single
council decision.
                                                                                           5

The urban competitiveness cases in both cities were chosen because of their innovative
approach towards an economic stimulation of the city by building networks among the
economic actors on one hand and economy and the city on the other hand. Also, the con-
struction of the implementation entities and the principles for funding are different, which
was another reason for chosing both economic competitieveness cases described below. As
economic competitiveness initiative of Hannover, the “Hannover Impuls” project was se-
lected. This joint venture of the city of Hannover and the Hannover region was introduced
as innovative kind of business development with the goal of sustainably creating jobs in
the Hannover region in response to the high unemployment rate and the sneaking collapse
of the traditional industries and is expected to be the most important project in Hannover in
the present decade. The Heidelberg economic competitieveness case was chosen because
of its specific preconditions set by the city, namely that networking between the city and
economic actors by certain procedural arrangements should produce innovations without
much funding from the city.

The sustainable construction of the new city quarter “Kronsberg” was chosen as the social
inclusion initiative, because it was expected to have an enourmous impact on the city’s
housing market and city development strategy and because it was framed by a major event
in Hannover, the world exposition (EXPO 2000). In terms of social inclusive policies, the
district development plans in Heidelberg are the most crucial element of the dialogue-
oriented political culture of the city, which ensures that also formerly underprivileged dis-
tricts are now heard by the city. Within this frame, Heidelberg is using innovative, locally
designed community involvement procedures for the decision about the development of
the city and its quarters. Thus, the district development plans were chosen as case study.
                                                                                             6



2. National Context
Introduction

Today, there are 13.844 municipalities (“Gemeinden”) in Germany, ranging from cities
with over a million habitants to small villages. Most of them belong to the 323 counties
(“Kreise”) as the upper tiers of local government whereas 117 are “county exempt cities”
comprising the functions of both municipalities and counties (Wehling/Kost 2003: 14-15).
It is commonly agreed among German scholars of local politics that there has been sub-
stantial change at the local level for the last ten years. Whereas in the sixties and seventies
question of territorial amalgamation and allocation of functions were the big reform issues,
in the last decade political and management reform have been on the agenda (see Caul-
field/Larsen 2002 for these reform types, Andersen 1998 for their implementation in Ger-
many). Besides the reforms initiated by the state level, the municipalities themselves made
strong efforts to improve local policy-making processes and administration. These reforms
ranged from institutional changes in local leadership positions and new forms of citizen
participation to New Public Management modernisation (see Bogumil 2001, Wollmann
2003a, Haus 2003). Among local political and administrative actors as well as among so-
cial scientists it is much disputed at the moment how successful such modernisation efforts
have been and will be. With respect to leadership, the directly elected executive is firmly
established and has raised expectations for a higher responsiveness of local institutions.
The shift to “management by objectives”, however, has often been driven by mere fiscal
pressures and has not implied a comprehensive model of administrative innovation
(Budäus/Finger 1999, Naschold/Bogumil 2000). With respect to community involvement it
is quite uncontroversial that often the conceptually fixed aims are much elaborated whereas
practical realisation has gone only half way so far, e.g. in Local Agenda 21 initiatives (see
Rösler 2000). Furthermore, the debate has become more complex. There is growing evi-
dence that reforms take place within the normative triangle of effectiveness, efficiency and
legitimacy and that reform discourse has to take all three dimensions into consideration
(Heinelt 1997). We thus hope to find some insight about how to design local policy inno-
vations more robustly and to make them more sustainable by looking at our two case study
cities.


The constitutional position of local government

In the Grundgesetz, the national constitution, there is only one article referring directly to
the local level (Art. 28 GG). Firstly, it demands that there have to be representative bodies
in the municipalities and counties, the two tiers of local government; secondly, it gives the
municipalities the right to regulate “all affairs of the local community within their own
responsibility”. However, the constitution does not enumerate a fixed catalogue of tasks
which the municipalities and counties can’t be deprived of. Moreover, it does not protect
the territorial integrity of local units. Legally, the municipalities are parts of the Länder
(the federal units) without an own status of statehood (Art. 30 GG).
The idea of an indispensable separate “core” of municipal self-administration is rendered
illusory by the fact of a far-reaching entanglement of policies between the national, Länder
and local level. The constitutions and municipal codes of the Länder all declare the mu-
nicipalities as the general agency of state administration at the local level, and it has been
estimated that 80 to 90 % of all state laws imply implementation activities by the munici-
palities (Schmidt-Eichstädt 1981). The Federal Republic of Germany thus has a two-tier
                                                                                                              7

structure with respect to “statehood”, but it has a three-tier structure with respect to ad-
ministration (Art. 86 GG and following). As is expressed in the term “municipal self-
administration” (“kommunale Selbstverwaltung”), the German constitutional tradition un-
derstands local political systems as belonging to the sphere of administration, not to the
sphere of politics. On the other hand, the guarantee of representative bodies is a clear ex-
pression that a need of political legitimation at the local level is acknowledged by the
Grundgesetz. This dualism between administrative and political properties of local politics
has not only led to diverging views between scholars, i.e. of students of law and political
scientists who each stress the respective aspects, but also to the need of further constitu-
tional engineering. The strength of the juridical discourse community is important with
regard to reforms concerning the municipalities in Germany.
The respective Land regulates the distribution of tasks for either municipalities or counties
and the structure of the local government institutions. One of our case study, the City of
Hannover, belongs to the Land Lower-Saxony whereas the other, the City of Heidelberg,
belongs to the Land Baden-Wuerttemberg. While Heidelberg has the status of a “county
exempt city”, Hannover is a member city of the Hannover region founded in 2001 (which
in principle acts as county) and thus in principle lost its “county exempt city” status.1


The structure of local government

As the municipal codes and other important laws concerning local government are laid
down not by national government but by the sixteen Länder (the second tier in the federal
state), there is no uniform model of local government in Germany. However, there have
been overarching trends which to a certain degree levelled off differences between the
conditions of local politics in the different Länder, e.g. the territorial reforms in the seven-
ties which led to bigger municipalities and a higher degree of administrative professionali-
sation and the reforms of the municipal codes in the nineties which introduced the directly
elected executive mayor and local referenda in almost all municipalities. As a conse-
quence, although federalism at first glance seems to provide for regional differences, the
actual conditions of local politics have become quite similar (Haus 2001). This nicely fits
the picture of the Federal Republic of Germany as a “unitary” federal state (“unitarischer
Bundessstaat”, K. Hesse).
Until the nineties there were usually distinguished four different types of local government
structures which were usually labelled as: the “north German council model” (“nord-
deutsche Ratsverfassung”), the “strong mayor model” (“starke Bürgermeister-
Verfassung”), the “south German council model” (“süddeutsche Ratsverfassung”), and the
“unechte Magistratsverfassung” (impossible to translate; it resembles what Mouritzen
Svara (2002: 55-56) call the “collective form” of local government) (see Wehling 1998).
The essential differences were: Firstly, whereas the “north German council model” in
North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony was monistic (all responsibilities rested for-
mally with the council), the “south German council model”, the “strong mayor model” and
the “Magistrat” form were dualistic (the responsibilities were principally divided between
council and administration). Secondly, the “north German council model” was character-
ised by having “two peaks” in the municipality (the honorary mayor who presided the
council and officially represented the municipality on the one hand and the professional
“Gemeindedirektor” (kind of chief executive officer) as the head of the administration on
the other hand). The other municipal codes (except for the Magistrat form) prescribed the
mayor as simultaneously the head administration and the chairman of the council, thus


1     For the exact distributions of duties and rights between region and city of Hannover, see Arndt 2003.
                                                                                             8

establishing “one peak”. Finally, in the municipalities of the “south German council
model” the mayor was elected directly by the citizens, which gave him an especially strong
legitimacy, adding to his significant institutional power. This made a difference not only to
the northern Länder, but also to those with a “strong mayor form” where the mayors were
not elected directly, but by the council. A certain influence of the western allies after Sec-
ond World War was manifest in this diversity of municipal codes, most clearly in the
northern model being influenced by the British form of committee rule and the strong
mayor model supported by the French (and resembling their strong mayor form) (see the
description of the “committee leader form” and the “strong mayor form” in
Mouritzen/Svara 2002: 55-56).
However, in the nineties the differences between the municipal codes were reduced by a
“triumph” (“Siegeszug”, von Arnim 1998: 39) of the southern model. Today, in all mu-
nicipalities (except for the city-states) the mayor is elected directly, and everywhere he/she
is the head of the administration except for Hesse where the Magistrat (executive board)
still leads the administration (although in co-operation with a rather strong, directly elected
mayor). The mayor (together with the heads of the directorates) is the decisive link be-
tween the two basic pillars of local government, i.e. the council and the administration.
Thus, the main characteristics of local government systems have become rather similar.

The remaining differences can be summarised as follows:

•   Although all municipal codes divide the decisions of local government between those
    of the “day-to-day administration” (“laufende Verwaltung”) under the exclusive re-
    sponsibility of the mayor and the more important decisions for which the council is re-
    sponsible, in the Länder with a former “committee leader form” there is still the clause
    that the council may “pull back” decisions belonging to “running administration” (for
    Lower-Saxony see § 40 II of the municipal code in connection with § 62 I, 6). The po-
    sition of the council as the supreme body of local government has somehow survived in
    this regulation.
•   “One peak” or “two peaks”, i.e. the question whether the mayor is also the head of the
    council or not. For example, in Baden-Wuerttemberg this is obligatory whereas in
    Lower-Saxony the council can decide whether it wants the mayor as its chairman (and
    the mayor can decide whether he is willing to enact also this office) (see Knemeyer
    1998, overemphasising, however, this question as ‘the’ difference between the Länder).
    Furhtermore, in Baden-Wuerttemberg and some other Länder the mayor is automati-
    cally also the head of all council committees, in others, like Lower-Saxony, the com-
    mittees elected their chair persons. The first variant naturally limits the number of
    council committees because a mayor cannot chair too many council committees. The
    second stresses again the separation of powers.
•   A rather important difference between the municipal codes is the tenure of the mayor
    which ranges from five to nine years. It can either be independent from the tenure of
    the council or linked to it. In Baden-Wuerttemberg, the mayor is in office for eight
    years and his/her election is completely disconnected from council elections, whereas
    in Lower-Saxony his/her five-year tenure is congruent with the election period of the
    council (which has led to very subtle regulations for the case a mayors leaves his/her
    office at an earlier time).
•   Whereas the mayor of Baden-Wuerttemberg cannot be moved out of office by a politi-
    cal decision, in Lower-Saxony three quarters of the councillors can initiate a referen-
    dum on the removal of the mayor.
•   Furthermore, the mayor is sometimes integrated into a collegial body like the general
    purposes committee (“Verwaltungsausschuß”) in Lower Saxony (comparable to an ex-
                                                                                                           9

    ecutive committee in the UK or Sweden), whereas e.g. in Baden-Wuerttemberg there is
    no such collegial body at all.
•   The appointment of the heads of the different directorates is also a quite important dif-
    ference: in Baden-Wuerttemberg the council appoints them autonomously, but has to
    consider the strengths of the parties/groups in the council; in Lower-Saxony only the
    mayor has the right to propose candidates for appointment, but no proportional princi-
    ples are applied.

In any case, the position of the mayor has been strengthened significantly. That is why it is
often stated that there has been a shift to “executive leadership” in German municipalities
(see Bogumil 2001: 181-194).2 Summarising the differences between the municipal codes
of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Lower-Saxony, the strongest mayor can without doubt be
found in Baden-Wuerttemberg which means that the mayor of Heidelberg is institutionally
in a more powerful position than the mayor of Hannover. However, the actual power will
also depend on politics-related variables. For example, the Lord Mayor of Hannover relies
on a stable council coalition of two parties, whereas the Lady Mayor of Heidelberg has to
find a council majority independent from a coalition. Actually, both mayors are in a more
comfortable position than many others in Germany who have to cope with an opposing
coalition.


Local government powers and functions

The tasks of local government can be differentiated by form and content. Generally speak-
ing, the municipalities and counties are responsible for the implementation of a large part
of the laws made by national government and the Länder. This also means, that local ad-
ministration employs a substantial part of the public personnel and that they are responsi-
ble for the most part of public investments.
Concerning the content of the tasks of local government, it can be said that they differ ac-
cording to the regulations of the respective Land and its constitution. According to the
principle of “universality” the tasks of the municipalities may not be enumerated in a final
way. They have the right to autonomously pick up new tasks and to develop public policies
to fulfil them – for example initiatives in city development planning, social services and
economic stimulation. That means that local government is active in a wide variety of pol-
icy fields, though many times it is not acting independently. For example, the municipali-
ties are responsible for the building and maintenance of schools, whilst the Länder decide
upon the employment of teachers and the curricula.
From a legal point of view, it is usually distinguished between delegated tasks, obligatory
tasks and voluntary tasks of local government. With respect to the delegated tasks (e.g. fire
protection, basic social help), the aims and the means are set by the laws; obligatory tasks
(e.g. water supply) must be fulfilled by local administration, but it is within the discretion
of the laws free to decide on the proper means; voluntary tasks (e.g. maintenance of muse-
ums) are entirely up to local government. Since the distinction between local government
as acting “by order” of the “state” and local government as “self-administration” of the
local community has empirically become more and more difficult, many scholars believe
that there should be reforms in the direction of a “full municipalitisation” of local govern-
ment going along with a parliamentarisation of the local political system (Wollmann


2     A similar development can be seen in the direct election of the county administrator (the “Landrat”)
      which has been equally introduced in most of the district codes during the nineties. More important
      for one of our case study cities is that also the President of the Hannover Region is directly elected.
                                                                                              10

1998a: 63-65, Wollmann 2002: 81).3 From the point of view of political science it seems
reasonable to distinguish the following two general functions of German local governe-
ment: (1) service provision (technical supply, cultural activities, social tasks, public order)
and (2) steering urban development (traffic, housing, economic, ecological and social de-
velopment) (see Naßmacher/Naßmacher 1999: 146-174).
The local government’s freedom of action is not only limited by the principle of subsidiar-
ity (which means that they have to leave a substantial part of service delivery to social or-
ganisations), but also by the separation of private and public economy fixed in all munici-
pal codes after World War II and in the new Länder after the reunification. This separation
implies that municipalities may only establish public enterprises if there is an (urgent) need
or at least a justification in the light of certain aims and if these aims can’t be reached by
other (i.e. private) enterprises. As a consequence, local public enterprises must not be
maintained for the purpose of e.g. constraining or regulating market economy or redistrib-
ute social goods. In other words, there is no legal room for variants of ‘municipal social-
ism’.
In many fields of economic and social policy activities the national, the federal states’ and
the local level are co-ordinated and integrated. This is e.g. due to financial programmes by
the upper levels which subsidise projects realised by the local authorities (e.g. city renewal
programmes, local traffic). It is also required by the strong position of local administration
with respect to the implementation of national and regional programmes.


Local finance

The main sources of local revenues are: taxes (partly own taxes, partly a share of national
income tax and sales tax), grants (either block grants or grants bound to a certain aim), and
charges/fees. The possibility to take out credits is legally kept within relatively narrow lim-
its and budgets are controlled by state agencies. Expenditure is mainly for personnel, social
services, material costs and public investments. Local finance is thus to a high degree em-
bedded in an integrated system of finance by national government, Länder, and municipali-
ties (“Finanzverbund”). Grants given by the Länder or by national government have played
an ever increasing role, either because local government had to fulfil tasks set by the upper
levels (as in the case of the guarantee of access to kindergartens for all children) or na-
tional/federal states governments wanted to give incentives for certain behaviour, e.g. in-
vestments in urban renewal.
German tax policy is characterised by an integrative tax system (“Steuerverbund”) in
which all major taxes are shared between the national, the Länder and the local level. The
respective shares are prescribed by the national laws. The tax rates are also mainly fixed at
the national level. However, the municipalities may decide on rates of assessment on sev-
eral taxes. All Länder are legally forced to provide for a redistribution of revenues between
the municipalities and counties located in their respective territories with the aim of guar-
anteeing a minimum of financial resources in every municipality. This is an analogy of the
redistribution which takes place between the Länder and between the national level and the
Länder in Germany.
All in all, scholars agree that the municipalities today are no longer able to shape an
autonomous tax policy (Häußermann 1991: 99). They act within narrow financial limits.
On the other hand, the redistribution of income between the municipalities (and the subsi-
dising of financially weak Länder which otherwise could not support their municipalities to
a sufficient degree) guarantees each municipality a certain basic amount of money. It is


3     First steps in this direction have been taken in four of the five east-German Länder.
                                                                                              11

commonplace among local actors as well as scholars that municipalities suffer from being
overloaded with tasks by the upper levels while lacking adequate financial resources to
fulfil these tasks. Currently, there is an intense debate on the reform of the fiscal basis of
local government within the federal system.


Local politics

The main characteristic of the German party system, i.e. the dominance of two large parties
(the centre-right Christian Democrats and the centre-left Social Democrats) and a variety
of smaller parties which usually serve as partner in “minimum winning coalitions”, also
appear in local politics. The process of party concentration which took place in the course
of post-war German history thus can be found also at the local level. It is reversed, how-
ever, in those Länder where the exclusion clause of at least five per cent in local elections
has been lowered or abandoned. In the seventies all the national parties gave themselves
political programmes on local affairs. Local politics was growingly perceived as “real”
politics than as “rational” administration.
There are some important regional specifics, though. In some Länder, especially Baden-
Wuerttemberg, the so-called “free voters’ associations” (“Freie Wählergemeinschaften”)
are usually very successful in local elections. As will be shown below, in Heidelberg the
party system is fragmented with seven parties in the council and no party coalition. That
means, that there are also regional differences as to the overall role of the parties in local
politics. Where the “free voters’ associations” are strong, this is not also due to institutional
differences, but also indicates a local political culture characterised by the conviction that
the municipality is not an arena for party politics. Yet while in former time they often ex-
pressed the view that parties are generally not needed in the realm of municipal politics,
today free voters’ associations can also be the result of postmaterialist values, ‘New Poli-
tics’ and the desire to participate outside of the established political organisations
(Holtmann 1998: 220-222).
In Baden-Wuerttemberg, the dislike for party politics in the local realm also confirmed by
the fact that candidates for the office of the mayor are expected to be experts in administra-
tion, not representatives of their parties (see the classic study by Wehling/Siefert 1987).
Accordingly, mayors often see themselves as acting “beyond” party politics and the accep-
tance of the role of parties is in general lower. A substantial number of the mayors in
smaller towns are not even member of a party. On the other hand, in Lower-Saxony we can
find a local political culture where parties play a strong role in local politics and mayors
are expected to put more emphasis on party politics. This can be seen as a path-dependency
also of the old municipal code emphasising the role of the council (for empirical evidence
see Haus/Heinelt 2002: 115-124).
The bigger the city, the more local politics resembles the competitive characteristics of
national politics. Nevertheless, it has been shown that even in bigger German cities there
are certain traits of consensus democracy which contradict with the national level, e.g. in
the form of oversized or even all-party coalitions (see Gabriel 2000: 240-245). This is also
the case where proportional representation within the executive is not required by the mu-
nicipal code (as it is in Baden-Wuerttemberg). As a consequence of the direct election of
the mayors local political actors today often are confronted with differing party affiliation
of the mayor and the majority in the council. The map of local politics has thus become
more complex and confused than it used to be.
                                                                                             12


Decision-making in local government

The most important decisions taken by the councils are: decisions on personell, above all
the appointment of the heads of the directorates, the modification of the municipal code for
the particular municipality (“Hauptsatzung”), the basic structure of administrative organi-
sation (how many directorates and leading positions there are etc.), the basic procedures of
decision-making (“Geschäftsordnung”), the annual budget, land use and building plans.
Theoretically, the municipal codes are led by a classical understanding of governing the
administration. The council has to decide on all matters of the local community, the ad-
ministration has to implement the programs decided upon by the council, and the mayor
plays the role of permanently crossing the border between the two realms. But since coun-
cil members are working on a honorary basis whereas the administration is highly profes-
sional the actual position of the administration is very strong. On the other hand politicians
often interfere into the daily work of the administration (at least, this is the view of the ad-
ministrations).
That is why proponents of a “New Steering Model” (“Neues Steuerungsmodell”, a German
version of new public management) which proofed to be very popular among local admin-
istrators strive for (1) a strengthening of political decision-makers with respect to their
global responsibility for the local community, (2) a greater autonomy for the administrative
managers with respect to the efficient implementation of political decisions. In the wide-
spread attempts of reforming local administrations, however, the separation of administra-
tion and politics has proven to be the most problematic and politically less attractive issue
(Bogumil 2001: 129-130).
Councils have committees that correspond to the tasks performed by the local level. Com-
mittees are working in close relation with the respective parts of local administration. They
are responsible for designing proposals which have to be decided upon by the full council.
The committees themselves are dependent on the drafts worked out by the administration.
Since often there is only one “alternative” to discuss about, the decisions of the council are
highly pre-determined by the co-operative work of committees and administration. Corre-
sponding to the respective formulations in the municipal codes councils can delegate deci-
sions to certain committees. As mentioned above, in Lower-Saxony councils are obliged to
form an executive committee with a selection of councillors, directorate heads and the
mayor are members.
With respect to actual decision-making scholars of local government some decades ago
identified two characteristic structures: one focused on the executive mayor and the ad-
ministration (in the Länder with executive mayors) and one of influential “pre-deciders”,
i.e. a group of local actors who are able to initiate a proposal and decide upon its basic
lines before the details are worked out by the administration (in the Länder with chief ex-
ecutive officers) (for the discussion see Bogumil 2002: 12-16). This group of pre-deciders
on the political side comprised the head of the council, the speakers of the council parties,
the chairmen of the committees, leaders of unions and social interest groups, and influen-
tial local actors like architects, on the side of the administration the head of the administra-
tion, chief officers and the heads of the involved directorates. We will come back to these
traditional analyses of leadership models in the comparative conclusions.
In all German municipal codes local referenda have been introduced in the nineties. Al-
though only a small part of local decisions is made by referenda and this mostly affects the
revision or prevention of disliked council decisions (Gabriel 1997), scholars of local poli-
tics often argue that the very possibility of intervening in representative decision-making
has anticipatory effects on the behaviour of political actors (Bogumil 2001: 208-210).
In some policy fields there is a long tradition of “local corporatism”. Partially, this is en-
forced by national laws which have institutionalised the principle of “subsidiarity” in a
                                                                                                     13

number of policy fields (see above), obliging municipalities to subsidise welfare organisa-
tions. Furthermore, the municipalities are forced to co-operate with such organisations in
special committees which sometimes have the authority to make binding decisions, e.g. in
the realm of youth care. Since charity organisations play an important role in this respect,
the type of local corporatism in Germany has been called a “confessional” one (Thränhardt
1981: 16).


Local elections and representation

The electoral systems of German local government show some outstanding particularities.
As mentioned above, they all prescribe the popular election of the mayors. Secondly, the
recent reform wave introduced preference voting in the council elections in most German
municipalities.

(1) In Lower Saxony and Baden-Wuerttemberg the candidates for the office of the mayor
    do not have to be nominated by a party, they only need a certain number of supporting
    signatures. The former mayor of Heidelberg left his party when he was in office and
    was re-elected as an independent candidate. A candidate has to gain the absolute ma-
    jority of all votes in order to become mayor, at least in a second electoral ballot when
    the citizenry has to choose between the two candidates with the most votes.
    In the only two Länder which practised the direct election of mayors for quite a long
    time, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, it turned out that citizens in smaller towns
    voted for overtly party-distanced candidates with substantial professional experience in
    administrative activity. But even in bigger cities distance from party politics is re-
    garded a high virtue. This holds true especially for Baden-Wuerttemberg, while in Ba-
    varia parties have more influence because they have the monopole of nominating can-
    didates and one party dominates the political scene. The (relatively short) experience
    with directly elected mayors in the other Länder points to a possibly different ten-
    dency. Here, a party career has had much more importance so long whilst professional
    experience and/or training in public administration has not been the dominant factor.
    This is partly due to the fact that those having already been mayor or “city director”
    (chief executive officer) in the old system (like Lord Mayor Schmalstieg in Hannover)
    have the best chances of being elected also in direct elections.4
    Voter turnout at local elections is to a considerable degree lower than in national elec-
    tions. Furthermore, voters’ behaviour in local elections is strongly dependent on
    (dis)satisfaction with the performance of national government’s policies. This holds
    true particularly for the elections of the councils, less for the elections of the mayor.
    Voter turnout in mayor elections is often extremely low.
(2) In all German municipalities councils are elected by proportional representation (i.e.
    the number of seats corresponds the percentage of votes). Yet electoral systems differ
    in the degree of offering options for choice. In the recent years there has been a trend
    towards a “personalisation” of local elections by preference voting, for the number of
    Länder grows in which “Panaschieren” (splitting one’s ticket: divide a total sum be-
    tween candidates of different parties) and “Kumulieren” (cumulative voting: cumulate
    preferences on certain candidates) are practised. In our two case study cities we have a
    highly personalised system on the one hand (in Heidelberg where voters have as many
    votes as there are seats in the council and can distribute them to the different lists and

4     For empirical data on the Land North-Rhine-Westfalia see Andersen et al. 2002. Concerning aspects
      of local politics Lower-Saxony and Northrhine-Westfalia are similar in many respects as they share
      the same tradition of municipal law.
                                                                                             14

    persons) and a rather cautious approach on the other (in Hannover where three votes
    can be distributed).
    A further trend has been the abolishment of the five per cent clause in local elections.
    As a result, party fragmentation is often significantly higher as in national politics
    since more small parties succeed in entering the councils. This holds also true for our
    case study cities.


Non-electoral citizen participation

Besides the already mentioned local referenda which where introduced in the nineties in all
municipal codes of the German Länder the municipalities have thought much about how to
get citizens more involved in the affairs of the local community. On the one hand experi-
ments with deliberative forms of political participation, especially in the field of traffic and
city development, have been widespread. On the other hand, there are attempts in the field
of social policy to involve and “activate” more citizens. This is partly promoted by pro-
grams of upper levels of government.
There are several institutional arrangements to facilitate citizen involvement beyond elec-
tions and referenda. For example, council committees may involve “competent” citizens.
District councils represent the needs of different parts of the municipalities, and councils
for alien inhabitants may give statements in the name of those that cannot partake in local
elections (non-EU citizens). Yet, all these additional councils have only advisory functions
and no own staff.
Like in many Western countries there has been a enormous increase of unconventional
political participation in the form of action groups and new social movements. Scholars of
new social movements have found out that the local level has often been the address of
these groups. Also due to the Green party’s entering the councils in the eighties munici-
palities often support initiatives in the context of new social movements (e.g. houses for
women).
“Local corporatism” (see above) involves interest groups, stakeholders and shareholders in
the design of welfare production, city planning, economic regeneration and a lot of other
problems. Smaller and more informal groups are more and more involved in the traditional
co-operation of municipalities and welfare associations (“New Subsidiarity”). This sup-
ports the activism of these less formalised and bureaucratised groups.
Local agenda 21 initiatives are very popular, measured by the number of municipalities
that have officially started one. In almost 90 per cent of the middle and big cities the coun-
cil formally declared that the municipality is joining LA21 (Rösler 2000: 15). That does
not mean yet that LA21 always lead to significant or satisfying results. So far, the initia-
tives focused on ecological issues, but there seems to be a trend towards economics and
social welfare as well as an orientation according to particular target groups.
There does not seem to be much involvement of citizens as “clients”, “customers” or “us-
ers”, at least when this means regular opinion polls or the establishment of user boards.
Since modernisation of public administration is usually not understood as a participatory
process but an inner-administration affair in Germany.
                                                                                                       15



3.       The city case studies

3.1      Hannover

3.1.1    Context

General information

Hannover is the state capital of Lower Saxony, located in northern Germany. The core
population of the city is 517,310 (rank 11 of German cities)5 which merge with the 20 sur-
rounding municipalities to the Region of Hannover, achieving a total population of ap-
proximately 1.1 million. Hannover is the point of intersection of the main east-west and
north-south international traffic routes for rail and road. Four inland ports with railway
connections and warehouses at the Trans-German-Canal enable transport on waterways.
Hannover Airport is located at a distance of 11 km, connected by special motorway links
as well as a regional rapid transit line to Hannover Central Station and Trade Fair and Ex-
hibition Centre. In the past years, the number of passengers using Hannover airport has
increased significantly to over 4.4 million between January and October 2003.6 Hannover
hosted the EXPO 2000 which was a major event, and it tries to continue diverse projects in
its track.

The purchasing power potential of the city exceeds approx. € 9.1 billion with 67 % demand
coming from the city and 33 % from the environs. About 20 % of the economic product of
Lower Saxony is generated in the Region of Hannover. In the city itself, the annual gross
value added amounts to approx. € 20 billion, up to 75 % of which is accounted for by the
services sector, mainly higher education, research, insurance, banking, state government
and local administration, travel business, information and communications technology.
About 75% are employed in the service sector and 25 % of the employees are working in
the production industries. Many of them are working for the tour operator TUI which is
located in Hannover.7 In the field of research and development the Hannover Medical
School (University) as well as biomedical laboratories in a specially created "Medical
Park" play a very active role. Hannover is said to be one of the most important venues for
international trade fairs and exhibitions as also for worldwide congresses and conventions.8
CeBIT Hannover, the World Centre of Office Information and Telecommunications Tech-
nology takes place in March every year. The Hannover Fair each year in April is the
world’s biggest and most important industrial fair for capital goods. Besides these top fairs
there are several international and national fairs taking place throughout the year. The in-
ternational fairs have an important influence on the local economy, especially tourism ef-
fects (travel, accommodation, catering, trade and entertainment). The exhibitions are con-
ducted and maintained by the Deutsche Messe AG, which is partly owned by the city and
the government of Lower Saxony.


5       Among these there are 15% foreigners.
6       For comparison: In the same period of the previous year, about 4.2 million passangers were counted
        which is rise of 5%.
7       TUI is the world’s biggest tourism corporate group with about 70,000 employees and a turnover of
        about € 20 billion in 2002. Corporate headquarters are situated in Hannover.
8       Due to the EXPO 2000 the capacity had even been enlarged, now exceeding 1 million square metres,
        about 30 % space are exhibition halls.
                                                                                                       16

The local industry can be defined as mostly conglomerate. It comprises e.g. car production
(Volkswagen), rubber processing (Continental), chemicals and pharmaceuticals, energy
supply, biscuits (Bahlsen), batteries (Varta), electrical engineering, brake systems, earth-
moving equipment, brewing and conveyor technology.

The total of employed persons in the City of Hannover is 280,211. GDP per head was
€ 40,811 in 1998, the average personal gross income was € 30,963 in 2000, nearly the
same as the average personal gross income in Germany (€ 31,391 in 2000).

The total number of social benefit recipients amounts to 37,159, which is about 7.2% of all
inhabitants (31.12.2000).9 The rate of unemployment in the city was 12.9%, exceeding the
Lower Saxony average of 9.2% and the federal average of 9.8% (yearly averages of 2002
each), which means that 35,237 persons in the city of Hannover willing to work are with-
out employment and registered at the employment office.10


The municipal authority

The overall level of decentralisation is rather high, since the municipal code of Lower
Saxony declares the municipalities as the general agencies of public administration at the
local level (as is the case in all other German states). In spite of the high number of various
regulations made by the federal and state parliament, there is distinct autonomy for the city
in the design of their own policies. In fact, the cities “provide public services for their citi-
zens and govern the development of the immediate living environment for delimited spaces
by assigning certain functions/utilisation and the provision of an adequate infrastructure”
(Naßmacher/Naßmacher 1999: 93, translation by the authors). This broad definition is sub-
stantiated by the following list of tasks. The city of Hannover therefore provides

       •    technical services (water and energy supply, public transport, the sewage sys-
            tem, waste disposal, street lighting and cleaning,
       •    cultural facilities (schools, adult education, public libraries, theaters, museums),
       •    social services (old people’s homes, childcare, healthcare and sport, facilities
            and hospitals),
       •    public building activities (street construction, funding of public housing, city
            and traffic planning) and
       •    public order (fire departments, police, citizens’ registration).

for their citizens (see Naßmacher/Naßmacher 1999: 147). Until 2001, the city has had the
status of a “county exempt city” (“kreisfreie Stadt”), meaning that Hannover also had the
duties of a county, e.g. being the lower part of the state administration (von der
Heide 1999: 129).

The city's revenues are projected to achieve a total volume of € 1.48 billion in 2003.11 This
amount is composed of two taxes where the assessment rate is locally fixed by the munici-

9     State benefit is recognized as an additional payment for cost of living. Payments for applicants for
      asylum and other types of welfare are not included in this statistic.
10    Among them there are 13,785 women, 21,452 men, 10,701 foreigners, 12,648 long term unemployed
      persons, and 963 disabled persons; 5,217 aged 55 or older, 3,097 are under 25 while 414 unemployed
      are under 20.
11    Since the 2003 budget is not closed yet, this numbers were calculated in the middle of 2003, so that
      the actual budget result can differ.
                                                                                                           17

pality., i.e. the property tax (€ 121 million in 2003) and the business tax (€ 324 million in
2003). As every German city, Hannover also gets a part of the sales tax and the income tax,
which are both raised by the federal state. Hannover’s part of the sales tax was about € 38
million in 2003; in the same year, the city’s share of the income tax was about € 136 mil-
lion. Together with other taxes, the tax income of the city was € 625 million in 2003. Also,
the city obtains grants from upper levels of government, especially the state of Lower
Saxony: In 2003, general grants from the state were € 80 million. The other revenues are
compromising income from administrations (e.g. fees for public services like issuing of
passports etc.), rents, leaseholds, etc.


                                  Table 1 - City revenues (in € million)
                                     200312               2002                  2001              2000
property tax                                  121                 119                   116               116
business tax                                  324                 264                   232               307
part of sales tax                              38                  37                    37                37
part of income tax                            136                 138                   135               142
other taxes                                     6                   5                     6                 5
general grants from the state                  80                  90                   131               114

                                         Source: City of Hannover


The city's total expenditures without investments amounted 1.83 billion in 2003. Of this
sum the amount of € 655 million (36%) had been spent on social security contributions and
€ 641 were spent for financial services (loans, reserves and taxes). Altogether, Hannover is
expected to have a budget deficit of nearly € 130 million in 2004 and then would be in
debts with € 1,32 billion (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003e).


                                   Table 2 – Public debts per head (€)
                                               2003              2002            2001            2000
City of Hannover                                                        1,351            1,325           1,703
State of Lower Saxony13                                 5,417           5,020            4,645           4,307
Federal Republic of Germany14                           9,200           8,723            8,469           8,708

         Source: city of Hannover, ministry of finance of Lower Saxony, federal ministry of finance


In the last years, the debts per head increased in the federal state, the state of Lower
Saxony and the city of Hannover. In 2004, the city is expected to produce a record debt per
head of € 2.259 due to decreasing tax income and increasing spendings. This financial
frame is dramatically tigheting the city’s scope on investments and the design of local poli-
cies.

The financial situation of the city also seems to be the most important problem for Han-
nover in the eyes of its citizens. In the 2002 citizen survey, 33% of the responders named
the financial situation as a “big problem”, so that this issue had even more votes than the

12    Estimated values for 2003.
13    Only debts connected to the state budget, not including debts of cities, regions and other sub-levels.
14    Only debts connected to the federal budget, not including debts of lower levels of government. Becau-
      se final information for 2003 is not yet accessible, the 2003 federal state debts were projected from the
      preliminary overall debt projection by the federal ministry of finance and the number of population
      projected by the federal statistics agency.
                                                                                                                                                                                       18

    issue of unemployment (24%), crime rate (14%) or other important troubles (Lande-
    shauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 14). EU funding is allocated by participating in numerous
    projects funded or co-funded by the European Commission or other international financi-
    ers, e.g. “Hanoi towards the future”, “Aalborg+10”, Ecofroit, SIBAT etc., but since the EU
    funding is strictly related to the project, there is only an indirect financial impact of the
    European level on the city’s budget situation.

    The directly elected Lord Mayor is the head of the local administration as a whole and he
    is particularly responsible for the administration’s directorate I. Yet there are six chief offi-
    cers (directors of service), who are elected by the city council and who are independently
    responsible for their own directorates. The Lord Mayor is in full control of the city admini-
    stration’s allocation of duties (Hoffmann 2003: 178). That means that he can independently
    decide to shift units from one directorate to another. The current division of responsibilities
    is described in the figure below:


                                                           Figure 1 - Divisions of the city administration

                                                                                             Lord Mayor



   Directorate I                    Directorate II             Directorate III             Directorate IV               Directorate V         Directorate VI               Directorate VII
Herbert Schmalstieg                 Stephan Weil              Thomas Walter              Harald Böhlmann               Michael Karoff      Uta Boockhoff-Gries          Hans Mönninghoff
    Lord Mayor                  Finance, legal services   Youth and social services      Arts and education            Economic affairs      Construction and          Environmental services
                                   and public order                                                                                          civil engineering


  Lord Mayor's Office              Finance                    Social services             Museums and                  Economic affairs      Construction department      Building maintainance
                                                                                          arts office


  General management               Legal Services             Youth and family affairs    Libraries and schools        Hannover harbours     Planning and city            Environmental protection
  administrational                                                                                                                           development                  parks and greenspaces
  developement

  Office for central services      Fire brigade               Old peoples affairs         Training and qualification   Hannover Congress     construction                 Sewage and
                                                                                                                       Centrum                                            water treatment


  Office for personnel
  and organization


  Additional provision
  insurance


  Financial auditing




                                                                                Source: City of Hannover


    In 2000 about 11,674 employees formed the core city administration, including those who
    worked in semi-independent services with enterprise-type structure (sewage and water
    treatment, waste management, ports, congress centre and old people's homes).15 In addition
    about 5,000 persons are employed in the city's hospitals.16


    The political management system

    Since 1996 the Lord Mayor is elected directly by the citizenry for five years simultane-
    ously with the city council. He can be moved out of office if the majority of citizens vote
    for this option in a plebiscite, which can only be initiated by the council with a majority of
    three quarters of its members. Although according to the municipal code of Lower Saxony,
    the Lord Mayor may also be the chairman of the council, the present Lord Mayor of Han-

    15           Persons in training are not considered.
    16           Part of the core staff and the complete hospital staff passed to the administration of the Region of
                 Hannover at the end of 2002.
                                                                                                           19

nover is not.17 The Lord Mayor is not only member of the council and representative of all
citizens, but also the head of administration. Thus, the local government system in Lower
Saxony can be described as a mixture of the “strong-mayor” and the “committee-leader”
form and could thus be labelled “semi-strong mayor form”. On the one hand, the directly
elected mayor is “in full charge of all executive functions” (Mouritzen/Svara 2002: 55),18
but on the other hand, he is not directly controlling the council or the council majority,
because he is not the majority leader or even a party group leader. The Lord Mayor is also
dependent on the council in appointing the other chief officers.

In council elections every citizen has three votes which she/he can distribute among lists
and candidates. The electoral system can be considered as personalized and proportional.
In Lower Saxony the right to vote in local elections is obtained at the age of 16.

Since the end of world war II, the city has been dominated by the Social Democratic Party.
After the first municipal elections in 1946, the Social Democrats held an absolute majority
in the city council for 35 years. After the loss of the majority in the 1981 elections, an in-
formal coalition between SPD and CDU governed the city. The elections in 1986 resulted
in a “budget coalition” between SPD and the Green Party, which was turned into a formal
coalition after the 1991 election. Since then, this coalition has always occupied the major-
ity position in the council. The city seems to be identified with the Social Democrats (or
vice versa) to some extent, and the Lord Mayor is very popular.19 The Christian Democrats
have neither achieved to take over the Lord Mayor’s office nor to participate in a formal
coalition, and have been at odds with themselves for many years. In state or national elec-
tions the Christian Democrats also seldom gain one of the Hannover seats for the state or
federal parliament. Today, the Lord Mayor can rely on a rather strong majority in the
council, which holds 37 seats including the vote of the directly elected Lord Mayor against
28 oppositional seats (see table below). He has been in office for 32 years now. He had
held the rather representative function of the mayor/chair of council until 1996, being
elected by the council, and the strengthened position of the executive mayor from 1996 on,
being elected directly by the citizenry. He also is a member of his party’s local branch ex-
ecutive committee, which makes him one of the leaders of his local party branch.


17    This is for two reasons. First, the city wants to accentuate the honorary element of the council work by
      not choosing the Lord Mayor as council chairman. Second, the Lord Mayor is often intervening in the
      council debate with own statements, while the chairman is expected to be neutral all the time. For
      problems on accumulating both roles, see also Wollmann (2003b: 11).
18    Formally, the council has the right to overrule the Lord Mayor in terms of his everyday work („Rück-
      holrecht“), but the council normally does not use this prerogative.
19    During his last campaign, Lord Mayor Schmalstieg used election posters with his face and the words
      “the Hannoverian” on it, not mentioning his party or even his name. Due to his good election result of
      51% of the votes, Schmalstieg claims that “I am popular and that the population likes my style”.
      Schmalstieg was born in 1943 and educated “special merchant for savings banks” (“Sparkassen-
      kaufmann”). After joining the Young Socialists at the age of 18, he continuously got ahead in his par-
      ty and the city. In 1968, he was elected as council member; five years later he was elected chairman of
      the Social Democratic Party of Hannover. In 1972, Schmalstieg became Lord Mayor. Herbert Schmal-
      stieg was at the age of 29 when he was elected Lord Mayor. Although this seems very young for a
      Lord Mayor of a big city, there were several young Lord Mayors elected in the early 70s as part of a
      generation shift between the party officials which survived the Nazi regime and played a decisive role
      in German municipalities directly after the war and the young members of the party which came to
      power in the late 60s and early 70s. Some of played a decisive role in German politics later or are still
      playing the role, for example Oskar Lafontaine (elected as Lord Mayor of Saarbrücken at the age of
      31 in 1974, thereafter Prime Minister of the Saarland and federal minister of finance) and Hans Eichel
      (elected as Lord Mayor of Kassel at the age of 34 in 1975, thereafter Prime Minister of Hesse and cur-
      rent federal minister of finance).
                                                                                                    20

             Table 3 - Results of the local election in 2001 and party seats in city council

Party                                               % of votes in the            Seats in Council
                                                    2001 election
Social Democrats (SPD)20                            42.9                         29
Christian Democrats (CDU)                           33.2                         22
Green Party (DIE GRÜNEN)                            11.5                         7
Liberal Party (FDP)                                  5.9                         4
Free voters association (WfH)                        2.1                         1
Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS)                  2.1                         1

                                       Source: City of Hannover


Usually, all basic decisions are proposed by the city administration and the general pur-
poses committee. They have to be approved by the council which has got 14 standing
committees for detailed work, as for 1) city development and construction, 2) protection of
the environment and green spaces, 3) organisation and personnel, 4) social affairs, 5)
sports, 6) arts, 7) finance and auditing, 8) employment, economics and properties, 9) equal-
ity of men and women, 10) public harbours and congress center, 11) water and sewage
treatment, 12) schools, 13) youth services, 14) migration.

For local matters the city district council(s) of affected city districts can be involved
closely in the decision-making process. However, their decisions are not binding for the
city council or the administration and they do not control a budget of their own (like in the
Scandinavian cities). At least, they have to be heard in all “important cases affecting the
district” (Hoffmann 2003: 187). The members of a district council are directly elected by
the inhabitants of the corresponding district. Currently, there are 13 district councils with
19 resp. 21 members each, depending on the size of the district. In four districts, the SPD is
holding an own majority while in seven districts, there is a “red/green” majority similar to
the city council. In one district, the CDU is holding an own majority, and in another district
there is no clear majority.

Furthermore, certain decisions are taken by the general purposes committee which can be
regarded as the decisive link between city council and administration. Beside the Lord
Mayor (SPD), the council appoints ten councillors as voting members of the committee in
a proportional election procedure. Three of them are deputy mayors (one for SPD, CDU
and the Green Party each), the other seven members are called senior councillors
(“Beigeordnete”), where four are belonging to the SPD and three to the CDU. This means
that the “red-green” council coalition is also holding a majority of 7 out of 11 votes in the
general purposes committee. Besides that, the chief officers as directors of the administra-
tion’s divisions (“Stadträte”) are also members of the committee, but they are not allowed
to vote in decisions. It is the Lord Mayor’s prerogative to propose candidates for the chief
officers to the council which then can elect the candidate for an eight year termin or can
deny his/her appointment.




20    Including the Lord Mayor, the SPD holds 30 seats.
                                                                                                          21

Being the heads of the respective directorates of the city administration, they are consulta-
tory members of the general purposes committee.21

An additional council member of the FDP is also a non-voting member of the general pur-
poses committee to ensure that all four “big parties” are represented in the committee.

The structure of the four traditional parties (SPD, CDU, FDP, Green Party) are mirroring
the territorial structure of the city with an executive committee as most important organ of
each party, regular all-city party conventions which elect the executive committee and
nominate candidates for local elections, and district units which are politically working on
the city district level. According to the law the party groups in the council are acting inde-
pendently. Actually, however, the political party groups are closely linked to their local
party organizations due to the fact that parties nominate their favourite candidates for elec-
tions.

Hannover plays also an important role in national city networks. For example, Hannover is
a member of the cities’ association (“Städtetag”) of Lower Saxony and the parallel associa-
tion on the national level (where the Lord Mayor of Hannover is the associations’ vice
president), a member of the network of EXPO-affected cities and the initiative “metropoli-
tan regions in Germany”. Furthermore, the city is also a member of various cross-national
associations, e.g. the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the
Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), the “Climate Alliance of Euro-
pean Cities with Indigenous Rainforest Peoples” and holds the chair of the “European sus-
tainable cities and towns campaign” (see Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2002a).


Governance

The City of Hannover is part of the Region of Hannover founded in 2001. Since then, by
law Hannover and 20 surrounding cities are members of the region. The political situation
is comparable to the situation in the city: The directly elected regional assembly is domi-
nated by the Social Democrats and the Green Party22 with the directly elected president of
the region being also a Social Democrat. Since the formation of the Region of Hannover in
2001, obligatory and voluntary tasks were differently arranged between the city of Han-
nover, the other cities in the region and the region itself (see Arndt 2003 on institutional,
Weil 2003 on financial details).

The city’s relations to upper levels of government can be described according to the differ-
ent functions depending on the level of government. Since Hannover is the biggest city in
Lower Saxony and the capital of this German “Bundesland”, politics in Hannover are play-
ing a crucial role for state politics and for the recruitment field for political staff. At the
moment, Hannover is also more prominent because it is the home of the German chancel-
lor.


21    Among the current chief officers there are three members of the Social Democrats, one is a Christian
      Democrat, one is member of the Green Party and one is without party membership. Because it is a
      “red-green” coalition, one may wonder about the conservative officer. In Hannover, it is an accepted
      custom that the red-green (formerly: red-only) majority is electing an oppositional executive officer to
      integrate the opposition in executive decisions and the day-to-day work in the administration.
22    The majority is currently holding 45 seats (SPD 37, Greens 8), while the opposition is holding 39
      seats, of which the Conservative have 31, Liberals 5, “Republicans” (right-wing) 1, Party of democ-
      ratic Socialism 1, independent 1.
                                                                                                         22

Even for the federal state Hannover is important as “barometer” for the overall German
economic development because of the exhibitions and fairs organized in the city, espe-
cially connected to the “new economy”, but also medical research.


Public participation and community involvement

Voluntary citizen involvement has been a part of Hannover’s local political culture for
about 30 years and is still an important part of decision-making in the city. “Voluntary in-
volvement” means that the involvement procedures provided by the city are exceeding the
obligatory involvement procedures demanded by the federal and state laws in case of big
(re)construction projects. For example, in nearly all redevelopment areas, citizen involve-
ment is automatically taking place when discussing the development plans. These volun-
tary involvement procedures are mainly non-electoral participation mechanisms, as they
are based on deliberative processes or they include consensus-finding strategies. In certain
cases, consensus-finding strategies are resulting in decisions of citizens about specific
measures which are proposed to the city council by the administration for adoption.

The city of Hannover finances most of the work of the “citizens office for city develop-
ment” (“Bürgerbüro Stadtentwicklung”) which is independent from the city in terms of the
content of its work and its organisation. The office organises meetings to discuss problems
and projects of city development in Hannover, involving affected citizens, experts such as
architects, city planners, social advocates etc.

There is also a “network for citizen involvement” (“Netzwerk Bürgermitwirkung”) which
consists of eleven local institutions (like the Agenda21-office, the “citizens office for city
development” mentioned above, a citizen’s foundation etc.) The function of the network is
“to strengthen two-way information and communication of the institutions involved about
developments, topics and projects in the field of citizen involvement and to initiate specific
forms of cooperation […] to develop promote relevant topics” (Landeshauptstadt Han-
nover 2004).

Besides that, there are some official “advisory councils” for specific groups of citizens, for
example a council for elderly people (“Seniorenbeirat”), which is elected by the elderly
population of the city for representation. The former “advisory council for foreigners”,
which was directly elected by the foreign population in the city was transformed into a
standing migration committee of the council in 1997.

Election turnouts can also be used to describe the participation of citizens within and the
trust in the representative parliamentary system. Before 1976, the turnout in council elec-
tions always oscillated between 75% and 80%. The highest turnout ever was achieved in
1976, when over 90% of the voters cast their votes. Since then, the turnout in council elec-
tions shrunk step by step to only 48.1% in 2001. This can be seen as a dramatic decrease,
which mirrors other general indicators for a severe loss of trust in the institutions of local
government in Germany.23

The decrease of turnout at council elections is often seen as resulting in part from the in-
troduction of direct mayoral elections (presuming a kind of zero sum game between the
two elections), although final empirical evidence is not available for this causal relation-

23    In a survey among 356.000 German citizens only 33% of the participants had trust in their cities (Per-
      spektive Deutschland 2003: 2), but cities are still ranked better than the federal parliament (11%).
                                                                                                          23

ship. In any case, it has to be noticed that the turnout also decreased in the cases of elec-
tions for the regional assembly and for state, national and European parliaments, thus a
general loss of trust in representative institutions can be detected.


Urban leadership

As mentioned before, in 1996 a new municipal code was adopted by the Lower Saxonian
state parliament which abolished the “dual head” construction (honorary Lord Mayor as
political representative of the city and full-time chief executive officer as head of the ad-
ministration). Since then, the full-time Lord Mayor is elected directly by the citizens and is
balancing power with the city council; he is a strong mayor.24 Nevertheless, the Lord
Mayor is emphasizing the strong cooperation with the council coalition (“in thirty years of
being Lord Mayor, the council voted against my proposal only three times”). He is also the
head of the city administration and he is in full control of its allocation of duties (see
Hoffmann 2003: 178). On the other hand, the Lord Mayor is partly dependent on the gen-
eral purposes committee, which is nearly completely consisting of council members. It is
deciding questions which “do not have to be adopted by the council or the district councils
and are not fitting the competencies of the mayor” (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003a: 1,
translation by the authors), and thus serve as a body for coordination between the Lord
Mayor, the city council and the elective officers. In fact, the Lord Mayor is also a member
of the city council.

Finally, the Lord Mayor is also dependent on the council coalition. Since the local election
system bases on proportional principles, in most cases coalitions have to be built. Without
having an agreement with the council majority, it is difficult for the Lord Mayor to get his
annual budget adopted. In Hannover, the council coalition and the Lord Mayor’s party
membership fit together, but it is still a struggle for the Lord Mayor to cope with the coun-
cil majority.
Since the reform of the municipal code in 1996, citizen petitions for referendums (“Bür-
gerbegehren”) and local referendums (“Bürgerentscheid”) were implemented, so that the
citizenry is now able to make binding decisions (see Hoffmann 2003: 188). Voluntary citi-
zen surveys (informal referendums) without binding decisions have been instruments to
ask for citizens’ opinion without electing a new council. They also have to be scrutinized
critically because of their effects on the Lord Mayor-council relationship. If the Lord
Mayor cannot count on an own majority in the council with respect to a certain topic, he
may be tempted to conduct a survey to enforce his claims for an adoption of his proposal
by the council, so that informal survey may be “abused” by the Lord Mayor as an instru-
ment of dominion. After the reform of municipal law, citizens now can conduct referen-
dums on their own under certain conditions (Hoffmann 2003: 187). However, neither a
citizens’ petition nor a citizens’ referendum was conducted in the city of Hannover until
now.

According to the PLUS survey, the democratic leaders should act on the basis of consulta-
tions with different parts of the local society (average of 5.6 points on a 1-7 point scale)
rather than pursue their personal idea of the city’s future. The leaders are identified as rep-

24    The German PLUS team managed to conduct a "participating observation" of the Lord Mayor. The
      author had the opportunity to follow the Lord Mayor for one day to get impressions about what’s on a
      Lord Mayor’s everday agenda. In a PLUS interview, the Lord Mayor stated that “the concentration on
      administrational tasks leads to the necessity, that the Lord Mayor is taking the initiative […] Of cour-
      se, this is displeasing the own party faction and the council as a whole.”
                                                                                            24

resentatives of the city as a whole and not as representatives of the majority in the city (5.3
points). Thus, leaders are expected to be consensual facilitators instead of consequently
executing the majority’s will (5.0 points). As a result of these expectations, the leader
should not focus on his task as head of administration. He/she should work for the con-
struction of local partnerships and networks instead of focusing his role as leader of the
city administration (2.8 points). Finally, the leader is expected to take over the task of mo-
bilising support and resources from the local community for implementation instead of
implementing local policies with the administration as his instrument (5.2 points).
Looking at different dimensions of the leader’s legitimation, there are also clear results in
the general panel of the PLUS survey in Hannover. It is important for the panel members
that democratic leaders are solving problems efficiently (4.4 points on a 5-point scale).
Also, transparency and accountability are important for democratic leaders (4.5 points).
The right for direct particiaption of citizens is seen slightly affirmative only (4.0 points).


Local policies on social inclusion

By law, German municipalities are playing an important role in social policy. Amongst
other things, that means providing social assistance, generally social security, localized
administration of housing policy etc. German municipalities are the “last safety net” in the
security system, that means that in the worst case the city will care for its inhabitants. For
accomplishing these duties, the city is bound to certain regulations (social security laws,
housing policy funding regulations etc.), but is free to set up its own policy within this
framework. For example, housing units constructed by using public money in principle
may only given be to social aid recipients (“assignment commitment”), but the cities are
free to trade this assignments, e.g. by giving the newly built units to wealthier persons and
moving social aid recipients into units in other quarters. Especially in housing policy, the
municipalities’ right to have their own land use plan is very important for the city’s auton-
omy, but is also important for transport planning, childcare, schools etc. Of course, the
city’s authority in planning again is framed by federal and state laws and regional devel-
opment procedures (“Raumordnungsverfahren”).


Local policies on economic competitiveness.

Business development is a voluntary task of German municipalities. Since the budgets are
very low, attracting new businesses is an instrument of fundraising in respect of local busi-
ness taxes, since the municipalities are benefiting from rising economic action in their lo-
calities. Therefore, attracting new local businesses is also a term of inter-regional competi-
tion for financially strong enterprises. Moreover, an innovative and successful business
development initiative is not only interesting for cities in respect of the city’s budget, but
also for providing employment capacities for its inhabitants. The aim of local business de-
velopment is to “strengthen the competitiveness of the respective […] localities”
(Grabow/Henckel 1999: 616).


Traits in national and local political culture that influence how the selected case-
studies are handled

The relations between the city and supreme levels of government in connection with the
social inclusion initiative can be described as focused on the funding of the housebuilding
                                                                                            25

programs by the federal and national state. This is mainly determined by the power levels
defined by the structure of Germany’s political system. The social inclusion case in Han-
nover is a typical example for a social inclusion policy developed and implemented in a
complex multi-level system. While the EXPO was only "a federal event in Hannover”, thus
basing on a German (federal) application with a (formal) support of the city, the structural
components of the initiatives were formed by existing national funding schemes for house-
building and traffic on the one hand, and the local planning authorities on the other hand.
Necessities of multi-level cooperation and the difficult budget situation at all state levels
forces the actors to cooperate closely.

In the economic competitiveness case (Hannover Impuls), analysis of local-central gov-
ernment relations is focusing on the financing of the project, which was initiated by the
state government by financing a study about the economy in the city and the region.

The political patterns in Hannover correspond to the more general ones prevailing in the
state of Lower Saxony which can be described as a moderate form of competitive democ-
racy whereas in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (where our other case study city, Heidel-
berg, is situated) a more consensual mode of policy making has been observed (see Holt-
kamp 2003: 28, on party polarisation see Wollmann 2003b: 20). For example, in Lower
Saxony the mayor in general attaches more importance on implementing his party’s pro-
gramme than in Baden-Wuerttemberg (see Haus/Heinelt 2002: 119, see also section 3.2).
Also, the number of mayors without party membership is relatively high in Baden-
Wuerttemberg (45%), whereas in Lower Saxony only 25% of the mayors are non-
partisan.25 Additionally, the share of party members in the two states in general is very dif-
ferent; in Baden-Wuerttemberg, only 1.7% of all citizens over 16 years are party members,
in Lower Saxony, the party membership is higher than 2.9% (Holtkamp 2003: 21). It can
be assumed that the different municipal codes in the states cause this differences in the
political patterns (see Bogumil/Holtkamp 2002: 13). As already mentioned, Lower Saxony
changed its municipal code in 1996.

In general, the city of Hannover has set up good working relations with many local actors
and institutions. In the frame of a “politics of dialogue”, many stakeholders, interest groups
and organisations from the civil society are meeting political leaders in forums and “round
tables”. Also networks with economic partners have been established, mainly on the basis
of private connections between political and economic leaders. The cooperation between
the city administration and local organizations tends to be strong, the cooperation with
economic actors seems to be balanced, taking the responses of the PLUS survey (for de-
tailed results, see section 6.1). The trust in the city authorities seems to be balanced, ac-
cording to the questionnaire responders. Moreover, local state-society relations in Han-
nover can be described as well-developed according to the PLUS survey results.
Also, citizens tend to be satisfied with the work of the city’s administration. In the 2002
citizen survey of the city, 55% of the responders stated that there were “very satisfied” or
“satisfied” with the city administration. Only 9% were “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied”
(Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 51). Also, most citizens are satisfied with their per-
sonal quality of life – about 83% of the survey responders state that they are at least “satis-
fied” with their living conditions (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 13).

In the PLUS survey the general panel also stated that citizens should be actively involved
in the decision-making (average of 5.6 points on a 1-7 point scale). Three quarters of the


25    German results of the “Political leaders in European cities” project.
                                                                                            26

responders believe that is is an important task of the leader to ensure that there is citizen
involvement (4.0 points). Furthermore, citizens are not only welcome to take part in the
decision making, but also in the implementation stage. Their participation should ensure a
broad consensus in the city, but the concerns of the city as a whole should also be consid-
ered. A broad consensus and caring for the city’s concerns instead of seeking for a strategic
majority and representing their own concerns was chosen as the better way by the general
panel (averages of 4.7 resp 5.1 points).

The involvement of citizens is connected to three important expectations of the general
panel. First of all, citizens should help solving problems by bringing in own resources (4.2
points on a 1-5 point scale). Second, citizens are expected to inform themselves about local
policies and to make decision-makers accountable for them (4.3 points). Finally, citizens
should actively participate in decision-making processes (4.3 points).

Regarding the role of the business community, the results of the PLUS survey are pointing
to the same direction, but not as that clear as in the citizen-related questions. Instead of
keeping the traditional business role as commercial actors, business actors should be ac-
tively involved in local agenda-setting and should participate in local decision-making (5.2
point on a 1-7 point scale). The business community should also be involved in the imple-
mentation of decisions, once they are made instead of just paying their taxes and abstain
from further participation (5.9 points). The business actors are also expected to go after a
consensus instead of seeking a strategic majority for their views (4.8 points). Finally, the
general panel thinks that companies should take the interests of the whole city into account
instead of attending only their own interests (4.9 points).

The involvement of business actors is connected three important expectations of the gen-
eral panel. First of all, it seems important to the panel that the local economy is bringing in
its resources to solve local problems (4.2 points on a 1-5 point scale). Second, local com-
panies are expected to inform themselves about local policies and make the decision-
makers accountable for them (4.2 points). Finally, the business community should actively
participate in the decision-making process (3.7 points).
                                                                                                                  27


3.1.2     Building Kronsberg. Achieving social inclusion through citizen participation in a
          new city quarter


Description of the initiative

In 1988, the German federal government applied as the venue of the World Exposition
(EXPO), which in the end led to the policy initiative discussed here, the Kronsberg proc-
ess. By his own party the Lord Mayor of Hannover, Schmalstieg, was forced to agree to a
massive investment program on housing, because the EXPO was expected to cause a tight-
ening in the city’s housing situation (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 1999: 6). The City of
Hannover planned the construction of a completely new city quarter on a hill in the east of
the urban area,26 close to the spaces of Hannover Exhibition where the EXPO was expected
to take place: The Kronsberg quarter.27 The new Kronsberg settlement was planned as a
"sustainable quarter" and designed as "an example for the world to follow" (Johaent-
ges/Holtz 2000: 8, translation by the authors) and thus being a part of the EXPO as “open
air exhibit” (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2000a: 40).28

Social inclusion should be achieved through citizen involvement during the construction
(implementation) stage. The main goal was to prevent mistakes linked to the development
of new city quarters in the 1970s, where the last big housing blocks in Hannover were built
for social purposes. They quickly turned into social focuses, because the apartments were
mainly rented to foreigners, social aid recipients and unemployed persons. At Kronsberg,
these negative implications of social housing should be prevented.

The substance of the Kronsberg initiative can be typologised as distributive policy. The
core of the initiative is that the State of Lower Saxony and the federal government spent
about € 180 million in investment aids for the construction; the city only spent a few mil-
lions. The money was taken from general national and state housing programs combined
with additional EXPO funding. At the same time, rules for the general programs were
partly set out of force, so that funding could be easier accessed by potential Kronsberg in-
vestors. Because the construction was state-supported, it was a legal obligation for the city
to keep most of the houses free for socially underprivileged people as council houses
("Sozialbindungsverpflichtung").29 To avoid the formation of social ghettos, the City of
Hannover and Lower Saxony decided to set up four programs to get a "healthy renter mix-
ture" in the Kronsberg apartments. The possible maximum income for a flat renter was
raised between 20% and 100%, so that nearly all Hannover citizens were allowed to live in
one of the Kronsberg apartments which were constructed using social house building
funds:

26      There were numerous plans for building a new city quarter on this hill since the early 60s, but the city
        funds usually did not allow this expenditure each time it was discussed. Actors pointed out that it was
        mainly a problem of the decision situation: When the housing market was tightening, a discussion
        started whether to build a new quarter or not. When the plans were becoming more precise, the shor-
        tage on the housing market had ended and a decision for building houses seemed obsolete. From this
        view, it seems that the city may have used the EXPO 2000 to bring a long-planned project to success.
27      Kronsberg is the name as well for the hill, as for the city quarter on it and its three statistical districts.
28      The new quarter had to be built according to modern ecological standards, completed by schools,
        childcare facilities, an industrial park, and modern ecological components including organic farming
        and food processing, integrated water and soil management, waste avoidance and seperation, energy-
        saving, wind power generators, low-energy houses, a "solar city", car sharing points etc. There were
        also special routines for building apartments suitable for wheelchairs.
29      Some of the apartments built were middle and upper class apartments. The aim was to avoid a "social
        focus" in the city and to attract also people with a better financial background.
                                                                                                          28



•    Program 1 included 468 apartments with the obligation to keep them free for social
     housing. These were firstly rented only to EXPO workers. While these apartments were
     EXPO apartments, they could be rented to people who did not exceed the maximum
     income by more than 20%.30 This special Hannover rule was prolonged in 2002, start-
     ing an interim arrangement which now allowed that the apartment renters may exceed
     the maximum income by up to 60%. In the meantime, this interim arrangement again
     has been prolonged for two more years.
•    Program 2 was the same as Program 1, including 594 apartments. The difference was
     the missing obligation to keep the apartments free for social housing, there were no al-
     location rights ("Belegrechte") for the city. Because of this, overrunning the maximum
     income was allowed up to 60% from the first day.
•    Program 3 included 276 apartments and program 4 included 1,340 apartments. Both
     programs were running under the same conditions. Additionally, the first renters of the
     apartments may overrun the maximum income by up to 100%. From the second rent-
     ers, not more than half of the apartments may be rented to people exceeding the maxi-
     mum income by more than 20%. But there are also special rules for the second and fol-
     lowing rental treaties. If 60% of the apartments in a house which was built according to
     the federal house building act were assigned to underprivilesged people, the rest of the
     apartments could be rent out without proofing the new renters income.31

The goals of the project were

•    to relieve the local housing market,
•    to prevent the forming of "social ghettos” (by inclusion/integration),
•    to support the "building of neighbourhoods” and forming a quarter identity ( social
     capital),
•    to connect the construction to the EXPO theme ("man – nature – technique") and thus
     build an ecological, sustainable city quarter,
•    to use the EXPO as "carrier rocket" for city development32 and
•    to cause a local boom in the construction industry.33

Therefore, the policy challenge can be described as complex.

The main procedural challenge defined by the City of Hannover was to activate the citi-
zens of the neighbouring city quarters of Bemerode and Wülferode and the future citizens
in the implementation stage by consultation, information and agreement between the ad-
ministration and the citizens involved. Since the opportunities for involvement described
here were voluntarily offered by the city, it was fully designable by the city itself. Com-
munity involvement took place in five different kinds.

•    The “planning consultant” was installed in Kronsberg within a package decision of the
     city council about “advanced citizen involvement” in 1995. His duty was to activate

30     The Federal Housing Act ("Wohnungsförderungsgesetz") and the Federal Housebuilding Act allow
       local authorities to set this percentage on their own.
31     For special restrictions and additional funding through other pools, see Landeshauptstadt Han-
       nover 1997.
32     For a systematic critic on city development by big events see Häußermann/Siebel 1993.
33     The actors which were participating in the PLUS survey did mention all the aims listed above except
       the last one. It seems that the boom in the local construction industry was expected in-line with a ge-
       neral EXPO boom (“Sonderkonjunktur”).
                                                                                                            29

     community involvement and to ensure the participation of the citizens by having pres-
     ence times in an interim office at Kronsberg and solving everyday problems in the con-
     struction phase.34 He organized meetings with citizens and the city administration to
     discuss open questions of construction and organisation and to inform about new de-
     velopments or changes in the implementation. The planning consultant was paid by the
     city in the frame of a service contract, that means that the planning consultant was no
     member of the city administration. Although he took part in the task force sessions, no
     instruction could be issued to him by the city, not even by the Lord Mayor. This inde-
     pendence from the city was the essential point of initiating citizen involvement without
     being identified with the bureaucracy .35
•    A “city quarter coordinator” was installed by the city who should work as a “short offi-
     cial channel” to the city administration, a "contact person for up-to-date questions
     about plans and their realization in the mentioned quarters, including forwarding citi-
     zen’s questions on the forthgoing construction process to competent partners etc."
     (Joppke 1996: 9).
•    A “district forum” for Kronsberg was founded with the help of the planning consultant.
     A district forum is a continuous meeting of city quarter’s citizens and citizen initiatives
     and the members of the district council. About 25-70 citizens took part in the district
     forum’s sessions in 1996. The forum discussed some important measures connected to
     Kronsberg, e.g. the capacities of child care facilities, the impact of the EXPO 2000 and,
     the most important topic, traffic problems expected in connection with the construction
     works.
•    Several “round tables” were installed by the planning consultant for those problems
     which were not directly connected to the planning consultant’s mandate.
•    A semi-public agency (KuKA) was founded as contact point for the new Kronsberg
     inhabitants, mostly concerning the usage of the innovative technologies provided
     within the construction (“passive” or “low-energy” houses). It also brought together ar-
     chitects, investors and inhabitants as mediator and handled problems of first-time users.
•    Today’s city activities in Kronsberg are mainly handling the consequences from the
     constructive phase. Community Work ("Gemeinwesenarbeit") deals with daily, mainly
     social, issues. A community worker is part of the integrated office at Kronsberg, Kro-
     KuS (Kronsberg City Quarter Agency). In this office, four clerks, each from another
     city administration division, work together. Together they form an "integrated office"
     that deals on short channels to the city administration and that helps the citizens of the
     Kronsberg quarter to solve their problems. The KroKuS is also used as meeting point
     for citizen groups and cultural events.
•    Several small projects with additional community involvement were carried out by the
     investment companies. For example, the biggest housing company in Hannover (GBH)
     organized “self-occupation” events where the tenants and owners of the apartments to-
     be had the possibility to get to know each other (see IWS 1999). The renters also de-
     cided, who should live in which apartment in a discussion processes, which strength-
     ened the togetherness of the neighbours and which enforced social inclusion. Some of
     the people involved later formed an association of GBH tenants in Kronsberg to repre-
     sent the tenants in future negotations with the GBH.
•    A district magazine (“Kronsberg Nachrichten”) was paid by the city to inform the in-
     habitants of new developments and possibilities of involvement. Even if the city does



34     The appointment of planning consultants is not a new instrument for Hannover. In several city quar-
       ters with problems regarding infrastructure, social affairs etc a planning consultant has been installed.
35     For more about the planning consultant, see Joppke/Kuklinski 1997.
                                                                                            30

     not pay money for the magazine any more, some Kronsberg inhabitants still keep it
     alive as private electronic resource.

The cooperation with resource-controlling actors should have been achieved by detailed
and consecutive talks with the heads of the city and the state government. They and the
investment companies were in control of the resources which were needed to implement
the initiative.

To be successful, the initiative had to be institutionally designed as an open, flexible and at
least as a partially durable project. Openness was needed for community involvement to
take place; acceptance of the neighbouring and future citizens was expected to rise by
keeping all involvement procedures open for interested people. Furthermore, the institu-
tions created had to be flexible, because most of the challenged tasks were expected to be
solved in short-time perspective by institutions created for single purposes. In addition,
there should be the possibility for long-time institutions taking care of the project as a
whole, and so the institution-building process also had to take care for durable institutions,
keeping up the process of social inclusion.


Institutional analysis

Employing the Ostrom model, the process in the Kronsberg is covered by six arenas. Their
order and functions are described in the figure below.

In most arenas, rules were mostly “smooth rules”. Only in the third arena which covered
council decisions, rules were mostly formal as it was a formal process in a local “parlia-
mentary” body. The origins of the rules can be clearly identified. The rules in arena three
were set by the municipal code. In arena one and four the rules were partly set by the
framework of national laws concerning housing policy. In the other arenas, locally de-
signed rules were used. In all arenas, rules were found to be stable through the process.

The first arena covered the preliminary decision of taking the EXPO to Hannover in the
years 1987-1991. In this arena, the Lord Mayor of Hannover and the Lower Saxonian sec-
retary of economy Birgit Breuel36 were the initiating actors. As these talks had a rather
private (or informal) nature, both actors were actors in the arena because of their office -
and no other actors were allowed to join. Since the EXPO decision is mainly an economic
decision for the state government (expected state grants for the city, infrastructural pro-
grammes etc.) and all EXPO detail decisions were also concerning the city (planning,
housing, traffic, etc.), two administrative heads met to discuss a general political pro-
gramme connected to administrative tasks. Of course, both actors were free in the expres-
sion of their opinion. The result of the talks was not to be publicised before the question of
overall funding for the EXPO was adequately solved. Anyway, both partners were equita-
ble in negotiating the overall project, because they were dependent on each other in having
success – surely a consensual arena. If one of the partners would not have agreed in taking
the EXPO to Hannover before, the meeting would not have taken place; the decision could
only have been taken unanimously. The scope of the arena was an informal agreement of
the Lord Mayor and the secretary of economy whether Hannover should apply for the
EXPO or not and if the city would apply, if the state government would be in favour of it
or not. At this stage, there was no codification of the agreement; this was adjourned to later


36    Birgit Breuel became president of the EXPO 2000 later.
                                                                                                             31

stages. The pay-off connected to the scope were shared between the city and the state of
Lower Saxony, but it was decided that most investment measures (housing, traffic infra-
structure etc.) should be framed by national or state programmes, so that the state (together
with the federal government) would have to pay much more than the city.


                                    Figure 2 – Arenas in the Kronsberg process

         semi-external sphere                      involvement sphere                 political sphere


                  1)                          2a)                        2b)                 3)
     Taking the EXPO to Hannover              gaining acceptance in the city:    giving shape to the EXPO:
                                          citizen survey             council        framework decisions



                   4)
      Dealing for investment pro-
               grammes


                                                           5)
                                                    Implementation
                                                   constructive stage



                                                           6)
                                                    Implementation
                                                 Post-constructive stage

                                             Source: own composition


Because of the following broad public debate on whether the city should apply for the
EXPO or not, the council coalition broke apart, leaving SPD and the Green party without
political partners. After the next local elections, these two parties agreed on a new coalition
treaty leaving aside the EXPO topic. Because the coalition was not able to agree on a
common basis referring to the EXPO, it was decided to conduct a citizen survey
(Ibert 1998: 292). 37

Arena two covered the citizen survey and the basic council decision about the EXPO. Thus
the arena best could be described as split arena.
In arena 2a the position rules described all inhabitants of the city (citizens) as participants
in the arena. Since the citizen survey was an informal survey only, the boundaries could
have been defined by the city herself. The city decided to send postcards to all people who
registered as living in Hannover and were at least 18 years old. That means that, for exam-
ple, also non-EU foreigners were allowed to take part in the survey, although they usually
are nto allowed to vote in regular local elections and to take part in legally binding local
referenda. If citizens wanted to take part in the survey, they had to chose “yes” or “no” on
the postcard and had to send it back to the town hall for free.38 Thus, every citizen was free
in his choice and the “one person, one vote” principle was upheld. Naturally, the survey
only had fixed answers which could not be altered by the participants, so that it was not
possible for the citizens to express their will exactly (e.g. in favour of the EXPO, but four

37    Note that this citizen survey is not an official one like mentioned in the new municipality code of
      Lower Saxony (see Hoffmann 2003: 188). This locally designed plebiscitary instrument was made
      part of the law in 1996, but the EXPO survey took place in 1992.
38    The exact question was “Are you in favour of the world exposition takign place in Hannover in the
      year 2000?”.
                                                                                           32

years later). In general, information rules said that all information connected to the EXPO
project should be open for everybody so that citizen were able to inform about the project
and its expected impacts. Also, on the voting postcard, the a dualistic preliminary para-
graph to the question was formulated (“the EXPO could have positive effects like …, but it
is argued that it could also contain risks like …”). The scope of the arena was an unbinding
statement of the citizens on the survey question which was the driving force for the deci-
sion in arena 2b (see below). If the majority of citizens voted “yes”, the EXPO application
should have been made, if the majority voted “no”, the application would not have been
made; so the simple majority within the citizenry made the basic decision about the initia-
tive (aggregation rule). Internal pay-offs (postcards, stamps, counting the votes etc.) were
paid by the city, since the city conducted the survey among its citizenry. External pay-offs
(cost for the EXPO) were defined later just like the pay-offs in arena one.

Arena 2b covered the decision in the city council, where the councillors were holding the
positions of decision-makers. Also, the Lord Mayor and the executive officers took part in
the session, consulting the council members. The boundary rules were preset by the mu-
nicipality code and the last local elections. All actors named here have the right to express
their opinion in the meetings of the city council, but only the council members (including
the Lord Mayor) had the right to cast their votes in decisions. Since the city council de-
cided to “repeat the vote”, aggregation rules could be considered the following: The result
of the citizen survey formally was a kind of "test for the citizens mood”. Because the city
council wanted to legitimise the survey result, an overwhelming majority adopted the pro-
posal about the EXPO application. However, to adopt the proposal, only a simple majority
was needed. Thus, the survey had a factually binding effect on the council decision. Infor-
mation rules said that every council member should have free access to all information
connected to the EXPO application, especially to the plans of the administration. The
scope of the arena was a formal decision of the city council which was binding for the
work of the city administration. The internal cost (reimbursements of councillors, room
etc.) was paid by the city. External pay-offs were adjourned by the council to later deci-
sions, because the single measures in the frame of the EXPO applications were decided in
other sessions (see arena three below).

In the third arena, the result of the citizen survey from arena two was transformed into a
number of single decisions by the city council. Actors in the arena were the councillors,
who were elected by the citizens in regular local elections, the Lord Mayor, who was di-
rectly elected by the citizenry and the executive officers, which were elected by the council
after a proposal by the Lord Mayor. All actors named here had the right to express their
opinion in the meetings of the city council, but only the council members (including the
Lord Mayor) had the right to cast their votes in decisions, thus having the position of deci-
sion makers. The scope of the arena were the mentioned decisions on the land use plan,
infrastructural measures and the overall statement that the city council is in favour of a new
quarter in the Kronsberg area. As all major parties agreed on the project, there were no
certain partisan sub-arenas to describe. The decisions all had to be made with the simple
majority of the councillors present in the council meeting; the majority was reached in all
decisions since nearly all parties in the council agreed with the proposal of the Lord
Mayor. Before the voting, the council discussed the topic based upon the information the
councillors had. It seemed to be that the party group leaders and the party spokesmen for
social and/or housing affairs did have a greater knowledge of the initiative and the con-
nected topics than the other actors, but information could have been easily obtained by the
other councillor by simply asking their leaders or requesting information in the council
meeting. As council meetings can only be closed if a certain majority decides so, the meet-
                                                                                                       33

ing was public to all citizens.39 The internal cost (reimbursements of councillors, room etc.)
was beared by the city. The external pay-offs should also be paid by the city, but the city
council and the Lord Mayor agreed on using state and federal funds extensively wherever
it would be possible.

The fourth arena was the main arena for the funding of the housing units to be built. Par-
ticipating actors were the Lord Mayor as representative of the city and the investors as
recipients of the planned housing programme. Also, the Prime Minister of Lower Saxony
as main financier of the housing programme40 and mediator between the conflicting par-
ties, members of the city’s housing administration and the housing devision of the Lower
Saxonian ministry of social affairs41 as administrative experts were actors in the arena.
Since the negotiations between the city administration, the state housing division and the
investors had failed a number of times before, the heads of administrations, the Lord
Mayor and the State Prime Minister, at last negotiated a suitable programme with the in-
vestors. Boundary rules allowed these actors to be members of the arena, for other actors
the arena was not accessible. The authority rules guaranteed equal rights to express one’s
opinion for all actors involved. Especially investors expressed their absolute conditions for
investing their money in the new city quarter. In a way, Hannover and Lower Saxony were
bound to fulfil the conditions if the quarter should not be built with public funding only,
which would be impossible looking at the current budgets of both city and state. Informa-
tion rules should have equal information about the cities housing market and related infor-
mation. Due to the strong interdependency, the mode of decision making was clearly non-
majoritarian. All actors knew that they had to find a compromise if the Kronsberg quarter
was to be built. The scope of the arena was an informal agreement between the city, the
state and the investors. The city promised to offer land at the Kronsberg to the investors for
suitable prices. The state promised to give a loan to the investors without interest so that
they could more easily build the housing and to ensure easy renting conditions for the in-
vestors. The investors stated that they would start to construct in the next month and that
they would fulfil certain conditions related to the social mixture of renters. As for internal
pay-offs, each actor paid for himself. The external pay-offs were distributed as stated
above. Additionally, the federal state had to pay a part of the house building cost because
the other actors agreed on building some of the houses in the frame of a national housing
programme.

Arena five is one of the two arenas where community involvement took place. The position
rules were defined by the participation framework set up by the administration and the
Lord Mayor together with the terms of work for the planning consultant (see above on his
role in the participation process). Citizens affected by the construction of Kronsberg both
from neighbouring quarters and future inhabitants of Kronsberg were involved in the game
as affected people, members of city administration as de-facto implementers, the Lord
Mayor as consensus facilitator and the planning consultant (see above) as attention-payer,
helper and communications expert.42 The boundaries of this arena seemed to be very wide

39    In some cases of discussion the land use plan, the meeting has to be non-public by law to protect the
      councillors’ freedom of speech and vote, because sometimes personal-related data of affected citizens
      or crucial data of affected companies are discussed within the meeting (see article 45 of the Lower
      Saxonian municipality code).
40    By federal law, the state of Lower Saxony is responsible for housing programmes which exceed the
      federal housing programme.
41    Today, housing policy in Lower Saxony belongs to the ministry of inner affairs.
42    Since the investors only constructed the housing units and community involvement only took place
      when the implementation “on public grounds” was on the agenda, and thus the construction processes
      were running parallely, the investors are no actors in this arena.
                                                                                                          34

open, thus every citizen who was potentially affected by the implementation was able to
participate. Authority rules guaranteed equal rights for the people involved to participate in
citizen gatherings, information events, round tables etc. Information rules prescribed that
every actor involved should have had the same information. Since the involvement of af-
fected citizens took place in voluntary consultation before the participation required by law
(see 3.1.1), the information rules were not very strict. Naturally, every person involved had
the right to claim measures and to formulate demands towards the administration. Nor-
mally, a consensus between demanding and affected citizen and other actors (in most
cases, the city) was found. In some cases the city administration decided contradictory to
the citizens’ demand. The Lord Mayor always theoretically had had the “last word”, and he
may have been used as a political addressee of citizens’ protest against measures of his
administration. Since the Lord Mayor was also visible in the process, this only seldom took
place. The scope of the arena is a formulation of demands by collective decision among the
citizens as a mandate for the city administration. The task of the administration was to
check if the demand was warrantable in the framework of the implementation and if the
demand could be met. If this was the case, the administration was expected to design a plan
for implementation. Then the problem and its possible solutions were presented to the gen-
eral purpose committee, and, if a council decision was needed, to the city council for fur-
ther treatment. The internal pay-off was handled in different ways. In some participatory
meetings, the city paid for the cost (coffee, the room, etc.), but in most cases, each citizen
had to pay for himself. Concerning the external pay-offs, due to the German multi-level
government structure the rules were difficult to define in a general manner. The city paid
most (implementation of single demands/decisions), but some cost were paid by the State
Government (e.g. modification of the tram line).

The sixth, post-constructive, arena was similar to arena five to some extent, but with a little
difference in the actor mapping. The Lord Mayor as mediator and consensus facilitator was
missing in this area. This means that the citizens involved had to cope directly with the city
administration43 since there were only small problems to solve after the constructive stage
had ended. The scope of the arena was to formulate demands towards the city administra-
tion for single small measures which were planned but not yet implemented (or should be
implemented in another way) or small measures for problems which had not been on the
agenda yet because nobody had discovered them until then. The other rules were as in
arena five (see above).

The following table shows the variety of actors and their involvement in the process in
various arenas, connecting them to the three stages of policy development, decision mak-
ing and policy implementation.




43    To be precise, citizens did not use the traditional way of influencing the administration by accessing
      selective parts of the city administration (sectoral interest mediation) but they were able to influence
      several divisions of the administration by communicating with the integrated office (see below).
                                                                                             35

                     Table 4 – The Kronsberg arenas and the actors involved
stage              connected          involved actors
                   arena(s)
policy development 1                  Lord Mayor (initiating actor)
                                      Secretary of economy of the state (initiating actor)
decision making        2a             all citizens (de-facto decision makers)
                       2b             councillors (decision-makers)
                                      Lord Mayor (decision-maker)
                                      executive officers (consultants)
                       3              councillors (decision-makers)
                                      Lord Mayor (decision-maker)
                                      executive officers (consultants)
                       4              Lord Mayor (representative of the city)
                                      Prime Minister (financier)
                                      city administration (experts)
                                      ministry for social affairs (experts)
                                      investors (recipients)
implementation         5              citizens (affected people)
                                      the planning advocate (attention-payer, helper)
                                      Lord Mayor (mediator)
                                      city administration (de-facto implementers)
                       6              affected citizens (affected people)
                                      the planning advocate (attention-payer, helper)
                                      city administration (de-facto implementers)

                                    Source: own composition


Actual behaviour of actors

Since the process was initiated from external actors (the state government), politics at the
local level did not have enough time to develop own strategies and positions in the frame
of the suggested initiative. Of course the goal of the initiative – building a new city quarter
– was agreed by all parties, and the social democratic party even formulated the goal of
“relieving the local housing market” in their election programme (see Selle 2002: 37).
Since the 1960s, the Kronsberg was always seen as the last chance for city expansion, thus
all parties wanted to use the chance of the EXPO 2000 effects for the city’s development,
“the Kronsberg development was not considered the first time in connection with the
EXPO and it also did not result coercibly from the EXPO, but it is the result of a coinci-
dence of a long development story and specific conditions provided by the EXPO”
(Mayer 2000: 215, translation by the authors). For the state and the federal government the
hosting of the EXPO was the focal point of the whole initiative. Wanting to be a good can-
didate for the international EXPO committee and trying to achieve an agreement with the
city, the federal and state government agreed on the special housing programme for Krons-
berg. Especially the city’s social democrats made clear that there would be no agreement
with them on an EXPO in the city if the housing problem would not have been solved be-
fore. Since the Prime Minister of Lower Saxony of that time originally came from Han-
nover, it was a special desire for him to satisfy the city’s interests in the negotiations. The
strategies of the investing companies were clearly to make profit from the “one-time
chance” of the EXPO. This was obvious from their style of negotiation in arena four. The
strategies of the citizens involved in the fifth and sixth arena seemed very different and
                                                                                              36

dependent on their personal situation. New inhabitants of the quarter mainly participated in
arena six, where small measures were demanded in a nearly completed new quarter, thus
their strategy can be described as optimizing living conditions in the quarter. The citizens
involved in arena five were half “early movers” in the new quarter, half inhabitants of the
surrounding quarters. Therefore, their strategies differed. While the “early movers” mainly
demanded a faster change of living conditions through the construction stage, the
neighbouring residents claimed substantial changes in some planning affairs, e.g. the build-
ing of the new tram line. Since there was no ultimate decision by the council about the
tram route through Bemerode, some affected inhabitants suggested alternative routes.
When the tram line was built, the new route agreed on by the citizens and the city was built
faster. Because of this, it now can be operated with faster train speeds and is more quiet for
the direct residents of the track.

Concerning the institutional rules, it was found that all actors adapted to the rules set up for
the arenas. A result of a slight case of rule-breaking was the number of re-negotiations in
arena four which were caused by the investors. In fact, they entered the meetings several
times telling the other actors that the incentive for investments in the Kronsberg quarter
would not be enough and that investment with the result of the last meeting would not be
profitable. Condemned to success, the city and the state made concession after concession,
at least reaching a point where the investors could agree on the plan. Radical critics named
the investors “war profiteer”, because in their view the investors exploited the situation of
the city, the state and the federal state in order to get more money from housing funds than
in other cases. This corresponds to the asymmetry of power mentioned above, which led to
a unequal interest consideration. At the end, the special funding conditions for the con-
struction of the Kronsberg quarter were called “license for printing money” by an opposi-
tional member of state parliament (Selle 2002: 62).

The patterns of interaction between the actors can be found in the table below.


                     Table 5 - Patterns of interaction in the Kronsberg process
                                        dominating mode of …
arena   … communication                … decision-making               … structuring actors
1       bargaining                     consensual                      linked
2a      arguing                        polarized                       linked
2b      arguing                        polarized                       linked
3       arguing                        consensual                      linked
4       bargaining                     consensual                      linked
5       arguing                        consensual                      linked
6       arguing                        consensual                      fragmented

                                      Source: own composition


Since the first arena covered the initiation of the whole project by agreeing on applying for
the EXPO 2000 in an inofficial talk between the secretary of economy and the Lord
Mayor, and since the pay-off of the decision was in the centre of their talks, it seemed that
bargaining was the dominant communication mode in this arena. As a prerequisite, the
decision had to be made consensual due to the freedom of both actors. Since absolute co-
operation was needed in the decision-making and the actors were interdependent on each
other in various ways, the actors were linked.
                                                                                                             37



In arena 2a, a big group of EXPO advocates was challenged publicly by a small group of
EXPO opponents who predicted negative effects on city development. At last, the council
coalition split because the partners found themselves on both sides. After the next election,
the partners wanted to take over the power in the same constellation again and left the de-
cision about the EXPO to a “third party” – the citizens. As the coalition parties continued
to fight against each other in connection with this topic, as the question was decided in a
majoritarian way and as the discussion focused on the contentual aspects of the planned
project, decision making in this arena can be characterised as polarized arguing.44 Of
course, not all information was available for everbody. The information sources for the
ordinary citizen were the public discussion in the press and the information given by the
political elites or the city administration. The latter obviously are better informed in detail
due to their position. Since the the decision can be described as an aggregation of all the
votes at one time, the actors were linked.

In arena 2b, the city council simply transformed the unbinding decision of the citizens into
a binding one. Some of the EXPO opponents still argued and voted against the EXPO in
the council, ignoring the citizens’ vote.45 Because of that, the council debate and decision
can also be considered polarized. Since all the councillors had to vote at one time in the
meeting, all the actors were linked.

The third arena is covered the council meeting in which the frame decisions for the new
quarter were made. The adoption of the corresponding proposals by the administration
meant that only a small amount of money was needed from the city while the most would
have been spent by the state and federal government. Thus, the debate in the city council
was dominated by matter-of-fact arguments about the EXPO itself, the chances and risks
arising from the appointment, especially in connection with the new housing programme,
which can be considered arguing. Since the frame decisions were made by an overwhelm-
ing majority, the decisions can be described as consensual. The actors can be described as
linked, because the councillors had to cast their votes on that specific issue at a single point
of the meeting and thus are linked.

Arena four again was a bargaining arena. No other arena in the Kronsberg process was
more distinctly bargaining than this one (see above for details on numerous negotiations
about money). First of all, an information asymmetry occurred in the arena. Since the in-
vestor’s knowledge was mainly about cost and time frames, the state administration mem-
bers had better information about the distribution of state funding for housing in Lower
Saxony and about possibilities of getting additional funding by the federal government.
The representatives of the city administration were experts in terms of the local housing
market and the distribution of free housing units in the various city quarters. It is obvious
that each actor group was withholding certain information to ensure advantages in the dis-
cussion. On one hand, the arena is characterised by a consensual way of decision making,
because the interdependency of the actors was also very high (see above). On the other
hand, there is a certain asymmetry on interdependency, because it was about resources
(mainly money for the construction) for the investors, but on success or failure of a whole
initiative for the political and administrational actors. Due to the closed character of the
arena as main bargaining arena, the actors were linked.



44    On polarisation of the public debate in the frame of the citizen survey, also see Mayer (2000: 214).
45    The final vote in the council was 57 votes in favour of the EXPO application and 8 votes against it.
                                                                                                           38

Arenas five and six were very similar to each other. Since the content of the initiative was
challenged in the implementation stage, the citizens involved had to make their demands
clear by arguing towards the planning consultant, the administration and the Lord Mayor.
As implementation meant to realize the goals defined by using a certain strategy, neverthe-
less the decisions found had to be found consensually; otherwise the city could have been
accused of not taking community involvement serious enough. The citizens were well-
informed about the administrations plans for their future home or neighbouring quarter. It
seemed obvious, that citizens did not get every single information about the whole initia-
tive, since some of them were administrative topics not to be discussed in public.46 Both
arenas differed in their structure. While in the first half of the implementation stage (arena
five) most of the sub-arenas (round-tables, citizens’ initiatives etc.) were linked, there
seems to have been a rather fragmented layout in the post-constructive stage. This was a
result of the problem solving processes in arena five – since most problems had been
solved at the end of this stage, only some small groups are working on small problems.

The influence of actors in the various arenas can also best be reviewed in the table below.


                         Table 6 - Influence of actors in the Kronsberg arenas
                             policy   decision making                                    implementation
                             develop-
                             ment
                       arena 1        2a        2b                  3          4         5          6
state secretary              high     none      none                none       none      none       none
of economy
Prime Minister                 low          none         none       none       high      none       none
ministry of                    none         none         none       none       high      none       none
social affairs
Lord Mayor                     high         high         low        high       high      low        low
councillors                    low          low          high       high       none      low        low
citizenry                      none         high         none       none       none      none       none
city administration            none         none         none       low        high      high       high
planning consultant                                                                      high       high
investors                      none         none         none       none       high      none       none
affected citizens              none         low          none       none       none      high       high

                                         Source: own composition


First of all, the arenas were fitting clearly in the concept of policy development, policy
decision making and policy implementation, and various actors were restricted to one of
the stages or were only active in one of the stages. The Prime Minister and his ministry of
social affairs were only active in the bargaining process with the investors (arena four),
while the state secretary of economy only was influential in the initiation of the process
(arena one). The Lord Mayor was highly influential in all arenas until the negotiations with
the investors had successfully finished. He appeared in the implementation arenas, but his
influence was rather low, since his function was merely moderating or informing. The
councillors only were highly influential in the framing council decisions (third arena). The
overall citizenry was only influential in the citizens’ survey (arena two). In the implemen-

46    An interview partner (a citizen affected by the new tram line) stated that “the administration people do
      not say everything they know and think”.
                                                                                                         39

tation arenas (five and six), the city administration, the planning consultant and the citizens
were highly influential. The investors only were influential in their respective bargaining
arena (four). Of course they were important for the construction stage as companies finally
executing the decisions of the city, but an influence on how to move on is not visible.


Policy outcomes and impact

Since the policy was complex, there are outcomes in several policy fields. In fact, most of
the substantial challenges have been successfully transformed into substantial outcomes.

•    The core of the Kronsberg initiative, the construction of about 3,000 new apartments
     was finished in 2000. In the meantime, it was doubted if the construction was necessary
     because nowadays there are more housing vacancies in the city than new housing units
     in the Kronsberg quarter. Today, the critics of the Kronsberg quarter call the housing
     situation a “pretended argument” of the pro-campaigners, since there had been no tight
     housing situation directly before or during the EXPO: “In fact, the displacement proc-
     esses expected did not occur, because the demand for housing decreased significantly
     in the 90s” (Müller/Selle 2002: 13). Parallely, the EXPO Ltd. only rented about half of
     the apartments mainly built for the EXPO employees expected, which led to a heavy
     conflict with the Lord Mayor in 1995 (Müller/Niederlein/Schüler 2002: 89). Today, the
     housing situation seems to be relaxed. In the 2002 citizen survey, 35% of all responders
     claimed that social housing policy spendings of the city should be cut and only 11%
     wanted to rise funding – a clear indicator that social housing is not seen as a top prior-
     ity task for the city (see Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 47).
•    The social structure in Kronsberg today is better than in city quarters with comparable
     social indicators. Vandalism and crime in Kronsberg is low and the inhabitants were
     mixed as planned. This is partly a result of successfully building neighbourhoods,
     partly a result of forming a quarter identity47 and partly a result of crime preventive
     quarter construction (see Niedersächsisches Innenministerium 2002: 20).
•    Kronsberg is still an exhibit of the EXPO, demonstrating that social inclusion and eco-
     logical construction of a completely new quarter are possible. Critics, however, say that
     the “green” character of the construction only should cover the fact that the city built a
     new quarter “on green meadows” instead of redeveloping inner city quarters and thus
     avoiding conflicts.
•    There also has been the additional, unintended, positive effect that young families
     move back from “suburbia” to the city. The distribution policy which was intended
     worked as expected; the federal and state government did pay the subsidence neces-
     sary.
•    The multiplicity of the initiative’s objectives has been considered in implementation;
     the multiplicity of the goals has caused a high number of initiatives, round tables, dis-
     cussion groups etc. founded by the citizens to solve specific problems. Referring to the
     PLUS survey results, the actors mainly reached the aims on their own agendas.

Looking at the procedural outcomes, the "building of neighbourhoods” by public participa-
tion, mostly in the implementation stage, began instantly and is continuing well now. Par-
ticipation promoted a feeling of belonging together; citizens identify themselves with the
new quarter. This can be detected by looking at the enormous number of activities by the


47     Nevertheless, the “problematic social structure” seems to be a subjective advantage of the quarter for
       the inhabitants of the city district Kronsberg belongs to (see Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003c: 44).
                                                                                                      40

inhabitants, the little fluctuation in the quarter48 and the positive attitude towards the quar-
ter center KroKuS (see Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2001: 7). The institutionalized partici-
pation arrangements like the citizens district forum are still working, now mostly on single
small problems. The idea of self-organisation is accepted by the inhabitants and most of
the quarter activities are organised by the citizens themselves. It can be stated that citizen
activation works, because the opportunities for involvement provided are fitting the needs.
Especially the planning consultant worked as a “catalyst” for citizen engagement. Never-
theless, the Lord Mayor has already stated that “involvement of foreign citizens was not
sufficient”. Cooperation with resource-controlling actors (investment companies etc.) was
successful, but not trouble-free due to the asymmetric constellation described above. Also,
the social mixture in some housing blocks is still inappropriate. The city administration and
the Lord Mayor are still working to solve that problem.

Focusing on the institutions, the durability of the institutions created within the Kronsberg
project involvement differs. Some of them vanished, e.g. after solving the specific problem
they were founded for (especially ad-hoc round-tables), some of them work less intensive
today, because the number and the size of problems decreased. Also, the district forums
work not on construction affairs any more, but are active in other policy fields now. As a
result of that, the number of active citizens has also decreased. The contract with the plan-
ning consultant was no longer prolonged in December 2001.

Concerning the three dimensions of sustainability, the Kronsberg case seems to be quite
clear. Since all major goals have been achieved, the initiative is effective and is generally
considered a proper problem-solving instrument. Whether the problem-solving took place
efficiently is doubted by some citizens involved in the case by arguing that the money also
could have been spent to redevelop other quarters and make them attractive for people to
move there. If the city had chosen this option, most of the funding from upper levels of
government would not have been granted. Also, the overwhelming majority is thinking that
the new quarter should be built at the site where it was built, the initiative is efficient any-
way thinking about the budget of all state levels (city, state, federal state) involved. Since
the construction of the quarter was framed by state and national programmes with certain
exceptions in restrictions and all programmes were cleverly combined, the city nearly paid
nothing for the quarter compared to the other actors, which can be considered very effi-
cient from the city budget perspective. The question is, if the construction of the new quar-
ter can be described as efficient looking at the fact that nearly all the housebuilding funds
of the state were concentrated on the Kronsberg project (Mayer 2000: 206). Though the
cost for an average housing unit in the Kronsberg quarter did not exceed the average cost
for a comparable unit at other places, but the share of public money for the Kronsberg units
were higher than in other cases (Selle 2002: 62). Thus, the financing concept can not be
described as efficient from the perspective of upper levels of government.

Concerning input legitimacy, participation (and successful intervention by the quarter’s
inhabitants in the frame of the participation arenas) was important during the Kronsberg
process. The city did not only carry out the obligatory involvement rules fixed in federal
and state laws, but also elaborated new forms of involvement and implemented them in the
frame of the initiative. To some extent, these new forms may have led to a disinterest in the
political representative system and so to a legitimacy problem. On the city level, commu-
nity involvement was practised in the frame of the general EXPO decision by the citizens.

48    The average fluctuation for new quarters in Germany is between 15%-25% in the first 12 months. In
      Kronsberg, the fluctuation is lower than 2%. That means, that people are pleased with their quarter
      which is also the result of two citizen surveys in Kronsberg conducted 2001 and 2002.
                                                                                                        41

The majority voted "yes”, city council and administration followed this decision and the
survey was "legitimated afterwards” by several council decisions.49 At the quarter level, the
legitimacy problem immediately becomes clear. There simply is no representation of the
Kronsberg inhabitants in the district council or even the city council. It may be that citizen
participation on a lower level leads to disinterest for the city, the city community and city
(party) politics as a whole, because short communication channels established through the
whole process seem to work better than a “tour through the institutions”.50 The question is,
if this citizen behaviour is intended or if disinterest for city politics is a negative spin-off of
Hannover-style participation. This legitimation gap may occur if problems (which seem to
be only an administrational matter first and emerging as general problems later) are nearly
independently decided by affected people and the administration. Shifting decision-making
from elected bodies to these joint-ventures may focus on singular needs and drive away the
attention of the city’s problems as a whole. On the other hand, new forms of participation
may compensate a lack of traditional organisation-based participation in a context where
these traditional forms would not be sustained by fitting social milieus. In the long run,
both forms of democratic decision making should be brought into a balance – a task for
urban leadership?

Throughput legitimacy has been created by the Lord Mayor, who has been visible in the
policy decision making and implementation stage, where he took over responsibility in
public. This, and broad public discussions about the project and its goals led to transpar-
ency and accountability. The institutional design of the involvement opportunities based on
open boundaries which allowed every affected citizen to take part in the round tables and
information events either as passive listener or as active discussant. The scope of involve-
ment in the institutions mentioned above was large, since the topics were mostly discussed
openly according to the results with some extent, since the administration is bound to law,
to the city budget and to the advisory of the Lord Mayor and the corresponding elective
officers so that a resolution of a round table on a topic could not exactly and immediately
be implemented as demanded. Pay-offs were subsequently cared for by city authorities,
mostly embedded in federal or state programmes (e.g. the tram line, street connections
etc.). Output legitimacy relies on the outcomes, which are perceived as effective, which
means that the addressed problems have been solved sensibly. This is partly a result of the
recognition of the substantial outcomes, partly a result of “feeling involved” by the citi-
zens. As many of the citizen demands were met in Kronsberg, individuals tend to identify
the overall project outcome with their personal satisfaction with the outcomes.

The well-known three specificities of sustainability should be referred to, in order to sum
up the question of impact. In social terms, the new quarter may be sustainable, but this can
only be found out in the future. Since social conditions are good in Kronsberg according to
the measures which are part of the programme, the quarter can be described as socially
stable, but this may change in the future if the exceptions for income maximums will not
be prolonged. Then, the quarter may turn into a classical “lost quarter”. Ecologically, the
quarter is a good example for sustainability (see Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2000b).
While waste was avoided in every stage of the construction process and as all the buildings
are ecologicly designed and maintained, the Kronsberg quarter is a good example for a


49    Note that such citizen surveys are not binding due to the Lower Saxony municipality law (Hoffmann
      2003: 193).
50    The decentralised branche offices of the civil registration and public order division (“Ordnungsamt”)
      were coverted to “citizens offices” in the last years. The overall citizen survey of 2002 shows that
      most people who want to contact the administration are tending to appear at these offices first (Lan-
      deshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 55).
                                                                                                        42

new settlement concept which is proudly distributed by the city as evidence for its “green”
competence. The construction of the new quarter was also a success for the local construc-
tion industry, since nearly all contractors came from the region. Even if the initiative did
not exceed the effects of a normal boom (see Ertel/Gehrke/Kramer 2000), the initiative is
said to be a success in this respect anyway.


Conclusions

For the social inclusion initiative it can be said that the case was handled in a typical Han-
noverian way of citizen involvement, defining best practice as the duty of city administra-
tion towards the city’s inhabitants.

Lord Mayor Schmalstieg can be described as a “consensus facilitating city boss” in all
stages. He tends to be a consensual facilitator in the first two stages and he tends to the city
boss in the last stage. In both the stages of policy development and policy decision making,
he tried to find compromises wherever it was possible. According to the PLUS survey,
powerful local actors (mainly investment companies) had the strongest influence on policy
development and decision making. In the implementation stage, the mayor took over con-
trol over most implementation-related decisions, so that his leadership style in the last
stage can be labelled “city boss”.

Looking at community involvement in the policy development stage, merely corporate
actors (investment companies), the federal and state government and the Lord Mayor were
involved. These actors were bargaining for the housing programme funding and investment
helps. This arena can be characterized as closed, because the founders of the housing pro-
grammes, the Lord Mayor and the companies which expected to invest money in the new
quarter negotiated details of the programmes. The actors were free in negotiating all details
of funding and the program as a whole, whereas information was distributed informally
and in line with the actors’ negotiation positions. All actors were dependent on each other,
because each was in control of important resources needed for the project. It was also im-
portant to ensure a certain profit for each of the actors. The output of the negotiations were
informal agreements which led to a modification of the housing programmes by both the
federal and the state government. After that, investors and the city were able to sign trea-
ties on land sales and building licenses with certain conditions.

The decision making stage included official decisions on the land use plan, traffic route
planning and other flanking measures by the city’s bodies, namely the city council and the
general purposes committee. In all connected arenas, the participating actors were preset
by the Lower Saxonian municipality law and the local mayor and council elections. These
official decisions of the city’s representatives are generally binding (as long as they are not
unlawful) and only a simple majority in the corresponding bodies is needed for adoption.
In fact, in both cases a large majority voted for it. Before the official decisions were drawn,
citizens were involved in the basic decision if the EXPO should be held in Hannover or
not. This (informal) citizen survey was conducted and led to a slight pro-EXPO majority.51
Without this positive result in the survey, the decision-making process would have been



51    About 51.5% of all those who participated agreed that the EXPO should take place in Hannover in
      2000, 48.5% of the voters disagreed. As the turnout was about 67%, it can be stated that one third of
      the citizens agreed with the EXPO, one third was against, and one third abstained.
                                                                                                            43

stopped and the Lord Mayor and the supporting parties would have dropped their engage-
ment for the EXPO hosting.52

In all the implementation arenas, the boundary rules were very open to ensure that all ef-
fected citizens could take part in the processes. This was especially considered in the coop-
eration between quarter manager, planning consultant and the district councils of the
neighbouring quarters, where affected citizens from the neighbourhood were able to com-
plain or to give advice on certain issues. Obviously, most - and especially crucial - topics
were discussed publicly in the forums and the round tables, and the information policy was
handled very open by the city. In most cases, a consensus was produced by discussing
problem solutions and handing them over to the administration for implementation. The
pay-off was handled by the city in most cases.

To sum it up, it can be stated that community involvement in the Kronsberg case is a com-
bination of a mainly open and consultative information policy of the city towards the citi-
zens and the creation of permanently institutionalized structures in the city administration
with a high responsiveness. As critics argue, this open information policy and the possibili-
ties of involvement weakened the position of oppositional citizens in the process. The big-
gest citizen action group (“Kronsberg-Bürgerinitiative”) split apart after it had become
clear that the construction of Kronsberg as a whole could not be prevented. The radical
opponents of the construction left the community involvement arenas after the final deci-
sion in the council (with “yes” votes by Social Democrats and especially the Green party).
In their eyes, community involvement (including the quarter manager and the planning
consultant) were institutions of the city to keep the Kronsberg opponents busy while the
city was preparing the necessary steps to quickly enter the implementation stage. The basic
change in the construction plan for the new tram line through Bremerode to Kronsberg
(which was partially built as a underground line after citizen involvement took place in the
planning process and citizens claimed this measure) can be described as the biggest suc-
cess for the citizen’s action group. It is called “the candy for the citizens” by the project
opponents now, describing the Kronsberg commmunity involvement as “cleverly embark-
ing on a strategy of distraction by the city” towards the affected citizens.53

Nevertheless, it can be kept as a clear result of the Kronsberg case that community in-
volvement and urban leadership in Hannover seem to be dependent on each other to some
extent. The Lord Mayor is sometimes legitimating his positions by citizen surveys to get
his initiatives adapted by the preliminary meetings of his own coalition and the council.
Vice versa, community involvement is guaranteed as a mode of citizen participation, as
long as the Lord Mayor relies on the results of such surveys – the behaviour of the Lord
Mayor seems to be standing as a symbol for taking the citizens as serious.54 As stated be-

52   The decision for holding a citizen survey is also the result of the coalition negotations after the local
     elections. While Social Democrats and the Green Party in Hannover couldn’t find a way to integrate
     the EXPO in their coalition treaty, they decided to hand the decision over to the citizens. Officially,
     the argument was that a basic “yes” of the citizens would legitimize the EXPO hosting and the follo-
     wing measures, in fact it was also a fallback position for the Lord Mayor and the coalition parties.
     Shifting the decision to the citizenry could be seen as a lack of leadership here, even if the Lord May-
     or and his party held a strong pro-EXPO position in public.
53   See Ibert (1998: 147) for additional information on informational involvement.
54   Schmalstieg’s statement at a debate on the traffic in a certain street in the city council meeting of April
     18th, 2003 illustrates this. A citizen survey among the residents resulted in a overwhelming majority
     for a pedestrians’. Some Conservative members of the council demanded that the council should over-
     rule the citizen survey. The Lord Mayor stated, that "we can not implement only the results of those
     citizen surveys which we are feeling affirmed by. […] We can not decide if the result of a city survey
     is ‚true’ or ‚wrong’, we have to accept its results."
                                                                                                    44

fore, the survey about the general EXPO hosting in Hannover also maybe illustrates a lack
of leadership, especially in the light of (expected) project outcomes. Is it sensible that citi-
zens take part in a survey to vote for or against an long-term, extremely complex project, if
they do not have enough detailled information to decide sensibly? Moreover, the public
discussion about the EXPO hosting did not clarify the goals and implications of the initia-
tive. The discussion was rather narrowed to the contradiction of “big projects and ecology”
on the one side and “employment or ecology” on the other side. Therefore, it seems that
citizen survey on complex decisions can be counted as lack of leadership.


Lessons

Looking at the dependencies of CULCI and the outcomes of the Kronsberg process, it
seems to be the case that urban leadership and citizen involvement in Hannover produced
(and are still producing) outcomes which were socially compliant and acceptable to the
public. It can be found that strong leadership was necessary to develop the initiative to-
gether with state officials, to bring the EXPO hosting survey and the corresponding council
decisions to success and to implement the project in a given – and narrow - time frame.
The Lord Mayor, the city council (and thus the city as a whole) took responsibility for the
construction project and flanking social measures. Accountability was also taken by the
political leaders and his coalition parties and also by the opposition in the city council
which supported the initiative. Community involvement was also necessary to create trans-
parency and to ensure “good results” by using the citizens’ specialized knowledge as a
resource.55 The kind of community involvement practised in the Kronsberg case seems to
be appropriate to the initiative, since nearly all inhabitants of Kronsberg are satisfied with
the implementation involvement, which is reflected in the data of the yearly Kronsberg
inhabitant survey.




55    Specialized knowledge about local circumstances was explicitly named as citizens’ resource in the
      PLUS survey.
                                                                                                            45


3.1.3     Hannover Impuls. Achieving economic competitiveness by involving major
          companies in an innovative local business development plan


Description of the initiative

The „Hannover Impuls“ initiative was originally designed for achieving economic com-
petitiveness by involving major local companies in a new kind of local business develop-
ment. The aim was reformulated in several ways during the policy decision stage, e.g. “the
City must be pushed from the midfield to the top in the league of comparable cities”. The
two main tools to reach this aim are

     •    analysing and bundling all developmental potentials available in the region within
          an integrated and consistent concept and
     •    giving up the traditional business development plans for the benefit of an innova-
          tive way of sustainable job creation.56

The initiative started with an examination of the economic future of the region, which was
initially voluntarily co-financed by the Lower Saxony state government. The consultants
company McKinsey was instructed to analyse which steps could be made to improve the
region’s economic competitiveness. The analysis was financed by the Lower Saxony State
Government, the Hannover Region and the City of Hannover with € 500.000 each. As the
next state elections in Lower Saxony were near, the state opposition criticised the project
as “actionism”, created by the state government in order to pretend that it has economic
competence. After the examination stage, every decision was taken at the local and re-
gional level respectively; the initiative was thus fully localised. The establishment of a re-
gional government (Hannover Region, see above) supported the idea of a new kind of re-
gional business development policy.57 The only point where the state government inter-
fered with the initiative was the overall amount of city debts; hence the “Bezirksregierung”
(a regional office of the state government) wanted to stop the project. Because the city was
planning to put financial guarantees for the project company and also for subcontractors if
possible, 58 the Bezirksregierung stated that these guarantees had to be added to the list of
overall city debts. Since the Bezirksregierung has to audit the city’s budget to ensure that
the city is not piling up too many debts, the question was if other debts had to be settled up
or if the project simply could not be supported in this way. Preceded by a short public dis-
cussion, the city managed to get permission for the initiative debts after the Lord Mayor
announced that he would ask the state Prime Minister to instruct the Bezirksregierung to
approve the city’s budget including the initiative-connected debts.

The main aim of the initiative is the creation of 40,000 new jobs until 2013.59 This should
be reached by concentrating the money for business development on local economic sec-

56       Following Grabow and Henckel (1999: 617), “local economic policy has to ensure that in the sense of
         enhancing life quality the benefit of the companies’ activities is in an adequate relationship with the
         harms and detractions caused by them.”
57       In 2001, the Hannover region was built from the former county of Hannover and the city. The obliga-
         tory and voluntary tasks were distributed in a new way (see Arndt 2003 for details).
58       See NP of December 20th, 2003.
59       The idea of a massive (but sustainable) job creation initiative is not only trying to meet social de-
         mands, but is also a reaction on the public opinion. Unemployment is the second biggest problem in
         the city in the eyes of the citizens (see Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 14). Complementary to
         this, business location marketing and business development are under the top priorities mentioned by
         the citizens in the 2002 survey (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 48). In contrast, appreciation of
                                                                                                           46

tors which are strong and which have expanding possibilities (“empowering our powers”).
At last, a new concept of participatory business development should be tested as an alter-
native to traditional local business development. The City of Hannover and the Hannover
Region are planning to spend about € 60 million for the initiative between 2003 and 2013.
The money is taken from other parts of their budget, mostly from traditional business de-
velopment funds.60 The money is then transferred to one key actor, the “Hannover-Impuls
Ltd.” instead of many single recipient companies. This indicates that the initiative has got a
redistributive character in respect of the public budgets involved. Traditionally, “care-
taking” business development activities (preparation of land for building, support through
the medium of cheap resources and land etc.) will only be held up for companies which are
already situated in Hannover and may be aborted if the new modus operandi was success-
ful after the public funding will run out in 2013. Since the project plot and also the public
discussion was very narrowly focused on the necessity of additional jobs and their number,
and since the initiative is located in one main project company, the initiative can be de-
scribed as “simple” according to the criteria of the PLUS project.

It was clear from the beginning, that in the economic competitiveness case no involvement
of “normal” citizens would be intended, but that a certain part of the local business sector
was expected to take part in the initiative. To achieve this, a new kind of public funding for
business development was exercised to attract economic actors. The involved companies
must be willing to cooperate in two ways, namely

•    by integrating themselves in the business plan developed by the initiative company
     “Hannover-Impuls” and
•    by handing over resources (money, personnel, infrastructure) to the initiative; for ex-
     ample, the company Interbrew61 is contributing € 500,000 a year, the Hannover savings
     bank and TUI are releasing managers as project company directors etc. In fact, most of
     the big companies in Hannover are participating in the project.

So it was a crucial point for political leaders to ensure the cooperation with economic ac-
tors. The latter could only have given certain economic advises, but they also were control-
ling resources that were additionally needed aside the public funding which was promised
for the initiative.

To be successful, the initiative was expected to be designed partially open at all stages:

•    When searching co-financiers from the economic sector, it should be possible that new
     partners can enter the initiative at any time.
•    In the decision process about joining sub-companies, it must be possible to replace
     planned sub companies by others after the comparison of the business plans at any
     time, which (in the case of replacing) means that new actors are joining the initiative.
     In this perspective, the structure of the initiative seems to be flexible. On the other
     hand, the overall structure (advisory board, executive board, project companies partly
     dependent on the initiative’s resources) and the decision-making structure can not be

       own the citizens’ own economic situation is slightly better than the federal average (see Lande-
       shauptstadt Hannover 2003b: 12).
60     For ten years, each partner is expected to transfer €3 million to the company every year, so that the
       total investment for each partner is €30 million
61     Interbrew is a large Belgian beer brewage company which took over three major German brewage
       groups during the last years, for example Becks & Co, Diebels and Brauergilde; the latter is situated in
       Hannover and had a turnover of € 328 million in 2002.
                                                                                                         47

     changed (e.g. maybe towards more influence of political actors), since the current in-
     novative structure is the core of the initiative.

The initiative is designed as follows (see also figure 3 below):

•    The Hannover Impuls company is led by an executive board with three members from
     the business community (two from the Hannover savings bank, one from TUI). The
     members of the executive board are responsible for the everyday work and there is a
     special responsibility for each of them.
•    The company’s supervisory board consists of the Lord Mayor, the region’s president
     and two people from the business community, one of the Hannover savings bank and
     one of the e.on company,62 who is also chairing the board, which means that business
     has got the deciding vote in stalemate situations.
•    A political “corollary commission” with six representatives of the city council and the
     regional assembly each, the Lord Mayor and the region’s president was set up to ac-
     company the company’s work.63 While the main idea of new business development is
     “to give them money and then let them work with that”,64 the majority in the commis-
     sion controlled by the Lord Mayor is not expected to interfere with the everyday work.
•    In a certain number of sub- or project-companies (currently 17), the real work is done
     mainly by founding new companies which are expected to create sustainable jobs in
     line with their special business character. The duty of Hannover Impuls is not only to
     “control and advise” them (Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2002b: 6), but also to buy and
     hold shares of these sub-companies to ensure a stable financial background. If the sub-
     company is making profit, the initiative as a whole benefits from that and is able to in-
     vest this money into new sub-projects.


The whole initiative is planned as durable institution which should last longer than 2013,
when the city and the region will get off the project, leaving the initiative without public
funding and supervision. However, the initiative is characterized by a relatively regulated
framework, created by the following restrictions:

•    The limited company, which is the core of the initiative, can only continue its work
     during the complete period, if the regional assembly and the city council are continu-
     ously adopting their yearly budget including the funding for the company. There are
     two additional exit-options (“Sonderkündigungsrecht”) for the region and the city
     where there is a possibility to leave the project in 2007 or 2009 (Landeshauptstadt
     Hannover 2003d: 11).
•    According to this, representatives of the two bodies have a certain influence on the
     company in the preliminary stages of the budget discussion and (in theory) are able to
     include the company and its funding in package deals concerning the city’s or the re-
     gion’s budget.
•    Since the members of the executive board are only personnel lend by participating pri-
     vate companies, it would be easy for the companies to exit the initiative by withdraw-
     ing their personnel.

62     e.on is the Europe’s biggest energy service provider, having a turnover of more than €37 billion.
63     SPD and CDU are holding four seats each, FDP and the Green Party are holding two seats each. Since
       the Lord Mayor and the region’s president are also members of the commission and the are both social
       democrats, there is a red/green majority in the commission – like there is such a majority both in the
       city council and the regional assembly.
64     See HAZ of February 19th, 2003.
                                                                                                                                                                  48


•     As a result of this, all partners (the city, the region and the companies) are holding exit
      options which are available at any time. As a result of this, changes in the basic design
      of the initiative can not easily be achieved.
•     The Hannover Impuls company is bound to default federal laws concerning its balance,
      business taxes, laws on personnel etc., which means that it does not hold any kind of
      special status and is not situated in any kind of “grey zone” because it is owned by two
      public bodies.


                               Figure 3 - Structure of the Hannover Impuls company


                                                                                                 Hannover Impuls Ltd.

                                                                                                  Supervisory Board

      Corollary commission                               Lord Mayor             President                             business                        business
                                                                                of                   the              (eon)                           (savings
    City representatives           consulting
                                                                                Region                                CHAIR                           bank)
    6 councillors
    Lord Mayor

                                                                                                 advising             controlling
    Region representatives
                                   consulting
    6 assembly members                                                                             Executive board
    President of the Region

                                                               business man                        business man                     business man
                                                               (savings bank)                      (savings bank)                   (TUI)
     appointing members


city                   region’s
council                assembly
                                                                                          funding, controlling, supervising



          funding
                                                          single project




                                                                                single project




                                                                                                            single project




                                                                                                                                     single project




                                                                                                                                                                 single project
local enterprises             funding, personnel




                                                   Source: own composition


In the long run, the initiative should be able to act independently from public bodies with
respect to their influence and advise as well as their money, which means that the initiative
must be able to fund its own work by benefits from sub-project shares. From that point, the
city and the region also benefit from the initiative because more taxes can be expected
from the new companies and their employers.

Procedurally, activating major local companies and fostering the cooperation with them
has been achieved. In the policy development and decision-making stages, the time frame
was the most crucial point connected to the project. While the Lord Mayor wanted to push
the project through the responsible bodies as fast as possible in order to ensure an early
                                                                                            49

start of the project, nearly all parties in the regional assembly and also the opposition par-
ties in the city council wanted to discuss the project for a longer time.65

The political influence on the project was extensively discussed. While the regional Social
Democrats demanded a higher level of control over the resources flowing to the project
from the city and the regional budget, the other parties argued that the business community
should be free in using the resources. To achieve the high aim defined by the actors, sev-
eral innovative kinds of business development are bundled within “Hannover Impuls”. In
fact, the company should initiate, advise and supervise 17 single sub-projects running par-
allel to each other. Some of them are focused on founding new sub-companies from the
university environment, one of them is concentrating on a “personnel service agency” to
help local companies find good employees in the region. One project is supporting the
Volkswagen company in persuading their current sub-contracting companies to move to
Hannover to ensure short supply times.

The initiative is open for two kinds of actors: local companies willing to co-finance the
project company and third companies who want to play the role of a sub-project company
(see above). Everything is done without subvention; every time Hannover-Impuls company
is investing in a project, shares of the project are owned by Hannover-Impuls. If the pro-
jects are successful, Hannover-Impuls is expected to sell its shares and profit from the suc-
cess. The money earned that way should be reinvested in other sub-projects or given back
to public budgets. In the long run, the project company should have a positive budget re-
sult.


Institutional analysis

Applying the Ostrom model, six arenas can be found within Hannover-Impuls initiative
(see figure below). In most arenas, rules are mostly “smooth rules”. Only in the arenas
covering council decisions (three and six), rules are mostly formal – it is a formal process
in a local “parliamentary” body. The origins of the rules can be clearly identified. The rules
in arenas three and six are set by the municipality law, in arena five the rules are partly set
by the framework of national laws concerning economic actors on a market and under law.
In the other arenas, locally designed rules were used. In all arenas, rules were found to be
stable throughout the process.

The initiation of the process took place in the first arena, when the Prime Minister of
Lower Saxony and the Lord Mayor talked about the idea of a basic survey about the eco-
nomic capacities and development possibilities in all regions of Lower Saxony. As “model
region”, Hannover and its surroundings were chosen. Thus, the position of the Prime Min-
ister can be described as initiator of the whole process. The Lord Mayor agreed in the ba-
sic survey, representing the city as recipient of the economic survey which should be con-
ducted. Although these talks had a rather informal nature, both actors in the arena act on
behalf of their office, and no other actors were allowed to join. The result of this meeting
(that the mentioned survey should be conducted in Hannover) was an unanimously found
informal agreement. It comprised that the Prime Minister should make a proposal to his
cabinet according to the agreement and that the Lord Mayor should make a proposal to the
general purposes committee that the city would welcome the activity of the state in that
respect. In fact, the agreement between the two actors was only the preliminary decision


65    See HAZ of December 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 2003 and NP of December 6th, 2003.
                                                                                                          50

about the survey – if the results of survey would require action by the state or the city, ad-
ditional decisions would have to be taken into account according to the survey. The infor-
mation said that the meeting was not public, thus the existance of the meeting and its re-
sult(s) would not publicised. It is also presumed that there was a certain asymmetry be-
tween the actors on knowledge about local business development in Hannover by defini-
tion. Also the internal pay-offs of the meeting could not be found out. The pay-offs which
are part of the outcome can be described according to the cost of the preliminary economic
survey about how to ensure and enhance economic competitiveness in Hannover, which is
paid by the state of Lower Saxony, the city of Hannover and the region of Hannover with
equal shares.66

In the second arena, the mentioned survey was conducted by the consulting company
McKinsey, whose position can be described as contractor, while the state of Lower
Saxony, the region and the city can be entitled as costumers. Other local companies were
also involved in the survey as informants or “door openers” for the connection to other
companies. The positions as contractor and costumers were occupied by a treaty between
the four contracting parties. The informant and/or door opener positions were assigned by
McKinsey by questioning the companies involved about their economic strategies and their
future investment and development plans in the region. The scope of the second arena is a
detailed description of the economic situation in Hannover and of possibly successful busi-
ness development strategies of the region and the city. It should be the result of the survey
handed over to politics (the city council and the regional assembly) to decide upon meas-
ures for enhancing economic competitiveness. The outcome of the arena can be described
as a “product” of McKinsey which is handed over to its costumers. It is formulated by
McKinsey in the way of an internal production process whose aggregation mechanism
does not match the usual categories of “decision making”. The result is mainly a summary
of advices by McKinsey basing on talks with economic actors. There were no direct rules
on information, but it can be assumed that not every informant made very specific contri-
butions about his economic strategies due to their participation in the specific sectoral
competition, even if the informants should give every information they could to help the
survey to become a success. Both internal and external pay-offs were exclusive obligations
of McKinsey as stated in the contract with its costumers, hence McKinsey paid all the cost.

The third arena is directly related to the second, because the scope of the second arena (the
final report of McKinsey consisting of some advice on how to ensure economic competi-
tiveness) was taken as the basis for a decision in the city council and the regional assem-
bly.67 Actors in the arena were the councillors, which were selected by the citizens in regu-
lar local elections, the Lord Mayor, who is directly elected by the citizenry and the execu-
tive officers, who are appointed by the council after a proposal by the Lord Mayor. All
actors named here have the right to express their opinion in the meetings of the city coun-
cil, but only the council members (including the Lord Mayor) have the right to cast their
votes in decisions thus having the position of decision makers. The scope of the arena is a
council decision which is binding for the Lord Mayor and the administration, thus meaning
that the executive authority has to implement the decision. In this case, the councillors
agreed on founding a limited company owned by the city and the region with 50% of the
shares which should work in the frame of an elaborated concept and should enhance the

66    The president of the region later was asked if the region wanted to join, but he was not an actor in the
      initial meeting.
67    Since all rules are parallel, only city terms were used in the arena description. So wherever “the city”
      is mentioned, “the region” is meant as well; wherever “city council” is mentioned, “regional assem-
      bly” is meant as well etc.
                                                                                           51

competitiveness of the region and the city by involving major companies. As all major
parties agreed on the project, there are no certain partisan sub-arenas to describe. The deci-
sion on the founding of the company had to be made with the simple majority of the coun-
cillors present in the council meeting; the majority was reached easily because all four “big
parties” agreed with the proposal of the Lord Mayor. Just before the voting, the council
discussed the topic based upon the information the councillors had. It seems that the party
group leaders and the party spokesmen for economic affairs did have a greater knowledge
of the McKinsey survey and the overall economic situation than the other actors, but in-
formation could have been easily obtained by the other councillors by simply asking their
leaders or requesting information in the council meeting. As council meetings can only be
closed from the public if a certain majority decides so, the meeting was public to all citi-
zens. The internal cost (reimbursements of councillors, room etc.) was beared by the city,
the external pay-off comprises that the city now owns 50% of the shares of the joint com-
pany and that the city committed itself to pay about € 3 million a year until 2013 to keep
the company running. Note: The real decision on spending money is of course a part of the
yearly budget debates (see arena six).

The arenas four, five and six are accumulating to a circulating process, oscillating between
changing the composition of the initiative partners, political decisions and the “real” im-
plementation work. They are influencing each other (see figure below).

In arena four, the Lord Mayor and the president of the region, taking the decisions of their
representative bodies as political mandate of the city and region as a whole, are trying to
find partners for the initiative from the economic sphere, thus they can be described as
network generators. They are asking for resources and cooperation by the actors they ad-
dress, who can therefore be described as addressees or initiative partners. This description
also implies the boundary rules for the arena: The political leaders are only talking to com-
panies who have previously expressed their will to bring resources to the initiative, either
by lending personnel or by giving money. Since connections between politics and econ-
omy are often challenging, the talks were held directly between the front persons of city,
region and companies. Since the talks are held in a kind of “semi-private” surrounding, of
course everyone is allowed to express his/her opinion like in a purely economic negotia-
tion. The scope of the arena are informal agreements between the city and region represen-
tatives and the economic partners. However, this is directly linked to arena five by a raise
of overall resources for Hannover Impuls. The decisions in the talks between politics and
economy in this arena are taken on a consensual basis, because there is no possibility to
enforce the participation of someone (the participation is completely voluntary). Informa-
tion about the initiative itself was widely distributed in connection with the broad public
debate on the funding by city and state. Information about the economic strategies of the
(potential) partners are not accessible by the political leaders and therefore an unbalance
between politics and economy can be stated. It could not be found out how the internal
pay-offs of the talks were distributed between the actors, but it is assumed that the city and
the region paid to ensure convenience in the talks. The external pay-offs are defining exact
amounts to pay by the economic partners within a certain time frame or agreements about
lending their personal for specific jobs in the Hannover Impuls company. This pay-offs are
crucial for the next arena.

Arena five can be labelled “the operational arena”, because the operative part of the im-
plementation is done in here. The position rules define the three members of the executive
board as responsible for the everyday work in the initiative which is done by the Hannover
Impuls company’s employees, and thus they can all be described as implementors. The
                                                                                            52

supervisory board controls and gives advice to the executive board, which means that they
are the advisors of the initiative. The economic partners are involved by giving resources
to Hannover Impuls or by participating in one of the sub-projects as associates. The
boundaries of the arena are semi-open according to the kind of the initiative. While the
advisory board is completely closed (replacing members or appointing new members
would require a decision by the city council and the regional assembly), the members of
the executive board could be more easily replaced or appointed, because they are chosen
by the advisory board. The sub-projects are open for collaboration with every company
wanting to cooperate after the advisory board approves the application of the company.
Authority rules are granting everybody to express his or her opinion within their sphere.
The scope of the arena are formal agreements (contracts) between the Hannover Impuls
company and the sub-projects about subsidies, shares, etc. Aggregation rules comprise
different spheres of decision with different decision-making processes. In the advisory
board, decisions are made by simple majority – if there is a stalemate of votes, the chair-
man (a businessman) has the deciding vote. The executive board is not a collegiate body,
since every member has his own field of responsibility within the company. However,
nearly all important decisions are handled consensually, since the executive board mem-
bers are responsible to the advisory board for their action. Information rules are quite clear.
The sub projects have to inform the Hannover Impuls company (resp. its executive board).
On request, the executive board has to report to the advisory board. The representatives of
the public (Lord Mayor and president of the region) have to report to their city council
resp. regional assembly, if questioned so or to their respective standing committees for
economy. Since the whole process is handled merely informally, there are no fixed infor-
mation rules, but it seems obvious that information which is important for the political
sphere will be discussed by the Lord Mayor, the region’s president and their respective
personal environment, from which it will seep through to the parties and thus becoming a
public matter. The internal pay-offs are all imposed to Hannover Impuls since all talks in
this arena are within its contractual obligations. The external pay-offs depend on the deci-
sions taken and maybe mean cost for Hannover Impuls, maybe cost for the sub-project
companies.

The sixth arena is similar to arena three in some respect, since it covers the yearly deci-
sions for the city’s and the region’s budget for the funding of the Hannover Impuls com-
pany. First of all, the positions of the actors (the councillors, the Lord Mayor and the ex-
ecutive officers) are the same as in arena three. Also, all actors named here have the right
to express their opinion in the meetings of the city council, but only the council members
(including the Lord Mayor) have the right to cast their votes in decisions. The scope of the
arena is the decision about the amount of money which is given to the initiative company
by the city and the region in the next year. As it is part of the yearly budget decision proc-
ess, it may be in danger when there is a change in majority (either by election or by parts of
coalition chosing new political partners), because new coalitions tend to alter the contents
of the budget setting new focal points. Decisions on the budget have to be taken by a sim-
ple majority of the councillors present in the council meeting, and normally the majority is
reached easily, because adopting the budget is one of the key agreements when forming a
coalition. Describing information rules, information concerning the budget, budget laws
and general rules about budgets have to be distinguished from information about the spe-
cific cost center connected to the initiative. Information rules concerning the content of the
initiative may be described as in arena three, but the overall information rules seem to be
set up in another way. As with all policy fields, there is a certain number of specialists in
every party group who are experts for the respective field. This is the same in budget pol-
icy, where some people, usually the members of the city council’s finance committee, dis-
                                                                                                         53

cuss the budget proposal made by the Lord Mayor. In cities with stable (or fixed) majori-
ties like Hannover, the budget proposal is usually discussed with the experts and the heads
of the coalition parties before the official decisions, so that the adoption of the budget in
the finance committee and the council is only a formal step. Because restrictions on local
budgets are very vast (even because the financial situation of nearly all German cities is
very tight), financial policy in German municipalities is a very complicated thing, not at-
tracting much interest within the group of councillors. As they are all honorary politicians
(“Feierabendpolitiker”), the number of financial experts is low and the city council has to
trust them. The internal cost (reimbursements of councillors, room etc.) was carried by the
city, the external pay-off comprises that the city is paying about € 3 million the next year to
keep the company running.


                                Figure 4 – Arenas in the Hannover Impuls process

         semi-external sphere                      political sphere          initiative company sphere



                    1)
     Set-up of the state programme




                  2)                                    3)
      Preliminary market analysis            Company founding decision




                                                          4)                             5)
                                               Selection of partners and           Implementation
                                                 raising of resources



                                                         6)
                                               Yearly budget decisions


                                            Source: own composition


The following table shows the variety of actors and their involvement in the process in
various arenas, connecting them to the three stages of policy development, decision mak-
ing and policy implementation.
                                                                                           54

                  Table 7 – The Hannover Impuls arenas and the actors involved
stage              connected          involved actors
                   arena(s)
policy development 1                  Prime Minister (initiator)
                                      Lord Mayor (recipient)
                       2              McKinsey (survey conductor)
                                      city and region (costumers)
                                      companies (informant and door-openers)
decision making        3              councillors (decision-makers)
                                      Lord Mayor (decision-maker)
                                      executive officers (consultants)
                       4              Lord Mayor (network generator)
                                      president of the region (network generator)
                                      companies (addressees, initiative partners)
implementation         5              initiative employees (implementors)
                                      Lord Mayor (advisor)
                                      president of the region (advisor)
                                      companies (as partners)
                                      companies (as associates)
postponed              6              councillors (decision-makers)
decision making                       Lord Mayor (decision-maker)
                                      executive officers (consultants)

                                    Source: own composition




Actual behaviour of actors

Since the process was initiated by external actors (the state government), political actors at
the local level did not have enough time to develop own strategies and positions in the
frame of the suggested initiative. Of course the goal of the initiative – improving the city’s
and the region’s economic competitiveness – was a part of all party programmes and is
also an interest of the manufacturing and services industries in Hannover. Since the strate-
gies for the achievement of the goal were different, there was much discussion how to im-
plement the advices of the McKinsey survey. All parties supported the involvement of ma-
jor companies in a joint project where the public, but also the companies should take part
in investment. But there were also points of discussion which endangered the adoption of
the project as a whole. The positions of the economic actors as decisive factor in the advi-
sory board and their strong position in the executive board – to sum it up: in the implemen-
tation – made some councillors and members of the regional assembly afraid of a strictly
economic implementation style. They argued that the combination of a rather open goal
formulation (“enhancing competitiveness”) and the strong position of the economic actors
could lead to a situation where the companies could use the initiative to enhance their own
competitiveness, thus maybe forgetting the genuine goal of the initiative. The position of
the city opposition was focused on criticising the Lord Mayor. In the preliminary discus-
sion about the initiative some conservative members of the city council also argued that the
Lord Mayor wanted to use the initiative to cover a “misdevelopment” in some city-owned
tourism agencies. As Hannover is also a city with tourism, the strategy of “empowering the
powers” also includes the tourism sector. Since the city-owned tourism agency seemed not
effective enough and was consuming money from the city’s budget, the conservative coun-
                                                                                             55

cillors were afraid of making the agency a sub-project of Hannover Impuls, because that
would have meant that most of the initiative’s money would have been spent for this little
sub-project which would have had no chance of generating profit.68 The coalition parties
supported the Lord Mayor in constructing the initiative, but not without reservation. Since
some social democrats were undecided, workshops with representatives of comparable
projects (e.g. Dortmund) were organised.69

Concerning the rules, it was found that most actors adapted to the rules set up for the are-
nas. A special case of rule-breaking is the selection of the third executive board member by
the Lord Mayor (see below for details).

The patterns of interaction between the actors can be found in the table below.


                 Table 8 - Patterns of interaction in the Hannover Impuls process
                                         dominating mode of …
arena   … communication                 … decision-making             … structuring actors
1       bargaining                      consensual                    linked
2       arguing                         consensual                    fragmented
3       arguing                         consensual                    linked
4       bargaining                      polarized                     fragmented
5       arguing                         consensual                    linked
6       bargaining                      polarized                     linked

                                       Source: own composition


Since the first arena covers the initiation of the whole project by ordering an economic
survey for the city and the region in an inofficial talk between Prime Minister and Lord
Mayor, and since the pay-off of the decision was in the centre of their talks, it seems that
bargaining was the dominant mode of communication in this arena. As a prerequisite, the
decision had to be made consensual due to the autonomy of both actors in the policy field.
Since absolute cooperation was needed in the decision-making, the actors were linked.

In the second arena, the city, the region and the state on one side and McKinsey on the
other side were bound by a contract. Therefore, the variables describe the interaction be-
tween McKinsey as survey conductor and the other companies involved. Since McKinsey
had to persuade them to cooperate for the welfare of the city and the region, an arguing
approach was used. Decision-making could only be consensual, because an initiative for
achieving urban competitiveness with objectives contradictory to major companies’ goals
would have been unthinkable for politics. Because the survey was focusing on big compa-
nies, the structure can be described as fragmented.

The third arena covers the council meeting in which the founding of the Hannover Impuls
company was adopted. To found the company, only a small amount of money was needed.
Thus, the debate in the city council was dominated by matter-of-fact arguments about the
relationship of politics and economy in general and about the best way to achieve urban
competitiveness, which is clearly referring to arguing. Since the company founding was
adopted by an overwhelming majority in the council, the decision can be described as con-

68   See HAZ of February 26th, 2003.
69   See HAZ of January 29th, 2003.
                                                                                                  56

sensual. The actors can be described as linked, because no councillor can be outside the
arena by definition.

The title of the fourth arena (“selection of partners and raising of resources”) predefines the
arena’s consensus building mode as bargaining, because dealing for resources is in the fo-
cus of the activities. Decision-making can be considered polarized, because obviously the
Lord Mayor is powerful enough to realize his ideas about the personnel (see below for de-
tails). Therefore, decision-making can be considered fragmented, since some political ac-
tors (namely the president of the region) are kept out of some decisions they are formally
participating in, e.g. in the appointment of the third executive director (see above).

As implementation is the focus of arena five, and implementation means to realize the
goals defined by using a certain strategy, arguing is the main mode of consensus building.
Since many actors are involved in this arena (see table 7 for details), consensual decision-
making is needed to ensure coherence. All actors in the arena are linked together. Since
single sub-projects can be replaced by others, the arena is open for new actors, but there is
no fragmentation as a result of that.

Arena six again is covering a city council meeting in which the corresponding overall city
budget for the next year is adopted. Of course, in every city council budget decisions are
important, because the budget is setting the financial frame for the city administration and
is giving substantial guidelines for the political direction of the city’s policies. But in coun-
cils with a fixed majority like in Hannover, the council decision about the budget also is an
important milestone for the coalition, because usually the opposition is rejecting the budget
or abstaining to force the coalition to “shows its majority”. Anticipating this, the coalition
has to set up a budget which covers the opinion of all councillors belonging to the coali-
tion, since too many dissenting votes could cause a failure of the budget proposal. Thus,
this arena is characterized by coalition-internal, but also coalition-opposition, bargaining
and a polarized mechanism of decision-making. The mode of structuring is the same as in
arena three.

The influence of actors in the various arenas can also best be reviewed in the table below.


                    Table 9 - Influence of actors in the Hannover Impuls arenas
                                policy                   policy decision          imple-   postp.
                                development              making                   menta-   decision
                                                                                  tion     making
                        arena 1               2          3          4             5        6
Prime Minister                high            low        none       none          none     none
Lord Mayor                    high            low        high       high          low      high
President of the region       none            low        high       high          low      high
councillors/ members          none            none       high       none          none     high
of the regional assembly
companies                     none            low        none       high          high     none
(initiative partners)
companies (others)            none            high       none       none          none     none
Hannover Impuls                                                     none          high     none
executive board members

                                     Source: own composition
                                                                                                   57

It seems clear that there is a certain division of influence between three groups of actors.
First of all, political leaders are at least influential in the policy development, highly influ-
ential in the decision-making and only having low influence in the implementation (arena
five).
The councillors and the members of the regional assembly are only important for the deci-
sion making, but their influence is highly decisive here. Without their approval, no money
can be transferred to Hannover Impuls; they can be described as the legitimation bottle-
neck of the initiative.
The economic actors are important in the second policy development arena, where they
bring in their economic knowledge and – of course – the implementation stage, where they
make Hannover Impuls work.


Policy outcomes and impact

The main outcome is that the formation of the initiative was successful after long-time
failure of traditional business development with corporate actors like chambers, unions,
different municipalities etc. in the region. Talking about substantial outcomes, the policy of
redistribution was successful, and private and public resources have been mobilized.
Whether the goal of 40,000 new jobs can be reached is also a question of the general na-
tional economic development. At the beginning of the initiative’s implementation stage,
there has been a public discussion if the goal of the project was defined in a too optimistic
way.70 Anyway, in May 2003 the first sub-project, the “laser academy” was started.
Whereas the initiative’s outcome is visible, the impact on the economic situation and the
number of jobs in the region is rather unclear. But even if the initiative does not create that
huge number of jobs, the cohesion of the region has been strengthened and cooperation
between the city of Hannover and the other cities in the region as well as with certain im-
portant companies has been fostered.71 Whether or not the initiative has a sustainable im-
pact on this policy field seems to be dependent on the coherence of the sub-projects and the
overall goal of the initiative and on whether the companies involved have incentives to
work towards the proposed goal and not only towards their own benefit.

To be successful, the initiative has to sustainably create jobs in the region of Hannover, it
must be effective in terms of a comparison between the goals proposed and the goals pos-
sibly reached. Job creation must also be efficient; that means that a certain number of new
jobs created by Hannover Impuls may not exceed the cost of a job created by regular busi-
ness development; otherwise Hannover Impuls would not be efficient, since one goal of the
initiative was to develop an innovative kind of business development. In general, monitor-
ing the outcomes of the initiative is not easy, because besides the direct employment in the
sub-projects there is no possibility to find out if a job is actually being created because of
Hannover Impuls or another effect (maybe a general upturn in German economy). There-
fore, a real control of efficiency and effectiveness is difficult.

But even if both efficiency and effectiveness will be achieved, the question is if the whole
initiative lacks legitimacy.

Looking at legitimacy, the output seems to be the most important point. Considering the
current situation of Germany’s economy, everything which promises a slight improvement
on the labour market seems to be right. Nevertheless, is has been criticised that Hannover-

70    See HAZ/NP of April 30th, HAZ of June 8th, 2003.
71    This coperation in big initiatives was started by the city networks connected to the EXPO.
                                                                                              58

Impuls partly focuses on the “new economy” (internet and communications industry etc.),
even after the endless-seeming growth in this economic sector has stopped.
Furthermore, the input legitimacy perspective has to be considered critically. Surely the
involvement of the elected representatives (the Lord Mayor, the region’s president and
some members from both councils) in the supervisory board and the corollary commission
leads to a kind of legitimation in a representative sense. But the basic idea of the initia-
tive’s institutional setting is that local economic actors are best in developing local econ-
omy, and politics should stay out of business. If the initiative will be successful and thus
the assumption about competent business and incompetent politics will prove right con-
cerning the creation of new jobs, all forms of state business development will have to be
re-thought.
With respect to throughput legitimacy, the visibility of the elected representatives in the
decision making and implementation phase and the responsibility they took as well as the
broad public discussion about the initiative might have led to accountability in the light of
throughput legitimacy. Also, it has to be considered that absolute control of the Hannover
Impuls company by politics is not possible in run-time. Responsibility and accountability
at this stage are at last partly symbolical and not corresponding to the facts.

In respect of the three specificites of sustainability, the initiative seems to be in a rather
good position. If the initiative succeedes in creating new jobs in the Hannover region, it
would be both an economic and a social enhancement for the city and its surroundings. The
initiative also can be considered ecologically sustainable, because most of the jobs should
be created in “clean” industry such as internet & communication, medicine, laser technol-
ogy etc.


Conclusions

Concerning leadership, it can be stated that Lord Mayor Schmalstieg is a “consensus facili-
tating city boss” in all stages. He tends to be more a consensual facilitator in the first two
stages and he tends more to the city boss in the last stage. In both the stages of policy de-
velopment and policy decision making, he tries to find compromises, especially with repre-
sentatives of the Hannover region, wherever it was possible. According to the PLUS sur-
vey, powerful local actors (major local companies) had the strongest influence on policy
development and decision making. In the implementation stage, the mayor took over the
control on most of the decisions on implementation matters, so that his leadership style in
the last stage can be labelled “city boss”. For example, the appointment of the third project
company director has been objected by regional politicians, including the SPD. The an-
nouncement of TUI to participate in the project was welcomed by all politicians, but the
appointment of a former TUI spokesman by the Lord Mayor was criticised as an act with-
out legitimate authority.72 Since the director is still paid by TUI and thus is a “lent director”
of the project company, there is no additional cost for the appointment. The criticism of the
parties in the regional assembly concentrated on the fact that the appointment was not co-
ordinated with the region’s president. The Lord Mayor was also demonstrating strong
leadership when taking the risk of a non-approval of the city’s budget by the Be-
zirksregierung (see above). It is important to mention that the senior civil servants of the
city and the Land responsible for economic affairs are involved in the process, but only in
the day-by-day administrative work connected to the initiative. Hannover-Impuls Ltd. is
controlled by the Lord Mayor and the president of the Hannover region. Also, the general


72    See HAZ and NP of February 13th, 14th, 15th, 2003.
                                                                                                        59

managers of Hannover-Impuls are not delegated leaders, because they can not be held di-
rectly responsible by the Lord Mayor or the president of the region. The company gets
money from public budgets, but when the budget is approved by the councils, the company
can decide on its own how to use the resources. The only restrictions are the goals fixed in
the article of agreement and the conclusions from the McKinsey study. The only possibility
to really stop the company is either a dissolvement agreement between city and region or
the non-approval of the yearly budget for the company. Furthermore, the managers of
Hannover-Impuls are not employers of the city or the region, but are still employed by
their “home companies”; they are only exempted from their regular duty for their work in
the Hannover-Impuls initiative. Therefore, there can not be an executive command by the
Lord Mayor or the president of the region to them.

Community involvement is only done by selecting major local companies as partners.
Thus, only corporate actors are involved. Some of the major local companies participate as
partners in the Hannopver Impuls Ltd., some are recipients of the Hannover Impuls’ sub-
projects.

Concerning procedural challenges, activating major local companies and fostering the co-
operation between them have been achieved. In the policy development and decision-
making stages, the time frame was the most crucial point. While the Lord Mayor wanted to
push the project through responsible bodies as fast as possible to ensure an early start of
the project, nearly all parties in the regional assembly and also the opposition parties in the
city council wanted to discuss the project for a longer time.73 The institutional design has
been built up as planned; it is based on a fixed legal solution, but is flexible enough for the
tasks to work on.


Lessons

The interplay of leadership and community involvement in the initiative’s framework is
based on a strong position of the participating local companies. Since the councils do not
possess direct control and information rights over Hannover-Impuls, they are partly forced
to trust the Lord Mayor and the region’s president. The political leaders themselves are
forced to trust the business members of the supervisory board, especially because one of
them is chairing and thus has the deciding vote. The whole initiative is constructed as a
mainly economy-dominated project and thus the political leaders are having only slight
possibilities to influence the initiative after the beginning of the operative work, which can
be described as a nearly complete and intended lack of political leadership at least in the
implementation stage. Even if there is political influence on the Hannover savings bank
(which is owned by the region and thus is a semi-public institution),74 and hence the policy
of the operative work of Hannover Impuls could be influenced by politics via the two
members of the executive board which are lend by the bank, this is a rather indirect con-
nection.


73    See HAZ of December 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 2003 and NP of December 6th, 2003.
74    All German savings banks (“Sparkassen”) are operating in certain territorial entities each and are
      owned by the respective regional bodies. The Hannover savings bank was founded by merging the
      former Hannover city savings bank (which was owned by the city) and the county of Hannover sav-
      ings bank (which was owned by the former county of Hannover). Because the lower saxonian law on
      savings banks does not allow several owners of a single savings bank, the region now is the only
      owner of the new bank, but a contract between the city and the region ensures equal influence of both
      bodies when deciding about advisory board members, the distribution of the bank’s earnings etc.
                                                                                           60

At first sight, the only real means of influence which is left with politics is cancelling the
money for the initiative in the yearly budget of the city and the region. This would proba-
bly lead to the situation that the involved companies withdraw their resources and cancel
their participation in the initiative, which would mean the end of the project as a whole.
Influencing Hannover Impuls through the back-door can be done via the two Hannover
savings bank representatives in the Hannover Impuls executive board or via the advisory
board. However, the positions of Lord Mayor and the region’s president in the advisory
board can not be used for direct influence, but for informal negotiations. Representing also
the parties which are the majority groups in the city council and the regional assembly,
both the Lord Mayor and the region’s president have a good overview over the conditions
which have to be kept by Hannover Impuls for getting the yearly grant awarded.
                                                                                           61



3.2      Heidelberg

3.2.1    Context

General Information

Heidelberg is located in the southwestern part of Germany, in the German Land (federal
state) of Baden-Württemberg. Its beautiful surrounding (with the Neckar river departing
the Odenwald mountains) and a certain romantic nimbus have made it a very attractive
spot for visitors from all over the world. But the city is also known for its university and
research facilities. It is part of an agglomeration, the Rhine Neckar region.

The city of Heidelberg has a resident population of 130.144 (2002), which means that it
takes the rank 52 among the 83 German bigger cities. 15.5 % (20,180) of the population
are foreigners; out of this 26,1% are EU foreigners.75

More than half of all households today are single person households. Together with an
ongoing process of sub-urbanisation this has significantly increased traffic problems in
Heidelberg since more and more people own a car and use it as commuters. Thus, traffic
policy and corresponding questions of settlement are an intensely debated topic in Heidel-
berg, sometimes at the expense of other policy fields, but in the end connected to them.
Against the background of a quite high general satisfaction with life in the city, “traffic in
general” was mentioned as the “most severe problem” by 45,2 % of the respondents in a
survey – and “public transport” got the second rank with 11,5 % (Stadt Heidelberg 2000:
47).

In 2002 Heidelberg had nearly 97,000 places of work of which 77.609 (80%) required so-
cial insurance. 81.4 % of the work places belong to the service industries, 18.4 % to the
production industries and only 0.2% to commercial agriculture. That means, that Heidel-
berg has (together with Freiburg) the highest proportion of people working in the service
sector in Baden-Wuerttemberg. This dominance of the service sector is relevant for our
economic competitiveness case study where the city tries to strengthen the economic pros-
pects of the district where production industries still play an important role.
The university, some colleges and a lot of other research institutes as well as the pub-
lisher’s industries are responsible for a high number of work places in the “information”
sector. The university employs 15,300 persons and is thus the biggest employer in the city.
This corresponds to the fact that Heidelberg is the city in Germany with the highest propor-
tion of graduates: 43% of the inhabitants have graduated at a university or a college. Be-
sides university and research there is a rather diverse structure of companies situated in
Heidelberg.

Average income was € 22,558 in 2001. This rather low amount is due to the fact that a sub-
stantial part of the population are students. GDP per head was € 40,230 in 2002. In 2002,
the unemployment rate in Heidelberg was 7.0 %. This is significantly less than the national
average (9.8% in 2002), but above the average in Baden-Württemberg (5.6%). 3775 people
were recipients of social benefits (2,9 %) (30.06.2003).



75
        Source: www.heidelberg.de.
                                                                                                          62

Besides the oldest university of Germany (including an important major centre of medical
research), Heidelberg provides a fitting base for cutting-edge companies and institutes
across a wide range of disciplines: as a centre for life sciences and biotechnology, as a
multimedia hub for top publishing houses and software giants and as the birthplace of ma-
jor new developments in environmental technology.


The municipal authority: functions, finances and administrative structure

As most of the bigger cities in Germany Heidelberg comprises the functions of the two
administrative units at the local level in Germany, i.e. the functions of a municipality and
of a county (being a “county exempt city”). It is thus responsible for cultural institutions,
schools, municipal roads, fire protection, water supply and sewerage, garbage collection
and disposal, urban planning including land utilisation, social support and welfare services
(see also above the context part of Hannover, point 3.1.1).

The city’s annual budget for 2003 was EURO 410,73 million. The composition of reve-
nues is described in table 10 whereas table 11 shows the development of Heidelberg’s
budget in terms of deficit in the budget. As practically all municipalities in Germany Hei-
delberg has to cope with a difficult budget crisis. However, deficit per head is considerably
lower compared to Hannover. The share of income tax has significantly decreased in 2003
due to federal tax reforms and the stagnation of German economy. General grants have
also decreased. An accurate analysis of the budget situation, however, is only be possible if
one also has a look on the extensive transfers which the city has to make to upper levels of
government. In 2003 66 Mio € were estimated for this, and in 2001 57 Mio € were trans-
ferred.


                                       Table 10 - City revenues (in € million)
                                 1997         1998       1999       2002         200376    2004    2005
property tax                     18,3         18,7       19,3       20,1         20,2      20,4    20,6
business tax                     58,6         60         56,2       59,8         61        63,3    65,5
share of sales tax               -            6          6,3        6,5          6,5       6,6     6,8
share of income tax              35,6         38,9       41,9       45,2         42,8      44,5    44,5
other taxes                      7            7,5        6,2        7,9          7,8       7,8     7,9
general grants from the state    56,1         61,9       65,6       60,1         58,9      66      68,7

                                             Source: city of Heidelberg


                                  Table 11 – Development of budget deficit
                                1990              2001                    2003              2004         2005
yearly deficit (Mio €)                                                18               20,1         13,5
total deficit (Mio €)              78,9              107,1           132,8            152,8        166,1
deficit per head                   580,8              761             na                na           na

                                             Source: City of Heidelberg


The municipal administration in Heidelberg currently consists of four directorates (“Dez-
ernate”), one belonging to the mayor (“general administration”) and three to appointed
deputy mayors (“building and sports”, “social services, youth and culture”, and “environ-

76     Values for 2003, 3004 and 2005 are estimated values.
                                                                                                                                              63

ment and energy”), and 39 offices which each belong to one of the directorates. The mayor
is called “Oberbürgermeister” (lord mayor) and the deputy mayors “Bürgermeister” (may-
ors). Among the latter one is “Erster Bürgermeister” (first mayor) which means vice
mayor. The lord mayor is responsible for the whole administration, but each deputy mayor
leads his directorate independently.



                                                  Figure 5 – Structure of the city administration



                         Directorate I                            Directorate II                    Directorate III                Directorate IV
                                                               Building and Sports       Social Services, Youth and Culture   Environment and Energy
                         Beate Weber                         Raban von der Malsburg                  Jürgen Beß                   Eckart Würzner
                         Lady Mayor                                 First Mayor                     Deputy Mayor                   Deputy Mayor

   Lady Mayor's Office                   Citizens Office
                                                                       Traffic                        School                     Office for Waste
                                                                                                   administration                Management and
                                                                                                                                Municipal Sanitation

     Direction for                           Citizen
 General Administration,                  Representative             Facility                     Municipal Library                  Fire Brigade
    Economy and                          ("Ombudsman")             management
     Employment

     Office for the                      Finance Office
    Equality of Men                                             Office for Structural                 Theatre                   Office for Landscape
     and Women                                                      Engineering



    Civil Registration                   Office for Public
    and Public Order                         Relation        Technical Citizens Office           Youth and Children            Office for the Protection
         Division                                                                                  Welfare Office                of the Environment,
                                                                                                                                      energy and
                                                                                                                                  Health Promotion
  Office for Personnel               Financial Auditing
   and Organisation                                               Property Office                 Cultural Services




     Legal Services                      Office for Urban
                                          Development            Surveyor's Office                 Cultural Affairs
                                          and Statictics                                               Office



                                                                 Civil engineering                Office for Social
                                                                        Office                    Affairs and Work
                                                                                                   for the Elderly


                                                                 Office for Building
                                                               Law and Preservation
                                                                       Order




                                                              Source: own composition




The city of Heidelberg employs a total of 2.200 persons (2002). There is evidence that Hei-
delberg is a city that is fairly committed to reforms of public administration following the
ideas of New Public Management (NPM), though the ‘conventional’ objectives and meth-
ods of NPM seem to be regarded as just one necessary step to modernise public admini-
stration. Heidelberg has introduced the “Neues Steuerungsmodell” (“new steering model”
– a German adoption of NPM) that gives financial responsibility to de-central units of the
administration. The city has developed its own system of product management. However,
these reforms are not considered by all in the city’s administration to be sufficient in order
to achieve not only efficiency, but also effectiveness and legitimacy. According to an in-
terview, city actors think about the introduction of more qualitative criteria for the work of
the administration and the development of “strategic-monetary governance”.
                                                                                           64

Heidelberg’s path of modernising public administration has been characterised as belong-
ing to the “participatory model”, stressing the meaning of an amelioration of the relation-
ship between local administration and citizenry in implementing elements of NPM. It has
also been judged as focussing especially on problem-solving (Jaedicke et al. 2000: 211pp.).
It remains to be seen, however, how effective the participatory model of administrative
problem-solving is.


The political management system

According to the south German model of local government, the (lord) mayor and the coun-
cil can both rely on direct electoral legitimacy and on genuine responsibilities. The (lord)
mayor is elected directly by the citizenry every eight years which, of course, is an ex-
tremely long tenure. In addition, he/she can’t be removed by the council or the citizenry
once having got into office. There is no need to be nominated as candidate by a party, yet
the actual lord mayor of Heidelberg belongs to and has been nominated by the Social De-
mocrats. The (lord) mayor is the head of local administration and endowed with own re-
sponsibilities which the council can not withdraw. The council is responsible for all deci-
sions of major importance and especially for the budget (which is, however, prepared by
the mayor). Unlike the lord/lady mayor the council is elected every five years – what fur-
thermore seems to accentuate the powerful position of the directly elected mayor in Baden-
Württemberg – but also the principle of dualism. The direct election of the (lord) mayor
might of course lead to the situation that the office-holder has a party affiliation differing
from the majority of the council. In Heidelberg this has been so several times indeed and is
also currently the case.

The danger of an inefficient “cohabitation” is tempered by a radical personalisation of
mayor and council elections. In council elections voters may divide their votes (as much as
seats in the council) between different parties/lists and candidates and they may also give
single candidate more votes than the others on the same list. As with this electoral system
also candidates in seemingly hopeless positions on the list can be theoretically elected and
others in more favourable positions can be crossed out, we have a kind of personal election
in the local electoral system. Correspondingly, in mayor elections there is no need to be
nominated by a party, and candidate lists do not mention the nominating party if there is
any. There are thus incentives for both councillors and the mayor to position themselves in
a distance to party politics and strengthen a “voter-friendly” profile. Proponents of the mu-
nicipal code of Baden-Württemberg as the “best model” of local government have cele-
brated this electoral personalisation (together with the possibility of local referenda) as a
central arrangement for establishing a responsive kind of local authorities.
The city council consists of 40 elected (honorary) members and the lord mayor who also
chairs. In the current election period, the parties have the following numbers of council-
lors:
                                                                                                        65

             Table 12 - Results of the local election in 1999 and party seats in city council

 Party                                  % of votes in the 1999 Seats in Council
                                        elections
 CDU (Christian Democrats)              32.5                   14
 SPD (Social Democrats)                 22.6                   10
 GAL (Greens)                           14.5                   6
 Heidelberger (free voters association) 13.1                   5
 FWV (free voters association)          5.1                    2
 FDP (Liberals)                         4.4                    2
 LL/PDS (lefts)                         2.3                    1


Although after the last council elections it was said that a new majority had been estab-
lished, enabling a liberal-right coalition, there has not been a clear coalition in the council
until today, but changing majorities or more or less unanimous decision making (e.g. on
the last budget).77

The council has eight committees: for central planning and finances, constructional plan-
ning, environment, culture, social affairs, city development and traffic, youth care, and
sports. The committees have the function to work on proposals for the council. An excep-
tion is the committee for youth care which (based on a federal law) may decide matters on
its own and which is composed not only of city councillors but also of representatives of
the organisations which are responsible for the implementation of youth care programs.
The lord mayor is also the chairman of all council committees.

Interestingly, the deputy mayors are appointed (also for eight years) either consensually by
the lord mayor and an absolute majority of the council or solely by a qualified majority of
the council (two thirds of its members). The municipal code of Baden-Württemberg says
that deputy mayors shall be appointed according to the strength of the parties in the coun-
cils (the parliamentary parties have the right of presentation). For Heidelberg this means
that all major parties are traditionally represented in the local executive. So, there is a
strong element of consensual democracy with respect to the composition of the executive.
By the way, not only the lord mayor, but also the deputy mayors cannot be moved out of
office by a decision of the council. This stresses their legal status as “civil servants”. But
the responsibilities of the deputy mayors are accordingly less important, all the more be-
cause they do not form a collegiate body together with the Lady Mayor and/or with an ex-
ecutive committee of councillors (as in Hannover). Contrary to the lady/lord mayor, the
deputy mayors are not members of the council and they cannot appear for the lord/lady
mayor in his/her function of chairing the council or its committees. Leadership of the dep-
uty mayors is thus rather restricted to administrative leadership which becomes particularly
important when administrative actions have to be coordinated.

Currently, although the Lady Mayor does not control the majority of the council, decision
making there always requires leadership as she has to “construct” her majority in the coun-
cil always new around particular decisions. The municipal code gives the lord/lady mayor
the competence to organise the municipal administration according to her own ideas, al-
though in cooperation with the council. This further strengthens the leadership position of
the Lady Mayor, at least if he/she is able to use certain windows of opportunity for a re-
77
      Although during the last 30 years the CDU has held most of the seats in the local council, the current
      Lady Mayor and also her predecessor Mr. Zundel are members of the Social Democrats (however, Mr.
      Zundel left the party during his time in office).
                                                                                                       66

construction of the administration. As head of the administration she can give orders to all
city employees (the deputy mayors having informational rights but no veto power). This is
very important especially for our case study on social inclusion (project of the district de-
velopment planning) since a high coordination of administrative work is needed – but one
can doubt that central administrative power would be sufficient for this coordination. That
is why the city administration is engaged in a lot of internal deliberation on common un-
derstandings (“Leitbilder”), in order to foster a corporate identity.

The position of parties in Baden Württemberg – and therefore also in Heidelberg – is in
literature often described as not very dominant at the local level – that’s why it is often
impossible to speak of “black” or “red” city halls (Wehling 2000, Pfitzer 1991). For Ba-
den-Württemberg it is typical that there are still numerous free independent voters groups
(“Wählergruppen”), which may not simply be dismissed as notabilities’ parties or lobbies.
Furthermore, the situation or the role of parties is favoured by the electoral procedure
which is similar to a personality election. Among party candidates, those who, in addition
to their party membership, have a corresponding profile have better chances to be elected
and to win the citizens’ confidence (Wehling 2000).


Governance

Heidelberg joins two major regional cooperations: the “Raumordnungsverband Rhein-
Neckar” and the “Regionalverband Rhein-Neckar- Odenwald” (regional planning). The
function of the “Raumordnungdverband Rhein-Neckar” is the coordination of regional
planning in the three neighbouring regions of the three Länder Baden-Württemberg, Rhine-
land Palatinate and Hesse on the basis of a special treaty. The “Regionalverband Rhein-
Neckar-Odenwald” represents a municipal cooperation (founded in 1973) of the city of
Heidelberg, the city of Mannheim and the counties Neckar-Odenwald Kreis and Rhein-
Neckar Kreis and is also a member of the “Raumordnungsverband Rhein-Neckar”. One of
its functions is for example the drawing up and the continuation of the regional plan for the
entire region.78 Heidelberg is also a member of different functional associations with other
municipalities/districts. The most important are for garbage disposal and recycling, traffic
and sewerage.

Concerning the inclusion of economy and society in Heidelberg, there exists a multitude of
contacts with business actors and with science. In addition, in 2002 the “future forum
economy and civic engagement” has been founded by which new forms of cooperation
between economy and groups of civic engagement (corporate citizenship). “Results” of
this new forum are not only several projects and activities but also the creation of a new
administrative office for the coordination of civic engagement (within the Lady Mayors
portfolio).

Since April 2004 a further new association links economy, science, administration and
politics: the “Centre for Ecological Competence Heidelberg Rhine-Neckar” (“Umwelt-
kompetenzzentrum Heidelberg Rhein-Neckar” (UKOM)). The main aim of this association
is the improvement of the competitiveness and of the situation of the environment and it is
thereby based on the transfer of knowledge, on information, the exchange of experience
and on cooperation. Members are not only representatives of national and local institutions
but also those of universities, universities for applied sciences, associations, business com-
panies and individuals. Since UKOM is not restricted to the city of Heidelberg it has to be

78
      For more information about these regional organisations see www.region-rhein-neckar-dreieck.de
                                                                                                   67

seen as a regional network with the city as a kind of origin – as the latter has gained (posi-
tive) experience in the establishment of public private partnerships in local politics of eco-
nomy during the last years.79

According to the PLUS-survey, local-state-society relations in Heidelberg can be de-
scribed as balanced. The level of co-operation between the city authorities and local asso-
ciations on the one hand and between the city authorities and business on the other hand is
also considered by the respondents by a mean value between “very weak and very strong”
with a slight tendency towards “strong”.


Public participation and community involvement

In 1999, turnout for local government elections in Heidelberg (city council) was 48,8%
which is significantly lower than turnout in national elections (83,7 % in 1998). Turnout in
the last direct election of the mayor (1998) was also only 53,6 %. In both cases this means
a drastic historical decline of participation in local elections.

At the local level, all citizens from the EU hold both active and passive suffrage.

The citizens of Heidelberg can enact their role as voters on three occasions: Council elec-
tions, election of the mayor and local referenda. However, factually there has never been a
local referendum in the city and the citizens seem not to be very familiar with this special
form of direct democracy. This resembles the general pattern in Baden-Wuerttemberg
where local referenda have long since been part of the municipal code but are rarely made
use of.

In the last decade Heidelberg has tested and introduced new participatory approaches in
numerous fields of action by trying to realise “interactive governance” in the field of urban
development – for example in the context of the “Transport Forum” (“Verkehrsforum”),
the “Tourism Model” (“Tourismusleitbild”), the “Energy Round Tables” (“Energietische”),
the “District development planning”, the Local Agenda 21 (City Development Plan “Hei-
delberg 2010”). All these ways of involving parts of the local community are mainly delib-
erative in character, i.e. they strive for reaching communicative consensus, not for weigh-
ing preferences. However, striving for consensual and inclusive planning did not always
lead to consensual decisions in the council.

In addition to the just mentioned participatory projects, Heidelberg has a wide variety of
institutionalised permanent citizen involvement:

There are 13 district councils, though only with an advisory function. In proportion to the
result of the council elections in the respective district, the council appoints the members
of the district councils for five years. Proposals to the councils are discussed in the affected
district councils. However, according to a survey only 41 % of the citizens know that there
are district councils whereas 73 % know about the “district associations” which are not
institutions of the city (Stadt Heidelberg 2002b: 11).


79    Stadt Heidelberg – Pressedienst-Archiv 24.04.2003, see www. Heidelberg.de/aktuelle/archiv/
      pd240403.htm. One example for these successful public private partnerships is the project “Nach-
      haltiges Wirtschaften” (sustainable economic action) where small and middle-sized companies are
      supported by the city in the development of an environmental management system.
                                                                                                     68

The foreigners council also fulfils an advisory function for the city council. It is composed
of 17 representatives of the foreign population, elected by Heidelberg’s foreign inhabitants,
and six members of the city council who are appointed by the council parties.
The youth council, established in 1999 for an experimental phase of four years, is thought
to involve young people into the affairs of the local community and to help them to articu-
late their interests and opinions. The 20 members of the youth council come from Heidel-
berg’s schools and are elected by the pupils for two years. The youth council elects two of
its members as representatives with advisory function in the committee for youth care (see
above). Twice a year, the youth council presents a report on its work to the council. It is
informed by the council about policy issues affecting the youth, it may decide to discuss
any topic it wants to, and it controls an own budget for the promotion of projects.

As mentioned above, the central objectives of the reform of public administration in Hei-
delberg are:
- new forms of citizen involvement in policy making processes,
- the transformation of the administrative work towards sustainability and customer-
    orientation and
- the creation of a new “working and steering-model” (Arbeits- und Steuerungsmodell)
    which includes as well a controlling and a task- and product analysis. With respect to
    this a model project called “Dezentrale Ressourcenverantwortung” has been launched
    (financial responsibility to de-central units of administration) (Weber 1995: 328-330).

Within the organisation of administration the idea of citizen- and customer orientation has
been realised by several arrangements and forms of service supply which make access to
the administration easier. Since 1991 Heidelberg has got a citizen representative (“Bürger-
beauftragter”), a neutral “place of refuge” which citizens can contact when they have prob-
lems with the administration. The “Bürgerbeauftragter” of Heidelberg is – at the local level
– unique in Germany and his/her main function is the mediation between the citizens and
the administration. In addition, the city of Heidelberg has de-concentrated its administra-
tion by creating citizen offices (“Bürgerämter”) since 1992 what means that the administra-
tion is directly present in all districts (Weber 1995).
In this context it is important to mention also the dialogically oriented reorganisation of the
promotion of the local economy development (see the case study on economic competi-
tiveness).


Urban leadership

As mentioned above, the lord mayor has a very strong institutional position in the munici-
pality. He/she is head of the local administration, chairman of the council and all its com-
mittees and representative of the municipality. Furthermore the lord mayor is together with
the council responsible for the appointment of the deputy mayors and for the allocation of
their tasks.
The lord mayor is also head of an own directorate which comprises different tasks of local
administration. Currently, the Lady Mayor of Heidelberg, Beate Weber, holds the respon-
sibilities for urban development, central planning, economic stimulation and finances. Fur-
thermore, Heidelberg is one of the few German cities with a female directly elected mayor
(therefore she is called “lady mayor”).80 In 1990 she had been elected as the first woman in

80    She was born in 1943 in Reichenberg. After completing A-levels and studying at the University of
      Heidelberg and Heidelberg College of Pedagogic, she served as teacher of primary and basic educa-
      tion from 1968 until 1979 as well as the International Comprehensive School of Heidelberg. In 1975
                                                                                                         69

the Land of Baden-Württemberg as full-time mayor.81 With nearly 90% of trained experts
of administration under the full-time mayors in Baden-Württemberg (Bäuerle 1998: 61),
Mrs. Weber can be called an exception since she has originally been a teacher. But accord-
ing to her own words, she does not regret this professional background; by her activity in
the European Parliament she had learned the indispensable qualifications and gained ex-
perience with the characteristics of bigger systems. In her work she describes herself ac-
cordingly more than a practitioner than a theorist.82

Referring to the Mouritzen/Svara-typology (Mouritzen/Svara 2002) the horizontal dynam-
ics in Heidelberg can be therefore described the most likely by the “strong mayor form” as
there is an elected mayor who is in charge of all functions – but, and this is the modifica-
tion to that typology, who does not control the majority of the council. But nevertheless,
this form of power relation called “strong mayor form” applies best to Heidelberg as the
Lady Mayor concentrates the three most important functions of leadership in her position
by
•    heading the local council and all of its committees (including the right to vote and the
     prerogative to propose the budget) and thus having a certain influence on its decisions,
•    being the chief of the administration and therefore responsible for its proper function-
     ing (including decisions of personnel) and
•    politically and legally representing the municipality (inside and outside).

Having identified the horizontal local governmental power relations as a modified “strong
mayor form”, we will now have a closer look at the leadership type, i.e. the institutionali-
sation of leadership power. According to the typology of leadership types used within the
PLUS project, we find an approximation of the strong mayoral type in Heidelberg. This
firstly refers to the dimension of local autonomy:
•    a high level of local autonomy, including the control of a wide range of policies and the
     budget by local authorities and
•    their low dependence on national parties and organisations (concerning the local deci-
     sion-making); the local party system in Heidelberg only partially reflects the national
     party system; it is more fragmented and includes a bundle of local parties (sometimes
     resulting from splintering off the established parties and mirroring the respective ideol-
     ogy).
The second dimension is the autonomy of the political leader within local decision making.
Thus he/she is “strong” when he/she
•    prepares the budget and is responsible for formulating the overall policy framework;
     this is also manifest in the fact that the Lady Mayor has not only the right to chair the
     city council but also all its committees, including the district councils and that she has
     the right to vote in these bodies;
•    appoints the senior staff; however, as mentioned, in Heidelberg the Lady Mayor does
     not independently appoint the council managers, but has to cooperate with the council
     in this decision;

       she became councillor in Heidelberg and substitute chairwoman of the Party Council of the Social
       Democrats of Germany. From 1979 until 1990, she was a member of the European Parliament. Since
       1990, Beate Weber is Lady Mayor of the City of Heidelberg.
81     According to the German results of the project “Political leaders in European cities”, 98% of all may-
       ors of Baden-Wuerttemberg are male and only 2% are female – what is under the level for Germany
       where 96% of all mayors are male and 4% female.
82     Interview with Beate Weber, February 10th, 2003.
                                                                                            70


•   has an overall control over the work of the directorates and local authorities and guides
    their activities, but is also accountable for the work of the administration and
•   is elected directly and controls the majority in the council; as we have already men-
    tioned in Heidelberg there is the modification that the mayor is not the party leader in
    the council and that her party does not form the majority in it – in fact, there is no sta-
    ble majority.
Unlike leadership types, leadership styles depend on the political strategies, convictions
and values of the leaders – that means the political orientation in relation to the perceptions
of social problems and ways of problem solving as well as the attitude versus the delega-
tion of powers.

The leadership style of the current Lady Mayor – who was elected for her first tenure in
1990 and re-elected in 1998 – has been contrasted to that of her predecessor Zundel as a
shift “from a voluntaristic to a communicative understanding of politics” (Schneider 1997:
103). Whereas Zundel was described as a “task leader” (focussing on the realisation of
certain policy contents) she can be characterised as a “procedural leader” as her aim is the
reduction of conflicts in the city and the improvement of social coherence. Already in her
first election campaign she put the main emphasis on citizen involvement, special efforts
for women, children and the elderly, environment, traffic and energy policy, social justice,
and internal peace (Schneider 1997: 106). Community involvement should indeed become
one of the main characteristics by which the city of Heidelberg tries to solve different
problems (see below). For the Lady Mayor this agenda seems to have been successful,
since she has gained quite some popularity. According to a survey, 62,9 % of the citizens
think she has done a “rather good job” so far (Stadt Heidelberg 2000: 48).
In the PLUS survey, we asked the panel of local stakeholders about their expectations to-
wards urban leaders. According to the survey, the democratic leaders should act on the
basis of consultations with different parts of the local society (average of 5.0 points on a 1-
7 point scale) rather than pursue their personal idea of the city’s future. The leaders are
identified as representatives of the city as a whole and not as a representative of the major-
ity in the city (6.1 points). Thus, leaders are expected to be consensual facilitators instead
of consequently executing the majority’s will (4.5 points). As a result of this expectations,
the leader should not focus on his task as head of administration. He/she should strive for
the construction of local partnerships and networks instead of focusing on his/her role as
the head/leader of the administration (2.7 points). Finally, the leader is expected to take
over the task of mobilising support and resources from the local community for implemen-
tation instead of implementing local policies with the administration as his instrument (4.5
points).
Looking at dimensions of the leader’s legitimation, there are also clear results in the gen-
eral panel of the PLUS survey in Heidelberg. It is important for the panel members that
demoratic leaders are solving problems efficiently (4.5 points on a 5-point scale). Also,
transparency and
accountability are important for democratic leaders (4.2 points). The right for direct par-
ticipation of citizens is also seen as important (3.8 points).


Policies on social inclusion

For urban policies on social inclusion in general see the respective part on Hannover above
(3.1.1).
                                                                                                            71



Policies on economic competitiveness

For urban policies on economic competitiveness in general see the respective part on Han-
nover above (3.1.1).


Traits in national and local political culture that influence how selected case studies
are handled

The following aspects of local political culture seem to be of special importance:
•    Measured by the city's size, political debates in Heidelberg are extraordinarily intense
     and often characterised by high polarisation. According to an analysis by an independ-
     ent institute “there are few other cities where the range of opinions represented by po-
     litical parties is as wide as here. […] In the polarised conflicts there seems to have van-
     ished the sense for the ‘feasible middle way’” (cited by Schneider 1997: 14, translation
     by the authors).
•    The interest in politics is comparably high. In 2000, 13 % of respondents in a survey in
     Heidelberg said they had a “very strong” interest and 42 % a “strong” interest (Stadt
     Heidelberg 2000: 32) whereas in a national survey (carried out before national elec-
     tions!) only 9,5 % were very strongly and 22,2 % were strongly interested
     (www.wahlumfrage2002.de).
•    In the same survey 2000 43 % of the respondents said that participation in Heidelberg
     was “very important” or “important” to them. 53,3 % stated that it was “less important”
     or “not important at all” (Stadt Heidelberg 2000: 51). Asked if they were content with
     the opportunities to participate the average value was 5,9 on a scale from 0 to 10 (how-
     ever, 30,8 % refused to answer) (Stadt Heidelberg 2000: 50, own calculation). 32,5 %
     said that they kept “regularly” informed about local politics and 47,1 % claimed this
     was “irregularly” the case (Stadt Heidelberg 2000: 48).
•    However, a larger part of the citizenry of Heidelberg seems not to be informed about
     the already mentioned possibilities of community involvement; many have never made
     use of the offers (Stadt Heidelberg 2002b).83
•    The citizenry of Heidelberg is extensively engaged in organisations, clubs, associations
     and self-organised groups (Stadt Heidelberg 2002b). In some districts there is a very
     vibrant life of district specific groups.
•    The high visibility of the mayor seems to contribute to a localised and party distanced
     political culture: although there is significantly less identification with parties in gen-
     eral and with the party of the Lady Mayor, the Social Democrats, in particular, her own
     performance was regarded as significantly better in 2000 compared to 1994 (Stadt Hei-
     delberg 2000: 33-36).
•    In Heidelberg the perception of local politics seems to be more person-oriented than
     party-oriented – that means questions of local politics are ascribed to individual per-
     sons; this could lead to the interpretation that the decisive factor by elections is more
     somebody’s competence for answering questions than his party-identification (Stadt
     Heidelberg 1997e: 26, Stadt Heidelberg 1994) .

83     For many of these findings the surveys (e.g. concerning the situation of the quality of life and mobility
       of the citizens in the past) the city of Heidelberg regularly carries out were very helpful. In 2002, for
       example, there has been a survey about local democracy and civic engagement in Heidelberg. Another
       study, which has already started (but which is not jet finished) focuses on spatial supply and deals
       with questions concerning actual problems of local politics and aspects of voting behaviour.
                                                                                          72



In the PLUS survey, the general panel stated that citizens should be actively involved in
the process of decision-making (average of 5.4 points on a 1-7 scale). Most of them believe
that it is an important task of the leader to ensure that there is citizen involvement (5.4
points). Furthermore, citizens are also welcome to take part not only in the process of deci-
sion-making but also in the stage of implementation. Their participation should ensure a
broad consent in the city, but the concerns of the city as a whole should also be considered.
Also the general panel considered that a broad consent and caring for the city’s concerns
would be better than seeking for a strategic majority and representing their own concerns
(average of 4.6 resp. 4.5 points).
The involvement of citizens is connected to three important expectations of the general
panel. First of all, citizens should help solving problems by bringing in own resources (3.9
points on a 1-5 point scale). Second, citizens are expected to inform themselves about local
policies and make the decision-makers accountable for them (4.0 points). Finally, citizens
should actively participate in the decision-making process (4.5 points).

Regarding the role of the business community, the results of the PLUS survey are pointing
to the same direction, but not as that clear as in the citizen-related questions. Instead of
keeping the traditional business role as commercial actors, business actors should be ac-
tively involved in local agenda-setting and should participate in local decision-making (4.4
point on a 1-7 point scale). The business community should also be involved in the imple-
mentation of decisions, once they are made instead of paying their taxes and abstain from
further participation (5.0 points). The business actors are also expected to go after consent
instead of seeking a strategic majority for their views (4.7 points). Finally, the general
panel thinks that companies should take the interests of the whole city into account instead
of attending only their own interests (4.9 points).

The involvement of business actors is connected with three important expectations of the
general panel. First of all, it seems important to the panel that the local economy is bring-
ing in its resources to solve local problems (4.1 points on a 1-5 point scale). Second, local
companies are expected to inform themselves about local policies and make the decision-
makers accountable for them (3.6 points). Finally, the business community should actively
participate in the decision-making process (3.6 points).

For a comparison of Heidelberg with Hannover and Baden-Würtemberg with Lower
Saxony see above the part of the context of Hannover that deals with political culture
(point 3.1.1).
                                                                                                                 73

3.2.2      District development planning. A participatory and decentralised way of urban
           planning


Description of the initiative

In addition to the city centre, Heidelberg has a decentralised structure of settlement with a
relatively distinctive life of its own. The city consists of 14 districts of which three are new
foundations of the last 60 years; two had developed in connection with the old city centre
during the last century. Most of the districts are former villages with grown independent
structures that had been suburbanised over the years. In this context, Herbert Schneider
(1997: 118) points out that most of the citizens would identify themselves more with their
district than with the city of Heidelberg as a whole.

However, the city didn’t make use of the discretionary clause of § 64 section 1 of the mu-
nicipal code of Baden-Württemberg until the 1980ies. According to that clause, in munici-
palities with more than 100.000 inhabitants with spatially separated areas urban districts
can be established. Furthermore, “district councils” (“Bezirksbeiräte”) can be introduced
which, however, only have an advisory function for the city council. Heidelberg has done
this in the middle of the 1980ies.84 Within the district development planning – a further
measure of decentralisation which is committed to the idea of closeness to the citizens and
vitalised democracy – the district councils hold, as we will see later, an important position.

The idea that forms the basis of the district development planning goes back to the seven-
ties when one began to move away from an highly integrated way of urban planning on a
city wide level with complex and, as it were, distanced decision making to a spatial- and
problem-oriented planning of urban development. In Heidelberg, as well as in many other
cities, the already mentioned identification of the citizens with their district, their immedi-
ate environment of living and existence was more strongly appreciated – an identification
which makes their interest to take part in urban planning more targeted to their district than
to the city of Heidelberg. The amalgamation reforms of the seventies have contributed to
this problem of social integration via identification. So districts like Kirchheim, Wie-
blingen, Ziegelhausen, Handschuhsheim, Pfaffengrund, Boxberg, Emmertsgrund and
Rohrbach by and large represent spatially, architecturally and socially separated areas –
which is certainly different in the districts Süd- and the Weststadt as well as in Neuenheim
(Schneider 1997: 121).

As the Lady Mayor stated herself (Weber 1997b: 67), at the beginning of her term in office
she had to recognise that there hadn’t been a targeted urban planning for the districts hith-
erto: According to her the administration did not possess any agglomerated data concern-
ing the development, the situation and the single-object planning within the several dis-
tricts. Their growth had not been reflected in the enlargement of decentralised urban ser-
vices. Also there had not been any feedback of the inhabitants about their requirements and



84      For details of the history of the district councils cp. Schneider 1997: 118-120, Kaschytza 1994 and
        Pfitzer 1991. The district councils, the institutionalisation of which had been decided by the city coun-
        cil, have also to be seen in the context of decentralisation. Indeed, in reality the district councillors are
        not very well known by the citizenry. They are not elected directly and the district council has only
        the right to be heard and to give advice. Anyhow, the district counsellors play an important role by the
        involvement (of their members) into the social life of their district from which results not only a local
        expertise but also the possibility of mobilisation.
                                                                                                            74

estimations. Although this statement may be exaggerated85 there is no doubt that her initia-
tive for the so-called “district development planning” (DDP) meant a significant shift to-
wards a decentralisation of city planning.

Afterwards and lead-managed by the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, a con-
cept for a district development planning was worked out. Whereas the local Christian De-
mocrats suggested including only highly problematical districts into the district develop-
ment planning, the Lady Mayor strongly preferred an exhaustive approach to planning and
not a problem-oriented one.86 The proceeding she had in mind was
•    first to make a stocktaking and to discuss questions of the spatial, urban-planning and
     social structure of each district – that means to gather data and define problems in dia-
     logue with the citizens (phase one);
•    second, following that, to let the administration work out objectives and measures of
     development and have them affirmed by the city council (phase two).
Accordingly, each DDP produces three essential documents summarising the results of the
respective stage: first reporting paper in which the situation of the district is thoroughly
described by statistical data, accounts of city offices for different questions and the contri-
bution of women from the districts (“Stocktaking, Prediction and Assessment”); the work-
shop documentation documenting the workshops of citizens and administrative employees
(moderated by an external agency) with an account of proposed measures, objectives and
controversial questions (“Workshops - Aims of Development and Proposals of Measures”);
and, finally, the second reporting paper, summarising the conclusions of the administration
from the first two documents (“Development and Proposals of Measures”). The whole
process sometimes takes quite a long time87, but each year one district development plan is
completed.

A first stocktaking for a district was made for Kirchheim (having been a suburb of Heidel-
berg since 1920; once structured very rural, now far-reaching urbanised), a district that is
separated from Heidelberg by the railway line to Bruchsal and which today is one of the
two biggest districts of Heidelberg. The decisive factor for this choice was that in
Kirchheim there had accumulated relevant problems and disagreements under the inhabi-
tants (see below). Not only in Kirchheim, also in all the other districts which had been in-
cluded into the district development planning in the period following, the inhabitants had
several opportunities of participation in the process: besides the open councils also in the
context of workshops and the future workshops for women (for the exact procedure of the
district development planning see below).

At the beginning, the district development planning had no overall concept or urban devel-
opment plan as its basis. The announced preference of Mrs. Weber in favour of a decen-
tralised planning resulted in extensive consequences for the urban offices. Undoubtedly,
for the administration it seemed to become possible to get a general overview concerning

85     District specific data did exist (but had not been integrated within city administration and presented to
       the public in a comprehensive document) and at least for three of the districts specific planning at-
       tempts had been made.
86     The introduction of district framework plans has to be seen in the context of the reform of administra-
       tion which the newly elected Lady Mayor had initiated (as an element of “new forms of citizen in-
       volvement”; cp. Weber 1995).
87     In some districts it has taken eight years and more. This was not least because of challenges that came
       up after DDP had started (especially the call for a city wide plan as necessary frame for DDP which
       was then worked out simultaneously) and due to the fact that the stocktaking was made for all districts
       at the beginning, but the workshops take more time and have to be approached one after the other.
                                                                                                            75

the structures and problems of all districts by the district development planning – but this
also meant an enormous administrative effort: besides their “regular activities”, the urban
offices which were involved had to collect information, to work out analyses and to reflect
on perspectives. Such an amount of work seemed only useful if it served also as a help or
basis for a comprehensive planning - that means the districts had to be included into
broader ideas and images of urban development. As such ideas and images were totally
absent at that time, in the autumn of 1994 Mrs. Weber announced to complement the de-
velopment plans by a comprehensive planning – after several politicians of the city had
criticised the absence of a framework plan for the entire city (Schneider 1997: 125). In
February of 1997 the “Urban Development Plan 2010” was adopted which sets the com-
prehensive and integrative scope of action for the whole city, putting emphasis on social
issues, a robust and innovative economy and the preservation of the environment. Its core
feature is the commitment towards a sustainable city development which meets the task of
the “Local Agenda 21”.88 But the City Development Plan is not only an administrative plan
which covers topics like guidelines for the promotion of economic development, housing
development programs, an environmental protection plan, guidelines on tourism and social
action and infrastructure plans, which guides local policy decisions and which defines the
goals for all major areas of politics (for the next ten years) - it has also been created by an
involvement of the local community and puts main emphasis on a further active policy of
participation. Thus, also DDP has to be seen in the context which is indicated by the City
Development Plan.89

Regarding the national context in which the initiative is situated, i.e. the power relations
between local and central government, DDP is clearly a local initiative: all decisions con-
cerning the initiative are taken at the city level. Although the city has to take care for land-
use-planning as an “obligatory” task (and in accordance with regional planning), the DDP
itself (as developmental planning in general) has to be considered as a “voluntary” task.
The realisation of such voluntary tasks is highly dependent on the financial resources of the
municipalities. DDP then serves as a broader basis for the land-use-planning but also for
other obligatory or voluntary tasks of the city, especially welfare services (e.g. schools,
cultural facilities) and public transport.90

With the district development plans the municipal authority wants to outline the future
activities of public and private actors of different districts and to promote an well-ordered
economic urban planning and ecological development. The planning interval covers the
next ten years, but often the mentioned measures take more time. The city authorities see
the district planning outlines as a “framework” giving a general idea of the future roles of
public and private players in individual city districts. Planning outlines are benchmarks

88    Also in 1997, the “ifeu-Institute” (on behalf of the city of Heidelberg) published the report “Sustain-
      able Heidelberg”. This report included an evaluation and description of the activities the city had car-
      ried out in the context of the Local Agenda 21 until that time. As this report advises a better linking or
      integration of the individual projects the city has reacted and has established a special agenda office
      which is now decisively involved in the realisation of the aims formulated in the urban development
      plan.
89    Before the adoption of the “Urban Development Plan 2010”, only the parts of analysis and prediction
      (part 1) had been worked out for the district framework plans. Concepts of development and measures
      have either been decided after the determination of the “Urban Development Plan 2010” or were
      worked out at the same time – which was criticised from a standpoint of systematic planning (cp. Jae-
      dicke/Thrun/Wollmann 2000: 215).
90    In Heidelberg it is the Office for Urban Planning (falling under the responsibility of one of the deputy
      mayors (comparable to council managers)) which is responsible for land-use-planning. DDP on the
      contrary is taken care of by the Office for Urban Development and Statistics belonging, as already
      mentioned, to the portfolio of the lord/lady mayor.
                                                                                             76

that shall help plot future development; they do not have any legally binding status, but are
conceived as orientation maps and serve the city council and city government as decision-
making aids and guidelines for future action.

After a general debate about the binding effect contract of the district development plans
for the council’s decision making at the half-time of the district development planning the
character of a general guideline was accepted against the original assessment with a higher
binding effect and more concrete timeframes for realising measures. Only by this decision
an all-party and broad consensus could be reached which let the DDP become a kind of
routine procedure within local decision-making. However, all the political parties always
supported the project of DDP as such.

A district development plan describes not only the actual situation of a district (e.g. popula-
tion structure, housing conditions, infrastructure, traffic, green corridors, economic situa-
tion, and ecological aspects), it also highlights the aims of future development and pro-
poses several measures in accordance with these aims (for details see the description of the
process below).

As already mentioned, there had not been a targeted urban planning development in terms
of this integrated urban development approach in the past. The consequence of that was
that in some districts – as for example in Pfaffengrund (Stadt Heidelberg 1995a) – several
projects had not been co-ordinated best possibly. This did not only lead to social problems
(for example shortages in the supply with kindergartens in certain districts or infrastruc-
tural deficits) but also to far-reaching, unfavourable changes in the cityscape (Weber
1997b: 67). Due to that fact, the Lady Mayor pointed out the “important expert knowledge
of the citizens about their immediate environment” (Weber 1997b: 68) as indispensable for
the entire process. Here we have a good example of a stakeholder planning where knowl-
edge is created in an interactive process between different kinds of stakeholders (for the
concept of stakeholder planning see Bogason 2000: ch. 6).

The policy challenges of such an initiative can be summarised as follows:

The substance of the DDP project consists of a new approach to urban development plan-
ning. While in the past planning efforts were mainly concentrated on the historical city
centre, the new district planning outlines want to identify the developmental potential and
limitations of all parts of the city. As already mentioned in the description of the initiative,
the district planning outlines are seen by the city authorities as a “framework” giving a
general idea of the future roles of public and private players in individual city districts.
At first sight, the district development plans themselves could be characterised as a dis-
tributive policy, as nobody seems to lose by a decentralised form of urban planning ac-
companied by an integrative city wide plan. But the measures and problems treated in the
district development plans are often of a redistributive nature – especially questions of
traffic and land use are often highly controversial and clearly affect different interests. Fur-
thermore, DDP raised severe questions about the distribution of power. Against that back-
ground, the main challenges of the initiative can be summarised as
•   the attempt of a complex shift of power from the council to deliberative forms of plan-
    ning (but with the hope that in the end all will win in the sense of “power to”) and
•   a foresighted integrated planning to avoid negative consequences of uncontrolled de-
    velopment within the city districts; for that purpose the city agencies’ specialised
    knowledge and the inhabitants’ experience should be combined by identifying the de-
                                                                                             77

    velopment opportunities and limitations in each district – which means that the city
    administration allows questioning its monopole of planning expertise.
As DDP with its participatory character is composed by a system of elements which form a
continuous process, the main procedural challenge are (i) the activation of local society to
participate in the phases of community involvement and (ii) the integration of a complexity
of actors from different realms (civil society, different branches of city administration,
council members, district council members). The first aspect refers first of all to the work-
shops (the “future workshops for women” in the first and the thematic workshops with
district stakeholders in the second stage). Since the workshops take only one or two eve-
nings per participant the requirement is not too high. DDP itself does not rely on the per-
manent active citizen. This may be different with respect to the phase of implementation of
the measures.
While the district conversations are generally open for all interested citizens, the work-
shops allow access only for “selected” inhabitants or “key-actors” which are considered by
the administration as having a better knowledge concerning the situation of their district, as
being quite more resourceful than others and/or as fulfilling a communicative role towards
the organisations/groups they represent. But generally, the involvement of such a high
number of citizens (between fifty and hundred participants in the stage of the workshops)
leads not only to challenges for effective co-operation between the actors but also to chal-
lenges concerning the combination of the outcomes of the different participating arenas
with the statement of the administration.

Institutionally, the initiative of a DDP is characterised by the requirement of a short term-
institution building which, however, implicates a reiterative perspective in a double sense:
firstly, the just described process will be carried out for each district one after the other,
and secondly, the procedure can be repeated after the respective time. The experimental
approach requires a kind of flexibility in institutional design, in order to cope with unfore-
seen problems, but at the same time the institutional framework has to be robust enough to
guarantee a similar proceeding in all the districts. As the aim of the DDP can be described
as a higher responsiveness towards the needs of the districts, and an increased identifica-
tion and responsibility of the citizens for their district and the city as a whole, it seems in-
teresting to whether the same institutional design of DDP “fits” to all of the diverging dis-
tricts.

One institutional advantage of DDP seems to be that it produces results without requiring
permanent institutions accommodating continuously active citizens. Each district devel-
opment planning process has a clear beginning (the first district meeting) and an ending
(the decision-making in the local council). The initiative of a DDP is thus characterised by
the requirement of a short term-institution building which, however, implicates a reitera-
tive perspective in a double sense: firstly, the just described process will be carried out for
each district one after the other, and secondly, the procedure can be repeated after the re-
spective time. The experimental approach requires a kind of flexibility in institutional de-
sign, in order to cope with unforeseen problems, but at the same time the institutional
framework has to be robust enough to guarantee a similar proceeding in all the districts.

For our case study we have selected the districts Kirchheim, Emmertsgrund and Hand-
schuhsheim for closer examination. This was for the following reasons:
•   The district development planning was carried out for the first time in Kirchheim (al-
    ready in the middle of the nineties), so the process can be pursued over a long time and
    questions of implementation can be raised. This question is of special importance in the
                                                                                                         78

     case of Kirchheim because the district development plan worked out for this district
     has never reached the stage of final decision making in the city council. After the plan
     had still got a positive response at the district council and the Committee for Urban
     Development it hadn’t been discussed at the local council because many contentious is-
     sues had come to the surface – especially the plan of a growth of settlement and the
     construction of a tram line (what is still today, about 10 years later, a very sensible
     topic and the reason therefore why it is not discussed at the local council now). Defi-
     nitely at that time the district development plan was supposed to have the originally in-
     tended higher binding effect, but still today (when DDPs count only as broader guide-
     lines and an additional Round Table has been established) it is not possible to find a so-
     lution which is accepted by all sides. Nevertheless it is interesting to see if the devel-
     opment in this district has taken the direction worked out in the plan. Furthermore, in
     an analysis of this first implementation of the district planning approach some light can
     be shed on the power conflicts emerging around the new planning approach.
•    Due to its social structure, its conflict potential and its special demand of developmen-
     tal measures the district Emmertsgrund represents the “problem child” among the dis-
     tricts of Heidelberg. It is the youngest district and was founded at the end of the seven-
     ties to stop the housing shortage and the high density in the old part of the city (cp. the
     similarities to the building of Kronsberg in our second case study city, Hannover).91
•    While Kirchheim and Emmertsgrund are geographically more or less separated from
     other districts the district Handschuhsheim is located closer to the centre of the city and
     does not have clear borders to the neighbouring district Neuenheim – however, it is a
     district with a long tradition and high district-specific social capital. This district, fi-
     nally, was (in contrast to Kirchheim) the most recent one to be included into the DDP
     and therefore the process is still in the making. This offers a good chance for participa-
     tory observation (so we were personally able to attend the meeting of the district coun-
     cil, and the relevant sessions of the committee for urban development and the district
     council).


Institutional Analysis

A DDP is composed by a system of elements, subdivided into 10 individual steps which
form a continuous process (although a longer interlude might occur between the first and
the second part). The first part
•    begins with a district meeting , followed by
•    the future workshops for women,
•    the phase of the formulation of the first reporting paper by the administration (“Stock-
     taking, Prediction and Assessment),
•    the public presentation of the latter to the district council and
•    to the council’s committee for urban development.

The second part comprises
•    the thematic stakeholder workshops,

91     For the Emmertsgrund the district development plan has not been the first framework-planning as it is
       not a grown but a planned district. As a consequence the project of developing it was based on an in-
       tensive and broad discussion on urban development at the beginning of the 70ies (Stadtteilrahmenplan
       Emmertsgrund, Teil 1). The different planning approaches made for the Emmertsgrund are docu-
       mented in Stadt Heidelberg/GGH 2003.
                                                                                            79


•   the phase in which the “Aims of Development and Proposals of Measures are summa-
    rised by the administration,
•   another public presentation at the district council,
•   a final presentation at the council’s committee for urban development and
•   the definite decision making at the local council.
For the purpose of an institutional analysis these steps can be regarded as leading to seven
institutional arenas with specific rules of the game:
•   arena 1: the district meeting,
•   arena 2: the future workshops for women,
•   arena 3: the administrative arena,
•   arena 4: the district council,
•   arena 5: the city council’s committee for urban development,
•   arena 6: the thematic stakeholder workshops,
•   arena 7: the city council.

If one takes binding decisions as the point of reference only the last arena, the city council,
is responsible for decision making. The phase of policy implementation can not clearly be
determined since the decision to adopt the district development plan does not mean that all
the measures proposed in it have to be implemented. Sometimes measures proposed or
discussed in part one may be implemented before part two starts. The implementation is
shaped by the rules of local government described in the part on the context, or – if the
measure addresses private actors or multi level actors – in a modified way. Often, it is dif-
ficult to judge whether measures have been realised because they are mentioned in the
DDP. As becomes clear, DDP is mainly focused on agenda setting and strengthening the
ties between city offices and private organisations which might then lead to cooperative
implementation.

As figure 6 makes clear, arenas 3 (administrative arena), 4 (district council) and 5 (com-
mittee for urban development) occur in part one and in part two. The figure shows that the
administrative arena has a linking function as it is active in between phases of community
involvement and the arenas of local government. Furthermore, we can see that the course
of a DDP always leads from the arenas of community involvement (district, meeting, fu-
ture workshops for women, thematic stakeholder workshops) to the arenas of local gov-
ernment. Administrative actors and community actors are important for setting the agenda
and thinking about creative ways of solving problems, whereas the role of the local gov-
ernment arenas can be regarded as important for taking binding decisions. In the first part,
administration and community actors (i.e. the participants of the workshops for women)
work separately, in the second part they closely interact in the arena of the stakeholder
workshops. A special status can be observed in the case of the district councils as many
district councillors also take part in the thematic workshops. Together with the administra-
tive actors they are players in both the arenas of community involvement and of local gov-
ernment.

The way the arenas are structured and linked becomes clearer when looking at the institu-
tional rules which structure them.

The process of a DDP begins with a district meeting (arena 1) where the city informs the
citizens about the situation of the district and possibilities of actions. The following dia-
logue between the citizens and the administration representatives represents a classic
model of participation. Short reports in the local press, bills and personal invitations to
                                                                                                     80

“key persons” draw attention on the event, already with a special emphasis on stakeholder
involvement (informational rules). The district conversation is open to all interested citi-
zens (boundary rules). Apart from the meetings of the district council this phase


                        Figure 6 - Arenas in the district development planning


      administrative sphere                 involvement sphere              local government sphere


                                                     1)
                                              District meeting


                                                   2)
                                       Future Workshops for Women

               3a)
    intra administrative arena

                                                                                        4a)
                                                                                  District council


                                                                                       5a)
                                                                            Council committee for urban
                                                                                   development


 End of Part 1: „Stocktaking, Prediction and Assessment“


               3b)
    intra administrative arena
                                                      6)
                                            Stakeholder workshops

               3c)
    intra administrative arena


                                                                                        4b)
                                                                                  District council


                                                                                       5b)
                                                                            Council committee for urban
                                                                                   development


                                                                                        7)
                                                                                   City council

 End of Part 2: “Aims of development and proposals of measures”
                                                                                           81

represents the only one in the course of every district development plan where the Lady
Mayor appears personally in the district (and during the first four DDPs (Kirchheim, Wie-
blingen, Emmertsgrund and Bergheim) also the deputy mayors). The discussions within
the district meeting are recorded by the Office for Urban Development and Statistics and
are prepared as an input for discussion within the administration (aggregation and scope
rules).

The future workshops for women (arena 2), which are organised and run by the head of the
city’s Office for the Equality of Man and Woman (authority rules), are events organised
especially for female inhabitants from the district (boundary rules) with the aim of using
their special competence as well as the embedded knowledge but also of compensating for
the weakness of female representation in the district meetings, the district councils, many
district organisations and planning agencies and thus the stakeholder workshops, and the
institutions of local government. No journalists are permitted to join (again boundary
rules). Indeed, these future-workshops had not been planned by the Lady Mayor. The head
of the Office for the Equality of Man and Woman, which had been formed in 1992 by an
initiative of the Lady Mayor, attended the first district-meetings and recognised that not
enough women were present there. Realising the dominance of men, she decided to initiate
an event only for women (Katt 2000:12). The Office for the Equality of Woman and Man
itself had initially been founded by the Lady Mayor to improve the development of a quali-
fied policy of equality and it has been assigned to her own portfolio which gives special
possibilities for getting feedbacks and giving instructions (authority rules).
By the future workshops also the every day problems of women shall be made visible. The
basic idea of the future workshops is that women often are better embedded in their district
than men, because most of them don’t leave their district during the day – and therefore
also know better the deficits. At first, such a future workshop is announced in the press. To
maximise the degree of familiarity there are also spread leaflets in the shops and fixed
posters in the respective district (information rules). To make it possible for many women
to join the workshops, there’s also the offer of a child care during the meetings (pay-off
rules).
At the beginning of a future workshop, the participants are confronted with the questions
concerning their problems, the real situation and their suggestions. This phase of critique,
at which the difficulties, the deplorable state of affairs and the problems shall become
clear, is followed by a phase of Utopia, where a utopian counter-statement shall be devel-
oped and a phase of realisation, where the ideas just developed shall be examined. The
aggregation rule is an open discussion on all proposals with no voting, but a summary of
the common opinion within the workshops by the office (Katt 2000: 10). Concerning scope
rules, the results can be regarded as proposals. They are recorded by the Office for the
Equality of Man and Women, including guidelines containing policy fields such as secu-
rity, living space and social environment, but also infrastructure and transport policy, and
are passed to
•   the Office for Urban Development and Statistics for discussion and the literal incorpo-
    ration into the first reporting paper of the administration (“Stocktaking, Prediction and
    Assessment”), namely under the heading “Excursus: future workshops – women
    plan/redesign their district” – whereby they become a permanent component of the pro-
    ject as a whole,
•   the responsible offices of the administration for proving the short-time realisation of
    the concrete requests (both the administrative arena), and
•   the participants of the future workshops for their further observations and as a possibil-
    ity of controlling for the entire process.
                                                                                               82

By the setting of the arenas the future workshops are ahead of the next arenas, especially
the thematic workshops. The participating women do not only have the chance to get
measures realised at an early stage, they are also better prepared and motivated for the suc-
ceeding steps of DDP. In particular, some of the women and the head of the Office for the
Equality of Man and Woman also take part in the thematic workshops where they can refer
again to the proposals and argue for them.

As the next step, the city administration is intensely engaged in the formulation of the for-
mulation of the first reporting paper (arena 3a). Within the administrative arena, the results
of the women workshops as well as the suggestions and the criticism formulated by the
citizens at the district conversation are discussed, and the working papers of the different
offices are incorporated into the forthcoming documentation which pays attention to the
spatial structure, the development and the social structure of the respective district. This
arena is invisible for citizens, but obviously it is essential for the success of the whole ini-
tiative. If city offices and directorates do not cooperate DDP is bound to fail. Within the
administrative arena the relevant actors are the Lady Mayor, the deputy mayors, the heads
of the urban offices and the administrative staff working at special tasks (position rules).
Although, as shown above, the Lady Mayor, the First Mayor and the two deputy mayors
have their own portfolio, the Lady Mayor as the head of the administration can give orders
to the entire municipal administration (authority rules). Arguing and Bargaining within the
administrative arena thus take place in the “shadow of mayoral hierarchy”. The Lady
Mayor can use her authority to structure also the interaction between the different offices
by giving for example a special role or particular resources to the Office for the Equality of
Woman and Man and the Office for Urban Development and Statistics (authority rules).
She also has the right to ask for any information about proceedings within the information
and can use this for the flows of information within the administration (information rules).
In fact, the Office for Urban Development and Statistics plays a crucial role for coordinat-
ing the administrative work within DDP. As we will show in the “actor mapping”, this is
connected to special features of this office.
Thus, within the administrative arena a certain mixture of hierarchical and network-style
structure of interaction is characteristic, or better: the institutional rules at the level of the
municipal code offer an opportunity for both modes of interaction, depending on the rule
making of the actors within the arena. As our interviews show, the working cooperation at
the level of the administrative staff of different offices is backed by the hierarchical deci-
sion of the mayors as heads of the directorates to support this cooperation. By the munici-
pal code the mayors do not belong to a common body, but meetings are, of course, possi-
ble. Within such informal meetings, again in the shadow of the Lady Mayor’s hierarchical
authority, they have agreed upon a “sheet of obligation” as a guideline for the input of their
staff to the first part of the DDP documentation. This stocktaking is also reviewed by the
Office for the Equality of Woman and Man and modified by an own chapter concerning
the field of “security”.
The administrative arena is also crucial for preparing and giving inputs to as well as draw-
ing conclusions from the thematic stakeholder workshops taking place in the second part of
DDP (arenas 3b and 3c). Employees from the different offices who are familiar with plan-
ning questions prepare the inputs or their offices and get them signed by the head of the
office and the directorate head. All the inputs are reviewed in a working group of the par-
taking employees. The minutes of their discussions are read by the Lady Mayor. In case of
dissent on the offices’ inputs the directorate heads have to find a compromise.
In the course of formulating part two of the district development plan, the Office for Urban
Development and Statistics sends drafts of the respective chapters to the corresponding
                                                                                            83

offices (including the Office for the Equality of Woman and Man) which can give a feed-
back. The aggregation rule is consensus-building, again in the “shadow of hierarchy”.

The first as well as the second part of the district development plan is then presented in
public sessions (boundary rules) to the district council and to the Committee for Urban
Development (arenas 4 and 5).

As laid down in the municipal code of Baden-Württemberg, the members of the district
councils are not elected directly by the citizens but appointed by the political groups within
the city council (boundary rules) – they are chaired by the Lady Mayor in case she attends
the session, and they have the right to express their opinion and give their vote (authority
rules). However, a decision of the district council is not binding anybody but only has the
status of a statement on the drafts produced by the administration (scope rules). At the
presentation of the first report also the public is allowed to attend and to give comments
(boundary rules and authority rules). The Office for Urban Planning, the Office for Urban
Development and Statistics present the report. After that, there is space for questions and
comments by the district councillors and the citizens.

The sessions of the Committee for Urban Development – also under the chairmanship of
the Lady Mayor – are also public (boundary rules). Its members also join the city council
and are appointed by the council parties according to their respective strength (boundary
rules). The committee is only a “pre-deciding” one, thus the topics will also be debated at
the local council. So, at the Committee for Urban Development for example also peti-
tions/applications can be put in (scope rules) if a majority of the committee members (in-
cluding the Lady Mayor) agrees on this (aggregation rules).

With the presentation of the first reporting paper on “Stocktaking, Prediction and Assess-
ment” the first round of DDP is finished. The city decided to carry through this first round
for all districts first and then start with the second step where the aims are formulated. This
second step is taking more time and requiring a higher effort by the city offices. Due to this
higher workload and due to the fact that a city wide concept for development had to be
worked out before the second phase could start, no more than two DDP can be completed
in a year.

At the beginning of the second phase the Office for Urban Development and Statistics has
to prepare the organisation of and the other city offices have to work out their inputs for
the thematic stakeholder workshops. The positions within this arena are those of “key per-
sons”, “city representatives” and “moderators”. Furthermore each participant is member of
a working group and of the plenary group. On the side of the administration the employees
who have been occupied with the preparation take part in the workshops as well. The mod-
erators come from a private consulting agency, but sometimes city representatives are
moderating single working groups (without giving an own substantial “input”). The or-
ganisation of the workshops by the Office for Urban Development and Statistics implies
sending invitations to “key persons” within the districts (boundary rules). In the districts
we have analysed the number of invitations varies from about 50 to over 100. The number
of invited persons (as well as the number of actual participants) seems to have increased
with the number of DDP’s realised. The rule for selecting potential participants is the prin-
ciple to cover the broadest possible range of interests, organisations and sectors, but also to
include special knowledge from persons who have attracted the attention of the city due to
their engagement or their professional status. Invited are thus professionals and volunteers
of social institutions (church, kindergartens, hospitals, schools, the police, university, old
                                                                                           84

people’s homes), politicians (district councillors), political activist groups (e.g. environ-
mental groups, citizens’ initiatives) and all kinds of clubs, but also shop owners and other
representatives of the business community. Participation in the workshops is thus not pos-
sible for every interested citizen – only for those which have received an invitation.
At the meeting, the participants are allocated by the moderator to different smaller working
groups which mostly correspond to their respective background (boundary rules). In the
workshops the invited key persons as well as the city representatives have the right to for-
mulate objectives of development and make proposals for measures and they can express
their preference for the desirability as well as the urgency of proposed measures. A formal-
ised structure ensures that everybody can make the same number of proposals and meas-
ures and has the same weight in voting (authority rules). As with the future workshops for
women journalists are excluded from these events (boundary rules), in order to avoid a
polarisation of the proceedings within the workshops.
After a general input by the Office for Urban Development and Statistics (and sometimes
the Office for Urban Planning) on the design of the DDP and the situation of the district
based on the first reporting paper, the following discussions oscillate between the plenum
and the working groups. The working-groups (differing in number between six and seven)
deal with questions concerning
•   social life (e.g. children, young persons, seniors, social services, culture and leisure
    facilities) (workshop I) and
•   architectural-spatial aspects (e.g. housing conditions, shopping and economy, traffic
    and environmental aspects) (workshop II).
The working groups start with several inputs (proposals for aims) by different city offices
(authority rules). After that proposals for aims are collected (each participant can formulate
two). The participants discuss the proposals and afterwards judge them by giving one vote
for the most “urgent” proposal. Afterwards those results which have at least got one vote
are presented to and discussed within the plenum. With this feedback the participants go
back to their working group and discuss the remaining proposals again. They now discuss
possible trade-offs and select measures according to their “realisability” by giving two
votes for the measures they think can be realised best. This step was designed in order to
ensure that the workshops produce results that can be implemented and not only unrealistic
wishes. Again, the results are presented in the plenum which then selects those which seem
of the highest “urgency” (two votes each). In the documentation of the final vote in the
plenum the votes given by citizens representatives and by key person are registered sepa-
rately (aggregation rules). The proceeding of the workshops is documented very thor-
oughly in an independent documentation and the results (presented in a summarising way
without the voting results) are included in the second reporting paper, defining the “aims
of development and proposals of measures” (scope rules). All the participants get the men-
tioned very detailed documentation including all the steps (including all proposals and
measures formulated at some point). This documentation is also available for the broader
public (information rules).

This second reporting paper is worked out in the administrative arena (for the rules see
also above). Suggestions and criticism, formulated at the future workshops or the stake-
holder workshops are documented and at least partly – but not in every case – accepted.
However, a deviation from the workshop suggestions has to be justified in detail (aggrega-
tion rules).

After the presentation of the draft at the district council and the committee for urban devel-
opment (for the respective rules see above) the last arena is the city council where the defi-
                                                                                                   85

nite concept formulated by the administration is discussed. After a debate on the details,
the plan is accepted or rejected as a whole. However, a positive resonance does not guaran-
tee the realisation of the particular measures since these must be included in the medium-
term financial planning of the city of Heidelberg some time (scope rules). It is still the task
of the district council, the municipal council and the administration to control the imple-
mentation of the ideas and to decide upon the necessary measures – by considering the
financial conditions and the significance of the projects in the whole city.

So far, we have rarely discussed pay-off rules. They can be summarised as follows: The
city carries practically all the costs related with DDP. Besides the costs for administrative
manpower the Office for Urban Development and Statistics estimates that the external
costs for each DDP are 20.000 Euro.92 The pay-offs of the measures that are actually im-
plemented will depend on the kind of measure, but most of the time they will imply at least
subsidies by the city.

All the rules which have been mentioned in the context of the different arenas result either
from the municipal code of Baden-Wuerttemberg (with respect to the role and competen-
cies of the administration, the Lady Mayor, the city council, the district council and the
committee for urban development) or have been created especially for the project (as it was
the idea of the Lady Mayor to choose this course of the project the origin of these rules can
be assigned to “her” administration; for example concerning rules that deal with the influ-
ence of the involved citizens). Raising the question if all the rules – decided by the Lady
Mayor resp. “her” administration are accepted by the citizens it seems as if there was no
dissent about them – although some of them (who are “used” in the context of the work-
shops) privilege some parts of the local community.

Concerning all our selected districts there are yet other arenas that relate to the context of
district planning: For the Emmertsgrund, for example, a so called “intra administrative
working group” was founded by the Lady Mayor in Mai 1998, i.e. between the first and
the second phase of DDP, in order to address the many problems that have among others
become clear by the stocktaking. This administrative working group should not only work
on the problems which had been pronounced in the process of DDP for the Emmertsgrund,
it also included many actors from the administration who were also involved in the DDP.
The working group was dissolved in Summer 2000 after the Emmertsgrund had been ac-
cepted for the funding scheme “Socially Integrated City” which again led to the establish-
ment of a district management. In Kirchheim a round table had been established where the
project of the tram-line is discussed. This table, too, is part of the dialogue the Lady Mayor
wants to have with the citizens. As these arenas of the wider context have mostly been
founded as discussion forums on relevant problems of the respective districts, they do not
have a direct influence for the institutional setting of DDP and therefore it is not necessary
to analyse these “sub-arenas” in detail. We only want to stress that in these arenas often
crucial decisions are debated which affect the further development of the districts.

Who is actually participating in the various arenas? – Table 13 gives a detailed overview of
the actor mapping.

As one can see from the table, the district meetings are attended by about 200-300 people
each (according to the information given by the administration).


92    Interview with the head and one employee of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, Nov
      12th 2003.
                                                                                                           86

                       Table 13 - Actor Mapping District Development Planning

Arena                  Political actors    Actors from administration          Actors from outside the
                                                                               political or administrative
                                                                               sphere
district meeting       Lady Mayor          urban offices and other organisa- between 200 and 300 citi-
(arena 1)              deputy mayors       tions linked to the city, such as:  zens
                       (concerning the     • Office for Urban Develop-
                       first four dis-          ment and Statistics (lead man-
                       tricts where the         agement)
                       DDP has been        • Office for Urban Planning
                       carried out)        • Office for the Environment
                       sometimes           • Office for Landscape
                       councillors and     • Heidelberg Development
                       district council-        Association
                       lors                • Civil Registration and Public
                                                Order Division
                                           • Urban Transport Services
                                           • Social Assistance Office
                                           • Youth Welfare Office
                                           • Office for Public Relations
                                           • Office for the Equality of Men
                                                and Women
future workshops for                       head of the Office for the Equality female inhabitants of the
women                                      of Men and Women                    district (between 9 and 27)
(arena 2)
administrative arena                       •   Office for Urban Develop-        private planning offices
(arena 3)                                      ment and Statistics (lead man-
                                               agement)
                                           •   other urban offices (working
                                               group)
                                           •   heads of directorates, includ-
                                               ing Lady Mayor
district council (arena Lady Mayor        •    Office for Urban Develop-   citizens (about 80 in the
4)                      district council-                                  second session – mainly
                                               ment and Statistics (lead man-
                        lors                   agement)                    workshop participants),
                                          •    Office for Urban Planning   private planning agencies
                                                                           (for example in the Em-
                                                                           mertsgrund).
Committee for Urban Lady Mayor           Office for Urban Development and small number of interested
Development (arena 5) elected members Statistics                           citizens, journalists
                       of the committee
Workshops (arena 6)    district council- representatives of urban offices external presenters, invited
                       lors              and from the HWE (the organisa- key actors
                                         tion responsible for creating the
                                         dialogue forums with local busi-
                                         ness, see below)
                                         Almost all offices have at least
                                         once participated in a workshop.
City council (arena 7) Lady Mayor,       some members of the administra- a few interested citizens,
                       members of the tion (public session)                journalists
                       city council

The future workshops for women within the three chosen districts were attended by 9
(Kirchheim), 13 (Emmertsgrund) and 27 (Handschuhsheim) women. This shows that the
future workshops found the highest resonance in the district with the highest standard of
living. Especially with regard to the district Emmertsgrund which has a high proportion of
foreigners, but also for Kirchheim, it is remarkable (but expectable against the background
of what we know from research on participation) that no (female) foreigners have actually
                                                                                                         87

participated (in Handschuhsheim only one attended the workshops). Furthermore, it turned
out that there are also women who are already engaged in other forums of local politics
(for example there are female district councillors). In an analysis of the future workshops
for women, Katharina Katt (2000: 104-105, 133) identified the following “typical” profile
with regard to the social background of participants:
•   The participants have an average age of 44 years.
•   They have an academic degree.
•   The majority is employed part-time, often in leading positions within the public sector.
•   They have a relatively high household-budget at their disposal.
•   They are strongly interested in politics.
•   They are often well “organised”.
•   Their party-preference is “red-green”.
•   They are married and have two children.
With that social profile, the participants of the future workshops certainly do not belong to
the “excluded” if one takes the term in a social and economic sense. On the other hand,
some of their characteristics are not congruent with those of female politicians, e.g. their
family status. Furthermore, most of the workshop participants have not been politically
active before, so it seems fair to speak of an actual “activation”.

As mentioned above, potential participants at the stakeholder workshops include all people
who are considered by the administration to have a special function within the district, a
special knowledge about it and/or represent particular stakeholders.

Comparing the three selected districts it can be said that in Emmertsgrund (64 participants)
the involvement of police, representatives of schools, kindergartens and other organisations
for children and young persons as well as youth welfare plays an important role whereas in
Kirchheim (52) participants are more characterised as local politicians, representatives of
clubs and associations, representatives of churches and environmentalists. In Hand-
schuhsheim finally (91 participants) also clubs/associations (especially with respect to the
history or the characteristics of the district), local politicians (councillors, district council-
lors) and representatives of ecclesiastical organisations are prominent in the field of par-
ticipants. Although many foreigners live in Emmertsgrund almost none participated in the
workshops (and non is member of the district council). As table 14 shows, the relationship
between city representatives and key persons was quite different in our three districts.
Whereas in Kirchheim, where the first workshops were held, only slightly more key per-
sons than city representatives were present, the workshops in the Emmertsgrund three
years later were attended by more then twice as much key persons than city representative,
and in Handschuhsheim, finally, exactly three times as much. Whereas the number of key
persons participating in the workshops almost doubled on the side of the city attendance
decreased.


                              Table 14 - Attendance at thematic workshops

                       Kirchheim (1995)               Emmertsgrund (1998)           Handschuhsheim (2002)
                          total    male      female     total    male     female     total      male      female
key persons*               55       36         19        71       38        33        96         65         31
city representatives       42       29         13        35       24        11        32         18         14
Source: own calculation on the basis of the workshop documentations.
* Note: Differences to the number of participating key persons mentioned above are due to the fact that some
stakeholders took part in both workshops.
                                                                                              88


Actual behaviour of Actors

According to our PLUS-survey the actors involved mainly did not only stuck to their
“theoretical” roles but also the intended aims seem to have been achieved in the eyes of the
participants. As has been mentioned the course of DDP has been delayed when councillors
demanded to ensure a citywide planning first before going into the second round of DDP
where proposals for measures are laid down. What becomes obvious already in this inci-
dence (and already in the mentioned disagreement on whether all districts should be in-
cluded in the DDP initiative) and the following ad hoc organisation of a city wide planning
initiative is a conflict between district interests and city interests and the question who is to
mediate between the two. If DDP had been realised as originally intended by the Lady
Mayor she would have got a higher discretion in mediating interests.

The district meetings begin with a short introduction by the Lady Mayor which is followed
by a presentation of the head of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics about the
content and the course of the district development planning, the current structural devel-
opment in the respective district and about the expectable development concerning popula-
tion, housing-conditions and workplaces. There is then some time for discussion where the
citizenry can articulate ideas and criticism. This is followed by a statement of the admini-
stration and a summary of the Lady Mayor. The identification of the protagonists (among
citizens) in the district meetings is difficult because they are not documented.

It was difficult to find out how actors behaved in the future workshops for women. What
we know is that in eleven of the future workshops the work was continued without the city
representative after the formulation of an input for the DDP had been finished (Katt 2000:
14). 89,7 % of the participants answered in a survey that they meet once a month (Katt
2000: 120). Within the workshops a certain homogenisation took place along the social
characteristics described above and in correspondence to the impression if the dominating
issues were of importance for the participants. As Katt puts it, the future workshops were
“stabilised” above all by mothers with a common interest for issues like school, shopping
and youth facilities (Katt 2000: 103). “Feminist” issues were not central for them whereas
traffic problems were – which is congruent with the problem perception of the female part
of the Heidelberg citizenry (Katt 2000: 109-110). Interestingly, only 14 % of the issues
actually discussed in the workshops concern traffic and a broad range of other question is
discussed as well (Katt 2000: 123). Even more interesting is the fact that the district coun-
cils are the preferred channel of the workshop to promote their proposals, closely followed
by the respective city offices (Katt 2000: 122). This supports our assumption that the DDP
initiative increases the meaning of both the district councils and city administration.

The behaviour of the actor in the intra administrative arena is important in several re-
spects: First, at the beginning of the initiative it was within this arena were the basic design
of DDP was negotiated. On the one hand, the Lady Mayor is head of the entire administra-
tion. On the other hand, the first mayor/deputy mayors have special links with the (bigger)
parties in the council and have a special relationship of authority and trust with the staff of
their directorates. According to an interview with employees from the Office for Urban
Development and Statistics their office (as the administrative unit responsible for the or-
ganisation of DDP) wanted DDP to result in more straightforward programs for the differ-
ent districts with clear statements on costs and time schedules. But this was not what some
of the other directorates and the political parties which were connected to their heads
wanted. Thus, the terms of DDP were re-bargained in the shadow of mayoral hierarchy.
                                                                                               89

This shows that the formal power of the Lady Mayor is not sufficient to make the admini-
stration work for a common aim. Still, there was enough insight, good will or respect to-
wards the direct legitimation of the Lady Mayor not to obstruct the initiative as such. In the
end, the somehow lower ambitions of DDP as it has finally been realised may be more
adequate: For the city’s “traffic development plan” there has been an action program,
which failed in the implementation stage.
For the interaction of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics and the other offices
the composition of its professional structure plays an important role. The employees of the
Office for Urban Development and Statistics are mainly academic employees (“wissen-
schaftliche Mitarbeiter”) with a university degree and were selected with the objective to
achieve an interdisciplinary focus (there is a sociologist, a political scientist, a spatial plan-
ner, a geographer, and more). The existence of the office and the composition of personnel
reflect the choice for “social development planning” – instead of a mere constructive plan-
ning. Personnel have been continuously increased in the first years, so that there were two
full-time posts only for DDP, which in the last years, however, have been reduced to two
half-time posts. As mentioned above, the office was founded in January 1992 and it be-
came part of the Lady Mayor’s portfolio when she used a window of opportunity for taking
it over, also in order to have a unit responsible for organising the DDP. The office was
taken from the Office for Urban Planning, so the city today has an office for city develop-
ment and one for urban planning. The cooperation of these two offices was regarded as
crucial for the DDP.
According to the employees of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, coopera-
tion with the planning office and the other offices involved in DDP is in general working
fine, although in particular it is highly dependent on persons. They state that it is crucial to
create win-win-situations for all offices, but also that the cooperation at the staff level is
supported by hierarchical decisions at the top (the directorate heads). The Office for Urban
Development and Statistics tries to anticipate the attitudes of the other offices by observing
the processes going on there (e.g. by having a look at the submissions produced in the of-
fices).

Concerning the arena of stakeholder workshops we had the possibility to join such an event
as participatory observants in the district Schlierbach in January 2004. Of course, every
workshop will be different in some respects, and within a particular workshop each work-
ing group will have its own group dynamics, so generalisations can only be made with high
caution. Schlierbach is the smallest district of Heidelberg (with about 3.000 inhabitants),
situated in the narrow valley of the Neckar River. Thus there was only one workshop for
this district with four working groups. Nevertheless a high number of stakeholders and city
representatives attended (about 80 people altogether). According to some participants with
DDP experience this made the working groups too big. The plenary parts were moderated
by the two professional consultants who had also worked out the concept together with the
city.
The head of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics and an employee of the Of-
fice for Urban Planning held introductory presentations, focussing on the strengths and
weaknesses of the district and the planning questions currently discussed within the admin-
istrative arena. Schlierbach is a well-off district which, however, has some problems con-
cerning spatial developmental opportunities. The lack of affordable housing, the break-
down of retail shops (typical for many German cities), the absence of a district centre whe-
re people can come together (there is no historical centre) and the heavy traffic were men-
tioned as problems. The workshop was then framed by the statement that “we as city ad-
ministration and you as citizens work together”.
                                                                                             90

After the introduction the moderator informed the groups about who was supposed to join
which working group. We followed the discussion within the workshop about “Children,
Youth, Old People and Social Affairs” (being interested in social inclusion policies). This
workshop was moderated by an employee of the Office for Urban Development and Statis-
tics. It was attended by 14 stakeholders and five city representatives. The city offices gave
their inputs, being reluctant to suggest expensive projects in a district which is rather on the
sunny side of life and in times where there is a deficit of 22 Mio. Euros in the city’s bud-
get. Some frankly stated that they do not see any urgent need for action at all. In the course
of the workshop it turned out that some of the objectives mentioned by the city representa-
tives were also important for the stakeholders. But one problem which seemed very urgent
to the discussants and got a high vote in the working group, the safety of children’s way to
school, was not mentioned by the city representative at all, as it did not belong to tasks of
their offices. Interestingly, this issue came up also in the workshop on traffic and in the end
got the second highest vote in the plenum.
The working group was characterised by an intense exchange between city representatives
(especially the representative of the planning office and of the office responsible for youth
care) as well as discussions among the stakeholders about which endogenous potentials for
solving problems there are in the district. Activity among participants in verbal discussions
was quite different. Representatives of the parents’ board of the district’s kindergartens
were very active in demanding more playgrounds, whereas different city representatives
stressed that opportunities for children in Schlierbach to play outside because of the many
private gardens are much better than in other districts. At this point an important function
of the workshops became clear: arguing about the needs of the districts in comparison with
the needs of other districts and the city as a whole. Thus, questions of (re)distribution in the
attempt to foster social inclusion are relevant also in districts where social inclusion is not
the central challenge.
At one point, some irritation came up about the status of the workshops as the moderator
emphasised that measures will not be realised just because they are mentioned in the dis-
trict framework plan. Some participants claimed that they had joined networks on the dis-
cussed issue (safer way to school) years ago and had not been successful in influencing
councillors. If the workshops results would fail in the implementation, they asked, why
attending the workshop at all? Indeed, the respective issue (a traffic light for the main
street) might be highly controversial in the council. DDP is always in a dilemma when it
comes to such polarised issues which are important for the council party’s policy profiles,
and in Heidelberg, traffic issues always belong to these polarised decisions. The city repre-
sentatives frankly stated that the citizens have to convince or even “tease” councillors if
they want certain measures to be realised. At this point, it would have been helpful if the
city representatives were able to point at a report documenting the results of DDP so far.
Participants of the working groups questioned the rules on expressing preferences, espe-
cially the aggregation rule of the second working group discussion where two votes have to
be given for “realisability”. That proposals could be more easily realised, the participants
argued, does not mean that they have a higher priority. Furthermore, if the city council is
expected to reject a proposal, it is not realisable – but why should participants legitimate
the expected rejection by the council? The moderator explained that the participants should
not judge the willingness of local politics to realise their proposals but what they think
could be realised if there was political support. The workshop participants are thus ex-
pected to see themselves in the role of a political decision-maker. They did not seem to feel
very well in that role. As mentioned above, the designers of the workshop rules intended to
enforce a certain realism on the participants. Nevertheless, the workshop did not com-
pletely abstain from “utopian” or visionary proposals. The suggestion to construct a plat-
form over the federal road in order to create a meeting point with a “view on the Neckar
                                                                                             91

River” after all got two votes in the final plenum (one from a city representative). The
highest vote was given for the renovation and enlargement of a schoolyard according to the
plans presented by the head teacher (20 votes with 6 from the administration). High votes
were also given for contradicting proposals for building a railway underpass – an issues
obviously highly debated in the district.

As for the local government arenas we were able to attend the discussion on part two of the
district development plan for Handschuhsheim in the local government arenas of the dis-
trict council of Handschuhsheim, the city council’s committee on urban development and
the city council where the final decision on the adoption of the plan is taken. In all these
three government arenas clear political leadership by the Lady Mayor can be observed. As
always when a DDP is discussed, she makes use of her right not only to chair the city
council but also its committees and the district councils. She clearly is the most out-
standing actor in these arenas, linking the arenas of community involvement, district poli-
tics and city politics, but also bringing in her own policy agenda. It is difficult to overesti-
mate the importance of leadership style and skills in these arenas, ranging from politely
telling delayed district councillors where to sit down from reacting to not so polite criti-
cism in a communicative way and making clear her own standpoint. In other words: a sub-
tle mixture of authority and readiness for dialogue is necessary to reach results.

In the session of the district council, after a general introduction of the Lady Mayor prais-
ing the advantages of a combined city wide and district specific planning there were two
presentations from the city administration, one from the head of the Office for Urban De-
velopment and Statistics and one from an employee of the Office for Urban Planning, both
highlighting major issues discussed in the workshops and giving comments from the per-
spective of the administration. The first presentation gave an overview over the ranking of
the proposals within the workshops, addressed questions of settlement development and
launched two “ideas” how the situation for small enterprises and the opportunities for pur-
chasing goods in the district could be ameliorated. In this context he presented another
study carried through in order to find out the requirements for shopkeepers to run super-
markets. The second presentation referred to land use planning, touching the two most con-
troversial questions of the district, namely the question of protecting the non-built space of
the district from construction of roads or buildings and the question of a fifth bridge cross-
ing the Neckar river. Both presentations referred to the city’s “model of spatial order”
which was adopted by the city council in 1999 as a concretisation of the city development
plan, thus stressing the requirement of district measures to maintain congruence with city-
wide planning.
The floor for discussion was opened by the Lady Mayor who pointed out that all the meas-
ures and projects proposed in the district development plan would have to be planned and
decided individually at a later time. She then took the opportunity to make a clear state-
ment about one of the controversial issues, namely settlement development, arguing in
favour of increasing the density within the district. This obviously rubbed salt in the
wounds of the district councillors and led to a controversial discussion. The relationship
between the Lady Mayor and the district council in the last years has been characterised by
a strong tension, which was caused by a controversy of how the university buildings could
be better connected to the regional traffic infrastructure. On the web pages of the district
association, which is personally closely linked to the district council, a heavy polemic can
be found against the alleged plans of the Lady Mayor to build a new highway connection
for the university. She is accused of breaking the promises given in the last election cam-
paign and supporting the destruction of a unique spot. Some of the district councillors were
missing clear statements within the district development plan about the limits of settlement
                                                                                          92

development and the expansion of the university. So did a former district councillor who
took the word after the floor had been opened for the “public”. He claimed that the votes
given in the workshops clearly expressed an objection to any kind of growth.
A conflict of interpretation became visible. Indeed, the measure “providing affordable
housing” had got the second highest vote and the Lady Mayor referred to this, in order to
make clear that one would have to think about the ways to achieve this objective. This case
shows that the DDP gives visibility to conflicts of district development which are not made
transparent by the district councils alone as these are dominated by district inhabitants
which have lived there for a long time and are well established. This holds true not only for
the stakeholder workshops but also for the future workshops for women. In the district
council of Handschuhsheim obviously status quo interests play a dominant role, focussing
on getting good social services by the city and support for small shops as well as avoiding
large-scale development projects.

At the session of the committee for urban development, which was held a few weeks later,
the discussion about the DDP had a top priority. The conflict between city administra-
tion/Lady Mayor and district councillors came up again and now included the committee
members. There was no presentation by urban offices or the Lady Mayor as the latter
thought that all members would have already enough information. As always, a representa-
tive of the respective district council is invited when sessions of the committee discuss
parts of the DDP – and in our case, the discussion between that district councillor (a mem-
ber of the Social Democrats) and the members of the committee dominated the session. At
the beginning, the committee members were very reluctant with own statements towards
specific aspects of the district development plan. They were mainly interested in listening
to the statement of the district council representative. The district councillor who had al-
ready come into a minor conflict with the administration before that meeting – accusing the
administration of not having made the right documentation of one of the important topics
that had been discussed at the meeting of the district council –summarised the position of
the district council. He pointed to the fact that there were contradicting proposals in part
two of the district development plan because participants had voted in such a way. This
was the case with the mentioned two most conflictive issues, namely the question if an-
other bridge shall be constructed over the Neckar river and the question if the non-built
area Handschuhsheimer Feld which is now used exclusively for agricultural and leisure
activities should be protected against any other utilization in the future.
In both cases the district council representative, the Lady mayor and the members of the
committee for urban development again interpreted the results of the workshops in a dif-
ferent way. Whereas the first stated that the additional bridge had “not found a majority in
Handschuhsheim” and that the protection of the Handschuhsheimer Feld had got the high-
est priority in the workshops, the Lady Mayor and the city councillors objected to this posi-
tion. The Lady Mayor refused to change the respective passage on the Handschuhsheimer
Feld criticised by the district councillor and pointed to an enduring conflict of interest
which should not be “covered” by the DDP. One councillor asked why nine votes given for
reducing traffic in Handschuhsheim should be regarded – as the district representative had
put it – as “high” whereas the same number of the new bridge should be regarded as “low”.
He was told that this was because there were also four votes against the bridge, but none
against the reduction of traffic. All this shows that the “votes” given within the workshops
are everything but clear. Furthermore, it is not possible to judge from the documentation
exactly who gives which votes in favour or against a certain measure during the work-
shops. It is only documented who takes part in the respective working group.
This analysis shouldn’t be regarded as an argument in favour of documenting exactly who
voted in which way. For the participants the anonymity creates an atmosphere of security
                                                                                           93

and freedom because their workshop behaviour cannot be politicised by external instances,
e.g. the media. What the debates following the workshops show, however, is that “voting”
in a deliberative arena like the workshops has a different status then voting in an arena with
clear aggregation and scope rules like the city council. It certainly expresses preferences of
those who are there – but who is there is to a certain degree contingent, depending on the
willingness and ability to participate in a certain workshop. Proposals to vote for or against
are sometimes disparate. And some proposals (“reduction of traffic”) are formulated in a
way that nobody wants to disagree, although at a closer look trade-offs with other objec-
tives become visible.
Finally, one member of the council committee remarked that on the one hand the “mood”
in the city council was obviously different from that in the district council, but that on the
other the DDP would after all have no binding force for the council decisions in the future
anyhow, so that it would not be problematic to pass it. After this remark the debate finished
immediately and the draft in its actual version was passed unanimously, although the dis-
cussants had not come to an agreement on the mentioned issues.

The session of the city council finally (one week later) began with a short summary of the
course of the process by the Lady Mayor. After that she asked the councillors if they had
still some questions or if they would like to discuss particular topics – but as there were no
requests to speak, the DDP for Handschuhsheim has been adopted unanimously also in that
arena – this time without even discussing the subject. The arena of the city council seems
to be the least deliberative one with respect to DDP, at least concerning the plan as a
whole. The councillors seem to think that it is better to accept the result of community in-
volvement and administrative expertise, having the opportunity to decide on every single
measure at a later time. They withhold final authority and at the same time bind themselves
in a general way to the plans, which are formulated in a rather open way, often expressing
dissent among participants of the workshops in those questions where also opinions in the
council will be more polarised. The passing of a DDP seems to have become a routine mat-
ter for the city council, postponing arguing and bargaining, consensus-building and politi-
cal polarisation to a later time.
As mentioned in the description of Heidelberg’s characteristics of local government there
is no clear majority or coalition in the city council. This was even the case before the last
council elections when the Social Democrats had better chances to organise a coalition
with the Green List and other small groups. Coalition building is difficult under conditions
of a rather fragmented local party system (with seven parties plus the vote of the Lady
Mayor), and it is connected to the probability of high conflicts and stalemate in the case the
colour of the coalition is differing considerably from the political convictions of the mayor.
Thus, in Heidelberg city council majorities have to be formed ever anew, especially when
the budget is decided or the midterm financial assessment. The Lady Mayor as the unques-
tioned political and executive leader plays a crucial role in constructing these majorities.
The situation in the council thus mirrors in some respect the one in the administrative
arena: There, all major parties are considered in the appointment of the deputy mayors. As
in the administrative arena bargaining about resources takes place under the condition that
nothing can be realised against the mayor as the executive or political leader respectively.
DDP and other deliberative ways of involving the local community help to strengthen the
role of arguing (common problem definition) within this structure. It seems doubtful that
innovative and sustainable policy making would otherwise be possible in such a constella-
tion. This gives a hint for the analysis of possible complementarities of leadership and
community involvement: deliberative ways of involving the local community can be a
means to shift the mode of communication from a predominantly bargaining to a more
arguing one. Of course, this depends on the personality of political and administrative
                                                                                               94

leaders, but also organisational and political culture. But it is crucial not to forget the trans-
formational potential of deliberative initiatives, leading to self-enforcing processes both
within the administrative and the political arena as well as between them.

A major problem is that the documentation of the district development planning ends here.
It is therefore quite difficult to find out which of the aims and measures formulated in the
final concept have really been realised (or will be realised in future). Although the admini-
stration has told us that the realisation of the district development plans city officials are
not able to give a conclusive answer to the question “what actually happened to the plans”.
Only the Office for the Equality of Man and Woman has – in opposite to the other urban
offices – documented the results in written form which have been realised in the context of
the aims formulated at the future workshops (Stadt Heidelberg 2002a: 47).
When we together with employees from the Office for Urban Development and Statistics
had a look at the plans for the selected three districts, it soon became clear that the plans
are not only very complex, but also include very different levels of reflection, ranging from
broad aims to very specific measures. However, what is especially interesting from the
perspective of the involved key persons is whether the proposals preferred in the work-
shops have been realised or not. Since the workshop proposals are more concrete (due to
the rules within the working groups participants had to think about the possibilities to im-
plement the measures!) it was possible to have a look at the list of proposals for one district
and see in how far something had happened. 52 different proposals could be identified
(most of them still further differentiated into sub-proposals). Out of these only nine could
be said not to have been put into practice in at least some way. And of these failed propos-
als only three got a relatively high ranking in the plenum of the workshops (interestingly
also by votes of the administration). The reasons for non-implementation differ. A better
provision with retail shops could not be realised, on the contrary: the situation got even
worse. City employees mentioned that the council refused to expand the space for retail
shops, so that it is difficult to get a supermarket into the district. Making the housing
blocks “green” (with plants) has been rejected by the housing company due to technical
problems whereas the city refused to think about changing the colour of houses because
they had been carefully chosen by the architects as a “Gesamtkunstwerk”. To establish an
autonomously run community house in the district according to the city employees is im-
possible to realise under current conditions. Nevertheless, the great majority of proposals
have led to concrete measures, sometimes in cooperation with societal organisations. Par-
ticipation of the key persons in the workshop seems to have an impact on the city’s poli-
cies.


Policy outcomes

In analysing the outcomes with respect to legitimacy we refer to three dimensions of de-
mocratic legitimation: input-legitimation (authentic participation), throughput-legitimation
(transparency and accountability) and output-legitimation (effective problem-solving).

It is obvious that input-legitimation shall be increased by the emphasis on direct participa-
tion, especially of key persons (district-meetings, future workshops, workshops) and con-
sent building by deliberation. As we have pointed out input-legitimation is questioned by
biased participation in DDP. The arenas open to everyone (boundary rules) are the district
meeting, the district council meetings and the sessions of the local council. But such big
events like the district meetings (as mentioned, they are attended by about 200-300 per-
sons) will some citizens let refrain from expressing their opinion in public. Nevertheless it
is obvious that that the “voice” of the district is, as it were, “pluralised”, thereby increasing
                                                                                                            95

the more authentic and equal expression of interests. The district councils are challenged as
the exclusive voice of the districts, at the same time their importance can increase if they
accept the deliberative challenge. The direct election of the mayor lends legitimacy to the
strong input by the administration which she leads. Finally, when it comes to spending
money or deciding on controversial issues the city council can rely on its general legiti-
macy gained by city-wide elections (an electoral system based on wards might be more
problematic in this context). All in all, with respect to input legitimation DDP can be said
to have redefined the way of setting the political agenda.

Regarding throughput-legitimation, various aspects have to be differentiated:
•    DDP has a clear formal body of rules which is rather easy to understand as well from
     the inside (as a participant) as from the outside (as an observer). Furthermore, the
     documentation of the workshops can be called as thorough since one can see who par-
     ticipated in the different workshops and which the preferences of the participants were.
•    Due to the information rules designed by the city administration the local press is not
     informed about and not invited to the workshops, but can only rely on the press re-
     leases of the administration. However, the literal documentation of the proposals and
     the voting of the workshop participants ensures that manipulation is not possible. Jour-
     nalists can come to the district meetings, and the sessions of the city council. The city
     has its own possibility if informing citizens about the DDP events with the “Stadtblatt”,
     being distributed to all households. (The office responsible for releasing the Stadtblatt
     and informing the press is again part of the Lady Mayor’s administrative portfolio.)
•    As already mentioned, the council only accepts the district development plans as a gen-
     eral guideline. This might be seen as a lack of transparency because involved citizens
     cannot be sure in how far their engagement will make a difference.93 On the other
     hand, the position of the council can be understood as a clear separation of deliberative
     and representative arenas – thus increasing transparency and accountability. Concern-
     ing political leadership it is crucial for the political leader (and also the administrative
     representatives responsible to the leader) to make clear the limits of consensus for cer-
     tain proposals or options as soon as possible, in order not to give signs of tacit agree-
     ment or even promising.
•    In any case, the question has gained importance what happens after the plans have pas-
     sed the council. As there is no documentation that deals with projects which have been
     realised (or not) in the context of DDP, so far there seems to be a lack of transparency.
     The city has, however, realised this deficiency and is planning to make such a docu-
     mentation.
•    When we asked (in our survey) in how far the transparency of the process was ensured
     by the Lady Mayor as the responsible urban leader the result was an average value of 3
     – with a significant difference between respondents from the administration (who gen-
     erally considered the process as being very transparent) and others (who often saw no
     transparency at all).94 This might partially be due to the fact that it is difficult to com-
     municate all the workshop topics to the outside (long texts). But the reason might also
     be uncertainty regarding definite outcomes.

93     This has also been stressed in one of the cities surveys about the living conditions in Heidelberg. Al-
       though the persons questioned praised the engagement the city has made in the field of community in-
       volvement, they also declared at the same time that they would see a “break” with respect to the fact
       how the city deals with the results of community involvement. So, it can be followed, citizens do not
       only want participation, they are also interested in the next step – the implementation of the results of
       citizen involvement and processes of considerations and decisions should be documented in a com-
       prehensible manner (Stadt Heidelberg 1999a: 73).
94     Again answers were on a scale from 1-5 (1: not at all; 5: very strong/very much)
                                                                                            96


•   The visibility of the Lady Mayor in the phase of policy development (she personally
    was present at the district meetings and the sessions of the district councils) obviously
    leads to a kind of accountability (see above: procedural accountability), and her re-
    election in 1998 can be taken as a sign of support for the communicative approach as
    well as her personal performance. Furthermore, the professional knowledge of the La-
    dy Mayor as the head of the administration helps to make legal and technical aspects of
    important decisions transparent, e.g. in the meeting of the district councils.

The Handschuhsheim example shows that DDP can make transparent basic questions of
city politics. In a citizen survey as well as an analysis of an independent research institute
besides traffic the most urgent problem was considered lack of affordable housing – both
problems are interconnected in the phenomenon of sub-urbanisation (Schneider 1997: 128-
129). In other words: A basic problem of Heidelberg stems from the development that
families move in the suburbs or neighbouring towns because they cannot afford to live in
the city. The rate of single households increases, whereas on the other hand the growing
level of commuters causes ever more car traffic. Thus whereas Heidelberg at first sight is a
city with at best “luxury” problems (traffic) there is a deeper conflict between groups inter-
ested to maintain the status quo and others interested in change. As Schneider (1997: 129)
has realised the “key problem” is the scarcity of building land, i.e. a conflict about scarce
good, which leads to conflicts of distribution. DDP cannot “solve” this conflict, but it can
help to give alternative “voices” an opportunity for making themselves heard.

The dimension of output-legitimation is touched insofar as the district development plans
are not only perceived as innovative and problem-adequate but also as based on informed
consent of the involved actors. By working out these plans there has been achieved not
only a better overview about the situation of the cities’ districts and administrative exper-
tise has been brought together with life-word perspectives (knowledge base); also the col-
laboration and co-operation between the different city offices and between public actors
and the private sector has been improved. Another “gain” of DDP is the fact that the first
part of the plans formed an excellent basis for the City Development Plan Heidelberg
2010. No doubt, the particular characteristics as well as the problems of the districts (Em-
mertsgrund: social and living situation, Kirchheim and Handschuhsheim: traffic and devel-
opment of settlement) have been considered and deepened in the formulation of the district
development plans.

In Emmertsgrund where a lot of family-size apartments are available and traffic problems
do not play a major role social problems are obvious. The district development plan served
as a basic document for the application to the funding scheme “Socially Integrated City”,
co-financed by national government and the Länder, with subsidies amounting to several
millions Euro. Already the first part of DDP (stocktaking) helped to identify problems and
to solve them (e.g. it was revealed that the facilities for childcare were worse than in other
districts – the city then increased the number of places for childcare). Furthermore, a lot of
proposals coming from or at least supported by the workshops have been realised. DDP
here had the advantage that the district is seen in its specificity – and that the urgent prob-
lems become visible which are not really articulated by local politics. The administrative
working group for the district experienced DDP as an initiative strengthening its work, not
only with respect to public attention (which is always ambivalent due to the danger of
“stigmatisation”), but also with respect to maintaining and strengthening the cooperative
ties between city administration and private organisations, especially from the third sector.
                                                                                                     97

In the consciousness of district inhabitants it also does not seem to play a role, that Kirch-
heim has no adopted district development plan95 - what leads to the question whether the
formal adoption of the district development plan is crucial for its factual political signifi-
cance (at least in the eyes of the public). In fact, also here most of the proposed measures
have been realised.

The head of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, however, stressed that it isn’t
the main aim of the initiative to realise as many measures as possible, but to give the citi-
zens the opportunity to participate at the decentral planning process. The main concern of
the district development planning, according to him, had been to create more integration
and identification and to understand/to get the will of the citizens. This is also expressed by
the Lady Mayor herself who also accepted for herself the label “communitarian”.96 In this
context the head of the office also pointed out that the formation of opinion has a proce-
dural character, i.e. interests and priorities can change over time. Although financial re-
strictions are the main problem when it comes to the implementation of measures, accord-
ing to him it can be assumed that the real “big matters” are realised anyhow.


Conclusions

As has become clear, the strong mayoral type of leadership is important both for the initia-
tion and the implementation of the concept of DDP. The Lady Mayor can more or less de-
cisively shape all the arenas. Where she does not appear personally, the organisational
characteristics of DDP nevertheless enable leadership: The Office for Urban Development
and Statistics which is responsible for the realisation of all the district development plans is
part of her own portfolio and therefore channels of communication are arranged in such a
way that the Lady Mayor is informed about the process at all time.97 The leadership style in
the context of DDP shall now be analysed for each of the three policy stages (policy devel-
opment, policy decision-making and policy implementation).

Regarding the phase of policy development which is composed of the district-meetings, the
future workshops, the phase of “stocktaking, prediction and assessment”, the sessions of
the district council and the Committee for Urban Development and the workshops as well
as the phase of preparing the “aims of development and proposals of measures”, the style
of Mrs. Weber can be described as “visionary” as she combines elements of strong leader-
ship with capacity generation. When the process starts, she tries to bring together different
parts of the citizenry to discuss with representatives of the administration and partly with
herself – about their future. In the stage of policy decision making she practices more the
style of the “consensual facilitator” as she is dependent on getting the district development
plan through the council. As a “city boss” she can finally be described for the stage of pol-
icy implementation as it often has the impression that in principle she tries to accom-
plish/to implement her own views. Generally – and regarding all these three stages together
– we would describe her as a “visionary city boss” – trying to activate and to involve as
often as possible the different parts of community but without forgetting her own agenda
and using all the possibilities or exertions of influence of her position.



95    Interviews with a city administration member (13th May 2003) and with a Green Party representative
      (18th Sep 2003).
96    Interview with the Lady Mayor of Heidelberg, 10th Feb 2003.
97    Interview with an employee from the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, 13th Mai 2003.
                                                                                             98

Community involvement takes place in different kinds (district meeting, future workshops,
workshops etc.) and citizens have various possibilities to join the process and to participate
actively in the stage of policy development and can be characterised as a kind of joint ven-
ture of city administration (contributing professional expertise and personal resources) and
(a selection of key) citizens (contributing local knowledge and broadened legitimacy) in
which councillors are more or less absent from deliberation but have the final word. It can
also be regarded as a kind of “pluralist advocacy planning”. Of course, a kind of commu-
nity involvement is also possible at the stage of policy implementation when the citizens
help to realise some measures – but as basic decisions are already made at this stage, we
concentrated in our analyses on the stage of policy development.


Policy challenges and outcomes

The main challenge of the project, the creation of district development plans by the in-
volvement of the local community has been targeted by a special course of action which is
determined by institutional rules for each successive arena. The citizens generally have the
right to express their opinion and, to ask questions (authority rules). Here, access is only
given for (a broad range of) invited citizens (boundary rules), and a distinction is made
between measures proposed by a “normal citizen” or a representative of the administration
(authority and aggregation rules). The workshops as the “core” of community involvement
are documented in a very detailed way (including preference voting). The administration
has a certain autonomy in formulating the resulting proposal to the council to which a
feedback is institutionalised for the different stages (aggregation rules). Thus, in the stage
of policy development the city administration has a high influence, but it has to look for
consensus with involved citizens and also councillors. Compared to the district council the
city council's committee for urban development at first glance seems to have a higher in-
fluence because of the opportunity to change the draft resolution when preparing the coun-
cil decision (topics can be added or deleted (scope and aggregation rules)). However, the
district councillors are far more intensively engaged in the workshops. Finally, the city
council together with its leader, the Lady Mayor, is responsible for the final outcome – a
legally binding decision of a majority of the council on the respective district development
plan (scope and aggregation rules). Of course, this is prescribed by the municipal code. But
all in all what we can observe is a differentiation of deliberative and representative arenas
with the Lady Mayor and city administration as “interface managers”.

The case of DDP can demonstrate various features of a complementarity of urban leader-
ship and community involvement (CULCI). There is a clear accountability of the Lady
Mayor for the initiative as a whole. This can be described as a kind of procedural responsi-
bility for linking the arenas, especially the arena of political decision making (council) with
the deliberative arenas of the workshops. This involved
•   procedural decisions, namely the decision on withdrawing the first district develop-
    ment plan from the arena of political decision making in the expectation of an objection
    by the councillors; the motive here was to rescue the substance of the planning process
    (and thus the time and energy of participating citizens) from being torn apart in the ir-
    resolvable conflicts of “high” city politics;
•   designing, redesigning and reinterpreting rules; institutional design refers to the con-
    struction of a reliable, transparent and robust basic framework by the Lady Mayor and
    her staff; this stable framework refers to the different steps and their internal structure;
    redesign or maybe better: reinterpretation has been practised with respect to the scope
    rules of DDP by refraining from a binding character and a too concrete formulation of
                                                                                                           99

     the plans, again in reaction to the conflicts within the council; after the fourth DDP and
     an intensive talk between councils representatives (the so called Ältestenrat) and the
     Lady Mayor as well employees from the administration, the council took a decision
     that when it passes a district development plan the measures mentioned there would not
     be implemented quasi automatically. DDP has thus become more dependent on perma-
     nent leadership (and community involvement) as councillors have again and again to
     be convinced of the measures proposed by the participating citizens; in times of budget
     stress this has become an extremely tough enterprise;
•    changing the context; DDP got into a political crisis in an early stage when more and
     more actors (chamber of architects, council parties) criticised that district planning
     needs an overall frame; finally, the Lady Mayor agreed and launched the initiative for a
     complex city development plan; today, there seems to be common agreement that this
     city wide framework has been necessary;
•    the organisational responsibility of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics as
     part of the Lady Mayor’s own portfolio, going along with close communicative net-
     works between the operational and the leadership level; at the same time there is a high
     administrative challenge for leadership with respect to the co-ordination of various
     other offices participating in the process of DDP;
•    a highly demanding communicative role of the Lady Mayor and her staff (as well as of
     all the city representatives taking part in the workshops); the Lady Mayor has to “sell”
     the results from arena to arena and is thus required to speak different “languages”
     within different audiences; this is very much connected with a special style of leader-
     ship (visionary-communicative), but also with the personal charisma of the political
     leaders;98
•    since the councillors are practically absent from the interactive arenas of DDP citizens
     put their trust in the effectiveness of their participation primarily in the person of the
     Lady Mayor who is fostering this attitude by promising to consider proposed measures
     and ideas and have them discussed in the political arena; this requires a conscious way
     of treating citizens statements, especially when not all preferences can be satisfied.


Outcomes, policy challenges, legitimacy and CULCI

With respect to outcomes it should, first of all, be repeated and stresses again that the task
of realising a DDP for all Heidelberg districts itself is probably going to be successful, i.e.
that in all of the 14 districts the first stage (stocktaking) has been completed and in ten also
the whole planning process (with one where no final decision by council has been taken),
in one it is in the process of being completed at the moment (with a council decision taken
in December), in one the workshops will be held in January, and in two the second stage is
projected for the next years.99 Considering the administrative costs, the political conflicts
and the staying power needed this seems to be a remarkable outcome for itself.

One of the original substantial policy challenges, a general shift of power (from the coun-
cil to deliberative forms of planning) has not been fully realised. The originally intended
higher binding effect of the district development plans had to be modified, so that the

98     Beate Weber has not only gained political experience in the European arena and on international
       boards as well as in several political offices in the Social Democratic Party. She has also achieved na-
       tional popularity as a personality. As already mentioned, a TV program has chosen her as “woman of
       the year 1996”.
99     The district development plan for Kirchheim has never been introduced in the city council due to
       disagreements concerning traffic policy and especially the construction of a tram route.
                                                                                            100

council still decides on all the measures separately (scope rule): Although a district devel-
opment plan is decided by the council, this positive resonance does not giver any guaran-
tees about the realisation of the particular measures since these must be included individu-
ally in the medium-term financial planning of the city. It is thus still the task of the admini-
stration to control the realisation of proposals. The city representatives have made a virtue
of necessity by stressing publicly the requirement of citizen participation at decisions taken
later in the council. But this might mean requiring too much and endangering the integrity
of the plans. Concerning the content of the plans, it can be said that they cover a complex
field of issues, but, as mentioned do not comprise an integrated action program. In times of
high fiscal stress, city authorities may be glad to have refrained from such comprehensive
planning targets and chosen a “softer” approach. But even when the fiscal situation was
better the heads of the directorates could not agree on endowing the district framework
plans with a more concrete and controllable implementation scheme.

Looking at procedural outcomes, we again get a mixed picture: on the one hand, the mobi-
lisation/activation of citizens has been achieved insofar as the intended number of partici-
pants was achieved and all workshops could be held with an adequate number of persons.
On the other hand, participation has undoubtedly been biased. It is the well-organised and
well-established German part of the population which takes actually part in DDP. There
seems not only to be a discrepancy between the representatives of organisations and pri-
vate households (Stadt Heidelberg 1999a: 59) and the different social groups, but also be-
tween German citizens and foreigners. As has already been mentioned, foreigners have
practically not taken part in neither of the different arenas. This is because they are not
well-established in the district societies. Rare exemptions are some shop/restaurant owners
and representatives from the foreigners’ council. Whereas a special forum has been created
for women, nothing comparable has been organised especially for foreigners (which could
have been important especially for the Emmertsgrund with a high proportion of foreigner).
Over-represented in the workshops were the members of the “district associations”
(“Stadtteilverein”) and of the district councils – often in personal union.

Of course, it could be argued that this is partially not a failure in terms of procedural chal-
lenges since it is in accordance with the original design of DDP. This is not to say that the
exclusion of foreigners from participation was intended, but that the inclusion of those who
can be regarded as key actors with regard to knowledge, resources and influence was the
central objective. Activation was mainly about bringing the active society into touch with
the administration, not about activating the passive, alienated or disadvantaged parts of
local society. As for Emmertsgrund, the projects within the funding scheme “Soziale
Stadt” might lead to a greater involvement of more distanced parts of the population – but
DDP facilitated the attempt to get into that funding scheme.

An actual survey of the “Forschungsgruppe Wahlen” about “Bürgerengagement in Heidel-
berg” (civic engagement in Heidelberg) came to the result that the majority of the persons
questioned (70 %) didn't know anything about the workshops (as a part of the DDP). Inter-
estingly, more respondents knew about the future workshops. Extensive knowledge about
the workshops could only be found at civil servants (in higher positions), leading employ-
ees, the citizens who are between 40 and 49 years old and by the engaged. Also the partici-
pation in the workshops seems to increase with the commitment of the participants to the
city (Stadt Heidelberg 2002b: 16). Interestingly, the city refuses to make press releases and
to invite journalists to the workshops, in order to prevent a politicisation and the manipula-
tion of participants. It uses its own newspaper (“Heidelberger Stadtblatt”) to inform the
citizens about the events.
                                                                                                         101

DDP has been institutionalised as a widely accepted standard procedure. But as the Lady
Mayor pointed out in an interview the city had to reconsider the procedure if the process
would be reiterated one day. Then city authorities would have to think about modifications
especially in view of the different characteristics, problem areas or the different social
background within the districts.100 It remains an open question, however, whether the ex-
periment of DDP will be continued after the Lady Mayor’s second tenure in 2006. For the
least, the long tenure (twice eight years) of the directly elected executive mayor in Baden-
Württemberg has guaranteed a basic personal continuity sufficient to realise one DDP in
all Heidelbergian districts.

DDP is part of a wide spectrum of deliberative processes in Heidelberg which can all be
understood as manifestations of a “perspective incrementalism” (“perspektivischer Inkre-
mentalismus”) – that means a concentration on concrete problems and projects with a gen-
eral paradigm at the back of one’s mind (see the comparative conclusions). The interaction
of administrative knowledge and “voices” of the “lifeworld” enable the integration of a
detailed knowledge with a normative perspective. The district development plans do not
for themselves solve any problems, they only identify them in a more transparent and
complex way and propose new ideas. Thus, community involvement as it takes places in
the different forums of the DDP allows for testing new approaches to urban planning, ad-
dressing new problems and bringing forward sensible suggestions. Citizenry and city au-
thorities really “work together”, i.e. they discuss general objectives and concrete measures
in an interplay of administrative professional knowledge and “lifewordly” insider knowl-
edge. Sometimes the different points of view get closer to each other and positions are rec-
onciled, sometimes dissent becomes clearer as the alternatives become more transparent.

Besides solving problems by identifying needs/interests and enhancing the knowledge
base, DDP has also to be considered in terms of its by-products. Thus, community in-
volvement might – as the Lady Mayor pronounced it several times – serve as a vehicle for
strengthening personal identification with the district and the city as a whole what would
mean a more social-psychological aspect of outcomes. What is also worth mentioning is
the fact that by the participatory character of the whole process of the DDP, parts of the
citizenry could not only be made more aware of local politics but were partly also recruited
for example as new district councillors. Furthermore, DDP has brought and brings many
people to discuss the actual situation and the future of their own district within activist
groups; the building-up of female activist groups is only one example of activism stimu-
lated by DDP.101 So, many of the future workshops for women – which initially were pre-
sented by the Office for the Equality of Men and Women – became independent and some
still exist today. Also, these future workshops have encouraged many women to take part
in politics – two female participants for example stood for election to the city council –
what is an important impulse to be pursued as part of the objective “women in politics”. In
the Emmertsgrund also other activities have been created within the context of the future
workshops which especially deal with questions concerning the situation of women (see
Hauß/Frank 1995).

Above, we identified different features of CULCI (complementarity between urban leader-
ship and community involvement) which can be attributed to the DDP process. These can
be considered as components of a mutual strengthening of leadership and involved com-

100   Interview with Beate Weber, February 10th, 2003.
101   In the course of the future workshops for example several measures (in respect of all districts) for the
      improvement of the bicycle traffic or the sensation of security of the female inhabitants, the creation
      of new weekly markets and with that the support of local products could have been realised and the
      women could have been sensitised for cultural or social engagement (Weber 2003a).
                                                                                                    102

munities (“power to”, not “power over”): the Lady Mayor has oriented her personal policy
agenda fundamentally on the procedural quality of decision making and thus pushes new
opportunities for participation – on the other hand the legitimacy and the (often “interpret-
able”) material outcomes produced by these participatory arenas help her to strengthen her
position vis-à-vis the council where she does not control a majority and a highly politicised
public. The Lady Mayor clearly refers to or is legitimating her position by this citizen in-
volvement when she tries to get the district development plans trough the council (as the
formulated district development plan represents for a big part the will of the citizenry). But
at the same time, community involvement would become implausible if the Lady Mayor in
the end (that means at the stage of implementation) did not stand up for the aims formu-
lated in the district development plans.


Lessons

The following aspects should be important for drawing lessons from the DDP example.

First, it becomes clear that there are certain institutional characteristics in terms of position
and authority rules which have given support to the realisation of the DDP: the long tenure
of the Heidelberg mayor, his/her organisational power and the direct legitimation seem to
be very favourable for such a long lasting project of participatory planning and of integrat-
ing it into the overall policy of the city.
The aspect just mentioned already points to a specific problem: DDP might stand and fall
with the person of the Lady Mayor – it is in no prescribed by state law and at the same time
one can doubt that a successor will continue the process (the Lady Mayor herself won’t
candidate in 2006).
Furthermore, social inclusion can only partially be guaranteed by the institutional rules of
DDP and especially by the interactive arenas (boundary rules); it is crucial that city ad-
ministration strives for the consideration of marginalised interests as an advocate of the
general interest and that the highly formalised procedure of DDP with its bias for actors
ready and competent to deliberate in public have to be supplemented by more project-
orientated forms of participation.
Finally, it can be doubted that many cities today have the resources for such complex and
long lasting planning efforts; the fiscal crisis is a serious threat for such approaches not
only in Germany.
Asked whether they would change anything if they could start all over again employees of
the Office for Urban Development and Statistics told us that one could think about com-
pleting part one and part two of DDP one district after the other, in order to avoid long
time gaps between the accumulation of data and the discussion of measures and increase
“methodical concentration”.102 This could be especially advantageous in districts undergo-
ing rapid change where the now practiced procedure requires a lot of update on analysis.
On the other hand the employees thought that completing district after district would be
problematic because the expectations of those districts which come last would be disap-
pointed. Furthermore, the initiative could be pushed through with more difficulties in the
political arena.




102   Interview with two employees from the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, Nov 18th 2003.
                                                                                                      103

3.2.3     Dialogical stimulation of the local economy. Creating networks with local
          business community


Description of the initiative

Like the district development planning the initiative of the dialogical stimulation of local
economy has been initiated by the Lady Mayor herself. It is manifest in a broad range of
forums in which actors from local economy come together in order to discuss problems
and find solutions for economic development in the city. These are organised by the Hei-
delberg Economic Development Association (Heidelberger Wirtschaftsentwicklungsge-
sellschaft, HWE), a limited company owned by the city and personally linked with the
city’s “Direction of General Administration, Economy and Employment” which is “offi-
cially” responsible for improving local economy. The Lady Mayors' reforms in local policy
strategies were conducted by the aim to render the administration more client-oriented and
in this context also the stimulation of local economy was made a matter of decision at the
top level, i.e. the Lady Mayor. Similar to the case of the Office for Urban Development
and Statistics, she incorporated the (former) “Office for Economic Development” into her
own portfolio and reorganised it as a “one-stop-agency”.103 In the middle of the 90ies the
local council decided to prepare the foundation of the HWE which was then established in
1997 (see Direktion für Allgemeine Verwaltung, Wirtschaft und Beschäftigung 1996). It
was first financed by the city and a city-owned bank whereas today it is completely owned
by the city.

These units of Heidelberg’s structure of stimulating local economy are closely linked via a
structure of personal union: the municipal office and the HWE are led by the same person
(however, today there are two CEOs in the HWE) – who is again closely connected to the
outstanding urban leader, i.e. the Lady Mayor. This personal union also includes the Hei-
delberg Technology-Park (founded in 1985), an international Science Park with a focus on
Life Sciences. Shareholders of the latter are the city of Heidelberg and the chamber of In-
dustry and Commerce of the Rhine-Neckar region.104

Since January 2003 there is also a co-operation between the HWE and the Heidelberg As-
sociation for Congress and Tourism (“Heidelberger Kongress und Tourismus GmbH”
(HKT))105, and both are now holdings of the newly founded Heidelberg Association for
Economic Development and Tourism (“Heidelberger Gesellschaft für Wirtschaftsentwick-
lung und Tourismus mbH” (HWT)) after the city council had agreed upon this new organi-
sation for the stimulation of economy and tourism in December 2002 and passed the foun-
dation of the just mentioned companies. With this horizontal integration the Lady Mayor
wants to emphasise that also the promotion of tourism represents an important objective in
the context of the promotion of the economy and that the good reputation of the local
economy and sciences should be expanded to the field of tourism. Shareholders of the
HKT are the city of Heidelberg (76 %) and the Tourism Association (“Verkehrsverein”, 24
%) whose members are mainly hotels, restaurants and other tourism enterprises. The HWT
again is completely owned by the city. Furthermore, the head of the HWE is now sup-
ported in his work by the manager of the HKT (who at the same time himself is the manag-


103     Organisation as “one-stop-agency” means that a central unit co-ordinates the work of the different
        offices of the administration and represents the interests of local business vis-à-vis bureaucracy.
104     See www.heidelberg.de/Technologypark.
105     See www.cvb-heidelberg.de.
                                                                                                                  104

  ing director of the “Tourism Association”), and by a second manager of the HWE106 – but
  as only the “first” manager of the HWE is linked by his position to the city’s administra-
  tion, we only talk about him when mentioning the “head of the HWE”. The HWT has a
  board of directors which is chaired by the Lady Mayor. The other thirteen members come
  from the council (8), from the Tourism Association (3) and from business (2). The Lady
  Mayor also chairs the advisory boards of the HKT and the HWE. Furthermore she repre-
  sents in her person the shareholders’ meeting of the HWT since the city as the only share-
  holder is (ex officio) represented by her. We can thus see an important supervisory role and
  a high “network potential” of the Lady Mayor, but also some (ex post) supervision by the
  council (see figure 7). On the other hand, the work of the HWE is enabled by its linkage to
  the administrative power of the Lady Mayor.


                      Figure 7 – Structures of Heidelberg's stimulation of local economy

Local Government Sphere                            Quango Sphere                             Private Business Sphere



                       funding,                 Heidelberg Associa-
                      supervision                tion for Economic
                                                 Development and
                                                  Tourism (HWT)
    city council
                                                             holding
                                               holding                              co-shareholder
 budget
                                                            Heidelberg Associa-                       Tourism Association
                                                           tion for Congress and
                         personal union                       Tourism (HKT)

                                                                                                     individual enterprises,
                                                                                                      private institutes etc.
Direction for General                             Heidelberg Devel-
Administration, Econ-                            opment Association      services
                              personal union
omy and Employment                                     (HWE)                                           Association “PRO
                                                                         financial support               Heidelberg”

                                      personal union
                                                                                                     Chamber for Industry
 formal                                                               Technology Park                and Commerce Rhine-
 authority                                                                                                 Neckar
                           supervisory
                            functions                                               co-shareholder


    Lady Mayor



             initiation and                                organisation and                       participation
             participation                                 participation


                                       Forums for Dialogues, Networks



  106     Heidelberger Stadtblatt Nr. 7, 12th February 2003.
                                                                                                          105



The main priorities the HWE has set for its work are
      •    advisory service and support for local companies,
      •    settlement of new companies/local business attraction,
      •    management of projects and space,
      •    initiatives for employment/employment programs,
      •    start-up advice,
      •    town-marketing,
      •    enhancing the industrial and commercial area Pfaffengrund,
      •    running theTechnology Park.

The main objectives are therefore
      •    the creation and conservation of a good economic climate,
      •    the support of the offer of employment and the creation of places of employment
           with a guaranteed future107,
      •    the special advancement of the producing sector,
      •    the promotion of retail trade in the city centre and in the districts,
      •    the offer of trade areas and of education and training,
      •    the organisation as a “one-stop-agency”,
      •    the promotion of regional cooperation,
      •    the cooperation of science, economy and the city with an active role of the Tech-
           nology Park (Direktion für Allgemeine Verwaltung, Wirtschaft und Beschäftigung
           2000).

Meanwhile, the HWE has created different forums for communicating (“dialogues”) where
it wants to discuss on a low formal level with local business, unions, the university etc.
about possible problems, worries and generally the future development. The most impor-
tant examples are:
•     The economic conference which is composed of invited permanent participants (for
      example the employers' association, the job centre, the federation of trade unions, the
      retailers' association, the university of Heidelberg and the trade guild) and has been ini-
      tiated by the Lady Mayor at the beginning of the 90ies. In its sessions the most impor-
      tant questions concerning urban development and local economy are discussed with the
      aim of achieving common ground.
•     The meetings for the different lines of business (trade business, retail trade, hotel and
      restaurant trade, metalworking industry, electrical industry and environmental oriented
      companies) offer the possibility of direct communication – as these meetings can be
      characterised as general discussion groups – on a low formal level with the Lady
      Mayor who personally attends these meetings.
•     Besides these “dialogues” the HWE offers also several round tables and working
      groups which are more project-oriented and discuss for example the situation of indus-
      trial areas or the situation of the retail trade and the marketing of the town.108

107       This objective “employment” also represents a main topic of the urban development plan, the city’s
          agenda 2010, where it is pronounced that the striving for full employment is one of the main goals of
          the city of Heidelberg.
108       Besides these “dialogues” questions concerning the economic development of the city are also dis-
          cussed by the Lady Mayor in the context of the so called “Heidelberg Club International”, which con-
          sists of a world-wide-membership of friends of the city drawn from the senior ranks of a number of
                                                                                                          106

Among the large number of these dialogues we have had a closer look at the “Team Indus-
try and Commercial Area Pfaffengrund” as this represents one main focus of the HWE and
is considered as an important initiative by the Lady Mayor.109 The Pfaffengrund is the old-
est industrial and commercial region of Heidelberg. After there had already been many job
reductions between 1970 and 1987, this development has increased during the nineties,
especially with regard to the manufacturing business. But as it is a declared aim of the city
of Heidelberg and especially of the Lady Mayor110 to maintain and modernise this indus-
trial and commercial area for the future, the city decided to create this round table where
representatives of the Heidelberg Economic Development Association and the companies
located in the Pfaffengrund region have regularly come together since their first meeting in
1996.111 For the Lady Mayor the concept of “identity building” (this time within the busi-
ness community) does not only stand behind the district development planning, but also the
round table for the Pfaffengrund and she considers “upgrading” the districts as the clue for
his, including marketing activities and common projects. As she states, the workers as well
as the managers had problems to identify with the district since they do not live in it.112

The economic structure of the industrial and commercial region of Pfaffengrund is rela-
tively homogenous because it is dominated by industry. The economy is made up of about
5/6 commercial-industrial businesses and 1/6 service and trade businesses. A prognosis,
comparing the situation of the year 1994 to that in 2005, expects that a moderate increase
of 300 out of 9.400 work places will take place.113

Focusing on the power relations between local and central government with respect to the
economic competitiveness initiative it can be stated that the “dialogical stimulation of local
economy” is - like DDP - also a local initiative which under the autonomous responsibility
of the city. It is part of its business promotion activities which are worked out and led by
the HWE – with accountability to the Lady Mayor. Projects which are realised in the con-
text of the “Team Industry and Commercial Area Pfaffengrund” are financed only by the
participants themselves (sponsoring) and partly by the HWE - there exist for example no
general subsidies from the state.

With regard to the relationship between the city authorities and the local business actors,
the following points can be added (concerning especially the initiative of the “Team Indus-
try and Commercial Area Pfaffengrund”):
•     In an analysis from 1995 based on interviews, local business in Heidelberg complained
      that political discussions were too far away from their needs which could be interpreted
      as a consequence of public sector domination having lasted for several decades (Stadt
      Heidelberg 1995b: 105).
•     The level of co-operation between the city authorities and local associations on the one
      hand and between the city authorities and business on the other hand is considered by


        disciplines and fields of activity (Interview with Beate Weber, February 10th 2003 and Interview with
        a representative of the HWE 12th November 2003).
109     Interview with the Lady Mayor of Heidelberg, February 10th 2003.
110     In the interview with us she stated that it was important for her that a city should not only have ser-
        vice, science and technology but also industry. She emphasised her personal background, coming
        originally from the Ruhr Area.
111     The foundation of this working group goes back to the middle of the 90ies when the local council and
        the Lady Mayor instructed those responsible for the economic development of the city (the later
        HWE) to develop this industrial and commercial area further.
112     Interview with the Lady Mayor of Heidelberg, February 10th 2003.
113     See www.heidelberg-pfaffengrund.de and Stadt Heidelberg 1995a: 32.
                                                                                            107

      the respondents by a mean/average value between “very weak and very strong”, with a
      tendency to “strong” in both cases.
These points can well be applied to the initiative of the round table in Pfaffengrund which
can be understood as a reaction to a perceived disturbed relationship between local busi-
ness and city authorities. Confidence-building is the main objective. Co-operation in the
context of the dialogical stimulation of local economy is carried out by an involvement of
the affected local business, that means co-operation between the city administration and
local economy, but in comparison with the district development planning and with regard
to the “Team Industry and Commercial Area Pfaffengrund” on a more informal level creat-
ing trustful channels of information and reliable ties for cooperation. Before, cooperation
had not always been successful: Interview partners pointed out that one main reason for the
establishment of the dialogues had been a general mistrust of local business against local
authorities and therefore the lack of communication between them.114

The main substantial concern the city of Heidelberg faced when it created the “dialogue
structures” was the aim of reaching a kind of confidence-building as a precondition of col-
lective action (creation of social capital). In addition, it wanted, of course, to support local
economy in the realisation of their ideas concerning their future development. With this
distributive initiative (there are no large scale redistributions of public funds), the city wan-
ted to help to organise and to carry out “simple” projects - relevant e.g. for saving the fur-
ther existence of companies located in the Pfaffengrund – simple in the sense of “easy go-
ing” and targeting mainly economic goals in a clear and short term manner, although, as
we will see, in the context of the already mentioned complex network-structure also eco-
logical concerns play an important role.

The main procedural challenge was thus to foster the co-operation with resource control-
ling organisations and the activation of local business from whom the city expected an ac-
tive engagement with regard to the realisation of projects or the improvement of conditions
within the different lines of business.

To be successful, the dialogues had to be institutionally designed as durable and reliable
“soft” institutions, i.e. that many of them – except e.g. for the economic conference – were
not formalised, in order to be flexible and not too rigid in terms of giving access to who-
ever can contribute to successful collective action. Although actors from civil society (in
the sense of NGOs, voluntary associations) are most of the time not included in these net-
works, it has to be reminded that there exists also a district development plan for the Pfaf-
fengrund which was adopted in 1999. Furthermore, the networks can include non-business
actors from local society in specific project like an initiative for apprenticeship in the dis-
trict Pfaffengrund.


Institutional Analysis

Table 15 gives an overview over the dialogues and networks for the different parts of local
business-sector created by the HWE. As becomes clear from the overview, there are net-
works for single districts (the two big industrial and commercial areas Pfaffengrund and
working groups for Rohrbach-Süd and for several districts in the context of city-marketing)
as well as citywide dialogues of different kinds.



114     Interview with a HWE representative, January 31st, 2003.
                                                                                                           108

                     Table 15 – “Dialogues” on economic questions, initiated by the HWE

Name of the dialogue       Form                     Actor mapping                                     Frequency

Meetings for five dif-     fixed agenda             Lady Mayor, deputy mayors, city offices           about four
ferent branches of the     written invitation to                                                      times a year
economy (“Branchen-        all enterprises in the   representatives of employer organisations, unions (total)
treffen”)                  respective branche       between 60 and 150 company-owners
Economic Conferences       fixed agenda             HWE                                               4-5 times
                           open discussion                                                            annually
                           access for selected      local employers’ organisation
                           representatives of       local employment office
                           organisations            trade unions
                                                    regional organisation of retail shops
                                                    organisation of hotels and restaurants
                                                    regional chamber of industry and commerce
                                                    local trade organisation
                                                    university
                                                    organisation of metalworking industry
                                                    local organisation of young entrepreneurs
Working groups with     focused on specific         HWE city-manager (co-financed by Association varying
trade and commerce in   outcomes/results            for City-Marketing “PRO Heidelberg”)
different districts     oral invitation             affected city offices
                        (access for mem-
                        bers, targeted invita- Associations of Trade and Commerce in the re-
                        tions)                 spective district (e.g.Handschuhsheim) or af-
                                               fected companies if there is no such association
Working group for       focused on specific HWE, sometimes division of public order in city           3 times annu-
prevention of criminal- outcomes/results       administration                                         ally
ity in the retail trade (access for selected
                        members)               local police, associations and organisations from
                                               retail trade, Association for City-Marketing
                                               “PRO Heidelberg”
Team Industry and       focused on specific represenative of the HWE, city offices (corre-            quarterly
Commercial Area Pfaf- outcomes/results         sponding to agenda)                                    subgroup
fengrund                open boundaries for Lady Mayor (when important decisions made or              sustainable
                        companies located      results presented)                                     waste man-
                        in Pfaffengrund                                                               agement 4-6
                        project-related sub- representatives of companies located in Pfaffen-         times a year
                        groups                 grund (between 20 and 30)
                                               district association (“Stadtteilverein”)
                                               sometimes other institutions like schools
Working group for       open network, fo-      HWE, city offices
Rohrbach-Süd            cused on specific
                        projects/measures      companies of the industrial area
Association “Pro Hei- focused on specific Direction for General Administration, Economy               quarterly
delberg City Market-    outcomes/results       and Employment, other representatives of city
ing”                    access for members administration
                        of the assosociation HWE

                                                    retailers’ association,
                                                    representatives of hotels and restaurants,
                                                    association for tourism,
                                                    regional chamber of industry and commerce,
                                                    managers of local department stores
Working Group “Clean focused on specific            HWE, Office for Waste Management                  6 times annu-
City”                outcomes/results                                                                 ally
                                                    Members
Initiative “Retail         focused on specific      HWE, representatives of city offices,             4-5 times
Trade”                     outcomes/results                                                           annually
                                                    representatives of local retail trade
                                                                                              109

As most of the “dialogues” offered and held by the HWE are not formalised it is difficult
to make a detailed institutional analysis. Since the “dialogues” represent offers for local
business to discuss at a low formal level with the administration or the HWE and therefore
the ultimate ambition of them is to provide not only an opportunity for controversial dis-
cussions but also for creating contacts/networks for cooperation, they cannot be fixed as
“hard” institutions. Therefore, institutional rules have to be designed as flexible and open.
Sometimes boundary rules are dependent on the invitation of those actors which are con-
sidered as important partners in local economy and from whom a general expertise on eco-
nomic questions can be expected (economic conference). In other cases, boundary rules are
given as membership in an formal association (like in the case of Handschuhsheim’s trade
and commerce association and of the initiative for city-marketing). Finally, most of the co-
operative arrangements are institutionalised as open networks where membership is possi-
ble for all kinds of actors – and especially for single enterprises without the mediation by
further corporate actors (like chambers for industry and commerce).

There is only one dialogue (the economic conference) where we can find a rudimentary
form of “corporatism” with a tripartite structure (business organisations, unions, public
actors) – but the economic conference is not regarded as a forum for local mediation of
conflicting interests by the Lady Mayor. The fact, that the Lady Mayor is rarely present in
the economic conference (which could at first sight be regarded as the most important fo-
rum), indicates that it is not the place where the economic policy of the city is formulated.
Much more, it is a forum where inputs for political discussion or administrative action can
be given with respect to problems that have overarching meaning. For example, the eco-
nomic conference initiated working out a concept for the development of trade areas in
Heidelberg, a proposal which was then introduced into the council and finally worked out
by the HWE and an international consulting agency (Heidelberger Wirtschaftsentwick-
lungsgesellschaft 1999). It was an important input for the “model of spatial order” which
again is an important guideline for city development planning. This example gives also an
important hint concerning pay-off rules: in the more informal working groups which are
focused on operational work actors can be more easily motivated to bring in resources for
specific projects. The city can help by providing support in the form of manpower or regu-
lative policies that facilitate the activities of certain sectors of local business115, but also by
co-financing bigger projects.
As the city is dependent on local companies – not only because of the employment pro-
vided by them but also because of the importance of local business tax for the city’s budget
– it can not afford to exclude interested actors from the meetings. Whereas the conditions
of employment, the conflicts about wages and regulations affecting non-wage labour costs
are settled at other levels, the cities must concentrate on the concrete conditions of produc-
tion. If it does not want to join a ruinous “race to the bottom” with other cities in the fixing
of the assessment rate on local business tax it can only try to increase productivity by fos-
tering innovation and synergy among local companies and other important organisations as
e.g. research institutes. The open and flexible boundary rules of the working groups corre-
spond to the objective to get a changing business community “on board”. According to
another interview partner, the city is always very keen for inviting all affected or relevant
business actors to its meetings – also consulting those which have just settled down in the
city.116



115   For example the permission for handcrafters to drive with the car in pedestrian areas.
116   Interview with a representative of the IUWA (Heidelberg Institute for Environmental Economic
      Analysis, July 10th, 2003.
                                                                                            110

Concerning authority rules, at the meetings of the “dialogues” all participants have an
equal right to express their opinion or ask questions. Certainly, at least the meetings of the
different lines of business have a fixed agenda – but this fixed agenda has primarily to be
seen as an announcement of news and statements of the Lady Mayor – the really important
part of such a meeting consist of the possibility for the representatives of the different lines
of business to get into a direct contact with the Lady Mayor whereby she expects to hear
the opinions, suggestions and criticism of the participants (the meetings are arranged in
such a way that there are several small tables which are one after the other “visited” by the
Lady Mayor). As for aggregation rules, open discussion and consensus-building is the
predominant mode of decision making in all the networks (if decisions are to be taken at
all). The networks allow the formation of project-groups where other forms of aggregation
rules can be accepted. Regarding scope rules, outcomes of the individual meetings of the
groups do not always have to be concrete decisions, as communication itself is regarded as
one of the main aims. As the dialogical forums are not publicly legitimated (only by a gen-
eral decision of the council to found the HWE with the task to organise co-operation with
local companies) they cannot bind public bodies. In case a project requires funding by the
city, the city council would have to take the necessary budget decision. However, it de-
pends on the concrete measure discussed what the scope of decision making within the
networks is. If the necessary resources can be provided by the companies themselves, they
are independent from council decisions. This seems to have a certain attractiveness as can
be demonstrated by the example of the network Pfaffengrund.


Actual behaviour of actors

Since it would too complex a task to investigate the behaviour of actors within all the dia-
logical structures mentioned above, in this paragraph we will focus exclusively on the Pfaf-
fengrund network. Right from its initiation in the middle of the 90ies its members have
accepted the round table in the Pfaffengrund – although (according to interviews with rep-
resentatives of the HWE) there had been a kind of “mistrust” or prejudice at the beginning
and most of the actors invited stuck to an observant position. A member of the round table
emphasised in an interview that first of all the representatives of the companies located in
the Pfaffengrund tried to find out ‘how things were’: Would participation be really helpful?
Would the benefits countervail the costs?117 Although not all companies of the industrial
area join the meetings, the biggest amongst them do take part (mostly at the manager-
level). The network has 27 members (one being the “district association”, connecting the
network to civil society, and one the public utility company of the city (“Stadtwerke”)).

The just mentioned calculation of costs and benefits also seems to determine the actual
behaviour of actors today – although there have already been several successful projects.
Actors seem to join the meetings only if outcomes are in view and they will benefit from
the results – a loose discussion group seems not to be desired. So, one of the projects the
HWE has initiated – the so called “running dinner” – will probably no longer be practica-
ble as the firms don’t see benefits resulting from it. One idea the HWE had with this run-
ning dinner was that – besides getting into closer contact with the other companies of the
industrial and commercial area – the business actors could also get into informal contacts
with representatives of the local council who should also have been invited to that event.
But according to the interview with the member of the round table, the affected firms are
not interested in such contacts. The engagement of the Lady Mayor, however, is always


117   Interview with a member of the round table in the Pfaffengrund, November, 4th, 2003
                                                                                                     111

very welcome, especially as representatives of local business consider her as a “net-
worker”. Although she is not always (but often) personally present in the industrial area,
the members of the round table seem to be aware of the fact that the foundation of their
“dialogue” is closely connected to the initiative of the Lady Mayor and the HWE is in
close contact with her.118


                             Figure 8 - Arenas of the network Pfaffengrund

    city     admini-
    stration                                                                            working
                                                                                       group mar-
                                                                                         keting

                                       round table “Team
    HWE                                Industry      and                              working group
                                       Commercial Area                               sustainable waste
                                       Pfaffengrund”                                   management


    local     enter-
                                                                                     working group
    prises                                                                            development
                                                                                        concept

                                             external actors



                                         Source: own composition


Although we have mentioned that mostly a concrete decision-making does not stand in the
centre of attention, it is also clear that sometimes decision-making is inevitable – for ex-
ample when special projects are planned. But according to interview partners119, although
the initiative for carrying out projects is mostly launched by the HWE, it is only up to the
business actors to decide upon resolutions (as they have to pay for costs) – they do not
need a permission of the town or the confirmation of the local council (at least when no
concerns of the entire city are affected).

Generally, a mobilisation of resources of the participating enterprises located in the Pfaf-
fengrund seems to have been achieved by which several reasonable projects could have
been realised, for example:
•     One project dealt with innovative ways of sustainable waste disposal, i.e. a controlled
      recycling management within the industrial site. The network discussed possibilities of
      innovative measures in 1996 and – together with the German Federal Institution for the
      Environment – launched and, together with the HWE, financed a pilot project under the
      supervision of the Heidelberg Institute for Environmental Economic Analysis (IUWA).


118     Interview with a representative of the IUWA (Heidelberg Institute for Environmental Economic
        Analysis), July 10th, 2003 and with a member of the round table in the Pfaffengrund, November 4th,
        2003
119     Interview with a member of the round table in the Pfaffengrund, November, 4th, 2003
                                                                                           112


•   In the context of another project - the so called “Network of commercial and industrial
    business - innovation by co-operation” - the general image of the industrial and com-
    mercial area has been improved by the realisation of a professional internet presenta-
    tion of all companies participating in the network, again co-financed by the networks
    members and the HWE.
•   At a big festival with many events and high publicity, again supported by the Lady
    Mayor in a representative role, the Pfaffengrund was presented to the citizenry and the
    business community of Heidelberg.
•   In 1999, a “development concept” (“Perspektivkonzept”) was elaborated, comprising
    possible goals for the Pfaffengrund area and including proposals for concrete measures
    to be taken, in order to deal with recent economic changes.
•   In the context of the so called “Girls Day” (May 2003) the Pfaffengrund network par-
    ticipated in the pilot project of the city of Heidelberg and offered places for a period of
    practical training for 25 girls in the age between 11 and 15 years.
•   Furthermore, the companies of the Pfaffengrund established and intensified their con-
    tacts by so-called “running dinners”. However, these meetings might not be maintained
    due to organisational problems and the willingness of the companies.
•   Further projects will deal with the traffic situation, especially the improvement of the
    connection to the public transport and the installation of a uniform signposting


Policy Outcomes

Concerning the question of legitimacy it can be claimed that input-legitimacy is achieved
by the council decision on the foundation of a city-owned company for stimulating the
local economy, by the active role of the directly elected Lady Mayor, and the accessibility
of the network for all affected and interested business actors. Although transparency is
limited – generally the publicity seems not be very familiar with the existence and the pro-
jects realised within the “dialogues” (Stadt Heidelberg 1999b) – throughput-legitimacy
(transparency and accountability) is achieved by the provision of publicly accessible re-
ports on specific projects (edited by the project partners themselves) and a very profes-
sional web page of the network. But because of the fact that the round table was created as
a flexible and informal governance arrangement, tendencies to independence are not un-
usual.

Output-legitimacy finally is reached by the success and concrete results. The potentials of
such a network can be illustrated by referring to the already mentioned project of the con-
trolled waste management initiated within the round table in the Pfaffengrund. The project
has been so successful that the inter-operational coordination of questions concerning
waste-disposal is now expanded to the bigger Rhine-Neckar-Area, supported by the Fed-
eral Ministry for Education and Research which funded a big research project (Sterr 1998:
76). For the companies co-financing it, the costs were amortised already after two years;
there are gains in terms of synergy effects (legal security, data availability etc.); and, of
course, ecological effects were produced by a better use of resources, thus supporting the
assumption that ecology can be a growth-inducing concern. Today the application of the
Pfaffengrund example is discussed at a national level. Because its successful activities the
Pfaffengrund is today considered as kind of pilot project by the city. The participants in the
network can gain confidence from the fact that they have been in an “edge position” – a
factor likely to stabilise the informal cooperation.
                                                                                                113

Conclusions

Regarding the dialogical stimulation of local economy and thereby especially the “Team
Industry and Commercial Area Pfaffengrund”, the Lady Mayors domination is strong as
•     it was “her” initiative and
•     she has accompanied the entire process in close interaction with the “delegated leader”,
      the chief of the HWE; as already mentioned, the Heidelberg Economic Development
      Association which is responsible for carrying out the “dialogues” is part of her own
      portfolio and therefore channels of communication are arranged in that way, that the
      Lady Mayor is informed about the process at every time;120
•     at the same time, the network activities of the HWE is empowered by the intimate to
      the ties to the Lady Mayor, but (via the personal union with the city direction) to the
      whole administration; this is also reflected in the contacts of the “delegated leader” to
      the tops of the city administration: he is together in a big group with the Lady Mayor,
      heads of the directorates and heads of the directorates weekly where specific issues are
      discussed, meets together with the Lady Mayor in a smaller operative staff every two
      weeks and has a longer personal conversation with the Lady Mayor at least once a
      month.121
Analysing the style of the Lady Mayor with regard to this initiative, we came to a similar
result as we worked it out for the course of the district development planning. Admittedly
it must be stressed that the three evolution stages – similar to the different arenas and rules
- can not be analysed each for its own as it is possible for our social inclusion case study.
The phases of development, decision-making and implementation normally all take place
in the context of the round table - what means that the actors are always the same. Another
difference vis-à-vis the district development planning is the fact that although the Lady
Mayor has initiated this “dialogue” in the Pfaffengrund she does not regularly appear per-
sonally, especially concerning the stages of policy development and policy decision-
making.

However, one could say that we can find here a kind of “delegation of leadership” from the
Lady Mayor herself to the represenative(s) of the HWE – and in this context it is important
again to remember the organisational structure of this organisation: The HWE is not only
linked to the office of the Lady Mayor, its CEO is also at the same the director of the Di-
rection for General Administration, Economy and Employment. That is why it seems pos-
sible to speak also of leadership styles within this context: At the stage of development she
can be again described as “visionary” and at the stage of decision-making as the “consen-
sus facilitator” – however, one has to keep in mind that powers in this context are distrib-
uted in another way: Here, also the involved local business actors have the right to decide
whether a special project is realised or not, as they usually have to provide own resources.
This is also the explanation why we characterise her as a “consensus facilitating city boss”
at the stage of implementation. Besides the fact that this is the phase of the policy process
where she often appears personally the impression is suggested that no project can be actu-
ally finished without her personal engagement (for example she “made” herself responsible
for the decisive push of bottom when the internet-presentation of the industrial and com-
mercial area of the Pfaffengrund had been realised) – using the representative opportunities
the position of the mayor offers.


120     Interview with a city administration member for business development, April 2003.
121     Interview with the Head of the General Administration, Economy and Employment and (co)manager
        of the Heidelberg Development Association, 12th Nov 2003.
                                                                                                    114



In comparison with the district development planning we have an involvement of the com-
munity in all stages of the policy process, if community involvement stands for local net-
works of enterprises. Referring again to the “Team Industry and Commercial Area Pfaf-
fengrund” the members of the round table (normally the manager or the heads of the com-
panies) discuss about their situation, problems, ideas or plans (policy development), they
decide about possible projects (policy decision-making) and finally participate in the proc-
ess of implementation by realising the agreed measures.

Considering special features of CULCI, it can be stated that a main trait of the project lies
in its informality by which first and foremost confidence could have been generated. Be-
sides, information could have been improved on both sides and with it the identification of
weakness and appropriate measures can be taken. The new culture of participation in this
field of politics, the dialogue between economy, administration and the urban leader shall
help to create an innovative atmosphere, because the trustful co-operation and the informal
and open dialogue are seen as a chance or opportunity of new ideas and innovations.

Besides, a sphere free of politics is created by the organisational structure of the HWE,
what means that the dialogues take place beyond the “world” of council and administra-
tion.122 However, the HWE itself is linked with the administration and therefore a feedback
is possible at every time. As the manager of the HWE is at the same the director of the Of-
fice for General Administration, Economy and Employment he takes an important position
as a mediator at the point of intersection of local business and the city, the administration
and the Lady Mayor.


Policy challenges, legitimacy and CULCI

With respect to substantial challenges, the most important substantial outcome has been
the successful improvement of the image of the industrial and commercial area and of
course – what has been essential for the realisation of all activities - the creation of trust
among the business actors themselves and between them and the city, first in form of the
HWE but then also to the offices involved in particular projects and the Lady Mayor as the
“guardian” of dialogue. In earlier times the owners or heads of the companies located in
Pfaffengrund did not really take notice of each other. What can be said concerning the si-
tuation of the whole district is that on the one hand the improvement of the attractiveness
of the industrial and commercial area has been achieved to a certain extent, but that this
holds true only for this industrial part of the district, not for the living-area separated from
it; on the other hand also a first attempt of integration of these two parts of the district has
been attempted (for example by the mentioned big festival).123

Looking at the procedural outcomes, it can be stated that the activation of a sufficient
number of local enterprises (around thirty) has been achieved. Right from the beginning,
the round table has been very popular and the participants seem to be interested in its con-
tinuity. The participating firms made also available own resources (such as money, time,
experience, property etc.) what was important for the realisation of the projects. It is inter-
esting that none of the members of the network has participated in the workshops of the
district framework planning. Most of them were not invited for taking part and the two that

122   This fact has also been emphasised in one of the surveys concerning living conditions in Heidelberg
      where the respondents considered the fact that the HWE is “released” from the “normal” administra-
      tion as very positive (Stadt Heidelberg 1999b).
123   Interview with a city administration member for business development, October 17th, 2003.
                                                                                            115

were obviously were not interested in participating. Thus, the network seems to offer op-
portunities for getting into contact which are not covered by other initiatives. At the same
time, the HWE guarantees that the activities of the network are linked to the broader ones
of the city. It took part in the stakeholder workshops of the district development planning
and formulated one of the inputs for the respective working group and for the formulation
of the proposals in the second part of the district developmental plan.

Within the frame of its institutional design the “Team Industry and Commercial Area Pfaf-
fengrund” can be characterised as innovative insofar as it realised the described projects.
The working group still exists which shows that the actors have committed themselves to
this informal institution. Having in mind the informal structure of the round table and the
projects initiated in its context, the institutional rules can be judged as very open with re-
spect to business actors. Institutional conditions in this context rely mainly on the willing-
ness of the participants of the round table, i.e. the companies located in the Pfaffengrund.
A part of the round table has detached itself from the “official” round table moderated by
the HWE and deals only with questions concerning waste disposal – thus a certain level of
societal self-organisation is reached here.

Without the intensive co-operation between the HWE and the affected economic actors -
what means first and foremost the engagement and the providing of own resources by the
latter - the economic development of the city would not have been as positive as it is now.
CULCI features play an important role regarding the achieved aims of the analysed initia-
tive and the slogan “by dialogue to prosperity/success” obviously helped to make this ini-
tiative as innovative as other projects of the city. An improvement of the internal co-
operation in the Pfaffengrund - as it has been realised by these projects is considered as an
indispensable precondition for the improvement of the working and producing conditions
and the qualification of the structural change under ecological, social and cultural condi-
tions. Outcomes are to a big extent influenced by the network members’ ideas and activi-
ties. Leadership, however, contributed to the outcomes by activation and framing - so that
the companies of the industrial area began to discuss about their common problems. Acti-
vation by leadership is in this case the precondition for successful co-operation between
the affected actors.


Lessons

The example of the dialogical forums of Heidelberg is an attempt to stimulate local econ-
omy without big “events”. In this and the creation of a multitude of networks, it is similar
to the district development planning. This approach seems suitable to a city with a good
infrastructure of scientific institutions, situated in a metropolitan region with high eco-
nomic potential. As the example of the Pfaffengrund network shows ecological innovations
can be achieved within common projects of economic actors in cooperation with scientific
institutes and city actors as facilitators. This holds true even for “old” industrial areas with
great problems to adapt to a changing economy. Although at least some of the companies
that join the network are “global players” they still have an interest for local cooperation if
benefits come into reach.
The institutional arrangements of this network are important insofar as they are clearly
connected to political and administrative leadership within the city, but at the same time
are only loosely coupled with the institutions of local government. The HWE is de-coupled
from bureaucratic regulations and lines of command and has its own budget. There seems
to be a potential for generating trust when city networkers have a relatively independent
position in administrative and formal political terms but work closely together with the
                                                                                        116

political leader. The Lady Mayor established the basis for this kind of networking with the
foundation of the HWE as the central managing unit for all the dialogues. At the same
time, the HWE is connected to the city administration and has access to its internal streams
of information. Problems of legitimacy are moderated by the fact that council members and
the Lady Mayor have an eye on the financing of the HWE and enterprises carry a substan-
tial part of the costs for single projects.
                                                                                            117



4. Comparative conclusions

4.1    The cities

At first sight, the two German cities seem to be very different from each other. While Han-
nover has about 500,000 inhabitants and thus is the largest city in Lower Saxony and its
capital; Heidelberg is much smaller (140,000 inhabitants). In addition, the municipal codes
are different, because the two cities are belonging to different states (“Länder”).

The political climate is also different. In Hannover, the activities of the directly elected
Lord Mayor are supplemented by the general purposes committee in his decisions and are
at least partially dependent on a fixed council coalition. The Lord Mayor is still member of
his party’s executive committee and thus strongly connected to the party. In Heidelberg,
the Lady Mayor is governing the city with “changing majorities” in the council and is not a
member of her party’s executive committee. There is also no collegiate executive body in
Heidelberg, which the mayor has to cooperate with. Due to the regulations in the municipal
code it is nearly impossible to remove the mayor or the executive officers. The councillors
thus know that they have to live for the mayor at least for eight years.

Community involvement is a focal point of the mayor in both cities; since almost thirty
years in Hannover and since the early 1990s in Heidelberg. In fact, in both cities commu-
nity involvement began when the present incumbents came to office. In Hannover and
Heidelberg, the citizens have trust in local politics and administration.

Also, strong leadership was found in both cities. It seems to be a result partly of the mu-
nicipal code (directly elected executive mayors with a tenure of eight and five years re-
spectively) and partly of the personal profile of the incumbents and the continuity they
represent (32 resp. 13 years in office). In both cities, leadership is constrained to some ex-
tent, because the mayors have to cooperate with the council majority, but the characteris-
tics of the constraints are different. Since there is a fixed council coalition in Hannover, the
Lord Mayor has take the parties’ policies into account when proposing something to the
city council. He also has to integrate himself into the dualistic constellation of a “govern-
ment” group on one side, comprising himself and the council majority and the “opposition”
group on the other side, comprising the party groups which are not part of the council coa-
lition. In Heidelberg, the Lady Mayor has to find a majority in the council for every single
decision, because there is no fixed coalition in the city council. This makes is more diffi-
cult to achieve consistent political goals for the Lady Mayor.

When analysing CULCI in the context of the institutions of local government and govern-
ance respectively, a reference to a long lasting discussion about leadership models within
Germany is a good starting point. The interplay of leadership and community involvement
in Hannover and Heidelberg can be interpreted as metamorphoses of the types of decision
making structure how they were described in German urban research in the seventies,
comparing the different forms of local government in Germany but also (and of higher
interests for the PLUS project) reflecting a general debate on how politics can lead admini-
stration: In theses analyses the municipalities with a city director and those with an execu-
tive mayor were assigned to specific forms of leadership and alternative forms were pro-
posed (Grauhan 1970, Banner 1972, for the following account see Bogumil 2002: 10-16,
see also our discussion of the national context, section on “decision making”). The crucial
                                                                                          118

difference between the two forms of local government was that one form united the func-
tions of political and administrative leadership whereas the other separated them. Two as-
pects were important for this debate: First, the insight that the traditional idea of politics
selecting policy alternatives, which then hierarchically program the administration, is obso-
lete. And second, that the models better suited to reality are nevertheless normatively defi-
cient, so that alternatives models should be thought about.
The model of executive leadership puts emphasis on giving a strong political leader (the
executive mayor) additional resources (administrative staff, direct legitimacy) by which
he/she would be able to lead the administration. Grauhan observed a centralisation of ad-
ministration in the Länder with executive mayors (independent from the form of election),
i.e. councils only got one proposal by administration/mayor as alternatives had factually
been decided within the administrative arena. He blamed the expansion and unification of
city administrations and the strong position of parties for this development, which he con-
sidered as normatively questionable as it reversed the (unrealistic) prerogative of the coun-
cil by a (authoritarian) prerogative of the administration. Furthermore, the model of execu-
tive leadership still stuck to the idea that “the decision on general objectives determines
succeeding action in such a way that it can be regarded as execution and thus stays outside
political concerns” (Bogumil 2002: 11, transl. by the authors). Since this assumption is
illusive, one has to think about how the political role of the administration can be reflected
in corresponding channels of accountability. Grauhan suggested to adopt a “correlative
model of leadership” which stresses the need for differentiating between three functions of
leadership, in order to revitalise local democracy: Conceptualising and initiating program-
matic alternatives, selection among programmatic alternatives and control of implementa-
tion.
Whereas under the rule of executive leadership councillors only got the possibility to say
yes or no to the proposals made by the mayor and the administration controlled by him/her,
in the municipalities with a city director they were included in a structure of “pre-deciders”
(Banner 1972). Under the conditions of the North German model of local government al-
ternatives were negotiated in the council among a party coalition in which (quasi full-time)
party leaders play a decisive role, mediating between their party group and a policy net-
work in which actors from the administration and from the private sector were included.
Within this network (and not only within the administrative arena) policy alternatives were
discussed and decided upon. Whereas this made Banner give the structure of decision mak-
ing in cities with a city director a higher score with respect to democratic (input) legiti-
macy, he criticised that within such structures a coordination of policy making and plan-
ning which is coherent and reflects long-term developments is not possible. Budget deci-
sions in his eyes were a striking example for this.
As mentioned in the sections on the national context as well on the city’s context, the city
director has meanwhile been replaced by a directly elected mayor – on the hand because
Banner’s analyse of lacking efficiency under the North German model met an intense pub-
lic discussion about the deficits of this model in the nineties, and on the other hand because
the alleged higher democratic (input) quality became dubious in a time where political par-
ties increasingly lost trust in the citizenry – the direct election of a strong mayor now
seemed “more democratic” than an influential role of council parties in an invisible struc-
ture of “pre-deciders”. But if the debate just described was right concerning the deficits of
executive leadership the shift to a directly elected executive mayor cannot have solved all
the problems of institutional design. Community involvement and a new administrative
culture could be the keys in this context: in the stage of policy development and (pre-
)formulation, the involvement of stakeholders and a more interactive role of administrative
actors could be regarded as a way to higher legitimacy; in the stage of policy implementa-
tion, both could meet the challenge of politicising implementation.
                                                                                                        119

How are the mentioned deficits dealt with in our case study cities? How are community
involvement and a new role of administration connected to the respective approaches? And
what are the effects on councils as the central bodies of representative democracy? For one
thing, it can be stated that the old patterns of politics are still shaping the arenas of local
government and have an influence on the institutional design of the governance arenas. In
Hannover, the majority parties in the council (and its general purposes committee) are still
more strongly involved in policy formulation than in Heidelberg. There is a minimum win-
ning coalition dominating political decision-making in the council and the committees.
However, the Christian Democrats have got one position as head of a directorate, so we
can see some political fragmentation of the administrative arena.124
If increased community involvement shall be introduced, how can it be connected to the
respective decision structures? In Heidelberg this is obviously the case by involving the
local community in the formulation of the “one” alternative which is offered to the coun-
cillors. It is astonishing that councillors are practically absent from participatory processes
– whereas city offices and their directorate heads (Lady Mayor, deputy mayors), play a
very active part, internally (formulating proposals and negotiating compromises) as well as
externally (interacting with the stakeholders). For the district councillors there is an oppor-
tunity for getting a higher political weight if they are successful in influencing other stake-
holders and the city administration. One has to remember that in the stakeholder work-
shops we do not find citizens discussing among themselves, but citizens discussing with
administrative staffs. And these administrative staffs even have the right to vote for pro-
posals regarded by them as being “urgent”. In the case of economic competitiveness it
would be more problematic to include business actors as pre-deciders – for they do not
have a widely acknowledged legitimacy for this. In this case, economic questions are sim-
ply “outsourced” to an organisation accountable to and empowered by the mayor as the
urban leader, but not hoping for the budgetary resources of the council. Pay-offs are regu-
lated in a way that the city assists collective action, but the business actors have to pay for
outcomes (and can possibly profit from them).
Bogumil stresses that the model of “correlative leadership” is unrealistic because it does
not give incentives for councils to let the administration interact on equal foot with all po-
litical actors: “From the perspective of the majority party the discussion of alternatives
always leads to uncertainties in public discussion. The deliberation about alternatives can
endanger the desired outcome and the leadership position of the pre-deciders. As one can
never know what the political opponent will do with important information, it is recom-
mendable to leave the administration in its advantageous informational position” (Bogumil
2002: 12, translation by the authors). Indeed, this barrier for the correlative model of lead-
ership is relevant only in case there is a majority party in the council which has exclusive
access to important actors in the administrative arena. As we have seen, this is not the case
in Heidelberg. The administrative arena is (in the positive sense indicated by Grauhan)
fragmented due to a representation of all parties in the row of the directorate heads and the
participation of different offices in policy formulation. However, as will be reflected in the
discussion on the respective planning approach manifest in the cities, decision in Heidel-
berg is not decision. The one alternative is only a guideline with the possibility of a deviant
decision in every single measure. This is the price to be paid for a non-party way of gov-
ernance.
It does not require exceptional imagination to come to the conclusion that such administra-
tive-citizen forms of interactive governance are bound to fail in a setting where party coali-
tions feel legitimated to formulate a coherent program and to consequently implement the

124   However, during the funding of the Hannover region and the new arrangement of tasks between the
      city of Hannover, the other towns and cities in the region and the region itself, the scope of the con-
      servative executive officer was tightened.
                                                                                            120

objectives agreed upon. Community involvement in the form of quasi-direct democratic
elements can be a solution for such a regime if parties cannot agree on a major decision –
as was the case for the EXPO. And community involvement in the form of interactive gov-
ernance fits well when a negotiated policy should get the highest possible responsiveness
towards its addressees in the implementation stage. A directly elected mayor can supple-
ment this style of linking party coalitions with community involvement.



4.2    The policy areas


We want to start with a comparison of both cities against the backdrop of different ap-
proaches to urban planning, since both social inclusion cases imply major initiatives for
involving citizens in planning processes. It was demonstrated that in both cities a high
grade of local autonomy for city development was needed to ensure success in the social
inclusion cases. Although both our mayors are Social Democrats, Hannover and Heidel-
berg have chosen different approaches to planning which well reflect the planning discus-
sions in the 80ies and 90ies. Whereas Hannover has applied for becoming the venue of a
big event (the EXPO) and use this as a vehicle for urban planning, Heidelberg rejected the
popular orientation on events. Instead, the city opted for an integrated form of planning
without “expertocratic” implications, but with a reliance on discussion forums and the
definition of a common vision (“Leitbilder”). The Heidelberg strategy consists in defining
a broad spectrum of objectives and measures (from very concrete ones to sometimes ex-
plicitly “utopian” ones) without a guarantee of implementation by the administration. It is
intended that citizens should put pressure in the political arenas to ensure the implementa-
tion of concrete measures within the district development plan. It drops the illusion of the
seventies’ planning euphoria which expected public administration to increase its “steering
capacity” by collecting ever more data about society and analysing it by scientific methods.
Instead, society itself is regarded as “the expert”, albeit this expert is differentiated in many
perspectives which should articulate themselves – this assumption is institutionalised in the
stakeholder workshops. Still, development planning in Heidelberg is relying on a strong
and competent administration where “strong” means not only that substantial administra-
tive resources are needed for running the DDP but also that city representatives must di-
rectly interact with local society in the workshops and their aims are made transparent by a
comprehensive documentation of these workshops. This obviously also bears the danger of
sectoral fragmentation within the administration. Administrative leadership here is as im-
portant as political leadership and it is difficult to see how such an initiative can be suc-
cessful without a mayor unifying both. Furthermore, general paradigms and developmental
aims for the whole city are needed – not only because the measures in the different districts
could otherwise not be made compatible, but also because the city council needs a measure
in cases of conflicts with district interests.
In Hannover, no long-term aims are defined together with the citizens, but after the imple-
mentation of a well-prepared programme short-term needs can be met through direct ac-
cess to the administration (“short communication channels”). Thus political engagement of
the affected citizens is dispensable at the city level. Thus, in both cities community in-
volvement is predominantly an interaction between representatives of the city administra-
tion and the citizens – with few interaction going on between councillors and citizens. The
majors are getting in touch with the citizens in mostly in selected stages of the process,
where they are taking part in involvement meetings and thus are visible to the citizens in-
volved and (thus) to the public. In Heidelberg both of the analysed policy initiatives have a
                                                                                           121

focus on the city district as the unit of innovation and collective action. Of course, Heidel-
berg also started initiatives at the city wide level (we have mentioned the city development
plan and the various dialogue forums with business actors from certain sectors as examples
for this in the field of social inclusion and economic competitiveness respectively). But in
both policy fields, the significance of the district as the spatial basis for bringing actors
together and facilitate cooperation with the city administration and the respective stake-
holders is striking. The city obviously abstains from dramatic events as opportunities for
convincing resourceful actors to cooperate. This holds true for DDP as well as for the nu-
merous economic dialogues. In both cases the organisational power of the Lady Mayor is a
crucial precondition for the realisation of a policy agenda which puts dialogue between city
authorities and societal actors and between societal actors themselves in the centre. Policy
innovation in both cases is too a large extent a question of acquiring or creating the neces-
sary personal resources within city administration, designing adequate institutional frame-
works and accompanying the successive processes.

To sum it up, the cities seem to follow different strategies in planning within the social
inclusion cases. Hannover is following the traditional way of comprehensive planning in
the policy development and decision-making stage by political decisions in the city council
after proposals by the Lord Mayor, the executive directors and the city administration. The
political programme of the city council majority (the coalition) can be identified in the
formulation of the wider goals for the Kronsberg quarter. The implementation is basing on
agreements upon small flanking measures to achieve the goal specification which was de-
cided by the initiating actors and the city council. The whole process can be described as
“management by objectives”. In Heidelberg, the concept used in the frame of the social
inclusion case can be described as “perspective incrementalism” (see Ganser 1991). There,
a common vision (perspective) is formulated by the citizens in a mostly deliberative proc-
ess. The result of these process is that “the goals formulated are remaining on the level of
basic values of society” (Selle 1994: 40). The implementation is done step-by-step and
depends on the respective citizens’ pressure on their representatives.

Urban competitiveness should be achieved by involvement of local companies in a busi-
ness development agency in both cities. In both cases the distance from local politics is
part of the strategy – business actors seemingly have no high trust in politicians, thus alter-
native ways of making them cooperate are required. The two political leaders have the ad-
vantage of a personal prestige beyond party conflict, and the organisational settings they
create for building up business networks have the advantage of little interference by the
councils. Where the city does not invest high sums in economic projects (as in Heidelberg
where money comes from businesses themselves and from state programs) this does not
seem to be problematic in terms of control and legitimacy. In Hannover, this seems to be
different. Hannover Impuls can be either a successful new instrument as well as a “mil-
lions’ grave”.

Leadership and community involvement in the economic competitiveness cases seem to be
similar in both cities. In both cities, business development is conducted by private, city-
owned agencies which are connected to the administration through parallel memberships
of officers and/or political leaders. In both cities, distance between “politics” and “econ-
omy” is kept (or created) by institutional separation.

Regarding the three aspects of legitimacy, the following conclusions were found.
                                                                                            122

Input legitimation is created by a combination of decisions taken by the representative
body (the council) and citizen involvement. Thereby in Hannover the council decision is
related to the objectives while citizen involvement creates legitimacy in the implementa-
tion stage. A cooperative administration is weakening the citizens’ orientation toward rep-
resentative democracy, because the “good relation” between the administration and acti-
vated citizens offers the latter political influence in defining the details of policy objectives
without using the traditional ways of decision making. In Heidelberg the situation is the
other way round; the frame programme is formulated by the citizens and the city admini-
stration and then adopted by the council – single measures have to be demanded by the
citizens (and/or the Lady Mayor/the administration) in the consecutive political process
and also have to be decided by the city council. In Heidelberg, there is a need to have an
eye on the political parties and the councillors and to influence them, in order to ensure
that the objectives defined as the result of the planning process are actually relevant for
policy making.

Output legitimation in the social inclusion cases cannot be compared easily. In Hannover
the performance of the initiative can be measured by comparing the goals of the initiative
defined by the frame programme which was set up by politics with the actual outcomes.
Thus, all essential goals have been achieved; and it seems that community involvement
was used as a tool to create a “better” policy. In Heidelberg, the district development plan
is set up by the citizen in a deliberative process and reformulated into a list of concrete
measures afterwards. It is possible to reconstruct the performance of single measures, but
due to its character it is not possible to measure the performance of the frame programme
as a whole. It seems that this impossibility is intended, since the creation of a city district
identity and the discussion process is one of the intrinsic goals of the initiative in the sense
that “the way is goal”.
                                                                                     123



5. References

Andersen, Uwe 1998: Kommunalpolitik als Experimentierfeld für Reformen – eine Ein-
    führung, in: Andersen, Uwe (ed.) 1998: Gemeinden im Reformprozeß, (Politische
    Bildung 1/1998) Schwalbach/Ts.: 5-18.

Andersen, Uwe/Bovermann, Rainer/Gehne, David 2002: Die Uraufführung – Analyse
    der ersten Direktwahl der Bürgermeister in Nordrhein-Westfalen, in: Bogumil, Jörg
    (ed.) 2002: Kommunale Entscheidungsprozesse im Wandel. Theoretische und empi-
    rische Analysen, Opladen, 183-201.

Arndt, Michael 2003: Die politische Konzeption und Struktur der Region. Balance zwi-
    schen Landeshauptstadt und Umland, in: Niedersächsische Landeszentrale für poli-
    tische Bildung 2003: Die Region Hannover, Hannover, 36-40.

von Arnim, Hans Herbert 1998: Einführung: Die Schlüsselrolle von politischen Institu-
    tionen, in: H.-H. von Arnim (ed.): Adäquate Institutionen: Voraussetzungen für ‘gu-
    te’ und bürgernahe Politik, Berlin, 9-40.

Banner, Gerhard 1972: Politische Willensbildung und Führung in Großstädten der Ober-
    stadt-Direktor-Verfassung, in: R.-R. Grauhan (ed.): Großstadt-Politik. Texte zur Ana-
    lyse und Kritik lokaler Demokratie, Gütersloh, 162-180.

Bäuerle, Siegfried 1998: Bürgermeister. Zur Charakteristik einer interessanten Berufs-
      gruppe. Eine empirische Untersuchung, in: Roth, Norbert (ed.) 1998: Position und
      Situation der Bürgermeister in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 61-
      101.

Bogason, Peter 2000: Public Policy and Local Governance. Institutions in Postmodern
    Society, Cheltenham.

Bogumil, Jörg 2001: Modernisierung lokaler Politik. Kommunale Entscheidungsprozesse
    im Spannungsfeld zwischen Parteienwettbewerb, Verhandlungszwängen und Ökono-
    misierung, Baden-Baden.

Bogumil, Jörg 2002: Kommunale Entscheidungsprozesse im Wandel – Stationen der poli-
    tik- und kommunalwissenschaftlichen Debatte, in: J. Bogumil (ed.): Kommunale Ent-
    scheidungsprozesse im Wandel. Theoretische und empirische Analysen, Opladen, 7-
    51.

Bogumil, Jörg/Holtkamp, Lars 2002: Die Bürgerkommune als Zusammenspiel von re-
    präsentativer, direkter und kooperativer Demokratie. Erste Ergebnisse einer explora-
    tiven Studie, polis 55/2002, Hagen.

Budäus, Dietrich/Finger, Stefanie 1999: Stand und Perspektiven der Verwaltungsrefor-
    men in Deutschland, in: Die Verwaltung, vol. 32, 313-344.
                                                                                     124

Caulfield, Janice/Larsen, Helge O. 2002: Introduction, in: Caulfield, Janice/Larsen, Hel-
     ge O. (eds.): Local Government at the Millenium, (Urban Research International; 1),
     9-23.

Ertel, Rainer/Gehrke, Birgit/Kramer, Jens 2000: Weltausstellung EXPO 2000. Regio-
     nalökonomische Effekte der EXPO-Aktivitäten. Eine Bilanz zum 1.1.2000. Gutach-
     ten im Auftrag des Niedersächsischen Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Technik u. Ver-
     kehr.

Forschungsgruppe Wahlen 2002: Bürgerengagement in Heidelberg. Studie zur lokalen
     Demokratie und zum bürgerschaftlichen Engagement in Heidelberg, durchgeführt im
     Auftrag der Stadt Heidelberg im Mai 2002 (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung); edited
     by the Office for Urban Development and Statistics, Heidelberg.

Gabriel, Oscar W. 1997: Das Plebiszit auf dem Vormarsch in den Kommunen: Bürger-
    entscheide als Konkurrenz zu den lokalen Parteien und als Motor der politischen Ak-
    tivitäten? In: G. W. Dill and H. v. Wersebe (red.): Neue Formen politischerPartizipa-
    tion – Bürgerbegehren und Bürgerentscheid, Interne Studien 136, edited by the Kon-
    rad-Adenauer-Foundation, Sankt Augustin, 63-126.

Gabriel, Oscar W. 2000: Democracy in big cities: the case of Germany. In: O.W. Gab-
    riel/V. Hoffmann-Martinot/H.V. Savitch (eds.): Urban Democracy, Städte und Regi-
    onen in Europa, vol. 1, Opladen: 187-259.

Ganser, Karl 1991: Die Zukunft der Städte, Baden-Baden.

Grabow, Busso/Henckel, Dietrich 1999: Kommunale Wirtschaftspolitik, in: Wollmann,
    Hellmut/Roth, Roland 1999: Kommunalpolitik. Politisches Handeln in den Gemein-
    den, Opladen, 616-632.

Häußermann, Hartmut 1991: The relationship between local and federal government
    policy in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: C. Pickvance and E. Preteceille (eds.)
    State Restructuring and Local Power. A Comparative Perspective. London/New
    York: 90-122.

Häußermann, Hartmut/Siebel, Walter 1993: Die Politik der Festivalisierung und die
    Festivalisierung der Polik. Große Ereignisse in der Stadtpolitik, in: Häußermann,
    Hartmut/Siebel, Walter (ed) 2003: Festivalisierung der Stadtpolitik. Stadtentwicklung
    durch große Projekte, Leviathan-Sopnderheft 13/1993, 7-31.

Haus, Michael 2001: Lernen im Föderalismus? Die Reform der Kommunalverfassungen
    in Deutschland, unpublished paper presented at the conference of DVPW, ÖGPW
    and SVPW “Der Wandel föderativer Strukturen”, June 8th and 9th, 2001, Berlin,
    2001.

Haus, Michael 2003: Towards a Post-Parliamentary Democracy in Germany? Theoretical
    Considerations and Empirical Observations on Local Democracy, in: Denters,
    Bas/van Heffen, Oscar/Huisman, Jeroen/Klok, Pieter-Jan (eds.): The Rise of Interac-
    tive Governance and Quasi-Markets. Dordrecht, Boston, London: 213-238.
                                                                                    125

Haus, Michael/Heinelt, Hubert 2002: Modernisierungstrends in lokaler politik und Ver-
    waltung aus Sicht leitender Kommunalbediensteter. Eine vergleichende Analyse, in:
    Bogumil, Jörg (ed.) 2002: Kommunale Entscheidungsprozesse im Wandel. Theoreti-
    sche und empirische Analysen, Opladen, 111-136.

Hauß, Christiane/Frank, Christel 1995: Der Frauenalltag als Planungsgrundlage. Bei-
    spiel Emmertsgrund, edited by Stadt Heidelberg, Heidelberg.

Heide, Hans-Jürgen von der 1999: Stellung und Funktion der Kreise, in: Wollmann,
    Hellmut/Roth, Roland 1999: Kommunalpolitik. Politisches Handeln in den Gemein-
    den, Opladen, 123-132.

Heinelt, Hubert 1997: Neuere Debatten zur Modernisierung der Kommunalpolitik. Ein
    Überblick, in: Heinelt, Hubert/Mayer, Margit (ed.): Modernisierung der Kommunal-
    politik. Neue Wege zur Ressourcenmobilisierung, Opladen: 12-28.

Hoffmann, Peter 2003: Kommunalpolitik in Niedersachsen, in: Kost, Andreas/Wehling,
    Hans-Georg (ed.) 2003: Kommunalpolitik in den deutschen Ländern. Eine Einfüh-
    rung, Wiesbaden.

Holtkamp, Lars 2003: Parteien in der Kommunalpolitik. Konkordanz- und Konkurrenz-
     demokratien im Bundesländervergleich, polis 58/2003, Hagen.

Holtmann, Everhard 1998: Parteien in der lokalen Politik, in: Wollmann, Hellmut/Roth,
    Roland (eds.) 1998: Kommunalpolitik. Politisches Handeln in den Gemeinden, Bonn:
    208-226.

Ibert, Oliver 1998: Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Bürgerbeteiligung. Erweiterte Bür-
     gerbeteiligung im Rahmen der planungen zur Expo 2000 in Hannover, in: RaumPla-
     nung 82/1998, 145-150.

IWS (Institut für Wohnpolitik und Stadtökologie e.V.) 1999: Bewohnerbeteiligung im
    Mietwohnungsbau. Berichterstattung über das Beteiligungsverfahren in den zwei
    Neubauvorhaben der GBH im Stadtteil Kronsberg, Hannover.

Jaedicke, Wolfgang/Thrun, Thomas/Wollmann, Hellmut (ed.) 2000: Modernisierung
     der Kommunalverwaltung. Evaluierungsstudie zur Verwaltungsmodernisierung im
     Bereich Planen, Bauen, Umwelt, edited by Wüstenrot Stiftung, Stuttgart u.a.

Johaentges, Karl/Holtz, Eva 2000: Leben am Kronsberg, Hannover.

Joppke, Manfred 1996: Anwaltsplanung. EXPO 2000. Entwicklung Kronsberg, Tätig-
    keitsbericht Oktober 1995 bis Oktober 1996, Hannover.

Joppke, Manfred/Kuklinski, Oliver 1997: Anwaltsplanung im Stadtteil. Die Mühen er-
    weiterter Bürgerbeteiligung zur Weltausstellung EXPO 2000, in: Bühler, Theo (ed.)
    1997: Bürgerbeteiligung und Demokratie vor Ort, Bonn, 123-135.

Kaschytza, Jörg 1994: Stadtteilvertretungen in Heidelberg – Die Bezirksbeiräte in der
    kommunalpolitischen Landschaft, unveröffentlichte Magisterarbeit, Institut für Poli-
    tischen Wissenschaft der Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg.
                                                                                    126



Katt, Katharina 2000: Bürgerinnenbeteiligung in der Kommune: Empirische Studie zur
     politischen Partizipation von Frauen am Beispiel der Zukunftswerkstätten in Heidel-
     berg, Herbolzheim.

Knemeyer, Franz-Ludwig 1998: Gemeindeverfassungen, in: Wollmann, Hellmut/Roth,
    Roland (eds.): Kommunalpolitik. Politisches Handeln in den Gemeinden, Bonn: 104-
    122.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 1997: Wohnungsbauprogramm mit Blick auf die EXPO
    2000 in Hannover. Mietwohnungsbau- und Eigentumsförderung, Amt für Woh-
    nungswesen, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 1999: Stadtteil Kronsberg. Wohnen im 21. Jahrhundert,
    Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2000a: Städtebau im Zeichen der EXPO 2000. Die neunzi-
    ger Jahre in Hannover, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2000b: Hannover Kronsberg. Realisierung einer nachhalti-
    gen Planung, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2001: Soziale und kulturelle Infrastruktur am Kronsberg.
    Ergebnisse der Befragung der Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner zur Nutzung und Zu-
    friedenheit, Anlage zu Drucksache 2942/2001, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2002a: Europabericht 2001/2002, Amt für Koordinierung,
    Controlling und Stadtentwicklung, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2002b: Anlage 1 zur Beschlußdrucksache 3081/2002, Han-
    nover.

Landeshauptstadt     Hannover       2003a:       Der     Verwaltungsausschuß,        at:
    http://www.hannover.de/deutsch/politik/pol_lhh/rat_bez/verw_aus.htm .

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003b: Repräsentativerhebung 2002, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003c: Repräsentativerhebung 2002. Sonderauswertung
    zum Thema Lebensbedingungen in Hanover und persönlichen Lebensqualität im
    Wohnquartier, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003d: Anlage 1 zur Beschlußdrucksache 0290/2003, Han-
    nover.

Landeshauptstadt Hannover 2003e: Haushaltskonsolidierungskonzept 2005 bis 2007
    (HK V), Ratsdrucksache 2669/2003, Hannover.

Landeshauptstadt    Hannover        2004:     Netzwerk      Bürgermitwirkung,    at:
    http://www.hannover.de/deutsch/buerger/lhh/bue_serv/buergmit.htm , Hannover.
                                                                                   127

Mayer, Hans-Norbert 2000: Großprojekte und Stadtentwicklung – am Beispiel der EXPO
    2000 in Hannover, in: Müller, Heidi/Selle, Klaus 2000: Positionen, Konzepte, Analy-
    sen. Ein Reader zur Diskussion um die Expo 1990-2000, Hannover, 203-208.

Mouritzen, Poul E./Svara, James H. 2002 : Leadership at the apex. Politicians and ad-
    ministrators in western local governments, Pittsburgh.

Müller, Heidi/Niederlein, Kirsten/Schüler, Anke 2002: Die Ereignisse um die EXPO
    von 1987 bis 2001. Chronologisch kurz gefaßt, in: Müller, Heidi/Selle, Klaus 2002:
    EXPOst. Großprojekte und Festivalisierung als Mittel der Stadt- und Regionalent-
    wicklung. Lernen von Hannover, Hannover/Aachen/Dortmund, 85-98.

Müller, Heidi/Selle, Klaus 2002: Was nach dem Feste bleibt. Großereignisse für Stadt
    und Region: Von Hannover lernen, in: Müller, Heidi/Selle, Klaus (ed.) 2002: Wir-
    kungen, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven. Positionen und Einschätzungen von Zeitzeugen
    zur Expo 2000, Hannover, 11-24.

Naschold, Frieder/Bogumil, Jörg 2000: Modernisierung des Staates. New Public Mana-
    gement in deutscher und internationaler Perspektive, second edition, Opladen.

Naßmacher, Hiltrud/Naßmacher, Karl-Heinz 1999: Kommunalpolitik in Deutschland,
    Opladen.

Niedersächsisches Innenministerium (ed.) 2002: Sicheres Wohnquartier. Gute Nachbar-
     schaft. Handreichung zur Förderung der Kriminalprävention im Städtebau und in der
     Wohnungsbewirtschaftung, Hannover.

Perspektive Deutschland 2003: Kurzbericht 2003, at: http://www.heute.t-online.de/-
     ZDFheute/download/0,1389,2000646,00.pdf .

Pfitzer, Theodor 1991: The Municipalities, in: Bausinger, Hermann/Eschenburg, Theodor
      (ed.) 1991: The German Southwest. Baden-Wuerttemberg: History, Politics, Econo-
      my and Culture (edited by Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-
      Württemberg), 121-139.

Rösler, Cornelia 2000: Lokale Agenda 21 in deutschen Städten, in: Heinelt, Hubert/Müh-
     lich, Eberhard (eds.) 2001: Lokale “Agenda 21” Prozesse. Erklärungsansätze, Kon-
     zepte, Ergebnisse. Opladen, 13-28.

Schmidt-Eichstädt, Gerd 1981: Bundesgesetze und Gemeinden. Die Inanspruchnahme
   der Kommunen durch die Ausführung von Bundesgesetzen, Stuttgart et al.

Schneider, Herbert 1997: Stadtentwicklung als politischer Prozeß. Stadtentwickungs-
    trategien in Heidelberg, Wuppertal, Dresden und Trier, Opladen.

Selle, Klaus 1994: Was ist bloß mit der Planung los? Erkundungen auf dem Weg zum ko-
      operativen Handeln. Ein Werkbuch, in: Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung
      69/1994, Dortmund.

Selle, Klaus 2002: Vom Werden einer Weltausstellung. Ein Lehr-Stück in sechs Akten
      nebst Vor-, Zwischen- und Nachspielen, in: Müller, Heidi/Selle, Klaus 2002: EX-
                                                                                      128

     POst. Großprojekte und Festivalisierung als Mittel der Stadt- und Regionalentwick-
     lung. Lernen von Hannover, Hannover/Aachen/Dortmund, 29-84.

Stadt Heidelberg 1994: Probleme und politische Einstellungen in Heidelberg, Heidelberg
      studie 1994, Ergebnisse einer Umfrage in Heidelberg durch Studierende des Insti-
      tuts für Politische Wissenschaft an der Universität Heidelberg im Vorfeld der
      Kommunal- und Europawahlen am 12. Juni 1994, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1995a: Stadtteilrahmenplan Pfaffengrund. Bestandsaufnahme, Prognose
     und Bewertung, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1995b: Stadtentwicklungsplan 2010. Stärken – Schwächen – Analyse
     (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung für die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997e: Probleme und politische Einstellungen in Heidelberg. Heidelberg
       Studie 1997, Ergebnisse einer Umfrage in Heidelberg, durchgeführt von Studieren-
       den des Instituts für Politische Wissenschaft an der Universität Heidelberg im Juni
       1997, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1999a: Qualitative Bürgerbefragung im Rahmen des ExWoSt-For-
     chungsfeldes "Städte der Zukunft", bearbeitet vom Wohnbund Frankfurt Entwick-
     lungsgesellschaft mbH, edited by the Office for Urban Development and Statistic,
     Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1999b: Expertenbefragung. Qualitative Umfrage im Rahmen des Ex-
      WoSt-Forschungsfeldes „Städte der Zukunft“ (Stadt der Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 2000: Zur Lebenssituation in Heidelberg. Heidelberg-Studie 2000. Er-
     gebnisse einer Umfrage in Heidelberg, durchgeführt von Studierenden des Instituts
     für Politische Wissenschaft an der Universität Heidelberg im Juli 2000, edited by the
     Office for Urban Development and Statistic, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 2002a: Ein politischer Auftrag bekommt Profil. 10 Jahre am für Frauen-
     fragen, Heidelberg CD ROM.

Stadt Heidelberg 2002b: Engagement – Studie 2002: Bürgerengagement in Heidelberg.
     Studie zur lokalen Demokratie und zum bürgerschaftlichen Engagement in Heidel-
     berg, durchgeführt von der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen im Auftrag der Stadt Heidel-
     berg im Mai 2002, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg/GGH (Gesellschaft für Grund- und Hausbesitz mbH Heidelberg)
     2003: Vorbereitende Untersuchungen Emmertsgrund im Rahmen des Programms
     "Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf, die Soziale Stadt", Heidelberg.

Sterr, Thomas 1998: Aufbau eines zwischenbetrieblichen Stoffverwertungsnetzwerkes im
     Heidelberger Industriegebiet Pfaffengrund (Betriebswirtschaftlich-Ökologische Ar-
     beiten Band 1), edited by the Institut für Umweltwirtschaftsanalysen Heidelberg e.V.

Thränhardt, Dietrich 1981: Kommunaler Korporatismus. Deutsche Traditionen und mo-
   derne Tendenzen, in: Thänhardt, Dietrich./Uppendahl, Herbert (ed.): Alternativen lo-
   kaler Demokratie, Königstein/Ts., 5-33.
                                                                                      129



Weber, Beate 1995: Verwaltungsreform in Heidelberg ausgezeichnet. Umsetzung bereits
   weit fortgeschritten, in: der städtetag 5/1995, 325-331.

Weber, Beate 1997b: Stadtentwicklung mit den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern – Entwick-
    lungspotentiale der Zivilgesellschaft am Beispiel Heidelberg?, in: Schmals, Klaus
    M./Heinelt, Hubert (eds.): Zivile Gesellschaft. Entwicklung, Defizite und Potentiale,
    Opladen, 59-79.

Weber, Beate 2003a: Nachhaltigkeit und Lokale Agenda: Statt einer Epoche bürgerschaft-
    lichen Engagements nur eine Episode einzelner Gruppen? Challenger Report für den
    Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Berlin, 1. Oktober 2003.

Wehling, Hans-Georg/Siefert, H. Jörg 1987: Der Bürgermeister in Baden-Württemberg.
      Eine Monographie, second edition, Stuttgart.

Wehling, Hans-Georg 1998: Kommunale Verfassungsreform: Vergleich der kommunalen
    Verfassungssysteme in Deutschland, in: Andersen, Uwe (ed.): Gemeinden im Re-
    formprozeß, (Politische Bildung 1/1998) Schwalbach/Ts., 19-33.

Wehling, Hans-Georg 2000: Baden-Württemberg. Nach Gestalt und Tradition von großer
    Vielfalt, in: Wehling, Hans-Georg (Hrsg.): Die deutschen Länder. Geschichte, Poli-
    tik, Wirtschaft, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 17-32.

Wehling, Hans-Georg/Kost, Andreas 2003: Kommunalpolitik in der Bundesrepublik
    Deutschland – eine Einführung, in: A. Kost/H.-G. Wehling (eds.): Kommunalpolitik
    in den deutschen Ländern. Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden, 7-19.

Weil, Stephan 2003: Der Haushalt aus Sicht der Landeshauptstadt Hannover, in: Nieder-
     sächsische Landeszentrale für politische Bildung 2003: Die Region Hannover, Han-
     nover, 55-61.

Wollmann, Hellmut 1998a: Kommunalvertretungen: Verwaltungsorgane oder Parlamen-
    te?, in: Wollmann, Hellmut/Roth, Roland (eds.) 1998: Kommunalpolitik. Politisches
    Handeln in den Gemeinden, Bonn, 50-66.

Wollmann, Hellmut 2002: Local Government Reforms in Germany: A Trajectory of
    Change and Persistance, in: Caulfield, Janice/Larsen, Helge O. (eds.) 2002: Local
    Government at the Millenium, (Urban Research International; 1) Opladen, 63-89.

Wollmann, Hellmut 2003a: German local government under the double impact of democ-
    ratic and administrative reforms, in: Kersting, Norbert/Vetter, Angelika (eds.) 2003:
    Reforming Local Government in Europe. Closing the Gap between Democracy and
    Efficiency, Opladen, 85-112.

Wollmann, Hellmut 2003b: Urban leadership in German local politics. The rise, role and
    performance of the directly elected (chief executive) mayor, to be published in Inter-
    national Journal of Urban and Regional Research (forthcoming).
                                                                                   130


Additional documents for the Heidelberg cases

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wohnberatung e.V. (ed.) 1993: Wohnen im Emmertsgrund –
    Wohnverhältnisse der Bewohner in Sozialwohnungen, Heidelberg.

Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (ed.) 2002: Neue Kooperationsformen in
    der Stadtentwicklung: Auftakt zum neuen Forschungsfeld im Experimentellen Woh-
    nungs- und Städtebau, Bonn.

Direktion für Allgemeine Verwaltung, Wirtschaft und Beschäftigung 1996: Wirt-
     schaftsförderung Heidelberg. Info 1995/96, Heidelberg.

Direktion für Allgemeine Verwaltung, Wirtschaft und Beschäftigung 2000: Ziele,
     Aufgaben und Organisation der Wirtschaftsförderung Heidelberg, Heidelberg.

Domzig, Dörthe 1995: Fraueninteressen an Stadtentwicklung. Stellungnahme des Amtes
   für Frauenfragen zu den Szenarien zur Stadtentwicklung Heidelberg 2010, hrsg. von
   der Stadt Heidelberg, Heidelberg.

empirica Gesellschaft für Struktur- und Stadtforschung mbH 1995: Stärken-Schwä-
    hen-Analyse. Stadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010, edited by the City of Heidel-
    berg, Heidelberg.

Heidelberger Wirtschaftsentwicklungsgesellschaft (HWE) 1999: Gewerbeflächen Hei-
    delberg. Bestand und Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten, Heidelberg.

Krewinkel, Heinz W. 1971: Heidelberg – Emmertsgrund: ein neuer Stadtteil für 11.000
    Menschen (hrsg. von der Neuen Heimat Baden-Württemberg), Stuttgart.

Mitscherlich, Alexander 1971: Sozialpsychologische Anmerkungen zum Bauvorhaben
     Heidelberg-Emmertsgrund, in: ders.: Thesen zur Stadt der Zukunft, Frankfurt am
     Main, 120-136.

Petri, Andrea 1998: Nachhaltiges Heidelberg – Leitbilder der Stadtentwicklung, in: Bun-
      desbaublatt, Bd. 47, 56-58.

Sellnow, Reinhard 1994: Verkehrsforum Heidelberg. Eine Bürgermitwirkung am Ver-
     kehrsentwicklungsplan, in: Claus, F./Wiedemann, P.: Umweltkonflikte. Vermitt-
     lungsverfahren zu ihrer Lösung – Praxisberichte, Blottner Verlag, Taunusstein.

Stadt Heidelberg 1993: Guidelines on Tourism Heidelberg „Tourismusleitbild“, Heidel-
     berg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1995c: Stadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010. Entwurf: Leitlinien und
     Ziele – Diskussionsentwurf. Konzept zur Konsensfindung und Umsetzung (Schriften
     zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung für die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1995d: Stadtentwicklungsplan 2010. Szenarien zur Stadtentwicklung
     Heidelberg 2010 mit Diskussionspapier (Schriften zur Stadtentwick-
     lung/Verantwortung für die Zukunft), Heidelberg.
                                                                                   131

Stadt Heidelberg 1995e: Solidarische Stadt. Dokumentation der Auftaktveranstaltung
     vom 8. Oktober 1994 (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung für die Zu-
     kunft), Heidelberg.


Stadt Heidelberg 1996: Diskussionsentwurf Stadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010. Do-
     kumentation der Podiumsdiskussion (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung
     für die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1996: Diskussionsentwurf Stadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010. Do-
     kumentation der Stellungnahmen (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung für
     die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997a: Nachhaltiges Heidelberg. Für eine lebenswerte UmWelt. Dar-
     stellung und Bewertung bisheriger Aktivitäten der Stadtverwaltung. Vorschläge für
     eine lokale „Agenda 21“, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997b: Stadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010. Leitlinien und Ziele –
     Verantwortung für die Zukunft (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung für
     die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997c: Stadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010. Vorschlag für Leitli-
     nien und Ziele - Diskussionsentwurf (Schriften zur Stadtentwicklung/Verantwortung
     für die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997dStadtentwicklungsplan Heidelberg 2010. Materialband. Synopse
     der Stellungnahmen zum Diskussionsentwurf und Skizzen zur Stadtentwicklung Hei-
     delberg der Architektenkammergruppe Heidelberg (Schriften zur Stadtentwick-
     lung/Verantwortung für die Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997f: Fünf Jahre Amt für Frauenfragen. Ein Arbeitsbericht, Heidel-
     berg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1997g: Zukunftswerkstätten – Heidelbergerinnen mischen sich ein in die
     Stadtgestaltung: „Wenn nicht wir, wer dann?“. Ein Zwischenbericht, Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 1999a: Qualitative Bürgerbefragung im Rahmen des ExWoSt-
     Forschungsfeldes „Städte der Zukunft“ (Stadt der Zukunft), Heidelberg.

Stadt Heidelberg 2001: Mobilität in Heidelberg. Studie zur Verkehrssituation, durchge-
     führt von der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen im Auftrag der Stadt Heidelberg im Februar
     2001, Heidelberg.

Sterr, Thomas 1998: Aufbau eines zwischenbetrieblichen Stoffverwertungsnetzwerkes im
     Heidelberger Industriegebiet Pfaffengrund (Betriebswirtschaftlich-Ökologische Ar-
     beiten, Band 1), edited by Institut für Umweltwirtschaftsanalysen (IUWA) Heidel-
     berg e.V., Heidelberg.

Weber, Beate 1997a: Fallbeispiel Heidelberg: Beteiligungsorientierte Dienstleistungsge-
    staltung, in: Naschold, Frieder/Oppen, Maria/Wegener, Alexander (Hrsg.): Innovati-
                                                                                    132

     ve Kommunen. Internationale Trends und deutsche Erfahrungen, Stuttgart-Berlin-
     Köln, 291-302.

Weber, Beate 1997b: Stadtentwicklung mit den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern – Entwick-
    lungspotentiale der Zivilgesellschaft am Beispiel Heidelberg?, in: Schmals, Klaus
    M./Heinelt, Hubert (ed.) 1997: Zivile Gesellschaft. Entwicklung, Defizite und Poten-
    tiale, Opladen, 59-79.

Weber, Beate 1998: Chancen und Perspektiven innovativer Kommunalpolitik, in: Gru-
    now, Dieter/Wollmann, Hellmut (Hrsg.): Lokale Verwaltungsreform in Aktion: Fort-
    schritte und Fallstricke, Berlin u.a.: Birkhäuser, 26-36.

Weber, Beate 2003b: Den Wandel in einer modernen europäischen Region sozial zu ges-
    talten. Vortrag beim „Forum Politik Bensheim“ der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Büro
    Mainz am 12. März 2003.

Weber, Beate 2003c: Rede zum Neujahrsempfang der Stadt Heidelberg am Sonntag, 12.
    Januar 2003.

Wirth, Gerhard 1976: Heidelberg – Emmertsgrund: Planung unter sozialen Aspekten
    (Schriftenreihe des Bundesministers für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau),
    Bonn – Bad Godesberg.


Documents on district framework planning

Stadtteilrahmenplan Emmerstgrund. Bestandsaufnahme, Prognose und Bewertung. Stadt
      Heidelberg 1994.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Emmerstgrund. Entwicklungsziele und Maßnahmevorschläge. Doku-
      mentation der beiden Workshops am 04. Februar und 11. Februar 1998. Stadt Hei-
      delberg 1998.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Emmerstgrund Teil 2: Entwicklungskonzept und Maßnahmevorschlä-
      ge. Stadt Heidelberg 1999.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Kirchheim. Bestandsaufnahme, Prognose und Bewertung. Stadt Hei-
      delberg 1994.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Kirchheim. Entwicklungsziele und Maßnahmevorschläge. Dokumen-
      tation der beiden Workshops am 14. Juni und 23. Juni 1995. Stadt Heidelberg 1995.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Kirchheim Teil 2: Entwicklungskonzept und Maßnahmevorschläge.
      Stadt Heidelberg 1998.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Handschuhsheim. Bestandsaufnahme, Prognose und Bewertung. Stadt
      Heidelberg 1995.
Stadtteilrahmenplan Handschuhsheim. Entwicklungsziele und Maßnahmevorschläge. Do-
      kumentation der beiden Workshops am 12. November und 20. November 2002. Stadt
      Heidelberg 2003.
                                                                                  133

Stadtteilrahmenplan Pfaffengrund. Bestandsaufnahme, Prognose und Bewertung. Stadt
      Heidelberg 1995.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Pfaffengrund. Entwicklungsziele und Maßnahmevorschläge. Doku-
      mentation der beiden Workshops am 26. Januar und 02. Februar 1999. Stadt Heidel-
      berg 1999.

Stadtteilrahmenplan Pfaffengrund Teil 2: Entwicklungskonzept und Maßnahmevorschläge.
      Stadt Heidelberg 1999.
                                                                                                           134




6. Appendix

6.1       Results of the PLUS survey

Hannover
Expectations on leaders

1.A. There are different ideas about how democratically elected leaders in cities should operate in local
governance. Below we will present a number of these views. We will read out two statements and ask you to
say which you prefer. Please indicate your personal preference on how a local leader should operate.

1:       Local leaders should operate on the basis of a clear personal vision about the future of the city.
7:       Local leaders should operate on the basis of a vision about the future of the city that has been devel-
         oped in close consultations with various segments of the local community.

                 frequency          %      valid %
            1            0         0,0          0,0
            2            1         4,8          5,6
            3            0         0,0          0,0
            4            3        14,3        16,7
            5            4        19,0        22,2
            6            3        14,3        16,7
            7            7        33,3        38,9
      subtotal          18        85,7       100,0
      missing            3        14,3
         total          21       100,0


1:       Local leaders should manage the implementation of local policies by using the local administrative
         apparatus.
7:       Local leaders should spend their time in going out to mobilise community support and local resources
         to implement local policies.

                 frequency          %      valid %
            1            1         4,8          5,6
            2            0         0,0          0,0
            3            0         0,0          0,0
            4            4        19,0        22,2
            5            5        23,8        27,8
            6            4        19,0        22,2
            7            4        19,0        22,2
      subtotal          18        85,7       100,0
      missing            3        14,3
         total          21       100,0
                                                                                                         135

1:      Local leaders should follow the will of the majority of local citizens.
7:      Local leaders should strive for broad-based consensus even at the expense of decisive action.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            1         4,8          5,6
           3            2         9,5        11,1
           4            4        19,0        22,2
           5            2         9,5        11,1
           6            7        33,3        38,9
           7            2         9,5        11,1
     subtotal          18        85,7       100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


1:      Local leaders should act as a representative of their party or the constituency of the local community
        that elected them
7:      Local leaders should represent the city as a whole.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            0         0,0          0,0
           3            3        14,3        16,7
           4            2         9,5        11,1
           5            3        14,3        16,7
           6            6        28,6        33,3
           7            4        19,0        22,2
     subtotal          18        85,7       100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


1:      Local leaders should actively engage in and stimulate local partnerships and networks.
7:      Local leaders should concentrate on their role as the leader of the city government.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            3        14,3        16,7
           2            7        33,3        38,9
           3            4        19,0        22,2
           4            1         4,8          5,6
           5            1         4,8          5,6
           6            1         4,8          5,6
           7            1         4,8          5,6
     subtotal          18        85,7       100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0
                                                                                                         136

Leaders’ legitimation

1.B. And on the role of the same democratic leaders, how important do you consider it that:

Local leaders should ensure that local problems are being solved.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency         %       valid %
           1            0        0,0           0,0
           2            0        0,0           0,0
           3            1        4,8           5,9
           4            3       14,3         17,6
           5           13       61,9         76,5
     subtotal          17       81,0        100,0
     missing            4       19,0
        total          21      100,0


Local leaders should ensure that local decision-making is transparent and that those responsible for decisions
can be held to account.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency         %       valid %
           1            0        0,0           0,0
           2            1        4,8           5,6
           3            0        0,0           0,0
           4            6       28,6         33,3
           5           11       52,4         61,1
     subtotal          18       85,7        100,0
     missing            3       14,3
        total          21      100,0


Local leaders should make ensure that the local community can have a direct say over major local policies.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency         %       valid %
           1            0        0,0           0,0
           2            1        4,8           5,6
           3            3       14,3         16,7
           4            9       42,9         50,0
           5            5       23,8         27,8
     subtotal          18       85,7        100,0
     missing            3       14,3
        total          21      100,0
                                                                                                           137

Expectations on citizens

2.A. There are different ideas about how citizens should operate. Below we will present a number of these
views. Please indicate your personal preference on how citizens should operate.

1:      Citizens should stick to their role of electing leaders and holding them electorally accountable.
7:      Citizens should participate actively in the process of setting the local political agenda and the making
        of important local decisions.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            0         0,0           0,0
           3            0         0,0           0,0
           4            1         4,8           5,6
           5            6        28,6         33,3
           6            7        33,3         38,9
           7            4        19,0         22,2
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


1:      Once major policy decisions have been made citizens should faithfully respect the and abide by the
        local policies and rules and pay their taxes.
7:      Once major policy decisions have been made citizens should actively engage in joint efforts with the
        municipality to make local policies a success.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         4,8           5,6
           3            0         0,0           0,0
           4            1         4,8           5,6
           5            1         4,8           5,6
           6           13        61,9         72,2
           7            2         9,5         11,1
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


1:      Citizens should concentrate on establishing a winning majority for their views.
7:      Citizens should strive for broad-based consensus even at the expense of decisive action.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         4,8           5,6
           3            3        14,3         16,7
           4            2         9,5         11,1
           5            6        28,6         33,3
           6            5        23,8         27,8
           7            1         4,8           5,6
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0
                                                                                                138

1:      Citizens should pursue their own interest.
7:      Citizens should take the interest of the city as a whole into account.

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            0          0,0          0,0
           3            3         14,3        16,7
           4            3         14,3        16,7
           5            3         14,3        16,7
           6            5         23,8        27,8
           7            4         19,0        22,2
     subtotal          18         85,7       100,0
     missing            3         14,3
        total          21        100,0


Citizens’ legitimation

2.B. And on other aspects of the role of the citizens, how important do you consider it that:

Citizens should contribute to the solving of local problems by using their own resources.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            1          4,8          5,6
           3            1          4,8          5,6
           4            9         42,9        50,0
           5            7         33,3        38,9
     subtotal          18         85,7       100,0
     missing            3         14,3
        total          21        100,0


Citizens should inform themselves of local decisions and hold those responsible accountable.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            0          0,0          0,0
           3            1          4,8          5,6
           4           10         47,6        55,6
           5            7         33,3        38,9
     subtotal          18         85,7       100,0
     missing            3         14,3
        total          21        100,0
                                                                                                           139

Citizens should participate actively in local decision-making.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            0         0,0           0,0
           3            1         4,8           5,6
           4           10        47,6         55,6
           5            7        33,3         38,9
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


Expectations on business

3.A. There are different ideas about how business should operate. Below we will present a number of these
views. Please indicate your personal preference on how business should operate.

1:      Business should stick to their role of making profits and not meddle politics.
7:      Business should participate actively in the process of setting the local political agenda and the making
        of important local decisions.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         4,8           5,6
           3            0         0,0           0,0
           4            3        14,3         16,7
           5            6        28,6         33,3
           6            5        23,8         27,8
           7            3        14,3         16,7
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


1:      Once major policy decisions have been made business should faithfully respect the decisions and
        abide by the local policies and rules and pay their taxes.
7:      Once major policy decisions have been made business should actively engage in joint efforts with the
        municipality to make local policies a success.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            0         0,0           0,0
           3            0         0,0           0,0
           4            1         4,8           5,6
           5            4        19,0         22,2
           6            8        38,1         44,4
           7            5        23,8         27,8
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0
                                                                                                   140

1:      Business should concentrate on establishing a winning majority for their views.
7:      Business should strive for broad-based consensus even at the expense of decisive action.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         4,8           5,6
           3            2         9,5         11,1
           4            3        14,3         16,7
           5            6        28,6         33,3
           6            6        28,6         33,3
           7            0         0,0           0,0
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


1:      Business should pursue their own interest
7:      Business should take the interest of the city as a whole into account.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            0         0,0           0,0
           3            1         4,8           6,3
           4            3        14,3         18,8
           5            2         9,5         12,5
           6            7        33,3         43,8
           7            3        14,3         18,8
     subtotal          16        76,2        100,0
     missing            5        23,8
        total          21       100,0


Business’ legitimation

3.B. And on other aspects of the role of business, how important do you consider it that:

Business should contribute to the solving of local problems by using their own resources.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         4,8           5,6
           3            2         9,5         11,1
           4            7        33,3         38,9
           5            8        38,1         44,4
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0
                                                                                                           141

Business should inform themselves of local decisions and hold those responsible accountable.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency           %     valid %
           1            0          0,0         0,0
           2            0          0,0         0,0
           3            3         14,3       16,7
           4            9         42,9       50,0
           5            6         28,6       33,3
     subtotal          18         85,7      100,0
     missing            3         14,3
        total          21        100,0


Business should participate actively in local decision-making.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency           %     valid %
           1            0          0,0         0,0
           2            1          4,8         5,9
           3            6         28,6       35,3
           4            4         19,0       23,5
           5            6         28,6       35,3
     subtotal          17         81,0      100,0
     missing            4         19,0
        total          21        100,0


Trust and cooperation

In general, would you say that trust between participants in local governance in the city is strong of weak?

Trust between actors in the city is:

1:      Very weak
5:      Very strong

                frequency           %     valid %
           1            0          0,0         0,0
           2            4         19,0       22,2
           3           12         57,1       66,7
           4            2          9,5       11,1
           5            0          0,0         0,0
     subtotal          18         85,7      100,0
     missing            3         14,3
        total          21        100,0
                                                                                                            142

In general, what would you say about the level of cooperation between city authorities and others

In general, cooperation between city authorities and community and voluntary associations in the city is:

1:      Very weak
5:      Very strong

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            2         9,5         11,8
           3            8        38,1         47,1
           4            6        28,6         35,3
           5            1        23,8           5,8
     subtotal          17        81,0        100,0
     missing            4        19,0
        total          21       100,0


In general, cooperation between city authorities and business in your city is:

1:      Very weak
5:      Very strong

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            1         4,8           5,6
           2            5        23,8         27,8
           3            7        33,3         38,9
           4            4        19,0         22,2
           5            1         4,8           5,6
     subtotal          18        85,7        100,0
     missing            3        14,3
        total          21       100,0


Heidelberg
Expectations on leaders

1.A. There are different ideas about how democratically elected leaders in cities should operate in local
governance. Below we will present a number of these views. We will read out two statements and ask you to
say which you prefer. Please indicate your personal preference on how a local leader should operate.

1:      Local leaders should operate on the basis of a clear personal vision about the future of the city.
7:      Local leaders should operate on the basis of a vision about the future of the city that has been devel-
        oped in close consultations with various segments of the local community.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         3,3           3,6
           3            1         3,3           3,6
           4            3        10,0         10,7
           5            9        30,0         32,1
           6            9        30,0         32,1
           7            5        16,7         17,9
     subtotal          28        93,3        100,0
     missing            2         6,7
        total          30       100,0
                                                                                                         143

1:      Local leaders should manage the implementation of local policies by using the local administrative
        apparatus.
7:      Local leaders should spend their time in going out to mobilise community support and local resources
        to implement local policies.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            1         3,3          3,6
           3            3        10,0        10,7
           4            8        26,7        28,6
           5            7        23,3        25,0
           6            5        16,7        17,9
           7            4        13,3        14,3
     subtotal          28        93,3       100,0
     missing            2         6,7
        total          30       100,0


1:      Local leaders should follow the will of the majority of local citizens.
7:      Local leaders should strive for broad-based consensus even at the expense of decisive action.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            3        10,0        10,3
           3            2         6,7          6,9
           4            7        23,3        24,1
           5            7        23,3        24,1
           6            8        26,7        27,6
           7            2         6,7          6,9
     subtotal          29        96,7       100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


1:      Local leaders should act as a representative of their party or the constituency of the local community
        that elected them
7:      Local leaders should represent the city as a whole.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            0         0,0          0,0
           3            1         3,3          3,4
           4            2         6,7          6,9
           5            6        20,0        20,7
           6            8        26,7        27,6
           7           12        40,0        41,4
     subtotal          29        96,7       100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0
                                                                                                         144

1:      Local leaders should actively engage in and stimulate local partnerships and networks.
7:      Local leaders should concentrate on their role as the leader of the city government.

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            5        16,7        17,2
           2           11        36,7        37,9
           3            5        16,7        17,2
           4            3        10,0        10,3
           5            3        10,0        10,3
           6            1         3,3          3,4
           7            1         3,3          3,4
     subtotal          29        96,7       100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


Leaders’ legitimation


1.B. And on the role of the same democratic leaders, how important do you consider it that:

Local leaders should ensure that local problems are being solved.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            0         0,0          0,0
           3            0         0,0          0,0
           4            8        26,7        27,6
           5           21        70,0        72,4
     subtotal          29        96,7       100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


Local leaders should ensure that local decision-making is transparent and that those responsible for decisions
can be held to account.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %      valid %
           1            0         0,0          0,0
           2            0         0,0          0,0
           3            3        10,0        10,3
           4           13        43,3        44,8
           5           13        43,3        44,8
     subtotal          29        96,7       100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0
                                                                                                           145

Local leaders should make ensure that the local community can have a direct say over major local policies.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            2         6,7           6,9
           3            4        13,3         13,8
           4           15        50,0         51,7
           5            8        26,7         27,6
     subtotal          29        96,7        100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


Expectations on citizens

2.A. There are different ideas about how citizens should operate. Below we will present a number of these
views. Please indicate your personal preference on how citizens should operate.

1:      Citizens should stick to their role of electing leaders and holding them electorally accountable.
7:      Citizens should participate actively in the process of setting the local political agenda and the making
        of important local decisions.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            0         0,0           0,0
           3            1         3,3           3,4
           4            1         3,3           3,4
           5           10        33,3         34,5
           6            8        26,7         27,6
           7            9        30,0         31,0
     subtotal          29        96,7        100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


1:      Once major policy decisions have been made citizens should faithfully respect the and abide by the
        local policies and rules and pay their taxes.
7:      Once major policy decisions have been made citizens should actively engage in joint efforts with the
        municipality to make local policies a success.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            0         0,0           0,0
           3            2         6,7           6,9
           4            4        13,3         13,8
           5            7        23,3         24,1
           6            6        20,0         20,7
           7           10        33,3         34,5
     subtotal          29        96,7        100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0
                                                                                                   146

1:      Citizens should concentrate on establishing a winning majority for their views.
7:      Citizens should strive for broad-based consensus even at the expense of decisive action.

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            1          3,3          3,4
           2            1          3,3          3,4
           3            4         13,3        13,8
           4            6         20,0        20,7
           5            5         16,7        17,2
           6           10         33,3        34,5
           7            2          6,7          6,9
     subtotal          29         96,7       100,0
     missing            1          3,3
        total          30        100,0


1:      Citizens should pursue their own interest.
7:      Citizens should take the interest of the city as a whole into account.

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            1          3,3          3,7
           2            1          3,3          3,7
           3            2          6,7          7,4
           4            6         20,0        22,2
           5            4         13,3        14,8
           6            8         26,7        29,6
           7            5         16,7        18,5
     subtotal          27         90,0       100,0
     missing            3         10,0
        total          30        100,0


Citizens’ legitimation

2.B. And on other aspects of the role of the citizens, how important do you consider it that:

Citizens should contribute to the solving of local problems by using their own resources.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            0          0,0          0,0
           3           11         36,7        36,7
           4            9         30,0        30,0
           5           10         33,3        33,3
     subtotal          30        100,0       100,0
     missing            0          0,0
        total          30        100,0
                                                                                                           147

Citizens should inform themselves of local decisions and hold those responsible accountable.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            2         6,7           6,7
           3            6        20,0         20,0
           4           10        33,3         33,3
           5           12        40,0         40,0
     subtotal          30       100,0        100,0
     missing            0         0,0
        total          30       100,0


Citizens should participate actively in local decision-making.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         3,3           3,3
           3            7        23,3         23,3
           4            8        26,7         26,7
           5           14        46,7         46,7
     subtotal          30       100,0        100,0
     missing            0         0,0
        total          30       100,0


Expectations on business

3.A. There are different ideas about how business should operate. Below we will present a number of these
views. Please indicate your personal preference on how business should operate.

1:      Business should stick to their role of making profits and not meddle politics.
7:      Business should participate actively in the process of setting the local political agenda and the making
        of important local decisions.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            2         6,7           6,9
           3            5        16,7         17,2
           4            4        13,3         13,8
           5            9        30,0         31,0
           6            7        23,3         24,1
           7            2         6,7           6,9
     subtotal          29        96,7        100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0
                                                                                                       148

1:      Once major policy decisions have been made business should faithfully respect the decisions and
        abide by the local policies and rules and pay their taxes.
7:      Once major policy decisions have been made business should actively engage in joint efforts with the
        municipality to make local policies a success.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            1         3,3           3,4
           3            2         6,7           6,9
           4            7        23,3         24,1
           5            6        20,0         20,7
           6            8        26,7         27,6
           7            5        16,7         17,2
     subtotal          29        96,7        100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


1:      Business should concentrate on establishing a winning majority for their views.
7:      Business should strive for broad-based consensus even at the expense of decisive action.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            1         3,3           3,4
           2            1         3,3           3,4
           3            3        10,0         10,3
           4            6        20,0         20,7
           5            5        16,7         17,2
           6           10        33,3         34,5
           7            3        10,0         10,3
     subtotal          29        96,7        100,0
     missing            1         3,3
        total          30       100,0


1:      Business should pursue their own interest
7:      Business should take the interest of the city as a whole into account.

                frequency          %       valid %
           1            0         0,0           0,0
           2            3        10,0         11,1
           3            1         3,3           3,7
           4            5        16,7         18,5
           5            6        20,0         22,2
           6            5        16,7         18,5
           7            7        23,3         25,9
     subtotal          27        90,0        100,0
     missing            3        10,0
        total          30       100,0
                                                                                               149

Business’ legitimation

Business should contribute to the solving of local problems by using their own resources.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency         %       valid %
           1            0        0,0           0,0
           2            2        6,7           6,7
           3            5       16,7         16,7
           4           10       33,3         33,3
           5           13       43,3         43,3
     subtotal          30      100,0        100,0
     missing            0        0,0
        total          30      100,0


Business should inform themselves of local decisions and hold those responsible accountable.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency         %       valid %
           1            1        3,3           3,3
           2            2        6,7           6,7
           3           11       36,7         36,7
           4           10       33,3         33,3
           5            6       20,0         20,0
     subtotal          30      100,0        100,0
     missing            0        0,0
        total          30      100,0


Business should participate actively in local decision-making.

1:      Not important at all
5:      Very important

                frequency         %       valid %
           1            0        0,0           0,0
           2            4       13,3         13,8
           3            8       26,7         27,6
           4           11       36,7         37,9
           5            6       20,0         20,7
     subtotal          29       96,7        100,0
     missing            1        3,3
        total          30      100,0
                                                                                                            150

Trust and cooperation

In general, would you say that trust between participants in local governance in the city is strong of weak?

Trust between actors in the city is:

1:      Very weak
5:      Very strong

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            6         20,0        20,7
           3           14         46,7        48,3
           4            9         30,0        31,0
           5            0          0,0          0,0
     subtotal          29         96,7       100,0
     missing            1          3,3
        total          30        100,0


In general, what would you say about the level of cooperation between city authorities and others

In general, cooperation between city authorities and community and voluntary associations in the city is:

1:      Very weak
5:      Very strong

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            1          3,3          3,3
           3            8         26,7        26,7
           4           20         66,7        66,7
           5            1          3,3          3,3
     subtotal          30        100,0       100,0
     missing            0          0,0
        total          30        100,0


In general, cooperation between city authorities and business in your city is:

1:      Very weak
5:      Very strong

                frequency           %      valid %
           1            0          0,0          0,0
           2            5         16,7        16,7
           3           13         43,3        43,3
           4           11         36,7        36,7
           5            1          3,3          3,3
     subtotal          30        100,0       100,0
     missing            0          0,0
        total          30        100,0
                                                                                                        151



6.2    Lists of Interviews


Hannover

name                          institution
Großekathöfer, Bettina        affected citizen
Habermann-Nieße, Klaus        Planerwerkstatt 1
Hagenah, Enno                 member of the state parliament, Lower Saxony
Hertlein-Scheider, Hanna      housing division, ministry of interior of Lower Saxony
Hunecke, Klaus                chairman of the SPD group in the city conucil of Hannover
Jordan, Picco                 executive officer for social affairs, Hannover region
Kaiser, Magdalena             section for city development, city of Hannover
Kaul, Antje                   KroKuS, integrated office at Hannover-Kronsberg, city of Hannover
Kier, Gerhard                 construction division, city of Hannover
Klünder, Michael              Hannover-Impuls staff
Kruse, Hans-Helmut            affected citizen
Laurich, Frank                Hannover-Impuls executive board
Martinsen, Reinhard           internal coordination, controlling and urban development division, city of Hannover
Meißner, Mark                 staff of the Green party group in the city council of Hannover
Metsch, Petra                 citizens office for city development
Minte, Thea                   section for city development, city of Hannover
Neumann, Heike                housing division, city of Hannover
Prauser, Wolfgang             arts division, city of Hannover
Römer, Michael                city development office, city of Hannover
Rudolph, Ingrid               KroKuS, integrated office at Hannover-Kronsberg, city of Hannover
Saris, Serder                 chairman of Green Party group in the Hannover regional assembly
Schmalstieg, Herbert          Lord Mayor, City of Hannover
Spieker, Heiko                workers’ council, Volkswagen commercial vehicles
Weiberg, Gerd                 EXPO 2000 commissioner, state government of Lower Saxony



Heidelberg

name                                 Institution                                                  date
Beate Weber                          Lady Mayor of Heidelberg                                     10.02.2003
Dr. Klaus Plate                      Head of the General Administration, Economy and Em-          16.09.2002
                                     ployment; CEO of the Heidelberg Development Association      31.01.2003
                                                                                                  17.06.2003
                                                                                                  12.11.2003
Bruno Schmaus                        Head of the Office for Urban Development and Statistics      02.05.2002
                                                                                                  16.09.2002
                                                                                                  31.01.2003
                                                                                                  26.03.2003
                                                                                                  13.05.2003
                                                                                                  17.06.2003
                                                                                                  12.11.2003
Sabine Wacker, Joachim Hahn          Office for Urban Development and Statistics                  18.11.2003
Dagmar Winterer                      Heidelberg Development Association                           22.04.2003
                                                                                                  27.05.2003
                                                                                                  20.01.2004
Prof. Dr. Charlotte Schulze          CEO of the Heidelberg Development Association                20.01.2004
Jürgen Kuch                          Office for Urban Development and Statistics                  16.09.2002
                                                                                                  07.05.2003
                                                                                                  12.11.2003
                                                                                                  18.11.2003
Dörthe Domzig                        Head of the Office for the Equality of Men and Women         14.05.2003
                                                                                   152

Dr. Thomas Sterr       IUWA (Heidelberg Institute for Economic Analysis)       10.07.2003
Christian Weiss        Member of the city council (Green List)                 18.09.2003
Wilhelm Seeger-Kelbe   Member of the district council of Handschuhsheim        20.10.2003
Hans GünterBredtmann   Member of the Team Industry and Commercial Area Pfaf-   04.11.2003
                       fengrund
                                                                                                                                  153



6.3         Arenas and Rules


Hannover

                          Table 16 – Description of institutional arenas (Kronsberg case)
arena         position              boundary              authority            aggregation     scope                 information
preliminary   Lord Mayor, state     closed                expression of will   unanimous /     informal agree-       meeting not pub-
decision      secretary of eco-     (“fireplace talk”)    is free              consensual      ment                  lic, thus existance
(arena 1)     nomy (both initi-                                                                                      of meeting and its
              ators)                                                                                                 result(s) not pub-
                                                                                                                     licised
citizen       all citizens (de-     closed                expression of will   majority vote   factually binding     information about
survey        facto decision        all citizens 18       is restricted to                     statement of the      survey in the
(arena 2a)    makers)               years or older        “yes” or “no”                        citizenry             press and on the
                                                                                                                     voting postcard
council       councillors (deci-    closed (by law),      expression of will   majority vote   legalising the        councillors and
decision      sion makers),         only councillors      is free, voting is                   citizens’ vote,       citizens have ac-
(arena 2b)    Lord Mayor (de-       may vote              restricted to                        binding council       cess to all rele-
              cision maker)                               “yes”, “no” and                      decision              vant information
              executive officers                          “abstention”                                               which is presen-
              (consultants)                                                                                          ted by the admini-
                                                                                                                     stration and the
                                                                                                                     Lord Mayor
council       councillors (deci-    closed (by law),      expression of will   majority vote   binding council       councillors and
decision      sion makers),         only councillors      is free, voting is                   decision              citizens have ac-
(arena 3)     Lord Mayor (de-       may vote              restricted to                                              cess to all rele-
              cision maker),                              “yes”, “no” and                                            vant information
              executive officers                          “abstention”                                               which is presen-
              (consultants)                                                                                          ted by the admini-
                                                                                                                     stration and the
                                                                                                                     Lord Mayor
dealing       Lord Mayor (re-       closed, bargaining expression of will      unanimous /     informal agree-       information
for inves-    pres. of the city),   between interde-   is free                 consensual      ment                  should be free for
tive          prime minister        pendent actors                                                                   arena actors, mee-
programmes    (financier), city                                                                                      ting not public,
(arena 4)     administration                                                                                         result(s) publi-
              (experts), mini-                                                                                       cised as decision
              stry for social af-                                                                                    of city and state
              fairs (experts),
              investors (recipi-
              ents)
implemen-     citizens (affected    wide open, affec-     expression of will   consensual      formulation of de- information
tation        people), the plan-    ted citizens could    is free                              mands by collec- should be free for
(arena 5)     ning advocate (at-    join at their will                                         tive decision      everybody
              tention-payer,                                                                   among the citi-
              helper), Lord Ma-                                                                zens as a mandate
              yor (mediator),                                                                  for the city admi-
              city administra-                                                                 nistration
              tion (de-facto im-
              plementers)
implemen-     affected citizens     wide open, af-        expression of will   consensual      formulate de-         information
tation        (affected people),    fected citizens       is free                              mands towards         should be free for
(arena 6)     the planning ad-      could join at their                                        the city admini-      everybody
              vocate (attention-    will                                                       stration for single
              payer, helper),                                                                  small measures
              city administra-
              tion (de-facto im-
              plementers)

                                                       Source: own composition
                                                                                                                                      154



                      Table 17 – Description of institutional arenas (Hannover Impuls case)
arena          position               boundary              authority            aggregation          scope              information
set-up         Prime Minister         closed                expression of will   unanimous            informal agree-    meeting not pub-
(arena 1)      (initiator), Lord      (“fireplace talk”)    is free                                   ment               lic, thus existance
               Mayor (recipient)                                                                                         of meeting and its
                                                                                                                         result(s) not publi-
                                                                                                                         cised
market         McKinsey (survey       closed (McKinsey      expression of will   “production”         description of the informants should
analysis       conductor), city       picks the partici-    is maybe limited                          economic situa-    give every infor-
(arena 2)      and region (cos-       pants                 by strategic                              tion               mation they could
               tumers), compa-                              market position(s)                                           to help the survey
               nies (informants-                                                                                         to become a succ-
               /door-openers)                                                                                            ess
company        councillors (deci-     closed (by law),      expression of will majority vote          binding council    councillors and
founding       sion-makers),          only councillors      is free, voting is                        decision           citizens have ac-
(arena 3)      Lord Mayor (deci-      may vote              restricted to “yes”,                                         cess to all relevant
               sion-maker), exe-                            “no” and “absten-                                            information which
               cutive officers                              tion”                                                        is presented by the
               (consultants)                                                                                             administration and
                                                                                                                         the Lord Mayor
selection of   Lord Mayor (net-       only resource-        expression of will   face-to-face talks   informal agree-    information about
partners,      work generator),       giving actors can     is free              with fragmented      ments              the project were
raising        president o.t. re-     participate, inter-                        decisions                               distributed wide-
resources      gion (network ge-      dependency                                                                         ly, and were pub-
(arena 4)      nerator), compa-       between actors                                                                     licly discussed, in-
               nies (addressees,                                                                                         formation is assy-
               initiative partners)                                                                                      metric by defini-
                                                                                                                         tion
imple-         initiative emplo-      semi-open (new        expression of will   advisory board:      formal agreements sub-projects have
mentation      yees (implemen-        projects can join     is free              majority             (contracts) with   to inform executi-
(arena 5)      tors), Lord Mayor      after discussion)                          executive board:     sub-projects       ve board mem-
               (advisor), presi-                                                 distributed com-                        bers, executive
               dent of the region                                                petencies                               board has to in-
               (advisor), compa-                                                                                         form advisory
               nies (as partners),                                                                                       board, advisory
               companies (as as-                                                                                         board members
               sociates)                                                                                                 from the public si-
                                                                                                                         de have to inform
                                                                                                                         standing committ-
                                                                                                                         ees of economy of
                                                                                                                         city council and
                                                                                                                         regional assembly
yearly         councillors (deci- closed (by law),          expression of will majority vote          binding council    councillors and
budget         sion-makers),      only councillors          is free, voting is                        decision           citizens have ac-
decision       Lord Mayor (deci- may vote                   restricted to “yes”,                                         cess to all relevant
(arena 6)      sion-maker), exe-                            “no” and “absten-                                            information which
               cutive officers                              tion”                                                        is presented by the
               (consultants)                                                                                             administration and
                                                                                                                         the Lord Mayor

                                                         Source: own composition
                                                                                                                                          155



                 Table 18 - Description of institutional arenas (district framework planning case)
arena              position             boundary             authority            aggregation           scope                 information
district meet-     positions of Lady    open for all         All participants     City employees        Result: critiques,    Information
ing                Mayor, deputy        interested citi-     have the right to    take minutes and      ideas and propos-     about the event is
(arena 1)          mayors, Office       zens                 express their        write the report      als formulated by     publicly distrib-
                   for Urban Devel-                          opinion and to       for the next steps.   the citizens          uted via the press
                   opment and                                ask questions.                             concerning the        with special
                   Statistics, Repre-                                                                   future develop-       invitations to key
                   sentatives of the                                                                    ment of their         persons.
                   administration                                                                       district. Result      All participants
                   and citizens                                                                         will be included      have access to
                                                                                                        in first reporting    the information
                                                                                                        paper. This           presented by the
                                                                                                        serves also as a      administration.
                                                                                                        discussion input      Information is
                                                                                                        for the intra         not available
                                                                                                        administrative        outside the arena
                                                                                                        arena.                (only what
                                                                                                                              perhaps will be
                                                                                                                              written in the
                                                                                                                              press).
“future work-      positions of       open for all           All participants     open discussion       critiques, propos-    no additional
shops” for         participating      women who live         have the right to    without voting        als and ideas to      information input
women              women and of       in the district        express their                              be passed to the
(arena 2)          the representative                        opinion and to                             urban offices
                   of the “Office for                        ask questions.                             (especially to the
                   the Equality of                           Representative of                          Office for Urban
                   Man and                                   administration                             Development and
                   Women“                                    leads and struc-                           Statistics) and to
                                                             tures meeting.                             be included as
                                                                                                        separate article
                                                                                                        into first report-
                                                                                                        ing paper
administrative     positions of Lady    members of           administrative       consensus-            results to be         Lady Mayor and
arena              Mayor (head of       working group        hierarchy (heads     building in the       presented as          deputy mayors
(arena 3)          administration       selected by heads    towards staff,       shadow of hierar-     inputs at the         with hierarchical
                   and of own           of directorates      Lady Mayor           chy                   thematic work-        rights to get
                   directorate),                             towards whole                              shops                 information,
                   deputy mayors                             administration)                                                  offices to provide
                   (heads of direc-                          participants of                                                  each other with
                   torates)                                  the working                                                      necessary infor-
                   staff of different                        groups can make                                                  mation
                   offices                                   proposals
                                                             heads of director-
                                                             ates to decide on
                                                             controversial
                                                             issues
district council positions of           open for ap-         All councillors      For formal            statements for the    All councillors
(arena 4)        district council-      pointed members      have the right to    decisions, a vote     city council          and the citizens
                 lors,                  and for all inter-   express their        of the majority is    which deal with       have access to all
                 Lady Mayor,            ested citizens       opinion and to       needed.               a) the first          relevant informa-
                 representatives of                          ask questions                                    reporting       tion which is
                 Office for Urban                            concerning the                                   paper and       presented there
                 Planning and                                district develop-                                (first meet-    by the Lady
                 Office for Urban                            ment plan.                                       ing)            Mayor, the
                 Development and                             All citizens have                          b) the final          Office for Urban
                 Statistics, inter-                          the right to ask                                 version of      Planning and the
                 ested citizens.                             questions con-                                   the district-   drafts available
                                                             cerning the                                      framework-      for participating
                                                             district-                                        plan (sec-      citizens
                                                             framework-plan.                                  ond meet-
                                                                                                              ing)
                                                                                                        city administra-
                                                                                                        tion to decide
                                                                                                        whether to
                                                                                                        change the text of
                                                                                                        the draft

council com-       poitions of          open for the         All members and      A majority of the     decision on the       Committee
mittee for         committee mem-       members (ap-         the Lady Mayor       members (includ-      relevant              members have
urban devel-       bers, Lady Mayor     pointed by the       have the right to    ing the Lady          draft/document;       access to relevant
opment             (chairmanship),      council), Lady       express their        Mayor) can take       topics can be         information and
(arena 5)          deputy mayors        Mayor (chair-        „professional“       a decision.           added or deleted      can ask attending
                                                                                                                                   156

arena          position             boundary             authority            aggregation         scope                information
               and representa-      manship of all       opinion and to                           result to be         city staff/Lady
               tives of munici-     committees),         vote, invited city                       included into the    Mayor.
               pal offices,         deputy mayors        employees and                            further documen-
               representatives of   and employees of     deputy mayors                            tation and into      Information is
               the affected         the administra-      have the right to                        the proposal for     not available
               district council,    tion, representa-    speak, represen-                         the council          outside the arena
               local public         tives of the         tatives of the                                                (as the third
                                    district councils    district councils                                             reporting paper is
                                    and (in the case     are invited to                                                not yet pub-
                                    of DDP debates)      give a statement.                                             lished)
                                    the local public
thematic       positions of         open for invited All invited              proposals of        detailed docu-       all participants
workshops      invited citi-        citizens (selected
                                                     citizens and the         measures to be      mentation of         have adequate
(arena 6)      zens/stakehol-       by the admini-   representatives of       selected indi-      proceeding           and free access to
               ders, representa-    stration)        the administra-          vidually and        proposals of         information
               tives of admini-                      tion have the            collectively        measures to be       about the district
               stration, external                    right to express         distinction be-     taken into con-      („stocktaking,
               moderators                            their opinion and        tween votes         sideration by the    prediction and
                                                     to ask questions.        given by citizens   administration by    assessment“);
                                                     Both can give            and by city         drafting the final   city representa-
                                                     votes for differ-        representatives     document of the      tives to provide
                                                     ent proposals.                               district frame-      information on
                                                     Moderators to                                work plan            plans of the
                                                     take care for the                                                 administration
                                                     proper course of
                                                     action/time
                                                     management.
city council   positions of         open for elected The councillors          legally binding     resolution that      All councillors
(arena 7)      councillors, Lady    council members, and the Lady             decisions of a      either accepts or    have free and
               Mayor, represen-     Lady Mayor       Mayor have the           majority of the     rejects the dis-     adequate access
               tatives of the       (chairmanship)   right to express         council.            trict-framework-     to all relevant
               administration,      and interested   their opinion and                            plan measures        information (the
               local public         citizens         to vote. Citizens                            involving any        three documents).
                                                     can express their                            costs to be le-      All information is
                                                     opinion in a                                 gitimated by         available outside
                                                     special part                                 further single       the arena after
                                                     before the ses-                              decisions            the decision-
                                                     sion.                                                             making.

                                                  Source: own composition
                                                                                                                       157



6.4       Tables and Figures

Table 1 - City revenues (in € million) ................................................................................. 17
Table 2 – Public debts per head (€) ..................................................................................... 17
Table 3 - Results of the local election in 2001 and party seats in city council.................... 20
Table 4 – The Kronsberg arenas and the actors involved.................................................... 35
Table 5 - Patterns of interaction in the Kronsberg process.................................................. 36
Table 6 - Influence of actors in the Kronsberg arenas......................................................... 38
Table 7 – The Hannover Impuls arenas and the actors involved......................................... 54
Table 8 - Patterns of interaction in the Hannover Impuls process....................................... 55
Table 9 - Influence of actors in the Hannover Impuls arenas.............................................. 56
Table 10 - City revenues (in € million) ............................................................................... 62
Table 11 – Development of budget deficit .......................................................................... 62
Table 12 - Results of the local election in 1999 and party seats in city council.................. 65
Table 13 - Actor Mapping District Development Planning ................................................ 86
Table 14 - Attendance at thematic workshops..................................................................... 87
Table 15 – “Dialogues” on economic questions, initiated by the HWE............................ 108
Table 16 – Description of institutional arenas (Kronsberg case) ...................................... 153
Table 17 – Description of institutional arenas (Hannover Impuls case) ........................... 154
Table 18 - Description of institutional arenas (district framework planning case) ........... 155




Figure 1 - Divisions of the city administration.................................................................... 18
Figure 2 – Arenas in the Kronsberg process ....................................................................... 31
Figure 3 - Structure of the Hannover Impuls company ....................................................... 48
Figure 4 – Arenas in the Hannover Impuls process ............................................................ 53
Figure 5 – Structure of the city administration.................................................................... 63
Figure 6 - Arenas in the district development planning ...................................................... 80
Figure 7 – Structures of Heidelberg's stimulation of local economy ................................ 104
Figure 8 - Arenas of the network Pfaffengrund................................................................. 111