Debates de la cooperación latinoamericana. Silvana Insignares Cera

on exclusion, or does the European Union evolves leadership and responsibility in a globalized world, where crisis do not end at the frontiers of the European Union. “What is Europe?” and “what is the European Union?” are complex questions which can be answered in different ways and on different levels. The approach of this article is to focus on the urban level as European cities are major targets of migration movements. The question of how cities deal with refugees tells us a lot about how integration actually takes place on a local level and how European societies function. Besides aspects such as education, health and labor markets, the issue of how to host refugees has become an important topic in European Cities. Until now a multitude of different political approaches, ranging from temporary to long-term housing options, from centralized to decentralized approaches has been developed. The decision on which approach is suitable is foremost made by municipalities but influenced also by the interplay of various actors, such as European, national and federal state institutions, property owners, construction firms, NGOs, migrant communities and civil society. Furthermore, the current structures of local housing markets and land uses have an impact on how to host refugees. In this article I present the city of Leipzig in Eastern Germany as a case study. It is analyzed which political responses on how to host refugees have been developed on the local level in the last years and what governance forms were applied.

      The aim of this paper is to compare the current policies in Leipzig with social science based approaches on the concept of the “European City”. A huge body of literature on the European City has been evolved during the first decade of the 2000s (for example Le Galès 2002, Marcuse 2004, Häußermann 2011, Siebel 2004, Frey/Koch 2011, Clos 2005, Lenger 2007, Lawton/Punch 2014, Bagnasco/LeGalès 2000). The general objective of this article is to understand whether the principles of the European City are also identifiable in contemporary policies on hosting refugees or if opposing political approaches are developed. With this paper, I aim to contribute to the general debate on the future character of the European Union and reveal whether the current situation requires rethinking theoretical concepts on how different social groups live in European cities.

      CONTEXT I: THE EUROPEAN CITY

      Authors such as Bagnasco/Le Galès (2000), Le Galès (2002), Siebel (2004), Kazepov (2005) and Häußermann/Haila (2005) have empha­sized that European cities consists of specific forms of social cohesion, integration mechanisms and governance structures as well as a far-reaching capacity to act politically, which distinguishes them from cities in other contexts. It needs to be acknowledged that this theoretical concept of the European City has a normative as well as an analytical dimension and needs to be understood as an ideal type in the sense of Max Weber. This signifies that the concept of the European City does not display the reality of all European cities but rather highlights the main characteristic which may be found in some cities in others not (Siebel 2004).

      As a leitmotiv for urban development, the European City seems to be more attractive than ever: Municipalities and private developers not only in Europe but also in Asia and Latin America are trying to implement urban strategies, masterplans and project developments under the label of the «European City». Furthermore, the European City is mentioned in European urban politics (for example the Leipzig Charta for the sustainable European City or the European Urban Agenda) as well as on national level (for example in the German national urban politics) as a desired form of urban develop­ment. Despite it’s widely spread distribution the model remains vague and different disciplines like sociology, political sciences and urban planning have their own understanding of it. In the following, the main characteristics of the concept of the European City are summarized, divided into social, political and urban design and historical dimension (The following paragraphs are based on Koch 2015).

      A. HISTORIC DIMENSION

      In his study on the history of the European City Leonardo Benevolo (1999, p. 13) describes the cities «as one of the reasons – maybe the most important – that Europe constituted itself as a historical unit». And he adds that the coexistence of public authorities and free market enterprise which have divided competences over land use issues characterizes the European cities. This equilibration between private rights and public control can only work if the interests of both parties are adequately represented (Benevolo, 1999, p. 223). The inherent conflict between a private and a public realm, but also the influence of different historical eras which shaped and still shape the urban development, leads to a so-called «presence of history» in European Cities (Siebel, 2004, p. 18) which is still evident and visible in the daily life of the city dwellers. Siebel adds that the European City is a place where a special form of living emerges which differentiates the inhabitants of urban areas from rural. Siebel also argues that the European city is the place where emancipation took place. The European city provides the hope for a better life and as a promise to entkommen dependencies which existed for example in rural areas to the land-owner.

      B. SOCIAL DIMENSION

      The European City as a social formation is characterized through a minor grade of socio-spatial segregation, especially compared to cities in the Unites States (see Bagnasco and Le Galès, 2000, p. 14). At the same time the role of its citizens as important actors which shape everyday life in urban areas through their participation in organizations, associations, citizens groups is a characteristic of the European city. Therefore Bagnasco and Le Galès describe the ideal type of European city as a «collective actor». Its urban development and urban politics are not only determined by the elected politicians and other public authorities but through a variety of different groups and micro-projects, the major part of them not having an institutionalized form (Le Galès, 2002, p. 262).

      C. POLITICAL DIMENSION

      The political dimension of the European City is a product of its embedding in the national welfare state and a far-reaching capacity to act within a stable national context. This capacity to act is based on the fact that cities and municipalities receive national funds and have the autonomy to determine up to a certain degree how these funds are used. Thus, cities can determine their politics and developments (see Kazepov, 2005). In addition, the inclusion in the supranational system of the European Union strengthens the capacity to act because secondary to national funding, cities can also strive for European funds and use these for their development. Symbols for the municipal autonomy and the far-reaching capacity to act are local investments in infrastructure, water supply, public housing and urban planning:

      European Cities have (had) the legal competences and the possibility to create and implement a local welfare state and determine the course of their policy. Also in a similar way the creation of modern urban planning instruments during the 19th century in European cities can be understood as a demonstration of municipal autonomy and the political idea to «restrain» market forces and obtain a coordinated development on the local level (Koch 2011).

      D. URBANISM/URBAN DESIGN DIMENSION

      Marcuse (2004, p. 112) mentions the physical characteristics of the European City: a historical centre with low rise buildings (except for state and religious buildings), public places, neighborhoods with a mixed social structure and small commercial units, clear geographical limits, a high degree of densification and a well-equipped public transport system. Urban (2008) mentions the mix of functions and a sensible treatment of historical buildings as attributes of the European City. Public space, particularly the market place has a huge importance for being the location where urban society in medieval Europe was founded and different social groups met and interacted in a democratic way (Hassenpflug, 2002, Farías, 2005). The urban structure of the European city can be characterized through density, compactness, centrality and mixed uses.

      The revision of the distinctive approaches in history, sociology, political sciences and urban design/urbanism reveals different definitions of the European City. The European City can be understood as the ideal type of a certain form of built-up