City Representation Offices in Brussels: Which Practices for which Objectives?

Abstract

Urbanization and calls for legitimation are two trends making the connection between cities and the policy-making system at European Union level more important than ever. The implication of cities, which represent most of European population and wealth, is called by all actors: the local players themselves but also the member states and the EU-institutions. Many channels already exist to make this link but none is perfect, making this link rather weak. Institutionalized channels are delegitimized, European-wide networks are cumbersome and individual actions are costly. As the two first ways have been significantly more studied, this research therefore proposes to scrutinize especially actions undertaken by individual cities so to help practitioners to best upload local interests at EU level.

A comparative analysis of three major local players (Barcelona, Rotterdam and Helsinki) outlines the best practices used by local actors willing to get the most out of the multi-level opportunities offered by the EU. The method based on Wolffhardt et al.’s classification of city’s attitudes toward the EU and on Schwab et al.’s administrative practices adopted by local sector helps structuring the comparison and detect best practices for various local contexts. This method is necessary since the compatibility between adopted practices and the local context appears to be a key factor of success. The research outcomes form the basis of some administrative practices recommendations for cities willing to invest into their own representation office in Brussels. Although findings show it exists some universally valuable practices, most of these recommendations depend on a plurality of criteria of the local level that is to be represented in Brussels.