Search results

Germany and France offer two different models of political and administrative organisation: a federal state on one side of the Rhine and a unitary state on the other, albeit one that has become more decentralised over the last 40 years. Thus, the French régions have reduced capacities for action compared to the Länder. At the local level, the administrative structure was strengthened in Germany by merging municipalities, whereas France chose to use intermunicipal structures. In contrast to the political and administrative stability in Germany, local and regional organisation in France is constantly evolving, faced with a succession of laws, the pace of which has accelerated over time. The same applies to spatial planning, which has been framed from the outset by the German Grundgesetz (GG - Basic Law), but which has undergone much more evolution on the French side, even if the loi d'orientation foncière (LOF - Basic Land Act) of 1967 and the loi solidarité et renouvellement urbain (SRU - Law on Urban Solidarity and Renewal) (2000) represent two fundamental stages. In both countries, the strategic dimension of planning has been strengthene, and each side has developed its own tools for the management of urban projects.

This chapter is devoted to mobility in France and Germany. First, key mobility indicators for the two countries are presented. This shows that private motorised transport still dominates in both France and Germany. Despite many negative effects on the climate, but also on health and quality of life, no far-reaching measures have been adopted. Hopes are pinned on technological progress and the integration of electromobility. However, this will not solve the shortage of land in cities or the car-dependence of many (low-income) households in rural areas in France. Subsequently, an empirical example from Berlin is used to show how financial and time restrictions affect the willingness of car drivers to switch to alternative modes of transport. Financial measures have a greater influence than time-related measures. For the French example, regional disparities and social dependence on the car are considered more closely. Finally, the current policy initiatives of the two countries are presented in order to assess the potentials of the transport transition.

The situation, development lines and perspectives of small and medium-sized towns in Germany and France are compared and similarities and differences within the central place systems and the spatial planning of both countries are discussed. With different approaches to definition, these towns have received new attention in both countries in recent years, albeit with different focal points. The discussion covers the positions and lines of development of these towns in the respective central place systems; the perspectives of their future development regarding the strengthening of central place functions, their attractiveness as residential and economic locations, and contexts of rural regional development and services of general interest. In addition, aspects of research on small and medium-sized towns as well as approaches to spatial policy in both countries are addressed.

Sustainability and participation have become two priorities of urban policies. They are usually considered perfectly synergistic, but they are not. This chapter aims to disentangle the imbroglio of sustainability coupled with participatory processes in the theory and practice of urban planning and development. To do so, it reflects upon empirical observations in the field of public policies in France and Germany as well as on some cases on both sides of the Rhine. Finally, this chapter describes and analyses policies and governance instruments intended to involve citizens in sustainable decision-making in urban areas of France and Germany.

In the field of urban and regional planning, France and Germany have shown several analogies since the beginning of the modern age. However, there is still a difference between more centralised governance processes (France) and a stronger position of the municipalities (Germany). But the planning strategies of France and Germany have moved closer together. A comparison covering about 100 years must differentiate between German planning strategies in East and West Germany for a considerable period. Urban planning has been influenced by similar models like the Athens Charter or the Leipzig Charter. The latter, a European document, was renewed in 2020. Furthermore, in both countries, similar paths can be identified: the pursuit of a strong technical focus, the tendency towards sustainable development, more flexibility, the growing importance of integrated policies and the challenges of urban sprawl. Main doctrines like integration, participation and future orientation have accompanied urban and regional planning in Germany as well as in France.

Over the past thirty years, new forms and mechanisms of governance have multiplied in the border regions of Europe. The French-German border has seemed to distinguish itself as an early adopter of new cooperation frameworks, often instigated by developments on the European level on the one hand and by bilateral national cooperation on the other hand. This paper delivers an analysis of French and German policies for territorial cooperation, and of the evolution of cross-border cooperation between the two countries. Taking the example of the Greater Region and the Upper-Rhine Region, we scrutinise two different representations of cross-border institutionalisation in-depth. We then discuss the renewed prospects for border regions stemming from the bilateral French-German Aachen Treaty. Following this analysis, we make use of three conceptual lenses - multi-level governance, soft spaces and interterritoriality - to reflect on the evolution of territorial cooperation across this border. In conclusion, our reflections on the French-German situation inspire recommendations for a next phase in the development of European cross-border cooperation.

Quite apart from the diversity of situations in small and medium-sized towns, stabilising their town centres is a major challenge. In both countries, town centres have been weakened by commercial changes, a decline in the supply of services and transformations in lifestyles. They are characterised by an increase in vacancy rates, which accelerates a spiralling loss of attractiveness and atmosphere of neglect. Since the beginning of the 2000s, this challenge has been central in the public debate. In both countries, urban renewal has been a key element of this revitalisation policy. However, although the context of public action is rather similar in France and Germany, the modes of governance differ. In France the administrative municipal system continues to provide a narrow and fixed framework despite recent territorial reforms that favour the intermunicipal level. In addition, cooperation, communication and participation of local actors from business and civil society are more firmly anchored in social and political practice in German small and medium-sized towns.

This chapter concentrates on institutional differences in France and Germany. The stability of the German institutional setting contrasts with the series of institutional reforms that have stretched over decades or even half a century in France. While in Germany transformation has taken the form of successive adaptations, in France the diverse reforms have been hotly debated and sometimes even contested. Often the metropolises and regions form the focus of such discussions in France. These contrasts between stability and change can also be seen in both spatial planning systems and the position of the highest level of territorial authority (régions in France and Länder in Germany). Starting from the national policy guidelines in both countries, the authors describe different territorial units, their areas of responsibility and their manifold planning instruments. They also address processes of democratisation, participation and metropolisation, the role of the European Union and various crises as drivers of the development of both systems.

The evolution of city regions and metropolises in both countries illustrates the theoretical debates on this particular geographical object. Political legitimacy, significant autonomy and a 'relevant' territorial area should form the basis of these regions. But there is a long way to go from this theoretical vision to practice. In Germany, a slow and contingent bottom-up process can be observed, whereas in France, following a long history of intermunicipality, institutional metropolises are emerging (MAPTAM law of 2014). Metropolregionen and métropoles thus differ. Germany shows incomplete and variable forms of metropolitan organisation, whereas French metropolises are satisfied with simple criteria of competences and resources. However, these 'intermunicipal' métropoles (one exception: Lyon) can also be compared with the large German cities, which are highly individualised political entities, with the city-states (e. g. Hamburg) being the most extreme cases. Two examples, Frankfurt and Lille, illustrate the comparison.