Framing Europe on the local level – policy networks in German cities and their activities for political cohesion in Europe

ABSTRACT

Political practice and academic discourse similarly assume that the local level has the potential to strengthen political cohesion in the European Union: it is the tier closest to citizens and implements a large share of European legislation. But what political cohesion actually is and how it can be achieved is less clear. The paper addresses this gap by analysing the local framing of political cohesion in Europe. Drawing on case studies in eight German cities, local Europe-related networks are investigated, focusing on how their ideas about their role in crafting political cohesion links to their Europe-related activities.

KEYWORDS:

• Europe
• political cohesion
• framing
• Europe-related networking
• cities

1. Introduction

Recent crises in Europe have invigorated political and scholarly interest in cohesion, with appeals for strengthening cohesion gaining momentum (Quent, Salheiser, and Weber 2020). Precisely what cohesion is, and how it can be achieved, is less clear. Beyond the use of the term in relation to economic cohesion and the context of the EU’s funding policy, its usage in the sense of political or social cohesion remains contested and normatively charged (e.g. Forst 2020; Novy, Swiatek, and Moulaert 2012). In scholarly and practical discourse, however, the local level is seen as the space in which the conditions for the development of political and social cohesion are particularly favourable.

As cities are the level closest to citizens (Tausendpfund 2013), they are often seen as an important source of legitimation for the EU. They are expected to organise (political) cohesion in the European Union, as the so-called Pact of Amsterdam illustrates: ‘Urban Authorities play a crucial role in the daily life of all EU citizens. Urban Authorities are often the level of government closest to the citizens. The success of European sustainable urban development is highly important for the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the European Union and the quality of life of its citizens’ (EU Ministers Responsible for Urban Matters 2016, 3).

Among their other roles, cities are (see Atkinson and Zimmermann 2016, 414–415): administrative organisations (they implement a large proportion of national and European law), and economic (interest) actors (they host different firms, invest in infrastructure and manage funding for local projects from the EU inter alia) as well as social and political spaces. Given these multiple functions, it is likely that local actors’ (and cities’ individual inhabitants’) ideas of ‘Europe’ and ‘Europeanness’ differ from political and/or academic definitions. Therefore, it is important to investigate what local actors mean when they think or talk about Europe when we reflect on the emergence of political and social cohesion in Europe. As such, we turn our attention to the framing of Europe in the context of European policy activities at the local level.

Based on the literature on Europeanisation and on the influence of (local) networks on the collective formulation and construction or framing of ideas (cf. Baldassarri and Diani 2007; Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Davidson et al. 2019; Fischer 2003; Knoke 2011), we argue that frames of Europe are not just produced by local administrations and policymakers. Rather, they are shaped through wider networks, i.e. ‘sets’ of formal or informal linkages of public and private (entrepreneurial, civil society) actors (cf. Knoke 2011, 210–211). We expect that the local meaning of political cohesion varies with the composition and focus of local policy networks. This leads us to ask: which frames about Europe are typical within Europe-related local policy networks in German cities? And what follows from these insights on framing for the widespread expectation that the local level is a basis for the building of political cohesion in Europe? In order to answer these questions, we examined the framing of political cohesion through Europe-related local networks in German cities. We present original findings from the analysis of survey and expert interview data using eight case studies of ‘ordinary’ (in terms of their structurally predetermined interest in European matters; cf. part 3) German cities.

Our analysis contributes to the scholarly debates and empirical studies on political cohesion in Europe (see e.g. Chan, To, and Chan 2006; Deitelhoff et al. 2020) in the following ways: First, we inductively shed light on local actors’ perceptions of the assumption that cities can strengthen political cohesion in Europe. Second, our analysis looks at networks instead of just local administrations (see also Egner et al. 2022). Thus, it enhances Europeanisation literature examining the local level, and especially city administrations. Third, it lays the ground for further research on the impact of local action and framing on political cohesion in Europe, providing a foundation for different empirical case studies or contexts.

The article is divided into six parts. Following this introduction (1), we present the state of research and the theoretical points of reference for the article (2), and introduce our empirics and methodology (3). Next, we expound the results of our quantitative and qualitative research on local Europe-related networks (4). Using our empirical study, we distinguish and discuss different framings of Europe (5). Finally, we draw conclusions for the assertation that the local level has a pronounced potential to influence and shape the idea of political cohesion in Europe.

2. State of research and theoretical reference points

Our investigation is about Europeanisation: the perception and framing of ‘Europe’ and political and social cohesion in Europe. Is local politics europeanised in the sense that there are Europe-oriented networks? And what are local conceptions of a city’s role in Europe? We follow the definition of Hamedinger and Wolffhardt who define Europeanisation ‘as the interplay between actors and institutions on the European and the city level, which leads to changes in local politics, policies, institutional arrangements, discourse, actors’ preferences, values, norms and belief systems on both levels’ (2010, 28). This definition not only explicitly includes the local level and local actors but also captures the cognitive dimension of Europeanisation and thus suits our focus on frames and the underlying ideas.

When thinking about how Europeanisation works at the local level, most authors distinguish between a horizontal and a vertical axis (Guderjan and Verhelst 2021; Hamedinger and Wolffhardt 2010; Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Marshall 2005). On the vertical axis, cities and municipalities interact directly or indirectly with actors on the level of the EU. Along the horizontal axis they act in cross-border cooperation and in networks with other cities, as well as their own citizens. Following this distinction, we analytically differentiate between four forms of Europe-related local activities (Gröbe, Grohs and Porth 2023), each denoting a different manifestation of networked Europeanisation. Namely, these are downloading, i.e. the application for and use of EU funding, or the implementation of European law (Bondarouk, Liefferink, and Mastenbroek 2020; Borz, Brandenburg, and Mendez 2018; Kirlappos 2021; Zerbinati and Massey 2008); uploading, i.e. local interest representation on the national and supranational level (Huggins 2018); horizontal cross-linking, i.e. various forms of cooperation between municipalities in national and transnational exchange (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Kern and Bulkeley 2009) as well as in the context of (city) partnerships (Falkenhain, Hoelscher, and Ruser 2012; Joenniemi and Jańczak 2017); and communication, i.e. the discursive interplay between local governments and the local population concerning European issues whereby the local government aims to mobilise citizens, civil society and political actors (Barbehön 2016).

In reality, different forms of local European activities often occur in combination (e.g. networking, use of funding and communication; see e.g. Kern and Bulkeley 2009, 313) and they are seldom carried out by a single actor acting alone, but usually by several collaborating local actors. In fact, local European activities regularly involve collaboration between local governments and civil society, as well as private, e.g. economic, actors and individual citizens. So we can expect that local Europe-related networks – in addition to actively ‘doing Europe’ by different combinations of Europe-related activities – also jointly ‘spell out’ what expectations are associated with Europe, what values are projected into Europe and what Europe actually is: a polity (the EU) or a wider geographical space linked by values and cultural practices.

Before analysing the frames used in local networks, it is necessary to consider the object of networking, i.e. the idea of ‘Europeanness’ or political and social cohesion in Europe, in more detail. Studies examining the building of political cohesion distinguish between a vertical and a horizontal dimension; they denote the citizen-polity relationship and the people-to-people relationship respectively (see Chan, To, and Chan 2006; Deitelhoff et al. 2020). Both dimensions have been extensively studied in relation to Europe – the vertical dimension mostly in the sense of support for the EU as a polity (e.g. Sanders, Bellucci, and Tóka 2012, 209), and the horizontal dimension with regards to feelings of solidarity with other Europeans and the awareness of the development of a pan-European society (e.g. Recchi et al. 2017; Lahusen 2019). Studies exploring both dimensions of (European) political cohesion emphasise that organisational actors’ and also individual peoples’ support for the EU or Europe is influenced by the perception of benefits from European integration (e.g. Levy and Phan 2014). Yet, it is also shown that cues (Pannico 2017; Sanders, Bellucci, and Tóka 2012), knowledge (Clark and Hellwig 2012) and individual experience (Recchi 2017) play a role for the individual’s perspective on Europe.

We can derive two expectations about the conditions for the framing of Europe on the local level from these observations.

For one, communication about Europe and Europe-related action can be expected to have an impact on how people relate to Europe (as a polity) and to other Europeans (e.g. Barbehön 2016; Stoustrup 2021). Therefore, we should investigate how local actors frame European issues. In addition, local opportunity structures for acquiring knowledge and experience about Europe (including the ‘utilisation’ of European resources) can also play a role, such as (transnational) networks (Favell 2010) or town twinning activities (see Tausendpfund 2013).

What is more, when examining local networks’ framing activities related to Europe, we need to reflect on the interactions and linkages between public and civic – as well as organisational and individual actors within these networks. In so doing, we first draw on research on horizontal Europeanisation at the local level, which refers to intra-European, transnational relationships, activities and communicative exchange between citizens and organisations (Barbehön 2016; Falkenhain, Hoelscher, and Ruser 2012; Huggins 2018; Marshall 2005; Pasquier 2005). From this perspective, it can be assumed that (transnational) local networking, e.g. town twinning, can strengthen cohesion because it enables tangible links between the local and European levels (Huggins 2018). Horizontal Europeanisation is therefore ascribed a legitimising function in relation to European integration (Falkenhain, Hoelscher, and Ruser 2012). Moreover, we also look to research on local (civic) networks (e.g. Baldassarri and Diani 2007; Knoke 2011) and urban studies literature on the political mobilisation of local actors in the development of local policy positions in transnational networks (e.g. Acuto 2013; Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Davidson et al. 2019; Kern and Bulkeley 2009).

In addition, literature on local (civic) networks has shown the importance of inclusive networks actively engaging with administrative elites, also finding that it matters for civic organisations to have a pluralistic democratic discourse on certain ideas, their development and their translation into common activities (Baldassarri and Diani 2007, 772–773). Various scholars, e.g. Knoke, have argued that power relations which ‘rest less often on coercive force’ (2011, 211), but on consensus between differently powerful actors in a network, boundary penetration in the sense of mutual coordination of action for the achievement of a common goal, and sentimental attachments in the sense of reciprocal ‘emotional affiliations’ can be seen as a basis for mutual support and common solidaristic action (Knoke 2011, 211). These relations between networking actors seem particularly important here to understand local networks’ role in pursuing Europe-related action and framing Europe. Indeed, as König and Bräuninger (1998) find, actors are more likely to join networks if their preferences are closely represented. But as Baumgarten and Lahusen (2006) argue, networks not only emerge based on interest, but also around ideas and beliefs. Therefore, alongside material and/or utilitarian preferences (e.g. Díez Medrano 2003), we should also reconsider locally shared ‘European narratives’ (Barbehön 2016; Scalise 2015; Stoustrup 2021) as well as norms and values that actors rely on for making sense of Europe and their role in it.

Furthermore, urban and planning studies literature on the political mobilisation of local actors within transnational networks has analysed how localised transnational mechanisms contribute to the processing and interchange of ideas, interests and common knowledge (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Davidson et al. 2019, 3548). They show that different public and private local actors engage in (transnational) networking because they expect material benefits (financial resources, information, knowledge), but also because they share common beliefs and interpretations of the issue at the centre of the network (e.g. climate change) (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004, 475; Davidson et al. 2019, 3548). From this perspective, (transnational) networking is depicted as a structural basis for commonly ‘doing’ and framing Europe.

Finally, the discursive and interactive construction of common spaces is a topic of research in this field (Davidson et al. 2019, 3548–3549), and it has been suggested that transnational networks can inter alia become bases for the development of a common notion of ‘Europeanness’ as seen from the perspective on the geographical space (cf. Joenniemi and Jańczak 2017). With their particular perspectives on interest intermediation, community building and the construction of space, research into local (civic) networks and urban studies literature on transnational networks jointly enhance Europeanisation literature and provide a basis for analysing local Europe-related activities in localised networks. Therefore, we link our focus on Europeanisation to these perspectives on framing, arguing that local Europe-related networks are characterised by specific frames and contribute to the development of such frames locally.

3. Methods

To investigate local practices of framing Europe, the paper proceeds in two steps. At first, using an inductive approach, local networks of actors were identified and variations of these networks then systematised. Next, we investigated the framing of Europe within and across these networks. Empirically, we draw on qualitative case studies of eight German cities. First, in order to enable a more structured comparison, we controlled for institutional variation by keeping the framework constant – as state politics and the legal framework for municipalities are determined by the federal state, two German Länder were chosen. Second, four cities were chosen for each Land, representing bigger cities (100,000+ inhabitants) and medium-sized cities (20,000–100,000 inhabitants) with more or less financial resources – previous studies had been inconclusive whether there is a size effect (cf. Bacon 2016; Gröbe, Grohs, and Porth 2023). In order to represent ‘ordinary’ or more typical German cities,¹ we intentionally excluded border cities – given they often have different opportunity structures for engaging in European affairs due to their geographical position – and metropolises, i.e. the largest, busiest cities – as they also may have particular, e.g. economic, interests). Instead, we were interested in ‘normal’ Europe-related work in the ‘ordinary’ city. The cities chosen exhibited different levels of Europe-related activity, ranging from very active ones to cities with fewer or more focused activities. Still, we need to be aware of a potential selection bias: as with all interview studies, potential interviewees may be more inclined to participate if they are active in the field under review, here Europe-related work. Thus, we need to be cautious about drawing conclusions about seemingly ‘inactive’ cities.

From March 2022 to January 2023, interviews were conducted with different local actors belonging to local Europe-related networks: this included people engaged in municipal authorities (mayors, administrative staff in charge of European or town twinning matters), educational institutions, the local economy, and civil society organisations (local associations, e.g. those coordinating town twinning). In each city, two to six interviews were conducted (37 in sum; cf. table 1 in the Appendix) based on a semi-structured questionnaire (cf. Flick 2022, 169). They were transcribed and then coded using MAXQDA. The coding scheme was deductively developed to structure the empirical material. The frames discussed below were inductively added to the coding scheme after a first round of coding. The findings of the qualitative case studies are, by nature, not representative. However, they allow us to identify recurring patterns of Europe-related activities as well as provide an in-depth picture of the variation of municipalities’ Europe-related work. The findings of the eight case studies were, where possible, contextualized with quantitative results from an online survey conducted among all German cities with 20,000 or more inhabitants in the period 1 November 2021 to 16 January 2022. Of the 700 cities invited to the survey, 307 participated (response rate: 43.9%). The questionnaire, which was sent to city administrations, asked about the extent of the four kinds of Europe-related activities introduced earlier: uploading, downloading, horizontal cross-linking, and communication.

4. Local Europe-related networks in Germany

Local Europe-related networks take various forms. There is no generalisable structure evident within such networks in German cities. To systematise them, we first present the quantitative findings from our survey on the administrative structure of cities’ activities related to Europe which has been was answered by civil servants of different local departments in charge of organising and implementing the cities’ Europe-related work. Building on this, we use inductive reasoning to take a closer look at European networking in the eight city cases; this provides us with a more fine-grained view of networks and cooperation. Europe-related activities are shaped by a variety of local specificities like individual engagement, path dependencies, and context conditions such as local economic structure and the presence of universities etc. Thus, we can to some extent explain the lack of general predictors for local level European activities by delving deeper into these individual networks. Despite this variation, we were able identify systematic differences which could be linked to specific frames about Europe, and a city’s place within these networks.

The aforementioned survey shows that Europe-related activities are organised differently across cities. Over a third of the cities indicated that they do not have an office dealing with European affairs (36.2%). Considering that cities are probably more likely to have participated in the survey at all if they pursue European-related activities, this figure is arguably too low to be representative of all municipalities.

The most frequently confirmed point was that varying forms of Europe-related networking exist at the local level. We can distinguish two types of networks: outward-oriented networks with other cities, such as umbrella organisations, and inward-oriented networks within the city with other actors from civil society, local businesses, migrant organisations etc. An example of the former are bilateral partnerships with twin towns (pursued by 81.1% of the cities), European networks (27.8%) or national ones with a European dimension (33.4%). Activities related to civic engagement, pursued by more than two thirds of the cities (69.9%), by contrast, is an example of the development of inward-looking networks. Often, local networks develop around a city’s twinning activities. These include local civil society actors, associations, schools, or cultural institutions which cooperate within the city in developing projects for twinning and for receiving guests from the twin cities. These networks and their composition vary from city to city; they are grown and unique structures. The focus on bilateral partnerships in citie's Europe-related activities in the form of town twinning was corroborated by the case studies. Only few of the cities had staff explicitly responsible for European matters (‘Europabeauftragte’), but most employed a coordinator for twin cities, whether full- or part-time. These twinning networks differed regarding the number of partnerships (even across eight case studies studied here, the number of twin cities ranged from two to twelve), their intensity and rootedness in local civil society, and the geographic focus of the partnerships. Some citie's partnerships were exclusively European, other cities had international twin cities across the globe. These features went hand in hand with the city’s general approach to international relations and whether they took a European or more global perspective.

The case studies revealed a large variety of Europe-related networks across different cities. Some cities had partnership societies for town twinning, most often one for each specific bilateral partnership, sometimes for all the city’s twinnings. In addition, there were more loosely organised groups or individuals engaged in town twinning activities. Other relevant actors were schools, sports groups, cultural institutions and, in some cases, local economic actors. The empirical landscape of local Europe-related work differed from city to city. In one case study, the local theatre played an influential role in cultural exchange projects. In another, the city’s youth parliament was an important partner for municipal Europe-related activities.

The structure of networks depended on the structure and Europeanisation of the local economy (Lefèvre and d’Albergo 2007). Interviewees highlighted different modes of connectedness to Europe as a market and a polity that sets rules. Large multinational corporations situated within a city’s boundaries may be interested in European legislation (e.g. patent regulations), and depend on international skilled workers and European supply chains. Where the local economy is dominated by agricultural production, other European issues come to the fore: e.g. environmental legislation, agricultural subsidies. In other cases, there was a lesser degree of Europeanisation of the local economy, and consequently fewer (or different) business interest in Europe. These examples illustrate that depending on the structure of the local economy, different issues may be of interest to local policy networks. Thus, there is – just as within the administrations themselves – no generalisable structure when it comes to Europe-related local networks.

Still, there was a common theme across all eight case studies spanning the different organisational contexts and partnerships. Local administrative staff (cf. table 1 in the appendix) always stressed that their work was dependent on input from local networks and civil society. They could not do their jobs without partners in civil society, one town twinning coordinator stated, while another pointed out that, often, the city administration was only informed after there had been exchanges and these were organised by civil society, i.e. bottom-up, instead of everything necessarily being top-down. Thus, they emphasised the importance of local self-organisation.

There was not necessarily a clear distinction between administrative action and civil society activities. For example, in one case citizens supply text modules for the official twinning report of the city and the city provides resources for civil society activities (e.g. to the city’s press secretary). This also happened in other cities – civil society actors (like partnership societies) participate in shaping twinning activities, e.g. they partially organised meetings and provided private accommodation for meeting guests. Also, there are cases where private citizens were responsible for specific partnerships, for example where they speak the respective language and can communicate more easily with the other city. This suggests that private and city engagement are often interwoven.

Similarly, several respondents to the survey, when asked about the city‘s organisational structure in an open question, mentioned civil society actors like associations or committees. This illustrates that they do not necessarily draw sharp boundaries between administrative and civil society actors. Our findings therefore differ from previous findings (e.g. by Van der Heiden 2010 on urban international relations) that stressed mayoral and bureaucratic control and a lack of civil society engagement. Are these differences a recent development? Or perhaps they can be explained by other factors, e.g. structural differences such as city size, issue areas studied.

At the same time, partnerships and other Europe-related work are highly personalised and carried by individuals. This applies to civil society engagement as well as to administrations. This can be an issue of personal engagement or, where it comes to funding, a question of expertise: individuals gain knowledge about applying for funding, knowledge that is often highly specialised. Thus, the activities depend on the people who pursue them.

However, there are practical downsides to the central role of civil society actors in city’s Europe-related work – especially exchanges. Given the importance, and sometimes reliance, of individual engagement, partnerships can be extremely fragile. Partnership societies may literally die with their leaders and members. And nearly all interviewees pointed out the need to get young people engaged since many organisations are carried mainly by pensioners. Many stressed that established networks, often strengthened by personal friendships built over the years, had problems recruiting new volunteers, as the following quote from an interview with a town twinning association² shows:

This founding generation [after WWII, the authors] has been strongly involved in town twinning […] when I look at the partnerships [of this city, the authors] […], they are all suffering from the same phase-out phenomena […] the young people are missing, so this is practically a model that is somewhat expiring. (F-City, Representative of civil society town twinning association)

When these networks are carried by pensioners, there is a foreseeable problem for continuity. One city therefore strategically sends city employees to participate in the different civil society and volunteer groups. Another has a municipal representative in the partnership society run by citizens. Not to steer their work, but to provide continuity, keep organisations ‘alive’ and link city and citizen activities. One city employee we interviewed described this as relationship building, something that needs constant input and effort. Keeping networks alive and active thus requires organisers, and sometimes these need to be administratively institutionalised.

In addition to internal networks within a city, outward-oriented networks with European partners are also key. Again, these often have a person-related dimension (cf. Baldassarri and Diani 2007). Partners you work well with on a personal level are more likely to repeatedly collaborate, for example for applying for EU-funding. Many interviewees stressed the necessity of mutual trust and reliability, as this European affairs officer points out:

You always come back to each other, and maybe that’s the key. If you already have reliable partners, then you are happy to work together again on other topics. (D-City, European affairs officer/Town twinning coordinator)

Also, partner's passion for shared projects was stressed as a precondition for cooperation. This extends beyond what König and Bräuninger (1998) have described as similarity of preferences. In addition to such ‘hard’ criteria – wanting the same thing in substance – we found that ‘soft’ criteria also play a role, such as a good working atmosphere and shared morale. Thus, networks may be developed institutionally, but their success depends on personal linkages. As we will now discuss, networks also form around ideas and shared beliefs, as has been noted in the sociological literature (see Baumgarten and Lahusen 2006).

5. Local frames of Europe and political cohesion in Europe

5.1. Framing Europe locally

Our research shows that European activity is rarely organised top-down by the city administration, but in horizontal ‘polycentric’ (Baldassarri and Diani 2007, 737) networks alongside civil society. There is seldom only one network per city, but usually several smaller, partly overlapping ones. In the cities studied, there was often several networks pursuing Europe-related activities. These, despite their particularities in each city, can be typified based on their orientation towards Europe. We identified two types of networks. There are materially-oriented networks that consider Europe as a Resource (cf. Guderjan 2015 on a ‘performance-related mentality’). These networks group around the EU as a (financial) source for realising investment projects (e.g. urban development projects). In addition, there are networks that focus on an understanding of Europe as an Idea, which is to be lived and experienced and draw on notions of European identity, society, and community (cf. Barbehön 2016; Kern and Bulkeley 2009). We will show that these different ways of framing Europe correspond to specific networks. In addition, actors and networks pragmatically employ different understandings of the boundaries of Europe, either geographically – which often means non-EU states are seen as part of Europe – or politically – whereby the focus lies on EU member states.

Still, it is important to note that local actors need not be committed to a single concept, rather they employ different conceptions of Europe depending on the context. Sometimes actors act as nodes connecting different kinds of bodies, organisations, and networks. These are often local administrative staff involved in European matters who are engaged in using Europe as a Resource and furthering the European idea. Recipients of ERASMUS+ funding, for example, often framed Europe in ways that were both material and normative. Acquiring funding may be typologised as material, but funded projects often entail a strong normative underpinning. Also, we observed framings where actors argued that communicating the countable benefits in terms of, for example, freedom of movement or funding, would lead to people internalising the value of Europe as an idea. For them, the two frames are causally connected.

Often, these kinds of links were made by mayors derived from their broad focus on local economy and society. Our case studies show that in ‘ordinary’ European active (German) cities, ‘pragmatic Europeanisation’ is the dominating way to go. There co-exist (often several) differentiated frames of Europeanness and Europe. The ‘ordinary’ German cities are very Europe-active, not necessarily through urban involvement in Europe-wide functional networks (e.g. CMRE, URBACT, Eurocities), but due to a long and widespread tradition of networking through city partnerships and the use of European funding. Municipal political and/or administrative actors often play an important, entrepreneurial role in this context.

5.1.1. Europe as a resource

The most obvious form of this framing is related to European funding. Given that many European funding schemes require networks – either local ones or transnational ones with partners from other countries – building these networks to gain access to European funding was a recurring practice across the case studies. The LEADER action groups³ are an important example of these types of local networks as they connect different types of actors (economic, administrative, and civil society actors). The development of these networks is a clear Europeanisation effect as local actors strategically develop these networks in order to be eligible for funding. The same goes for larger EU-projects (e.g. ERASMUS+, Horizon2020) that require international networks. Therefore, these examples given are all grouped around the idea of Europe as a Resource.

Another manifestation of Europe as a Resource can be found in actor's focus on the expertise-building effects of their networking activities; a practice which was identified by urban studies on transnational networks (Davidson et al. 2019, 3548). Many interviewees in the case studies explained that they did not just cooperate for the sake of money or the implementation of specific projects, but that their cooperation with other cities or within the city itself helped them to professionalise, gain new insights, and develop their approaches to issues. They stressed the dimension of learning from one another and about best practices, for example for dealing with current problems like refugee administration, climate change adaptation or skilled labour shortages.

So we always have a day in the meetings where we, administration and politics, exchange information about current topics, which is becoming increasingly interesting […] climate protection was always a topic, climate crisis. What is new now, which was not quite self-evident also for me, is that the topic of the difficulties of personnel recruitment, human resources, both in the administration and in parts of the economy […] is an issue. And it was interesting to see how they tried to deal with this […]. How do you go about it, are there different approaches to dealing with certain challenges, so we really learn from each other. (H-City, Mayor)

Thus, administrative and organisational actors do not only network to realise projects, but also as some kind of training for their own institution. This is in line with previous findings (e.g. by Béal and Pinson 2014) on the importance of professionalisation via exchange. In this sense, the resource is not just monetary, but professional related to shared expertise, development, learning etc.

There were also more negative manifestations of the resource-oriented frame. These could be observed in different locations, for example, within certain administrative or social units within a city wherein the bureaucratic hurdles of applying for funding was a recurring theme. European funding schemes – such as EFRE for the east German cases or ERASMUS+ for city administrations – were perceived as too complex and required too long-time horizons as well as expertise to be of practical use. Funding processes were even seen a source of fear for city administrations who were afraid to make costly mistakes. In a similar vein, European rules for public procurement were mentioned as a hindrance for quick and effective provision of local public goods. Several of the mayors interviewed, especially from the smaller cities, stressed this problem and pointed out that it could negatively impact local citizens’ view on the EU. They felt it was an undue burden placed on them that strained their capacities as cities.

However, not only bureaucratic hurdles for realising political cohesion via the use of European resources were mentioned. Moreover, many pointed out that the material benefits of Europe went unnoticed or uncommunicated. As one mayor put it:

So these larger companies that we have here are all active throughout Europe and the purchase of raw materials is also cross-border. […] none of this would work if the European Union did not exist, if there were no more freedom from customs duties, if there were no more freedom of trade. They also say that. But they don’t write it in the newspaper and say that we are happy about Europe. They take it all for granted. (A-City, Mayor)

Thus, while local politicians and administrators think about Europe in terms of its material effects on the city and the local community, they doubt whether this is widely perceived. Other interviewees relayed examples where material benefits reached local civil society. One city administrator talked passionately about how happy and proud a local youth centre was when it received funding for energy efficient renovation from the EU (D-City, City administrator, Specialist department). In particular, administrative interviewees perceived it as their responsibility to communicate the benefits of Europe to the city.

5.1.2. Europe as an idea

In contrast to a strategic, benefit-oriented framing of Europe as a Resource, there exist normatively-oriented networks consisting of actors that refer to Europe as an Idea. These networks primarily consist of non-administrative actors: associations, loose groups of individuals, cultural actors etc. However, they are not exclusively civil society networks. European affairs officers or twin city coordinators in the local administration are often integral partners in these networks, providing a link to a city’s official Europe-related activities and networks. What they have in common is that we find ideational frames are predominantly used by actors who are engaged in organising exchanges between people (rather than goods, services, resources etc.).

Within these networks, Europe and European cooperation are conceptualised as a source of peace and mutual understanding. The Russian war on Ukraine seems to have strengthened this line of thinking about Europe. Many interviewees implicitly or explicitly referred to the actuality of peace and coexistence given this conflict. When asked about their understanding of cohesion in Europe, interviewees often referred to these overarching ideas of Europe as a peace project. Interestingly, EU notions of cohesion as a predominantly socio-economic concept did not feature prominently in these understandings of Europe as an idea. Sometimes, interviewees stressed that getting to know the lives of other Europeans helped value one’s own situation and wealth. But this was rarely linked to an idea of Europe as a space for alignment of living conditions.⁴ More often, it was a story about getting to know the other part and value diversity, both of culture and of wealth. One interviewee even considered exchanges a kind of ‘vaccination’ (D-City, town twinning association) against racism and intolerance. Another picture used by interviewees was that of ‘building bridges’ (e.g. C-City, cultural organisation; F-City, town twinning association), stressing the connections and links created by interaction.

The narrative about Europe in these ideational networks is about transactions and social bonding (cf. Baldassarri and Diani 2007, 743 and 745). Interviewees argued that exchange and travel are the basic sources of understanding Europe and feeling European. They were convinced that taking part in exchanges, for example, fundamentally alters peoples’ perspectives. One quote from a town twinning officer illustrates this:

The feedback from within the city is always very different, depending on whether someone has already had experience in the European context or not. […] when the encounter has taken place, or even when people are already familiar with it, then they are enthusiastic. […] Before that, you often get the question, well, what am I supposed to do with it, what’s the point, […]. But anyone who has done this once in their life has understood it. (E-City, Town twinning coordinator)

Experience, emotions and ‘doing Europe’ were much more important for local actors when addressing the local public, than informing them about the EU and its workings. Thus, the individual citizen is understood as the source of political cohesion in Europe because their attitudes matter and these are shaped by their experiences. Interviewees emphasised these linkages, noting that getting to know other Europeans, their cultures, food, habits, and ways of life triggers reflections about one’s own life and a recognition of what is important in life. Encounters amongst Europeans are described as ‘icing on the cake’, as ‘invaluable’, and unforgettable (e.g. B-City, School Headmaster; C-City, town twinning association).

Neglect of informing the public featured both in the survey and the case studies. In the survey, only a minority (roughly a third) of respondents stated that informing about Europe or the EU was a regular part of their activities. This observation was corroborated in the case studies. Information-sharing played a marginal role in interviewees accounts of their activities. Instead, they highlighted activities that fostered a European experience – these included exchanges with twin cities and travel, but also European-focused or sponsored festivals and other events or projects in the city itself.

Not all interviewees were convinced that classic exchanges, e.g. citizen and school trips to a twin city, could substantially contribute to European cohesion. They argued that organised group exchanges, especially voluntary ones for citizens, had increasingly lost their appeal given the ease of opportunities for individual travel in Europe. The same was observed for pupils who interviewees deemed to have grown less interested in exchanges, with an exception for overseas ones with the US. As a result, cities were searching for new formats when organising European experiences – this ranged from long-term projects (e.g. the German-wide format Live democracy! which supports micro-projects on local democracy) to new media and virtual exchanges to Europe-related cultural events in the city itself. These newer developments are also a source of experience and interaction but work differently from the ‘classic’ approach. Despite these practical worries, interviewees who focused on Europe as an Idea tended to be more positive about the local potential to strengthen political and social cohesion in Europe than those arguing in terms of Europe as a Resource.

5.1.3. Flexible boundaries: Europe as a space and a polity

Alongside the distinction between material and normative frames of Europe, there are different conceptions of the breadth of Europe (Jensen and Richardson 2004). Europe is either considered in geographical terms. Then, spatial proximity is the reference point. In material conceptions, this plays a role for benefitting from proximity (e.g. in economic terms). Close neighbours, irrespective of their status as EU members, are a logical partner for cooperation to a mutual gain. In normative conceptions, it is about coexistence and the acceptance of the Other beyond the borders of the EU as a polity. This was reflected in interviewees' statements about twin cities that are geographically located in Europe but not (yet) EU members. Interviewees did not distinguish between these partnerships and those with cities in EU member states. They generally stressed the ideational dimension of getting to know one another, as well as learning about other people’s habits, culture, and way of life, to gain a feeling of Europeanness and togetherness. This can be illustrated with the following quote from a mayor, who enthusiastically stressed the irrelevance of formal borders in Europe:

Europe is a great discovery for me, too, because I actually don’t know any borders anymore, except for the Belarusian or Russian border. My border is the sea, for example, because I can’t get any further there by car. (…) That is my border. My border is not a man-made barbed wire fence. (B-City, Mayor)

In contrast to the geographical understanding of Europe as a continent, Europe is also conceptualised as a polity – wherein the focus lies on the European Union (EU) and its various administrative, legal, political and economic competences, multi-level governance and decision-making processes. From a material standpoint, for example, the strength arising from joint action on a global scale (both economically and politically) is mentioned. Interviewees stated that each EU member state, even Germany, was ‘too small’ to be successful on its own. Normative ideas that rely on a conceptualisation of Europe as a polity refer to the founding ideas of the European integration as a peace project rather than a project of economic cooperation and a free market.

These different boundaries of Europe are drawn depending on the context. Considering Europe as a geographical place in one context does not preclude looking at Europe as the EU in another. Often this was implicit; interviewees seldom defined what conception of Europe they were talking about, and nor did this seem too important to them. Their approach was pragmatic. This confirms existing literature which tells us that EU spatial concepts are not necessarily adopted by member states (see Cotella 2020). Our findings show that at the local level, too, spatial conceptions are diverse.

5.2. Local framings of Europe as a basis for political cohesion in Europe?

This study explores the different local framings of Europe through empirical research of frames produced by the Europe-related activity networks in the German cities, and two distinct trajectories emerge. On one hand, Europe is equated to the EU and, thus, to the corresponding geographical imagination of the EU being primarily thought of as a political system and economic space. Representatives of the corresponding local networks consisting of city administrations, economic and (partly) functional actors (e.g. schools) emphasise (worldwide) economic potency and opportunities, the common (internal) market as well as the aspect of resource (re)distribution as typical for Europe. However, ‘Europe as a polity’ is not an exclusively utilitarian perspective of Europe. Europe as the EU is also described – especially against the background of current events such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine – as a political and social peace project.

On the other hand, Europe is portrayed more vaguely, as geographic entity reaching beyond the borders of the EU and is conceived as a social and cultural space in which the respective local network's own Europe-related activities take place. In the latter, civil society, through organisations such as twinning associations, but also individual citizens, hold an influential role. Representatives of these networks associated Europe primarily with (social, cultural, sporting, etc.) exchange between individuals, mutual acquaintance and understanding

First, with regard to the academic debate on political cohesion in Europe, the added value of a conceptualisation that distinguishes between a horizontal and a vertical dimension of cohesion (e.g. Chan, To, and Chan 2006; see part 2) becomes apparent in light of the case studie's results. The vertical dimension of political cohesion in Europe is, by focusing on the relation to polity and economic space, logically linked to the EU’s borders. The horizontal dimension, in turn, can accommodate broader notions of Europe as a space beyond its political borders, since it focuses on peoples’ relationships with each other. So, from the perspective of the empirical study of framing Europe in German cities, it makes sense to use a concept of cohesion that integrates vertical and horizontal dimensions.

Second, our results indicate that there is the potential to create social and political ties across national borders via the local level. This potential – as the case studies suggest even though, as noted, these cannot claim representativeness – is inherent in quite ‘ordinary’ cities, larger but also smaller ones, economically stronger but also weaker ones, and unfolds independently of the voluntary nature of European policy activities pursued by municipalities in Germany. In addition to transactional activities, social bonding activities are pursued by local networks which bring together local elites, civic organisations, and citizens, thus laying the foundation for political cohesion in the EU. In this context, however, the case studies also imply that Europe-related boundary-spanning activities of local actors do not stop at the borders of the EU, but have since long reached beyond those borders.

Thirdly, it emerges that cross-border networking activities led by civil society, e.g. in the context of town twinning, are changing and, for various reasons, are increasingly on shaky ground. Associations coordinating these types of activities face several issues, e.g. recruitment problems. At the same time, the more or less formalised town twinning arrangements are often no longer seen as up to date. In contrast, other networking and relationship formats, such as joint cross-border schooling or exchanges between sports clubs, are gaining in importance. All in all, regardless of the format, the commitment of local elites, and sometimes even more the commitment of civil society organisations and/or individual citizens, is important. In fact, as these case studies show, the basis for political cohesion arises from two strands, i.e. formal, inter alia economic and administrative relations on the one hand, and cross-border civil society networking on the other. Both variants ultimately remain discretionary, due to the voluntary nature of European activities in Germany, but can be supported by the state and/or the EU through appropriate funding offers.

6. Conclusion

It is widespread assumed in political and scholarly debate that the local level has an important role to play when it comes to political cohesion in Europe. The literatures on EU support (vertical dimension of political cohesion) and on horizontal Europeanization (horizontal dimension of political cohesion) have, inter alia, pointed out the importance of cues, of utility of the EU (or perceptions and ideas thereof) and of the provision of opportunities for experiencing Europe. Arguably, these also apply to the local level: How local actors frame Europe and what role they ascribe their municipality in Europe may be relevant for political cohesion.

In this paper, we argued that networks of local actors form around two frames about Europe: one material frame that takes Europe as a resource for local action (e.g. by way of EU funding), and a normative frame that considers Europe as an idea that can be spread by experience and European practice, for example exchanges and interaction with other Europeans. The material and the normative frame correspond to two important factors for explaining support for the EU (vertical dimension of political cohesion): utility and identity (see for example Garry and Tilley 2009; Hooghe and Marks 2004; Levy and Phan 2014). The material frame addresses the issue of a local benefit from the EU, while the normative frame reverberates identification with Europe and its ascribed values. These two types empirically overlap and are found across the large variety of local networks that develop given the varying local framework conditions and needs. Furthermore, networks pragmatically change and shift their understandings of Europe’s boundaries. Depending on the context, they view Europe geographically, including non-EU states, or politically, focussing on the EU also as a polity and its members. In fact, this is where our research complements the existing literature. We can show that, in ‘ordinaryordinary’ European active (German) cities, differentiated ‘pragmatic Europeanisation’ dominates. This Europeanisation is based on differentiated local networks. It is anchored at grassroots level among citizens (particularly through town-twinning networking) and is also supported by local (political, administrative, civil society, economic) actors through the carefully selective use of funding and targeted, thematic communication activities.

Administrative actors often take a nodal role in these networks; they are part of both materially and normatively-oriented networks. However, local Europe-related networks are fragile: they depend on civil society, individual engagement and personal expertise. Thus, largely lacking institutionalisation, they can vanish or change quickly as observed in some of the case studies.

What can we learn from this study’s findings? First of all, a city’s Europe-related activities can best be understood in the context of a broader local Europe-related network. Our findings thus add context to (political science and urban studies) research that focusses on local administrations, their Europeanisation and Europe-related activities alone. Second, the dominant frames identified here can be linked to the debates about EU-support that have discussed the role of utilitarian and identity-related drivers for EU-support on the individual level. Our study shows that actors rely on both kinds of ideas of Europe and that it also depends on the context (size of cities, economic structure, wealth, distance to European border etc.) which is stressed more. Third, when approaching the idea of political cohesion, we can see that local Europe-related networks and their framings of Europe make a difference for the definition of political cohesion both in the horizontal and in the vertical dimension. As particularly the case studies have shown, resources play an important role for cities to build and sustain Europe-related networks forming the basis for cohesive structures. However, sentimental affiliations and exchange amongst organisational actors and their members, single cities are as well important drivers of Europe-related activities.

Finally, our findings can be of interest beyond German cities. Especially our focus on ‘ordinary’ cities instead of the absolute forerunners, border cities or metropolises, allows comparisons to a wide range of European cities and their day-to-day Europe-related practices. Cities across Europe face similar challenges, as our case studies have shown regarding twin towns. And they share the challenge of being the level closest to citizens, but not being formally part of the decision-making process in the EU beyond advisory functions. Thus, their different administrative structures and legally defined competences notwithstanding, they all have to find their place in the European multilevel system and decide on their role and self-image.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all interview partners and all those who granted us field access for our research work. We are also grateful to those who provided constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01UG2108A and 01UG2108B].

Notes

1. At the end of 2022, there were a total of 2,992 cities in Germany (Destatis 2023). These are divided into ‘small towns’ (5,000 to 20,000 inhabitants), ‘medium-sized towns’ (20,000 to under 100,000 inhabitants) and ‘large towns’ (more than 100,000 inhabitants) (Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) 2023). Most of these (2,278) fall into the ‘small towns’ category. In addition, there are 629 ‘medium-sized cities’ and 82 ‘large cities’ (Destatis 2023). Due to their size and consequent small city administration, small towns are more dependent on their respective county (‘Landkreis’) that takes on administrative tasks for its member municipalities. Therefore, it is difficult to clearly attribute Europe-related activities to the municipal administration. Consequently, we chose medium-sized and large towns for our sample. The European work of the counties and the interaction between the member municipalities and the district offers an intriguing subject for further research.

2. All quotes from the interviews – originally in German – were translated by the authors.

3. The LEADER action groups consist of different public, civil society and private actors gathering around a common interest in using EU agricultural funding (LEADER) locally. These groups draft common local projects to be funded and apply for funding.

4. One civil society interviewee who was organising a project for Roma children in the city’s Romanian twin city is a counterexample. The project is specifically directed at opening opportunities for education of the disadvantaged kids (C-City, Representative of civil society town twinning association).

Appendix

 

Table A1. Overview of interviews in case municipalities.

A-City	Mayor
	City administrator, Specialist department
	Business development representative
	Civil society association (representative)
	School (Headmaster)
B-City	Mayor
	Town twinning coordinator (City administration)
	Business development representative
	School (Headmaster)
C-City	Town twinning coordinator (City administration)
	City administrator, Specialist department
	Representative of economic association 1
	Representative conomic association 2
	Cultural organisation
	Civil society town twinning association (representative)
D-City	City administrattion: European affairs officer + Town twinning coordinator
	City administrator, Specialist department
	Business development representative
	Civil society town twinning association 1 (representative)
	Civil society town twinning association 2 (representative)
	School (Headmaster)
E-City	City administration: Town twinning coordinator + Europe Direct-officer
	Civil society town twinning association 1 (representative)
	Civil society town twinning association 2 (representative)
	School (Headmaster)
	Representative of city youth parliament
F-City	Mayor
	City administrator, Specialist department (Business) + Europe Direct-officer
	School (Headmaster)
	Civil society town twinning association 1 (representative)
	Civil society town twinning association 2 (representative)
G-City	Mayor
	City administrator, Specialist department
H-City	Mayor
	Town twinning coordinator (City administration)
	Civil society town twinning association (representative)
	Europe Direct-officer

Own table.