Institutional differences in Germany and France: between spatial reform and persistence

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 strengthened, and each side has developed its own tools for the management of urban projects

Russie : un système éducatif en rénovation

Le système russe d’éducation, confronté à des transformations majeures de l’économie et de la société tout entières, est l’enjeu de très importants changements. Un programme de « rénovation » est engagé par le ministère fédéral de l’Éducation. Sa mise en œuvre donne lieu à des débats et controverses passionnés tant auprès des enseignants et des élèves que dans l’opinion publique. Dans un cadre où la centralisation de la période soviétique tend à prendre des formes nouvelles, le désir de rénov..

Résumé and outlook

International audienc

Transformation in cities and regions: current themes in Germany and France - three significant points of discussion

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

Die institutionellen Unterschiede zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich - von räumlicher Reform bis Beständigkeit

Als Bundesstaat auf der einen Seite des Rheins und als Einheitsstaat auf der anderen Seite, der jedoch in den letzten 40 Jahren stärker dezentralisiert wurde, bieten Deutschland und Frankreich zwei unterschiedliche Modelle der politischen und administrativen Organisation. So haben die französischen Regionen im Vergleich zu den Bundesländern eine geringere Handlungsfähigkeit. Auf lokaler Ebene wurde die Verwaltungsstruktur in Deutschland durch die Zusammenlegung von Gemeinden gestärkt, während Frankreich sich für interkommunale Strukturen entschieden hat. Im Gegensatz zur politischen und administrativen Stabilität in Deutschland befindet sich die lokale und regionale Organisation in Frankreich in ständiger Entwicklung und ist mit einer Reihe von Gesetzen konfrontiert, deren Erarbeitungstempo sich im Laufe der Zeit beschleunigt hat. Das Gleiche gilt für die Raumordnung, die in Deutschland von Anfang an durch das Grundgesetz geregelt wurde, in Frankreich jedoch eine viel stärkere Entwicklung durchlaufen hat, auch wenn das loi d'orientation foncière (LOF Gesetz zur Ausrichtung der Bodennutzung) von 1967 und das loi solidarité et renouvellement urbain (SRU - Gesetz über urbane Solidarität und Erneuerung) (2000) zwei grundlegende Etappen darstellen. Auf beiden Seiten wurde die strategische Dimension dieser Planung gestärkt, und jede Seite hat ihre eigenen Instrumente für die Verwaltung der städtischen Projekte entwickelt.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 strengthened, and each side has developed its own tools for the management of urban projects

The development of metropolises in Germany and France

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

Les différences institutionnelles en Allemagne et en France: entre réforme territoriale et permanences

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

An open real-time photoacoustic imaging scanner

International audienc

Wandel in Städten und Regionen: Aktuelle Themen in Deutschland und Frankreich - drei wesentliche Diskussionspunkte

Kapitel 1 befasst sich mit den institutionellen Unterschieden in Frankreich und Deutschland. Die Stabilität des institutionellen Rahmens in Deutschland steht im Gegensatz zu einer Reihe von institutionellen Reformen, die sich in Frankreich über Jahrzehnte oder sogar über ein halbes Jahrhundert erstreckt haben. Während in Deutschland der Institutionenwandel in Form von sukzessiven Anpassungen erfolgte, wurden die verschiedenen Reformen in Frankreich heftig diskutiert und manchmal sogar angefochten. Häufig stehen in Frankreich die Metropolen und Regionen im Mittelpunkt solcher Diskussionen. Diese Gegensätze zwischen Stabilität und Wandel zeigen sich auch in den beiden Raumplanungssystemen und der Stellung der obersten Gebietskörperschaft (régions in Frankreich und Länder in Deutschland). Ausgehend von den nationalen politischen Leitlinien in beiden Ländern beschreiben die Autorinnen und Autoren die verschiedenen Gebietskörperschaften, ihre Zuständigkeitsbereiche und ihre vielfältigen Planungsinstrumente. Sie gehen auch auf Demokratisierungs-, Partizipations- und Metropolisierungsprozesse, die Rolle der Europäischen Union und verschiedene Krisen als Triebkräfte für die Entwicklung der beiden Systeme ein.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