Sources of Legitimacy in Metropolitan Governance: A Comparative Case Study of Governance Structures

ABSTRACT

Legitimacy is a central factor in democratic administrative systems, as it determines the success-or failure-of governance structures. In this article, we search for the sources of legitimacy in metropolitan governance by focusing on governance tiers and mechanisms. Auckland, Dublin, Oslo, and Montreal serve as empirical examples. We highlight the strengths and limitations of different types of metropolitan governance structures, and identify factors that may help to establish long-lasting governance structures. To be legitimate, metropolitan governance must take place at a contextually legitimate administrative level, and the governance mechanisms must be in harmony with a legitimate administrative actor.

KEYWORDS:

• Metropolitan governance
• legitimacy
• governance structures
• city-regions

Notes

^1. The relations between government tiers in different administrative traditions (Napoleonic, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian) vary and define which governance structures are considered appropriate (see, e.g., Greve & Rykkja, 2016).