Understanding Europe: The Council for European Studies book series – serie

Competition between democratic and authoritarian systems is playing out in global cities, where real property rights influence regime legitimacy and economic performance. Two questions inspire debate.Why does the property-owning middle class, which was integral to democratic development in the West, support illiberal governments? Do differences between political systems affect the success of global cities?

Marsha McGraw Olive unravels these questions by comparing urban land governance in Europe and Eurasia. Democracies largely, but not exclusively, perform better than hybrid or authoritarian regimes on real property rights, land-related regulations, and citizen engagement in urban planning. Case studies of Moscow and Istanbul show that urban real property is fundamental to regime stability, bringing wealth to average citizens and favoured elites. This formula, perfected by President Putin, bestows economic but not political benefits to middle-class property owners.

The book argues that all cities need to improve land governance to cope with twenty-first century urban challenges. Cities that respect property rights and put citizens at the centre of urban planning achieve better outcomes. In contrast, illiberal leaders who rely on opaque property deals are inciting public backlash and slowing economic growth. In the global political competition, real property rights are a chink in the authoritarian armour.

Competition between democratic and authoritarian systems is playing out in global cities, where real property rights influence regime legitimacy and economic performance. Two questions inspire debate.Why does the property-owning middle class, which was integral to democratic development in the West, support illiberal governments? Do differences between political systems affect the success of global cities?

Marsha McGraw Olive unravels these questions by comparing urban land governance in Europe and Eurasia. Democracies largely, but not exclusively, perform better than hybrid or authoritarian regimes on real property rights, land-related regulations, and citizen engagement in urban planning. Case studies of Moscow and Istanbul show that urban real property is fundamental to regime stability, bringing wealth to average citizens and favoured elites. This formula, perfected by President Putin, bestows economic but not political benefits to middle-class property owners.

The book argues that all cities need to improve land governance to cope with twenty-first century urban challenges. Cities that respect property rights and put citizens at the centre of urban planning achieve better outcomes. In contrast, illiberal leaders who rely on opaque property deals are inciting public backlash and slowing economic growth. In the global political competition, real property rights are a chink in the authoritarian armour.

The received wisdom in European integration history is that, long before the EU was plagued by Euroscepticism and other forms of contestation, there was a "permissive consensus" between European elites and the general public, which allowed European integration to move forward. This book looks beyond this presumed consensus, to ask how the members of European institutions themselves perceived and shaped their relations with European citizens during the early years of the European Communities.

It does so from the perspective of the people who were responsible for representing citizens at the European level: the members of the European Parliament (which represented European citizens) and the Economic and Social Committee (which represented European organised interests). The book follows the first generation of these European representatives in building their institutions during the 1950s and 1960s. It shows that the European representatives sought to democratise the Communities, within the constraints of the legal and institutional framework that was created with the European treaties. In doing so, the book argues, they created new path dependencies and reaffirmed existing ones, but hardly challenged the status quo – characterised later with concepts like the permissive consensus and the democratic deficit. The book shows, then, that the European representatives’ ambition to democratise the European Communities from within has shaped European integration in ways that are not fully appreciated and understood by historians and political scientists.

The received wisdom in European integration history is that, long before the EU was plagued by Euroscepticism and other forms of contestation, there was a "permissive consensus" between European elites and the general public, which allowed European integration to move forward. This book looks beyond this presumed consensus, to ask how the members of European institutions themselves perceived and shaped their relations with European citizens during the early years of the European Communities.

It does so from the perspective of the people who were responsible for representing citizens at the European level: the members of the European Parliament (which represented European citizens) and the Economic and Social Committee (which represented European organised interests). The book follows the first generation of these European representatives in building their institutions during the 1950s and 1960s. It shows that the European representatives sought to democratise the Communities, within the constraints of the legal and institutional framework that was created with the European treaties. In doing so, the book argues, they created new path dependencies and reaffirmed existing ones, but hardly challenged the status quo – characterised later with concepts like the permissive consensus and the democratic deficit. The book shows, then, that the European representatives’ ambition to democratise the European Communities from within has shaped European integration in ways that are not fully appreciated and understood by historians and political scientists.