"I Want To Be Like That Too": Copenhagenisation As A Role Model

Geographies of a Globalizing Europe: Final Paper Viviana Herrera: 4Cities
“I want to be like that too”:

Copenhagenisation as a role model

*Research question: To what extent can you understand the transformation of planning in your
city as a process of Europeanization?

I. Introduction.

In 2014 Copenhagen was designated as European Green Capital by a jury that was "impressed
with the city's "pioneering efforts to expand its green economy". In 2009, the Danish capital
launched its Climate Plan - in collaboration with companies, universities and civil society - to
meet the goal of becoming the world's first carbon-neutral city by 2025. In recent decades the
city has established a global image by being recognized and recognizing itself as "the best city
in the world for cyclists", "the best city to live in" (European Union 2013: 16-20), "a city where
you can fill your lungs with fresh air" (København Teknik- og Miljøforvaltningen 2012: 5).
Although Denmark became a member of the European Union in 1973, it was not until the
1990s that it began to give priority to European policy within its own policies. Since then, the
Danish capital became the "green room" (Böhme 2002: 75) of European environmental policy,
not only by the placement of the European Environmental Agency (EEA) in 1994, but when it
began to be recognized for its efforts to achieve a more environmentally friendly mobility. Such
has been the admiration for its environmental efforts that more cities in the world want to be like
Copenhagen. To name a few, Jan Gehl, the star Danish architect who has been recognized for
pioneering human-scale urban design since the 1960s – a time when modernism was
dominant and cities were thought of more for cars than people – has been hired by the city
councils of more than 100 cities around the world in the past two decades (Cathcart-Keys &
Waring 2016), including Hamburg, New York City and Mexico City (URL: 1). European cities are
no exception, they also want to be like it and learn from it. In 2018, Copenhagen was selected
by the European Union – among two other European capitals: Amsterdam and Munich – to be
the mentor of ten highly-motivated EU cycling cities. This is part of the Handshake program,
running from September 2018 to February 2022, and which is funded by Horizon 2020, called
the "biggest research and innovation program ever." The aim of this paper is to show how this
is a case of "the transfer of innovative urban practices to the supranational arena, resulting in
the incorporation of local initiatives in pan-European policies or programmes", also known as
"upload or bottom up Europeanization" (Marshall 2005: 672); but it also leads to the need to
ask whether it is necessary to talk about more of a Copenhagenisation than a Europeanization,
1
in which the Danish capital is considered a role model. To achieve this, not only will
Copenhagen be positioned within Europe, but also within the Scandinavian and Nordic cities to
understand its role at a global level.

II. Copenhagen: a European city?

Denmark joined the European Union in 1973, in the second wave of enlargement, at the same
time as the United Kingdom and Ireland. Despite this, it has been considered as a "rather
hesitant EU Member" (Böhme 2002: 56). Within its first 25 years of EU membership, it preferred
intergovernmental co-operation rather than supranationality (ibid. ). The best example for this, is
its refusal to become part of the Single European Market, because it preferred to keep its own
currency – the Danish krone –, a decision that was submitted to a referendum in 2000, which
resulted in a majority of 53.1% deciding to do so.

Before 1989, national urban policy was mostly inward-looking, with a focus on regional
development within Denmark (Anders, Hansen & Lund: 861), as, in the 1960s and 1970s,
spatial planning was institutionalized (Jensen and Jørgensen 2000: 34). In terms of
environmental policy-making, the country maintained a relatively low level compared to the EU,
between 1987 and 1992, while other member states such as Germany and the Netherlands
were more active (Andersen 1997a: 281). Just as Denmark relies on the EU Treaty to remain
outside the euro area, in environmental matters it used Article 130 as the legal basis of the EU,
for maintaining its strict domestic standards, for this regulation provides minimum standards
that allows member states to do so (ibid) .

With the neoliberal trend that spread throughout most of the West, Denmark began to look
more towards the EU. In terms of environmental policy, it was readjusted to look towards the
EU. In 1993, the then Minister for the Environment, Sven Auken, gave a higher priority to
international and European policies, while at the same time pushing Danish green policies to an
international level. With the publication of the report "Denmark and the European Planning
Policy", Auken laid the foundation for developing Denmark's image as the "green room in the
European house" (Böhme 2002: 75). Thus, Denmark's environmental role in relation to the EU
became more active, especially with the placement of the European Environmental Agency
(EEA) in its capital in 1994 and the appointment of Ritt Bjerregaard as European Commissioner
for the Environment from 1994 to 1999.
2

In the meantime, Copenhagen’s planning strategies began to address the new socio-spatial
context of increased urban competition (Jensen & Jørgensen: 2000). Andersen & Jørgensen
(1999) recall that the key point of this "shift away from an inwardly oriented towards an
outwardly oriented policy" occurred on 20 March 1990, in a debate in the Danish Parliament on
the future of the capital. At that time, the then Prime Minister Poul Schlüter presented a series
of measures to make Copenhagen "the centre of power in Scandinavia". Danish urban policy
was inspired by the reorientation in the United Kingdom, where London also became the
nation's "great locomotive" (Anders, Hansen & Lund: 861).

Based on this, between 1989 and 1992, the Danish government established the basis for
switching from a redistributive to a growth and development agenda in Copenhagen, which
evolved from being a city among many cities in Denmark to becoming a national priority. This
also set the tone for a shift from urban government to urban governance (Anders, Hansen &
Lund: 861).

For these reasons, and despite its specific planning dynamics (which will be explained later),
Copenhagen is also a typical European capital, as a significant proportion of its national
population and economy are based there, and it has an urban core and a belt of suburban
areas (Fertner 2012: 17-18). In terms of population, the four provinces that make up the
Greater Copenhagen Area account for 35% of Denmark's total population, according to
Statistics Denmark. In the last four months of 2019, 2,059,453 people live in this area, while at
national level the population is 5,827,463.

Greater Copenhagen Area 2019Q1 2019Q2 2019Q3 2019Q4
Byen København 784,618 787,861 787,645 795,510

(Copenhagen City)
Københavns omegn 547,534 547,994 548,317 549,114

(Copenhagen surroundings)
Nordsjælland 463,748 464,133 464,619 464,668

(North Zealand)
Østsjælland 249,359 249,557 249,831 250,161

(East Zealand)
Total GCA: 2,045,259 2,049,545 2,050,412 2,059,453
All Denmark 5,806,081 5,811,413 5,814,461 5,827,463

*Source: Author
3

As for its economic development, like most European capitals, Copenhagen's GDP per
inhabitant is above the national level: at its highest peak – in 2010 – it was 47% higher.

*Source: author based in Eurostats

In addition to its political and economic importance within Denmark, Copenhagen shares some
of the characteristics of the reinterpretation of Max Weber's "European city" by Arnaldo Basco
and Patrick Le Galès (Häussermann & Haila 2005: 52 - 61):

1. City landownership and long-term planning perspective: The Finger Plan has been the
planning document for the Greater Copenhagen Area since 1947 and has had several
updates over time, the latest being in 2013.
2. Tradition of town planning: with the 2007 reform, the Planning Act, the national planning
system of Denmark, gave more planning competence and responsibility to the
municipalities, reducing them from 271 to 98, as well as to the regions, which went
from 13 to 5.
3. Visions of urban development: The Danish Planning Act states that its main purpose is
to secure the interests of society, with respect for land use, in order to achieve
sustainable development. It also ensures public participation in any planning process at
all levels through the right of reply.
4. Welfare state: “post-war government in Copenhagen was formed largely by the political
and administrative construction of a welfare state” (Anders, Hansen & Lund: 857), which
4
was embodied physically by urban planning (Andersen & van Kempen 2003: 79). This is

sustained by high tax payments, which make Denmark the third nation with the highest
tax-to-GDP, according to Eurostat last report, published in October 2019.

However, according to Andersen and Clark (2003), the Scandinavian welfare state differs in
many ways from others. Both authors distinguish between three regimes: 1) liberal or
Anglo-Saxon: characterized by "modest and means-tested assistance and benefits to payers",
2) corporate or continental: with a more generous provision, and 3) "the smaller social
democratic or Scandinavian": characterized by being more generous in provision, it is inclusive
of all regimes and aims to provide equitable support to all people, regardless of their position in
the labour market. This is where regionalisation within Europe itself comes in because, even
though it is part of the EU, Denmark has always considered itself a Scandinavian and Nordic
country. For this reason, it is necessary to look at this region to understand the role of
Copenhagen worldwide.

III. Copenhagen: more Scandinavian and Nordic than European.

Copenhagen's economic development is above many European cities. Andersen, Clark & Lund
(2001: 856) argue that there is a competitive relationship for international investment to increase
attractiveness with its European neighbours: Stockholm, Hamburg and Berlin. When comparing
the GDP per capita of the last two cities with that of Copenhagen, it is clear that the Danish
capital is above both, even well above Berlin by over 54% (as was the case in 2017, when
Copenhagen's GDP per inhabitant was of 70,100 € while Berlin's was 37,900 €). However, the
competition is more pronounced in relation to Hamburg, since its GDP has moved the furthest
away in 2010, when the Danish capital was 51% higher than the Hanseatic city. Even so, the
former is higher than the latter. And what can be said regarding its relationship with the
European Union's GDP per inhabitant, even at its highest peak – in 2017, when it was 30,000 €
–, Copenhagen had a 58% advantage over it.

5


On the contrary, when comparing Copenhagen with its Nordic neighbours, it is more evident
that the difference in economic performance is almost non-existent between them, except for
the case of Oslo, for its country does not belong to the European Union and its GDP per
inhabitant exceeded that of Helsinki by up to 55% – as it happened in 2012, when the former
was 105,100 € while the latter's was 48,200 € –. On the other hand there is clear competition
and similarity between Stockholm and Copenhagen: the GDP of the the Swedish capital only
differed by 500 € from the Danish capital in 2013.

6

Copenhagen identifies itself more as a Scandinavian and Nordic city than a European one.
Even in 1990, then Danish Prime Minister Poul Schlüter made this very clear, when he
presented, in a debate in Parliament on the future of the capital city, a series of measures
aimed at what he called "making Copenhagen the central power in Scandinavia" (Gaardmand
1993: 268). Not only at the European level, but also at the international level, the Nordic
position has traditionally been conditioned to be “different from Europe and better than Europe”
(Wæver 1992).

Scandinavians believe that there is a big difference between their “small, coherent and peaceful
societies and the larger, conflict-ridden and aggressive European (and American) states”
(Böhme 2002: 70). Moreover, Simonsen and Öhman consider that “Nordic countries have
probably undergone a smoother modernisation than most other countries in Europe” (2003: 1).
Furthermore, Andersen & Clark (2003) define Scandinavian model as a “social democratic”, for
it is “more generous”, as its political goal is “to provide equal support if needed, regardless of
position in the labour market” (n.p.). The key is – mainly – their welfare state.

In fact, Denmark defines its welfare state as a system in which taxes collected in the form of
"income tax, VAT, duties and customs duties" are used to provide public services from its
state, regions and municipalities (Skatte Styrelsen 2018: 4). This is what they call "the unwritten
social contract", since all citizens residing in their territory who have a job know that they must
contribute to the welfare of children, young people, the disabled, the unemployed and
pensioners through the payment of taxes. This is what makes it work: a regressive system, as
redistribution occurs from the "wealth from the more affluent to the less affluent in society"
(ibid.).

This system works successfully thanks to a feature that could also be considered as unique
from Copenhagen and Denmark: a high level of trust and a high level of voluntary work
compared to the rest of Europe (URL: 2). Trust starts from "people you've never met" to public
institutions like the government, the police and the health services. And this is also considered
to be a consequence of being part of the Nordic region, according to anthropologists, who
argue that the area "has been a relatively peaceful nook of Europe, with fewer devastating wars
and bloody revolutions than other parts of the continent. (ibid.). Actually, Denmark is top of the
list in 2018 Corruption Perception Index, amongst 180 countries.

7

IV. Copenhagenisation through a Handshake

Undoubtedly, Copenhagen shares some aspects of the European city, but more with the
Nordic and Scandinavian cities. But above all, what the Danish capital likes to share is its
knowledge: how it has managed to consolidate itself as a city recognised worldwide for its
sustainable cycling mobility. Although it dates back to 1807, when it was used to refer to the
confiscation of ships defeated during the Battle of Copenhagen, the term Copenhagenisation
has taken on a new use to refer to “a design strategy centred around making a city more
accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians, and less car dependent… Copenhagenisation is how
to improve the quality of sustainable urban life” (European Union 2013: 40).

To Copenhagenise more cities, in 2018 the Danish capital was invited to participate in
Handshake, an initiative to help cities to "become more liveable places by improving the
conditions for cycling as a daily mode of transport" (URL: 3). The effort is 100% funded by
Horizon 2020, considered as "the EU's biggest research and innovation program ever" (ibid.)
and is part of the CIVITAS Initiative, which aims to support cities in making their transition to
two-wheeled mobility. Considering cities as "hubs of cycling innovation and expertise", the EU
chose Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Munich as "mentors" to share their cycling experience
with 10 other European “mentee’s” cities: Bordeaux, Brugge, Cadiz, Krakow, Helsinki,
Manchester, Rome, Riga, Torino, Dublin.

Specifically, Handshake chose Copenhagen for its high quality of life, its livable urban
environment and its efforts to combine sustainable solutions with economic development. This
case is an "upload Europeanization", defined by Marshall (2005: 671) as the "transfer of
innovative urban practices to the supranational arena, resulting in the incorporation of local
initiatives in pan-European policies or programmes". The Copenhagen innovations that the EU
seeks to transfer to the "mentee's" cities are the following:

● Demonstrate that private financing can be used to build cycling infrastructure that
provides accessibility and attractiveness to other areas of the city
● Use municipal plans to attract private developers to build cycling infrastructure within
their projects to make new buildings.
● Develop a design manual for all bicycle infrastructure to shorten the implementation
process.
8
● Customize traffic modelling tools to calculate bicycle traffic capacity and flow.
● Conduct annual surveys to determine the sense of safety, liveability and accessibility of
cyclists.

But it goes again: the Danish capital is not a separate entity nor is it above the EU in many
respects, as it assumes that it has to learn from other cities in its goal to establish itself as the
world's most cycling country. So when Handshake was launched, the Mayor of Technical and
Environmental Affairs in Copenhagen, Ninna Hedeager Olsen (Kristensen 2018), acknowledged
that her city "can still learn a thing or two". In particular, the challenges Copenhagen faces are
to consolidate a network of bicycle parking – a complex need in a city with pressure on its
urban space –, and to deal with bicycle traffic, which due to high user demand, the city has
congestion in its bicycle lanes. This is something Handshake hopes to learn from Amsterdam's
experience.

V. Conclusion and research outlook

In order to understand Copenhagen, it must be approached more as a Scandinavian and
Nordic city than a European one. However, it should not be left aside either the aspects that, in
general, make it a European city, while taking into account that its particular and accentuated
characteristics coincide more with the Scandinavian model of welfare state. Thus, its urban
planning, which has led it to be considered as the most cycling city in the world, is the result of
this specificity. In the future, it would be worth understanding to what extent reaching the
"Copenhagen model" is feasible for other cities, since it is a consequence of its own path
dependence: from a form of government of its own, an excellent system of public services
supported by the payment of high taxes and a society with its own culture in which trust and
volunteerism are central to making all this possible.

9

References:

Andersen, Hans Thor; Clark, Eric. 2003. Does Welfare matter? Ghettoisation in the welfare
state. In: Öhman, J.; Simonsen, K. (eds.): Voices from the North. New trends in Nordic Human
Geography: n.p.

Andersen, M.S. 1997. Denmark. In: M. Jänicke and H. Weidner (eds.): National Environmental
Policies. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 157-173.

Böhme, K. 2002. Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning: Discursive Integration in
Practice. Nordregio, Stockholm: Radboud University Nijmegen.

European Union. 2013. Copenhagen. European Green Capital 2014, Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.

Eurostat. 2019. Taxation in 2018. Tax-to-GDP ratio up to 40.3% in EU. A one-to-two ratio
across Member States.

Fertner, C. 2012. Urbanisation, Urban Growth and Planning in the Copenhagen Metropolitan
Region with Reference Studies from Europe and the USA. In: Forest & Landscape, University of
Copenhagen. Forest and landscape research, No. 54.

Hansen, Anders Lund; Andersen, Hans Thor; Clark, Eric. 2001. Creative Copenhagen:
Globalization, Urban Governance and Social Change. In: European Planning Studies 9:7:
851-869.

Häussermann, H.; Haila A. 2005. The European city: a conceptual framework and normative
project. In: Kazepov, Y. (ed.): Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and
the Challenge to Urban Cohesion: 43-63.

Heimgartner, A.; Roar, S. 2016. The Welfare Society – an Aim for Social Development, Zürich:
LIT.

Howard Grøn, C.; Nedergaard, P.; Wivel, A. 2015. The Nordic Countries and the European
Union. Still the other European community?, Routledge. New York.

Jensen, O.B. and Jørgensen, I. 2000. Danish Planning: The Long Shadow of Europe. In: Built
Environment 26:1:31-40.

Katz, B.; Noring, L. 2017. The Copenhagen city and port development corporation: A Model
for Regenerating Cities. Massachusetts: Centennial Scholar Initiative.

Marshall, A. 2005. Europeanization at the urban level: local actors, institutions and the
dynamics of multi-level interaction. In: Journal of European Public Policy 12:4: 668-86.

10
Cathcard-Keays, Athlyn; Warin, Tim. 2016. Story of cities #36. how Copenagen rjected 1960s
modernist ‘utopia’. In: The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/05/story-cities-copenhagen-denmark-modernis
t-utopia

Kristensen, Mai-Britt. 2018. Europe’s best cycle cities to spread the joy of cycling. In: Cycling
Embassy of Denmark.
http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2018/10/08/europes-best-cycle-cities-to-spread-the-joy-of-cy
cling/

Christensen, Emil Mey. 2019. New cycling solutions platform to benefit cities and regions
worldwide. In: Cycling Embassy of Denmark.
http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2019/06/24/new-cycling-solutions-platform-to-benefit-cities-a
nd-regions-worldwide/

URL 1. Gehl Projects. https://gehlpeople.com/work/projects/ [Last Accessed Dec. 25th, 2019].

URL 2. denmark.dk. Trust. A cornerstone of Danish Culture.
rd
https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/trust [Last Accessed Jan. 3 , 2020].

URL 3. handshakecycling.eu. Bringing together 13 of Europe’s top cycling cities to share and
inspire excellence. https://handshakecycling.eu/ [Last Accessed Jan. 3rd, 2020].

URL 4. handshakecycling.eu. Copenhagen. https://handshakecycling.eu/copenhagen [Last
Accessed Jan. 3rd, 2020].

URL 4. handshakecycling.eu. Planning, Regulations and Standards.
https://handshakecycling.eu/solutions/development#CPH6 [Last Accessed Jan. 3rd, 2020].

URL 5. Copenhagenize Index 2019. Our Methodology.
th
https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/about/methodology [Last Accessed Jan. 5 , 2020].

URL 6. European Commission. What is Horizon 2020?
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020 [Last Accessed Jan. 3rd,
2020].

URL 7. European Commission. The aims of the Innovation Union.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-poli
cy/innovation-union_en [Last Accessed Jan. 3rd, 2020].

URL 8. The Civitas Initiative. City VITAlity and sustainability. https://civitas.eu/about [Last
Accessed Jan. 3rd, 2020].

URL 9. State of Green. Sharing Copenhagen 2014 – a platform and scope for innovative
thinking
11
https://stateofgreen.com/en/partners/city-of-copenhagen/solutions/sharing-copenhagen-2014-
a-platform-and-scope-for-innovative-thinking/ [Last Accessed Dec. 30th, 2019].

URL 10. The Civitas Initiative. Europe's top two-wheeled cities to share and inspire cycling
excellence in HANDSHAKE project.
https://civitas.eu/news/europes-top-two-wheeled-cities-share-and-inspire-cycling-excellence-h
andshake-project [Last Accessed Dec. 25th, 2019].

URL 11. forbes.com. Why Copenhagen Is Europe's Most Livable City Yet Again.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/02/18/why-copenhagen-is-europes-most-livabl
e-city/ [Last Accessed Jan. 6th, 2020].

URL 12. European Commission. Denmark and the euro.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/euro-area/euro/eu-countries-and-euro/denm
ark-and-euro_en [Last Accessed Jan. 6th, 2020].

URL 13. Danish Business Authority. The Danish spatial planning system.
https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/danish-spatial-planning-system [Last Accessed Nov. 22nd,
2019].

URL 14. Danish Business Authority. Physical Planning.
https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/physical-planning [Last Accessed Nov. 22nd, 2019].

URL 15. Danish Business Authority. The Finger Plan.
https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/fingerplan [Last Accessed Nov. 22nd, 2019].

12

"I Want To Be Like That Too": Copenhagenisation As A Role Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"I Want To Be Like That Too": Copenhagenisation As A Role Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geographies of a Globalizing Europe: Final Paper Viviana Herrera: 4Cities

“I want to be like that too”:

Byen København 784,618 787,861 787,645 795,510

Københavns omegn 547,534 547,994 548,317 549,114

Nordsjælland 463,748 464,133 464,619 464,668

Østsjælland 249,359 249,557 249,831 250,161

Total GCA: 2,045,259 2,049,545 2,050,412 2,059,453

All Denmark 5,806,081 5,811,413 5,814,461 5,827,463

was embodied physically by urban planning (Andersen & van Kempen 2003: 79). This is

You might also like