Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization in the Governance of

Agglomerations

Revekka Vulfovich

Department of Public Administration, North-West Institute of RANEPA,

Srednij pr. of Vassil’ev Island 57, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Keywords: The Agglomeration, Governance System, Digitalization, Integration, Authorities’ Instrument, Political Deci-

sions, Quality of Life Dependence, IKT Development.

Abstract: The article connects two complicated problems of the 21st century. The agglomeration governance systems

organization and their efficient functioning in large urban regions called often also metropolitan regions and

the digitalization in these areas implemented for integration of territories including multiple entities with state

and municipal governance powers. The analysis of 7 agglomerations from different countries allows the au-

thor to make a far-reaching conclusion that digitalization is only the instrument which the authorities can use

for solving the most important matters of city-life. But the implication of this tool depends on the state and

municipal political decisions, the resources volume in the region, and its influence on the quality-of-life pa-

rameters and their uniformity throughout the territory is not so strong as it is sometimes evaluated. In central-

ized authoritarian systems (e. g. China and Russia) the IKT technologies develop and are used more effective

and spread more rapidly.

1 INTRODUCTION

Agglomerations are at the time the largest urbanized

areas in the world. We find such areas with millions

of people living in a very densely populated areas all

over the worl (Loibl et al., 2018). The structure of the

settlement system in such areas is very complicated,

the quality of life and the population density uneven.

The main research question is if the digital technol-

ogy creates more possibilities for agglomerations’

governance or it is a new threat for stability and effi-

cient governance on the territories. The problem is

more complicated because of the absence of a formal

political and legal status for a whole territory of an

agglomeration as a unit. It is also the hurdle in digi-

talization process: many jurisdictions exist nearby but

function separate from others. Through the enlarging

of the area, it is crossing administrative and political

borders. modified.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1303-9057

2 METHODS AND MATERIALS

Optimal trustworthy results of the research can be

gotten based on collaboration of geography, history,

sociology, political science, urban studies, economy,

and computer science. The geography of urban re-

gions is one of the most crucial frame conditions of

the settlement system structure, economic develop-

ment level and many others. Large territory and une-

ven parameters of quality-of-life require new integra-

tion mechanisms and better communication between

economic subjects, political actors, administrative au-

thorities, and the people (Bolter and Robey, 2020).

The representatives of computer science and of

the new digital technologies are convinced that digi-

talization is a straight way to more effective govern-

ance in large urban areas. But the results of empirical

research do not always confirm the conclusions. Ag-

glomerations try to find out the opportunities of

“smart cities” in their areas to create better quality-of-

life parameters in all parts of the agglomeration. In

this context we think the subjective quality-of-life

(the opinion of population) and the views of munici-

pal servants in the area are more important than the

730

Vulfovich, R.

Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization in the Governance of Agglomerations.

DOI: 10.5220/0012044300003612

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Automation, Information and Computing (ISAIC 2022), pages 730-738

ISBN: 978-989-758-622-4; ISSN: 2975-9463

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

objective quality-of-life data. (Kuhlmann and Heu-

berger, 2021).

The research objects are two largest agglomera-

tions of Russia (Moscow and Saint Petersburg) and

comparable areas: the agglomeration around Beijing

(China), three European agglomerations – London

(Great Britain), Métropole du Grand Paris (France),

the Capital Region Berlin – Brandenburg (Germany),

and the so called Tri-State-New York (United States).

The methodological basis is the comparative struc-

tural and functional analyses of seven complex ag-

glomeration systems from the point of view of the ef-

fectiveness of their governance systems in connection

with the main parameters influencing the quality-of-

life. It is made with qualitative and quantitative meth-

ods. The structural complexity and the unevenness of

the development and of quality-of-life level, the role

of the central state government in political and admin-

istrative decisions, the problem solution in the more

decentralized systems, the rate of municipal auton-

omy under conditions of democracy and federalism

are the research questions as well as the possibilities

to level out the common problems of integrating the

region into social and economic unit with the intro-

duction of IKT-technologies as an instrument of ag-

glomerations’ governance.

Table 1.

ame of the ag-

glomeration

Territory Population /

density

Population

change

atterns

1. Beijing-Tianjin-He-

bei Metropolitan Area,

China (Jing-Jin-Ji,

‘Jing’ 京 for Beijing,

‘Jin’ 津 for Tianjin and

‘Ji’ 冀 for the Hebei

Province)

217,156 km

(about 2.2% of the

total land area in

China)

112mln /

515760/ km

Unbalanced

growth

2. Berlin -Brandenburg

Metropolregion,

Germany

Agglomeration

Berlin (radius 60 km)

Core capital area

(Kernraum)

30.546 km²

3.743,21 km²

6mln / 200/

km²

4.469mln

Redistribution

1.194/km²

3. Métropole du Grand

Paris, France

814 km

7,2mln /

8598/km²

Slight growth

4. London

Metropolitan Area, UK

8,382 km

12,653mln /

1510/ km²

Slight growth,

more rapid behind

the Green Bel

ew York, NY-

PA Metropolitan Area,

USA

11,880 km

21,045mln /

1,711/km

Unbalanced

Growth

5. Moscow

Agglomeration, RF

26,000 km

20,0mln /3100

/ km²

Rapid Growth,

more rapid in the

“New Moscow”

7. Saint Petersburg

Agglomeration, RF

SPb 1439 km²

(city) + Leningrad

Oblast

84,500 km

5, 427mln /

3,708 /km² +

1,847mln / 20

Very slight

growth

Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization in the Governance of Agglomerations

731

3 RESULTS

First, we analyse the basic parameters of the physical

and social space of agglomerations to find out some

general and special features important for integration

and usage of digital instruments for it. The general

information is shown in table 1 and characterizes the

extreme diversity in numbers.

It seems that numbers are not so important, but

they explain many of constraints on the way of

digitalization and the factors which will level out the

positive digitalization effects in the case the

integration does not happen, and the fragmentation of

the agglomeration space stay on the high level. The

administrative fragmentation level we can evaluate

with the data in table 2. In all systems national

governments play an important role not only in policy

area but also developing programmes for quality-of-

life parameters improvement and the introduction of

IKT into the structure and process. The subnational

entities have more powers in federal states and in

France (autonomous regions). Municipal autonomy

exists in all systems but differs according to the

former historical development and national law.

In the 21st century agglomerations must learn to

use digitalisation for creating new socio-economic

spaces to use the cooperation, coordination, and

collaboration instruments for quality-of-life

parameters improvement. “Learning regions” is a

concept developed in last decades. In all chosen

agglomerations many digitalisation projects are

developed and implemented, but most of them are

initiatives of municipalities (cities, districts). Rare

examples we find in city-states (table 3) (Glaeser et

al., 2021).

Table 2: Structure of agglomerations, governance instruments General information (created by the author).

№

ame of the

lomeration

Types of territorial

entities

umber of

overnance levels

Instruments

1. Beijing-Tianjin-

Hebei

Metropolitan Area,

China (Jing-Jin-Ji,

‘Jing’ 京 for

Beijing, ‘Jin’ 津

for Tianjin and ‘Ji’

冀 for the Hebei

Province)

Province Hebei, Beijing,

Tianjin province-level shi

(municipality), central

cities.

8 Major Prefectural Cities

(municipalities) of the

Hebei Province, rural

localities

3: Central (People's

Republic of China’

authorities) regional

(province, central city

– province +

municipality),

municipality

Regional cooperation

and administrative

decentralisation.

Relocation of the

Beijing’s municipal

governance functions

to other entities

2. Berlin -

Brandenburg

Metropolregion,

Germany

Berlin - city-state,

(Stadtstaat), Brandenburg

– state (Land). 5 cities,

109 towns, 314 rural

settlements. 3 structural

spaces: Berlin,

surrounding area of

Berlin, further

Metropolitan area.

2 urban districts, 49 cities

and rural settlements.

4 levels: national

(federal), subnational

(federal states),

intermediate municipal

(urban districts,

districts), municipal

(towns and rural

settlements)

Economic

collaboration,

intensive commuting.

The division of

functions and

collaboration in the

most important fields.

Unification of the

public transport

system.

3. Métropole du

Grand Paris,

France

Métropole du Grand Paris

– the intermunicipal

entity. The City of Paris,

123 settlements of the des

Hauts-de-Seine, de la

Seine-Saint-Denis and du

Val-de-Marne districts

(départements) and 7

settlements de l'Essonne

et du Val d'Oise districts.

5: 4 levels: national,

subnational

(Metropolitan region),

intermediate municipal

(départements),

municipal (communes)

Intermunicipal

cooperation and

coordination in many

function fields. The

eleven territorial

public institutions

defined by decrees.

4. London

Metropolitan Area,

The London Metropolitan

Region / London

Commuter Belt. Greater

3: National,

subnational,

arket forces,

political

ramifications: more

ISAIC 2022 - International Symposium on Automation, Information and Computing

732

London, Southeast

region, part of the East of

England region: 6 coun-

ties 168 towns.

intermediate municipal,

municipal

social and affordable

housing in new

towns. Collaboration

of the Greater London

Authority and author-

ities in outer parts.

ew York, NY-

NJ-PA Metropoli-

tan Area, USA

ew York, NY-

-PA

Metropolitan Area – New

York City, 3 counties in

the state of New York;

the five largest cities in

New Jersey, and their vi-

cinities; and six of the

seven largest cities in

Connecticut and their vi-

cinities

4 levels: national (fed-

eral), subnational (fed-

eral subjects - states),

intermediate municipal

(subregions with coun-

ties), municipal (mu-

nicipalities, special dis-

tricts).

Reform of the Re-

gional Transport Au-

thority and reducing

of the transport pro-

jects costs.

Using of the efficient

approaches of other

regions.

6. Moscow Agglom-

eration, RF

Moscow Metropolitan

Area (agglomeration).

Moscow Federal city

(since the 1

of July 2012

including the so-called

New Moscow - with 3

cities and 334 rural settle-

ments), parts of Moscow

oblast 5 cities annexed to

it and administered

within), 4 large nearby

towns with population of

over 100,000 citizens

(Reutov,

Zheleznodorozhny, Po-

dolsk and Lubertsy). By

several definitions – the

whole Moscow oblast:

5990 urban and rural set-

tlements

4 levels: national (fed-

eral), subnational (fed-

eral subjects), interme-

diate (districts + inter-

city administrative ar-

eas and settlements),

municipal (municipal

districts + municipali-

ties of intercity settle-

ments and urban dis-

tricts).

ot enough efficient

planning for inte-

grated development

of the whole agglom-

eration.

7. Saint Petersburg

Agglomeration,

Saint Petersburg Federal

City: 18 administrative

districts and 101 munici-

palities inside the dis-

tricts, parts of the Lenin-

grad Oblast with Gatch-

ina, Vsevoloshsk, Ki-

rovsk, Tosno, Vyborg and

Lomonosov municipal

districts. Inclusion of

other municipal districts

of the Oblast is possible.

The radius of the agglom-

eration at the time ~ 60

km. Maximal in future –

120 km. But also, in this

case, not the whole terri-

tory of the Oblast is in-

cluded.

4 levels in the city of

Saint Petersburg: na-

tional (federal), subna-

tional (federal subject),

intermediate (district),

municipal.

4 levels in the Lenin-

grad Oblast (Region):

national (federal), sub-

national (federal sub-

jects), intermediate

(municipal district),

municipalities.

The strategy 2030 in-

cluded the paragraph

6.2.3.6 “Development

of interaction between

Saint Petersburg and

the Leningrad Oblast”

But it is not there in

the later variant up to

2035.

Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization in the Governance of Agglomerations

733

Table 3: Digitalisation projects (created by the author).

ame of the agglomer-

ation

Digitalisation pro-

jects (PRC -cen-

tral level)

Regional level (subject of

federation, autonomous re-

ion)

Municipal level

“Smart cities”, ru-

ral municipalities

1. Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei

Metropolitan Area,

China

Xiong'an

Area (initiated by

the head of the

state Xi Jinping)

Implemented by the Met-

ropolitan Region, financed

by the National Govern-

ment

Xiong'an New

Area – the “the

smart city” pro-

ject, the core of

the regional de-

velopmen

2. Berlin -Brandenburg

Metropolregion,

Germany

__________

Senate Department fo

Ur-

ban Development and the

Environment “Smart Ber-

lin”

Potsdam “Smart

City Modellkom-

mune”

3. Métropole du Grand

Paris, France Mét-

ropole du Grand Paris

LOI n° 2016-

1321 du 7 octobre

2016 pour une

République numé-

rique.

Métropole d’Intelli-

gences »

“Smart and Sus-

tainable City”

4. London Metropolitan

Area, UK

Digitalisation in

the UK. The case

for a UK frame-

work (blueprint)

Smarter London Togethe

(Strategy for Greater Lon-

don)

Smart Kingston

(the city inside the

Commuter Belt)

ew York, NY-

-PA

Metropolitan Area,

USA

State of Digital

Transformation.

Building a Frame-

work for Digital

Success

_________

Smart New York

City

5. Moscow Agglomera-

tion, RF

“Electronic Rus-

sia”

Smart City Moscow The sites of the

municipalities

7. Saint Petersburg Ag-

lomeration, RF

“Electronic Rus-

sia”

Smart Saint Petersburg The sites of the

municipalities

The only agglomeration with the integrated digital

strategy is the Métropole du Grand Paris which has

administrative borders, authorities with political and

administrative powers for the whole territory. But we

must not forget that this territory is only a part of the

much larger Capital Region of France and inside the

Métropole many communities of different levels do

exist including the City of Paris with more than 2mln

citizens which has its own Smart City project. The

territory of London Commuter Belt is even more dis-

integrated because of the influence of market forces

playing a very important role also in the process of

digitalisation. Among territorial entities of the Region

the largest is Greater London which has more powers

since the devolution process. Different digitalisation

strategies are developed in Greater London the last

one initiated by the mayor, but Smart city concepts

have also smaller cities in the surrounding region. In

the Tri-State-New York Metropolitan Region the Re-

gional planning association was established already

in the first decades of the 20

century on the initiative

of the business organisations, the municipalities were

also intensive involved. 4 Regional Plans created the

integrated structure, but the states, counties, and mu-

nicipalities stay the main political actors and have the

right to develop and to implement their own policy. It

is important for the Region’ development in all

spheres including digitalisation. The main motor of

this process is of course the New York City. Germany

lags other countries in the development of new IKT

first because of its very complicated and detailed le-

gal system. Every innovation needs a new law. The

federal structure transfers authority for policy imple-

mentation to the subjects of federation (Länder). In

the digitalisation process this means more obstacles.

There is no federal legal basis for development of dig-

ital technologies in the public management and sepa-

rate projects are developed on the regional (only for

Berlin) and municipal level (cities in the Brandenburg

Region).

In China (Fang and Yu, 2020) and Russia, the cen-

tralisation of power is very high although Russia is a

ISAIC 2022 - International Symposium on Automation, Information and Computing

734

federal state. The “Electronic Russia” project is a

frame for a development in the whole country but

Moscow and Saint Petersburg – two largest Russian

agglomerations – have their own Smart City projects

but only for the federal cities. The cities of the sur-

rounding areas have municipal powers, and their sites

include information about the main problems of the

local communities. The same digital instruments use

the smaller municipalities in the borders of federal

cities. The huge Capital Area of China with 100mln

citizens develops the “City of the Future Projects” in-

itiated by the head of the state to intensify the devel-

opment of the whole area and creating a more even

quality of life parameters for all people living here.

4 DISCUSSION

Agglomerations as territorial entities are also charac-

terized as metropolitan regions with core-cities of dif-

ferent size. As we have already shown the digitalisa-

tion progress depends strong on the type of the gov-

ernance structure, separation of powers, and decen-

tralisation degree. The summarizing of theoretical

concepts we base on the book of the German author

Stefan Bege “The Concept of the Metropolitan Re-

gion in a Theory and Praxis. Goals, Implementation

and Criticism” (Bege, 2010) and on the articles of the

European, American and Russian researchers:

Lackowska and Norris (Lackowska and Norris,

2017); Pavlov (Pavlov et al., 2019) and others.

In course of case-study analyses are used the “Ter-

ritorial Agenda of the European Union 2020”, the

“Overview of Metropolitan Governance” (Demo-

cratic Institutions and Governance Department of Di-

rectorate General II - Democracy, in co-operation

with Council of Europe), the “Governance of Metro-

politan Regions: European and Global Experience”,

(Workshop on the "Governance of Metropolitan Re-

gions in Federal Systems), the research results of the

“Steering the Metropolis” project that commenced in

2015 (Pavlov et al., 2019); planning documents and

governmental acts influencing the metro model de-

velopment; statistical data.

The development and implementation of metro-

politan governance model often fail because of a very

narrow ideas or misconceptions about the goals of the

governance level functions, the rationality of its struc-

ture and mechanisms needed for the efficient results.

The way to think about the metropolitan governance

object (metropolitan region) as a social space and its

straight connection with a physical space parameter

but having also independent characteristics allows to

break mentally the political and administrative board-

ers and to create the new multidimensional space

where the interconnection of a space of flows and a

space of places (Castells., 2020) construct a myriad

of parallel existing universes. Each of them has its

special juristic and functional laws but there are pos-

sibilities if you do not merge all parts into a single

system, then can try and unify they through the com-

mon goal: a high quality of life in an ever-growing

metropolitan region.

Most agglomerations have no fixed borders. But

if the border exist it is artificially defined and does not

match the actual conditions. To try and establish a

formal metropolitan governance system under such

circumstances has really no sense. There are no such

systems in the metropolises analysed in our research.

Only in the Métropole du Grand Paris since 2016 the

metropolitan governance system develops according

to the new law regulation (Legifrance, 2014). But the

results and effects of this are too early to evaluate and

are often an open question.

The complex social space of the agglomeration

and the wholistic approach to the governance systems

issue allow to form the multidimensional socio-polit-

ical space with parallel “universes” of municipalities,

communal, intercommunal functions interconnected

through communication channels. Perhaps, exactly

the functions placed on the agglomeration govern-

ance level play the most important role in the integra-

tion and collaboration process. The analyses demon-

strate the opportunities of integrated functions fulfil-

ment and the threats during the process for 7 chosen

metropolitan regions.

The reasons of failures are multiple. The detailed

analyses can be found in the article of Lackowska, M.

and Norris, D. F. As the most important are identified

the lack of citizens support for agglomeration govern-

ance system and the municipalities’ resistance against

the functions’ transfer to the agglomeration level be-

cause this means the power loss for them (Lackowska

and Norris, 2017).

These reasons make the voluntary collaboration

of municipalities the most effective and efficient

mechanism building agglomerations for creating a

better and more unified quality of life on their terri-

tory.

Both reasons must be considered by modelling

Russian metropolitan governance.

Researchers, politicians, and administrators try to

describe, to analyse and to construct the future reality

of governance for these huge super complex systems

for decades. The common goal of the research and

discussion is the need for new and more effective

models.

Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization in the Governance of Agglomerations

735

About 20 years ago in the book “The Metropolitan

Governance in the 21st century: political aspect”

(Vulfovich, 2001) we introduced the notion of “polit-

ical hyperspace” based on the 10-demensional space

concept of the Japanese physicist Michio Kaku. This

multidimensional construct allows to describe a pol-

icy and politics in large agglomerations as an interac-

tion between the space of places and the space of

flows of Manuel Castells. Linked through the ideas of

Pierre Bourdieu about the complicated interaction of

social and physical space all these theoretical ap-

proaches give us the opportunity to build up an ag-

glomeration governance structed model and to define

the role and place of each level and entity governing

body in the whole process.

To the political role of modern agglomerations

was devoted our article “Agglomerations as a Strate-

gic Actors in a Globalizing World” with the analyses

of modern urban development in the mirror of urban

and political research (Vulfovich, 2016). Multilevel

governance systems are the issue of the article “Co-

operation and coordination models in multilevel gov-

ernance systems through digitalization” (Vulfovich,

2020). The main discussion topic of the material is

digitalization as the important mechanism during co-

operation and coordination development for agglom-

erations.

In the article “Metropolitan governance (or not!)

in Poland and the United States” Marta Lackowska

and Donald F. Norris (Lackowska and Norris, 2017)

write about the evolution of “metropolitan thinking”

and reform efforts since the 30-s and during the whole

20th century in large metropolitan areas with the goal

to overcome the political-administrative fragmenta-

tion and its negative externalities. They stress the ab-

sence of positive results in European city-regions and

in American metropolitan areas as well. But their po-

sition and evaluation have as a source the idea about

the creation of the institutionalized one-, two- or mul-

tilevel system for an entire metropolis. Really ag-

glomerations and the metropolitan regions can be

identified as the same areas.

The development of interconnections between

governance levels and separate entities in all sectors

and across they are a great possibility for “closing the

wormholes” (in the terminology of M. Kaku) in the

social and physical multidimensional space of the me-

tropolis.

New tendencies in the social development show a

great citizens interest in participation in local policy

and politics and their demand for independent local

problem solving. Boundaries of the agglomerations

are steadily moving and with every step outside the

boundaries more municipalities come into the deci-

sion-making system of the metropolis. Only flexible

and evolution able administration systems can match

the development. The new IKT can be used as the

most important instrument for creating connection

different parts of an agglomeration into the unity. The

same idea is a core of the Big-Data technology in

many sectors of the urban systems as an example we

can see the possibility of better analysis and compar-

ison of services quality based on the International

standard ISO 37120.

5 CONCLUSIONS

1). The agglomeration governance system can de-

velop according to the centralized algorithm (Capital

Region of China). Deep cleavages in the economy de-

velopment level, and quality-of- life parameters,

problems in the mobility field, and of accessibility of

medical and educational institutions problems cannot

be eliminated only through digitalization. To answer

the challenges the Central Committee of the Com-

munist Party of Chine created the Plan for Develop-

ment of China’s Economic Development Zones. In

this case a high level of political and administrative

centralisation, and intensive financial support from

the central level allows the rapid and efficient devel-

opment and implementation of ambitious projects.

2). If the attempts of merging of the core-city and

the surrounding area fail (die Metropolregion Berlin -

Brandenburg) strong cooperation efforts of both re-

gions in such sectors as territorial planning, land use

with the goal of preserving green spaces around the

core-city and economic development, can lead to in-

tensive integration of the agglomeration and support

the digitalization process. The further introduction of

IKT-technologies into the cooperative relations of all

political and administrative actors can change the sit-

uation with the digitalization but the German system

is not ready for it and the Länder need integrating ef-

forts and financial help from the federal level.

3). The integration of the territory according to the

new law (the Métropole du Grand Paris) and the cre-

ation of the new political-administrative level of gov-

ernance can intensify the economic development but

does not solve all the problems. Such agglomeration

has a complicated territorial structure with many en-

tities. New authorities have their own competences

connected mostly with coordination of functions and

cooperation in the compliance. But the created system

does not match with the broader territorial entity ex-

isting for a long time (Île-de-France Region). The

multilevel governance system with the national level

ISAIC 2022 - International Symposium on Automation, Information and Computing

736

at the top is perhaps too complicated to be effective

for problem solving of the quality-of-life issues. The

decentralization is combined with the centralization

in the implementation of large infrastructure and

housing projects. But the rights of the municipalities

stay intact. The agglomeration has also the integrated

digitalization strategy.

4). When market forces are leading in the agglom-

eration (London Metropolitan Area, “Commuter

belt”) the interaction between them and the strong

municipalities in the area is a complicated and con-

troversial process. It is doubtful that such construc-

tion can be seen as an ideal one and is a good basis

for total digitalization.

5). Intensive cooperation and functional coordina-

tion of the businesses, municipalities, states (federal

subjects) and the federal authorities in the agglomer-

ation (New York, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Area) in

course of development for decades give good results.

The governance system is highly decentralized and

has different number of levels in separate parts of the

territory, and various structures and regulations. At

the time it needs modernization, and the digitalization

happens in different parts separately (RPA, n.d.).

6). For a long time, cities were seen in Russia

(Moscow and Saint Petersburg) as an appendage to an

industrial enterprise. The image was formed in the

public consciousness in the centralized Communist

Party lead system. It was typical that the cities had

neither their own voice nor the right to influence their

faith. The notion “agglomeration” officially exists in

the Russian system officially only since 2018. At the

time both agglomerations have similar governance

systems with low level of cooperation and coordina-

tion between core cities and their surrounding re-

gions. But there are some important differences be-

tween both largest agglomerations of the country first

in financial resources they have for development. The

digitalization level is higher in Moscow.

Both regions (federal subjects – Moscow and

Saint Petersburg) have complicated territorial struc-

ture, their own state governments, law systems and

budgets. In 2012 territory of the Russia’s capital was

enlarged at the cost of the part of the Moscow oblast.

The city of Saint Petersburg was an agglomeration

from the first days of its history. Till now the coordi-

nation and cooperation efforts between both federal

subjects in the area is limited. The cooperation agree-

ment is in the preparation process. Only in the mobil-

ity dimension can be seen some results. The autono-

mous non-profit organization “Directorate for the de-

velopment of the transport system of Saint Petersburg

and the Leningrad Oblast” was created 2013 by the

Federal Authorities, Government of Saint Petersburg

and Government of Leningrad Oblast for coordina-

tion and cooperation in the transport system and

transport infrastructure development of the integrated

region including the projects implemented through

public-private partnerships (SPBTRD, n.d.).

All samples in the article show common tenden-

cies and special features in the development of the ag-

glomeration’ governance model under different con-

ditions. The first and most important issue is the fail-

ure of the metro governance model with definite and

rigid structure. Hierarchical levels with the compe-

tences divided from the top level are not efficient and

have to be changed often according to the changes in

national, regional, and global surroundings. But such

changes lead to the destruction of the existing system

and can lead to the strong negative synergy. Digitali-

zation can play a positive role in the integration pro-

cess (opportunities) but at the same time it can create

conditions for fragmentation and increasing aliena-

tion between people (threats).

REFERENCES

Loibl W., Etminan G., Gebetsroither-Geringer E., Neu-

mann H-M., and Sanchez-Guzman S., 2018. Character-

istics of Urban Agglomerations in Different Continents:

History, Patterns, Dynamics, Drivers and Trends. Ur-

ban Agglomeration. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.73524

Bolter K. and Robey J., 2020. Agglomeration Economies:

A Literature Review Prepared for The Fund for our Eco-

nomic Future (FFEF). https://research.upjohn.org/re-

ports/252

Kuhlmann S. and Heuberger M., 2021. Digital transfor-

mation going local: implementation, impacts and con-

straints from a German perspective. In Public Money

and Management. 25/06/2021.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/095409

62.2021.1939584

Glaeser E., Kourtit K., and Nijkamp P., 2021. Urban Em-

pires. Cities as Global Rulers in the New Urban World.

Routledge

Fang Ch. and Yu D., 2020. China’s Urban Agglomerations.

Springer

Bege St., 2010. Das Konzept der Metropolregion in Theorie

und Praxis. Ziele, Umsetzung und Kritik. Gabler Verlag

Lackowska M. and Norris D. F., 2017. Metropolitan gov-

ernance (or not!) in Poland and the United States. Mis-

cellanea Geographica, 21(3) URL:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica-

tion/319012181_Metropolitan_gover-

nance_or_not_in_Poland_and_the_United_States

Pavlov Yu. V., Koroleva E. N. and Evdokimov N. N., 2019.

Theoretical Foundations for Organizing the Metropoli-

tan Governance System. Ekonomika regiona [Economy

of Region], 15(3), 834-850.

Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization in the Governance of Agglomerations

737

Gómez-Álvarez D., Rajack R., López-Moreno E., Lanfran-

chi G. (eds.), 2017. Steering the Metropolis. Metropol-

itan Governance for Sustainable Urban Development.

Inter-American Development Bank. URL:

https://www.academia.edu/34993307/Steer-

ing_the_Metropolis_Metropolitan_Governance_

for_Sustainable_Urban_Development

Castells M., 2020. Space of Flows, Space of Places: Mate-

rials for a Theory of Urbanism in the Information Age.

Routlege.

Loi de Modernisation de l’action publique territoriale et

d’affirmation des métropoles of the 27

January 2014

(in force since 01.01.16). — URL:

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do

?cidTexte= JORFTEXT000028526298

Lackowska M. and Norris D. F., 2017. Metropolitan gov-

ernance (or not!) in Poland and the United States. Mis-

cellanea Geographica 21(3) URL: https://www.re-

searchgate.net/publication/319012181_ Metropoli-

tan_governance_or_not_in_Po-

land_and_the_United_States

Vulfovich R. M., 2001. Metropolitan Governance in the

XXI Century: Political Aspect. Saint Petersburg. The

Herzen University Publishing.

Vulfovich R. M., 2016. Agglomerations as a Strategic Ac-

tors in a Globalizing World // Voprosy Gosudarctven-

nogo i Munitsypalnogo Upravleniia (Public Admin-

istration Issues. 2016. N5. P.119-137).

Vulfovich R. M., 2020. Cooperation and coordination mod-

els in multilevel governance systems through digitali-

zation. In: Gerasimov, V I (ed.) Russia: Development

Tendencies and perspectives. Materials of the 19th Na-

tional scientific conference with international partici-

pation. Part I. RSA. Мoscow, pp. 650-656. URL:

http://inion.ru/ru/about/news/rossiia-tendentsii-i-per-

spektivy-razvitiia-ezhegodnik-vyp-15/

Lackowska M. and Norris D. F., 2017. Metropolitan gov-

ernance (or not!) in Poland and the United States. Mis-

cellanea Geographica 21(3) URL: https://www.re-

searchgate.net/publication/319012181_ Metropoli-

tan_governance_or_not_in_Po-

land_and_the_United_States

A Region at Risk. The Third Regional Plan for New York

– New Jersey – Connecticut Metropolitan Region.

URL: http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Plan3-A-Region-

at-Risk.pdf

Directorate for the development of the transport system of

Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Oblast. URL:

http://spbtrd.ru/directional/

ISAIC 2022 - International Symposium on Automation, Information and Computing

738