From Madrid to Nancy, via Berlin, mayors as global players

Local democracy, conflicts, AI…: Why we must encourage cities today to engage in international cooperation. 

Nations are becoming more tense, while cities are cooperating. As geopolitical tensions intensify, democracies are plagued by mistrust and polarization, and ecological, social, technological crises are accelerating, cities—and local governments more broadly—are increasingly emerging as spaces for dialogue, experimentation, and collective action.

That is the message conveyed by two or three recent events in which we participated: CityLab Madrid (external link), where the Bloomberg Foundation brought together more than 1,000 elected officials, public servants, and researchers from around the world; Urban 7 (external link) (the voice of cities at the G7), which took place this time in Nancy and was organized by the France Urbaine network; and the Creative Bureaucracy festival (external link) held in Berlin.

A wide range of topics were discussed: international cooperation, artificial intelligence, combating disinformation, institutional capacity to address the mounting crises, as well as housing, mobility, economic development, and more. Yet a common thread ran through all the discussions: faced with increasingly complex challenges, cities must learn, cooperate, anticipate, and even reinvent their roles.

Mayors are becoming diplomats. Local governments are questioning their digital sovereignty. Public administrations are pondering their future roles. As the primary scale for polarization and feelings of democratic distrust, they are seeking ways to serve as the link that restores trust… All of these are signs that reflect the evolution of local public action. Here’s a look back at some lessons, questions, and ideas for further work back from Madrid and Nancy.

One of the key messages emphasized in both Madrid and Nancy is that, in order to tackle geopolitical fragmentation, the weakening of traditional alliances, and growing skepticism against the legitimacy of public action, cities and their mayors continue to champion the need for strengthened collaboration and peer-to-peer exchanges between cities. From Nancy (FR) to Los Angeles (USA) or Nairobi (Kenya), from Tsukuba (Japan) to Bogotá (Colombia), they are portrayed as pragmatic leaders, closely attuned to the most complex challenges facing their residents and local stakeholders (increasing heat waves, the housing crisis, the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories, etc.), capable of quickly sharing concrete solutions, regardless of national political divides.

Urban innovation now spreads more through networks of cities than through national governments. Furthermore, whether in Rennes (France), New York, or Athens (USA), mayors are becoming the voices of their residents, advocating for inclusive, open cities capable of protecting and ensuring good living conditions for all who live there. They are also strong advocates for greater devolution of authority and funding to the local level, at a time when many national governments are tempted to recentralize power. 

While inter-city partnerships represent an important strategic lever for driving urban transitions, this cannot be achieved without a shift in the role and approach of local elected officials. They must take on the role of diplomats capable of integrating their cities into international ecosystems of cooperation, learning, and influence. To do so, they must, for example, be able to link local issues (climate, housing, inclusion, mobility, economic attractiveness) to global agendas, build transnational partnerships, and lead coalitions of public and private actors and citizens, among other things. This requires negotiation skills, intercultural expertise, and, quite simply, proficiency in English.

Mayors who engage with these networks also embody a shift in perceptions of the international sphere—no longer seen as a secondary or ceremonial matter, but as an operational lever in the service of local public policies, territorial resilience, and the city’s influence. Finally, these partnerships reflect the need to shift from a mindset of competition between regions to one of interdependence, where the ability to learn from other cities, share solutions, and collectively influence major transitions as well as diplomatic and strategic decisions becomes a political competency in its own right.

At CityLab, as well as, more recently, at the Interconnectés forum (external link), the growing maturity of local governments on the topic of artificial intelligence is impressive; today, they are focusing less on simply multiplying the number of tools and more on adopting a more reflective approach and developing technological, organizational, and ethical capabilities. The discussions naturally address the use of digital tools: Do they help us do better? To work faster? Do they give rise to new tasks? But they also address the evolution of public jobs: which ones are evolving, disappearing, or transforming (see the study on the impact of AI on local government jobs conducted by the Data Publica observatory (external link)), as well as on the political dimension: what new dependencies are we creating? How should we regulate it (see, for example, the Guide book AI & Data framework for public procurement (external link))? And what about issues of sovereignty : cf the Tie Break (external link)project led by Les Interconnectés, Intercommunalités de France, and France Urbaine—a call to embark on a path toward digital independence.

At CityLab Madrid, artificial intelligence is also discussed as a transformative force for public services, the labor market, the local economy, and the relationship between citizens and the government. The question is no longer “Should we use AI?” but “How can we use it to tangibly improve residents’ lives?” and “How can we share power to increase agency?” This is, for example, the point made by Sadiq Khan, mayor of London (external link), who urges the British government to address the risk of massive job losses that could profoundly transform a city like London. Indy Johar (Dark Matters Lab), for his part, invites us to consider AI as a potential civic infrastructure (external link), placing public and collective governance at the center of the debate: Who controls the data and the models? How does AI strengthen or weaken local democracy and the ability to address crises? Can it develop citizens’ capabilities rather than replace them?

Both CityLab and Urban 7 draw a picture of cities affected by both global conflicts and heightened local tensions. Both events highlighted the solidarity being forged with conflict-affected regions—Ukraine in particular—and the partnerships developing with Kyiv, Kopychyntsy, Vinnytsia, Mykolaiv, Lviv, and Kherson: humanitarian aid, of course, but also collaboration on urban planning, technological innovation, and learning from initiatives focused on youth mental health in Kyiv (external link), among other areas. 

They also illustrated how elected officials are affected by these increasingly prevalent conflicts: for example, the experience shared at Urban 7 by the mayor of Fribourg, Martin Horn: elected in 2018 as an independent candidate capable of uniting different political camps, he was the victim of a physical assault that very same evening (see the Oddell report, (external link) which details the rise in violence against elected officials). He describes how, in response to the rise of extremism and the normalization of anti-democratic rhetoric, he now positions himself as a facilitator of compromise rather than as the representative of a single political camp, while firmly defending democratic principles when they are threatened and investing heavily in empowering residents to participate in local life. 

Faced with the rise of fake news and conspiracy theories, other cities are questioning their role in combating misinformation: educational initiatives to strengthen citizens’ critical thinking skills, support for pluralistic information ecosystems, or acting as “trusted third parties” in an information landscape that is saturated with content? 

Finally, CityLab has highlighted city initiatives aimed at rebuilding public trust by helping not only to broaden but also to deepen citizen engagement through projects such as Madrid’s Permanent City Observatory—composed of about 50 citizens selected at random and tasked with evaluating public policy— or the open innovation initiatives carried out in various cities within the network, which somewhat remind us of our work on the commons…

These sessions only reinforce our desire to work on issues of conflict and polarization, and we are preparing a webinar for September to better share with you the insights from these discussions.

The capabilities index (external link)developed by Mariana Mazzucato at the Institute for Innovation and Public purpose, and tested in several cities within the Bloomberg Philanthropies network, is designed to assess the dynamic capabilities of governments to address complex challenges. It examines, for example, how cities are transforming into learning organizations, their ability to prototype solutions, detect weak signals, or manage complex public policies in uncertain environments. The goal is thus to bring to light often-overlooked dimensions of public action (quality of internal coordination, capacity for innovation, institutional agility).

The indicator thus has the advantage of creating, through common criteria, a basis for dialogue among very different cities, and could help better identify paths for progress and new areas of expertise to develop. While there are obviously questions about how this framework will translate into very diverse contexts, or about the risk of an approach that is too technical and organizational (which might struggle to account for political choices or democratic quality), we’re really eager to test it! If you’re interested, let us know!

How can we move beyond the recurring observation that the French are often absent from these networks and collaborative efforts? We emerge from all these events with a renewed conviction. In a world where new opportunities seem to be drying up, there is an inexhaustible source of potential in international and inter-city cooperation: new approaches, new colleagues with whom to share challenges and solutions—whether you’re a practitioner, a public servant, or an elected official—financial resources to be sought out, and more ambitious programs to build together. This enhances the appeal of public service and serves as an underestimated lever for transformation. Throughout our programs, we have seen just how energizing this has been for elected officials and staff, and that it is possible to overcome apprehensions and break down language barriers. In the coming months, we will put forward proposals along these lines. Contact us so we can work on this together!