The range of processes of dissemination and harmonization resulting from a common European culture can be summarized under Europeanization .  Europeanisation appears at both, national and regional level and is determined by different types of adaptation pressures and „mediating“ institutions operating within different actors (bodies) of governance.  Europeanization emphasizes the involvement of local framework, development of more urban partnerships and the encouragement of multilevel territorial interaction. 
Governance is a process of involvement and coordination between different bodies.  Within the governance network, the state regulator and policy maker has more often than not been involved in the process. Europeanization in cities occurs as a consequence of intensive political and economic interactions between actors
- Europeanization – characterized by changes in policies, practices, participants within local systems of governance, from the negotiation and implementation of EU programs,
- Upload Europeanization – Characterized by the transfer of innovative urban practices to the supra-national level, with an outcome of local initiatives in pan-European policies, or programs. 
History of Europeanization
The Italian Renaissance generated a new cultural model, which was promising a modernization and the European expansion, while the European cultural homogeneity should still be maintained.  Therefore, this specification has been made to such an outcome, that all countries on the Atlantic coastline specialize mainly in trade, central Europe retained an urban-based commercial landscape, and Eastern Europe an apricultural perception.  The early modern period was characterized by contradictory processes of Europeanization. Lately, the French Revolutioncontributed to an increase of this domain. Increasing effort to create a number of European institutions has had a significant impact on the Europeanization process, although it has been relatively stable for the United States. The European Union as one of these institutions nowadays represents a modern level and a new quality of Europeanization influencing the countries within the European Union. 
Europeanization in British Cities
In the UK, a significant shift of power to small and medium sized companies. Local government and urban authorities are experiencing a significant decrease in influence and therefore, the public participation and involvement in decision-making is highly dependent on the cooperation with NGOs and their ability to provide a significant level of awareness. Central cities to to to governance governance governance governance off off off their their their their „“ „“……  With an involvement of New Labor in 1997, the new urban regeneration programs have been implemented into local level. Participation in the EU Structural Fund programs, the URBAN Community Initiative and Urban Pilot Projects has made a significant contribution to a change in urban governance in the UK.  The UK central government’s effort to retain absolute control over the Structural Funding has been determined by encouragement rather than prevention of further Europeanization at the local level. Increasing level of Europeanization in the UK also has a further origin in a connection between the central government and local actors, resulting in the formation of new implications in terms of urban governance eg „european urban governance“. The centralization of local government is apparent in the weight of legislation directed at local authorities.  The local authorities in cities such as Birmingham and Glasgow have had direct lobbying, long-term strategic programming and partnership, with the conditions of the European Union Program and to the benefit of Structural Funding in terms of urban development.  This process can be described as „following the European strategies“ in terms of urban governance. European level. European level of planning.  Both cities have further developed transnational networks within Eastern Europe and have strong relationships in international cooperation and development programs. Of Structural Funds. The Europeanization is here as an emerging process, thus a „steering regulator“, which the governments of these countries are more likely to follow than to regulate and govern.
EU Cohesion Policy
EU Cohesion Policy is a new reform program which has been developed to evaluate and monitor the evaluation of Structural Funds and their outcome in lower developing regions. The new reform has become one of the most intensively evaluated policies in Europe.  The contributors and assessors are policy makers and researchers from different ranges of disciplines. EU cohesion policy refers to the set of activities in the European Union . Although, the EU Cohesion Policy appears as a relatively well defined program, there are still some unresolved issues in terms of measurements, philosophical approaches and methods of cohesion policy evaluation.
The further challenges such as different interests of European institutions and Cohesion Policy has been described as „political expression of solidarity“ between Europe’s wealthier and poorer regions.  EU Funding should be focused on such areas of support, such as regional innovation networking, financial engineering, environmental sustainability and specialist advisory.  The best approach should be made only in terms of accountability, but on capacity-building and learning objectives. Although, there is a direct influence from political actors to the policy, decisions processes, objectives and methods should be made within the partnership program. The main objective of cohesion policy is to diminish the gap between different regions, more precisely between less-favored regions and affluent ones. It is an instrument of financial solidarity and a powerful force for economic integration. 
Socio-economic disparities in European regions
Socio-economic disparities in the European Union countries are considerable. Strong differences between neighboring regions create both, threats and opportunities. In terms of opportunities we understand goods, capital and labor in relatively narrow regions; In the threats perspective, it is mainly the presence of large differences between wealth and lagging regions. Described threats are highlighting the importance of geographical range (hence influence on socio-economic standards). In terms of economic development, disparities between European countries have been reduced over the last two decades, showing a clear „convergence“ between the countries.  The importance of a large city, where geographically advanced regions play a significant role in growingGDP . They have shown significant economic growth, in terms of the European economy they represent only a smart part of contribution.  In growing growth economies such as Ireland, Estonia and Latvia regional differences lead to a positive outcome and relative decline in the most peripheral parts. Socio-economic differences in the region of the country, particularly in Finland, France and Spain, where the high unemployment rate has increased in more regions.  Migration into growing countries seems to be the most important.
Spatial disparities in European Regions
The increase in intra-national regional disparities is the EU-27 Member States.  Mapping potential accessibility to European GDP makes it possible to identify the rural areas to develop „hub functions“, by acting as „businesses and entrepreneurial“ crossroads. In the EU-15 countries the analysis confirms that the main cause of inequality is a dominance of the country, which is creating two or more imbalanced territories, such as Italy (North-South), Belgium (Flanders-Wallonia), Germany (West-East) and Spain (North-East and South-West).  Geometrical coherence is an identifiable quality that ties the city together through form, and is essential for the vitality of the urban fabric.  From the perspective of geographical advantage, a major core area in the border regions of Southern Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia emerges and key – accessibility in Prague, Bucharest, Budapest and Vienna. 
Further disparities between urban and rural areas may have a significant impact on the prospects of sustainable growth and GDP. Infrastructure investments may extend the labor market and decrease structural disadvantages within the country; however, their effectiveness depends on their investment and objective. Huge territorial imbalances between metropolitan areas and their surrounding regions are highlighting the strong polarization of the European territory. 
EEA Grants and Norway Grants
The Grants and Norway Grants are Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway’s contribution to economic and social disparities in the European Economic Area and the strengthening of bilateral relations with the 15 beneficiary states in Central and Southern Europe.  All of these countries have been established in 1994. The European Union and the European Economic Area in 2004.  Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway agreed on joint management of the EEA Grants and Norway Grants; However, the decision-making procedure concerning the EEA Grants lies in the hands of the Financial Mechanism Committee, the Norwegian Grants are being managed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Grants and Norway Grants are managed by the Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) in Brussels. A National Focal Point is the coordinating authority and contact point for each of the beneficiary states. More than one fourth of the EEA Grants was awarded to projects in the fields of environmental protection and sustainable development.
Urban Governance is a combined effort of multiple actors at a different level of government, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and community. Vertical partnership between national, regional and local governments must be complemented by horizontal partnership of stakeholders within cities.  Local authorities and government play significantly important role in land use development, community development and social services. The urban governance in Europe is characterized by its spatial diversity and urban disparities. In cities of southern Europe a high level of centralized decisions is a successful outcome of the policy. The importance of the examination of local level political processes, determined by the local political and social infrastructure is an important tool for successful urban governance. 
The north European regions‘ post-war welfare has been described as a consequence of extensive urban planning policies and centrally defined responsibilities for local authorities, while the southern regions play a role in the presence of indigenous and medium-sized firms.  A much lower level of urban development appears in the south, while increasing in entrepreneurial activities as „part of urban development“ occurs in northern parts. Urban governance in southern European regions is determined by institutional and territorial decentralization and participates in urban development programs.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability in European Networks Highlights of the distinction between the state, NGOs, private companies and the public sector.  The structure and functions of the governmental organizations are often highly fragmented and therefore, these might be overlapping powers and responsibilities. Secondly, the community response in southern European countries is made up of decision-making processes, or in a variety of consultations with stakeholders, or in assessments of environmental impacts and management processes.  Political will is significantly important for a successful process of urban governance. The more closer is the connection between ‚real communities‘ in regions, cities, neighborhoods and government bodies, the more sensitive will be addressing the issues on local and regional level, and more successful implementation of the policy. Urban governance is hence, not a tool to retain a control over the increasing challenges, but ability to successfully manage and regulate the differences and to be creative in urban areas where the changes are most visible.
In 2007, in European Union, ministers adopted the Leipzig Charter  to achieve the objective of sustainable cities and recognizing the importance of social, cultural and economic role that cities play.
The key policy document is building on the results of the previous presidencies, in particular:
- The Lille Action Program (2000),
- The Urban Acquis (2004)
- The Bristol Accord (2005). 
European cities (and metropolitan regions) by signing the Charter,  .
The Leipzig Charter contains two key policy messages:
- It should be established in Europe and the appropriate framework should be established at national and European levels in order to be successful,
- Deprived urban neighborhoods must be a part of an integrated urban development policy. 
Local governance and NGOs in European regions
Networks, as today’s „panacea“ for environmental governance  is an important driver for implementing certain policies. NGOs are significantly influencing public participation and involvement, they are a „gap“ that governments are unable to fill.  Networks are playing an essential role in decision-making processes, where they regulate activities and sometimes even intervene, when substituting for traditional policies. NGOs can further act on behalf of their members, or as a significant political pressure group in their own right. 
Reviews The most Addressing reason for shifting the urban governance into local and institutional networks is economic globalization and global spectacle, THUS the emergence of world-wide institutions.  Cities as a key element of urban governance in social policy, social, spatial spheres and growing complexity of social life are trying to „delink“ themselves from their national economies. City governments had to become more entrepreneurial and able to attract a business investment. New lifestyle and social differentiation seems to be more and more feasible.  Community capacity-building remains a cornerstone of the committee and is likely to increase its appearance in the future.  Institutional frameworks can influence positively to regional and urban challenges in terms of innovative processes. By institutions, institutions we understand rules, norms and practices which structure areas of social endeavor and not formal organizations, which focus on interactions and not decisions.  The way of governing has shifted from those of „hierarchies and bureaucracy “ to selforganising networks of heterarchy. “  Private firms are seeking more political commitment and want to achieve better functioning of urban and economic system. On the other hand, the state wants to influence firms to achieve better overall economic performance. In the European Union, the concept of a national economy and the role of the economy in the management of the economy, the success of knowledge and policy makers, or otherwise, is not sufficient. The issue of multilevel governance in cities occurs when, the local governance activity „can mask the inefficiency“ of social and political implementation policies to support and encourages citizens. Another cause of urban governance 
- ^ Jump up to: a b c d Schmale, W. (2010). „Processes in Europeanization“ . European History Online . Retrieved 16 May 2011 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Marshall, Adam (August 2005). „Europeanization at the urban level: Local actors, institutions and the dynamics of multi-level interaction“ . Journal of European Public Policy . Taylor and Francis . 12 (4): 668-686. doi : 10.1080 / 13501760500160292 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Evans, James (2012). Environmental governance . Milton Park Abingdon, New York Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 9780415589826 .
- Jump up^ Moulaert, F .; Martinelli, F .; Gonzales, S .; Swyngedouw E. (2007). „Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities: Urban Development Between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation“ . European Urban and Regional Studies . 14 : 195-209. doi : 10.1177 / 0969776407077737.
- Jump up^ Sweeting, D. (2002). „Leadership in Urban Governance: The Mayor of London“ . Local Government Studies . 28 (1): 3-20. doi : 10.1080 / 714004134 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Bachtler, J .; Wren, C. (2006). „Evaluation of European Union Cohesion Policy: Research questions and policy challenges“ . Regional Studies . 40 (2): 143-153. doi : 10.1080 / 00343400600600454 .
- Jump up^ Assembly of European Regions. „Cohesion & Regional Policy“ . Archived from the original on 22 July 2011 . Retrieved 14 May 2011 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b c d e European Parliament (2007). „Regional Disparities and Cohesion: What Strategies for the Future“ (PDF) . Retrieved 18 May2011 .
- Jump up^ Maloney, W .; Smith, G .; Stoker, G. (2000). „Social Capital and Urban Governance: Adding a More Contextualized Top-Down Perspective“ . Political Studies . 48 (4): 802-820. doi : 10.1111 / 1467-9248.00284 .
- Jump up^ John, P. (2001). „1“. Local Governance in Western Europe . London: Sage Publications Ltd.
- Jump up^ Salingaros, N. (2000). „Complexity and Urban Coherence“ . Journal of Urban Design . 5 : 291-316. doi : 10.1080 / 713683969 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b EEA Grants (2011). „EEA Grants – Norway Grants“ . Archived from the original on May 22, 2011 . Retrieved 18 May 2011 .
- Jump up^ Hidden Cities (2010). „Unmasking and Overcoming Health Inequities in Urban Settings. Urban Governance for Reducing Health Inequities“ (PDF). Chapter 6 . Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 November 2010 . Retrieved 16 May 2011 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b Chorianopoulos, I. (2001). Urban Restructuring and Governance: North – South Differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative . Urban Studies . 39 (4): 705-726. doi : 10.1080 / 00420980220119534 .
- Jump up^ Fainstein, S. (2001). „Competitiveness, Cohesion, and Governance: Their Implications for Social Justice“ . International Journal of Urban and Regional Research . 25 (4): 884-888. doi : 10.1111 / 1468-2427.00349 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b European Urban Knowledge Network (2007). „Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities“ . Archived from the original on 22 July 2011 . Retrieved 16 May 2011 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b Federal Ministry of Transportation, Building and Urban Development (2011). „Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities“ . Archived from the original on 30 August 2010 . Retrieved 13 May 2011 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Kearns, A .; Paddison, R. (2000). „New Challenges for Urban Governance“ . Urban Studies . 37 (5-6): 845-850. doi : 10.1080 / 00420980050011118 .
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Coaffee, J .; Healey, P. (2003). „My Voice: My Place“: Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance “ . Urban Studies . 40 (10): 1979-1999. doi : 10.1080 / 0042098032000116077 .