English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article follows a comparative study mission. It shows that the metropolitan development of Brussels is clearly atypical when compared to the literature or the example of Washington, DC. It falls within the scope of Belgian mechanisms of compromise rather than the implementation of classic models of metropolitan cooperation, which often emphasise the voluntary involvement of the different stakeholders. In the case of Brussels, the metropolitan reality was imposed “from above”, even if it was claimed by some of the partners of the state reform. Contrary to Washington, there are no incentives planned by the federal authorities. The Brussels metropolitan community is also unique because this structure is not applicable to other big cities in the country, whereas the metropolitan organisation in Washington simply applies a rule which is common to all major American cities. The comparison also underlines the time required for cooperation to take root. Metropolitan cooperation has been practised in Washington for more than sixty years and has developed gradually, starting with the most straightforward issues such as public transport.

Brussel en Washington: twee ingesloten federale hoofdsteden, twee vergelijkbare metropolitane experimenten?