Exploring new dimensions of urban governance: The development of administrative systems in Trieste and Fiume (Rijeka) during the final decades of the Habsburg Empire (1850–1918) 437Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.4.6 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (4) 437–454. Introduction Urban governance theory still has many “black gaps” in its empirical background, leading to an unclear definition of the phenomenon. Urban case studies related to the theory have been conducted for nearly half a century since the oil crises in the 1970s triggered a radical change in the governance of American cities, shifting from a managerial to an entrepreneur- ial approach (Harvey, D. 1989). This shift has long been the focus of researchers’ attention and was later termed “transformation the- sis” (Lo, C. 2017). Recently, another approach within urban governance theory has emerged: the concept of metagovernance, which brief- ly refers to “... the governance of governance networks” (Berg-Nordlie, M. 2018, 51). 1 Institute for Sociology, HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre of Excellence, Tóth Kálmán u. 4. H-1097 Budapest, Hungary; Department of Social and Economic Geography, Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C., H-1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mails: Hilbert.Balint@tk.hu, hilbert.balint@gmail.com Exploring new dimensions of urban governance: The development of administrative systems in Trieste and Fiume (Rijeka) during the final decades of the Habsburg Empire (1850–1918) Bálint HILBERT 1 Abstract Urban governance is often perceived as a concept that has emerged over the past half-century, evolving from the policy of urban government. The analysis of this shift, known as the “transformation thesis,” has been criticized by recent studies in the field, which focus on the theory of metagovernance. However, both branches of urban governance literature heavily rely on knowledge of American cities, hindering a comprehensive un- derstanding of the phenomenon. There is a growing demand to broaden the temporal and geographical scope of case studies and conduct more comparative research to better understand the roots and current processes of urban governance. While the fundamental driving forces behind the emergence of modern municipal adminis- tration during the 19th century have been adequately explored, various characteristics of different geographical locations might add new dimensions and approaches to understanding urban governance. This study offers a comprehensive insight into the birth and early formation of urban governance systems in the free ports of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, namely Trieste and Fiume (Rijeka in Croatian). By analyzing legal documents and applying a mixed-method approach, this study unravels the institutional structures, electoral systems, and municipal authorities of Trieste and Fiume from the 1848 Revolution until the end of the First World War. In addition to the historical and Central European perspectives, this paper aims to explore rarely considered contextual factors of urban governance, such as legal-administrative, socio-economic, and political elements. The comparative analysis of Trieste and Fiume demonstrates that even within the same empire, a wide range of diverse influences could shape urban governance systems. Despite these varied factors and significantly different administrative contexts, surprisingly similar governance practices could also emerge. Keywords: Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Trieste, Fiume (Rijeka), urban governance, metagovernance, legal geography, historical geography Received July 2024, accepted October 2024. Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.438 Researchers studying metagovernance have begun to call their works the “second gen- eration” of urban governance literature, highlighting a shift in focus within urban governance research (Lo, C. 2017). However, neither the “first” nor the “second genera- tion” of the literature addresses critical re- search aspects necessary to reach a consen- sual definition of urban governance. There are clear deficits in information regarding temporal and spatial scopes, particularly concerning the birth of modern urban gov- ernance and its circumstances from a non- American and non-British perspective. More and more researchers in the field are sug- gesting broadening the scope of case stud- ies in terms of time and geography to better understand the current processes of urban governance and the historical paths that led to them (Pierre, J. 2005; Dear, M. and Dahmann, N. 2008; DiGaetano, A. 2009). The research presented in this paper aims to address and compare case studies that could illuminate some of these “black gaps” in urban governance theory. The late Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which existed between 1867 and 1918, provides an excellent context for such research, offering valuable insights into the circumstances surrounding the birth of modern urban governance in Central Europe. The unique constitutional and administrative structure of this state presents numerous opportunities to study and compare cities within different admin- istrative contexts, yet all under the realm of a common imperial apparatus. Out of hun- dreds of urban municipalities in the empire, the most compelling cases regarding the birth of modern urban administrative sys- tems are Trieste and Fiume (now Rijeka), which are the subjects of this paper. These cities were highly autonomous free ports for more than a century at the time of the Austro- Hungarian Compromise of 1867, thanks to privileges granted by the Habsburg dynasty in 1719. Despite a common past, an intrigu- ing rivalry characterized the relationship between Trieste and Fiume, stemming from the complex state structure of the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy. They were the main ports of the same customs area but operated under different national interests, as Trieste was part of the Austrian half while Fiume was part of the Hungarian half of the empire. Furthermore, both cities had a strong Italian ethnic character that dominated their urban governments, adding another layer of com- plexity to the governance of the ports. Most literature on the modernization of ur- ban governance systems in the 19th century focuses on public health, security, and issues related to rapid urbanization which altogeth- er induced the emergence of a new kind of urban administrative system. However, it is unquestionable that geographical factors, including different state structures and local socio-economic dynamics, could also impact this process (Hilbert, B. 2024). This study aims to present and compare the birth and early de- velopment of Trieste’s and Fiume’s urban gov- ernance systems primarily from a legal-geo- graphical perspective. This means that the study relies exclusively on information from legal documents (patents, decrees, provisional acts, parliamentary acts, etc.) to unravel this pivotal period of administrative reform. The necessary legal documents for this research are available in online databases. Acts passed by the Austrian Parliament (Reichsrat) and the provincial parliament of Austrian Littoral (whose seat was Trieste) between 1850 and 1918 are all available in the online database of the Austrian National Library (Österreichische Staatsbibliothek [ÖNB] ALEX Historische Rechts- und Gesetzestexte). Acts passed by the Hungarian Parliament (Országgyűlés) be- tween 1867 and 1918 are also accessible online at net.jogtar.hu. However, imperial patents and government decrees regulating the municipal administration of Fiume were not included in this database but can be found in a digi- tal appendix of a Hungarian book (Gergely, J. 2005). It must be noted that due to the le- gal-geographical approach, only the logic and content of legal acts will be represented nor- matively in this research. The analysis of their implementation in practice remains the topic of another scientific study. 439Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. Urban governance theories and their (lack of) historic perspectives The theory of urban governance related to the neoliberal turn starting in the 1970s is relatively new in both geography and public administration science. Research linked to the term governance – extending beyond cities – began in the 1950s, but it truly proliferated in the late 1970s, with studies on the subject steadily increasing ever since. Alongside economics, management, political science, and public administration, geography is also one of the disciplines contributing significantly to the literature on the topic (Levi-Faur, D. 2011). Despite many studies and empirical data, there is still no complete consensus on the definition of the concept, and the delinea- tion of the term can even be considered some- what confusing (Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997). Rather, it provides an analytical framework or a set of criteria for topics worth researching, which, in its simplest form, primarily focuses on the multitude of institutions and actors determin- ing urban policy and their interactions (Pierre, J. 2005). This is reinforced by the definition of one of the leading researchers in urban re- gime theory, Clarence Stone, who describes urban governance as an extremely complex, fragmented network of institutions and actors, inherently lacking consensus (Stone, C. 1989). When placing the concept in a broader context, its meaning becomes far more com- plex. The main characteristics of urban gov- ernance include the economic restructuring prompted by globalization, the retreat of state involvement, the global competition of cities for capital investments, the flexibility and multi-actor nature of decision-making, and partnerships between the state and the private sector (Jelinek, Cs. and Pósfai, Zs. 2013). In contrast, the general urban policy systems be- fore World War II are described as urban gov- ernment, where “…the governance of the city existed within a closed, hierarchical institutional framework with a few, well-identified actors, pro- viding certain public services to city residents and translating national redistributive policies to the local level” (Jelinek, Cs. and Pósfai, Zs. 2013, 145). A lot of researchers of urban governance sharply distinguish these two urban policy systems and draw a clear line between them during the transition period in the 1970s and 1980s, closely linked to the oil crises (Harvey, D. 1989; Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1992; Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997; Stoker, G. 1998; Pierre, J. 1999; Jessop, B. 2002; Brenner, N. 2004; Eckardt, F. and Elander, I. 2009; Slack, E. and Côté, A. 2014; Van den Dool, L. 2015). More and more studies concerning urban governance are increasingly critical of the research focusing on the shift from urban government to governance, often referred to as the “transformation thesis” (Lo, C. 2017). British experiences suggest that the institu- tional system of British local governments was quite fragmented and multi-polar in the mid- 19th century (Andrew, C. and Goldsmith, M. 1998; Goldsmith, M. and Garrand, J. 2000), making it contemporaneous with urban gov- ernment itself (Pierre, J. 2005). British histo- rians and political scientists have pointed out that the changes and processes that began in the 1970s – such as private-public partner- ships and different modes of providing public services – in urban governance systems can- not be considered entirely novel, as they were identifiable during the industrial revolutions and the formation of nation-states in the 19th century (Morris, J.R. 2000). Based on these insights, Andrew M. Wood’s suggestion of reevaluating the theoretical frameworks of the topic is worth considering (Wood, A.M. 2004). Partly responding to the defects of transfor- mation theses, another conceptualization of urban governance has recently in the emer- gence, centering around the idea of metago- vernance, which involves “... the governance of governance networks” (Berg-Nordlie, M. 2018, 51). This approach mostly tries to understand the effects of state legislation on the steering of subnational subjects (Bailey, D. and Wood, M. 2017). Studies in this new approach iden- tify themselves as the “second generation” of urban governance literature, but due to their novelty, metagovernance theory also lacks a clear definition and has a wide range of con- ceptual branches (Gjaltema, J. et al. 2019). Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.440 However, neither the first nor the second generation of literature on urban governance provides answers regarding the path leading to the formation of modern urban governance from a cross-national perspective (DiGaetano, A. 2009). In addition to the narrow temporal and spatial frameworks of research, several studies have pointed out the lack of com- parative analysis in the field (DiGateano, A. and Klemanski, J.S. 1999; Sellers, J.M. 2002; Pierre, J. 2005; DiGaetano, A. 2009; Slack, E. and Côté, A. 2014). Pierre and DiGaetano, in their separate studies, have already identified and connected these defects to the empirical background of urban governance, offering useful suggestions for future case studies on the topic (Pierre, J. 2005; DiGaetano, A. 2009). These suggestions are closely related to the concept of metagovernance, highlighting the role of state legislation and the question of the embeddedness of local governments within the state administration. The beginning of “modern urban govern- ance” is generally linked to the enactment of laws that established the administrative sys- tems of cities – including institutional struc- tures, electoral systems, decision-making mechanisms, and municipal responsibilities – adopted by democratically elected parlia- ments rather than imposed by exclusive powers (DiGaetano, A. 2009). These laws first emerged in Western Europe and North America in the early 19th century and later in Central and Eastern Europe in the mid to late 19th century. Literature is scarce on urban governance that specifically examines a city’s administrative conditions during this forma- tive period and evaluates their relevance to current theories. Sutcliffe ‘s work stands out in this regard, as he goes beyond analyzing legal structural changes in cities and situates them within a broader socio-economic con- text. The British historian primarily examined the urban development and planning activi- ties of large cities in the 19th and 20th centu- ries, focusing on issues triggered by urbaniza- tion – such as unemployment, poverty, crime, and the formation of slums – which necessitat- ed municipal intervention and the expansion of urban authority (Sutcliffe, A. 1995a,b). DiGaetano’s study outlines the formation of 19th-century urban governance in Boston and Bristol, linking it to the question of the path leading to 20th- and 21st-century urban governance theories (DiGaetano, A. 2009). In DiGaetano’s interpretation, democratization is essentially a consequence of the causes of urbanization and economic diversification, at least as observed in Boston and Bristol. The first and most crucial step in the democrati- zation process was the establishment of mu- nicipal laws, which determined the electoral system for municipal governing bodies and the scope of municipal institutions’ author- ity. The governance of cities could be framed by different legal frameworks depending on the state. In the cases of Boston and Bristol, democratization was accompanied by the emergence of problem-oriented urban poli- tics, with the municipal governments initially focusing on the organizational system of local police and the construction of water supply systems. DiGaetano termed the formation of modern urban governance in Boston and Bristol a “municipal revolution,” following Teaford’s expression (Teaford, J.C. 1975), and characterized it by the gradual expansion of urban institutional authority and the broad- ening of public services provided by the city. While DiGaetano’s research is an excellent example that addresses some of the deficien- cies in urban governance theory but remains within the context of the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a few addi- tional examples of urban case studies from a historical viewpoint, which mainly focus on the modernization of urban administrations in light of urban problems (Marcus, A.I. 1980; Fairbanks, R.B. 1999; Hanley, A.G. 2012). The main theoretical approach and question of the study Responding to the limitations and gaps in ur- ban governance theories, this study aims to uncover the main characteristics of Trieste’s and Fiume’s administrative systems during 441Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. the era of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which spanned from 1867 to 1918. This re- search seeks to gather empirical information outside the traditional geographical and tem- poral scope of mainstream literature, employ- ing an analytical framework that combines the main points of both the first and second generations of urban governance literature. Examining the legislative roles of the com- mon emperor and the state parliaments in regulating the administrative systems of the two ports, this study relates to the concept of metagovernance. On the other hand, the ana- lytical practices of the transformation thesis which centered around municipal institutional and authority issues are also taking part in the examination. However, this study aims to go further by incorporating factors that are typi- cally unusual in this type of research: histori- cal, legal, socio-economic, and political factors. The comparison of the two largest ports of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is highly rel- evant for addressing some of the undiscovered areas of urban governance. There are addi- tional compelling reasons to explore Trieste’s and Fiume’s administrative structures, which could potentially yield new insights: their spe- cial administrative statuses, their complex socio-political scenes, the Italian dominance in their urban administration, and their ri- valry for the “gateway” role within the em- pire. The literature on Habsburg-era Trieste and Fiume is extensive, primarily focusing on ethnic, identity, and economic features (Some examples: Guri, D. 1953; Govorchin, G.G. 1955; Ress, I. 2009; Hajdú, Z. 2013; Makkai, K. 2013; Griffante, A. 2015; Pelles, M. 2017). However, comparative studies of these cities during the Habsburg era are much less com- mon in historical-geographical literature, with only a few comparative works mainly from an economic perspective (Helmedach, A. 2002; Erdősi, F. 2022). This study aims to fill these gaps while raising new issues and factors that could be integrated into urban governance theory. The following question has been formulated to guide the study’s objectives, ensuring its complexity in both approach and methodol- ogy: How did the legal structure of the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy, as established by the Compromise of 1867, along with the unique intersections of local historical, socio-economic, and political factors, influence the early for- mation of Trieste’s and Fiume’s urban gov- ernance systems in terms of their municipal institutional structures, electoral systems, and legal and financial authorities? By addressing the various components of this comprehensive question, the study will undoubtedly provide extraordinary insights compared to the experiences of American cities. A brief history of Trieste’s and Fiume’s free port status before 1867 The two most important seaports of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, located by the shores of the opposite gulfs of the Istrian Peninsula, had always been situated at the boundaries of spheres of interest through- out history. Due to their economic poten- tial, these cities achieved a certain degree of autonomy, often manifested in their au- tonomous administrative statuses (Pelles, M. 2017). The ports, founded by the Ro- mans, had long competed with each other and with different ports of the Adriatic Sea. In the Middle Ages, Venice was their most significant rival until the Habsburg Empire began expanding in the region. Trieste be- came part of the Habsburg Empire in 1382, and Fiume after the Battle of Mohács in 1526 (Govorchin, G.G. 1955). The Habsburgs recognized the economic opportunities in maritime trade relatively late, only during the 18th century. Due to its geographical proximity to Vienna, the royal government supported the development of Trieste earlier and more vigorously, with the main goal of making it the focal point of trade between Europe and Asia (Griffante, A. 2015). Fi- ume’s development stagnated for a while, but later the Habsburgs realized that devel- oping Fiume could bolster the economic life of the empire’s lagging eastern part (Ress, I. 2009). In 1719, Charles VI (known as Charles Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.442 III in Hungary) declared both Trieste and Fiume free ports and ordered significant developments (Hajdú, Z. 2013; Ordasi, Á. 2019). While Trieste’s administrative situa- tion stabilized within the empire, Croatian and Hungarian aspirations for the possession of Fiume intensified. In 1775, the municipal council initiated the annexation of the settle- ment to Hungary, which was partly realized by queen Maria Theresa’s patent on the an- nexation to Croatia in 1776. However, due to emerging Hungarian dissatisfaction, she declared it a “separate body attached to the Hungarian crown”, also known as corpus separatum, in her 1779 charter (Hajdú, Z. 2013). The Act IV of 1807 eventually stated that Fiume’s representatives would have seats in the Hungarian Diet, effectively plac- ing the city under Hungarian jurisdiction. During the Napoleonic Wars, the adminis- trative paths of the two cities briefly diverged as Napoleon annexed Trieste to the Kingdom of Italy and Fiume to the Kingdom of Illyria (Guri, D. 1953; Hajdú, Z. 2013). After the ports were reunited under the Habsburg realm, the Italian elites headed the ports faced new challenges in the wake of nation- al movements during the 1848 revolutions. While Trieste became a main target of the Slovenian national movement, Fiume found itself at the center of Croatian-Hungarian conflicts for several decades. After the revo- lution, both Trieste and Fiume received stat- utes establishing their municipal administra- tions. However, the Austrian port received a much more detailed statute as the seat of the Crownland Austrian Littoral that remained in effect until 1918, stabilizing the city’s ad- ministration for decades. Fiume’s situation plunged into complete uncertainty. After the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, the Habsburgs annexed the port to Croatia, which initially became a de facto crownland of Austria while Hungary was ruled by mili- tary administration (Sokcsevits, D. 2011). However, with the political changes of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise in 1867, Fiume’s leaders unequivocally advocated for annexation to Hungary (Hajdú, Z. 2013). The negotiations devolved into an eighteen- month-long, fruitless debate between Croatian, Hungarian, and Fiume municipal representa- tives. Finally, the Hungarian government “solved” the situation in a rather unfair way, which became known as the “Rijeka Patch” in Croatian historiography. When the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) enacted the Croatian- Hungarian Settlement of 1868, later assented to by the emperor, the Hungarian government only discussed it afterward and added a clause on a slip of paper to the paragraph stating the undefined status of Fiume. This clause annexed the port to Hungary without the knowledge of the emperor and the Sabor (Sokcsevits, D. 2011). This affair intensified the opposition be- tween Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia for dec- ades to come. The administrative structure of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, established by the Compromise of 1867 The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 created a highly unique state structure where “common affairs” which included military, foreign, and financial matters connected main- ly Austria and Hungary to each other. This agreement established joint state institutions, such as ministries for each common affair, del- egations from both Austrian and Hungarian parliaments, and a common council of minis- ters headed by the emperor. The constitutions of Austria and Hungary defined the jurisdic- tion of these common bodies in a “negative form,” indicating that they could not inter- fere in the internal affairs of either half of the empire. Nevertheless, there were occasions when internal matters of Austria or Hungary were addressed within these joint institutions (Somogyi, É. 1996). As a result, the empire’s state structure was somewhat between a fed- eral state and a confederation: within a single customs area two separate administrative sys- tems coexisted, and both state governments were engaged in various shared responsibili- ties. Within this customs area, the free move- ment of labour, services, goods, and com- 443Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. panies was allowed, and a common official currency was in use (Szente, Z. 2011; Katus, L. 2012). Beyond the historical traditions of both Austria and Hungary regarding their state structures, the role of the common emperor significantly influenced the distribution of power across different administrative lev- els. According to the Compromise of 1867, Emperor Franz Joseph retained near-absolute authority in the legislative process in both parts of the empire, allowing him to main- tain the status quo of the dualist state struc- ture (Sarlós, B. 1976). In Austria, the emper- or could govern through emergency decrees without needing the consent of the Austrian parliament (Reichsrat). Consequently, there was no real possibility for any opposition par- ty to threaten the status quo in the Reichsrat, which enabled a broader distribution of pow- er to the crownlands and the municipalities. In contrast, the Hungarian legislative process granted the emperor only the right of pre- Royal assent. This did not afford him the same absolutist power as in Austria, requiring him to negotiate and reach agreements with the Hungarian government and the Hungarian Parliament (Országgyűlés). This arrangement concluded with the thorough centralization of the Hungarian administrative system to elim- inate any possible internal opposition, which resulted in the reduction of the authority of subnational subjects (Sarlós, B. 1976). The division of municipal governments and their integration into the respective administra- tive systems differed fundamentally between Austria and Hungary (Figure 1). The Austrian Act on Municipalities of 1862 (AA, 1862), as a federal law, specified basic regulations for Austrian municipalities but allowed the crown- lands’ parliaments to tailor these regulations to their provincial contexts. Larger municipalities could obtain statutes from provincial parlia- ments, granting them expanded jurisdiction over institutional and financial matters to bet- ter manage municipal tasks. Hungarian urban municipalities were divided into four catego- ries according to Hungarian administrative laws (HA, 1872a,b; HA, 1886a,b): Municipal Towns (with county rights), Towns with set- tled councils (under county supervision), and Budapest and Fiume, which had their own statutes. Croatia-Slavonia gained autonomous status in 1868, which included the regulation of internal administration. However, the division of Croatian urban municipalities largely mir- rored the Hungarian model: there were towns with county rights and towns with district rights (Čepulo, D. 2010). The administrative positions of Trieste and Fiume within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and their respective halves of the empire shared several similarities: both cit- ies had unique statutes granted by the 1850 statute of Trieste and the 1872 statute of Fiume, which was practically modeled after the former (Ordasi, Á. 2019). They retained their status as free ports, with Italians having Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy’s administrative structure and the positions of Trieste and Fiume (marked in bold and underlined font). 1 = direct influence; 2 = indirect influence; 3 = common and jointly managed matters, as well as negotiation of the customs union. A = Austria: R = Reichsrat (Austrian Parliament), I.F.C. Trieste = Imperial Free City of Trieste (Reichsunmittelbare Stadt Triest und ihr Gebiet), M = Municipalities, MS = Municipalities with Statute. H = Hungary: O = Országgyűlés (Hungarian Parliament), C = Counties, MT = Municipal Towns (towns with county rights), F = City of Fiume, BP = Budapest. Source: Author’s elaboration based on Brauneder, W. 1994, and Mezey, B. 2004. Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.444 primary control over their administration. Trieste became a city “directly subordinat- ed under the empire” (Reichsunmittelbare Stadt), meaning it was under the supervision of the emperor and the Austrian Parliament (AA, 1850; Griffante, A. 2015). Similarly, Fiume came directly under Hungarian par- liamentary legislation (see Figure 1), and both cities were entitled to send representatives to their respective parliaments (HA, 1872a). The status of Trieste and Fiume changed sig- nificantly in 1891 when the two cities were integrated into the Monarchy’s customs ter- ritory, abolishing their tax-free zones that had existed since 1719 (AA, 1891; HA, 1891). Neither the basic statute of Trieste and Fiume was modified fundamentally until 1918. Only minor paragraphs of Trieste’s statute of 1850 were modified (AA, 1882; AA, 1885; AA, 1908; AA, 1910) while the Hungarian gov- ernment through its orders modified signifi- cantly the governance of Fiume (HA, 1901; HA, 1913; HA, 1916). Political and socio-economic dynamics during the era of dualism (1867–1918) Considering the ethnic diversity and autono- mous statuses of Trieste and Fiume, it is cru- cial to examine the broader context of ethnic agreements within the Austro-Hungarian Empire to fully comprehend the situation of these ports. The Compromise of 1867 es- tablished and solidified the dualist system within the Habsburg Empire, but it did not preclude the establishment of territorial au- tonomies or agreements without altering the Compromise itself. Excluding Bosnia-Herze- govina, a total of four provincial and three municipal-level agreements were reached during the period of dualism (Figure 2). Croatia-Slavonia was the only territory with legally guaranteed de jure autonomy, granting the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) the authority to manage internal administration, cultural and educational matters, as well as the use of the Croatian language in public ad- ministration (Sokcsevits, D. 2011). However, the Sabor remained highly dependent on the Hungarian Parliament both politically and fi- nancially, allowing Hungarian governments to pursue a centralization policy regard- ing Croatia-Slavonia. This led to significant changes in Croatian administration and ur- ban governance (Hilbert, B. 2024). In contrast, Galicia’s de facto autonomy in Austria was based on concessions that favoured the Poles over the Ruthenians in the governance of the crownland (Perényi, J. and Kovács, E. 1986). Despite this, the Ruthenians were also grant- ed some concessions, including the establish- ment of a Ruthenian University in Lemberg (Mick, C. 2019). In 1914, an act divided the Galician Diet into Polish and Ruthenian sec- tions, significantly improving the latter’s rep- resentation, but the outbreak of World War I prevented the implementation of this system (Zöllner, E. 1998). Beyond Croatia-Slavonia and Galicia, efforts to resolve ethnic conflicts were primarily seen in Austria. Agreements in Moravia and Bukovina established the di- vision of their provincial diets into national sections and recalibrated electoral districts accordingly (Kuzmany, B. 2016). An unusu- al agreement was also enacted in 1914 in a Bohemian municipality, where the German and Czech leaders of Budweis agreed on a new municipal electoral system based on national sections. The Budweis system went further than the provincial agreements by proposing the division of the city’s tax rev- enues into two parts, managed by the respec- tive nationality representative groups, mainly for cultural matters. Although the Budweis Compromise was never realized due to World War I, it demonstrated the potential for re- solving nationality issues at the municipal level (Kuzmany, B. 2016). Trieste and Fiume also held special sta- tuses within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, though their unique roles were driven more by economic factors than by ethnic considera- tions. Between 1867 and 1918, the increasing intersection of ethnic and power conflicts be- gan to significantly influence public politics in the ports. The dynamic change in the eth- nic composition of their population played a 445Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. significant role in this. The share of the Italian inhabitants in Trieste decreased from 65 to 51 percent between 1880 and 1910, while the Slovenian population increased from 14 to 25 percent. Meanwhile, in Fiume, the Italian population slightly increased from 43 to 48 percent, whereas the Croatian population plummeted from 38 to 25 percent. Notably, the Hungarian population in Fiume surged from 2 to 13 percent, while the shares of the German population remained stable in both cities (Horel, C. 2023). In light of these statis- tics, it is not surprising that Trieste’s municipal administration faced increasing pressure from the Slovenian national movements while si- multaneously Italian secessionist movements got also stronger in the city. Trieste’s Italian elites, through municipal regulations, obstruct- ed non-Italian education in the city, which in- tensified and linked Slovenian and Croatian national movements (Gould, S.W. 1945). However, the Viennese government man- aged to control ethnic tensions primarily by maintaining the status quo in the city, while granting several concessions to Slovenians in the crownland of Carniola, where they were Fig. 2. The administrative divisions, autonomous territories, and other subnational agreements within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1914). 1 – Administrative units of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. A = countries of the Hungarian Crown: A1 = Hungary and its county system, A2 = Croatia-Slavonia and its county system. B = crownlands of Austria: B1 = crownlands with their own parliaments and governments, B2 = the “de facto” autonomy of the Crownland of Galicia, B3 = provincial agreements on national electoral rolls; 2 – Municipalities with special statuses. a = municipalities with statutes in Austria, and municipalities with county rights in the countries of the Hungarian Crown, b = agreement on national electoral rolls in the municipality of Budweis; c = free ports of Trieste and Fiume. Source: Author’s elaboration based on Brauneder, W. 1994, Mezey, B. 2004, and Kuzmany, B. 2016. Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.446 the majority (Horel, C. 2023). Fiume, on the other hand, faced significant cultural and poli- tical pressure from the Hungarian government which sought to erode Fiume’s autonomy and strengthen Hungarian cultural influence in the city. The translation of Hungarian laws into Italian often caused confusion, as it took several months, leaving the Fiume Municipal Council poorly informed about Hungarian domestic affairs and matters concerning the city. The enforcement of the Hungarian coat of arms and flag on municipal buildings further fueled local resentment towards Hungarians (Simon, P.P. 2013). Ultimately, in 1913, the Hungarian government through the enact- ment of an order abolished Fiume’s autono- my, and referring to the failed quorum of the Municipal Council, handing over the abso- lute power over the whole city to the current governor, István Wickenburg (HA, 1913). The conflict did not subside, as bombs exploded in the Governor’s Palace in both 1913 and 1914, but the identity of the perpetrators largely re- mained unknown (Ordasi, Á. 2018). In addition to the ethnic factor, further economic and political factors played an im- portant role in the development of Trieste and Fiume. The competition between the two port cities for the “gateway role” of the empire was a crucial point of contention between Austrian imperial and Hungarian national ambitions (Erdősi, F. 2005). The primary goal of developing the entire rail- way system in Austria and Hungary was to connect Trieste and Fiume to their respective capitals. In this context, the Vienna–Trieste line was completed 16 years earlier, in 1857, than the line connecting Fiume to Budapest, which opened in 1873. This competition began with a notable advantage for Trieste due to early Habsburg support during the absolutist era which Fiume could not surpass later on. However, the Hungarian govern- ment’s efforts led to a substantial increase in Fiume’s port cargo traffic (Erdősi, F. 2022). Trieste primarily competed with Genoa for the central role in Mediterranean trade from Europe but eventually lagged behind the Italian port (Guri, D. 1953). Urban governance systems in Trieste and Fiume based on legal documents (1867–1918) Integration into the administrative system and institutional structure The free port status of Trieste and Fiume, originating in 1719, was a decisive factor in shaping the administrative structures of Aus- tria and Hungary in 1867. Both cities were in- corporated into their respective halves of the empire as “corpus separatum” with separate customs areas. Fiume’s 1872 statute, which replaced the provisional statute of 1870 (HA, 1870), was largely based on Trieste’s 1850s statute (Ordasi, Á. 2019), making their gov- ernance systems similar in many respects. Neither Trieste’s nor Fiume’s statute was significantly modified until 1918, unlike the statutes of several other urban municipalities in Austria and Hungary during that period. In Austria, only Prague, Görz (now Gorizia, Italy), and Trieste had statutes originating from the provisional era (1848–1867) enacted absolutistically by the emperor (Hilbert, B. 2023). The ports’ unique statuses manifest- ed differently in their state administrations: Trieste was elevated to a provincial rank in Austria, while Fiume formed a separate mu- nicipal category within Hungary. However, neither municipality could fully detach from the legal structure of their respective halves of the empire, significantly impacting their internal institutional systems. Trieste’s institutional framework mirrored other Austrian cities with statutes but includ- ed a provincial parliament due to its crown- land status, with the municipal decision-mak- ing body fulfilling this role (Figure 3). Trieste became the seat of the unified crownland of the Austrian Littoral, which comprised the Imperial Free City of Trieste, the crownlands of Görz, and Gradisca, and Istria. A common provincial governor, along with the Reichsrat and the emperor, exercised state supervision over the city. The so-called „Fractionen” were unique urban organs within Trieste’s administration, serving as territorial execu- tive bodies that complemented the Municipal 447Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. Council. In Fiume, the most significant insti- tutional differences from Trieste were the po- sitions of the Governor and its council which was equivalent to the lord-lieutenants in the Hungarian Municipal Towns and the Lord- Mayor in Budapest. Due to the port’s persis- tent struggle for autonomy, the Governor’s and its council’s supervisory powers in Fiume were narrower than those of the lord- lieutenants, primarily responsible for com- munication between the Hungarian govern- ment and the municipality. Fiume’s statute also included the Administrative Committee, which took on tasks from the Municipal Council and could be granted decision-mak- ing power. The complex integration into state Fig. 3. Schematic figure of the institutional structure of Trieste and Fiume and their positions within the administrative system of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in 1914. 1 – Actors involved in urban governance systems: A = The common imperator of Austria-Hungary; B = State body or body appointed by the common imperator and/or the state government; C = Provincial body; D = Body elected by local residents possessed voting rights or body elected by the municipal council. 2 – Official relations between the organs participating in the urban governance system: a – It could uphold, amend and cancel decrees and resolutions, as well as dissolve municipal councils; b = Elected, appointed, consented to the appointment of one or more members; c = It could dissolve a plenum of a body and dismiss an official from his office; d = Before issuing decrees on certain matters, it must consult with the relevant body; e = The body’s permission was required for the adop- tion of certain or all of its decrees; its decisions concerning an appeal or complaint case were binding to the concerned urban organ; f = It could appeal against the decree of another body. P.P. = Provincial Parliament. *The provincial governor/council of governors can suspend the decree or decision of any body in Trieste/Fiume. The Municipal Council could appeal against the decision to the Minister of the Interior. **Since Trieste and Fiume were directly subjected to the state government, they had to apply the laws of their respective parlia- ments, against which there was no room for appeal. Source: Author’s elaboration based on the following acts: AA, 1850; AA, 1861; HA, 1870; HA, 1872a; HA, 1901; AA, 1908. Trieste Austria Hungary Fiume Municipal Council Municipal Council Podestá (Mayor) Governor Governor’s council Municipal Committee Fractionen (Districts) Imperator Ministry of Interior Governor of Austrian Littoral Prime Minister Hungarian Government Ministry of Interior Administrative Committee Municipal Magistrate Austrian Parliament P.P. * ** ** Hungarian Parliament * 1 A B C D 2 a b c d e f Podestá (Mayor) Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.448 administration, along with specific bodies, rendered the governance of the cities frag- mented: Trieste had more decision-making and executive bodies, while Fiume had more supervisory bodies (see Figure 3). Electoral system The electoral systems of Trieste’s and Fiume’s urban organs showed both similarities and differences in nearly equal measure (Table 1). The method of electing members to the cities’ representative bodies differed significantly, while the election of the city’s mayor (Podestá) was entirely identical. In Trieste, as in other Austrian cities, a curial system was in effect, uniquely operating with four curiae without a tax census for the lowest curia since 1850. Fi- ume’s municipal council’s electoral system was completely different, based on a voting register. However, Fiume’s election system also differed significantly from that of Hungarian Municipal Towns, as it did not introduce virilism, which allowed the highest taxpayer residents to enter the Municipal Council without a vote. Another voting instrument absent from Fiume’s system was the appointment com- mittee. With a state-elected majority, this committee proposed three nominees for the position of mayor in every Hungarian Municipal Town, from which the municipal councils had to elect one. This organ was a tool of centralization by the Hungarian gov- ernment (Sarlós, B. 1976). The voting age in Fiume also differed from that in Hungary and was identical to the one in Austria. Although the mayors (podestà) of the two cities were elected in the same way (voted by the municipal committee and assented by the emperor), in Fiume, the Governor was the head of the executive power, ap- pointed by the emperor with the Hungarian Prime Minister’s agreement, indicating the city’s greater exposure to state control. Nonetheless, the absence of virilism and the appointment committee made Fiume’s vot- ing system more democratic than Hungary’s and more similar to the Austrian one. Municipal authority The special legal status of Trieste and Fiume and their differing integration into their re- spective state administration systems brought the two port cities closer together regarding their municipal authority (see Table 1). Para- doxically, Trieste’s elevation to provincial rank significantly limited its municipal powers, as it fell directly under the supervision of the Reichsrat and the emperor. This change re- quired royal assent to establish the municipal institutional system and the adoption of the annual budget which was not the case in oth- er Austrian cities. Fiume also required higher approval for these jurisdictions, but unlike other Hungarian Municipal Towns, issuing building permits and securing local security were solely the rights of the Municipal Council in Fiume, making it more similar to Trieste. Beyond these, the municipal councils of Tri- este and Fiume even had a more significant power: the authority to approve any changes to their urban statutes before they were en- acted by the state or provincial parliament. This right was not unique across the empire, as Cracow also possessed a similar right (AA, 1866). Both cities could deal with national af- fairs and could send two representatives to their respective national diets. Additionally, Fiume alongside Budapest and the Hungarian Municipal Towns had a stronger instrument to influence national affairs: the so-called „right to address”, allowing the Municipal Council to object to and detain a government order. However, this right was easily eluded by the state government, and after 1901, the expand- ed jurisdiction of the Governor’s Council ren- dered it ineffective for the Municipal Council (Sarlós, B. 1976). The most significant differ- ence between the port cities’ authorities con- cerned financial matters, specifically regarding the rates of municipal surtaxes, the manage- ment of marketable municipal properties, and the terms of borrowable loans. Fiume’s Mu- nicipal Council did not have the authority to manage these financial matters independently; it required approval from the Minister of the Interior. Trieste had authority over these mat- 449Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. Ta bl e 1 . T he m ai n fea tu re s o f t he el ec to ra l s ys te m a nd m un ic ip al a ut ho rit y in T rie st e a nd F iu m e c om pa re d to A us tr ia n ci tie s w ith st at ut es (A .C .S .) an d H un ga ria n M un ic ip al T ow ns (H .M .T .) (1 85 0– 19 18 ) A .C .S . Tr ie st e Fi um e H .M .T . El ec to ra l s ys te m G ov er no r – A pp oi nt ed b y th e em pe ro r f or th e pr op os al o f t he H un ga ri an P ri m e M in is te r / th e M in is te r o f I nt er io r. M ay or (P od es tá ) El ec te d by th e m un ic ip al c ou nc il w hi ch a ss en te d by th e em pe ro r. El ec te d th ro ug h th e ap po in t- m en t c om m itt ee . M em be rs o f t he m un ic ip al c ou nc il El ec te d by th e lo ca l v ot er s in a c ur ia l v ot in g sy st em . El ec te d by th e lo ca l v ot er s ba se d on a v ot in g re gi st er . M em be rs o f t he M un ic ip al C om m itt ee El ec te d by th e m un ic ip al c ou nc il. El ec te d th ro ug h th e ap po in t- m en t c om m itt ee . V ot in g ag e, y ea r 24 20 Ta x ce ns us , g ul de n Va ri ab le (0 –2 5) – 16 V ir ili sm N o Ye s M un ic ip al a ut ho ri ty M un ic ip al re pr es en ta tiv es in th e st at e pa rl ia m en ts : N o Ye s N o Le ga l r ig ht to d ea l w ith s up ra ur - ba n m att er s… is n ot a llo w ed . is a llo w ed in di re ct ly th ro ug h th e m un ic ip al re pr es en ta - tiv es s ea te d in th e A us tr ia n pa rl ia m en t. is a llo w ed d ir ec tly th ro ug h th e „r ig ht to a dd re ss ” an d in di re ct ly th ro ug h th e m un ic ip al re pr es en ta tiv es se at ed in th e H un ga ri an p ar lia m en t. is a llo w ed d ir ec tly th ro ug h th e „r ig ht o f a dd re ss ”. A pp ro va l o f t he m un ic ip al c ou nc il to c ha ng e ur ba n st at ut e by th e st at e/ pr ov in ci al p ar lia m en t… is n ot n ee de d. (e xc ep t C ra co w ) is n ee de d. (T he m un ic ip al c ou nc il of T ri es te c ou ld a ls o in iti at e a m od ifi - ca tio n of th e st at ut e th ro ug h th e pr ov in ci al p ar lia m en t.) is n ot n ee de d. A pp ro va l o f a h ig he r a dm in is tr a- tiv e bo dy to b y- la w -m ak in g… is n ot n ee de d at a ll. is n ee de d in c er ta in m att er s. A pp ro va l o f a h ig he r a dm in is tr a- tiv e bo dy to a do pt a b ud ge t a nd to m an ag e ur ba n or ga ns … is n ot n ee de d. is n ee de d. Is su in g bu ild in g pe rm it… is in th e ju ri sd ic tio n of th e m un ic ip al c ou nc il. (I n Fi um e, th e M un ic ip al C ou nc il de le ga te d th is a ut ho ri ty to th e ju ri sd ic tio n of th e A dm in is tr at iv e C om m itt ee . T hi s ri gh t w as a bo lis he d in F iu m e in 1 91 3. ) is in th e ju ri sd ic tio n of th e A dm in is tr at iv e Bo ar d. C on tr ol o ve r t he lo ca l p ol ic e… is in th e ju ri sd ic tio n of th e m un ic ip al c ou nc il (In F iu m e un til 1 91 3) . is in th e ju ri sd ic tio n of s ta te bo di es . M un ic ip al s ur ta x, % 25 –5 00 25 0 M ar ke ta bl e m un ic ip al p ro pe rt ie s, 10 00 g ul de n 0– 15 0 10 0 0 Th e am ou nt o f b or ro w ab le lo an , 10 00 g ul de n Va ri ab le fi gu re s. A fe w e xa m pl es : V ie nn a: 2 00 0 Li nz : 1 00 K la ge nf ur t, Br no : 5 0 G ra z: 2 5 Th e av er ag e of to ta l y ea rl y bu dg et ar y in co m e fr om th e la st th re e ye ar s. 0 So ur ce : B as ed o n th e in fo rm at io n of A A , 1 85 0; A A , 1 86 1; A A , 1 90 8; H A , 1 87 0; H A , 1 87 2a ; H A , 1 87 2b ; H A , 1 88 6a ; H A , 1 88 6b ; H A , 1 90 1, a nd th e au th or . Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.450 ters, but compared to other Austrian cities, its Municipal Council had a relatively limited or average scope of action. However, the statutes of the cities had not been modified over time but Fiume’s au- tonomy was torpedoed through state gov- ernmental decrees. However, the Hungarian port city could defend its authority for a long time compared to the Hungarian Municipal Towns. A specific governmental decree came into force in Fiume in 1901 that had been en- acted in Hungary in 1876. This act empow- ered the Governor’s Council with comprehen- sive supervision over delegated state powers at the municipal level and stricter oversight of municipal jurisdictions. In 1913, citing the unceasing chaos of the urban administra- tion, the Hungarian government eliminated the special status of the port and later took over the management of the local police (HA, 1916). Meanwhile, Trieste’s statute was not significantly modified, allowing it to retain its authority. Compared to Fiume, this was definitely an advantage. However, compared to other Austrian cities, it could be considered disadvantageous, as the jurisdictions of many Austrian cities expanded over time (mainly in financial authorities), and ethnic conflicts were mitigated by electoral reforms. Conclusions This research aimed to explore urban gov- ernance systems beyond the experience of American cities after the 1970s, focusing on two Central European cases from a histori- cal perspective. The study analyzed the first urban statutes of Trieste and Fiume during the era of the Late Habsburg Empire, reveal- ing that numerous historical, legal-adminis- trative, and socio-economic-political factors shaped their early institutional structures and municipal authorities. The comparative research showed that these factors significantly influenced both cities’ institutional structures and munici- pal authorities. A crucial historical factor was Trieste’s and Fiume’s special statuses which were maintained for almost 150 years before the Compromise of 1867. Undoubtedly, this historical fact secured the continuation of the special statuses but at the same time, the newly established legal and administrative factors com- plicated the formulation of their governance systems. Trieste got simultaneously rights of a municipality and crownland with reduced autonomy compared to other Austrian cities. In contrast, Fiume, directly submitted to the Hungarian parliament, had unique jurisdictions not shared by other Hungarian municipalities. The study revealed that socio-economic-political factors also played a crucial role in formulat- ing the governmental structure of the cities. Both ports, as key sea trading gateways, were significant from the perspectives of Austrian imperialism and Hungarian nationalism. These perspectives, along with socio-economic fac- tors, differently affected the governmental systems of Trieste and Fiume. The ports’ ini- tial statutes favoured Italians, and the curial electoral system in Trieste and the lack of viri- lism in Fiume maintained Italian dominance. However, growing Slovenian and Croatian national movements paired with Austrian and Hungarian political ambitions disrupted local politics and resulted in different solutions from the Viennese and Budapest governments. The status quo was sustained in Trieste, even amid provincial agreements throughout Austria, while Hungarian governments increasingly opposed Croatians and Italians in Fiume and Croatia-Slavonia. Despite Fiume’s effective re- sistance to Budapest’s centralization policies, its authority quickly diminished after the turn of the century. The cases of Trieste and Fiume demonstrat- ed that both the transformation thesis and metagovernance perspectives were applica- ble not only in combination but also within a historical spectrum. The perspective of me- tagovernance in this study showed that the legislative and political roles of state actors in urban governance systems were decisive in the cases of Trieste and Fiume. The analytical framework of the transformation thesis also yielded useful results. Several factors indi- cated that both urban government’s and ur- 451Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. ban governance’s characteristics were present in the municipal administration systems of these port cities. Their highly fragmented ur- ban governance scenes, the right to approve state acts regulating their administration, and their participation in national matters through their representatives in the national parliaments resembled the philosophy of ur- ban governance. However, the strict supervi- sion of their municipal matters, especially the narrow financial authority and the gradually reducing overall autonomy of Fiume, pointed to the idea of urban government. Based on these results, this study aligns with the conclusions of British experiences mentioned in the theoretical section (Andrew, C. and Goldsmith, M. 1998; Goldsmith, M. and Garrand, J. 2000; Pierre, J. 2005). However, this research extends beyond them by including and analyzing the effects of additional dimensions (historical, admin- istrative-legal, and socio-economic-political) on the formation of early urban governance systems in the 19th century. Geographical context proved highly relevant in research- ing urban governance, as DiGaetano pre- sumed (DiGaetano, A. 2009). Even within a single state formation, geographical location and administrative position were crucial. The comparison of Trieste and Fiume highlight- ed the importance of rethinking analytical frameworks of urban governance, showing that different historical times combined with different geographical contexts could create unique circumstances for the formation of urban governance systems. Acknowledgements: The research was supported by the Collegium Hungaricum Scholarship granted by the Hungarian Government. REFERENCES AA, 1850. 139. kaiserliches Patent vom 12. April 1850, wodurch die Versassung für die reichunmittelbare Stadt Triest erlassen und verkündet wird (Imperial Patent No. 139 of 12 April 1850, whereby the constitution for the imperial city of Trieste is issued and an- nounced). Reichsgesetzblatt 1849–1918, 12. April 1850, No. 139. AA, 1861. Landes-Ordnung und Landtags-Wahlordnung für das Küstenland, d. i. für die reichunmittelbare Stadt Triest mit ihrem Gebiete, für die gefürstete Graffschaft Görz und Gradiska, und für die Markgraffschaft Istrien (Regulations on the provincial government and the election of the provincial parliament for the Imperial Free City of Trieste and its territory, for the County of Gorizia and Gradiska, and for the Margraviate of Istria). Reichsgesetzblatt 1849–1918, 26. February 1861, No. 20. Annex No.2. section i. AA, 1862. Gesetz vom 5. März 1862, womit die grundsätzli- chen Bestimmungen zur Regelung des Gemeindewesens vorgezeichnet werden (Act of 5 March 1862, which specifies the basic provisions for the regulation of municipal affairs). Reichsgesetzblatt 1849–1918, 5. March 1862, No. 18. AA, 1866. Gesetz über die Gemeinde-Statuten der Stadt Krakau (Act on Municipal Statute of the City of Cracow). Landesgesetzblatt Galizien 1772–918, 13. April 1866, No. 7. AA, 1882. Gesetz, giltig für die reichsunmittelbare Stadt Triest, womit dem § 119 lit. d der Verfassung der Stadt Triest ein Absatz beigefügt wird (Act applies to the Imperial Free City of Trieste, with which a paragraph is added to § 119 of the Constitution of the City of Trieste). Landesgesetzblatt Triest und Küstenland 1851–1918, 10. February 1882, No.7. AA, 1885. Gesetz vom 1. April 1882, LGBl. Nr. 8/1885, womit die Umfangsgrenze der Stadt Triest festgestellt und der § 41 der Verfassung der reichsunmittelbaren Stadt Triest abgeändert wird (Act of 1 April 1882, LGBl. No. 8/1885, which establishes the perim- eter of the city of Trieste and amends § 41 of the Constitution of the Imperial Free City of Trieste). Landesgesetzblatt Triest und Küstenland 1851– 1918, 5. March 1885, No. 8. AA, 1891. Gesetz, womit in Durchführung des Gesetzes vom 30. April 1889 (R. G. Bl. Nr. 63) die näheren Anordnungen, betreffend die Einbeziehung des Freihafengebietes von Triest in das österreichisch- ungarische Zollgebiet getroffen werden (Act on imple- menting the law of 30 April 1889 (R. G. Bl. No. 63) laying down detailed provisions concerning the in- clusion of the free port area of Trieste in the Austro- Hungarian customs territory). Reichsgesetzblatt 1849–1918, 24. June 1891, No. 76. AA, 1908. Gesetz, mit welchem die Verfassung der reichsunmittelbaren Stadt Triest abgeändert und eine Wahlordnung für den Gemeinderat von Triest erlassen wird (Act amending the constitution of the Imperial Free City of Trieste and establishing electoral regulations for the Municipal Council of Trieste). Landesgesetzblatt Triest und Küstenland 1851–1918, 29. September 1908, No. 44. AA, 1910. Gesetz vom 26. Mai 1910, LGBl. Nr. 24, betr. die Abänderung des § 126 des kaiserlichen Patents vom 12. April 1850, wodurch die Verfassung der re- ichsunmittelbaren Stadt Triest erlassen und verkündet Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.452 wurde (Act of 26 May 1910, LGBl. No. 24, concerning the amendment of § 126 of the Imperial Patent of 12 April 1850, whereby the Constitution of the Imperial Free City of Trieste was issued and promulgated). Landesgesetzblatt Triest und Küstenland 1851–1918, 26. May 1910, No. 24. Andrew, C. and Goldsmith, M. 1998. From local govern- ment to local governance? – and beyond. International Political Science Review 19. (2): 101–117. https://doi. org/10.1177/019251298019002002 Bailey, D. and Wood, M. 2017. The metagovernance of English devolution. Local Government Studies 43. (6): 966–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017 .1359165 Berg-Nordlie, M. 2018. The governance of urban in- digenous spaces: Norwegian Sámi examples. Acta Borealia 35. (1): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08003 831.2018.1457316 Brauneder, W. 1994. Osztrák alkotmánytörténet napjainkig (Constitutional history of Austria till nowadays). Pécs, Janus Pannonius Tudományegyetem. Brenner, N. 2004. New State Spaces, Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o so/9780199270057.001.0001 Čepulo, D. 2010. Centralisation, modernisation and nation-building in Croatia and Slavonia: Reforms of the county system 1848–1918. In Parliaments: The Law, the Practice and the Representations. From the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Ed.: Coelho, R., Lisbon, Assembleia da Republica, Universidade de Coimbra, 143–149. Dear, M. and Dahmann, N. 2008. Urban politics and the Los Angeles School of Urbanism. Urban Affairs Review 44. (2): 266–279. https://doi. org/10.1177/1078087408320240 DiGaetano, A. 2009. The birth of modern urban governance: A comparison of political modernization in Boston, Massachusetts, and Bristol, England, 1800–1870. Journal of Urban History 35. (2): 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144208327914 DiGaetano, A. and Klemanski, J.S. 1999. Power and City Governance. Comparative Perpectives on Urban Development. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Eckardt, F. and Elander, I. 2009. Urban Governance in Europe. Berlin, Berliner Wissenschafts Verlag. Erdősi, F. 2005. A Balkán közlekedésének főbb földrajzi jellemzői (Main geographical features of traffic in the Balkans). Pécs, PTE TTK FI Kelet-Mediterrán és Balkán Tanulmányok Központja. Erdősi, F. 2022. Trieszt – Fiume: Két szomszédos kikötő versengése az első világháborúig (Trieste – Fiume: Competition between two neighbouring ports until the First World War). Pécs, Közgazdaság- és Regionális Tudományi Kutatóközpont Regionális Kutatások Intézete. Fairbanks, R.B. 1999. Rethinking urban problems, planning, zoning, and city government in Dallas, 1900–1930. Journal of Urban History 25. (6): 809–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/009614429902500602 Gergely, J. 2005. Autonómiák Magyarországon, 1848–2000 (Autonomies in Hungary, 1848–2000). Budapest, L’Harmattan Kiadó. Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R. and Termeer, K. 2019. From government to governance… to meta- governance: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review 22. (12): 1760–1780. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697 Goldsmith, M. and Garrand, J. 2000. Urban gov- ernance: Some reflections. In Urban Governance: Britain and Beyond since 1750. Eds.: Morris, J. and Trainor, H., London, Routledge, 15–27. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315235271-2 Gould, S.W. 1945. The Slovenes. The Social Studies 36. (7): 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973. 1937.11017098 Govorchin, G.G. 1955. The struggle for Trieste. The Social Studies 46. (4): 123–127. https://doi.org/10.10 80/00220973.1939.11017904 Griffante, A. 2015. Between empire and nation state. Urban space and conflicting memories in Trieste (19th–early 20th century). Journal of Architecture and Urbanism 39. (1): 17–27. https://doi.org/10.3846/202 97955.2015.1031441 Guri, D. 1953. The importance of Trieste. The Social Studies 44. (8): 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/003 77996.1953.9957369 HA, 1870. Ferenc József legfelső kézirata a fiumei provizórium bevezetéséről (Bécs, 1870. július 28.) (Franz Joseph’s patent on the introduction of the Provisional in Fiume [Vienna, 28 July 1870]). HA, 1872a. Fiume szabad város és kerületének statútuma (The statute of the Free City of Fiume and its dis- trict). Act of the Hungarian parliament, assented by the emperor in 1 June 1872. HA, 1872b. 1872. évi XXXVI. törvénycikk Buda-Pest fővárosi törvényhatóság alakitásáról és rendezéséről (XXXVI. legal article of 1872 on the formation and organization of the capital municipality of Buda- Pest). Act of the Hungarian parliament, assented by the emperor in 22 December 1872. HA, 1886a. 1886. évi XXI. törvénycikk a törvény- hatóságokról (XXI. legal article on the counties and Municipalities). Act of the Hungarian parliament, assented by the emperor in 27 June 1886. HA, 1886b. 1886. évi XXII. törvénycikk a községekről (XXII. legal article on the municipalities). Act of the Hungarian parliament, assented by the emperor in 27 June 1886. HA, 1891. 1891. évi XVIII. törvénycikk az 1889. évi XVI. tc. végrehajtásában Fiume szabad kikötő területének az osztrák-magyar vámterületbe való bevonása iránt teendő intézkedésekről (Act XVIII of 1891 about the Act XVI of 1889 on the measures to be taken in order to include the area of the free port of Fiume in the Austro-Hungarian customs territory). Act of https://doi.org/10.1177/019251298019002002 https://doi.org/10.1177/019251298019002002 https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1359165 https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1359165 https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2018.1457316 https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2018.1457316 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199270057.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199270057.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087408320240 https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087408320240 https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144208327914 https://doi.org/10.1177/009614429902500602 https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697 https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315235271-2 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315235271-2 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1937.11017098 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1937.11017098 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1939.11017904 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1939.11017904 https://doi.org/10.3846/20297955.2015.1031441 https://doi.org/10.3846/20297955.2015.1031441 https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.1953.9957369 https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.1953.9957369 453Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454. the Hungarian parliament, assented by the emperor in 23 June 1891. HA, 1901. A magyar kormány rendelete a Fiuméban szervezendő középfokú közigazgatási hatóságról (Budapest, 1901. július 2.) (Order of the Hungarian government on the secondary administrative author- ity to be organized in Fiume [Budapest, 2 July 1901]). HA, 1913. A m. kir belügyminiszter 1913. évi 5.361. eln. számú rendelete a fiumei kormányzóhoz, Fiume és a magyar-horvát tengerpart kir. kormányzójának kivételes hatáskörrel felruházásáról (No. 5,361 Decree of 1913 of the Hungarian Royal Minister of the Interior to the Governor of Fiume, granting exceptional powers to the Royal Governor of Fiume and the Hungarian- Croatian coast). HA, 1916. 1916. évi XXXVII. törvénycikk a fiumei m. kir. állami rendőrségről (Act No. XXXVII of 1916 on the Hungarian Royal State Police in Fiume). Act of the Hungarian parliament, assented by the emperor in 28 October 1916. Hajdú, Z. 2013. Fiume 1868–1918: Erisz almája, avagy lebegő gyöngyszem Szent István koronáján? (Fiume 1868–1918: Eris’s apple, or a floating pearl on the crown of Saint Stephen?). Közép-Európai Közlemények 22. (3): 7–14. Hanley, A.G. 2012. A failure to deliver: Municipal poverty and the provision of public services in Imperial São Paulo, Brazil 1822–1889. Journal of Urban History 39. (3): 513–535. https://doi. org/10.1177/0096144212440886 Harvey , D. 1989 . From manager ia l i sm to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 1. 3–17. https://doi. org/10.2307/490503 Helmedach, A. 2002. Das Verkehrssystem als Modernisierungsfaktor: Strassen, Post, Fuhrwesen und Reisen nach Triest und Fiume vom Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zum Eisenbahnzeitalter (The transport system as a modernisation factor: Roads, post, carriage and travel to Trieste and Fiume from the beginning of the 18th century to the railway age). München, Oldenbourg. Hilbert, B. 2023. A modern (polgári) városi kormányzás születése Közép-Európában – Az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia városainak földrajzi jogtudományi vizsgá- lata (1867–1918) (The birth of modern [civil] urban governance in Central Europe – Legal geographical study of the cities of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy [1867–1918]). Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University, Doctoral School of Earth Sciences. Hilbert, B. 2024. Urban governance systems in autonomous territories of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: The cases of Croatia-Slavonia and Austrian Galicia (1867–1918). Geographia Polonica 97. (1): 23–46. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0267 Horel, C. 2023. Multicultural Cities of the Habsburg Empire, 1880–1914. Imagined Communities and Conflictual Encounters. Budapest–Vienna–New York, Central European University Press. https:// doi.org/10.7829/j.ctv2kzv0mg Jelinek, Cs. and Pósfai, Zs. 2013. Bevezetés: A városi önkormányzattól a városi kormányzásig (Introduction: From urban government to urban governance). In Kritikai városkutatás. Eds.: Jelinek, Cs., Bodnár, J., Czirfusz, M. and Gyimesi, Z., Budapest, L’Harmattan Kiadó, 145–154. Jessop, B. 2002. Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode 3. 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8330.00250 Katus, L. 2012. A modern Magyarország születése, Magyarország története 1711–1914 (The birth of mo- dern Hungary, the history of Hungary 1711–1914). Pécs, Kronosz Kiadó. Kuzmany, B. 2016. Habsburg Austria: Experiments in non-territorial autonomy. Ethnopolitics 15. (1): 43– 65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1101838 Levi-Faur, D. 2011. From Big Government to Big Governance? Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance 35. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0001 Lo, C. 2017. Between government and governance: Opening the black box of the transformation thesis. International Journal of Public Administration 41. (8): 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692. 2017.1295261 Makkai, K. 2013. Horvátország és Fiume a dualista korszak magyar nemzetpolitikai törekvéseiben (Croatia and Fiume in the Hungarian national political aspirations of the dualist era). Közép- Európai Közlemények 6. (3): 15–26. Marcus, A.I. 1980. The strange career of municipal health initiatives, Cincinnati and city government in the early nineteenth century. Journal of Urban History 7. (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/009614428000700101 Mezey, B. 2004. Magyar jogtörténet (Legal history of Hungary). Budapest, Osiris Kiadó. Mick, C. 2019. Legality, ethnicity and violence in Austrian Galicia, 1890–1920. European Review of History / Revue européenne d’histoire 26. (5): 757–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2019.1641693 Morris, J.R. 2000. Governance: Two centuries of urban growth. In Urban Governance: Britain and Beyond since 1750. Eds.: Morris, J. and Trainor, H., London, Routledge, 1–14. ht tps : / /doi . org/10.4324/9781315235271-1 Ordasi, Á. 2018. Bombamerényletek a fiumei kor- mányzóság ellen (1913–1914) (Bomb attacks against the governor’s office at Fiume [1913–1914]). Századok 152. (2): 401–417. Ordasi, Á. 2019. Modellváltások a fiumei kormányzóság feladat- és hatásköreinek meghatározásában – Centralizációs stratégiák Fiumében: Bevezető ta- nulmány a MNL Somogy Megyei Levéltár a fiumei kormányzóság repertóriumához (Model changes in https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144212440886 https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144212440886 https://doi.org/10.2307/490503 https://doi.org/10.2307/490503 https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0267 https://doi.org/10.7829/j.ctv2kzv0mg https://doi.org/10.7829/j.ctv2kzv0mg https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00250 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00250 https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1101838 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0001 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0001 https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1295261 https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1295261 https://doi.org/10.1177/009614428000700101 https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2019.1641693 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315235271-1 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315235271-1 Hilbert, B. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 437–454.454 the definition of tasks and powers of the Fiume governorate – Centralization strategies in Fiume: Introductory study for the repertoire of the MNL Somogy County Archives of the Fiume governo- rate). Kaposvár, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Somogy Megyei Levéltára. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1992. Re-inventing Government. New York, Addison Wesley. Pelles, M. 2017. A fiumei autonómiatörekvések gaz- dasági vetülete a múlt századelőn – az Indeficienter gőzös hajó- és áruforgalma 1901–1914 között (The economic projection of Fiume’s aspirations for autonomy on the beginning of the last century – the ship- and goods traffic of SS Indeficienter between 1901–1914). Köztes-Európa 9. (1–2): 47–53. Perényi, J. and Kovács, E. 1986. Lengyelország története (1864–1948) (The history of Poland [1864–1948]). Budapest, Tankönyvkiadó. Pierre, J. 1999. Models of urban governance: The institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban Affairs Review 3. 372–396. https://doi. org/10.1177/10780879922183988 Pierre, J. 2005. Comparative urban governance: Uncovering complex causalities. Urban Affairs Review 4. 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404273442 Ress, I. 2009. Fiume államjogi helyzetének ellentmon- dásai (1776–1918) (Contradictions of Fiume’s legal status [1776–1918]). Életünk 47. (1–12): 43–51. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Reinventing Whitehall 1979–1995. In Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Ed.: Kickert, W., Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 43–61. Sarlós, B. 1976. Közigazgatás és hatalompolitika a dualiz- mus rendszerében (Public administration and politics of power in the system of dualism). Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Sellers, J.M. 2002. The nation-state and urban governance. Toward multilevel analysis. Urban Affairs Review 5. 611–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808740203700501 Simon, P.P. 2013. Támadás Fiume autonómiája ellen: A fiumei Közigazgatási Bizottság 1897. évről ké- szült jelentése nyomán (Attack against Fiume’s autonomy: Following the report of the Fiume Administrative Board for 1897). Közép-Európai Közlemények 6. (3): 47–54. Slack, E. and Côté, A. 2014. Comparative Urban Governance. London, Foresight, Government Office for Science. Sokcsevits, D. 2011. Horvátország a 7. századtól napja- inkig (Croatia from the 7th century till nowadays). Budapest, Mundus Novus Könyvek. Somogyi, É. 1996. Kormányzati rendszer a dualista Habsburg Monarchiában (System of government in the dualist Habsburg Monarchy). Budapest, História – MTA Történettudományi Intézete. Stoker, G. 1998. Public-private partnerships and urban governance. In Partnerships in Urban Governance, European and American Experiences. Ed.: Pierre, J., London, Palgrave Macmillan, 34–51. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-349-14408-2_3 Stone, C. 1989. Regime Politics. Lawrence, University Press of Kansas. Sutcliffe, A. 1995a. Növekvő hatósági beavatko- zás a brit városi környezetbe a 19. század során: Strukturális megközelítés (Increasing public intervention in the British urban environment during the 19th century: A structural approach). In A modern város történeti dilemmái. Ed.: Gyáni, G., Debrecen, Csokonai Kiadó, 158–170. Sutcliffe, A. 1995b. A környezet ellenőrzése és ter- vezése az európai fővárosokban 1850–1914 között: London, Párizs és Berlin (Environmental control and planning in European capitals between 1850–1914: London, Paris and Berlin). In A modern város történeti dilemmái. Ed.: Gyáni, G., Debrecen, Csokonai Kiadó, 109–126. Szente, Z. 2011. Kormányzás a dualizmus korában (Governance in the age of dualism). Budapest, Atlantisz Kiadó. Teaford, J.C. 1975. The Municipal Revolution in America. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Van den Dool, L. 2015. The Quest for Good Urban Governance. Theoretical Reflections and International Practices. Wiesbaden, Springer Fachmedien. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10079-7 Wood, A.M. 2004. Domesticating urban theory? US concepts, British cities and the limits of cross-na- tional applications. Urban Studies 41. (11): 2103–2118. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000268366 Zöllner, E. 1998. Ausztria története (The history of Austria). Budapest, Osiris Kiadó. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780879922183988 https://doi.org/10.1177/10780879922183988 https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404273442 https://doi.org/10.1177/107808740203700501 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14408-2_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14408-2_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10079-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10079-7 https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000268366 HUNGARIAN GEOGRAPHICAL BULLETIN Vol 73 Issue 4 (2024) Bálint HILBERT: Exploring new dimensions of urban governance: The development of administrative systems in Trieste and Fiume (Rijeka) during the final decades of the Habsburg Empire (1850–1918). pp. 437-454