The focus of UVF activities is on the planning functions assigned to it (establishment of the land-use plan, landscape plan, general transport plan). It has become a recognized authority in planning matters. `As far as planning methods are concerned, the UVF is the most highly developed planning association.' (56)
		The Union has also acquired powers in the environmental sector. However, here the focus is also on investigation and research.
		The consultancy and mediation functions of the UVF are also considered successful. `The Union (hence sees itself increasingly) as a consultancy institute.' (57)
		Unlike in planning and investigative matters, the UVF has little potential for implementation or enforcement, since narrow limits are set by established local interests. This is particularly evident in relation to the provision of public services (supralocal water supplies, sewage disposal). Despite its statutory mandate, the Union is unable to act, because the Gemeinden refuse to transfer these duties to it and it has no means of penalizing this behaviour.
		The UFV has little clout because it has no resources and hence no bargaining counters (such as finance, land, and licensing rights) at its disposition.
		The Union can engage in no active spatial development policy; in this field, too, it lacks the necessary (control) powers and means.
		For a long time the UVF was also unable to undertake effective regional economic development due to lack of support from the large cities.
		Finally, the spatial extent of the Union territory has been a frequently criticized issue. Determined by the particular conditions prevailing at the period when the UVF was founded, it takes increasingly less account of current intra-regional relations and interlinkage.

    In the planning field - the special purpose association aspect of the Union - observers conclude that the UVF has acquired considerable competence and authority. In almost all other areas - where the Union operates as a territorial authority (Gebietskörperschaft) - it has remained a `toothless tiger'. `Its activities are (always) looked on suspiciously from the perspective of a zero-sum game: what the Union gains in scope for action is lost by the Gemeinden and Kreise.' (58)
 

    In employment, too, the umland is experiencing a positive development. Its share in regional employment is growing continuously, accompanied by improved job quality. Jobs in this area are considered to be of higher quality and more secure, and are increasingly white-collar rather than blue-collar. High local business tax rates (550 points in Frankfurt in comparison to an average 330 in the environs - see section I.2) and high rents and real property prices in Frankfurt are inducing a growing number of firms that do not absolutely have to have an address in the central city to locate beyond the city limits. Downtown Frankfurt is still close by and the transportation advantages of the location are also retained. The type of businesses concerned are primarily data processing firms, insurance companies, branch establishments of foreign consumer goods producers, and administrative headquarters.

    Until 1987, demographic developments also favoured the umland; the umland population grew, while in Frankfurt it declined. Since then, however, Frankfurt and other centres in the region have been registering a renewed rise in population figures. Developments nevertheless continue to favour the surrounding Gemeinden - namely with respect to the composition of the population. The share of higher income earners and larger households with children is rising there, whereas in Frankfurt the trend is in the opposite direction (see also section II.5).

    As a consequence of all these developments, many umland Gemeinden receive higher proceeds from income and business taxes, thus markedly improving their financial position. Whilst `per capita indebtedness in Frankfurt grew by 275 per cent between 1981 and 1993, it has dropped by 4 per cent in the umland'. (60)

    Growth in economic and fiscal strength is attended by greater self-confidence and political clout in surrounding Gemeinden and among local politicians. But this is not accompanied by an increasing proclivity for cooperation across municipal boundaries  - in the direction of safeguarding regional attractiveness and strength; especially not since the bigger cities in the region, including Frankfurt since 1993, have found themselves in increasing financial difficulties due to the recession, the costs of unification, economic structural change, and last but not least to their own spending decisions. Now `a withdrawal to within one's own administrative boundaries and purview is becoming apparent.' (61) The reasons given by the mayor of a small, wealthy Gemeinde to the north of Frankfurt for his lack of interest in UVF membership seem symptomatic: `We're proud of our autonomy. It's the precondition for people identifying with our town.' (62)
 

    Frankfurt and its region play an important role in this competition. A highly developed regional economic structure with a high proportion of forward-looking industries, services, an infrastructure favourable to industry, and the `centrality leap (by Frankfurt) to metropolis status', (63) which has been brought about principally by the continuing concentration of global finance service providers and consultancy firms in the city, have meant that Frankfurt and the Frankfurt region are in competition not only with the agglomerations of Hamburg, Berlin, and Munich, but increasingly with the economically potent regions around London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Milan.

    However, to ensure that the region remains competitive in the long term, but also that development is in the interest of efficiency and viability, the `general ... parish pump politics' (64) should be abandoned and regional cooperation extended to policy areas that go far beyond the limits of present UVF responsibilities (waste management and regional spatial planning). Especially worth mentioning in this connection are regional economic development and supralocal infrastructural functions, as well as regional cultural and leisure policy.
 

    After only a brief period of operation, however, it appears that the `highly divergent commitment hitherto shown by local authorities to public transport' (65) has hardly changed with advent of the RMV. Frankfurt and the municipalities of Offenbach, Hanau and Rüsselsheim, as well as some Landkreise contiguous to Frankfurt have further improved already good services. Other member communities of the Union, many especially from central Hesse, have failed to expand their public transport services - pleading their tight financial situation - and have not called up the Land funds earmarked for this purpose. So far no cross-connections in transport lines have been made in the region. Like the FVV, the RMV - despite contrary objectives - is still largely monocentric in structure.

    The refusal of many RMV shareholders to finance more than status-quo services has postponed realization of the goal `to introduce a region-wide integral basic interval timetable' to an uncertain future date. Nor can the goal of a uniform fare be attained for the moment, due to divergent local conditions and interests and the fact that the local authorities can set fares independently for their own territory.

    Notwithstanding these problems and the provisional shelving of plans, the organizational achievements of the RMV have earned widespread recognition.