Place is a no man's land

Faludi, Andreas

doi:0016-7282

Download

Title: Place is a no man's land

Abstract:

A recent survey concerns the use of the place-based approach to territorial development throughout Europe.Places, according to the Barca Report, are drawn as frames which are irrespective of political boundariesfor integrating policies with spatial impacts. For this very reason, they are also a no-man’s land each in thesense of no one government being responsible. Where does this leave the democratic legitimacy of placegovernance? The question may also be asked whether territorial representation is the only way of producinglegitimacy in a network society. Raising the issue is certain to meet with opposition, especially since alternativesare anything but clear. The epilogue discusses Europe as a place and reflects on European governance.

References:

1. Bachtler J., Mendez C., 2007. Who governs cohesion policy? Deconstructing the reforms of the structural funds. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 535-564.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00724.x -
2. Barca F., 2012. Alternative approaches to development policies: Intersections and divergences. OECD Regional Outlook 2011, Part III, Chapter 11. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/urban-rural-and-regionaldevelopment/oecd-regional-outlook-2011/alternative-approaches-to-developmentpolicy_9789264120983-17-en#page4 [12 March 2014].
3. Barca Report, 2009. An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. A Place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/regi/dv/barca_report_/barca_report_en.pdf [12 March 2014].
4. Böhme K.,2009. The EU Territorial Agenda and its Action Programme: How to reinforce the performance. Stockholm: Sweco Eurofutures. http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/5988/B-hme_Assessment-Final.pdf [12 March 2014].
5. Böhme K., Doucet P., Komornicki T., Zaucha J., Świątek D., 2011. How to strengthen the territorial dimension of ‘Europe 2020’ and EU Cohesion Policy. Report based on the Territorial Agenda 2020: Prepared at the request of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Warsaw.
6. Chadwick G., 1978. A Systems view of planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
7. Council of Europe, 1968. Regional Planning a European problem: Report of a Working Party set up under Resolution 289 (1964). Strasbourg.
8. Davoudi S., Cowie P., 2013. Are English neighbourhood forums democratically legitimate? Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 562-566.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.851880 -
9. Dillinger A., 2014. Vom Pionierinstrument zur Strategie – und dann? Das Förderprogramm LEADER der Europäischen Union – Entstehung und Entwicklung einer Förderpolitik auf europäischer Ebene sowie seine Umsetzung am Beispiel des österreichischen Bundeslandes Niederösterreich. Vienna: University of Technology [Phd thesis].
10. Doucet Ph., Böhme K., Zaucha J., 2014. EU territory and policy-making: From words to deeds to promote policy integration. (Debate article), European Journal of Spatial Development, http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Debate/EJSD%20debate%20Doucet%20et%20al.pdf [12 March 2014].
11. Duchene F., 1994. Jean Monnet: The first statesman of interdependence. New York-London: W.W. Norton & Company.
12. European Commission, 1999. European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
13. European Commission, 2008. Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion - Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee: COM (2008) 616, Brussels, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0616:FIN:EN:PDF[12 March 2014].
14. European Commission, 2010. Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf; [12 March 2014].
15. Faludi A., 2004. Spatial planning traditions in Europe: Their role in the ESDP Process. International Planning Studies, vol. 9, no. 2-3, pp. 155–172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000311758 -
16. Faludi A., 2007. Now more than ever: The role of the Open Method of Coordination in EU territorial cohesion policy. European Spatial Research and Policy, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11-24.
17. Faludi A., 2009. The Portuguese, Slovenian and French Presidencies 2007-2008 - A sea change in European spatial planning? European Journal of Spatial Development, No. 36. http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed36.pdf [12 March 2014].
18. Faludi A., 2010. Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning in the Making? London: Routledge.
19. Faludi A., 2012. Multi-level (territorial) governance: Three criticisms. Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 197-211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677578 -
20. Faludi A., 2013a. Territorial cohesion and subsidiarity under the European Union Treaties: A critique of the ‘territorialism’ underlying. Regional Studies Regional Studies, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1594-1606.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.657170 -
21. Faludi A., 2013b. Territory: An unknown quantity in debates on territorial cohesion. European Journal of Spatial Development, no. 51, http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereedarticles/refereed51.pdf [12 March 2014].
22. Faludi A., 2014. EUropeanisation or Europeanisation of spatial planning? Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 155-169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.902095 -
23. Faludi A., Waterhout B., 2002. The making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No masterplan. London: Routledge.
24. Farole T., Rodríguez-Pose A., Storper M., 2009. Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth, Geography, Institutions. Report Working Paper written in the context of Barca Report, London School of Economics.
25. Friedmann J., 1993. Towards a non-Euclidean mode of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 482-484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975902 -
26. Graham S., Healey P., 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 623-646.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654319908720542 -
27. Graham S., Marvin S., 2001. Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and urban conditions. London-New York: Routledge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203452202 -
28. Harrison J., 2013. Configuring the new ‘regional world’: On being caught between territory and networks. Regional Studies, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 55-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.644239 -
29. Harrison J., Growe A., 2014. From places to flows? Planning for the new ‘regional world’ in Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 21-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969776412441191 -
30. Haughton G., Allmendinger Ph., Counsell D., Vigar G., 2010. The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries. London: Routledge.
31. Healey P., 2000. Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 111-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9901900201 -
32. Healey P., 2004. The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 45-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00502.x -
33. Healey P., 2006. Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 525-546.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310500421196 -
34. Healey P., 2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London-New York: Routledge.
35. Healey P., 2010. Making better places - The planning project in the twenty-first century. London: Palgrave.
36. Jessop B., Brenner N., Jones M., 2008. Theorising sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 389-401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d9107 -
37. Mendez C., 2011. The Lisbonization of EU cohesion policy: A successful case of experimentalist governance? European Planning Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 519-537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.548368 -
38. Mendez C., 2012. The post-2013 reform of EU cohesion policy and the place-based narrative. European Journal of Public Policy, iFirst. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.736733 [12 March 2014].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.736733 -
39. Monnet J., 1976. Mémoires. Paris: Fayard.
40. Pitkin H.F., 1976. The Concept of representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
41. Rehfeld A., 2008. The Concept of constituency: Political representation, democratic legitimacy, and institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Roche M., 2012. Exploring the sociology of Europe: An analysis of the European social complex. Los Angeles-London: Sage.
43. Rosanvallon P., 2008. La légitimité démocratique: Inpartialité, réflexivité, proximité. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
44. Sabel C.F., Zeitlin J. (eds.), 2010. Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Schmitter P.C., 2009. Re-presenting representation. Government and Opposition, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 476-490.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2009.01300.x -
46. TA , 2007. Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Agreed at the Occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion on 24-25 May 2007. http://www.bmvbs.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/44188/publication-File/11033/territorialagenda-of-the-europeanunion-agreed-on-25-may-2007-accessible.pdf [12 March 2014].
47. TA , 2011. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011, Gödöllő, Hungary. Retreived August 7, 2013. http://www.eu2011.hu/files/bveu/documents/TA2020.pdf [12 March 2014].
48. Urbanati N., Warren M.E., 2008. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. American Review of Political Science, 11, 387-412.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533 -
49. Zaucha J., Komornicki T., Böhme K., Świątek D., Zuber P., 2014. Territorial keys for bringing closer the Territorial Agenda of the EU and Europe 2020. European Planning Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 246-267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722976 -
50. Zaucha J., Świątek, D., 2013. Place-based territorially sensitive and integrated approach. Warsaw: Ministry of Regional Development.
51. Zielonka J., 2006. Europe as empire: The nature of the enlarged European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199292213.001.0001 -