Europa XXI (2020) vol. 38

Abstract

This paper provides new insights into the main pillars of the territorial universe of EU policies, by undertaking a systematic overview of European Union (EU) key territorial development reports, agendas and programmes. These include the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the three Territorial Agendas, and the European Territorial Observatory Network (ESPON) reports. The evidence shows widespread territorialicy, understood as a process of incorporating a territorial driven policy design, implementation and evaluation paradigm, still largely dominated by territorial development and territorial cohesion policy rationales. However, the socioeconomic policy prism continues to dominate the design and analysis of EU policies by EU entities.

Keywords: ESPON, EU cohesion policy, territorial capital, territorial cohesion, territorial development, territorialicy, territorial policies

Eduardo Medeiros [eduardo.medeiros@iscte-iul.pt], DINÂMIA’CET – IUL – Centre for Socioeconomic and Territorial Studies, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL)

Citation

APA: Medeiros, E. (2020). Fake or real EU Territorialicy? Debating the territorial universe of EU policies. Europa XXI, 38, 9-31. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.4
MLA: Medeiros, Eduardo. "Fake or real EU Territorialicy? Debating the territorial universe of EU policies". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 9-31. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.4
Chicago: Medeiros, Eduardo. "Fake or real EU Territorialicy? Debating the territorial universe of EU policies". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 9-31. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.4
Harvard: Medeiros, E. 2020. "Fake or real EU Territorialicy? Debating the territorial universe of EU policies". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 9-31. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.4

Recommended

EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities
Europa XXI (2020) vol. 38

Book Review: The Poverty of Territorialism. A Neo-Medieval View of Europe and European Planning. Andreas Faludi. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2018; 200 pages, ISBN 978 1 78897 360 1
Europa XXI (2018) vol. 35

Editorial: Spatial Justice in Europe. Territoriality, Mobility and Peripherality
Europa XXI (2019) vol. 37

Abstract

The European Union’s strategic priorities for the post-2020 period – focused on areas such as globalization, demography, migration, climate change, security and defense, employment and digitalization of the economy and society – pose relevant challenges as to the feasibility of its territorialization conditions and how to ensure operationalization at regional and local levels. As the EU prepares to implement the Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 and draw up the Territorial Agenda 2030, it also seeks to relaunch the EU policy framework in areas such as sustainable development, artificial intelligence and reindustrialization, examples of which are: European Green Deal, EU Circular Economy Action Plan and EU Digital Strategy. The current context of the COVID-19 pandemic has, however, forced a refocusing of the intervention priorities, at least in the short term, in the need to respond to the urgent economic, social and public health challenges caused by the pandemic. This article seeks to analyse, on the one hand, how the European  policy cycle has adapted to respond to the pandemic, and on the other, the extent to which the place-based approach, one of the central operating rationales of the 2014-2020 financial perspective, may see its role strengthened and its performance extended as a consequence of the changes introduced in the current phase of the policy cycle due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis carried out led to concluding that the current context of COVID-19 is implying the redesign of many of the Union's public policy instruments and reordering some of the current strategic priorities. It is also changing the conditions of resilience and competitiveness of territories, whereby the place-based approach seems to be a public policy instrument especially suited to the process of economic and social recovery at the local and regional level.

Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, EU Cohesion Policy, EU policy framework post 2020, place-based approach

Paulo Neto [neto@uevora.pt], Department of Economics, UMPP – Public Policy Monitoring Unit, CICS.NOVA – Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, CIES-ISCTE – Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, CEFAGE-UÉ – Center for Advanced Studies in Management and Economics, University of Évora

Citation

APA: Neto, P. (2020). EU Cohesion Policy post-2020, European Green Deal and Territorial Agenda 2030. The future of the place-based approach in the new EU policy framework in the context of COVID-19. Europa XXI, 38, 33-50. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.2
MLA: Neto, Paulo. "EU Cohesion Policy post-2020, European Green Deal and Territorial Agenda 2030. The future of the place-based approach in the new EU policy framework in the context of COVID-19". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 33-50. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.2
Chicago: Neto, Paulo. "EU Cohesion Policy post-2020, European Green Deal and Territorial Agenda 2030. The future of the place-based approach in the new EU policy framework in the context of COVID-19". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 33-50. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.2
Harvard: Neto, P. 2020. "EU Cohesion Policy post-2020, European Green Deal and Territorial Agenda 2030. The future of the place-based approach in the new EU policy framework in the context of COVID-19". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 33-50. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.2

Abstract

The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, that celebrates this year in Gdańsk its tenth anniversary, has been considered by many scholars and the decision makers as the model exam-ple of the soft governance that has gained in importance in the enlarged European Union (EU). The pa-per analyses the achievements and shortcomings of the Strategy from economic perspective with focus on externalities, public goods (also club goods, common-pool resources), economies of scale and scope and transaction costs. Two cases: Single Market for services and innovation spillovers are discussed more in depth. The analysis of these challenges and opportunities as well as the performance of the Strategy in the past and comparative analysis of its various evaluations allow authors to formulate several assump-tions that should save the Strategy for the future. Their essence is related to mainstreaming of the Strate-gy into the EU and national policies (ensuring its stronger policy impact), strengthening strategic, visionary approach of the Strategy (e.g. facilitating large Baltic projects), better alignment with the business sector activities (understanding and addressing this sector expectations towards macro-regional co-operation) and acknowledgement of macro-regional solidarity as a foundation of the common efforts. Without  all these, the Strategy might follow the case of the Baltic Development Forum that ceased to exist despite its evident positive effects for the entire region. Soft governance is difficult but promising as an alterna-tive to the overgrowing sentiments towards centralisation. Thus, to avoid the impression of the 'Titanic ball' Gdańsk celebrations should provide a new start instead of the business as usual and manifestation of shallow self-satisfaction.

Keywords: macro-regional strategies, Baltic Sea Region, INTERREG

Jacek Zaucha [jacek.zaucha@ug.edu.pl], Faculty of Economics, University of Gdańsk
Dorota Pyć [dorota.pyc@prawo.ug.edu.pl], Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Gdańsk
Kai Böhme [kai.boehme@spatialforesight.eu], Spatial Foresight
Lilia Neumann [lilia.neumann@ug.edu.pl], Faculty of Economics, University of Gdańsk
Dominik Aziewicz [dominik.aziewicz@gmail.com], Faculty of Economics, University of Gdańsk

Citation

APA: Zaucha, J., Pyć, D., Böhme, K., Neumann, L., & Aziewicz, D. (2020). EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities. Europa XXI, 38, 51-76. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.1
MLA: Zaucha, Jacek, et al. "EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 51-76. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.1
Chicago: Zaucha, Jacek, Pyć, Dorota, Böhme, Kai, Neumann, Lilia, and Aziewicz, Dominik. "EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 51-76. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.1
Harvard: Zaucha, J., Pyć, D., Böhme, K., Neumann, L., & Aziewicz, D. 2020. "EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 51-76. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.1

Recommended

Socio-economic disparities in the Baltic States: Analytical comparison and categorisation of the Regions
Geographia Polonica (2019) vol. 92, iss. 3

Powiązania handlowe wewnątrz makroregionu Morza Bałtyckiego - w kierunku integracji regionalnej
Przegląd Geograficzny (2020) vol. 92, iss. 4

Abstract

Although there is no ‘proper’ macro-regional strategy of the European Union for the Western Mediterranean, different works have, for decades, pointed out various factors of macro-regional coherence of this area, including many organisations and schemes of cooperation. After presenting the conceptual framework used to address the theme,  we characterise the case and indicate the state of macro-regional cooperation in the area.  Then we discuss the variables that contribute to this cooperation, and those that limit it. This case study sheds light on how macro-regionalisation, by combining a trans-meso scale and a post-complex rationale, induces a renewal of spatial references and planning policies in the European Union. It opens perspectives for the future programming period of territorial cooperation.

Keywords: European Union, macro-region, macro-regionalisation, territorial cooperation, western Mediterranean

Thomas Perrin [thomas.perrin@univ-lille.fr], University of Lille, Laboratory TVES

Citation

APA: Perrin, T. (2020). The macro-regionalisation of the western Mediterranean, between renewal and uncompletion. Europa XXI, 38, 77-96. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.3
MLA: Perrin, Thomas. "The macro-regionalisation of the western Mediterranean, between renewal and uncompletion". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 77-96. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.3
Chicago: Perrin, Thomas. "The macro-regionalisation of the western Mediterranean, between renewal and uncompletion". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 77-96. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.3
Harvard: Perrin, T. 2020. "The macro-regionalisation of the western Mediterranean, between renewal and uncompletion". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 77-96. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.3

Recommended

EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities
Europa XXI (2020) vol. 38

Abstract

This article seeks to trace the growing dissension over the logic of European cohesion policy. Two perspectives are fighting for dominance, the European and the national. Only the European Commissionand the European Parliament are actively promoting the European logic, which has gained ground over time through the overarching strategization (or Lisbonization) of European policies. In contrast, the member-states subscribe to a national logic concerning European cohesion policy. This outlook is particularly notable among the ‘friends of cohesion policy’, a group that includes the southern, central, and easternEuropean countries. The funding allocated through the EU is applied in individual national markets, not in the single European market. In this regard, the concept of European cohesion policy to adjust nationalmarkets towards the European level has been sidelined by the national logic. This contribution attempts to reconstruct the dispute over the purpose of European cohesion policy since the reform of structural fundsin 1988, focusing primarily on the latest rounds of negotiations over the multiannual financial framework (in which cohesion policy funds are a central issue) and the emerging conflict between the core and theperiphery in the political economy of the European Union. If the European logic regarding the single European market’s construction does not prevail, European integration will stagnate or even reverse, andnational compartmentalization of cohesion policy may become the dominant spatial model in Europe.

Keywords: European Union, European cohesion policy, intergovernmentalism, methodological nationalism, methodological Europeanism, core-periphery in EU

José M. Magone [jose.magone@hwr-berlin.de], Berlin School of Economics and Law

Citation

APA: Magone, J. (2020). The Dissension over the Logic of European Cohesion Policy. The Core-Periphery Divide and the Impact on European Integration. Europa XXI, 38, 97-117. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.6
MLA: Magone, José M.. "The Dissension over the Logic of European Cohesion Policy. The Core-Periphery Divide and the Impact on European Integration". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 97-117. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.6
Chicago: Magone, José M.. "The Dissension over the Logic of European Cohesion Policy. The Core-Periphery Divide and the Impact on European Integration". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 97-117. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.6
Harvard: Magone, J. 2020. "The Dissension over the Logic of European Cohesion Policy. The Core-Periphery Divide and the Impact on European Integration". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 97-117. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.6

Abstract

The European Union (EU) territorial development and cohesion have been supported by European institutions for decades, but they currently face a critical moment: the COVID-19 pandemic and Europeancoordination gaps have to be added to previously-existing difficulties, such as the growing climate-related and demographic challenges, and the wave of Euroscepticism, nationalism and populism. Viruses donot recognise borders, but the EU is still divided between those thinking that the economy should prevail over politics and those thinking otherwise. European citizens living in border areas know very well that weneed a common approach (and a stronger commitment) to the preservation of our values and rights, as well as to the definitive positioning of the EU as a global player. Integration starts at the bottom and movesacross borders. The legacy of cohesion and territorial stability that the EU leaves for future generations will depend on how it protects and strengthens cross-border cooperation at this stage.

Keywords: cross-border cooperation, cross-border obstacles & challenges, European Territorial Cooperation, ETC, European territorial integration, territorial cohesion

Martín Guillermo Ramírez [m.guillermo@aebr.eu], Association of European Border Regions

Citation

APA: Guillermo Ramírez, M. (2020). Debating real integrated territorial cooperation approaches to post-2020 EU policies: the challenges arising from COVID-19 from the perspective of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR). Europa XXI, 38, 119-137. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.7
MLA: Guillermo Ramírez, Martín. "Debating real integrated territorial cooperation approaches to post-2020 EU policies: the challenges arising from COVID-19 from the perspective of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 119-137. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.7
Chicago: Guillermo Ramírez, Martín. "Debating real integrated territorial cooperation approaches to post-2020 EU policies: the challenges arising from COVID-19 from the perspective of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 119-137. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.7
Harvard: Guillermo Ramírez, M. 2020. "Debating real integrated territorial cooperation approaches to post-2020 EU policies: the challenges arising from COVID-19 from the perspective of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 119-137. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.7

Abstract

Interreg has been the European Union (EU) initiative to support territorial cooperation and integration across borders. 30 years of Interreg, though, have not changed the fact that different barrierspersist at the inner borders of the EU, and that only a few cross-border territories have emerged as joint action spaces with in-depth political cooperation and people’s interaction. While it is consensus thatcross-border economic flows are decisive for the development of functional and in the end institutionalized cross-border regions, regional econometric models demonstrate the persistence of border barrierswithin the EU, but also that the removal of these barriers greatly increases regional growth potential. In a research project focusing on the alignment of cross-border regional economic interests, cross-bordernetworks between business and politics and cross-border policies in the Danish-German cross-border region Sønderjylland-Schleswig we have discovered issues on different communication codes between businessand politics, lack of tangible cross-border development strategies and a lack of alignment of shortterm, time delimited Interreg project oriented operational programs to tangible, long-term strategies ofcross-border regional economic development. EU territorial cohesion policies could be better aligned with long-term, cross-border economic strategies to create sustainable cross-border development. It will beimportant to rethink Interreg in a less project-oriented, but more strategy-oriented direction; focusing on flows and institutional settings promoting the development of flows by reducing cross-border barriers.

Keywords: cross-border cooperation, Interreg, lobbyism, territorial cooperation

Martin Klatt [mk@sam.sdu.dk], Department of Political Science, University of Southern Denmark
Ingo Winkler [inw@sam.sdu.dk], Department of Marketing and Management, University of Southern Denmark

Citation

APA: Klatt, M., & Winkler, I. (2020). Lessons from the Danish-German Border Region for Post 2020 Interreg A – an Alignment with Cross-Border Functional Regions?. Europa XXI, 38, 139-156. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.5
MLA: Klatt, Martin, and Winkler, Ingo. "Lessons from the Danish-German Border Region for Post 2020 Interreg A – an Alignment with Cross-Border Functional Regions?". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 139-156. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.5
Chicago: Klatt, Martin, and Winkler, Ingo. "Lessons from the Danish-German Border Region for Post 2020 Interreg A – an Alignment with Cross-Border Functional Regions?". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 139-156. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.5
Harvard: Klatt, M., & Winkler, I. 2020. "Lessons from the Danish-German Border Region for Post 2020 Interreg A – an Alignment with Cross-Border Functional Regions?". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 139-156. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.5

Abstract

The Territorial Agenda 2030 aims to provide multi-level strategic orientation to increase cohesion and overcome the 21st century pressing challenges. In multilingual contexts, the ideas and concepts communicated in such agendas must be clear and well-defined. In our study, we conducted a content analysis of the concepts of environment, inequality, justice, sustainability, territory and transition in contrast with former versions of this agenda. We found that, since 1983, the Territorial Agenda conceptual framework changed significantly in its meaning and semantic universe of reference.

Keywords: Territorial Agenda 2030, TA 2030, environment, inequality, justice, sustainability, territory, transition

Carolina Neto Henriques [carolina_henriques@iscte-iul.pt], Laboratório de Estudos Urbanos (LEU), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Centre for Socioeconomic and Territorial Studies (DINÂMIA’CET – IUL), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)
Sonja Dragović [sonja_dragovic@iscte-iul.pt], Laboratório de Estudos Urbanos (LEU), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)
Christine Auer [christine.auer@posteo.de], Laboratório de Estudos Urbanos (LEU), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)
Irina Gomes [ijcgs@iscte-iul.pt], Laboratório de Estudos Urbanos (LEU), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Centre for Socioeconomic and Territorial Studies (DINÂMIA’CET – IUL), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)

Citation

APA: Neto Henriques, C., Dragović, S., Auer, C., & Gomes, I. (2020). The Territorial Agenda 2030: Towards a common language? A review of a conceptual framework. Europa XXI, 38, 157-174. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.8
MLA: Neto Henriques, Carolina, et al. "The Territorial Agenda 2030: Towards a common language? A review of a conceptual framework". Europa XXI, vol. 38, 2020, pp. 157-174. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.8
Chicago: Neto Henriques, Carolina, Dragović, Sonja, Auer, Christine, and Gomes, Irina. "The Territorial Agenda 2030: Towards a common language? A review of a conceptual framework". Europa XXI 38 (2020): 157-174. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.8
Harvard: Neto Henriques, C., Dragović, S., Auer, C., & Gomes, I. 2020. "The Territorial Agenda 2030: Towards a common language? A review of a conceptual framework". Europa XXI, vol. 38, pp. 157-174. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2020.38.8