Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram

Actions, Institutions, Discourses

Valeria Fedeli, Luigi Doria, Luigi Doria

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351903677
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Architecture
• Sous-sujet: Aménagement urbain et paysager

Bringing together case studies from several European countries, this book provides an in-depth examination of the evolution of European spatial policy. Contributors focus on changes to the design and implementation of European policies at both national and local levels and examine institutional change, particularly Europeanization, European governance and EU enlargement. Rhetorical, discursive and representational dimensions are also interlinked to explore synergies and conflicts. The volume offers an experimentation of new interpretative approaches to spatial planning which will prove essential to the international debate.

PART I

A Bottom-up Perspective on Territorial Policy Initiatives Under the European Union

Introduction

Carla Tedesco

The chapters included in this section of the book present case studies of local experiences of urban and rural policies within different EU member states (Austria, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, the UK). They allow one to highlight processes of change in the national and local arenas of territorial policy.¹ Although these processes of change are very different in form and intensity, they can be traced back in several different ways to the interactions between national and local territorial dynamics and the European integration processes.

The different contributions are not homogeneous because the different experiences have not been set within a common scheme. However they revolve around two main aspects of the processes of change that are happening: on the one hand, the diffusion within the different member states of common territorial policy instruments, in particular the ones promoted and/or funded by EU regional policy;² on the other hand the opening of local urban and rural policy contexts to the European multilevel space. Moreover, they allow a vertical, in-depth, reading of local dynamics. Starting from this, one can try to construct ex post different comprehensive interpretative frames. This introduction suggests one of them that aims, in particular, at exploring the Europeanization notion from a bottom-up point of view. In fact, in all chapters the starting point is ‘actors, problems, resources, style and discourses at the domestic level’, according to a bottom-up perspective on Europeanization (Radaelli, 2004, p. 4). Thus, one can read all the contributions considering Europeanization as something to be explained, not a phenomenon that explains (Gualini, 2004, pp. 23–4; Radaelli, 2004).

Even though the term ‘Europeanization’ is used in a number of ways to describe a variety of phenomena and processes of change due to the European integration processes (Giuliani, 2004; Olsen, 2001), the definition of Europeanization given by Radaelli (2000, p. 3) broadening Ladrech’s definition³ seems particularly significant for keeping together all the contributions included in this section. To Radaelli (2000, p. 3), Europeanization refers to:

processes of (a) construction (b) diffusion (c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the making of EU decisions and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourse, identities, political structures and public policies.

The definition of Europeanization given by Radaelli goes beyond the notion of ‘impact’ of the EU on domestic systems (Radaelli, 2004). This, according to an understanding of Europeanization as an interactive process (Salgado and Woll, 2004), addresses processes of institutional mutual adaptation (Gualini, 2004).

The bulk of research on Europeanization takes on a top-down approach, starting from the assumption that domestic change is only expected in cases of some degree of ‘misfit’ or ‘mismatch’ between the European-level processes, policies and institutions and the national-level ones: the misfit creates an ‘adaptational pressure’ that constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition for expecting change, this being subject to domestic mediating factors (Cowles, Caporaso and Risse, 2001; Börzel and Risse, 2000; Héritier, 2001). Nevertheless, in the very recent period a new bottom-up research design to deal with Europeanization is emerging (Radaelli and Franchino, 2004). In this view, ‘Europeanization demands explanation of what goes on inside the process, not a simple black-box design in which one correlates the input “EU independent variables” to the output “domestic impact”’ (Radaelli, 2004, p. 4).

According to a bottom-up perspective on Europeanization and positioning the point of view at the local level, the cases presented in this section of the book allow one to highlight as a first point that the diffusion of common territorial policy instruments promoted and/or funded by the EU does not necessarily mean these policy initiatives are something homogeneous and very clearly defined once and for all at an EU level. In fact, even though it is possible both to highlight many changes affecting the local as well as the regional and national policy instruments and to relate them to Europe, these changes are not fully understood through the ‘misfit’ perspective if one does not take into account how the features of local contexts influence the implementation of policy initiatives. This is because different meanings are attributed to policy initiatives within their implementation at the local level and different roles are taken on by them therein. Hence, both these differences can be seen as a way to discuss the notion of ‘Europeanization’ in a bottom-up way by investigating the kind of changes that are going on at the local level.

Let us start with the cases where there is a ‘misfit’ between EU and domestic levels (Berlin, Lisbon, the Italian Mezzogiorno). In the Berlin case, illustrated by Simon Güntner and Charlotte Halpern, the opportunity offered by EU urban policy initiatives produced not only a change in the urban policy instruments, but also a shift in the focus of the urban regeneration policy from sector- and physical-oriented towards area-based and integrated modes. The social, economic and political context, particularly unstable due to issues related to reunification, is crucial for understanding, on the one hand, how local actors’ networks took the opportunity offered by the EU to try a different approach to urban regeneration and succeeded in replacing the former one; and on the other hand why it is not only the financial support of the EU which is significant, but also the symbolic dimension, as the European Commission in its documents underlines the appropriateness of the new integrated approach referring to the Berlin case as an example of best practice.

The case of the Lisbon Metropolitan area illustrated by Paulo Silva, instead, highlights that in most Objective 1 regions, such as in Portugal, major problems of integration between EU programmes and between EU programmes and local policies are posed, due to the shortage of national and local funding for territorial policy initiatives, even though it is ‘opportune’ that cities are successful in their bidding for EU funds. Of course, these problems are not due to the EU regional policy instruments themselves, but are linked to the use local contexts are able to make of them in order to set up local strategies. With regard to this aspect, the two cases concerning the implementation of an URBAN programme and a LEADER programme in the Italian Mezzogiorno, illustrated by the author of this introduction, highlight the emergence of a local idea of ‘local development’ from the hybridization processes between EU and domestic policy frames. These hybridization processes can certainly be considered tracks of change, but they are not by themselves tracks of new development paths. In the cases analysed, the latter can rather be identified in the local capacity to both insert EU initiatives in broader local strategies and to ‘survive’ the EU initiatives.

By contrast, the implementation of the URBAN Community Initiative in London and Sheffield, illustrated by Maria Tofarides, shows the absence of a deep misfit between the national modes of intervention – national programmes such as the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) had an integrated and area-based approach – and the European ones. However, pressure to adapt emerges as well, even though the necessity to adapt the programme seems more linked to procedures (match-funding etc.) than to the instruments aims and general meanings. What is more, even the ‘multilevel gatekeeping’ role played by different actors at the various stages of implementation seems linked to the possibility of using previous procedures and existing institutions for the programmes’ delivery. A further important issue raised by Maria Tofarides concerns the concrete meanings assumed by the partnership principle underlined by EU regional policy instruments since their reform in 1988 in the face of the difficulty of mobilizing small organizations and citizens beyond those that are either stronger or already involved in some networks or some regeneration schemes.

The mention of the partnership principle leads us to the second point emerging from the different chapters included in this section of the book, concerning the opening of local territorial policy contexts to the European multi-level space. On the one hand, this opening produces, the emergence of ‘marginal’ regions, never before represented in over-local political arenas, as illustrated by Elisa Pozzoli referring to the case of South Kerry in Ireland. This case shows that the partnership principle ensures only a potential for an orientation of territorial policies towards cooperation, participation and the promotion of networks enacting new actors. This, because of the role formerly played by local actors, is a crucial element in terms of activating the local context and creating the conditions from which the following development policies could grow up by generating new social capital for joint action and raising opportunities for innovation in local development practices.

On the other hand, the opening of local policy arenas produces their pluralization. With regard to this pluralization, Monika de Frantz does not examine specific instruments of EU policy, but urban cultural projects in Berlin and Vienna. In exploring the relationship between spatial restructuring and politics from the perspectives of the local political decision-making process concerning two symbolic urban cultural projects, the ‘Museumquartier Wien’ and the ‘Schlossplatz’ in Berlin, she highlights how this process opened up the urban arena to a political debate where global and local arguments helped to renegotiate national and urban identity.

To sum up, bottom-up and in-depth reading of local dynamics allows one to understand which changes are under way beyond the presence of common policy instruments, beyond the existence of a misfit between the European and the domestic levels. The role of the EU as an actor within these processes of change emerges as twofold: in most Objective 1 regions it is an opportunity to benefit from EU funding, but alternatively, and not only in Objective 1 regions, it is a symbolic role. In all cases what emerges as crucial is the very use local contexts make of Europe: the capacity to be successful in the bidding for EU funds is not itself a route of new patterns of development. However, it ensures a continuity of the EU presence that constitutes a fertile ground where new patterns of development can eventually be triggered, and local identity can be renegotiated.

If one does not consider ‘local’ as a predefined place of interaction, but as constructed by and in the interaction (Crosta, 2005, p. 70) it is possible to point out that within these processes it is not worth taking into account the external/internal dichotomy as an interpretative frame (Pichierri, 2002), but that the presence of the EU contributes to the construction of ‘new’ local contexts by the merging of internal and external actors and resources (Barbanente, 2004).

Thus, a major strength in having opened a European policy context lies in the possibility of exchanging experiences. This exchange cannot be useful if one does not understand what is concretely implemented within the European local contexts, beyond the sharing of policy instruments. This is a crucial challenge for the EU for improving the effectiveness of territorial policy.

References

Barbanente, A. (2004), ‘Territori dell’innovazione. Pratiche e attori dell’azione integrata in Puglia’, Meridiana, no. 49, pp. 121–50.

Börzel, T. and Risse, T. (2000), ‘When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change’, European Integration Online Papers, vol. 4, no. 15, available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015.htm.

Cowles, M., Caporaso, J. and Risse, T. (eds) (2001), Transforming Europe. Europeanization and Domestic Change, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, and London.

Crosta, P.L. (2005), ‘Le pratiche dell’uso sociale del territorio come pratiche di costruzione di territori. Quale “democrazia locale”?’, in Gelli, F. (ed.), La democrazia locale tra rappresentanza e partecipazione, FrancoAngeli, Milan, pp. 77–85.

Dematteis, G. and Janin Rivolin, U. (2004), ‘Per una prospettiva sud-europea e italiana nel “prossimo SSSSE”’, Scienze Regionali. Italian Journal of Regional Sciences, no. 2, pp. 135–49.

Giuliani, M. (2004), ‘Europeizzazione come istituzionalizzazione: questioni definitorie e di metodo’, URGE Working Paper, no. 4/2004, available at http://www.urge.it/files/papers/wp_4_2004.pdf.

Gualini, E. (2004), Multi-level Governance and Institutional Change. The Europeanization of Regional Policy in Italy, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Héritier, A. (2001), ‘Differential Europe: the European Union Impact on National Policymaking’, in Héritier, A., Kerwer, D., Knill, C., Lehmkuhl, D., Teutsch, M. and Douillet, A.C., Differential Europe. The European Union Impact on National Policymaking, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp. 1–21.

Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 69–88.

Olsen, J.P. (2001), ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Arena Working Papers, WP 01/2, available at http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp02_2.htm

Pichierri, A. (2002), ‘Concertation and Local Development’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 689–706.

Radaelli, C. (2000), ‘Whither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive Change’, European Integration Online Papers, vol. 4, no. 8, at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008.htm.

Radaelli, C. (2004), ‘Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?’, European Integration Online Papers, vol. 8, no. 16, available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016.htm.

Radaelli, C. and Franchino, F. (2004), ‘Analysing Political Change in Italy’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 941–53.

Salgado, R. and Woll, C. (2004), ‘Européanisation des politiques publiques et intégration européenne’, paper presented at the conference on Europeanization of Public Policies and European Integration, IEP-Paris, 13 February 2004m available at http://www.sciences-po.fr/recherche/forumeuropeen/prepublications/Papier_2_Woll_Salgado.pdf.

Notes

1 The term ‘territorial policy’ is used referring to the concept of territorial cohesion. This is mentioned in many EU documents in a rather ambiguous way (Dematteis and Janin Rivolin, 2004). Indeed, there are at least three different interpretations: the first one refers to the attempt to tackle pathologies caused by uneven territorial development; the second refers to a performative and inclusive role, as a development and economic competitiveness factor; the third, which remains slightly in the background, concerns the economical security of families, quality of the environment, access to joint commodity and services, territorial identity and, therefore the quality of life of the populations, even independently of the objectives of economical competitiveness (Dematteis and Janin Rivolin, 2004).

2 As it is well known, since the 1988 reform, the mainstream of Structural Funds was concentrated on clearly defined priorities (the so-called ‘objectives’). But there are also Community Initiatives (CIs) and Innovative Actions to improve the quality of regional development strategies and support innovative ideas. During the 2000–6 programming period the objectives are: Objective 1 (helping regions whose development is lagging behind to catch up); Objective 2 (supporting economic and social conversion in industrial, rural, urban or fishery dependent areas facing structural difficulties); and Objective 3 (modernizing systems of training and promoting employment). There are four Community Initiatives: INTERREG III for the development of cross-border, interregional and transnational cooperation; URBAN II to support innovative strategies in cities and urban neighbourhoods; LEADER+ to promote rural development initiatives; EQUAL to combat discrimination in the labour market.

3 In Ladrech’s view Europeanization is an ‘incremental process re-orienting the direction and shape of politics to the degree that EC political and economic dynamics become part of the organizational logic of national politics and policy making’ (Ladrech, 1994, p. 69).

Chapter 1

Government and Governance in the European Union: Local Experiences of European Urban Policy

Maria Tofarides

Introduction

This chapter examines the role of government and non-governmental actors in the implementation of European policies. This is explored by referring to empirical material on the delivery of a specific instrument of European urban policy: the Community Initiative URBAN in the period 1994–9. Firstly, the article focuses on the development of an analytical framework for a ...