From European Spatial Development to Territorial Cohesion Policy

From European Spatial Development to Territorial Cohesion Policy

Abstract

If the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (CONFERENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, 2004) ever came into force – according to the Treaty on 1 November 2006 the earliest – territorial cohesion would be a competence shared between the Union and the Member States. This paper is about this concept and how territorial cohesion policy might be formulated, be it under the Constitution or, as seems more likely now, under other arrangements.

Cohesion policy as such is not new. It is concerned largely, but not exclusively with rectifying imbalances. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (CEC, 1999) proposes polycentric development to counteract spatial imbalances, and this is part also of the European Commission’s new thinking. (CEC, 2003a; 2004a,b) Part One of the paper is thus about the ESDP. Part Two discusses the concept of territorial cohesion giving new impetus to pursuing an, albeit modified ESDP agenda. (FALUDI, 2004a, 2005ab) Part Three discusses French roots of territorial cohesion thinking and the French endorsement of the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC). Part Four is about the making of future EU territorial cohesion policy, more in particular about whether OMC or rather the standard Community Method should and could be invoked during the process.

Part One: The ESDP foreshadowing territorial cohesion policy

The reason was that ministers met, not as one of the incarnations of the Council of Ministers, but rather informally. (FALUDI and WATERHOUT, 2002) There was said to be no Community competence, a situation that, as indicated, the Constitution would have rectified. However, it is worth stressing that, its informal status notwithstanding, its makers wished the ESDP to be followed through, devoting a chapter specifically to this, but they wisely ceased to refer to the follow-up as the ‘implementation’ of the ESDP, preferring to talk about its ‘application’ instead.

The, up to a point reasonably successful application of the ESDP has been explored elsewhere. (FALUDI, 2003; 2004b; DÜHR and NADIN, 2005; JANIN RIVOLIN and FALUDI, 2005) This is not in the least the result of the ESDP putting forward a conceptualisation that appeals to many stakeholders. Balanced and sustainable development, invoked in the subtitle of the ESDP, translates effortlessly into polycentric development, a ‘bridging concept’ (WATERHOUT, 2002) in which there is something for everybody. Several of the sixty policy options in the ESDP invoke polycentrism, in particular option 1 where it recommends strengthening “…several larger zones of global economic integration in the EU, equipped with high-quality, global functions and services, including the peripheral areas, through transnational spatial development strategies." (CEC 1999, 21)

In addition, the ESDP addresses the competitiveness of Europe – a concern that recent Commission publications articulate with even more vigour. Thus the ESDP points out that the EU territory. "…differs from that of the USA with its several outstanding economic integration zones on a global scale: West Coast (California), East Coast, Southwest (Texas), Mid West". (CEC 1999, 21) In these terms the US territory is more balanced, giving, or so it is suggested, the US a competitive advantage. This, then, is why polycentrism, meaning more global economic integration zones outside the one and only such zone marked by its corners London-Paris-Milan-Munich-Hamburg and hence dubbed the pentagon, is the overall goal. The formation of more global economic integration zones

“…has to be pursued, to ensure regionally balanced development, because the EU is becoming fully integrated in the global economy. Pursuit of this concept will help to avoid further excessive economic and demographic concentration in the core area of the EU. The economic potential of all regions of the EU can only be utilised through the further development of a more polycentric European settlement structure. The greater competitiveness of the EU on a global scale demands a stronger integration of the European regions into the global economy.” (Op cit.)

Polycentrism as a concept is being developed in ESDP follow-ups, starting with a document produced by the French in 2000. (FRENCH PRESIDENCY, 2000) There is a parallel prospective programme ‘Territoires 2020’ commissioned by the French planning agency Datar (Délegation à l’aménagement du territoire et à l’action régionale) and summarised in BAUDELLE, GUY and OLLIVRO (2002; see also BAUDELLE and GUY, 2004). On the basis of this and other works, Datar has formulated four scenario’s for France, one of which – the preferred one – it identifies as ‘networked polycentrism’ (polycentrism maillée). (GUIGOU, 2002) One of the scenarios positions the French territory in a polycentric configuration of ‘petites europe’, or little Europes, but note that another one highlights the dangers to French unity as a result of territorial fragmentation in peripheral areas.

Another follow-up by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CRPM, 2002) shows what a determined policy might achieve between now and 2020 in terms of a polycentric Europe. It points out opportunities for stimulating new growth areas.

So the strategy in the ESDP and its follow-ups is to have global economic integration zones develop outside the pentagon. However, not purporting to be a ‘masterplan’ (FALUDI and WATERHOUT, 2002) the ESDP leaves the issue of where such zones should be created left hanging in the air. Rather, co-operation and initiatives from below are the key to forming the requisite transnational development strategies. This shows the ESDP reflecting the shift to what has been dubbed as the contemporary paradigm of regional development. (BACHTLER and YUILL, 2001; BACHTLER, 2003)

The policy envisaged is also not European funding for would-be global economic integration zones. Rather, endogenous forces need to be mobilised or, as the literature has it, social capital needs to be generated through co-operation. There is clearly more to polycentrism than the morphology of urban systems.

“Rather, an active building of regional organising capacity is needed – that is, the ability to regionally co-ordinate developments through a more or less institutionalised framework of co-operation, debate, negotiation and decision-making in pursuit of interests at the regional scale – to shape a polycentric urban region’s competitive advantages.” (MEIJERS and ROMEIN, 2003, 173)

In this and other respects, the ESDP foreshadows territorial cohesion thinking, to be discussed next.