Cohesion Policy Contributing To Territorial Cohesion: Futu .
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: Cohesion Policy Contributing to Territorial Cohesion: Future ScenariosArticle in European Journal of Spatial Development · September 2011CITATIONSREADS181592 authors:Andreas Faludi215 PUBLICATIONS 4,704 CITATIONSJean PeyronyMission opérationnelle transfrontalière9 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONSSEE PROFILESEE PROFILESome of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:The poverty of territorialism: Neo-medieval spatial planning View projectAll content following this page was uploaded by Andreas Faludi on 23 September 2014.The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
The European Journal of Spatial Development is published by Nordregio, Nordic Centrefor Spatial Development and OTB Research Institute, Delft University of TechnologyISSN 1650-9544Publication details, including instructions for authors: www.nordregio.se/EJSDOnline Publication Date: 2011-09-26To cite this article: Faludi, Andreas and Peyrony, Jean, 2011, Cohesion PolicyContributing to Territorial Cohesion – Future Scenarios, Refereed article No. 43,September, 2011, European Journal of Spatial Development.URL: http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed articles/refereed43.pdfPLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Cohesion Policy Contributing to Territorial Cohesion –Future ScenariosAndreas Faludi and Jean Peyrony1Author informationAndreas Faludi, Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, , P.O.Box 5030, NL-2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands.E-mail address: a.faludi@ipact.nlJean Peyrony, Director General, Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière38, rue des Bourdonnais F 75001 Paris, FRANCETel 33(0)1 55 80 56 80 - Fax 33(0)1 42 33 57 00 – www.espaces-transfrontaliers.euEmail: jean.peyrony@mot.asso.frAbstractThe Barca Report advocates for developmental policies to be ‘place-based’: integratedas far as they affect ‘places’. The debate on territorial cohesion is equally concernedwith integrating relevant policies and actions. This requires well-established democraticinstitutions and adequate responses to the demands of technical systems and of markets.Following Lisbeth Hooghe and Gary Marks, the respective arrangements are describedas Governance Type I and Type II. All levels of government, including that of the EU,partake in both types, but relations between them are problematic, particularly in thecontext of Europe 2020: Will this EU strategy be mainly a matter for DirectorateGenerals and their various clients pursuing their policies (Governance Type II), or willCohesion policy, with its more integrated and decentralised approach, involving manylevels of government and stakeholders (Governance Type I) form platforms forintegrating them? This paper presents four scenarios; each based on a combination ofstrong/weak Governance Type I and Type II, which are labelled as the ‘Anglo-Saxon’,‘Saint-Simonian’, ‘Rhineland’ and the ‘European’ Scenarios. The authors prefer thelatter, but the best one can hope for in the short term is for this option not to fall by thewayside.Keywords: Keywords: Cohesion policy; Place-based policies; Territorial cohesion;Scenarios1An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Seminar ‘What Future for Cohesion Policy? – An Academic andPolicy Debate’ organized by the Regional Studies Association at Bled (Slovenia) on 16-18 March 2011. It elaborateson previous publications by the two authors: A. Faludi (2010) ‘Territorial cohesion post-2013: To whomsoever it mayconcern’, Space is Luxury: Selected Proceedings of the 24th AESOP Annual Conference. Verkko, 6031309.pdf; and J. Peyrony (2010) ‘L’avenir de la politique de cohésion’,Territoires 2040, http://territoires2040.datar.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/t2040 n2 9peyroni.pdf.The authors wish toacknowledge the helpful comments by two anonymous referees.2
1. IntroductionAdvocating developmental policies to be ‘place-based’, the Barca Report (2009, 4-5) seesplace as interchangeable with ‘space’ or ‘territory’. Except for the Green Paper onTerritorial Cohesion (CEC 2008), it makes no reference to the debate on territorialcohesion however. Like Barca, that debate conceives of territory as a platform for coordinating public and private initiatives. Much as Durkheim (English edition 1933)conceives of social cohesion as an element of the social division of labour, so too is thecase with territorial cohesion: It is simply part of the territorial division of labour. Withits scale and complexity increasing, relevant policies are becoming more elaborate. Alllevels of government, including the EU, are implicated, and as a result of enhancedmobility and the greater permeability of borders, there is also a need for arrangementsdealing with functional areas that transcend borders within and between states.Dealing with the territorial division of labour requires well-established democraticinstitutions, but also proper responses to the demands of technical systems and markets.Following the work of Lisbeth Hooghe and Gary Marks on EU multi-level governance,and particularly their differentiation between multi-level governance Type I and II(Hooghe, Marks, 2001; 2003; 2010; Marks, Hooghe, 2004), this paper differentiatesbetween Governance Type I and Type II respectively. The distinction is relevant to thepursuit of the Europe 2020 Strategy (CEC, 2010a). Will this primarily be a matter forvarious Directorate-Generals and their clients to pursue through their policies,independently and without consideration for their territorial impacts (Governance TypeII)? Conversely, will cohesion policy, with its more integrated and decentralisedapproach, involving many levels of government and stakeholders (Governance Type I),provide platforms for integrating policies, as the Commission proposes in its BudgetReview (CEC, 2010b), the Fifth Cohesion Report (CEC, 2010c) and its recent BudgetProposal (CEC, 2011)? The stark alternative is for Cohesion policy to be curtailed or, asthe saying goes, ‘renationalised’ (Bachtler, Mendez, 2007; Richardson, 2009).The paper is not about this struggle as such, but rather focuses on the relation betweentypes of governance. The source of inspiration is the study ‘Scenarios on the territorialfuture of Europe’ (ESPON, 2006). The study presents ‘Baseline’, ‘Competitivenessoriented’ and ‘Cohesion-oriented’ scenarios, after which a ‘Roll Back’ scenario ofEuropean development is constructed according to the principles enunciated in theEuropean Spatial Development Perspective (CEC, 1999). This paper also constructsscenarios. However, they represent combinations of strong/weak Governance Type I andType II respectively:1.‘Anglo-Saxon’: combining limited Governance Type II-regulation of the SingleMarket with a weak Cohesion policy (Governance Type I) restricted to what isnecessary for reasons of solidarity with new Member States;2.‘Saint-Simonian’: combining strong regulation and provisions of public services(Governance Type-II) with a weak Cohesion policy (Governance Type I);3
3.4.‘Rhineland’: emphasising Governance Type I in the context of Cohesion policy, butwith a preference for subsidiarity and thus little scope for Governance Type II atEU level;‘European’: combining strong Governance Type II, as under the ‘Saint-Simonian’scenario with an equally strong Cohesion policy on the lines of Jacques Delors(Governance Type I), thereby combining initiatives from above and below.The authors, one a long-term participant who has worked in various capacities to preparethe policies described, and the other, a committed academic observer, prefer theEuropean Scenario, a normative commitment that will be clear to the reader. However,the authors realise that the best that can be achieved at present is to sustain Cohesionpolicy as a safeguard for creating opportunities for pursuing the ‘European’ Scenariolater, when times are more favourable.The paper first recounts the debate on territorial cohesion, emphasising its French roots.Subsequently, Cohesion policy, ‘Europe 2020’ and the Budget debate; the key contextualelements of current policy deliberations are discussed. This is followed by the fourscenarios, as outlined above. Finally, the authors offer their conclusions from the study.2.The Debate on Territorial CohesionCohesion policy relates to core issues of European integration. By now, cohesion isroutinely invoked as a concept, but beyond operational definitions laid down in theregulations saying who may get what, what economic and social cohesion, and also itsnew complement, territorial cohesion are is open to debate The academic literature onCohesion policy as such, in the past often described as regional policy, is extensive anddates back some time. (Vanhove, Klaassen, 1980; Leonardi, 2005; Molle, 2007; Bachtler,Gonzalek, 2007; Drevet, 2008; Farole, Rodriguez-Pose, Storper, 2011). The literature onterritorial cohesion focuses mainly on its background and various aspects of the concept’sintroduction in the EU policy discourse. Janin Rivolin (2010) offers a compilation ofrelevant official texts and Faludi (2010) endeavours to clarify how Cohesion policyrelates to the debate on European spatial planning, also covered by Dühr, Colomb andNadin (2010).Given that the concept of territorial cohesion has French roots (Faludi, 2004), the focushere is on the French thinking behind it. In this regard, it is hard to overestimate theinfluence of 19thcentury sociologist Émile Durkheim. He explored how despite theincreasing autonomy of individuals, and despite differences between them, societiesmaintained their cohesion. His answer was that the division of labour createdinterdependency, the source of ‘organic solidarity’ between social actors (Durkheim,1933 for the English edition). Solidarity could not be sustained by purely contractualrelations, but required civic morality, laws, administrative and governmental functions.This social cohesion is considered to be the source of ‘solidarism’, the ideologicalfoundation of the French State that emerged after the Second World War (Peyrony,2007).4
Durkheim did not address territorial cohesion, but he did discuss the issue ofinterdependency and solidarity between territories; responding to a kind of territorialdivision of labour. Strengthening integration and solidarity in the face of the territorialdivision of labour, EU Cohesion policy can contribute to solidarity. Invoking Boltanskiand Thévenot (2006 for the English edition), one can say that what is necessary isintegrating markets, civic initiatives, technical systems, social networks and visions of thefuture. As far as the EU is concerned, the opposite, restricting it to the Single Market,environmental regulation and macro-economic policies, whilst reserving matters relatingto social and territorial cohesion to Member States, can only widen the rift betweenEurope and its citizens, thus diluting the European project.Equally relevant is Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984, English edition) work, whereby theeconomic notion of capital is given social, symbolic and cultural dimensions. The optimaluse of capital in its various dimensions is contingent upon where the agents concerned arelocated in space. Thus, what Barca calls ‘place’ represents capital in terms of access tosocial relations, services, jobs and related areas, which is why Jacques Lévy (1994)proposed the notion of ‘spatial capital’. Similarly, the OECD has invoked the concept of‘territorial capital’ (Camagni, 2001), something that has been emulated in, amongst otherdocuments, the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (Territorial Agenda, 2007) andits successor (Territorial Agenda 2020, 2011). This is also why geography enters into theequation of Cohesion policy according to the current Community Strategic Guidelines(Council of the European Union, 2006). The efficiency and equity of policies maydepend on where they take effect and how they are affected, positively or negatively, byother policies.While not universally accepted, the most common understanding of territorial cohesion isthat it addresses territorial interdependency and solidarity, which can include urban-ruralor productive-residential dimensions. It is important to note that territorial cohesion is notonly about the development of individual territories; it also emphasises the integration ofterritories in their wider spatial context, up to the scale of the EU. Territorial cohesionthus means ensuring a balanced – not to be equated with equal – spatial distribution ofactivities and people, promoting interdependency between regions and in so doing, theoverall coherence of policies.Addressing the territorial dimension of EU Cohesion policy, EU multi-level governancecomes into play. Here, the EU represents a new dimension; however given the relativesizes of the EU and of national budgets, maintaining an overall balance between variouseconomic and social concerns remains primarily a national concern. Based on the workabove, the following definition is advanced:Territorial cohesion is about enabling citizens and enterprises, wherever they happen tolive or operate, to benefit from and contribute to European integration and the functioningof the Single Market and, with respect to sustainability, to make the most of the territorialcapital of places.5
This has consequences for territorial governance as discussed during the consultation onthe Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion2, amongst others. It requires, what in UKparlance is called a ‘joined up’ approach, and what in EU-speak, reflecting once moreFrench thinking, is described as coherence: ensuring that relevant policies from varioussectors and levels form a coherent whole. First, such an integrated approach is required ateach territorial level between sectors. In line with Barca, horizontal coordination thatdelivers ‘integrated bundles of public goods’ contributes to the sustainable developmentof the place concerned. Secondly, integration is required between levels, verticalcoordination. This means that not only should each task be performed at the mostrelevant level; local where possible, higher where necessary, but that different levels haveto co-ordinate their actions. This is derived from the fact that we live at different scalessimultaneously. Thirdly, cooperation is needed between different territorial entities withthe aim of identifying synergies resulting from interdependency. In other words,challenges cross administrative and political boundaries. Thus, to find answers,functional areas need to be taken into account.It is important to note that before territorial cohesion appeared as a concept, suchconcerns were articulated by Dutch and, in particular, French experts, in terms ofEuropean spatial planning. Those concerned emphasised capacity building and goodterritorial governance. They also highlighted the sometimes unintended effects of EUpolicies on Member States, regions and localities. In doing so, they argued in favour of aspatial framework for these policies to fit into. This led to the formulation of commonspatial development guidelines, like polycentric development and urban-ruralpartnership; parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge; and the responsiblemanagement of natural and cultural heritage. The European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective (CEC, 1999) and the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (TerritorialAgenda, 2007) articulated this message further, and in this respect, its update (TerritorialAgenda 2020, 2011) is no different. The spatial planning community – the ‘roving bandof planners’ (Faludi, 1997) – now described as the ‘territorial club’ by Böhme, Doucet,Komornicki, Zaucha and Świątek (2011) – is presently articulating its concerns in termsof territorial cohesion.3.The Current Context of the DebateThis section focuses on Cohesion policy, Europe 2020 and, in the eyes of politicians andthe public, the ever so prominent EU Budget debate.Cohesion policy aims to reduce regional and social imbalances, which the Single Markettends to exacerbate. The chief objective is ‘Convergence’. The other foci are ‘RegionalCompetitiveness and Employment’ and ‘European Territorial Cooperation’. UnderConvergence, ‘least favoured’ regions receive support, with eligibility defined mainly interms of GDP per capita. However, according to Jacques Delors’ vision, EU Cohesionpolicy is not a compensatory policy, but rather a developmental one. Whilst stimulatinginvestment in ‘hardware’, it also puts emphasis on ‘software’ in the form of capacitybuilding for coordination and cooperation; not only in ‘least developed regions’ but2See: http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/consultation/terco/contrib en.htm.6
throughout the entire EU. There is a sliding scale, with investments in ‘hardware’ mostprominent under the Convergence objective, while the funding of ‘software development’is promoted under ‘European Territorial Cooperation’. ‘Regional Competitiveness andEmployment’ occupies an intermediate position.By adding territorial cohesion to economic and social cohesion, the Lisbon Treaty hasendorsed the message from the debate on territorial cohesion that space or territory isrelevant to promoting competitiveness and to addressing regional and social inequities.These issues, which EU policy seeks to address in a balanced way, are central to the‘European model of society’ advocated by Jacques Delors (Faludi ed., 2007). Inevitably,EU policies take shape in territories: cities and regions. Success is conditional upon theactive participation of public and private stakeholders. The right configuration of assetsin specific spaces – what Barca calls ‘integrated bundles of public goods’ – may thusdetermine success or failure. However, the wider context of EU Cohesion policy ischanging, with global challenges receiving greater attention. These challenges are whatEurope 2020 (CEC, 2010a) aims to address.‘Europe 2020’ is the title of the follow-up to the Lisbon Strategy aiming to turn Europeinto the most competitive knowledge-economy globally. By the mid-2000s, it hadbecome clear that this was not going to happen, with EU economic governance, includingCohesion policy, receiving some of the blame according to the Sapir Report (Sapir et al.,2004) and the Kok Report (High Level Group, 2004). Upon his appointment asCommission President in the mid-2000s, José Manuel Barroso set his sights onreinvigorating the Lisbon Strategy with a Communication ‘Growth and Jobs’. DG Regioscrambled to refocus EU Cohesion policy on this agenda. It proposed ‘CommunityStrategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013’ (CSG), which the Council of Ministers(2006) eventually adopted. With the Lisbon Treaty sanctioning the concept in the offing,and encouraged by the Territorial Agenda, the Commission published the Green Paper onTerritorial Cohesion (CEC, 2008).Under the next Financial Framework, the Commission once more proposes to focus EUCohesion policy on the new medium-term strategy Europe 2020. The impetus for doingso has not changed; it remains the chief EU funding instrument available. Thus, theCommission pointed out in the Budget Review published in October 2010, that Cohesionpolicy ‘ provides investment for modernisation, galvanises growth in the leastprosperous parts of the EU and acts as a catalyst for change in all Europe’s regions’(CEC, 2010b). As such, the next guidelines will, amongst other things, need to addressthe territorial dimension of ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, a point receivingstrong support from the ‘territorial club’. A new ESPON Synthesis Report (ESPON,2010) has already homed in on the issues, claiming that attention to good governance andterritorial co-operation are vital at every geographical scale, including partnerships at thelevel of city-regions and larger macro-regions, as well as across policy sectors; the
Territorial Cohesion (CEC 2008), it makes no reference to the debate on territorial cohesion however. Like Barca, that debate conceives of territory as a platform for co-ordinating public and private initiatives. Much as Durkheim (English edition 1933) conceives of social cohesion as an element of the social division of labour, so too is the
of territorial cohesion is not explicitly used in the text, it is implicit via references made to the ‘European Regions’. However, a probable reason not to include the notion of territorial cohesion at this stage of EU poli-tics is the fact that territorial cohesion policy is a sensitive issue for the sovereignty of states.
territorial cohesion. Flagships initiatives are an agenda for new skills and jobs and European platform against poverty Europe 2020, together with the Territorial Agenda 2020 2, brings together smart, sustainable and inclusive growth objectives to territorial cohesion. This provides the overall strategic framework for EU cohesion policy 2014-2020.
Keywords: territorial, EU cohesion, CAP, Pillar 1, Pillar 2, rural development policy. 1 Introduction The Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (European Commission, 2001) called for cohesion policy to promote a more balanced and more sustainable development of the European territory, in line with the European Spatial
(6) The Territorial Agenda provides an action-oriented framework to promote territorial cohesion in Europe. Territorial cohesion is a European Union aim introduced by the Treaty on European Union (Article 3, TEU). It means promoting balanced and harmonious territorial development between and within countries, regions, cities and
Chapter 6: Territorial Cohesion as an Emerging Rural Policy Concept Petri Kahila, Peter Weingarten, Aslı Tepecik Diş and Andrew Copus Introduction 107 Key Policy Processes and Debates Relating to Territorial Cohesion 108 The ESDP and the Territorial Agenda 108 The Lisbon Agenda and the ‘Europe 2020’ Strategy 110
European Territorial Cooperation Regulation 1299/2013, Art. 2, litra (3d) calls for reinforcing the effectiveness of cohesion policy by promoting: “analyses of development trends in relation to the aims of territorial cohesion, including territorial aspects of economic and social cohesion, and harmonious development of the
local development is implicit, the territorial cohesion being only a framework designed to identify the most appropriate variant in relation to the specificity and potential of the territory. 2.1. Relevant contributions The evolution of the concept of territorial cohesion is not smooth, depending both on who uses it, and on
Certifications: American Board of Radiology Academic Rank: Professor of Radiology Interests: Virtual Colonoscopy (CT Colonography), CT Enterography, Crohn’s, GI Radiology, (CT/MRI), Reduced Radiation Dose CT, Radiology Informatics Abdominal Imaging Kumaresan Sandrasegaran, M.B., Ch.B. (Division Chair) Medical School: Godfrey Huggins School of Medicine, University of Zimbabwe Residency: Leeds .
