Territorial Cohesion and Regional Competitiveness: Defining Key-Notions in the EU's Regional Policy
Social Sciences
Volume 3, Issue 4-1, July 2014, Pages: 4-12
Received: Apr. 8, 2014; Accepted: May 9, 2014; Published: Jun. 14, 2014
Views 3403      Downloads 113
Bernard Elissalde, UFR de Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Rouen, Mont Saint Aignan, France
Frédéric Santamaria, UFR Géographie, Histoire et Sciences de la Société, Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7, Paris, France
Article Tools
Follow on us
By using three types of sources (official sources of the European Union, results of a questionnaire to practitioners, results of applied researches on European spatial planning), we demonstrate that no precise definitions can be given of two main notions of European spatial planning. This result is coherent with the literature on this field. This situation questions the operational interest of such notions. Some consider that a “pragmatic” view must be adopted. For them, research on that field should take into account what the notions are "doing" instead of trying to understand what "are" these notions. Nevertheless, a strictly pragmatic approach evades the issue of the choice of policies that are always normative (or “essentialist”).
Territorial Cohesion, Regional Competitiveness, Regional Policy, European Union, Notions
To cite this article
Bernard Elissalde, Frédéric Santamaria, Territorial Cohesion and Regional Competitiveness: Defining Key-Notions in the EU's Regional Policy, Social Sciences. Special Issue:Geographical Evidence in Changing Europe. Vol. 3, No. 4-1, 2014, pp. 4-12. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.s.2014030401.12
B. Palier, Y. Surel & al, L’Europe en action. L’européanisation dans une perspective comparée. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2007.
G. Tatzberger, “Spatial Visions, Concepts and Metaphors: their Essential Role in European Spatial Development and Policy Discourse”, in Rethinking European Spatial Policy as a Hologram, Actions, Institutions, Discourses, L. Doria, V. Fedeli, and C. Tedesco, Eds. Londres: Ashgate, 2007, pp. 278-297.
B. Elissalde, F. Santamaria, Ph. Jeanne, “Harmony and Melody in Discourse on European Cohesion”, European Spatial Planning, 2013, DOI : 10.1080/09654313.2013.782389
H. Mastop, “Performance in Dutch spatial planning: an introduction”, Environment and Planning, B : Planning and Design, 24, pp. 807-813, 1997.
A. Faludi, “The European Spatial Development Perspective – What Next?”. European Planning Studies, 8, 2, pp. 237-250, 2000.
Faludi, “The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective: introduction to a special issue”. Town and Country Planning Review, 74, 1, pp. 1-9, 2003.
Faludi, “Unfinished business: European spatial planning in the 2000s”. Town and Country Planning Review, 74, 1, pp. 121-140, 2003.
Waterhout, The institutionnalisation of European spatial planning, Delft: Delft university of technology, 2008.
O. B. Jensen, T. Richardson, Making european space. Mobility, power and territorial identity, Londres, New-York: Routledge, 2004.
M. E. Porter, “Regions and the new economics of competition”, in Global City-regions Allen J. Scott, Eds. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2001, pp. 139-157.
G. Bristow, “Everyone's ...is a winner, Problematising the discourse of regional competitiveness”, Journal of economic geography, 5, pp. 285-304, 2005.
R. Camagni, “Compétitivité territoriale, milieux locaux et apprentissage collectif : une contre-réflexion critique”, Revue d’économie régionale et urbaine, 4, pp. 553-578, 2002.
A. Markusen, “Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies”. Regional Studies, 33, 9, pp. 869–884, 1999.
Faludi, B. Waterhout, The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective. London: Routledge. 2002.
Shaw, D., O. Sykes, “The concept of polycentricity in European spatial planning: Reflections on its interpretation and application in the practice of spatial planning”. International Planning Studies, 9, 4, pp. 283–306, 2004.
G. Abrahams, “What “Is” Territorial Cohesion? What Does It “Do”?: Essentialist Versus Pragmatic Approaches to Using Concepts”. European Planning Studies. 2013, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2013.819838 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.819838)
S.M. Stein, T. L. Harper, “Creativity and innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning”. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32, 1, pp. 5–17, 2012
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186