Abstract
The ambitions of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in relation to the development of European Union space seem to have been dissolved in the notion of territory which has become a key word in EU Cohesion Policy. The term ‘territory’ has been the subject of many debates, from attempts at definitions, to its rejection as a marker of a renunciation of the aspiration to reflect on, and adjust, development to spatial realities. Based on a constructivist definition of the concept of territory, this article argues that it is not possible to separate territory as a ‘container’ from the various realities of space in so far as the two dimensions are closely intertwined. Furthermore, it could be useful to consider these two dimensions in analysing EU space when reflecting on spatial planning at this scale.
Highlights
Twenty years after the launch of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the context of European integration is deeply different from that which prevailed at the end of the 1990s
The ambitions of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in relation to the development of European Union space seem to have been dissolved in the notion of territory which has become a key word in EU Cohesion Policy
While the results of empirical studies mobilising the notion of soft spaces show that spatial reality is more complex than a mere dichotomy between these new ‘soft’ planning spaces and traditional, institutional spaces (Allmendinger et al, 2014), they emphasise the opposition which exists between these two manners of considering space in general, and planning space in particular
Summary
Twenty years after the launch of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the context of European integration is deeply different from that which prevailed at the end of the 1990s. Derived from the above, territory has been promoted and imbued with virtues because it chimes with the evolving state of the EU (enlargement, increasing diversities) as well as its political and ideological mood (‘do more with less’, supporting individual initiatives, good governance, and so on). This appeal to the territory has triggered various criticisms of a theoretical and analytical nature to which can be added, the renouncement of the ‘big picture’ perspective that the ESDP once advocated. It seems to us that a proper use of the concept of territory could be a path to new thinking regarding European spatial development and even European spatial planning in so far as it can be properly defined and adapted to the characteristics of the EU space
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
