Territorial Development Policies Research Articles

Territorial Cohesion of Tomorrow: A Path to Cooperation or Competition?

Explicit reference was made to “Territorial Cohesion” in the draft Constitution for Europe. The concept has recently been celebrated by many stakeholders of territorial development policies, including the European community of planners. Territorial Cohesion does not seem to have received any official definition, but it is clearly meant to aim at some sort of “spatial justice” while promoting integration between EU sector policies that have a territorial impact. Seemingly a consensual principle: who in Europe would object to a better coherence between various EU policies and the provision of reasonably equal standards of living to all EU citizens, regardless of their area of settlement? Yet a close examination of the current political debate suggests that very divergent views are being expressed as to what Territorial Cohesion exactly entails in practical terms. Two main different policy approaches seem to emerge in this debate. The first approach tends to equate Territorial Cohesion to a range of positive discrimination steps in favour of various penalised areas. Interest groups, in particular lobbies for specific regions, have proved influential in propagating this conception. In the area of regional policy, this approach embodies the neo-corporatist, depoliticised line of the contemporary political culture. It is primarily inspired by financial considerations and a competitive zero-sum game scenario: regions of a specific category should increase their share of the EU funding at the expense of the others. The opposite approach places much more emphasis on the need for integrated territorial planning strategies and the integration of EU policies. Its proponents are the heirs of the post-war urban and regional planning tradition. They strive to revive the politicised and rationalist ideology of the Enlightenment, based on the notion of public interest. They raise awareness about the steadily growing interdependence between regions and cities of Europe and advocate a cooperative approach focusing on issues of transnational relevance and win-win situations. This rather idealistic cooperative approach seems to be less influential than its rival, and currently confined to a relatively small group of planning professionals. The question remains: which of the two models—interregional competition or cooperation—will finally succeed in shaping the EU cohesion policy?

La re-territorialisation du développement agricole : le cas de l'agriculture périurbaine d'Angers

Les concurrences croissantes d’usage de l’espace et l’émergence de démarches de développement des collectivités publiques dans les territoires périurbains conduisent les acteurs agricoles à intégrer le fait urbain en tant que composante majeure de leur avenir sur le territoire. Ainsi, ils entrent en discussion avec des collectivités locales organisées pour formuler et promouvoir des démarches de développement à l’échelle de l’aire urbaine, intégrant de larges zones à vocation agricole. L’analyse menée de différentes formes de dialogue entre collectivités locales et représentants agricoles dans la zone périurbaine d’Angers met au jour les contours et les caractères d’une nouvelle territorialité des politiques de développement agricole, qui se trouvent ainsi progressivement redéfinies par les acteurs agricoles locaux dans leurs discussions avec les élus intercommunaux, maîtres de la destination des sols.

Von der Raumordnung zur Raumentwicklung

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size The role of the state and of public policy has already been questioned for a long time. Spatial planning was once a core business of public authorities. But that has changed and notions like regional, territorial, and spatial development policies are now more frequently used. Thus, the question arises: does this semantic shift only reflect a new fashion soon to be replaced by another buzz word or does it instead represent a more profound change in the underlying structural forces of socio-economic development of territories? The article argues that there are at least three reasons that require a renewed attitude toward public policies addressing the development of territories, regions, and spaces. First, the spatial reach of local activities that impact upon space clearly has ex panded. Secondly, a changed role for the state has created a number of new and relevant actors that impact upon territories that have emerged. Third, a more encompassing understanding and perception of “space,” as a production factor of socio-economic reality, is applied. In fact, these basic trends call for a “systemic” approach from territorial development policy.

‘The Learning Economy, the Learning Firm and the Learning Region’

The recent growing interest in ‘learning’ and ‘knowledge’ as a - maybe the (only) - route to corporate and regional economic success is one facet of the engagement between economic geographers and regional analysts on the one hand and evolutionary and institutional economists on the other. This focus on knowledge is often presented as a dramatic breakthrough, promising radical theoretical reappraisal and opening up exciting new possibilities for the conception, implementation and practise of policy. Recognizing the importance of innovation and knowledge creation to economic success is hardly novel, however. The paper first summarizes the claims made by the proponents of ‘learning’, and some links are drawn between the pre-eminent emphasis that they place upon knowledge and learning and other literatures that analyse ongoing changes in the organization of production and work in contemporary capitalism and which have different emphases. The aim is to situate and contextualize claims about the significance of ‘learning’. These claims are then placed within the context of continuities and changes within capitalism, and the ways in which these have been understood, as a further step in this process of contextualization and situation. Finally, some conclusions are briefly drawn around the limits to learning, and questions of learning by whom, and for what purpose, in the context of the politics and policies of social, economic and territorial development.

Regional development policy and its impact on regional planning practice in Zimbabwe

This paper traces regional development policy in Zimbabwe in a historical perspective from the colonial to the post‐colonial era, and evaluates its impact on regional planning practice. It is argued that regional planning practice is the interpretation and application of the regional policy framework to the solution of the problems of regional development within the confines of a national economy. In Zimbabwe, there has been a contradiction between the territorial regional development policy espoused by politicians’ rhetoric and regional planning practice, which has continued to be functional in both substance and method in the post‐colonial era. Despite a shift to a socialist orientation by government, functional rather than territorial initiatives have remained the operative frameworks for economic development. To avoid this contradiction, there is need to correctly conceptualize the relationship between the central delivery system and regional development policy and planning practice in Zimbabwe.

L'impact des infrastructures de transport sur la production agricole: le cas des zones économiques spéciales en Chine

ABSTRACT This article underlines the importance of reconsidering the role of transports in the development process through the examination of their territorial contradictions. After having summarized the changes in transport and territorial development policies in China since 1949, the study demonstrates the conflicting character of transportation based on an analysis of accessibility in the special economic zones and its impact on agricultural production. A concrete and possible solution to this modernisation problem is then suggested.