The Role of Cities in Nordic Regional Development Policy

Chapter

Abstract

‘Modern regional policy,’ the territorially directed policies developed after WWII represent only a subset of the measures a central power may use to direct development in its territory. The larger set of policies we denote ‘Classical regional policy.’ The policies developed in Nordic countries after 1950 could not promote a limited set of cities, although ‘growth center policies’ had been attempted with some success in France and the UK. Instead, tax and subsidy structures, support for investments, and transport subsidies directed towards less populated areas were favored. We argue that this choice was a result of the political processes in the Nordic welfare states. The attempts to implement growth pole strategies in the Nordic countries are discussed and analyzed in a context where unbalanced growth between regions is generic and the alternatives available to a national power in order not to lose control over its territory are made explicit. The attempts to implement a city-based growth pole-oriented regional policy in Norway, Sweden, and Finland are summarized. We find that such an explicit policy mostly is impossible within ‘modern regional policy’, but that the pitfalls of this policy in the 1980s led to the ‘broad regional policy.’ This policy has much in common with the classical policy. However, we also found that such a policy was, to some extent, actually formulated when the location of public facilities was decided.

Keywords

Cities Nordic Regional policy Growth poles Sweden Norway Finland 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aarsäther, N. (1991). Ansvaret for regional utvikling. Institusjonar og doktriner i norsk regionalpolitikk. In NordREFO 1991:3, Statens ansvar, 29–50. Copenhagen: Nordisk institut for regionalökonomisk forskning.Google Scholar
  2. Christaller, W. (1966). Central places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. EFTA. (1968). Regional policy in EFTA. An examination of the growth centre idea. Geneva: European Free Trade Association.Google Scholar
  4. EFTA. (1970). Regional policy in EFTA. Industrial estates. Geneva: European Free Trade Association.Google Scholar
  5. Elander, I. (1978). Det nödvändiga och det önskvärda. En studie av socialdemokratisk ideologi och regionalpolitik 1940–72. Lund: Arkiv förlag.Google Scholar
  6. Eriksson, M., & Westin, L. (2013). Regional policy as interaction between national institutions and regional science. Scandinavian Journal of History, 38, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Esping Andersen, G. (1993). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Helland, L., & Sörensen, R. J. (2009). Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation: A politico-economical model of Norwegian road projects. Public Choice, 139, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hersoug, B. (1988). Mellom politiske idealer og ökonomiske realiteter – norsk distrikts- og regionalpolitikk i perioden 1945–86’. In G. Oscarsson (Ed.), Om regionalpolitiken som politikområde (pp. 170–251). Stockholm: Nordiska Arbetsgruppen för regionalpolitisk forskning.Google Scholar
  10. Hirschman, A. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Inrikesdepartementet. (1971). Ortsklassificering i ett regionalpolitiskt handlingsprogram. Skiss till klassificeringssystem. Stockholm Ds In 1971:7.Google Scholar
  12. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the western countries’. American Sociological Review, 63, 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liljenäs, I. (1984). Utvärdering av ett regionalpolitiskt stöd: exemplet Stiftelsen Industricentra. Umeå: Umeå University, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  14. Liljenäs, I., & Sundin, E. (1982). Stiftelsen Industricentra: erfarenheter av verksamheten. Umeå: Umeå University, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  15. Mjöset, L. (1987). Nordic economic policies in the 1970s and 1980s’. International Organization, 41, 403–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. London: Gerald Duckworth.Google Scholar
  17. Olsen, A. (1986). Virkar distriktspolitikken? Ei evaluering av selskapet for Industrivekstanlegg (SIVA) som industripolitisk virkemiddel. Oslo: Oslo University, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  18. Perroux, X.F. (1955). Note sur la notion de poÃle de croissanc e. Economie Appliquée, 8, 307–320. Paris: Archives de l’Institut de Sciences Mathématiques et Economiques Appliquées.Google Scholar
  19. Regeringens proposition. (1972). Kungl. Maj:ts Proposition angående regional utveckling och hushållning med mark och vatten (p. 111). Stockholm: Riksdagen.Google Scholar
  20. Richardson, H. W. (1976). Growth pole spillovers. The dynamics of backwash and spread. Regional Studies, 10, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Statsrådets kansli. (1974). Delegationens för utvecklingsområdena betänkande angående revidering av utvecklingsområdeslag. Helsinki: Statsrådets kanslis publikationer 1974:5.Google Scholar
  22. Stortingsmelding nr 6. (1970–71). Om arbeidet med pro€vesentrene og utviklingsområdene. Oslo: Stortinget.Google Scholar
  23. Tervo, H. (2005). Regional policy lessons from Finland. In D. Felsenstein & B. A. Portnov (Eds.), Regional disparities in small countries (pp. 267–282). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERUMUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations