Advertisement

Territorial Cohesion — Between Expectations, Disparities and Contradictions

  • Maroš Finka
Part of the German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy book series (GERMANANNUAL)

Abstract

Current spatial development policy in EU countries has been intensively influenced, in addition to economic and social cohesion, by a new concept — the concept of territorial cohesion (TC). As the term ‘territorial cohesion’ was initially introduced in the political sphere, it has evoked, independently from the process of new treaty ratification, many discussions about the substance of this concept. The task of elaborating the concept and translating it into European policies intensively has occupied politicians, practitioners and academicians since the term “territorial cohesion” first appeared in the proposal for a new treaty. EU informal ministerial meetings on territorial cohesion in Rotterdam (2004) and the Informal Meeting of Ministers for Regional Policy and Territorial Cohesion in Luxemburg (2005) focused on the interlinks between the territorial cohesion concept and the Lisbon-Gothenburg strategy and defined the political direction in the European discussion on this topic. The Luxemburg meeting stressed the importance of stimulating a broad interdisciplinary EU dialogue on territorial cohesion with EU institutions and local and regional actors which would reflect the reality of the delaying fundamental interdisciplinary professional discussion, thus creating the theoretical background for territorial cohesion in terms of a political spatial development concept.

Keywords

Spatial Development Balance Development Lisbon Strategy Territorial Structure Territorial Cohesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL) (2004) Notwendigkeit einer Europäischen Raumentwicklungspolitik. Positionspapier aus der ARL no.60Google Scholar
  2. Barroso J M, Verheugen G (2005) Working together for growth and jobs, A new start for the Lisbon Strategy, Communication to the Spring European Council, SEC (2005) 192, SEC(2005) 193, EC BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. Battis U et.al. (2005) Ausgestaltung der Raumentwicklung in der Europäischen erfassung, Expertise zur Position der EU-Mitgliederstaaten zur künftigen Aufgabenverteilung zwischen der EU und den Mitgliedstaaten im Bereich der Raumentwicklung, Endbericht, Forschungsauftrag des Bundesamtes für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Norr Stiefenhofer Lutz, Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. BBR, Bundesministerium für erkehr Bau und Wohnungswesen (eds.) (2005) Informelles EU-Ministertreffen zum Thema territorialer Zusammenhalt vom 20.–21. Mai in Luxemburg: Schlussfolgerungen des orsitzesGoogle Scholar
  5. COM (2005) Lisbon Action Plan Incorporating EU Lisbon Programme and Recommendations for Actions to Member States for Inclusion in their National Lisbon Programmes, Companion documents to the Communication to the Spring European Council 2005 / Working together for growth and jobs, 24 final, EC BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. David C H (2005) Zur Konvergenz der nationalen Raumordnungspolitiken Frankreichs und Deutschlands im Post-EUREK-Prozess. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung, Issue 1/2005 pp 11–20Google Scholar
  7. ESPON Coordination Unit (ed.) (2005) In Search of Territorial Potentials, ESPON, Midterm results by spring 2005, [available on Internet: http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/publications/98/856/file_319/ESPON_synthesis_report_II.pdf]Google Scholar
  8. ESPON (12.07.2005). ESPON 3.2; Spatial Scenarios and Orientations in Relation to the ESDP and EU Cohesion Policy (2004–06), Second Interim Report Part 1, [available on Internet: http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/projects/ cross_thematic/2705/sir-3.2_part1.pdf]Google Scholar
  9. ESPON (12.07.2005) ESPON 3.1; Integrated Tools for European Spatial Development, Final Report Part A, Scientific and Policy Oriented Conclusions of ESPON Results Until September 2004, [available on Internet: http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/projects/cross_thematic/2229/fr_3.1_part_a.pdf]Google Scholar
  10. ESPON (12.07.2005) ESPON Project 2.3.2; Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level. [available on Internet: http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/projects/policy_impact/2785/sir-2.3.2.pdf]Google Scholar
  11. ESPON 1.1.1 (2004) The Role, Specific Situation and Potentials of Urban Areas as Nodes of Polycentric Development. Final Report. Stockholm: Nordregio-Nordic Centre for Spatial DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  12. ESPON 2.2.2. (2004a) Pre-Accession Impact Analysis. Third Interim Report. Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning, ErknerGoogle Scholar
  13. ESPON in progress (2004b) Preliminary results by autumn 2003. European Spatial Planning Observation NetworkGoogle Scholar
  14. European Community (eds.) (2006) The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union Document: Towards a Stronger European Cohesion in the Light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Ambitions 2006, first draft, Editorial Group 26, European Community, Brussels, JuneGoogle Scholar
  15. EU Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion (2005) am 20/21.05.2005 in Luxembourg, Presidency conclusions, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Europäische Kommission (eds.) (1999) Europäisches Raumentwicklungskonzept (EUREK): Auf dem Wege zu einer räumlich ausgewogenen und nachhaltigen Entwicklung der Europäischen Union. Angenommen beim Informellen Rat der für Raumordnung zuständigen Minister in Potsdam, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  17. European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) (eds.) (2005). In search of territorial potentials. Mid Term Results by Spring 2005.Google Scholar
  18. Faludi A (2004) Spatial Planning Traditions in Europe: Their Role in the ESDP Process International Planning Studies, ol. 9, 2–3, 155–172, May–August 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faludi A (2004a) Territorial Cohesion: A Polycentric Process for a Polycentric Europe. Working Paper Series 2004/03, Research team Governance and Places, University NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  20. Faludi A (2004b) Territorial Cohesion: Old (French) wine in new Bottles? In: Urban Studies, 41(7), pp 1349–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faludi A (2004c) The Open Method of Co-ordination and’ Post-regulatory’ Territorial Cohesion Policy. In: European Planning Studies, vol.12 / no.7, October 2004, pp 1019–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faludi A (2005) Territorial Cohesion: an unidentified poltiical objective-Introduction to the special issue. In: Faludi (ed.) Town Planning Review, Special issue on European territorial cohesion, Issue 76 / no.1, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  23. Faludi A (2005a) Polycentric Territorial Cohesion Policy. In: Town Planning Review, Issue 76(1) 2005, pp 107–118Google Scholar
  24. Finka M (2005) Competition and Cooperation — Classification of Instruments. In: Giffinger R (ed.) (2005) Competition between Cities in Central Europe: Opportunities and Risks of Cooperation, ARL/TU Wien/SPECTRA, Hannover, Vienna, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  25. Finka M (2003) The Future of Industrial Cities and Regions in Central and Eastern Europe. In: IoeR (eds.) (2003) The Future of Industrial Regions in Decline — Conversations between the U.S. and Europe, Dresden, pp 5–11Google Scholar
  26. Finka M (2002) The Role of Planning in Increasing Ethical Behaviour. In: Petrikova D (ed.) (2002) Planning, Ethics and Religion II. FA STU Spectra Centre-ROAD, Bratislava, pp 146–151Google Scholar
  27. Finka M, Petríková D (eds.) (2000) Spatial Development and Planning in the Context of EU Enlargement, Central European Training Centre in Spatial Planning, Bratislava/Hannover/Newcastle/GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  28. Finka M, Petríková D (2002) Achieving Social Equity Through Effective Spatial Planning Policies and Tools. In: Petríková D (ed.) (2002) Planning, Ethics and Religion II, FA STU Spectra Centre-ROAD, Bratislava, pp 192–205Google Scholar
  29. Gestel van T, Faludi A (2005) Towards a European Territorial Cohesion Assessment Network. A bright future for ESPON? In: Town Planning Review, Issue 76(1), pp 81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gustedt E (2005) Territorial Cohesion of Europe — From a ague Notion, to Clear Idea, AESOP Conference, iennaGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall M, Ache P et al. (2006) ESPON 2.2.1, The Territorial Effects of Structural Funds. Third Interim Report, 2004, Nordregio, Mcrit, EPRC, infyde, itps, Systema, [available on Internet: http://www.nordregio.se/espon2.2.1.htm, 1. 5.2006]Google Scholar
  32. Commission of the European Communities (2004) Employment, economic reforms and social cohesion — towards a Europe based on innovation and knowledge, Document from the presidency 5256/00, Lisbon/Brussels 2000Google Scholar
  33. Laissy A P (2004) Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion on 29 November 2004 in Rotterdam CEC 2004Google Scholar
  34. Lévy J (2003) Aménagement du territoire. In: Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l’espace des sociétés, Paris-BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Lévy J, Lussault M (eds.) (2003) Justice spatiale. In: Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l’espace des sociétés, Paris-BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Malchus von V (2005) Strategische Leitbilder für die EU-Kohäsionspolitik, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  37. MKRO, Hauptausschuss der Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung (eds.) (2005) Fortentwicklung der Europäischen Raumentwicklungspolitik, 28 AprilGoogle Scholar
  38. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (eds.) (2004) European Communities/DG Regional Policy, Interim Territorial Cohesion Report (Preliminary results of ESPON and EU Commission studies). Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  39. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (eds.) (2004a) Interim Territorial Cohesion Report, Preliminary results of ESPON and EU Commission studies, DG Regional Policy, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  40. Perony J (2005) Territorial cohesion: evolutionary background, implementation in the frame of 2007/2013 EU policies, AG TC ARL-working material, ARL HannoverGoogle Scholar
  41. Rawls J (1971) A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Schön P (2005) Territorial cohesion in Europe. In: Planning Theory and Practice, Issue 6/3, pp 387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maroš Finka
    • 1
  1. 1.Slovak University of TechnolgyBratislava

Personalised recommendations