EU Cohesion Policy and spatial economic growth: trajectories in economic thought

被引:44
作者
Rauhut, Daniel [1 ]
Humer, Alois [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Eastern Finland, Karelian Inst, Yliopistokatu 2,POB 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland
[2] Austrian Acad Sci, Vienna, Austria
基金
奥地利科学基金会; 欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Economic growth; cohesion policy; regional development; cities; growth pole theory; URBAN AGENDA; EUROPE; POLES; RETURNS; IMPACT; CITIES;
D O I
10.1080/09654313.2019.1709416
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper aims at identifying the current main economic thought influencing the EU Cohesion Policy. Postulates and assumptions on how economic growth spreads spatially in key EU policy framework documents are discussed and compared to different economic theories. Strategic EU documents increasingly foster the urban dimension, and focus resources on cities at the expense of cohesive regional development. The findings indicate large overlaps with Perroux' 'growth pole theory'. However, several of the key assumptions of growth pole theory are not met in the new context of post-industrial globalized service economy, which is fundamentally different from its original use. This is a troublesome finding when seen from a strategic planning perspective. Current implications for regional policy and planning boil down to the cardinal question of supporting urban areas and/or peripheries. Taking the strategic EU policy documents and their trajectories in economic thought into consideration, this paper confirms that regional development focuses on cities. Yet, it suggests a new perspective on an urban-centred EU Cohesion Policy, one that normatively requests the 'responsibility' of cities towards their hinterland, instead of fostering a further dissociation of cities from their hinterland. This suggests a reorientation towards supporting the linkages between urban areas and peripheries.
引用
收藏
页码:2116 / 2133
页数:18
相关论文
共 103 条
[1]  
Adams N., 2011, TERRITORIAL DEV COHE
[2]  
*AER, 2012, COMM STRAT FRAM 2012
[3]   Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe [J].
Albrechts, L ;
Healey, P ;
Kunzmann, KR .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 2003, 69 (02) :113-129
[4]   Practicing Strategic Planning: In Search of Critical Features to Explain the Strategic Character of Plans [J].
Albrechts, Louis ;
Balducci, Alessandro .
DISP, 2013, 49 (03) :16-27
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2009, REGIONS MAGAZINE, DOI DOI 10.1080/13673882.2009.948509
[6]   THE ECONOMIC-IMPLICATIONS OF LEARNING BY DOING [J].
ARROW, KJ .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1962, 29 (80) :155-173
[7]  
Atkinson R., 2015, European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, V3, P21
[8]   European Union Cohesion Policy Post 2014: More (Place-Based and Conditional) Growth - Less Redistribution and Cohesion [J].
Avdikos, Vasilis ;
Chardas, Anastassios .
TERRITORY POLITICS GOVERNANCE, 2016, 4 (01) :97-117
[9]  
BACKHOUSE R, 1991, HIST MODERN EC ANAL
[10]  
BAIROCH P, 1988, CITIES EC DEV DAWN P