Browsing by Subject "spatial planning"

Social and economic inequalities are growing in Europe in local, regional and national scales while they are decreasing between member states of the European union (EU). Inequalities are visible in geographical space, which can be one factor explaining these differences between places and people. Spatial disparities and growing inequalities are source of political and social tensions, which can be menace for European countries as well for the EU’s legitimacy. These issues are addressed by the EU’s territorial cohesion policy. Spatial awakening in policymaking and establishment of territorial cohesion as the third objective of the EU’s cohesion policy in 2009 by the Lisbon Treaty has increased awareness of territorial approach in the EU policymaking. The Territorial Agenda of the EU (TAEU) was published in 2007 as a guideline for achieving territorial cohesion. However, studies show that results of this non-binding and open-method-of-coordination based policy have been relatively modest despite its usefulness and ambitious policy objectives of reducing inequalities and increasing overall competitiveness of Europe. Moreover, many meanings of territorial cohesion and lack of a proper definition has been topic of political and academic debates. The key document of territorial cohesion, the Territorial Agenda of the EU was recently renewed by the European network of regional development policymakers and spatial planners. At this context of policy renewal, I am studying what kind of role the Territorial Agenda of the EU has in achieving territorial cohesion, which is the main objective of the agenda. Territorial cohesion is known as a slightly contradictory policy goal, due to its sometimes (but not always) conflicting spatial realities of the two policy objectives: reducing inequalities and increasing competitiveness. Moreover, elusiveness and many meanings of the concept have been seen as the central challenges of the agenda. Meanings of territorial cohesion and associated imaginaries to the EU territoriality are investigated in this thesis. Additional research questions are linked to a policy evaluation, where aspects of effectiveness, impacts and utility are studied. The study is based on an online survey, which targets the Network of the Territorial Cohesion Contact Points (NTCCP) members and other relevant stakeholders from different geographical scales and levels of governance. The survey is composed by quantitative and qualitative questions which are analysed by mixed methods. Theoretical background originates from social constructionism, Europeanisation and critical geopolitics. The results show that the Territorial Agenda of the EU has a strong role in achieving of territorial cohesion and stakeholders have high expectations of its impact, effectiveness and utility. Overall, the agenda is perceived as a useful guideline with lot of potential for achieving territorial cohesion in Europe. However, some of the stakeholders acknowledge well weaknesses of the agenda and are more realistic about its role, effectiveness, impacts and utility. Moreover, stakeholders share a relatively common understanding of the EU territoriality as networked and relational space. They associate similar meanings to territorial cohesion as a concept, even the concept remains still quite vague. The central finding is that the environmental and social dimensions of territorial cohesion are emphasized over the economic dimension and that strong impacts are expected in environmental related themes. The results illustrate how the EU’s soft power works and how even a non-binding low policy of the EU, which is operationalized voluntary by different level stakeholders, can be effective for creating the EU territoriality and achieving territorial cohesion. Processes of Europeanisation and soft practices such as sharing good practice, policy harmonisation, coordination and cooperation are main means to achieve territorial cohesion. Nevertheless, some stakeholders remain realistic and acknowledge the obstacles of non-binding policy implementation and prefer to wait if ‘what is ought to be done’ ‘is actually done’ during the next ten years. In addition, the study outlines some policy recommendations to improve the agenda and implementation. For example, stronger engagement of stakeholders, participation of citizens and the third sector and increase of willingness to work as the EU’s agency are suggestions to be enforced.