Cross-border cooperation during COVID19 | A case study of the Antwerp – Noord-Brabant borderland |
MSc Thesis Public Governance | Tilburg University
August 2020 | J.J.H. [Jeroen] Bruijns | U1251837
ABSTRACT
In this research the cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands in the borderland of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant is described. Due to the COVID19 crisis the borders between Belgium and The Netherlands closed for weeks. This had a great impact on this borderland, by this case study the impact of the COVID19 crisis on the regular cross-border cooperation is studied
This is done by eleven interviews with public professionals of various levels and organisations. These professionals and their organisations are important in the cross-border cooperation in this region and can give an insight on what happened and what mattered. Recent literature state that known barriers in cross-border cooperation can be overcome by specific pragmatic behaviour by professionals and their organisations, in this case study special attention is given on the role of these professionals versus institutional structures.
Establishing and maintaining cross-border cooperation depends on multiple factors like motivation, facilitators and barriers that have to be overcome. The study shows that the cross-border cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands can be described by these factors and that the most important aspects noticed are the role of information and knowledge, network and relation. The first as these shapes the understanding and notice of the differences and potential barriers and how these can be prevented or be overcome. The second as these are important to bridge known cultural and administrational competence differences. Another aspect that should have attention is the role of creative cross-border professionals, regionauts called. These street-level officers try to achieve solutions for problems that are due to the cross-border context are hard to solve. By that creativity and the will to stretch the institutional reality is much needed to establish, operational, solutions. This subfactor of professionalism can be seen as a facilitator that can exist if institutional facilities and political priority are provided.
During the COVID19 crisis the regular cross-border cooperation experienced difficulties as the administrative competence division made clear that the central states pulled the strings, and these were not included in the build GROS governance. The differences in state tradition worked out in a way that regular cross-border relations could not provide coordination and communication. But regular networks tried to deliver their part of solving raised border effects by inventory practice problems and provide information. Relations and the aspect of creative professional handling made it possible to achieve practical solutions and re-establishing communication and coordination lines that institutional structures could not provide.
Keywords: cross-border cooperation | COVID19
` 1
| Preface
For years borders fascinate me, make me think, make me want to cross them.
This is also the case within Europe, where borders seem to be fading and are almost a relic from the past. However, in the last couple of years border closings and restrictions returned occasionally even here, as was seen during the migration crisis in 2015 and more recently during the COVID19 crisis.
I’m raised in an Europe without strict borders. I’m living in the border region of Breda, where we can cherry-pick the benefits of both the Dutch and Flemish side. Recently, I worked at the unique enclave municipalities of Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog. The differences between the two sides of a border and the freedom to explore these differences, make it worth to cross the border. If we were not able to do so, part of our surroundings is cut off and a little part of the joy of life is lost.
But even when there is the freedom to cross borders, there are multiple daily problems by having a border in the first place. These can be felt as negative and unwanted. So called border effects and the way in which they keep border regions behind, instead of fully thriving, is a topic that seems to be a red thread in my career. Since my first job as assistant to a member of Parliament in The Netherlands, that was also the chair of the Benelux Parliament, I was able to learn and work in cross border cooperation. Up to recently in the unique enclaves of Baarle-Hertog and Baarle-Nassau.
It motivated me to connect my daily professional activities in the field of cross border cooperation with the knowledge about it in academic literature, making it the subject of my master thesis. Conducting the research was a learning process with definitely some ups and downs. I would not have been able to write the thesis without the willingness to cooperate of many cross-border cooperation colleagues, the critical en helpful insights of my supervisors of Tilburg University and the support from my family. For this I am grateful. “Never give up and always keep going” resulted in the public governance thesis that lies before you.
I came across my own borders and hopefully I can help others to overcome experienced borders.
Jeroen Bruijns Breda, August 2020
` 2
| Contents 1| Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Closed borders during the outbreak of the COVID19 crisis ...... 5 1.2 Border between Belgium and The Netherlands ...... 5 1.3 Problem statement ...... 5 1.4 Knowledge gap and research questions ...... 6 1.5 Social and scientific relevance ...... 6 1.6 Outline thesis ...... 7 2 | Theoretical Framework ...... 8 2.1 | Border & Borderlands ...... 8 2.2|Cross-border cooperation ...... 9 2.3 | Drivers and barriers for cross-border cooperation ...... 11 2.3.1 | Drivers for cross-border cooperation ...... 11 2.3.2 | Barriers for cross-border cooperation ...... 13 2.3.3 | Facilitators of cross-border cooperation ...... 15 2.4 | Theoretical Framework ...... 18 3 | Methodology ...... 19 3.1 | Desk research ...... 19 3.2 | Empirical research: case study and observations ...... 19 3.3 Data analysis ...... 21 3.4 Reliability and validity ...... 21 4 | Deskstudy: Belgium-Netherlands comparison and cooperation ...... 22 4.1| Belgium ...... 22 4.2 | The Netherlands ...... 23 4.3 | Comparison ...... 23 4.5 | Cooperation ...... 25 4.6| Conclusion Deskstudy ...... 26
` 3
5 | Case Study: border region of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant ...... 28 5.1: Introduction of the case study area ...... 28 5.2| Regular Cross-border Cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands ...... 29 5.2.1 | Motivations ...... 29 5.2.2 | Facilitators ...... 30 5.2.3 | Barriers ...... 31 5.2.5 | Institutional structures versus the role of the professional ...... 32 5.3 Cross-border cooperation in the COVID19 situation ...... 33 5.3.1 | Network, information and communication at first ...... 33 5.3.2 | Barriers in action ...... 33 5.3.3 | Priority on cross-border cooperation ...... 34 5.3.4 | Institutional structures versus the role of the professional ...... 34 6 | Conclusion and discussion ...... 35 6.1| Conclusion ...... 35 6.2 | Limitations ...... 38 6.3 | Implications...... 38 | Reference ...... 39 Appendix 1 | Topic list ...... 44
` 4
1| Introduction 1.1 Closed borders during the outbreak of the COVID19 crisis On June 24 2020, Dutch State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations Raymond Knops visited the Dutch-Belgian border area of Zeeuws Vlaanderen. During that visit, he stated that he does not want to see the border between Belgium and The Netherlands being closed again. In his opinion, cross-border cooperation during the COVID19 crisis was being tested. This cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands has to be better when the COVID19 virus would hit again heavily during a so-called second wave (Omroep Zeeland, 2020).
In the first months of 2020, Europe was taken over by the COVID19 crisis. A situation occurred that the world had not seen before. Nations went into lock-down to stop the corona virus from spreading, national borders were being closed (Trouw, 2020). Also the border between Belgium and The Netherlands was being closed for non-essential voyages by the Belgian government. The national government of The Netherlands did not see cause to close the border as it emphasized that it would be in the best interest of border region inhabitants and business that the borders stay open in order to be able to cooperate (Kamerbrief, 20 March 2020). Reflecting on the first period of the COVID19 crisis in this area, Dutch State Secretary Knops said that besides keeping the borders open, communication must be improved and potential restrictions in order to handle the COVID19 virus must be better coordinated between Belgium and The Netherlands (Omroep Zeeland, 2020). In March 2020, it took even the level of Dutch prime minister Rutte and Belgian prime minister Wilmès to make sure that employees of essential professions would be able to cross the border without too much delay (Kamerbrief, 20 March 2020). 1.2 Border between Belgium and The Netherlands The border between Belgium and The Netherlands has a length of almost 460 kilometres. Most of this border was agreed upon by the ‘Traktaat van Maastricht’ in 1843. Since the treaty of Benelux of 1960, the border between both countries is effectively open (Benelux, 1960). Nevertheless, the border is a dividing line between two nations, two systems and two cultures. It has an impact on the regional economies. A recent study on border effects predicts that if national, EU-internal borders would diminish in their impact, a border region like for example the south of Limburg (The Netherlands) would be much more attractive and have higher economic, social and cultural growth (Atlas voor Gemeenten, 2019). Border effects occur if (new) laws and policies differ from neighbour country policies and laws (Ministry of Justice and Security, 2019) In border municipalities the daily practice seems to be challenging for inhabitants, entrepreneurs and local governments as international cooperation requires extra time and effort (Korsten, 1999). Cross-border cooperation tries to diminish the impact of borders on the liveability in a border region and to reduce border effects. The importance of cross-border cooperation is acknowledged by the Dutch national government (Kamerbrief, 12 July 2019). 1.3 Problem statement In the area of Antwerp (Belgium) and Noord-Brabant (The Netherlands), people on both sides of the border speak Dutch. One would expect that cross-border cooperation in such an area would be almost natural. Still there are indications that even here the cooperation does not always run smoothly (Gerritsen, 2014). In the last decades, frequent policy letters, debates, governance constructs and initiatives have been seen by both Flemish and Dutch governments1. In some studies knowledge on cross-border cooperation can be found, such as by Spoormans et al (1999), Klatt &
1 See parliamentary dossier GROS TK 32851 and the recent Kamerbrief 2019-0000344850 (Ministerie BZK, 2019) ` 5
Herman (2011), van Beveren (2015). It makes one question what the reason is that cross-border cooperation in this area is still not without difficulties. Especially interesting is to look at cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands during the first period of the COVID19 crisis. In the media, many articles about the (flawed) cooperation between both countries can be found (Volkskrant, 2020) (OmroepBrabant, 2020). In an effort to control the COVID19 epidemic, Belgium closed the borders on March 20th, 2020. There were border controls by the policy and smaller border crossings were barricaded. Only essential voyages were allowed, proof of the essential status of the journey was required. A few days before that, pubs, restaurants and shops were closed on the Belgian side of the border, while those on the Dutch side remained open. Also this led to discontent about the non-coordination of measures (BNdeStem, 2020) (De Limburger, 2020). It raises the question what contributed to that appeared non-coordination. 1.4 Knowledge gap and research questions Despite the availability of scientific literature on cross-border cooperation, it remains unclear how non-effectiveness in cross-border cooperation in practice arises. In specific, the relevance of existing structures versus the presence of specific individual/professionals is underexposed. In this practice- oriented research project, it is explored what aspects make cross-border cooperation in the area of Antwerp (Belgium) and Noord-Brabant (The Netherlands) successful or not in reality and to what extend that corresponds with aspects mentioned in literature. The unusual situation during the first months of the COVID19 crisis is taken as base, taking into account the context of ‘normal’ cross- border cooperation as seen in previous years. The research project has a descriptive and inductive nature (van Thiel, 2010, pp. 26, 33).
The central research question is as follows:
What factors define the regular cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands and in specific during the COVID19 situation?
In order to answer this question, three sub-questions are formulated:
+ How is cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands organised? + What are the main drivers and barriers in practice for cross-border cooperation in the area of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant and what is the specific relevance of official structures versus the role of professionals? + What insights can be gained from the COVID19 situation about effective cross-border cooperation in the area of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant? 1.5 Social and scientific relevance
SOCIAL RELEVANCE The social relevance of this research is found in the insights gathered on how to strengthen cross- border cooperation between Belgian and Dutch government actors. With those insights negative border-effects for people, business and governments in the border region can be reduced as the insights can be translated in daily practice of civil servants and make their efforts more effective. By learning about the process and about the acting of professional actors it is possible to improve cross- border cooperation between decentral governments and the potential of border areas can be better disclosed. By this research a contribution to these needed insights is provided. This research project aims to provide a better understanding of the role of professionals in cross- border cooperation and how they can operate in this specific part of the Dutch-Belgian border for a better cross-border cooperation. As the political interest on this topic has grown the last couple of
` 6 years on both sides of the border, also good scientific research on the case is needed for evidence- based policy development. In the case of the COVID19 crisis and the effect of this situation on border regions, research on this topic can provide useful evaluation, reflection and recommendations for the case of a second wave of COVID19 infections and new restrictive measures or a longer lasting crisis post COVID19. As there was a higher amount of press releases on the effects of COVID19 on the border regions during the last period, the attention for and relevance of this topic seems to have grown.
SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE The scientific relevance of this research on cross-border cooperation by local governments in the Belgian-Dutch border region is that of (re)describing a case of cross-border cooperation that was not studied over the last decades. Is what is written before on this region still relevant and can more recent insights out of international literature be used in this case study to explain what is found in the empirical research. This contribution by empirical research helps further studies on the cross- border cooperation at this specific border.
Also, as the focus on professional local governmental actors in cross-border cooperation is scarce in the international literature this will be a good addition to the body of knowledge as well. This research will contribute to the discussion about the role of professionals in cross-border cooperation in line with the Princen et al. (2016) statement about the role of street-level professionals and their organisations behaving like regionauts in the cross-border setting.
Also for the COVID19 part, this research is a contribution on the scientific research on this topic. It brings insights about public governance in this specific field of study and can be an addition to other scientific research on this topic. 1.6 Outline thesis In chapter two, the theoretical framework on which this research project is based is explained and connects this research on the body of knowledge. It explains what cross-border cooperation and cross-border regions are and what is known about these concepts. Also it focuses on the professional operating in this field and how literature describes and conceptualises them. In the third chapter the used research methods are described and justified. In chapter four a deskstudy will be done on the current situation of cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands in general. In chapter five, the results of the empirical case study of the border area Antwerp and Noord-Brabant and the current COVID19 situation are described and analysed. Conclusions, a discussion and recommendations for further research are given in chapter six.
` 7
2 | Theoretical Framework In this chapter, the main concepts of this research project are discussed. In this theoretical framework relevant literature about cross-border cooperation, the known issues and opportunities, barriers and drivers and the role of professionals is provided. 2.1 | Border & Borderlands In this thesis the border and borderlands are important concepts. Therefore they need to be explored more closely. Borders mark and divide territories. Borders are less or more clear marked lines on earth's surface (Beyerlin, 1988 in Schobben 2000). Borders can both be a marking of a territorial divider as seen if we define states. And they can be a social divider, as nations are defined. The difference is the distinction of function and affection. A functional border indicates formal institutional demarcation as in states. An affectional border demarcates the social and emotional bond that people can have with a certain area (van Houtum, 1998 in Schobben, 2000, p. 101). In this study this distinction is important as a former nation can be divided by nowadays states. All demarcations of borders are artificial, and established they have numerous effects on the divided territories. These state borders are the demarcation lines that define the studied differences and in this study we will use the definition of a border that it is the line that marks a territorial border.
BORDERLANDS
As the border marks and divides the land in multiple sections, the concept of borderlands arises. A borderland is defined by the normative functional border that divides the land. But beside the normative differences made by borders they appear in different forms. Four forms can be distinguished: 1) alienated borderlands with closed borders and non-interaction, 2) co-existent borderlands with interaction on specific points, 3) interdependent borderlands that have open borders but still divide two institutional systems and 4) integrated borderlands that do not have functional borders anymore but is resolving soft, affectional differences (Schobben, 2000).
Function Quality Appearance Alienated borderland Divider Closed Hard Co-existent borderland Bottleneck Porous, mainly closed Medium Filter Interdependent Open Border Soft border Open, but institutional borderland differences stay Integrated borderland Transnational Boundless space Resolving soft, social and cultural integration Table 1: Different forms of borderlands (Schobben, 2000, p. 104) As seen in table 1, the restrictions a border brings to a borderland has impact on the appearance and possibilities for cross-border cooperation. The interdependent borderland is the borderland that appears most in the West-European context, as an integrated borderland cannot exist as long territorial and institutional borders exist within (Schobben, 2000, p. 205). Even as the European Union organised a transnational institutional framework on certain domains, still institutional differences stay by the existence of national states within the union.
The Belgian-Dutch border can be defined as an interdependent borderland as differences in both state institutions are still effective and have their influence on the borderland. But on certain domains a transnational institutional and juridical order exist, respectively the European Union with supranational jurisdiction on for example the internal market and the Benelux Union with the transnational juridical framework that resolves juridical differences. Even as the goal of an integrated borderland is strived by European integration policies and acts of cross-border cooperation (within the Benelux-Union), the nowadays institutional differences still mark the borderland between Belgium and The Netherlands.
` 8
As a borderland is divided by a borderline in the case of a co-existent borderland, an interdependent borderland and an integrated borderland, there is the possibility for cross-border cooperation and the establishment of for example a transnational border region. Whether these interactions arise depends on different factors and motivations, these will be discussed in a next subsection about cross-border cooperation. From the perspective of (geographical) borderland studies, interaction and cross-border cooperation arises when the effective border differs from the functional border. For example by historical and linguistic connectedness, by border divided population. 2.2|Cross-border cooperation Cross-border cooperation is the central concept in this study. As mentioned in the section above cross-border cooperation can arise if there is a certain porousness of the border. Cross-border cooperation also depends on motivation to interact. In this section the concept is further examined and defined in relation to intergovernmental cooperation and different manifestation forms of cross- border cooperation.
To define the concept of cross-border cooperation, it is necessary to explore the borders of this concept itself. Cross-border cooperation is characterized by the nature of the actors that participate in the cooperation. By the widest definition also cooperation between central-state level can be grouped under it (van Beveren, 2015, p. 16). But as this central-state level interactions suppose this relate to the broader concept of diplomacy and the foreign-affairs and for that these national cooperation forms stay out of the focus of this study but are important to keep in mind as it can explain specific difficulties on decentral cross-border cooperation (and in this case seen acts of central governments).
PARA-DIPLOMACY
Another specification on the concept needs to be made in relation to specific forms of international cooperation by decentral state actors, so called acts of para-diplomacy. Para-diplomacy connects with the broader scope of cross-border cooperation as mentioned before. Diplomacy was a field for nation states. But over the last decades also decentral governments have taken a role in foreign policy. This differs from jumelages to regional embassies at the European Union or neighbouring countries. Para-diplomacy can be defined as international work undertaken by sub-central authorities “parallel to, often coordinated with and complementary to, and sometimes in conflict with centre-to centre macro-diplomacy” (Duchachek 1990 in Casson & Dardanelli, 2012)
So cross-border cooperation can be seen as an act of para-diplomacy. But also international acts of municipalities that were seen over the last decades. Like the first international decentral relations of jumelages between municipalities that were stimulated to maintain peace among people. Also an important historic motivator was found in the recovery and re-establishment of by national borders divided historical regions. Later on, more economic cooperation is seen to help develop peripheral borderlands and the need to tackle cross-border problems like safety and environment protection (Kessen, 1999).
` 9
LEVELS AND PHASES OF COOPERATION
A diverse set of goals, arrangements, border regions and both formal and informal actions seem to have to be included in the concept of cross-border cooperation (Spoormans, Reichenbach, & Korsten, 1999, p. 16). That is more than logic as almost all over Europe local and regional governments in border areas are somehow involved in cross-border initiatives (Perkmann, 2003, p. 153). Cross- border cooperation is a more or less institutionalised collaboration between connected subnational authorities across national borders (Perkmann, 2003, p. 156) Cross-border cooperation initiatives act on various levels (Denters, Schobben, & van der Veen, 1998);
+ National cooperation with a regional dimension, like the Dutch-Flemish language commission. + Euregional cooperation; cooperation at a subnational level between authorities situated at the border. This occurs in several juridical forms and have a broad spectrum of objectives in economic, infrastructural, planning and cultural topics. + Interregional cooperation; cooperation by decentral authorities on basis of a common economic interest. For example European regional networks like the “Cittaslow” network. + Interlocal cooperation; cooperation only at a communal level that promotes a common interest that various, contributing partners share. For example; jumelages.
Also different phases of cross-border initiatives can be defined by the stages of development of the cooperation. Soeters (1999) defines four levels, that can be combinate with the dimension “intensity of cooperation” above; from low to high intensity:
+ Expression phase; symbolic and mostly cultural exchange. + Information exchange; information about national system or best practices exchange. + Common production; partners start to work together on achieving goals and value. + Relocation of budget and mandate into a cross border public entity.
DEFINITION OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
As the levels and phases of cooperation still group a large differentiation of cross-border initiatives, it is necessary to sharpen the selection. The level of euregional cooperation and the level of national cooperation fit most on the case of this study. But it is also possible to define cross-border cooperation more specifically from that level by different dimensions (van Beveren, 2015, pp. 16-19). For the case study on the Belgian-Dutch border region of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant we can define the cross-border cooperation to be studied as;
+ Type of actors; decentral public authorities. + Geographical scope; direct situated at the border. + Intensity of cooperation: low (actors keep their own autonomy) versus high (transfer of autonomy on cross-border institutes). This dimension defines also the organisational choice and governance capacity of a cross-border cooperation and a cross-border region.
Thereby in this study the common demarcation of cross-border cooperation is used because it fits into the scope of government policy and many other studies, but more important it fits into this case study as it centralises the border and its effects on the direct borderlands. Cross-border cooperation is “the cooperation of institutions, municipalities and regional authorities situated directly on both sides of the borders” (Spoormans, Reichenbach, & Korsten, 1999, p. 16).
` 10
CROSS-BORDER REGIONS
There is also a difference to be made between the conceptional definition of cross- border cooperation (CBC) and that of a cross-border regions (CBR), even as they mostly combined used (like CBC in a CBR); cross-border cooperation refers to the activity of cooperating across borders while cross-border region refers to the outcome as institutional arrangement (Perkmann, 2003, p. 168) and by that it is a form of cross-border cooperation. 2.3 | Drivers and barriers for cross-border cooperation 2.3.1 | Drivers for cross-border cooperation After defining the concept of cross-border cooperation in this study, it is also necessary to understand what motivates and drives the establishment of cross-border cooperation. And if this cooperation is established how effective it is. This is important in order to understand what can be expected in the case study.
MOTIVATIONS FOR CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
Actors in cross-border cooperation are willing to start cooperating when it is necessary for achieving a goal and they need the other side to reach this goal. Cross-border cooperation can be typed by the presence of homogeneous features and functional interdependencies. Otherwise there is no necessity and driver to cooperate across the border (van Beveren, 2015, p. 20). Taking the necessity to cooperate into account, there are multiple arguments and challenges in the borderlands that raise the need for cross-border cooperation.
The first reason that cross-border cooperation is established is the desire to overcome the distributive effect of a border (Schobben, 2000, p. 108). As a border divides a region in two systems, border effects arise (ITEM, 2018). Border effects occur if (new) laws and policies differ from neighbour country policies and laws (Ministerie JenV, 2019). In border municipalities the daily practice seems to be challenging for inhabitants, entrepreneurs and local governments as cross- border cooperation requires extra time and effort (Korsten, 1999). Cross-border cooperation tries to resolve the impact of borders on the liveability in a border region and reduce border effects.
Another reason for the willingness of cross-border cooperation can be found in the weak economic position of borderlands. In the past these borderlands had military and strategic reasons, like a buffer zone between two states. Thereby the willingness to invest in these regions by the central government fall as these could be threatened by foreign imperialism. If the border regions were made too attractive the possibility of an invasion increased. These regions were located peripherally from the central economic regions of the nation state (Kessen, 1999) (van Beveren, 2015, p. 22). A recent study on these border effects predicts that if these national, EU-internal, borders would diminish in their impact, a border region like the south of Limburg would be much more attractive and have higher economic, social and cultural growth Figure 1: Amputated (Atlas voor Gemeenten, 2019). Borders amputate the economic potential as economic potential by the can be seen in figure 1. Therefore the economic potential could be fulfilled border (Atlas voor and by the welfare it brings the motivation for cross-border cooperation could Gemeenten, 2019) be established. Another argument for cross-border cooperation can be found in the acknowledgement that problems do not stop at the border. For example environmental issues. The solution to halt these problems is to be found in the larger cross-border region. For example, flooding in the lower delta
` 11 partly could sometimes be resolved by better water management higher in the river flow. By that cross-border approach, policies to resolve these kinds of problems could be more effective (Spoormans, Reichenbach, & Korsten, 1999).
Motivation for cross-border cooperation can also be found in the strive for cultural re-development of the borderland’s identity. This need arises if the functional border splits an affectional border region. Another reason for urgency to cooperate cross-border is the necessity for democratic participation on decisions across the border with effect on the other side (Schobben, 2000, p. 111). This last argument can be seen in the context of spatial planning, environmental protection but also with regard to local decisions for example on traffic management and waste collection in binational urban zones.
DRIVERS FOR CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
It is seen that the motivation for cross-border cooperation is mainly born from differences, border effects and the unfulfillment or lack of cultural and democratic values. These differences can be the starting point of the process of the cross-border cooperation itself. Klatt & Herrman (2011) state that differences are the basic driver for the need to cooperate. But also that financial incentives like the third-party funding EU INTERREG funds are important for cross-border cooperation, as a main driver to start and continue the process. Another incentive can be found in the multiple studies that show that Euregions are an important institutional structure for cross-border cooperation, as they are important for European Union cohesion policies and funding opportunities but also as information centre and organizer (Klatt & Herrman, 2011) and realizing governance capacity (Pikner, 2008). ). For institutional arrangements to facilitate cross-border cooperation also juridical possibilities must be shaped, this specific facilitator will be addressed in a later subsection.
By example of the Klatt & Herman (2011) study, the flowchart in figure 2 is used to explain whether cross-border cooperation will occur. In this research project, the flowchart will be enriched by literature to be used as an explanatory framework for analysing the case in this study. The first adjustments made are the facilitations and the motivations based on this subsection of the study. In the next subsection the factor of barriers will be discussed and inserted into the flowchart
Figure 2: Flowchart for cross-border cooperation actions, based on Klatt & Herrman (2011)
` 12
2.3.2 | Barriers for cross-border cooperation Besides motivations and further drivers for cross-border cooperation also barriers can be distinguished out of the available literature. As figure 1 above shows, even if the requirements in motivation and drivers are met, there can still be barriers that make that cross-border cooperation does not come to fruition. Therefore this aspect will be closer examined in this subsection.
An evaluation study over thirty years of regional cross-border cooperation within the EU in the German/Danish and German/Dutch border provides a definition of barriers for cross-border cooperation (Klatt & Herrman, 2011, pp. 77-85). These can be administrative barriers: different laws and legal ordinance are identified as key administrative barriers to cross-border cooperation. Also cultural barriers are seen as an important negative factor for cooperation. A difference can be made between several kinds of barriers (Schobben, 2000, pp. 114-116):
+ Formal barrier; differences in a) legislation and b) administrative state tradition and division of powers. Also the different competences between for example a Belgian and Dutch province or municipality can be seen as a formal administrative barrier. State tradition provides insights on government reactions though the institutional filter (Hendriks, 2020) + Informal barrier; misunderstanding of intercultural differences, different languages and the lack of (acknowledgement) a common history. + Financial barriers; the (lack of) facilitation by financial (and by that political) priority. So can also be seen as a support barrier.
Both Soeters (1999) and Zouridis et al. (1999) defined the same kind of barriers. Soeters defined problems in cross-border cooperation originating from unequal participation, cultural inertia, cultural differences and CBC as elitist project. Zouridis was more specific to define the problem in the case study at Baarle in four factors to become a barrier;
+ Judicial difference : Due to differences in law situations can arise that there is a conflict. Also the state organisation differs, in that case it is even more difficult to coordinate in a local cross border cooperation + Cultural differences: The cultural barriers are frequently described in (popular) literature (Wouters, 2015) (Matthys, 2018). Commonly know is the theory of Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 2009), that defines and scale nations on cultural dimensions; individualism- collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance and masculinity-femininity, long term orientation and indulgence-self-restraint. + Difference in scale: In relation to the judicial difference in state organisation is a possible barrier for cross-border cooperation. The local municipalities in Flanders have a smaller staff and budget than most Dutch equivalents. + Difference in priorities: As local governments are elected the political priorities can differ. Also the difference in priorities can be a result from the scale difference. If resources are scare other focus and priority can occur. To be aware of these factors is the start of understanding the counterpart position on the other side of the border. This knowledge about each other can be distilled as a prerequisite for good cross- border cooperation and prevent these differences to become unexpected barriers.
In a recent study specific on barriers in euregions the aspect of barriers is split into internal and external barriers. By this new insight it is possible to make an assessment of the the task of such cross-border construct and how a broader amount of possible barriers are hindering the achievement of goals (Kurowska-Pysz, Castanho, & Naranjo Gómez, 2018);
` 13
Name of the barrier Impact assessment on strategic Assessment of the impact of tasks include in the cooperation barriers on achieving the agreement carried out. strategic objective Internal barriers 1. Lack of knowledge about cross- border; 2. Lack of mutual trust; 3. Insufficient knowledge of the partner’s language and communication problem 4. Differences in individual partners’ interests 5. Lack of potential and resources for CBC development External barriers 1. Cultural differences and differences in the mentality of partners 2. Differences in the legal and administrative conditions (society, economy, environment) 3. Poor connectivity and accessibility (transport) 4. Lack of public and private funds for CBC development 5. Competition as well as different interests in economy and entrepreneurship development 6. Lack of political commitment and different interests of regions and countries 7. Differences in environmental protections and environment management conditions Assessment grades: L – low, A – average, H- high Table 2: Assessment of internal and external barriers for cross-border cooperation / EU regions. Based on Kurowska-Pysz et al. (2018)
More in general the same kind of barriers have been noticed in evaluation and oversight studies (Rbb, 1993) (Rob, 2008 & 2010). The administrative barriers are seen as a problem as decentral governments do not obtain the needed competences to solve most cross-border problems, there is almost always a state competence necessary. And as there is a differentiation in the ordination of competences between two countries this is a serious barrier that can only be overcome in a multi- level approach. Also is commonly acknowledged that the juridical barrier is one of legal details and dissimilar law procedures that can cause long lead times. If one of these barriers need to be overcome there is the willingness and priority needed of another known barrier, that of political priority. On this level the degree of locality and the level of detail can reduce the prioritization by lawmakers. Also there is the aspect of nuisance, one side can block a solution if there is no agreement nor willingness to prioritize or provide funds for cross-border cooperation. Furthermore the cultural barriers can prevent that the other side can be persuaded because of the lack of understanding (Reichenbach e.a., 1999, p. 292).
` 14
ADJUSTMENT OF THE FLOWCHART FOR CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
In addition to the original Herman & Klatt (2011) flowchart for cross-border cooperation and the adjustments made in this literature research on motivations and drivers also an adjustment can be made on the aspect of barriers. Therefore the flow chart is enriched by introducing barriers as a checkpoint before cross-border cooperation activities can occur, see figure 3.
Figure 3: Enriched flowchart for cross-border cooperation based on Klatt & Herrman (2011)
2.3.3 | Facilitators of cross-border cooperation As we defined cross-border cooperation as a cooperation between decentral authorities directly on both sides of the border, still the question remains how these collaborations can exist, and in which forms they take place. Therefore, it is interesting to take a closer look on the facilitators that make cross-border cooperation possible. These facilitators are already introduced in the subsection on motivation but will be deepened in this subsection. They are also already integrated in the enriched flowchart for cross-border cooperation as to be found in figure 3.
JURIDICAL FORMS
Multiple studies have been done on the judicial possibilities for cross-border cooperation (Seerden, 1993) (Denters, Schobben, & van der Veen, Governance of European border regions: a juridical, economic and political science approach with an application to the Dutch-German and the Dutch- Belgian border, 1998) (Perkmann, 1999). Since the first informal initiatives in the years after the Second World War soon formal legislated forms were established. Besides the informal non-juridical cooperation the first juridical forms were constructed by private law. This option was seen as doubtful as the public legitimacy and democratic values were not secured. Thereby, the necessity for juridical options for cross-border cooperation became clear. The Madrid -“European Outline – Convention” (1980) opened the possibility of cross-border cooperation structures based on public law, soon bilateral and trilateral conventions like the Benelux started to provide the legal framework. In the case of this study the original and renewed Benelux convention (1986) provides the following options for cross-border cooperation;
` 15
+ Administrative agreement; this is the lightest option. It provides the possibility to make agreements between governments on specific tasks, like a common recycle centre of the split of costs on common services. + Common body (GOB); consultation without obligation on public tasks, a specific form for example between two municipality councils that makes a commitment on cooperation, but decisions need to be made in and by the original councils on their own. + Public body (GOL); this option founds a cross-border institution that have their own budget and functional task.
In the renewed Benelux treaty of 2014 it was decided to modernise these options, therefore the public body was renamed and broadened to include further legal options that where made possible by the European Parliament in 2006 in the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (van Beveren, 2015).
+ Benelux grouping of territorial cooperation (BGTC); this option had the options of the GOL but can also be joined by regional and central governments and had multiple options of administrative organisation. In contrast to the EGTC there is no need of approval of national states to found an BGTC.
All of these juridical forms of cross-border cooperation are based on the principle of voluntary cooperation, the national internal law remains untouchable and national regular supervision stays in act (Schobben, 2000, pp. 132-134).
CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN CRISIS SITUATION
Besides the study on regular forms of cross-border cooperation more specific in case of the COVID19 situation there are forms of cross-border cooperation possible by the assistance agreement (1988) between Belgium and The Netherlands. In this agreement the procedure is laid down to request and fulfil the assistance without barriers. Differences in law between the two countries are not taken away, nor are they to be harmonised by this agreement. Furthermore there are neighbourly help agreements between border municipalities, the first was signed between Baarle-Hertog and Baarle- Nassau in 1990 and this cooperation made a common firefighter brigade possible (Hertoghs, 1999)
As in normal cross-border cooperation also institutional differences play a part in cooperation in crisis situations, where The Netherlands has a very decentral competence distribution and Belgium a more centralised (Hertoghs, 1999). Multiple studies have showed that cooperation in cross-border crisis situations is not yet optimal and that in some cases there is even al lack on cross-border cooperation and coordination (Leeftink, 2003; Van Ettinger e.a., 2008 in Hooijer, 2010)
FINANCIAL FACILITATION
Beside the legal options for cross-border cooperation also external financial support is an important incentive and facilitator. Inside the European Union for all internal borders there is financial support out of the INTERREG program. This program support European integration in the borderlands.
` 16
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCES; THE PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Another facilitator is seen in the knowledge and information aspect. Aside from the professional competence of public professionals working in this cross-border cooperation, this facilitator for cross-border cooperation is more on the informal barriers that consist of cultural and knowledge issues.
Recent insights in the literature on cross-border cooperation are in line with this facilitator. Princen et al. (2016) state that the focus on barriers is the wrong perspective. In their opinion the topic requires focus on the way professionals define and apply their professional standards in cross-border contexts. They state that “differences in legal, organizational culture backgrounds can be overcome by street-level professionals and their organizations” because these professionals act by exploring opportunities in cross-border cooperation. They reflect on the concept of “street level bureaucrats'' (Lipsky, 1980) and the research on the Öresund region in which the concept of “regionauts” is introduced (O'Dell, 2003) (Löfgren, 2008). A “regionaut” can be defined as a professional that moves in both the physical and mental landscape of the (cross-border) region, that explores differences and may be bending rules and identifying loopholes. Regionauts can be civil servants that explore cross- border cooperation opportunities and overcome barriers.
The perspective on professionals that Lipsky brought into public administration theories made the claim that the exercise of discretion was a critical dimension of much of the work of public workers who interact with citizens in the course of their jobs. Street level workers lacked the time information and other resources necessary to respond properly to the individual case. Street level bureaucrats manage their difficult jobs by developing routines of practice and psychologically simplifying their clientele and environment in ways that strongly influence the outcomes of their efforts. The phrase street level bureaucracy hints at this paradox, bureaucracy implies a set of rules and structures of authority; street level implies a distance from the centre where authority presumably resides (Lipsky, 2010). In many situations the notions that (a) laws need to be adapted to local needs and circumstances and (b) new laws are superimposed upon already established tasks can be taken further with the recognition that much action at the street level involves trying to integrate conflicting requirements (Hill, 2013). This is likely to be the same for street-level professionals working across borders. Moreover this dynamic may operate also for the organisations that the professional work for. The informal routines used to reach goals, might be different than the legal frameworks that are supposed to handle (Princen, Geuijen, Candel, Folgerts, & Hooijer, 2016).
Besides the behaviour of street level bureaucrats, also the behaviour of policy entrepreneurs is seen as important as a professional competence. They can create and provide perceived interdependence or benefits to actors for engaging cross-border cooperation. This actor influence the policy process by raising the profile of their pet topic by framing how it is discussed and by showing their ideas can be applied in fresh ways, to new areas and to current concerns (Kingdon 2003 in Hague & Harrop, 2010, p. 371) Thereby this behaviour can promote the cause for cross-border cooperation in their decentral government and create a window of opportunity to put the item higher on the political agenda (Princen et al., 2016). The concept of “Regionaut” build on this interpretation of Street Level Bureaucrats and policy entrepreneurs that shape their own reality on professional standards to achieve their organisations goals.
The concept of regionaut both include behaviour. How people react is also based on a certain orientation and view on, in this case border related problems. Insights from the field of “Border sociology” make it possible to learn more about the behaviour of actors in the borderlands. It also
` 17 gives the concept of “Regionaut” a broader perspective and an useful classification is made by the ground motives and handling of borderland actors (Müller, 2014 in Roose, 2018)
Local Preserver: the local preserver stays in his practices inside the national borders
Cherry Picker: the cherry picker makes it choices on where he’s best out in the neighbouring county
Regionaut: the regionaut sees the borderland ass one and develops a daily cross-border practice
This classification is an useful to describe the ground motivation of an actor in cross-border cooperation. In this study this typology will be used to classify actions and reaction by the interviewed actors. 2.4 | Theoretical Framework In this chapter different concepts and factors important for the understanding of cross-border cooperation are described. It came clear that for cross-border cooperation certain factors are important; Drivers (like motivation, facilitation) and barriers. Also enrichments were made on a theoretical flow chart that can help to examine the case study. It is expected that these factors play a role in the studied cross-border cooperation.
Figure 4: Enriched flowchart for cross-border cooperation based on Klatt & Herrman (2011)
Out of the flowchart (fig 4) the most important factors and facilitators are used to define the topic list (appendix 1) and interview protocol. Also this provide structure for the analysis of the empirical data. We can expect to find in the case study that motivations play a role in the choice on cross- border cooperation, and also that facilitators have an impact on the success of a cooperation. Also the expectation out of the literature is that barriers have complicating effect in reaching goals and even can have a negative impact on establishing and continuation of cross-border cooperation. Besides these main factors a closer look need to be given on the institutional arrangements and their role on sharing knowledge and information, also the professional competence of professionals and their organisation can play an important role in reaching the cross-border cooperation’s goals. These theoretical insights give a structure to describe and explain the empirical findings out of the case study.
` 18
3 | Methodology In this chapter, the chosen research methods to achieve the objective of the study are explained. The methods of data collection and data analysis are discussed. By using three different forms of data collection, being desk research, conducting interviews in a case study and the analysis of observations, the reliability of the findings of the research is increased. 3.1 | Desk research In chapter two, the main theoretical concepts applied in the research are explained. Relevant literature about cross-border cooperation, cross-border regions and other aspects of cooperation between multiple levels of international governmental actors are discussed. Also, literature on the role and mechanism of (street-level) professionals and organisations is included.
In the desk research, discussed in chapter four the current cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands is described on base of the insights out of the literature. Also specific information about the two countries is taken in account that can be useful to explain drivers and barriers in the cooperation in general and specific during the COVID19 situation. A snowball method is used to find additional relevant information. 3.2 | Empirical research: case study and observations The empirical part of the research has a qualitative nature due to the fact that some theoretical concepts are relatively new to research, such as the concept of regionauts. Also, when studying the ongoing cross-border cooperation in the beginning of the COVID19 crisis, a qualitative setting is better suited to ask the relevant questions. The chance of non-response is reduced, since questions during interviews are mostly answered. The choice for qualitative methods also provides for the possibility for interpretation and testing acquired insights during the interviews and it provides the researcher with additional insights about the relevant context of the topic of research.
CASE STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION
After the desk study, a case study is conducted. In a case study, a researcher aims to gain a profound and full insight into one or multiple objects or processes that are confined in time and space (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). In the case study of this research, experiences from practice are used to see which concepts mentioned in literature are applied and with what results. The actual Belgian-Dutch cross-border cooperation and the COVID19 crisis are looked at.
The research focuses on cross border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands. For the case study, the area of Antwerp (Belgium) and Noord-Brabant (The Netherlands) is selected because of the known municipalities that are involved in cross-border cooperation and the lack of scientific research on this specific borderland. The municipality of Baarle-Nassau is chosen as starting point because of the relevant role it has in cross-border cooperation in the area and due to the existing knowledge about this case by the scholar. Several actors working in this municipality are interviewed. The other actors are selected because of their known relevant position and knowledge about cross- border cooperation. These actors are involved in daily cross-border cooperation and were able to elaborate on cross-border cooperation in light of COVID19. Again a snowball method is used to enlarge the interview population. Interviewed actors nominated other relevant professionals in this field. During the case study, the desk study is enriched by new documentation obtained from the interviewees. The number of interviews that are conducted is limited due to limited time availability and the unusual COVID19 situation. For the research period there is chosen to focus on the first phase of the COVID19 crisis. The interviews have taken place until the 26th of June 2020, during the lockdown period that ended on the 1ste of July. Events later on are not taken in account.
` 19
In the case study eleven interviews are conducted with civil servants in border municipalities and other relevant governmental actors. These interviewees are listed in table 3.
Profession of the interviewee Setting 1 Policy advisor cross-border cooperation in Alphen-Chaam, On location Baarle-Nassau, Gilze-Rijen (ABG organisation) 2 Project lead GIP ISD/West Brabant On location 3 Policy advisor Benelux Union Digital by MS teams 4 Policy advisor cross-border cooperation Provincie Noord- Digital by MS teams Brabant 5 Policy advisor Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG) Digital by MS teams 6 Security officer and advisor municipality of Baarle Nassau / ABG By telephone organisation 7 CEO of Baarle-Nassau (also CEO in 2007 and former CEO in the On location border municipality of Goirle) 8 Program manager BeNeGo Digital by MS teams 9 Former CEO municipality of Zundert (till 01-01-2020) Digital by MS teams 10 Former CEO municipality of Baarle-Nassau (till 01-01-2020) and On location current CEO municipality of Moerdijk 11 Border liaison South of the ministry of Interior Affairs and policy Digital by MS teams advisor Provincie Zeeland Table 3: List of interviewees in the case study (anonymized).
The interviews are held by using a semi-structured topic list. This topic list is included in Appendix 1. New events that occurred during the interview period are of influence on the interviews. By conducting semi-structured interviews, the researcher and interviewee have the possibility to discuss the insights that during each interview seem important within the broader framework of the research.
EXPERT CONSULTATION, OBSERVATIONS AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH DATA Another method to obtain relevant information during the empirical part of the research is to use former insights and data from internal documents municipalities. For example, a recent study is done on the dimension of cross-border cooperation in the internal organisation of some municipalities (ABG, 2019). Additionally, the observations obtained during an event about cross-border cooperation in the research period are used. A special map on cross-border cooperation (original name in Dutch: “Koerskaart GROS”) session on COVID19 is organised by the municipality of Baarle-Nassau and as multiple relevant stakeholders attend, the researcher will use this session for a participatory observation to obtain new and relevant information.
The researcher worked for a year (September 2018-August 2019) at the municipality of Baarle- Nassau and participated in cross-border governance structures in that period. He attended during his post in Baarle-Nassau multiple sessions on the topic. Insights and observations the researcher collected during that time are complementary to this research project and are used to help understand and analyse the data collected in this study. At the moment of this research project, the researcher has no official role in cross-border cooperation in order to prevent having a bias. The researcher has adopted a professional network in the field of cross-border cooperation due to his professional involvement. Two experts are consulted during and after the interview period from the case study in order to reflect on the preliminary insights. These are experts from the Dutch Consulate in Antwerp and Dutch Ministry of Interior Affairs.
` 20
3.3 Data analysis The desk study will provide both theoretical and policy recommendations. The most important pieces are selected and noted. The interviews give insights that are noted directly during the interview and the interviews are recorded and transcribed. As the interviews are held in Dutch, the researcher will translate the insights into English. Citations are not made, since this could influence the ongoing cross-border cooperation between professionals and their organisations. The answers on the interview questions are categorised to make it possible to combine them with other interviews answers into lines of insight. For this categorising, the topics from the interview topic list are labelled by using color-coding. In table 4, the label groups are shown.
Label Description 1 Perception of the role of the professional himself in cross-border cooperation 2 Perception towards role of other professionals in cross-border cooperation according to the interviewee (colleagues, partners, organisations) 3 Formalisation of cross-border cooperation: broad within the institutional domain 4 Formalisation of cross-border cooperation: within the own organisation 5 Positive (success) factors/experiences with cross-border cooperation 6 Negative (barriers) factors/experiences with cross-border cooperation 7 Differences between regional cooperation within borders versus cross-border cooperation 8 Similarities between regional cooperation within borders versus cross-border cooperation 9 Influence of COVID19 on cross-border cooperation (practical operation, bottlenecks, impact on cooperation) Table 4: Label descriptions for color-coding in the analysis of the interview data. 3.4 Reliability and validity The reliability indicates the certainty that the results are proven. This is based on the factor’s accuracy and consistency (Yang & Miller, 2008). The consistency is aimed for by using a stable topic list in the interviews and a consistent classification of the answers. The accuracy is by that matter also constructed as interviews can be redone with the same interviewees or enlarged with new population. This proves the repeatability of the research. As semi-structured interviews are conducted, with changing circumstances, conducting an identical interview is probably not possible. But as the interviews are recorded and noted the answers can be looked at and asked about to the interviewee.
The validity of research can be split in internal validity and external validity. For the internal validity the choice for an interview method on topics provides for the possibility to connect insights from the literature to the interview questions and deliberate about them. By that way the internal validity is approached as much as possible. Also the demarcate topic and research question help to maintain an internal validity. The external validity is about the repeatability of the research. This is possible as the method can be used to enlarge the population. This study uses a sample based on the snowballing technique. A new sample can be chosen and studied like in this study by the same methods.
` 21
4 | Deskstudy: Belgium-Netherlands comparison and cooperation In this desk study a closer look is taken on the cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands. Both countries have their differences, acknowledgement about these differences is important to understand why difficulties can arise in cooperation between the two countries. 4.1| Belgium STATE ORGANISATION & TRADITION
Belgium is a federal state, it is organised by multiple levels of government and competences are shared with a high level of autonomy for the decentral actors. The Federal government handles only the constitution assigned competencies over the entire country on for example social security and justice (Schobben, 2000 p 181). The federation knows two kind of entities with that separate different tasks Figure 5:The Belgian state structure (Plees, 2005) and competence; the “gewesten” (regions) and the “gemeenschappen” (language communities). The territorial government is further divided by the decentral governments of the provinces and the municipalities. In figure 5 an oversight on the Belgium administrative system is given.
Historically the area that was to become Belgium was characterized by strong cities. This continued through the ages in that the basic system of organizing local governments in Belgium kept a focus on the local, political, level. Until today Belgium has a lot of small municipalities organised responsive to the needs of their citizens (Plees, 2005). As can be seen in figure 6 the local government has an wide range of competencies to handle. As not all municipalities have the scale to handle these themselves multiple municipality cooperation are founded to handle the given tasks in a more effective way in Figure 6: Oversight of competencies of Belgium local governments cooperation. (Weyenberg, De Rynck, Steyvers, & Pilet, 2011)
The current Belgian state derivers from a type that is often termed Napoleonic. The national centre of government is the main site of public functions and local government usually has quite extensive forms of supervision. The relatively uniform subnational units are rather the expression of place- bound political communities than of functional service units. Regions have the competency for supervising municipalities, the municipality fund, intermunicipal cooperation and promulgating the basic municipal legislation. (Weyenberg, De Rynck, Steyvers, & Pilet, 2011)
` 22
4.2 | The Netherlands STATE ORGANISATION & TRADITION
The Netherlands are a decentralised unity state, consisting on three layers; central state, province and municipalities. Also there are the special functional territorial government of waterboards for water management. As seen in figure 7 the decentral governments in The Netherlands have substantial competencies but are very dependent for funding by the central state municipal fund. Provinces have a supervision authority on the municipalities (Schobben, 2000) (Hendriks & Schaap, 2011).
Cities and towns have played a key role in the history of state formation in The Netherlands. As long as decentral Figure 7: Oversight of competencies of Dutch governments authorities take account of legislation (Hendriks & Schaap, 2011) passed by higher authorities they are free to do and allow anything that they consider necessary. Thorbecke sketched the outlines of the decentralized unitary state that still exists today with a tradition of decentralization and power distribution that was preserved in the in his constitution (Toonen, 1987, 1991 in Hendriks & Schaap 2010), The Dutch state tradition can by that be characterised as in between a Napoleonic state with the strong centralized government and the more organic Germanic state tradition characterised by the separation of powers (Schobben, 2000 p 165). 4.3 | Comparison MOTIVATIONS
The both countries of Belgium and The Netherlands have a long common tradition, until 1839 the two countries belonged to each other. This separation was formalised by the Treaty of Maastricht (1843) By this common history and division the motivation for cross-border cooperation is expected. From the perspective of (geographical) borderland studies, interaction and cross-border cooperation arises when the effective border differs from the functional border. For example by historical and linguistic connectedness, by border divided population. In this case the former duchy of Brabant, that originated by nowadays Province of Noord-Brabant (The Netherlands), Figure 8: Growth of potential Antwerp (Belgium), Vlaams-Brabant (Belgium) and Waals-Brabant labourmarket in jobs whitout border barriers (Atlas voor Gemeenten, 2019) (Belgium) but is divided by a functional state border.
Also economic motivations can be found in the Belgium-Dutch borderland as border effects are seen on the economic potential of the border region. As figure 8 shows the labour market potential of the border region will rise is border barriers can be overcome. Motivation because of border effects are also noticed on environmental risks and spatial planning (NRC, 2019) and the combat off cross-border crime (NRC, 2019).
` 23
BARRIERS
This does not mean that the two countries are very equal. As seen there is a difference in administrative structure and division of competences. There are differences and similarities in both the local institutional setting and government practice. Even as the institutional framework look similar the usage and tradition of local government practice between Flanders and The Netherlands are substantial different (van Ostaaijen, 2017). For example in Belgium the subnational regions have a large jurisdiction, but The Netherlands do not have an equal counterpart (this should be the statistical form of “landsdeel”). Also is the Dutch “regionalisation” of government jurisdiction by the “Wet Veiligheidsregio (WVr) and Wet gemeenschappelijke regelingen (Wgr)” not seen on equal matters in Belgium. And Belgian provinces are stripped by their autonomy and competencies in favour of the region and municipalities that an cooperation with the Dutch provinces on this domain is less likely. And cooperation between the Dutch provinces and the Flemish or Wallonia region is not equal as these have much more competencies and are more likely the partner for the Dutch central state (Schobben, 2000). Finding the right administrative counterparts on the different policy domains remains a tough but essential task for cross-border cooperation(Rob, 2008). This marks out a potential administrative barrier, the nowadays institutional differences still mark the borderland.
Also cultural the differences mark out. It was once said by Hofstede; no two countries.. with a common border and a common language are so far culturally apart as (Dutch) Belgium and The Netherlands (Gerritsen, 2014). The Dutch seem to be more law-abiding and stricter in the formalisation of rules and procedures, as the Belgian learned to arrange (van Ostaaijen, 2017). The Cultural Dimension framework (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2011) as seen in figure 9 scores and compares both countries. Especially Figure 9: Cultural Dimensions Belgium vs The Netherlands (Source; www.hofstede-insights.com (2020) the both countries differ on the factors of power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. These cultural factors have to be kept in mind to understand the course of action of actors in a cross-border cooperation.
Also in the political culture dimension differences can be found. In general is being said that Belgium is more political executive orientated and The Netherlands more administration executive. This means that the balance of power and focus of the political level is quite different. What can be expected from politicians or administrators depend on this factor. Important is how decisions are prepared and how the ultimate decision is made. In Belgium the political cabinet is very important in this process, but in The Netherlands the contrary is found. Decisions are discussed en sharpen by constant consultation (“polderen”) with partners, thereby the administration more important in the policy process instead of the political level (Criekemans & Janssens, 2011).
Hendriks formulate that the aspects of national culture and state tradition (John, Hendriks, & Lidström, 2011) influence the leadership style of the government and response. This institutional filter combines the known aspect of cultural difficulties due to different national cultures with that of state tradition, an aspect that is known in the cross-border literature in the difference in priorities and legal system (Hendriks, De coronacrisis en het institutionele filter: naar een verklaring van, 2020). Hendriks analyse that the difference in for example the COVID19 response can be explained to these factors of national culture and state tradition. The Netherlands have a Rhineland/Germanic state tradition, Belgium is mostly based on the Napoleonic state tradition.
` 24
4.5 | Cooperation The countries of Belgium and The Netherland cooperate on multiple ways on different levels. As shown the different levels have their own competences in both countries. Therefore it is necessary to take besides the decentral focus of this study, also the international and national level in account.
(PARA-) DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
International they are by example both member of the European Union and also have made further integration and harmonisation of their systems possible by their Benelux Union (supplemented with Luxemburg). Bilateral the relations are intensive due to the common borderland and intertwined history and economic market. Both countries have extensive diplomatic representation in each other’s country with an embassy and consulates (FOD BuZa, 2020)( (Ministerie BuZa, 2020).
Besides the Federal Belgium embassy also the Flemish and Walloon Representation can be found in The Hague. This is due to the Belgium situation that both Flanders and Wallonia have received formal authority to obtain foreign relations (Hellema, Coolsaet, & Stol, 2011). Thereby the classic diplomatic relation between The Netherlands and Belgium changed. The Flanders authority opened a representation office to The Netherlands in The Hague since 1999 and their first foreign affairs policy produced was the “Strategienota Nederland” (Vlaamse Overheid, 2006, 2017). Also the development of the GROS Governance can be seen in this perspective as this can be seen as an diplomatic institutional structure to provide a possibility to obtain para-diplomatic relations with Flanders without conflicting on the Belgium-Dutch diplomatic relations. But also to solve the inequality problems in state organisation (Hellema, Coolsaet, & Stol, 2011, p. 302).
CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION BY LEGAL FACILITIES
On the provincial and local level multiple cross-border initiatives are founded over the last decades. According to van Beveren (2015, p 29) over eleven administrative agreements are made between decentral governments in the Belgian-Dutch borderland. These differ from functional agreements on regional spatial cooperation, joint fire brigades and libraries.
Also four common bodies and four public bodies are founded over the last decades (see table 5) , and with the recent introduction of the BGTC Table 5: oversight of Public Body (GOL) and Common Body (GOB) agreements in the Belgian-Dutch borderland. the first (new) agreements are developed like the “BGTC Kanaalzone Gent-Terneuzen (2017)” for further development of the cross- border harbour Gent-Terneuzen. An upcoming agreement is the BGTC Baarle that have to provide cross-border municipality tasks to this specific cross-border town (Benelux, 2020). It can be concluded that the provided juridical facilities are used and still developed to enhance cross-border cooperation.
` 25
GROS VLAANDEREN-NEDERLAND
Since 2018 a new cross-border coordination structure between the Belgium region of Flanders and The Netherlands was established; the GROS-Governance Nederland-Vlaanderen. Before the establishment of this structure there was the Dutch initiative that combinate both border regions in once, so both Belgium and Germany where handled at once. Since 2018 this structure is separated into a platform on every border. Another change is made by the establishment of this structure, it is coordinated in cooperation as also Flemish Foreign Affairs is founder of this new collaboration structure. Also the BENELUX Union and the border provinces on both side of the border are co- organizers. Other public authorities like municipalities are involved in a way that fits best in their own province. For the Antwerp – Noord-Brabant province the choice is made to use the BENEGO cooperation. On the Dutch side the Ministry of Interior special “regioverbinders” are appointed to facilitate a better connection by municipalities and regions onto the efforts of cross-border cooperation by the GROS Governance and partners (Ministerie BZK, 2018).
The GROS Governance is organised twice a year to bring involved partners together on administration level. In these meetings cross-border problems are addressed that cannot be solved on lower levels and action will be organised if possible. Also there is the option to address this in the direction of the biennial Vlaams-Nederlandse top by both prime-ministers. Also holds the GROS Governance the promise of building a cross-border network and search for new fields and opportunities for cross-border cooperation (GROS Governance Vlaanderen-Nederland, 2019).
If this structure is seen through the paradigm of the factors described on the theoretical framework based flow chart, it can be seen as a combination of different facilitators. It is an institutional arrangement that provides coordination on problem solving capacity. But also it provides the condition of information necessity as it is used to inform about problems, solutions and domestic policies. Also the network function and the assigned “regioverbinders” can be seen as personal competence building solution for cross-border cooperation building on the Flemish-Dutch border.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES; INTERREG VLAANDEREN-NEDERLAND
In case of the Belgian-Dutch borderland there is the “Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland” that facilitates through the INTERREG Vlaanderen-Nederland about 152 million during the current 2014- 2020 period (van Beveren, 2015, p. 55). Negotiations about the new fund period of 2021-2027 are on the way. The last budget period the focus was less on government capacity to achieve cross-border cooperation than past periods, it is expected by the first drafts that in the upcoming period there will be support again for governmental cross-border cooperation (euregio.eu, 2020). This focusses on diminishing the known barrier of financial (and by that political) priority. 4.6| Conclusion Deskstudy By this desk study the sub question “How is cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands organised?” is answered. As seen on multiple levels cross-border cooperation can be found. From the wide definition that includes state to state interaction by diplomacy toward kind of para diplomacy between Flanders and The Netherlands through the GROS Governance. Also multiple cross-border cooperation between decentral governments are established on base of the juridical facilitation by Benelux union and the funds provided through the INTERREG program in the “Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland”
` 26
In this deskstudy insights are given on the general cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands. It is seen that the structured approach by the on insights out of the theory-based flowchart do play their part. As there is usage of the juridical and financial facilitation. Also investment on sharing information and building personal competence through multiple networks.
Both countries have competences shared and assigned towards decentral government levels, but there is still differentiation between the specific competencies that are given to municipalities. As there is in both countries a centralised tradition many given competencies are supervised or shared with higher authorities. This can be an administrative barrier. On the factor of culture there are differences on risk avoidance, muscularity and hierarchy between the two countries. These factors in combination of the political culture on decision making that is more political in Belgium than it is in The Netherlands can play a major role in the cooperation. These differences can have their influence on how and what priorities, procedures and decisions are made, this institutional filter can help to describe and understand it.
The motivation to establish these cross-border initiatives differ and can be numerous on different levels. The historical connection can be seen as a possible motivator, so do the border-effects on for example economic potential. Also the external risk factor can be pointed as an important motivation for cross-border cooperation between the (decentral) governments. In the next chapter the motivations, barriers, drivers and other facilitations are closer examined in the case study on a part of the Belgium-Dutch border.
` 27
5 | Case Study: border region of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant In this chapter the results of the empirical research are found. By interviewing public professionals in the field an insight is provided in the Flemish-Dutch cross-border cooperation between Antwerp and Noord-Brabant. As the cross-border cooperation is still in effect and these relations cannot be harmed in these normally but for sure not in these undiligent times there is chosen not to quote directly out of the interviews. All interview data, both recording and transcription, are available confidentially by the researcher and supervising university but not publicly publishable.
5.1: Introduction of the case study area In this case study a part of the borderland between Belgium and The Netherlands is examined. In specific, the border region between the province of Antwerp (Belgium) and Noord-Brabant (The Netherlands). This area is in the west bordered by the cities of Antwerp (Belgium) and Bergen op Zoom (The Netherlands) and in the east by the municipalities of Arendonk (Belgium) and
Bergeijk (The Netherlands). The region contains around Figure 10: Geograpical scope of the emperical research. thirty municipalities that connect or relate to this border. (www.benego.eu) In figure 10 a map with the geographic location is shown.
The region has around one million inhabitants over two countries.
In the region, most of the municipalities (twenty-five) cooperate in one structure, called “Belgisch- Nederlands Grensoverleg” (Benego). The region was the centre of the former Euregion Benelux Middengebied that is integrated into the Interreg region Vlaanderen-Nederland since 2007. This region has also a historical base, it was the Heartland of the Duchy of Brabant. It was definitively separated since the Traktaat van Maastricht in 18432. Disputes over the border lasted until 1974.3 Between border pole 214 (Poppel) and border pole 215 (Meerle) a “border gap” remained. It lasted till 1995 until the enclave and exclave puzzle in the municipalities of Baarle-Hertog (Belgium) and Baarle-Nassau (The Netherlands) was completed on the map.4
These enclave and exclave municipalities of Baarle-Hertog and Baarle-Nassau are the most in dept geographic case study in this research. In this area the border closings during the first period of the COVID19 crisis resulted in unique situations and had a considerable impact on the binational community. This cross-border community has around 10.000 inhabitants and spreads over twenty-two Belgian enclaves in The Netherlands and eight Dutch exclaves within these enclaves (see figure 11). The municipality of Baarle-Nassau has only one Dutch municipality (Alphen-Chaam) as neighbour and five Belgian municipalities (Hoogstraten, Merksplas, Baarle-Hertog,
Turnhout and Ravels). Figure 11: Enclave and exclave municipality of Baarle-Hertog and Baarle-Nassau (Wikipedia.org)
2 Traktaat van Maastricht (1843), acknowledge of the independence of Belgium by The Netherlands 3 Besluit Internationale Recommission 1974 4 Besluit Internationale Grenscommissie 1995 ` 28
5.2| Regular Cross-border Cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands In the interviews specific topics where addressed to understand more about the cross-border cooperation between Belgian and Dutch decentral government. In specific there was a focus on the motivation, experienced barriers and used facilitations. In this subsection the answers given on the regular – non COVID19 situation – cross-border cooperation are paraphrased in blocks structured by the factors as found in the used framework and specified by categories. 5.2.1 | Motivations To start cross-border cooperation there are given a broad amount of reasons by the interviewees. At first about the conditions; there should be common interest. Otherwise the cooperation is lame from the start as there will be a constant disbalance on willingness. A common understanding of a problem and willingness to achieve a solution is a first general motivation. The concept of border effects was addressed in general, differences between the two countries that should be solved or smoothen to achieve a better deliverance of goods or liveability for the borderland.
ECONOMICAL
But also possible solutions for domestic problems are searched to start a cross-border initiative. For example the closing of the tobacco factory in Bergen op Zoom gave the West-Brabant region a challenge to find appropriate new jobs for the large number of new unemployed. A solution was thought to be found to enlarge the labour market potential by active cross-border information and search into the Antwerp Harbour region. This economic motivation generated political priority by municipalities for a better cross-border cooperation. Also economic motivation could arise by the economic potential and specialisation that is located in the cross-border region. For example the wish of a cross-border trading zone at Hazeldonk and the allocation of a specialised cross-border centre on knowledge and trading of Treeport Zundert. As these economic sectors of Logistics and agrofood / tree nursery are cross-border important the possibility to find cross-border cooperation on it between governments and business is an important motivator
EXTERNAL RISK; SAFETY & SECURITY
On the topic of external motivation the case of security issues and crime fighting was addressed as an issue on which for years collaboration was found in different forms. But this common motivation had to be raised because the awareness and task appropriation to local governments differs on both sides of the border. But since subversive crime is acknowledged it is seen as a common problem and motivates extensive cross border cooperation between governments and police forces. Safety issues are a basis local common need for cooperation, numerous safety collaborations where named, from ambulance arrangements, cross-border fire brigades and joint police patrols. As for local government control by administrative and fiscal enforcement a more grey zone of competencies is seen and searched by local governments to find ways to cooperate for enforcing the laws and reduce crime in the borderlands.
HISTORICAL & CULTURAL
Historical the borderlands have cross-border crime; smugglers. Originated from the past border effects and market restrictions. So a kind of cultural awareness but also habit by the people to move over the border and make usage of the differences is normal. Family relations are cross-border, so cultural and social motivations to create a cross-border region and market are seen as common. But also the restoration of historic elements (for nowadays tourism) is seen as a cultural (and economical) motivation
` 29
POLITICAL PRIORITY & FUNDING
Another motivation is found in the political priority, the last years awareness raised in The Netherlands, for example this cabinet has a state secretary for cross-border cooperation. By that new programmes and funds are available for initiatives. Also an important motivator to achieve more priority is if local politicians or the major is part of a cross-border cooperation board, by that priority is given inside the governmental organisation. The political priority is seen as volatile and by this it is an uncertain motivation and can also be seen as a barrier (if it reduces) or facilitator (as it arises).
Some noticeable trends as motivation for cross-border cooperation is that of the raining awareness on it by other than border municipalities because of the financial funds and (inter)national connectiveness that is achieved, for example on transport corridors and international connections. These seem to contribute for border regions but are mostly helpful to raise the awareness for cross- border cooperation and infrastructure by national governments.
As can be seen a wide range of motivations are found. Some facilitators like political priority and external funding seem to be an addition to the motivational factor as described in the framework. 5.2.2 | Facilitators The factor of facilitators was widely addressed in the interviews. On different levels and occasions. In general all found categories in the literature play their role in enabling cross-border cooperation. Funds and legal possibilities are used (as also seen in the deskstudy). In special the factors of personal competences, knowledge and information, network and relation are addressed.
PERSONAL COMPETENCE & ORGANISATIONAL AWARENESS
The personal competence of employees and politicians to establish and execute cross-border cooperation. This dimension is also connected to the willingness and institutional knowledge and dimension of cross-border cooperation in the organisation the professional is working. In general, some specialists within a governmental organisation are appointed to solve cross-border cooperation issues. Knowledge about the culture and the state organisation on the other side of the border is often limited to those specialists. That makes that other colleagues within an organisation do not consider looking further than the own border, undermining the potential of cross-border cooperation. If an issue does not have enough priority, this cross-border cooperation perspective is often also not stimulated by the leadership within the organisation. The possibility to address a cross- border issue also depend on the topic of the issue. Small topics could be addressed by individuals but for larger themes, back up from the organisation is needed. Otherwise there would only be cross- border cooperation on relatively insignificant subjects and no cooperation on the larger, pressing subjects. The personal competence for cross-border cooperation is raised in organisations by training, special awareness events (for example in the case of transformation of by new employees) and by structural checks in the policy process where there should be contact with the specialist on the topic.
KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION
Personal competence and organisational awareness depend on the factor of knowledge about the differences between Belgium and The Netherlands in state tradition, competence division and cultural habits. This facilitator is also addressed in relation toward necessary partners that are not found in the borderland by origin, for example national state actors. If knowledge about the situation can be raised by information and communication the importance of it grows but also the willingness of contributing in an appropriate way. And also relate to building up to date personal competence.
` 30
NETWORK & RELATIONS
Second the most named facilitator is the network for cross-border cooperation. This is a different kind of facilitator and more a driver as it stimulate achievements and new initiatives and as it requires already to have cross-border experiences. It is seen that because of the difference in culture that it is necessary to invest in the relation and by that the network that is necessary for cross-border cooperation. Open relations with neighbour cross-border governments through bilateral contact, or BENEGO is seen as an important facilitator to achieve knowledge and to address issues to be solved.
The network is important as it provides an institutional capacity to meet and elaborate with cross- border partners in a regular way. This is seen as a necessity to keep open lines of communication and information exchange. Also the collaboration done in a network is seen as a relation building activity that can be used to explore new or harder topics in cross-border cooperation. Building this relation is seen as an important facilitator to overcome barriers. Therefore the Dutch effectiveness has to be halted at first to have a more open approaching movement towards the Belgium neighbour.
Another typical suggestion on this topic was done by starting to learn about each other’s “cultural passport” and organisational differences before negotiations ore collaboration should start. A special notion was made about the relational aspect, it seemed to happen that the results or conflicts on other cross-border topics are transferred onto new cross-border cooperation initiatives.
In the interviewees answers the focus was less on institutional hardware, these more soft(ware) notions above can be seen as important enablers to achieve results within the hardware (that is used as found in the deskstudy. Also facilitators are seen in relation to possible barriers. 5.2.3 | Barriers The factor of barriers was addressed most in the answers and examples by the interviewees. Probably because these are the hardest to solve and achieve successful cross-border cooperation, but also are most likely the core focus of their professional activities in this field. Besides expected notions of legal, cultural and administrative differences also the aspects of knowledge and (political) priority where addressed.
LEGAL, CULTURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
The legal framework, regulations and procedures differ between the two countries, with the effect that in almost all projects a legal conflict happen. From the width of sewage pipes, the design of road signs to environmental and risk norms. To change or harmonise these barriers takes a lot of effort and time as they occur after (changed) laws and regulation are in effect and if there is not a possibility to get an exemption a revision or new law article have to be agreed on by higher lawmakers. This can take a long time, and by solving maybe one problem by that time, hundred new can arise in the meanwhile. Despite procedural checks like a “border effect check” in law and policy processes this barrier still is experienced.
Almost all interviewees state about the differences on culture, in relation to the more relational aspect of cooperation as addressed above. Also the difference in political culture seem to have an impact on the cooperation as it marks out difference in task & role of the administration and priorities. The respondents seem to be aware of this cultural barrier, but still address that the differences are experienced and need permanent attention. The knowledge about this aspect has to grow and experienced and by that professionals new to cross-border cooperation are to be noticed on this aspect.
` 31
On the administrative barriers are found in the organisation of the Belgium state (as seen from the Dutch perspective). “Always ask on the autonomy en competency” was a credo used to mark out how important this seem to matter if cooperation is searched with a Belgium government. The knowledge about the division of competences on the other side is a barrier because this works out in a lack of counterparts and by that almost always multiple levels of government are needed to achieve a solution.
PRIORITY & CHANGES
The aspect of (political) priority is seen as an import barrier. Because many problems in cross-border cooperation cannot be solved at one government level and need to be addressed by higher authorities. Also on these levels achieving cross-border cooperation need to have priority. Examples are given that problems addressed on a higher level are many times to specific and local that it lack relevance for a higher authority. This lack of priority is connected in the view of two of the interviewees as the topic is not “sexy” to make a score on. It also depends very much of the location and orientation of the government if cross-border cooperation is seen as a priority. In Baarle-Nassau It might be the priority, but for example in Zundert it is one of the priorities. As cross-border cooperation is a process of long duration it is volatile for changes in government and reducing prioritising, long term relationships are important and can be hurt by these short-term choices.
Changes of professionals in the field are also seen as a weak spot and barrier in the cross-border cooperation. The cooperation depend on professionals that have built knowledge and relationship with each other, also in the networks. If these professionals (have to) leave and their investments are not embedded well in the network or in their own organisations the cross-border cooperation can be harmed as things have to start all over again in priority, knowledge and relation. 5.2.5 | Institutional structures versus the role of the professional In the empirical research of this study, specific attention was paid to the relevance of institutional structures versus the role of (individual) professionals.
There seems to be a difference between local government policy civil servants and more functional civil servants in public health and police services. The role of creative and pragmatic local government civil servant in the frontline is recognised by many interviewees. However, it was made clear that these people could achieve only so much if the other factors are in favour of the professional goal and approach.
Some issues and differences are too large to address without institutional capacity and international legal opportunities for exceptions. Also time and relations are factors that the professional should have in order to reach his or her goal. Time is needed as law procedures take a long period of time, but also local relationships, built on trust, take time to develop.
This creative work approach to reach goals that are not unable to reach because of formal procedures and regulations gave beautiful custom examples that are not generalisable but give insight on how this factor works out like the European tender of the cross-border recycling centre. This cooperation was under pressure by a domestic change of burdening. As one of the partners got the opportunity to do it in a domestic government cooperation for less costs as in that construction no taxes had to be payed, but if it stayed in this cross-border cooperation and tendered taxes should be paid. The solution was proposed by a creative professional by setting up a tender process in that way that it was legal to be open about the price it was allowed to cost (by the previous tender) and a possibility to not grant it if the bandwidth was too great in a certain range the domestic government cooperation was the only logical option. Because the offer stayed in between the bandwidth the
` 32 possibility raised to choose the tender and compensate the other municipality reasonable so the cooperation could continue, and none had to pay more than reasonable.
Also numerous examples of this creative professional behaviour could be found in Baarle-Hertog / Baarle-Nassau. For example by the closing of the gap in the border it was found that a very old lady from Belgium was formally an inhabitant of The Netherlands as her front door was on the Dutch side of the border. To prevent her from a formal emigration they simply changed the door to the Belgium side.5
Examples are given about these creative professionals and their behaviour to find out operational solutions seem to be necessary to find progress in cross-border cooperation. But they can only work if the institutional context and priority is created to do so. 5.3 Cross-border cooperation in the COVID19 situation In this sub section the paraphrased answers given in the interviews on the specific COVID19 topic are structured in a different way but still are connected to the factors as described in the used framework. 5.3.1 | Network, information and communication at first During the first days of the COVID19 crisis, existing networks operated as communication channels. Later their role changed to collecting and feeding the new crisis structure, called the Taskforce GROS. In this trinational taskforce national governments tried to coordinate. Also new actors within governments came into action in cross-border cooperation, such as the cabinets of mayors and governors that regular have domestic tasks. They had an important role in the crisis reaction and coordination of services. For existing institutional networks such as the GIP (border information point) network, new roles were found, as they were approached by employers or regular citizens in their need for information. They fulfilled both a role as broader information service and had a signal function. These information points coordinated among themselves in order to inform higher levels of government.
On both sides of the border there was a lack of information, leading to high uncertainty about what was to come. This also led to some frustration by people involved. Communication about the policies in both countries was not always neutral. Nationalistic reflexes were seen in both society and in press statements of for example mayors. It is likely that frustrations about this will have effect on future cooperation. 5.3.2 | Barriers in action The way governments respond differs between Belgium and The Netherlands. Aspects of state culture and tradition marked differences between the two countries. Not only on the state level, but also by how actions on decentral level followed the central state reaction and orders. On both sides the response dependent on their normal habits, in Belgium more central and hierarchical, in The Netherlands very liberal and decentral. By this it seemed that constructed cross-border cooperation networks like the GROS Governance did not have much use besides of the bilateral contacts and information exchange as the federal Belgium government was not part of it. At this point the division of competencies made that an barrier occurred, and the borderland decentral governments seemed to be surprised by this. For the national government that Taskforce GROS was found as the solution, but local professionals did not seem to be felt connected to this new network.
5 This example is seen as an tourist attraction and can be found on; https://m.visitbaarle.com/beleven/bezienswaardigheden/voordeurwissel-5b4da43c2a5ab0ec70d4a7b9 ` 33
5.3.3 | Priority on cross-border cooperation As mentioned before, at least in The Netherlands the priority given to cross-border cooperation has increased over the last couple of years. It is the expectation of stakeholders that this will continue after the COVID19 crisis. However, frustrations experiences by both sides about non-coordination likely have to be addressed first in order to restore the relation. After that, the experienced border difficulties during the COVID19 crisis could serve as a window of opportunity. There are some expectations that both inhabitants and business will raise questions about priority of cross-border cooperation by politicians and policy makers. There are some first signals that in economic recovery, business will try to focus their activities and trading to neighbouring countries instead of global in an attempt to work more regional. During the COVID19 crisis, the vulnerabilities of a global system were clearly exposed. This trend is also seen in international decentral government policies. This also means that cross-border cooperation could become more important. 5.3.4 | Institutional structures versus the role of the professional Also with regard to the COVID19 situation, in the empirical research specific attention was paid to the relevance of institutional structures versus the role of (individual) professionals. The majority of interviewees indicated that personal professional relationships and pro-active handling by civil servants and political executives made an important difference. For example the Castelré vignette;
Castelré is a tiny hamlet in the municipality of Baarle-Nassau, located in a land tongue and bordered by Belgium in the A, east and south and only connected by 200m on the smallest point with The Netherlands. The Castelré population is almost fully depended on the Belgium border town of Minderhout and the city of Hoogstraten. Local government officials of both municipalities made an agreement during the first days of the border closing about a special vignette that these Dutch people allowed to cross the border for their necessary needs. This was not allowed at other places. It was possible due to the good relationship and cooperation between public servants and a good connection between both mayors. The mayor of Hoogstraten instructed his police that Dutch from Castelré with this vignette were allowed. This pragmatical solution was later used for other essential border crossings and became a sort of policy.
Another example is found in personal action that generated a communication line between the two border regions on crisis management in what regular networks and national communication lines could not deliver Due to a good relationship between the Commissioner of the King in Noord-Brabant and the Governor of Antwerp, an informal communication line was established to gain more insights about what was happening on both sides of the border. Professionals working in both cabinets attended (internal) digital meetings of each other by special invitation and could get information about national instructions and debates between municipalities. This could be used to inform their own municipalities, inhabitants and business. It would have taken longer if this information would had to have come from the official institutional networks or would not have come at all.
This specific creative borderland behaviour was also noticed by interviewees in a slightly different examples by businesses that had the borderline through the company building. In the famous case of the Zeeman the underwear was not able to reach because these where located on Belgium territory during the lockdown and was restricted closed area by barrier tape. But in other cases like a furniture store and an liquor store that had or made doors on both sides of the border simply moved their products and showroom to one side and continued their businesses from their Dutch side and Dutch registration. As an respondent stated, a business that wants to have the border through his company simply does that because he sees profit out of that situation.
` 34
6 | Conclusion and discussion In this chapter answers will be given on the sub questions in order to answer the central research question. This is possible to combine the findings out of the literature research, desk study and case study. This chapter is also used to reflect on this study, by the notice of limitations, implications and further research suggestions.
In this research project, the cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands is studied, in specific during the unusual situation during the first months of the COVID19 crisis. We tried to learn about what factors that define a cross-border cooperation. Also we wanted to learn about the relevance of institutional structures versus the impact of professionals in this kind of cooperation. This study described the regular cross-border cooperation by a deskstudy and case study. Therefore a theoretical framework, more specific an theoretical enriched flowchart, used to structure the theoretical findings and empirical findings to answer the sub-questions in order to answer the central question (figure 12);
Figure 12: Enriched flowchart for cross-border cooperation based on Klatt & Herrman (2011) 6.1| Conclusion In this research the central research question to be answered is;
What factors define the regular cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands and in specific during the COVID19 situation.
In order to answer this question, three sub-questions are formulated and can now be answered
1) How is cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands organised? This answer is provided by the deskstudy in chapter 4 and case study on regular cross-border cooperation in chapter 5.
The cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands is primarily organised on decentral levels between direct border located governments. This cooperation take use of the legal framework that is provided by EU and Benelux treaties. On central state level Belgium and The Netherlands cooperate, more interesting is because of the administrative system of Belgium the
` 35 cross-border cooperation between the Flemish region and The Netherlands as these are for many topics the logical counterparts. The biannual Vlaams-Nederlandse Top is used to connect upon the highest political level. The GROS Governance network is used to achieve multi-level coordination and problem solving between the Flemish region, Dutch state and Belgian and Dutch provinces. Municipalities are connected through provincial custom organised structures. Between Antwerp and Brabant this is done by using the existing cross-border BENEGO network.
2) What are the main drivers and barriers in practice for cross-border cooperation in the area of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant and what is the specific relevance of official structures versus the role of professionals? This answer is provided by the literature study in chapter 2 and combined in the uses theoretical based flow-chart to study the empirical situation chapter 5.
The literature research made clear that factors that matter for achieving cross-border cooperation could be better described and structured by the used flow chart (fig 12). Cross-border cooperation is found by the factor of motivations, these are differences or connections on economical, juridical, cultural and external risks. By facilitator factors like third party funding, legal facilities, networks and personal competences barriers on cultural, administrative, legal and political can be overcome. These factors were found in examples in the case study. The aspects of information & knowledge about the other side and network & relation came out of the interviews as very important for achieving cross-border cooperation. On the relevance of official structures versus the role of professionals, examples are given about these creative professionals and their behaviour to find out operational solutions seem to be necessary to find progress in cross-border cooperation. But they can only work if the institutional context and priority is created to do so. Some issues and differences are too large to address without institutional capacity and international legal opportunities for exceptions. Also time and relations are factors that the professional should have in order to reach his or her goal. Time is needed as law procedures take a long period of time, but also local relationships, built on trust, take time to develop. These notions address that the professional can make the difference on operational aspects by using resources and stretching the institutional framework.
3) What insights can be gained from the COVID19 situation about effective cross-border cooperation in the area of Antwerp and Noord-Brabant? This answer can be answered by the empirical case study found in chapter 5.
As the Belgian-Dutch border closed for non-essential displacements, this does not mean that also cross-border cooperation stopped. But it changed. During the first days of the COVID19 crisis, existing networks operated as communication channels. As other institutional structures arise like the TASKFORCE GROS on trinational level an important gap in relevant actors was solved. As the border closing was done by the federal (central) state authority and communication about this decision lacked on both sides of the border the conclusion was made that the existing governance network lacked the federal Belgium government.
Another insight that arise out of the COVID situation was that new actors within governments came into action in cross-border cooperation. Thereby knowledge and information exchange between experts and attached crisis employees became important. This raised attention and priority for cross- border cooperation is expected to stay after this crisis as the crisis was an accelerator in a longer trend that the attention for cross-border cooperation grew. By the lack of communication and different approached in state response it was seen that national sentiments and reflections grew
` 36 underneath the population but also by professionals. On this aspect should be invested in the network.
In line with the sub question above, the specific relevance of professionals versus the official structures the majority of interviewees indicated that personal professional relationships and pro- active handling by civil servants and political executives made an important difference. The examples given about the Castelré vignette and the arranged communication liaisons because of professional reaction and relations give an indication that the professional role is important to find practical solutions within cross-border cooperation. Therefore the central research question can now be answered:
What kind of factors define the regular cross-border cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands and in specific during the COVID19 situation?
The cross-border cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands is defined by motivations, facilitators and barriers that have their effect on achieving cross-border cooperation. These factors also seem to influence the results during the cooperation. Most important aspects noticed are the role of information and knowledge, network and relation. Thed first as these shapes the understanding and notice of the differences and potential barriers and how these can be prevented or be overcome. The second as these are important to bridge known cultural and administrational competence differences. Another aspect that should have attention is the role of creative cross- border professionals, regionauts called. These street-level officers try to achieve solutions for problems that are due to the cross-border context are hard to solve. By that creativity and the will to stretch the institutional reality is much needed to establish, operational, solutions. This subfactor of professionalism can be seen as a facilitator that can exist if institutional facilities and political priority are provided.
During the first months of the COVID19 crisis, difficulties took place in the Belgian-Dutch borderlands. Both governments responded different and that resulted in border effects. By the closing of pubs and shops on the Belgian side the people simply went to the Dutch side. This was seen as undesirable and further restrictions were published like the border closing for non-essential transportation and physical closure of border crossings. Also government support missed cross- border situations and by that uncertainty grew.
The regular cross-border cooperation experienced difficulties as the administrative competencies’ division made clear that the central states pulled the strings. The differences in state tradition worked out in a way that regular cross-border relations could not provide coordination and communication. But regular networks tried to deliver their part of solving raised border effects by inventory practice problems and provide information. For some cases these network relations seem to have worked to also achieve practical solutions, like the Castelré vignette that provide border crossing possibilities for this on Belgium depended Dutch hamlet. In this case the relation and the aspect of creative professional handling made it possible to achieve a solution. Also in the case of re- establishing communication and information lines in the crisis response it was proactive personal handling and personal relations that mattered as it was not provided by central government institutions.
` 37
6.2 | Limitations This study is been done under circumstances unknown before because of the COVID19 situation, this might have an impact on the quality and the results. Interviews where done in different settings and by use of new virtual conference methods. In the heat of the moment in uncertain situations for both professionals and researcher. Answers and choices can be made different if this kind of research was done during other situations or at a later moment.
It is clear that this study is supposed to have an inductive origin, but that by the theoretical research and construction of a theoretical framework on what to expect and focus in the empirical situation got deductive elements. The used theory did structure the search and the findings but explained not at all. So description about opinions and examples gave valuable insights but is not enough to explain why things work out in the cross-border cooperation as they work out.
The used flowchart can be further enriched by focussing on the effectivity and process of cross- border cooperation initiatives. Therefore could be connected to other used cross-border studies that use the research perspective and framework of network-theories. This is another perspective to study cross-border cooperation and can help explain what is described in this research
An important limitation of this research is the generalisation of the results. This is low as ambitions on this aspect where low because of the inductive origin of the research. Also the choice for a case study on a specific part of the border by interviews make that the results give an indication but are interpretation by few actors and on a specific region. Nevertheless, this does not mean that results and patterns found in this research could not be applied in other cases.
Because of the limited time and possibilities for research due to the situation this research is limited as the current case study could not be done with more respondents, from more municipalities and with a less Dutch bias. Also the addition of another Belgian-Dutch border region could mark out differences and confirmations about the regional cross-border cooperation and findings. 6.3 | Implications As this research is of inductive origin and was mainly descriptive about what works in cross-border cooperation the implications on theory and practice is low. However on both some remarks can be placed by this study findings.
On the aspect of theory this study found a motivation in the Princen et al. (2016) remarks on the role of street level professionals in cross-border cooperation, this aspect was connected with O’Dell’s concept of Regionauts in the Öresund cross-border region (2003). This thought is very interesting but found hard to conceptualise, thereby the implication on theory could be that this concept need further research and conceptualisation. By extension this can also be said about the use of the frequent used theory of street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980, 2010). The use of this theory is done in a slightly different context as supposed by the original founder. This could be enriched as the concept of pragmatic handling by professionals in organisational structures and procedures to create a workable and achieving action framework is worthful and can be wider used then only on the strict functional frontline officers.
The implication of this study on the practice of cross-border cooperation is that the findings in the case study on the COVID19 situation can be used for evaluation committees. Also the provided flow chart can be used to structural analyse of cross-border initiatives. The empirical findings in this study about the importance of network, relation and knowledge about differences that can become barriers can help organisations and professionals in cross-border cooperation with arguments to build strategies and policy programmes on.
` 38
| Reference ABG. (2019). PvA Borgen Enclavesituatie in de ABG organisatie.
Atlas voor Gemeenten. (2019). Atlas voor Gemeenten 2019, Groei & Krimp. Amsterdam: Atlas voor Gemeenten. Opgehaald van https://www.atlasvoorgemeenten.nl/
Atlas voor Gemeenten. (2019). Kansen zonder grenzen? Verkenning van kansen voor grensregio's. Amsterdam: Atlas voor Gemeenten.
Benelux. (1960). Beneluxverdrag. 's Gravenhage. Opgehaald van https://treatydatabase.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/008602.html
Benelux. (2020, 08 03). Benelux.int. Opgehaald van Kenniscentrum Grensoverschrijdende Samenwerking: https://www.benelux.int/nl/samenwerking/grensoverschrijdende- samenwerking
BN de Stem. (2020, 03 20). Burgemeester Baarle-Hertog wil dat ook winkeliers in Baarle-Nassau hun zaken sluiten. BN de Stem. Opgehaald van Burgemeester Baarle-Hertog wil dat ook winkeliers in Baarle-Nassau hun zaken sluiten
BNdeStem. (2020, 03 15). Oproep Belgische burgemeester aan Nederlandse grens-collega’s: stop ‘horecatoerisme’. Opgehaald van AD.nl: https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/oproep-belgische- burgemeester-aan-nederlandse-grens-collega-s-stop- horecatoerisme~a2f0ddff/?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Casson, R., & Dardanelli, P. (2012). Local Government Paradiplomacy in the UK: The Case of the Kent- Virginiea Project. Local Government Studies, 599-614.
Criekemans, D., & Janssens, G. (2011). De Belgische staatshervormingen en de Nederlands-Belgische betrekkingen. In D. Hellema, & R. Coolsaet, Nederland-België: de Belgisch-Nederlandse betrekkingen vanaf 1940 (pp. 290-319). Amsterdam: Boom.
De Limburger. (2020, 06 13). Frans Weekers schrok van eenzijdig besluit van België om grens te sluiten: 'Ik stond perplex'. De Limburger. Opgehaald van https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20200611_00163884/frans-weekers-het-best-bewaarde- geheimvan-brussel
Denters, B., & Klok, P.-J. (2005). The Netherlands: in search of responsiveness. In B. Denters, & L. Rose, Comparing local governance (pp. 65-82). Hampshire: Pallgrave MacMillain.
Denters, B., Schobben, R., & van der Veen, A. (1998). Governance of European border regions: a juridical, economic and political science approach with an application to the Dutch-German and the Dutch-Belgian border. In Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Europa. Theorie- Empirie–Praxis, . Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Departement Buitenlandse Zaken - Vlaamse Overheid. (2006). Strategienota Nederland. Brussel: Vlaamse Overheid. Opgehaald van https://www.fdfa.be/nl/strategienota-nederland
Departement Buitenlandse Zaken - Vlaamse Overheid. (2017). Strategienota Nederland. Brussel: Vlaamse Regering 2014-2019. Opgehaald van https://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/strategienota-vlaanderen-nederland-steunen-op-de- concurrentiekracht-van-de-delta
` 39
FOD BuZa. (2020, 08 03). Belgische Ambassade in Nederland. Opgehaald van Ambassade en consulaten: https://netherlands.diplomatie.belgium.be/nl/ambassade-en-andere- vertegenwoordigingen/ereconsulaten/adressen
Gerritsen, M. (2014). Vlaanderen en Nederland: één taal, twee culturen. Neerlandia/Nederlands van nu, 26-29.
Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland. (2020, 08 01). Opgehaald van euregio.eu: www.euregio.eu
GROS Governance Vlaanderen-Nederland. (2019). Memo GROS Vlaanderen - Nederland en de grensgemeenten. Den Haag.
Hague, R., & Harrop, M. (2010). Comparative government and politics - 8th edition. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillain.
Hellema, D., Coolsaet, R., & Stol, B. (2011). Nederland-België - De Belgisch-Nederlandse betrekkingen vanaf 1940. Amsterdam: Boom.
Hendriks, F. (2020). De coronacrisis en het institutionele filter: naar een verklaring van. CoronaPapers.nl.
Hendriks, F., & Schaap, L. (2011). The Netherlands: Subnational democracy and the reinvention of tradition. In J. Loughlin, F. Hendriks, & A. Lidström, The Oxford Handbook of Local and regional democracy in Europe (pp. 96-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hertoghs, M. (1999). Van rampen, rechtsregels en grenzen - juridische moeilijkheden en praktische mogelijkheden van grensoverschrijdende rampenbestrijding. In H. Spoormans, E. Reichenbach, & A. Korsten, Grenzen over - Aspecten van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking (pp. 167-180). Bussum: Coutinho.
Hill, M. (2013). The Public Policy Process - Sixt Edition. Harlow : Pearson.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2011). Allemaal andersdenkenden: omgaan met cultuurverschillen. Amsterdam: Contact.
Hooijer, R. (2010). Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking bij rampen en zware ongevallen.
ITEM. (2018). Grenseffectenrapportage 2018 . Maastricht: Maastricht University.
John, L., Hendriks, F., & Lidström, A. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kessen, A. (1999). Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking vanuit historisch perspectief. In H. Spoormans, E. Reichenbach, & A. Korsten, Grenzen over - Aspecten van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking (pp. 29-42). Bussum: Coutinho.
Klatt, M., & Herrman, H. (2011). Half empty or half full? Over 30 years of regional cross-border cooperation within the EU: Experiences at the Dutch–German and Danish–German border. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 65-87.
Kurowska-Pysz, J., Castanho, R., & Naranjo Gómez, J. (2018). Cross-border cooperation - the barriers analysis and the recommendations. Polish journal of management studies.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
` 40
Löfgren, O. (2008). Regionauts: the transformation of cross-border regions in Scandinavia. European Urban and Regional Studies, 195-209.
Matthys, M. (2018). Waarom belgen gelijk hebben en nederlanders gelijk krijgen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Ministerie BuZa. (2020, 03 08). Nederlandse Ambassade in Belgïe. Opgehaald van Over ons: https://www.nederlandwereldwijd.nl/landen/belgie/over-ons
Ministerie BZK. (2018, 11 26). Kamerbrief GROS - 32 851. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.
Ministerie BZK. (2019, 07 12). Kamerbrief 12 juli 2019 - 0000344850. Kamerbrief Voortgang grensoverschrijdende samenwerking. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid. Opgehaald van https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/07/1 2/kamerbrief-voortgang-grensoverschrijdende-samenwerking/kamerbrief-voortgang- grensoverschrijdende-samenwerking.pdf
Ministerie BZK. (2020, 03 20). Kamerbrief situatie grensregio's. Opgehaald van https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2020/03/20/kamerbrief-over-de- situatie-in-de-grensregios
Ministerie JenV. (2019). Integraal afwegingskader voor beleid en regelgeving; leidraad grenseffecten. Den Haag: Kenniscentrum Wetgeving en Juridische zaken. Opgehaald van https://www.kcwj.nl/sites/default/files/leidraad_grenseffecten_definitief.pdf
NRC. (2019, 06 2019). Alleen al in Turnhout staan 172 camera's. NRC.
NRC. (2019, oktober 20). Niemand wil deze stal maar hij gaat er toch komen. NRC.
O'Dell, T. (2003). Oresund and the regionauts . European Studies, 31-53.
Omroep Zeeland. (2020, 06 24). Staatssecretaris: 'De grens met België moeten we niet meer sluiten'. OmroepZeeland.nl. Opgehaald van https://www.omroepzeeland.nl/nieuws/120777/Staatssecretaris-De-grens-met-Belgie- moeten-we-niet-meer-sluiten
OmroepBrabant. (2020, 03 20). België sluit grenzen voor niet noodzakelijke bezoeken en voert extra controles uit. Omroep Brabant. Opgehaald van België sluit grenzen voor niet noodzakelijke bezoeken en voert extra controles uit
Perkmann, M. (1999). Building governance institutions across European borders. Regional Studies, 657-667.
Perkmann, M. (2003). Cross-Border regions in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 153- 171.
Pikner, T. (2008). Reorganizing cross-border governance capacity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 211-227.
Plees, Y. (2005). Belgium: the changing world of belgium municipalities. In B. Denters, & L. Rose, Comparing Local Governance - Trends and Developments (pp. 47-64). Hampshrie: Palgrave MacMillain.
` 41
Princen, S., Geuijen, K., Candel, J., Folgerts, O., & Hooijer, R. (2016). Establishing cross-border co- operation between professonal organizations: Police, fire brigades and emergency health services in Dutch border regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 497-512.
Raad voor het binnenlands bestuur. (1993). Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking - Van slagboom tot slagvaardigheid. Den Haag: Rbb.
Raad voor het openbaar bestuur. (2008). Besturen over grenzen - Opgave voor alle bestuurslagen. Den Haag: Rob.
Raad voor het openbaar bestuur. (2010). Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking - terugblik en aanbevelingen. Den Haag: Rob.
Reichenbach, E., Spoormans, H., & Korsten A. . (1999). Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking. Een balanss. In H. Spoormans, E. Reichenbach, & A. Korsten, Grenzen over - Aspecten van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking (pp. 287-296). Bussum: Coutinho.
Roose, J. (2018). Grenzräume in Europa. In M. Bach, & B. Bach-Höning, Europasoziologie - Handbuch für Wissenshaft und Studium (pp. 175-179). Nomos.
Schobben, R. (2000). Politieke Regio en Europese Unie. Delft: Eburon.
Seerden, R. (1993). Publiekrechtelijke grensoverschrijdende samenwerking tussen decentrale overheden. Maastricht: Maklu / Nomos.
Soeters, J. (1999). Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking vanuit bestuurskundig perspectief. In H. Spoormans, E. Reichenbach, & A. Korsten, Grenzen over - Aspecten van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking (pp. 43-53). Bussum: Coutinho.
Spoormans, H., Reichenbach, E., & Korsten, A. (1999). Grenzen over - Aspecten van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Trouw. (2020, 05 25). https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/de-belgische-grens-moet-weer-open- vinden-burgemeesters-de-tijd-is-rijp~bc3b40d6/. Trouw. Opgehaald van https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/de-belgische-grens-moet-weer-open-vinden- burgemeesters-de-tijd-is-rijp~bc3b40d6/ van Beveren, E. (2015). Working apart together - Over het al dan niet bereiken van meerwaarde in de grensoverschrijdende samenwerkingsrelaties van de drie gemeentelijke clusters binnen de Euregio Scheldemond. Ghent: Ghent University. van Ostaaijen, J. (2017). Bijzondere buren - Lokaal bestuur en lokale verkiezingen in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Res Publica, 255-280. van Thiel, S. (2010). Bestuurskundig Onderzoek - een methodologische inleiding. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Designing a research project. Den Haag: Eleven international publishing.
Volkskrant. (2020, 05 29). De buurman mag niet op het terras komen, want dat is een Belg. Volkskrant. Opgehaald van https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/de-buurman- mag-niet-op-het-terras-komen-want-dat-is-een-belg~bbb6dfdd/
` 42
Weyenberg, E., De Rynck, F., Steyvers, K., & Pilet, J.-B. (2011). Belgium a tale of regional divergence. In J. Loughlin, F. Hendriks, & A. Lidström, The Oxford Handbook of Local and regional democracy in europe (pp. 71-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wouters, P. (2015). Nederland-België . Rotterdam: Lemniscaat.
Yang, K., & Miller, G. (2008). Handbook of research methods in public administration. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.
Zebracki, M. (2006). Baarle kampt met botsende wetgeving. Geografie .
Zouridis, S., Depla, P., & Tops, P. (1999). Besturen in Baarle: de samenwerking tussen Baarle-Hertog en Baarle-Nassau. In E. Reichenbach, H. Spoormans, & A. Korsten, Grenzen over. Aspecten van grensoverschijdende samenwerking, (pp. 132-144). Bussum: Coutinho.
` 43
Appendix 1 | Topic list The interviews have been conducted in a semi-structural way. By addressing pre-determined topics in the conversations, relevant information was obtained. That means that not every interview addressed exactly the same questions, but each interview handled the topics. The structure is tried to be followed but was changed to keep it logical suited for the interviewee.
The topics are based on the by literature enriched flow-chart presented in chapter 2 and can be found in the above figure. The factors described in this chart are the foundation for this topic list:
Topic 0: All interview starts with an introduction of the research and an introduction of the attendees, name, function and task in CBC (regular and/or in COVID19 situation)
Topic 1: Motivation, Feeling, opinion, convictions about cross-border cooperation and their own role in regard to this. (connects to the factor of motivation and the facility of personal competence)
Topic 2: The way others (Organisation / Colleagues /Partners) have in CBC. (Connects to the facilitator of institutional arrangements, information condition and the barriers of administration and political priority)
Topic 3: The way CBC is formalized in the professional field and in their own organisations. (connects to the facilitator of organisation arrangements and professional competence)
Topic 4: The aspects taken in account if an CBC is started by the professional (connects to barriers and facilitations)
Topic 5: Experiences with CBC positive/negative and if that brought thoughts on CBC (connects to multiple motivations, barriers and facilitators)
Topic 6: Difference in CBC or national regional cooperation (connects to administrative and cultural barriers)
Topic 7: Other relevant topics and the future thoughts about CBC (connects to all categories and tries to get more examples and opinions that need to be shared, future thought component helps defining what barriers or lack of facilitators are felt)
Topic 8: COVID19; an Operation of CBC / 8b Bottlenecks / 8c Impressions / 8d Effects for CBC (connects to the actual situation and what impact that had on the CBC, connects to multiple factors)
` 44