Charles University in Prague Faculty of Social Sciences Institute of Political Studies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Charles University in Prague Faculty of Social Sciences Institute of Political Studies Master’s Thesis Breaking Down Barriers: Euroregional Cooperation of the Czech Republic Author: Bc. Karen Benko Subject: IEPS Supervisor: PhDr. Zuzana Kasáková, Ph.D Academic Year: 2013/2014 Date of Submission: May 14, 2014 Declaration of Authorship I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work, based on the sources and literature listed in the appended bibliography. The thesis as submitted is 130,962 keystrokes long including spaces, i.e. 51 manuscript pages excluding the initial pages, the list of references and appendices. Prague, 14.05.2014 Bc. Karen Benko 2 Acknowledgement I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, PhDr. Zuzana Kasáková, Ph.D, for her guidance during the writing process. 3 Abstract: Cooperation between people of different nations has existed throughout Europe for centuries on an informal basis as borders have shifted and power has found its way into different hands. During the European integration process of the 1950s, this cooperation was formalized with the creation of the Euroregions, or cross-border regions. These regions were formed to promote common interests and cooperation to counteract barriers and benefit the people residing in the area. The Czech Republic is currently a member of 13 different Euroregions either exclusively or with multiple neighboring countries: Poland (7), Austria (3), Germany (4), and Slovakia (2). Of these 13 regions, four – Silva Nortica (Czech-Austrian, 2002), Bílé-Biele Karpaty (Czech- Slovak, 2000), Silesia (Czech-Polish, 1998), and Egrensis (Czech-German, 1993) – have been chosen to further evaluate how the creation of Euroregions has facilitated regional development. This thesis aims to analyze the level of regional development in the programming periods before and after the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union in these four Euroregions through the application of the theory of learning regions. Then, by applying the three criteria of theory of learning regions to the four chosen Euroregions, it will determine how the creation of the Euroregions has facilitated regional development. Keywords: regional development, cross-border cooperation, theory of learning regions, Euroregion, Silva Nortica, Bílé-Biele Karpaty, Silesia, Egrensis, Czech Republic 4 Master Thesis Proposal Institute of Political Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague Author: Karen Benko Supervisor: PhDr.Zuzana Kasáková, PhD. E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 777678586 Phone: 224186205 Specialization: IEPS Defense June 2014 Planned: Proposed Topic: Breaking Down Barriers: Euroregional Cooperation of the Czech Republic Registered in SIS: Yes Date of registration: Feb. 2014 (changed from June 2012 submission) Topic Characteristics: Cooperation between people of different nations has existed throughout Europe for centuries on an informal basis as borders have shifted and power has found its way into different hands. During the European integration of 1950s, this cooperation was formalized with the creation of the Euroregions, or cross-border regions. These regions were formed to promote common interests and cooperation to counteract barriers and benefit the people residing in the area. The Czech Republic is currently a member of 13 different Euroregions either exclusively or with multiple neighboring countries: Poland (7), Austria (3), Germany (4), and Slovakia (2). Of these 13 regions, four – Silva Nortica (Czech-Austrian, 2002), Bílé-Biele Karpaty (Czech- Slovak, 2000), Silesia (Czech-Polish, 1998), and Egrensis (Czech-German, 1993) – have been chosen to further assess how the creation of Euroregions has facilitated regional development. Working hypothesis: 1. The intensity of regional development post-2004 is greater in the older, “established” Euroregions than in the more recently established Euroregions 2. Czech accession to the EU had a greater impact on regions cooperating with a new member state than with an old member state. Methodology: Historical analysis and comparative analysis based on the research criteria 1. Regional development will be defined and the key variables to be analyzed will be set forth. 2. The historical sociopolitical relations between the Czech Republic and each of the four other countries will be analyzed to set a foundation for the modern relations. 3. The reasoning behind the choice of these four specific Euroregions (Silva Nortica, Bílé-Biele Karpaty, Silesia, and Egrensis) will be explained. 4. The 3 criteria will be examined in each of the four Euroregions between the years 2000 and 2008 to provide a foundation for the determining the level of regional development before and after Czech accession to the European Union. 5. An analysis of each of the criteria is performed to determine the individual impact on the level of regional development in each of the regions. 5 Outline: I. Introduction, Review of the Literature. II. Research framework: a. Methodology: structure and logic. What approach/language was used in past literature? What is my contribution? i. What is a region, Euroregion? What is regional development? What perspective will these be looked at from? b. Theories/theoretical background: i. Relevant theories: theory/paradigm of learning regions, new regionalism III. Case studies: 3 factors of Theory of Learning Regions 1. Criterion 1: Environment 2. Criterion 2: Institutional thickness 3. Criterion 3: Areas of cooperation and knowledge exchange IV. Analysis of the criteria V. Conclusion VI. Bibliography References / Bibliography: AEBR. 1999. Institutional Aspects of Cross-border Co-operation. Gronau. AEBR. 2001. Transeuropean Co-operation between Territorial Authorities: New challenges and future steps necessary to improve co-operation. Grounau. Armstrong, H.W. 1998. EU Regional Policy. In: The European Union: History, Institutions, Economics and Policies. El-Agraa, A. M., ed. Prentice Hall Europe, Hertfordshire, 5th ed. Armstrong, H., Taylor, J.,and Williams, A. 1997. Regional Policy. In: The Economics of the European Union: Policy and Analysis; Artis, M. J. and Lee, N. (eds.). Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. Association of European Border Regions. 2008. Cooperation between European Border Regions: Review and Perspectives. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Baldwin, R, Wyplosz, C. 2004. The Economics of European Integration; McGraw-Hill Education, London. Blažek, J. 2010. European Cohesion Policy: challenges, dilemmas and some options for its future design. Geografický časopis 62(2) pp.91-107. Blažek, J. and Csank, P. 2007. The West-East gradient and regional development: the case of the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica, 40 (1-2) pp. 89–108. The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC): CdR 117/2007. Brussels: Committee of the Regions. Perkmann, M. 2003. Cross-Border Regions in Europe: Significance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border Cooperation. European Urban and Regional Studies 10(2) pp.153-171. Voznyak, T.2001. Regional Co-operation between the EU and the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe – An Eastern Perspective In: Beyond EU Enlargement: Volume 1: The Agenda of Direct Neighborhood for Eastern Europe; Kempe, I. (ed.), Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, Gűtersloh. 6 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................... 10 Review of the Literature ................................................................................................. 11 1. Research framework ................................................................................................... 15 1.1 Perspectives of Regional Cooperation .............................................................. 15 1.2 New Regionalism and Regional Development ................................................. 16 1.3 Euroregion Cross-Border Cooperation ............................................................. 18 1.4 Theory of Learning Regions ............................................................................. 23 1.5 Research Criteria............................................................................................... 26 2. Criterion 1: Environment ........................................................................................... 28 2.1 Silva Nortica ..................................................................................................... 28 2.2 Bílé-Biele Karpaty ............................................................................................ 30 2.3 Silesia ................................................................................................................ 32 2.4 Egrensis ............................................................................................................. 34 3. Criterion 2: Institutional Thickness ............................................................................ 37 3.1 Silva Nortica ..................................................................................................... 37 3.2 Bílé-Biele Karpaty ............................................................................................ 38 3.3 Silesia ................................................................................................................ 39 3.4 Egrensis ............................................................................................................. 40 4. Criterion 3: Areas of Cooperation and