150 Annual Review of Territorial Governance in the Western Balkans, II, 2020, 150-167 https://doi.org/ 10.32034/CP-TGWBAR-I02-10

CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans Maroš Finkaa , Milan Husárb, and Matej Jaššoc

Summary

European integration is a long-lasting and multi-layered process with different dynamics in particular parts of Europe. Important parts of these processes are cross-national, territorial cooperation initiatives at the meso-regional level, where several lessons for integration can be found and used for inspiration and transfer of experience. The last decade of the twentieth century was a period of optimism and positivity in Central Europe, fostering convergence and cooperation among cities and regions. One of the most visible projects of this era was the CENTROPE (Central European Region) initiative. The objective of CENTROPE, among others, was to create a governance framework for effective and efficient cooperation in an area of more than six million citizens and thousands of high-skilled laborers with the potential to be competitive in the European economy. However, the initiative did not deliver the expected results and, for the past several years, it appears to be inactive.

On the basis of an extensive literature review, 12 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from the area of public policy and academia, and experience from more than 20 years of working in the field of cross-border cooperation, this paper discusses lessons from CENTROPE that can serve as an inspiration for territorial governance, regional identity management, place branding, and image building in the Western Balkan region. Like the Western Balkans, the economic and social development of CENTROPE was and still remains uneven; there are different administrative systems, complicated histories among the countries, and resulting societal atmospheres that do not favour close cooperation. As our research concludes, CENTROPE did not manage to fully overcome these problems because of failing to establish polycentric governance arrangements, which would have enabled an effective management of spatial activities in the region. This paper examines this development and concludes with recommendations that can feed into debates on territorial governance and regional identity management in the Western Balkans.

Keywords: CENTROPE, Western Balkans, Territorial Cooperation, Macro-regions, Regional Identity

Contact

a [email protected] (Corresponding author) b [email protected] c [email protected]

Spectra Centre of Excellence of the EU, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Vazovova 5, 812 43 Bratislava, Slovakia CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 151

Introduction many territorial processes – e.g. fostering and improving territorial governance Central European space, with its territorial processes, management of regional identity, and societal fragmentation and increasing and promoting social and regional cohesion. spatial inequalities and polarization, has The second part of the paper is dedicated to been a great challenge for spatial planning the case study of the CENTROPE region. The since the 1990s. It was during this period that third part discusses the CENTROPE initiative the region began to harmonize after nearly and its impact on the territory, and the final half a decade of different social, cultural, and part discusses lessons and inspirations from political developments and look for ways to CENTROPE, which can serve to instigate foster cooperation (Schulz, 2019; Iammarino governance arrangements and regional et al, 2017). These inequalities are increasing identity building in the Western Balkans. at all geographic and administrative levels (Böhme and Martin, 2019). CENTROPE, as a Competition and cooperation in cities space between Austria, Slovakia, the Czech and regions Republic, and Hungary, is an example of how politicians have attempted to deal with Transformation and the re-structuring of these issues, seeking a more harmonious cities and regions have been key topics in and sustainable development of the spatial planning, economics, as well as urban entire region. Although the geography sociology discourse for more than 20 years and political situation is different than (see Finka and Petríková 2000; Kováč and the Western Balkans region, the issues Komrska 2000; Jaššo 2015; and Jaššo, Hajduk such as the history, mental imagery, lack 2019). Processes of European integration of common vision, and different political have delivered a plethora of concepts and and administrative systems are similar. We paradigms aimed at steering the optimal present how these complex issues were spatial development of the old continent tackled in the case of CENTROPE, although (e.g. Blue Banana Europe (Brunet, 1989) with limited success, and how this can be or the ‘European Grape’ (Kunzmann and stimulating for similar discussions in the Wegener, 1991)). Accelerated globalisation Western Balkans. (and particularly its negative impacts) have also generated processes of regionalisation The paper discusses the development and emphasized mutual interconnection. of the CENTROPE region 17 years since Some approaches consider both as part its establishment with the signing of the of a single process and introduce the term Kittsee Declaration, where 16 actors agreed ‘glocalization’ (see e.g. Messely et al., 2010; to work jointly towards the creation of the Jaššo, Hajduk 2019). Competition between Central European Region. This development cities, regions, and other territorial constructs can serve as an example for cross-border has been discussed in rather intensive and cooperation and provide insights and multidimensional way. Several types and examples for inspiring the development sizes of territorial subjects (cities, FUAs, of cooperation and attendant governance macroregions) generate their own specific models for the Western Balkans. The and peculiar aspects of competitiveness, research is based on a set of 12 interviews defined by Mayerhofer (2005) as the ability performed in 2018 and 2019 with key to generate while being and remaining stakeholders from the CENTROPE region, exposed to international competition and some of which are quoted in the text. In possessing relatively high level of income the first part, we review the literature of and high employment levels. The various competition and cooperation between typologies of territorial constructs include cities and regions as a theoretical base for several fundamental characteristic and the paper. These types of competition and traits. In 2003, the OECD introduced the cooperation processes have been running following key factors (see Tosics, 2005): across Europe for the last two decades and have provided the underlying context for 152 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

- specialisation and sectoral structure - Traditional, rather linear spatial (clustering and advantageous location development is being replaced by factors); processes of polarization, fragmentation, and sometimes segregation (e.g. - innovation and knowledge (education gentrification); and spread of know-how); and - Spatial development of urban - accessibility and connectivity (physical settlements with high density in central infrastructure and communication links). spatial structures is being replaced by networking spatial structures. Rapid technological changes, geopolitical New developmental poles beyond shifts, demographic changes, as well traditional hierarchic structures are as newly established innovations in rising. The space of flows is replaced production, distribution, and consumption by the space of networks (see Taylor, patterns have significant effects on the 2001); new role and positioning of European regions within these processes of mutual - Competition of municipalities, cities competition (more e.g. Giffinger, 2005; and regions is increasing on an Jaššo, Hajduk 2019). Regions have taken on international level, while the traditional new roles as interregional and highly volatile hierarchic ties within national contexts competition exposed long-neglected are fading away. Moreover, this weaknesses and enabled territories to competition is not a linear one – the utilise their strengths and hidden potentials. number of competitors, their strengths, Each region is increasingly challenged to relevance, positioning, and assets are leverage its advantages and assets to try continuously changing. The city or and find mechanisms to compensate for its region is not competing in only one weaker points (see Jaššo and Hajduk, 2019). competition but enters into different Currently, some of the most discussed policy competitive races and builds various topics are ideas such as smart cities and strategic and tactical alliances and smart regions, which emphasize the ability cooperation patterns; and of territorial subjects to learn (e.g. Husar et al, 2017). - Cooperation and competition are be- coming complementary mechanisms. Understanding regions as single and The same cities or regions might be autonomous places within or across national partners as well as competitors in states has begun an intense discourse on various fields. Highly profiled identity, regionalization (see e.g. Jaššo, 2009a). The authentic values, as well the legibility term “region” has become one of the most of the partner are key in the long term significant metaphors of current cultural, (more see Jaššo, 2015). political, economic changes and practices (Tangkjaer and Linde-Laursen, 2004, p.11). It goes without saying that a unique, The most significant factors of success in authentic, original, and attractive regional regional competition are considered to be profile is the result of continuous, long, economic diversity, human capital, social and often arduous process based on the cohesion, institutional network, physical interaction of many stakeholders. Obtaining environment, communication networks, competitive advantages in a particular and institutional capacity (Parkinson, 1997, region is not possible without a legible, in Fertner 2006, p.13). Giffinger (2005) stable, and clearly profiled vision and points out the following observations regional identity. This has been intensely regarding the highly dynamic and volatile reflected in the development strategies, environment in which regional competition planning, as well as the regional policies on unfolds (further elaborated in Jaššo 2015 or various levels. The unique profile of each Jaššo and Hajduk 2019): region, its positioning in the European and CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 153

global market, values, and distinctive traits of a region, city, or any other territorial are some of its most precious assets, since subject carries an emotional added value, these issues cannot be emulated, bought, or promotes identification with place, secures stolen (see Jaššo 2009a; 2015). orientations, and evokes feeling of empathy (Tangkjaer and Linde-Laursen 2004). Competitiveness has become one of the The general idea of the majority of place major leading forces of regionalization, branding concepts is to create a profile of being the leitmotif of its legitimization. the region (or any other territorial subject) If a given territorial subject neglects the as an attractive, unique, and competitive process of competition (or cooperation, brand. The specific situation of territorial which is considered as one of the most subjects allows them to clearly emphasize effective tools of interregional competition some of their core features (e.g. uniqueness, (see Giffinger 2005)) it can lead to the openness, friendliness, hospitality) related marginalization and decline of the whole to a certain place or area. The authenticity region (“others will outmanoeuvre us” – of the message is a necessary precondition Tangkjaer and Linde-Laursen, 2004, p.11). in order to raise the emotional value of the One of the fundamental preconditions of brand and thus to develop brand loyalty. success is the authenticity of the message. This means not only finding the unique CENTROPE Region Case Study selling proposition (USP) of the region but, more than ever before, developing and Background Information on Developing managing regional identity in concordance the CENTROPE Initiative with past developments, value priorities, and the expectations of inhabitants (more CENTROPE is an acronym for the Central see Jaššo 2009b; 2015; Jaššo and Hajduk European Region consisting of territories 2019). within the quadrangle formed by the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria. The The regional identity and USP of any CENTROPE name and brand was a result of a territorial subject can be instrumentalised competition among schoolchildren back in by several marketing and external 2002, organised within the project CERNET, communication tools, e.g. through place a cross-border, educational cooperation branding or creation of a corporate project. More than 100 schools took a part in identity for the region or city. The term the competition with the winning proposal place branding refers to the cluster of coming from the students of the KMS Josef activities aimed at highlighting the Enslein-Platz secondary school in Vienna. essential characteristics and mental traits of The name CENTROPE combines both of the given region or city. Brand is a unique the basic, semantic characteristics of the mental concept of thoughts, emotions, region – central and Europe –together. The and characteristics delivered to selected first cross-border, Interreg III A project was target groups. This term has been widely launched under this name in 2003. used since 2000, though the region or city as a subject of marketing campaigns The idea of creating CENTROPE materialized was already being researched in the early in 2003 in Kittsee. However, the history of 1990s. After shy and methodologically cooperation in this space is much older. In insufficient initial attempts, it has been the 1990s, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, clearly shown that any territorial subject can several small activities aimed at re-initiating be a specific category of product, requiring communication and cooperation between specific and precise methods of brand the CENTROPE countries were starting to management (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, occur. It was the EU integration, however, 2005, p. 506). Nowadays, place branding is that gave the greatest impetus for continuing one of the most dynamically developing cooperation efforts (Austria became an EU phenomena of regional marketing (more member in 1995, while Slovakia, the Czech see Jaššo 2009a; Jaššo 2015). The brand Republic, and Hungary entered together 154 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

in 2004). Additionally, it provided a sort of of the newly established region. Several guarantee of staying in one large European sectoral development perspectives have space and being able to access funding been defined, including communication for their cooperation activities. Joining and public relations, labour market and the EU and the ‘EU narrative’ fostered new qualification, tourism, science, research members to overcome the complexity of and innovation, culture and society, as well relations in the region, including issues such as multilateral co-operation management as troublesome historic relations, as well as (more in e.g. Jaššo 2009b; Krajatis et al, 2003; political and administrative differences. Lettner 2007). The Kittsee declaration (2003) stressed the following statements: The participating territorial subjects – namely the counties of Vienna, Lower - establish CENTROPE as a common Austria, Burgenland, Southern Moravia, region of growth and prosperity and Southern Bohemia, Bratislava, Trnava, Györ- support all measures towards the Moson-Sopron, Vas and the cities of Brno, attainment of this goal; České Budějovice, Bratislava, Trnava, Györ, - create an attractive, internationally- Eisenstadt, Sopron, Szombathely and St. respected, quality location covering Pölten – decided to prolong and advance all areas of life and improve the their bilateral, cross-border cooperation framework conditions for cross-border activities by forming the newly established cooperation; and Central European Region (CENTROPE) (Figure 1). The Southern Bohemia region - intensify cooperation by networking and city of České Budějovice later withdrew existing initiatives, communicate from the initiative. the future potential of the region to the public at large, and strengthen Figure 2. The CENTROPE Region the social and entrepreneurial commitment to the Central European Region.

After the initial the Kittsee declaration in 2003 (‘Building a European Region’), a series of political memoranda followed (see Jaššo, 2009b or CENTROPE, 2006). These memoranda and common meetings of stakeholders predestined future vectors of CENTROPE’s development and were clearly dominated by the optimistic, future-oriented, and progressive attitudes of the main actors. A series of political memoranda significantly contributed to building capacity, outlining structures, and defining the context of the CENTROPE region’s activities. The St. Pőlten 2005 Political memorandum ‘We grow together, together we grow’ constituted the first joint statement of the CENTROPE partners regarding sector-driven thematic areas Source: TourCentrope, 2020. and challenges in the common region. Dominant voices underlined a common The political declaration adopted in future and the need for a common unique September 2003 stressed common selling proposition in international markets. goals for raising the prosperity and The conference ‘We Shape the Future – fostering the sustainable development CENTROPE 2006 plus,’ held in March 2006 CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 155

at the Vienna City Hall, marked the end of made in terms of revitalizing brownfield the first phase of the CENTROPE project and areas in the region, especially in urban the kick-off of a new stage of cooperation areas (e.g. gasometers in Vienna or the in the region. On the occasion of this event, Eurovea area on the Danube embarkment governors, region and county presidents, in Bratislava). Having entered into the and mayors presented the ‘Vision CENTROPE accelerating competition of European 2015’ for the first time to a general audience. regions, CENTROPE has to clarify and live As an outcome of cooperation ventures its vision in order to mobilize and utilise all implemented during the preceding two- its extraordinary resources and potentials and-a-half years, the ‘Vision’ comprised the (see Krajatis et. al., 2003). However, many totality of shared ideas for development questions are still unanswered and many and togetherness in the quadrangle. The issues remain to be solved. political conference Bratislava 2007 – ‘Ready for Take-off’ was held in November 2007, CENTROPE Vision 2015 and its roughly eighteen months after the adoption Revaluation in 2020 of ‘Vision CENTROPE 2015.’ A timetable for concrete cooperation activities, supported The strategic vision of any territorial subject by partners on an equal footing, occupied might be one of the most powerful driving the forefront of political interest during the forces regarding its future development. conference. If the vision resists being a set of phrases and clichés, but presents a vibrant array of The period between 2003 to 2006 was imageries, it can be a very profound and predominantly dedicated to building powerful tool of regional development. The sectoral networks and political structures vision must encapsulate all underlying ideas, (e.g. Fertner, 2006, p. 76-77). May 1, 2004 – the aims, values, and basic assumptions, and day of accession of Slovakia, Czech Republic must reflect the authentic and trustworthy and Hungary to the European Union – identity of the region. Finding a common provided an additional boost and new vision for regions and territories that have dynamics to these efforts. This act removed been repeatedly contested during previous almost all restrictions and increased the historical eras (valid both for Central Europe degree of economic convergence. and Western Balkan) or that are located on historical tectonic rifts is especially difficult The backbone of this region is represented and important. The vision is also a central by the metropolitan region of Vienna- control mechanism when the current status Bratislava, with its long common history, quo of the region is assessed, revaluated, or mutual functional ties, and high dynamics comes into the spotlight during disputes. of growth. The vision should be a living organism, being able to absorb new impulses, correct One of the most significant competitive obvious drawbacks and errors, and be advantages of the CENTROPE region is its mobilised in times of decreased overall scientific profile. More than 25 universities societal stamina and mental energy. and academic bodies are based in the region and their cooperation with business With this in mind, the CENTROPE Vision institutions is promoted intensely. 2015 has been adopted within the Vienna CENTROPE is striving to maintain its identity 2006 Memorandum (CENTROPE, 2006) as as a sustainable region by stressing its a result of more than two years of work by natural landscape potential. The Danube more than 200 experts from the fields of River and the green belt between Vienna politics, public administration, economy, and Bratislava are irreplaceable landmarks research, culture, tourism, labour, and the of the region. The outstanding quality of media in all four participating countries. life in the region derives from the proximity Vision 2015 was prepared as an interim open of urban centres and attractive natural document with the main goal of setting landscapes. Significant efforts have been up the vectors of future development, 156 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

defining relevant tasks and ambitions, and a framework for the creative and productive reviving its image beyond purely political evolution of CENTROPE, in keeping with declarations. In this way, CENTROPE tried to the motto “We grow together - together we move closer to inhabitants, regional actors, grow” (CENTROPE, 2015, p.15).If we outline and local stakeholders. The document is the results of Vision 2015 now, in 2020, we directed more towards its main actors and can observe the following conclusions: players, however, and does not highlight dimensions of EU integration as robustly - All requirements for the free movement as it has in previous political declarations. of citizens have been fulfilled. The Processes of collaboration should overcome economic growth of the CENTROPE is national differences, distinctions, and on-going (Figure 2), though the region barriers. Though there have never been also faces the challenges of the current open animosities amongst the stakeholders pandemic. from different national parts of CENTROPE, the vision tries to encapsulate and reflect - An intensification of cooperation all national perspectives and points of between ‘old’ and ‘new’ EU member view. CENTROPE Vision 2015 should countries continues. After severe generate further suggestions, alternatives, measures related to the COVID-19 impulses, and reflections on the historical crisis, the borders among participating and contemporary development of the countries were opened as soon as region (Jaššo 2009b). In 2015, the horizon possible. (The borders in most EU of the vision was set up broadly enough to countries, including CENTROPE overcome current and temporary setbacks, members, were closed in the middle of unsolved matters, and everyday obstacles. March 2020 and were opened starting At the same time, the 2015 time-horizon on May 21, 2020). was set up to be not that far in the future, making the effort more tangible and - Research and development networking motivating. As such, ‘Vision CENTROPE 2015’ is operational and searching for new functions as a snapshot to inform findings challenges. The cooperative business and possible perspectives proposed thus clusters (e.g. automotive cluster, far. It seeks to provide suggestions, trigger services Austria-Slovakia) seem to be reflections, generate new impulses, and offer running smoothly.

Figure 2. GDP at Market Prices in CENTROPE countries, in EUR (2010-2019)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Austria 295,896 310,12 318,653 323,910 333,146 344,269 357,299 370,295 385,711 398,682 Czech 157,920 165,202 162,587 159,461 157,821 169,558 177,438 194,132 210,892 223,945 Republic Hungary 98,98 101,552 99,733 102,032 105,905 112,210 115,259 125,600 133,780 143,826

Slovakia 68,093 71,214 73,483 74,354 76,255 79,758 81,038 84,521 89,605 94,171

Source: EUROSTAT, 2020.

Yet, on the other hand: main CENTROPE events since 2000, the public has remained rather detached - The feeling of a common regional and feedback has been scarce.1 identity, social cohesion within the region, and feelings of togetherness - Decision-making processes are still are still rather weak and vague. Despite not fully or formally harmonised (e.g the intensive media coverage of all Clark, 2007, p. 17).2 Furthermore, CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 157

differences in terms of governance CENTROPE Identity and Branding structures (especially between Austria and Slovakia) were heavily exposed Over the past 17 years, the CENTROPE brand and cooperation went on based personality has proven to be well-mannered more on personal contacts than on and friendly, manifold and versatile, smooth governance and decision- academic and sophisticated, but also diffuse making mechanisms (Telle, 2017). and vague, artificial, and sometimes too However, this can be overcome. As one ambitious. As stated by one interviewee: interviewee commented: “There are “…the biggest success was to create this some challenges, but if you really want image at all, which is still very much alive” to cooperate, you can do it. You can jump (Academic, Austria, 2018). Marketing over it. Also, in Austria inside there are communication was aimed almost these things, but if there is willingness, exclusively towards the external environment you can do it” (Public Officer 2, Austria, (investors, foreign journalists, and banks) 2018). and completely neglected the domestic public and partners. Neither inhabitants - Business forces prefer to be related nor domestic small and medium enterprises to the TWIN-City Brand rather than to (SMEs) have been the target group of the CENTROPE. CENTROPE is still perceived numerous communication initiatives in as more scientific or as a political recent years. The only entrepreneurial concept and necessary business- subject to mention CENTROPE as the market driven attention is lacking. Initial they were operating in was the Austrian development dynamics in some areas bank Raiffeisen. has decreased and new impulses are still lacking (Jaššo, 2009b). From this evaluation of the overall regional marketing strategy, we can conclude In 2012, as a result of project Centrope that CENTROPE’s brand personality or Capacity, the document ‘Centrope Strategy USP is well-defined and communicated 2013+’ was released nine years after the though the brand is still rather ‘young and kick-off in Kittsee (Centrope Agency, 2012). inexperienced.’ CENTROPE is not perceived This document reflects the more recent as a relevant brand to all segments of developments in society, strongly impacted society and, even after 17 years, is rather by the global economic crisis of 2008/2009, unprofiled, lacking spontaneity, and and provides a more realistic view on the lacklustre. Evaluating its brand knowledge region as well as arguably more realistic (the degree of awareness and knowledge objectives. It seems as if the first decade, made by personal experience or the degree characterised by optimism and enthusiasm of intimacy of the brand), it is evident that for the beginning of a new millennium, CENTROPE is not lived and transmitted by was an introduction to cooperation with personal experience (see Jaššo, 2009b). the objective of illustrating to partners what could be done together. Suddenly, it An important (but often underestimated) was time for more pragmatic approaches part of any regional identity is its inner focused on implementing concrete dimension – its identification with the lived initiatives and reflecting on existing space and its spatial/social structures and challenges, including potential brain-drain patterns; its ‘Wir-Gefühl.’ Space is not a mere or excessive dependence on the automotive background for our social identity creation industry, among other issues. Four focus process, but is one of its dominant categories, areas had been determined (knowledge heavily influencing all the other dimensions region, human capital, spatial integration, of identification processes. Space cannot be and culture and tourism), yet governance ‘value-neutral;’ it is always a projection of or other forms of cooperation remain some vision, ideology, and values (Low and absent and the initiative remains somewhat Walter, 1982). Local inhabitants are always voluntary. in delicate and rather awkward positions 158 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

regarding the fostering of regional identity the second half of 20th century all previous as they are both co-creators of this identity, communication channels and contacts as well as the key recipients concerning between Austria and the eastern bloc its acceptance and evaluation. A key countries had been suspended. Although element in this field is the authenticity and there were some smaller initiatives before trustworthiness of the message – a regional 2003, their reach was limited. It was the identity and all its facets must be based upon Kittsee declaration (a success in its own right) the inner potential and natural substance of that launched continuous communication the region. It is especially important when on a formal (political conferences) and a new identity, branding, or vision is being informal (workshops and non-official built or re-born. meetings) level, the fruits of which can still be seen today. Highlights of CENTROPE “…We created the standards of CENTROPE is perceived rather critically communication and negotiation, we got today as the expectations anchored in its to know the people, which definitely led to strategic documents of endless prosperity better understanding in this region. In the were, in hindsight, not realistic. Still, it is past there was no real cooperation…” (Public important to review the highlights and Officer 1, Slovakia, 2018). successes achieved in the region. The biggest successes are the qualitative “…A lot of cooperation projects in the field attributes of improved cooperation by of school cooperation were started then, I getting to know counterparts across the think that at least the programming of the border and introducing the idea that people Interreg period 2007 until 2014 was very much are not living in separate countries but influenced by the ideas of CENTROPE” (Private belong to one common space. Planning Consultant, Austria, 2018).

“This initiative should lead to integration Another success, as perceived by CENTROPE within this space, to strengthening its stakeholders, was the creation the competitiveness, closer cooperation between CENTROPE brand. Although CENTROPE centres of the triangle Vienna, Bratislava, as a brand is viewed rather critically today Brno and their regional surroundings…” (low diffusion towards the citizens, not (Academic, Slovakia, 2018). recognized by businesses, etc.), it was the first time that this territory was portrayed as “The expectations were pretty high. Due to the a single unit under a common brand, which abolishing of physical barriers, it was supposed was accepted by partners from all countries. that national borders would diminish their The main idea was not to produce a slogan role and the ties between the regional centres for marketing stickers but rather to reveal would be intensive. But I don’t think that these a common identity. That identity was no expectations were fulfilled’ (Public Officer 2, longer perceived based on nation states Slovakia, 2018). within clearly demarked national borders, but as a modern European region sharing a Although it may sound like a minor success common heritage, territory, and culture. today, the greatest success of the CENTROPE initiative was launching a process of Lastly, it was the first time that cooperation familiarisation and cooperation via activities began to be considered across the communication and mutual understanding. whole region. The cooperation projects of the This was linked to weak institutions in 1990s were exclusively focused on smaller parts the former socialist countries, which of the border and, as a rule, only between two came to interact with a more advanced countries. CENTROPE covers the territory of and established administrative system in four countries and focuses on the perception Austria. Increased communication was of this space as one unified territory in order to particularly crucial considering that during approach the development of this region CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 159

as a whole. This enables stakeholders to audience in regional and local politics. overcome historical tensions at the borders and provides a vision for developing the “One of the biggest limitations was the fact wider territory as one space with the that you would need a lot of political power potential to be competitive on a European and courage to get forward … there was and global level. not this strong force behind the project … somehow the partner [on the other side of the “…One of the biggest successes was starting border] was lost somewhere on the way […]. to deal with this whole territory. From the This was the biggest limitation: that on the historical point of view this was not so easy, political level, it was not really important in you know Benes decrees, Hungary-Austria the agenda” (Public Officer 3, Austria, 2018). border history is not that easy…” (Public Officer 3, Austria, 2018). “lack of ‘personal continuity’ – new mayors, politicians” (Politician 1, Austria, 2018). “In regions like ours, where you have so many borders on such a limited space, you need to Thirdly, while the role of the borders had cooperate not only with one neighbouring been changing and their importance had country, but with this whole bunch of diminished in terms of the barrier effect, neighbouring countries, and it would be really the differences among the CENTROPE essential to take this transnational point of countries remained. This was evident in view” (Private Planning Consultant, Austria, terms of cultural and historical differences, 2018). as well as differences in the political and administrative systems (so-called multilevel Failures and Setbacks of CENTROPE mismatch). This was clear not only between the old and new EU member countries While speaking of the successes of (Austria versus the rest), but also between CENTROPE, it is also important to underline Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. its setbacks and main limitations. Firstly, Closely linked to this issue were feelings there had been several rather formal issues of inferiority by representatives of Slovak connected to the daily operation of the regions when negotiating with their initiative, including language differences Austrian counterparts. (four languages from three diverse language “Paradoxically, it is the borders of the nation groups). Similarly, bureaucratic procedures states as well as distribution of competences. differ according to national legal systems, In Slovakia we have a local, regional, and leading to lack of understanding of the national level and it works similarly in processes and a loss of cooperative dynamics. neighbouring countries, and there are too Secondly, political will and cooperation is many actors with different competences” weak in the political agenda of local and (Public Officer 2, Slovakia, 2018). regional politicians. The 2003 declaration in Kittsee is regarded as a great success due to “I think there is still this cultural difference, the fact that all the members were able to cultural-historical, some kind of, I don’t want find consensus and sign the memorandum to say superiority or even snobbery...it took us of cooperation, but ever since then, political more time and energy to convince partners priorities have been changing. One of the about our truth [arguments], about our view. key drivers of this change was the economic Sometimes we even had to bring it to the crisis of 2008/2009 and later, the changing boil to push our ideas...” (Public Officer 1, political climate in the EU linked to the Slovakia, 2018). migration crisis of 2015. These shifts in the thinking of national and regional politicians were clearly identifiable within CENTROPE. Lastly, the PR activities and branding did not Another issue linked to politics was the fact turn out to be powerful enough to overcome that the CENTROPE representatives failed and sustain the rather narrow perception of to make the initiative attractive to a wider sovereignty and nationalism (vs. a common 160 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

European or CENTROPE identity). In the introducing themselves to one another. beginning, the branding was regarded as Their relationships were less balanced one of the key priorities and focal points. given the formal and real superiority of the Yet, despite the investments in branding, old EU countries (Austria) economically, it did not succeed in creating a common politically, and socially. CENTROPE, as an brand of CENTROPE that could be taken up EU-funded project, sought to overcome by actors from the public and private realm, these imbalances and provided some nor did it create a sort of common identity political and economic stability. One high- among citizens. level politician from Austria was very sure about CENTROPE’s successes in that it “Maybe it is a lack of PR to its local citizens” prepared countries for EU entry and created (Public Officer 1, Austria, 2018) the basis for a transnational region with vivid cooperation and exchange of people, “We did not manage to successfully “sell” the goods, and ideas. From this point of view, it outputs and benefits, like the bridge between was definitely a success as the CENTROPE Schlosshof and Devinska Nova ves – this is space 20 years ago was critically different the CENTROPE in everyday life” (Politician 1, than it is today. However, the circumstances Austria, 2018. changed drastically. Several crises arrived (particularly the financial crisis in 2009 and Discussion migration crisis in 2015) and not only did CENTROPE changed, but the overall mood The CENTROPE idea was a unique initiative in the EU and worldwide changed with reflecting the overall social and economic states ‘closing themselves off’ (i.e. physical context in Central Europe at the beginning borders and the rise of nationalism). As of the 2000s, fed by optimism based on public officers in Austria stated: geopolitical changes and shifts and fostered by the opening of borders in the 1990s. “For 50 years on, there was a strong wish of Regions placed directly on the interface working together without borders[...] there between the former East and West should was not a problem of immigration and other have provided for a masterful initiative of problems that arose, there were open borders, European political and territorial integration transferring over the borders, working and act as a role model for other cases together. This was more-or-less fine, but now born under similar circumstances. With you have a more national or regional view of the advantage of historic hindsight, it is this.” (Public Officer 2, Austria, 2018). possible to be critical about its successes and setbacks. For an objective evaluation, “In many of the political parties they do not several target groups and levels are fight against this [rising nationalism in CEE], discussed. The following are those that we rather they use this atmosphere for their politics consider to be most essential, covering and it could have been even an advantage both the institutional level (political level, this kind of anti-European atmosphere for the administrative level, and common projects) CENTROPE initiative, because one aim was as well as ‘soft’ informal issues (public that the regional politicians write together perception): resolutions with the EU for the common goals but has also happened not so strong. (Public a. Political level Officer 1, Austria, 2018).

On the political level, CENTROPE served Especially after the migration crisis in as an umbrella initiative as well as an ice- 2015, the national borders began to play breaker for initiating cooperation among a significant role in some politicians’ and old and new EU member countries. Before citizens’ mental landscapes again, though CENTROPE, the citizens as well as the bilateral relations among the participating political representations of the participating countries remain essentially cordial and countries were slowly and cautiously friendly. CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 161

Broadly speaking, many of the political themselves again and work on building trust. goals of CENTROPE were fulfilled, such This was especially true for Slovak and Czech as the diminishing the role of national partners and Austrian partners expressed borders, integration of policies, increased frustration with the matter. (The Austrian mobility, etc. We can ask if these changes system is more independent and the would have taken place if CENTROPE did terms of public officials are longer). Part of not exist, and our answer is perhaps yes, CENTROPE’s aims was also the convergence but at a slower pace and with less obvious of different systems and raising awareness acceptance among citizens. From a narrower of integration issues. This was done through perspective, some of the initial objectives exchanges of public officers and numerous were not met, including a common labour seminars and common meetings fostering market; one single, unified, universally the need to work together and build trust. accepted vision for the whole CENTROPE Cooperation and trust are the basis of many space; and one common regional plan or cross-border initiatives, as partners need functionally integrated space. A feeling to be flexible and driven to achieve the of a common regional/territorial identity common objectives. also remains rather vague. We need to add that as of today, none of these changes Another issue which came out of the field seem to be taking place in the near future research was the professionalization of considering the atmosphere worldwide, communication and creation of standards current status of CENTROPE, and the for cooperation. Austrian partners in political situation on the national and particular were leading by example as regional levels in CENTROPE countries. But other partners were slowly acquiring these perhaps the current situation provides a skills and standards, something that could great opportunity to leverage CENTROPE help them in other projects. As time went, and resume cooperation again with a fresh these meetings and seminars became less perspective and a more realistic approach. frequent. Currently the project partners are Cooperation has evaporated over the years. meeting only annually in a formal manner. At the beginning, cooperation provided the Austrian partners were often perceived as idea of a fresh start, integration, and the re- the (sometimes dominant) “pace-maker” and invention of a region as a vision of the bright main decision maker, which was sometimes future of a unified Europe. Arguably, the met with criticism by other partners. This most difficult part of re-starting CENTROPE dominance has somehow slowly faded with will be just this – formulating the common both positives and negatives outcomes. ground for a new vision. c. Citizens’ perception b. Administrative level In everyday life, the perception of CENTROPE One of the most visible challenges in as a profiled brand is extremely rare. The cross-border cooperation is the so-called only private enterprise that referred to multilevel mismatch (Telle, 2017), wherein CENTROPE was the Raiffeisen Bank while administrative systems in the cooperating other businesses did not mention the area as states are not matched and responsibilities a brand at all. If you asked about CENTROPE are not mirrored. In the case of CENTROPE, on a street in Vienna or Bratislava, very few centralized and decentralized systems met, people would know about it; outside of causing misunderstandings and time delays these cities nearly no one would have heard when trying to work together (Figure 3). A of it. In the past, the business landscape in similar issue was raised in the relationship the region seemed to be more attached to between the political and administrative the Twin Cities Vienna-Bratislava concept, level: when the political representation which proved to be more business driven, changed after the election, the public flexible, and politically independent. officials changed as well, and partners on Compared to the Twin City initiative, the the other side of the border had to introduce CENTROPE idea seems to be a more political 162 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

Figure 3. Different Administrative levels compared between Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Germany

Source: Spacek and Husar, 2018.

and scientific project with little relevance for d. Common projects citizens and businesses (especially SMEs). In fact, CENTROPE was more successful in Before 2003, there had been several smaller its branding outside of its territory. More projects financed by the EU (Interreg, Phare politicians and academics in Europe and programs) or national governments dealing around the world know about the project with particular issues in the cross-border than CENTROPE’s citizens themselves. spaces. CENTROPE as a project idea was much larger and delivered a break-through The major success of territorial integration in its scale, complexity, and number of in the CENTROPE region is related to the actors and stakeholders. For many years it accession of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, served as an umbrella initiative supporting and Hungary into the Schengen area. In new project ideas. For funding agencies, it the border areas, the mobility of people for was an advantage to be under this larger work/shopping/leisure is high (Verwiebe initiative. However, when the funding for et al, 2017). Families spanning across two large projects on a CENTROPE level ran out, or more countries are not rare and they no these projects did not manage to create longer perceive borders as a problem. On a sustainable framework or structures to the other hand, CENTROPE, which arguably continue. In interviews, partners complained catalysed this convergence processes, did about each other, about providing funding, not succeed in creating a highly-profiled, and about what this cooperation should common territorial identity. In the past five look like in the future. The result is that years, national identity has become stronger CENTROPE is not operating anymore. at the expense of a CENTROPE or European identity as a result of larger megatrends in Similar to the times before CENTROPE, Europe. At its height however, CENTROPE there has been a plethora of cross-border probably had the capacity and power to projects in the CENTROPE area, but covering articulate this identity more distinctively but much smaller territories and dealing with failed to do so.

1. CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 163

sectoral issues (transportation and mobility, However, turmoil in the last decade of the urban development and planning, and 20th century sowed some toxic notions in the environmental issues). Though these are public perception of their identity, common somewhat built on the debris of CENTROPE, future, or collaborative patterns. Yet, in the continuity of communication that recent years, there are still some examples of CENTROPE offered is missing. It seems that good cross-border cooperation taking into perhaps the moment is not right for an consideration a common regional identity initiative of the size and scope of CENTROPE. (the Istra peninsula, Croatian-Montenegrin The way forward is rather viewed in relation cooperation on maritime and ecological to smaller and less ambitious projects, but issues, and the via Dinarica, among others). with honest and realistic expectations and a common vision in some areas. Moreover, the Western Balkans is not one homogenous macro-region but rather a very A list of past and current projects in the manifold and unique metatext of different CENTROPE region includes: Project Jordes+ identities, narratives, and communities. (2000-2006, 311,807.48 EUR); project The process of maintaining, developing, EdTWIN (2008-2011, 2,200,000 EUR), and enriching the regional identity of INTERREG IIIA project Building a European every Western Balkan region or city is not a Region, project CENTROPE Map (geoportal finished task but a continuous process. Every operating since 2007), CENTROPE TT (2009- case is different but the study of successful 2012, 1,747,003 EUR), CENTROPE Capacity and unsuccessful processes of building (2009-2012, 4,515,462 EUR), Bratislava a cross-border identity, place branding, Umland Management BAUM 2020 project regional image, and mutually compatible (2017-2020, 674,227 EUR), project KOBRA governance models always delivers very (2006-2007, 69,000 EUR). useful examples and case studies that might serve as an inspiration or warning for every Conclusions and Key Lessons reiterated European region. for the Western Balkans We conclude the paper with eight key Central Europe and the Western Balkan lessons learned from 17 years of CENTROPE’s have been in close contact for centuries. operation, which can serve as inspiration Some regions might even be labelled as for regional identity management and overlapping both macroregional entities. territorial governance in the Western Both territories have overcome major Balkans’ cross-border regions: changes during the 1990s and 2000s. These changes were not only a consequence of 1. Active communication towards geopolitical shifts in Europe, but they re- the domestic audience (inhabitants, drew the mental maps of the inhabitants domestic SMEs) in terms of image and (in some cases) heavily challenged their building and maintaining is essential. social identities. Regional identity, a sense CENTROPE did not manage to orient its of belonging toward certain territorial units, communication activities towards local and socio-cultural milieus were modified, actors, who are the carriers of the tacit changed, and in some cases even contested. knowledge needed for brand and vision Although the new identities of many promotion. The active involvement of (now) cross-border regions and territories these actors is one of the preconditions integrated common heritage from the of success. Authentic, spontaneous, and past, they were also confronted with deep identification with the regional contradictions, resentments, and tensions. profile and positioning is necessary Several Western Balkan regions were in order to be successful, especially in influenced by partly contradictory issues: long-term. One of the key lessons for most of the countries have a centuries-old regions in the territory of the Western common regional history and/or identity Balkans is that the underestimation of characterised by a cultural melting pot. the domestic audience in branding and

164 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

marketing activities can backfire, the nations. This common denominator leading to a complete failure of and grand narrative for cooperation is the marketing strategy. profile and currently missing and is arguably one positioning is necessary in order to be of the reasons for the lack of activity in successful, especially in long-term. One recent years. of the key lessons for regions in the territory of the Western Balkans is that 5. Partners should mutually coordinate the underestimation of the domestic their activities and involve informal audience in branding and marketing structures and channels. This is related activities can backfire, leading to a to the coordination of activities in complete failure of the marketing the framework of a good governance strategy. system, which accounts for both vertical and horizontal coordination of activities 2. Continuous and transparent re- in the territory across borders. This evaluation of the vision is an essential system needs to be effective from the corrective mechanism. A common international level all the way down and widely accepted vision is a living to the local/domestic level where the thing that needs to be re-evaluated implementation of activities and projects and adjusted according to changing takes place (the principle of subsidiarity). conditions (megatrends). Visions should Governance systems need to integrate be continuously enriched in terms of sectoral orientations together with a their emotional potential and ability holistic vision. to mobilize people. A regional vision is neither a prognosis nor audit, but should 6. Parallel communication and cooperation be a common denominator for all actors. structures can strengthen and complement official decision-making 3. Concentration on common interest and bodies. This way, the overall system is common goals encourages dedication more robust and resilient to various to the process of harmonising political types of vulnerabilities. Good peer- priorities. Building on points and to-peer relations, common ties, and themes of common interest is a way to relationships beyond official channels foster mutual trust and sustainability might not only speed up the collaborative of the cooperation. Competitive and process, but can be an invaluable asset cooperative elements must be in a in times of crisis, misunderstanding, or balance, not fatally disturbing each external pressure. Language as the most other. Regions must be open to starting important communication tool plays an new partnerships, learning from best important role. One of the advantages of practices in various fields of action, and many Western Balkan regions is the lack constantly upgrading their innovation of language barriers. potential. 7. Initiatives should adopt a suitable 4. Flexibility is crucial in the reflecting cooperation dimension and scale. on the overall socio-political climate CENTROPE was a vast initiative (four (zeitgeist). Each historical or political countries, 16 cities and regions, 6 million period carries certain trends that are people), which did not manage to reflected in the public spirit and have accentuate a common vision and find the potential to impassion people. In the common denominators upon which their case of CENTROPE in 1990s, the region cooperation could have been built. One was focused on foreign investment, of the main difficulties was the size and research, and technology. In the heterogeneity of actors. Therefore, it is 2000s, it was EU integration that was important to find and build on common raising spirits in all four countries and interests through a bottom-up approach overshadowing the differences among (as opposed to EUSDR, for example). The CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 165

scale of cooperation might be different References in each Western Balkan cross-border region. Böhme, K. and Martin, D., 2019. Territorial Fragmentation: A Major European 8. Place branding should occur through Challenge. Territorial Thinkers, Briefing No. 5. actions rather than statements. More Luxembourg: Territorial Thinkers. than an ambitious brand building process, it is important to create Brunet, R., 1989. Les villes europeénnes: structures for pursuing the common Rapport pour la DATAR (in French). interests of the actors within the cross- Montpellier: RECLUS. ISBN 978-2-11- border regions. Despite having long 002200-4. periods of troublesome history and an array of conflicts in the Western Balkan CENTROPE, 2006. Political Conference Vienna region, the set of common interests in 2006 – ‘We Shape the Future’ [Online] various practical fields is what counts availableat : h ttps://centrope.gysev.hu/ at the end of the day. Specialised issues story/political-conferences/vienna-2006/. might include initiatives in fields like [Accessed 6 January 2020]. tourism and environmental protection CENTROPE, 2006. Political Conferences (TG-WeB, 2018) or mobility, which could [Online] available at: https://centrope.gysev. become the driving force of all the hu/story/political-conferences/. [Accessed 6 external communication of the region January 2020]. and shape its place branding. The active, versatile, and honest participation of CENTROPE, 2015. CENTROPE Vision 2015 various types of stakeholders is key [Online] available at: http://www.region- for the resilience of the brand and its bsk.sk/SCRIPT/ViewFile.aspx?docid=1109. perceived, practical usability. Deep, [Accessed 6 January 2020]. thorough, and smart place branding of various regions in the Western Balkans CENTROPE Agency, 2012. Strategy 2013 could deliver efficient and sustainable [Online] available at: https://www.wien. marketing activities that go beyond the gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/ old clichés of beautiful nature, national b008393ap.pdf. [Accessed 6 January 2020]. parks, and gastronomy, for instance. A successful regional brand is always CentropeMap, 2019. The Centrope Region based upon a congruence of attitudes at Glance. [Online] available at: https:// among internal actors (inhabitants) and www.centropemap.org/cif/0-01-02.pdf. the expectations of an external audience [Accessed 18 November 2020]. (such as tourists, visitors, and investors). Clark, G., 2007. Economic Collaboration Between Neighbouring Cities. Report Notes Summary. Glasgow-Edinburgh Collabora- tion Initiative. [Online] available at: http:// 1. This is explained in more detail in the www.glasgow-edinburgh.co.uk/wp- section about CENTROPE identity and content/uploads/2007/11/economic- place branding. collaboration-report-greg-clark-august- 2007-summary-final-dn.pdf. [Accessed 12 2. The countries have different admin- September 2008]. istration systems and different forms and levels of decentralisation. Therefore, EUROSTAT, 2020. GDP and main in cross-border level projects, success components (output, expenditure and is based, above all, on good relations income), indicator: Gross domestic product among the local authorities and the at market prices [Online] available at: common project idea, which must be https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/ stronger than differences stemming show.do?dataset=nama_10_gdp&lang=en. from the various legal arrangements. [Accessed 12 September 2020]. 166 Maroš Finka , Milan Husár, Matej Jaššo

Fertner, Ch., 2006. City-regional Co-operation Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia. to strengthen Urban Competitiveness. A report on Cross-border Co-operation in the Jaššo, M. and Hajduk, M., 2019. Role of Social Regions of Copenhagen-Malmoe and Vienna- Media Concerning Public Participation and Bratislava. Diplomarbeit. Department Promotion of City Identity. In B. Stojkov (Ed.) fuer Raumentwicklung, Infrastruktur- und The e-Future of Cities. Between Temptations Umweltplanung Fachbereich fuer Stadt- und of Exponential Technology Growth and Regionalplanung, Fakultät fuer Architektur the Concept of Human City. Conference und Raumplanung. TU Wien. Proceedings, pp. 119-134, Academy of Engineering Sciences of Serbia, University Finka, M. and Petríková, D. (Eds.), 2000. of Belgrade, Belgrade. Priestorový rozvoj a plánovanie v kontexte európskej integrácie [Spatial Development Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G.J., 2005. City and Planning in the Context of European Branding. An effective assertion of identity Integration]. Spectra – ROAD. Bratislava, or a transitory marketing trick?. Tijdschrift Slovakia. voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), pp. 506-514. Giffinger, R. (Ed.), 2005. Competition between cities in Central Europe: Opportunities and Kováč, B. and Komrska, J. (Eds.), 2000. Risks of Cooperation, ARL Hannover-TU Aktuálny vývoj teórie urbanizmu a nové Wien-ROAD Bratislava. trendy v priestorovom plánovaní. Spectra ROAD. Bratislava, Slovakia. Husár, M., Ondrejička, V. and Varış, S. C., 2017. Smart Cities and the Idea of Smartness Krajatis, C., Neunteufl, G. and Steiner, R., in Urban Development–A Critical Review. 2003. Regional Analysis of the CENTOPE IOP conference series: materials science region. DIANE Projekt Interreg IIIA, Vienna. and engineering, 245(8), p. 082008. IOP Kunzmann, K.R. and Wegener, M., 1991. The Publishing. pattern of urbanisation in Western Europe Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and 1960-1990. Berichte aus dem Institut für Storper, M., 2017. Why regional development Raumplaning, 28, Institut für Raumplanung, matters for Europe’s economic future. Universität Dortmund: Dortmund. European Commission Directorate General Lettner, Z., 2007. Project FDI in CENTROPE: for Regional and Urban Policy, Working Activities and Results. Conference 24.7.2007. Paper, 7. [Online] available at: http://centrope.com/ Jaššo, M., 2009a. Managing City Identity: static/files/centropenew/Lettner_Business_ Corporate Identity or Place Branding?. Location_Centrope_Conference.pdf. Proceedings from International Conference [Accessed 20 September 2008]. Urban Investments, Institute of Manage- Low, S. M. and Walter, R. D., 1982. Values in ment, STU Bratislava, December, 3rd,.2009. the planning process. Ekistics, pp. 58-60. pp.59-65 Mayerhofer, P., 2005. Competitiveness of Jaššo, M., 2009b. Five years of CENTROPE European Cities: Some Empirical Results for region-Reflections and Perspectives. In: New European Cities, 260. WIFO Working Papers. Challenges of Globalization: Striving for Competitive Advantage and Sustainability. Messely, L., Dessein, J. and Lauwers, L., 2010. Conference May 27-30, 2009, Bratislava. Regional Identity in Rural Development: - Bratislava: Comenium University and Three Case Studies of Regional Branding. Monclair State University, pp. 390-397. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 4(3-4), pp. 19-24. Jaššo, M., 2015. Regional identity and its management. Habilitation. Institute Schulz, S., 2019. Ambitious or Ambiguous? of Management, Slovak University of The Implications of Smart Specialisation CENTROPE Initiative – Lessons Learned and Inspirations for the Western Balkans 167

for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and TG-WeB, 2018. Position Paper on Territorial Slovakia. Baltic Journal of European Studies, Governance in the Western Balkans. 9(4), pp.49-71. Tosics, I., 2005. Metropolitan cooperation Špaček, M. and Husár, M. Cross-border as a precondition for international governance-polycentricity in practice? competitiveness. Special difficulties Slovak economic association meeting in preparing post-socialist cities for 2018 (SEAM2018). Bratislava: Comenius international competition: The case of University, 2018, s. 16. ISBN 978-80-223- Budapest. In: Competition between cities 4562-0. in Central Europe: Opportunities and Risks of Cooperation (Ed. Giffinger, R.), ARL Tangkjaer, Ch. and Linde-Laursen A., 2004. Hannover-TU Wien-ROAD Bratislava, pp.78- Place-Making in the Global Village – Oresund: 88. A Brand New Future? In F.M. Zimmermann and S. Janschitz (Eds.) Regional Policies in TourCentrope, 2020. Centrope Map [Online] Europe. Soft Features for Innovative Cross- available at: http://www.tourcentrope. Border Cooperation, pp. 9-31. Graz. eu/tl_files/tourcentrope/content/project/ centrope-map.png. [Accessed September Taylor, P.J., 2001. Regionality within 6,2020]. globalization: What does it mean for Europe? In F.M. Zimmermann and S. Janschitz (Eds.) Verwiebe, R., Reinprecht, C., Haindorfer, R. Regional Policies in Europe. Key Opportunities and Wiesboeck, L., 2017. How to succeed in for Regions in the 21st Century. Graz, pp. 49-63. a transnational labour market: Job search and wages among Hungarian, Slovak, and Telle, S., 2017. Fuzzy and soft elements Czech commuters in Austria. International in spatial dimension of regional policy Migration Review, 51(1), 251-286. (dissertation thesis).

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.