Literature Review and Analytical Framework

CEU eTD Collection Social CapitalandGovernance inEuropean Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International PublicPolicy Science, ofPolitical School Doctoral Borderlands: Acomparativestudyof In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Euroregions aspolicyactors Supervisor: Dr. Andrew Cartwright DOCTOR OFPHILOSOPHY DOCTOR Central European University Central Budapest, Hungary By Sara Svensson Submitted to Relations CEU eTD Collection January January 31, 2013 Svensson Sara form bibliographical of reference. inis the made acknowledgement where appropriate except by person, published any other and/or written materials no previously contains dissertation The institutions. any other in for any degrees, nomaterials accepted other thiscontains dissertation that I hereby declare D ECLARATION i CEU eTD Collection members become in Euroregional the organization. dense communicationits and operation, into later and formation timeEuroregional of at the role both an important plays is that a resource cooperation Inter-municipal beneficial Euroregional performance. for networksare that networks trust-based kindof the and create reinforce likelyto less roleare important on played an Euroregions for whichinstrumental grant-seeking activities a conducts. Euroregion one sideof range the members and the motivation of the isbetween fit there a that is important of theaccess to motivation borderfunds,instrumental but only the rarely to solve with policy needs.For the creation between-groupof conjunction in social capital it sometimes areidentity, of dimension relatednormative a by driven mostly are organizations these Instead concerns. policy to due to how active theanalysis. combiningused inanalysis social qualitative thenetwork with of content data, analysis the is approach Amixed-method and Austria/Germany). (Hungary/Slovakia, Sweden/Norway borders national along three located of andsix (Chairs Euroregions Managers) representatives organizational and (mayors) representatives interviewspolitical is with The core 138 Euroregions? of function and performance the impact capital social does How (2) interact? they do how and local governmentshow do in institutions cooperation cross-border participate (Euroregions) by capital specific Coleman questions: (1)Why (as understood addressestwo 1990) and and type of institutions often referred to as Euroregions. The dissertation uses the concept of social of infunctionthe andperformance variance of understanding our can governments enhance local of andbehavior attitudes the to devoted more attention that argues therefore dissertation whoinstead tend to focus on actors representing regional bodies or major towns. The by beenfrequently researchers, neglected have small ones, especially Local governments, much institutionalized constitute that backbonethe inEurope. cooperation of cross-border local the governments of actors, typeone of patterns interaction and participation motivation, governance. focuses local cross-border It literature on byinvestigating borderlands The the literature on andmulti-level contributes dissertation to governance inEurope the Results demonstrate that local governments do not form or join primarily form Euroregions not or local do governments that Results demonstrate more interviews. of consisting 200 than dataset on an extensive The dissertation relies A BSTRACT ii CEU eTD Collection skillful technical management to place it in the cross-border governance space. governance cross-border in the it place to management technical skillful without access to that underlying resource of social capital is risky and requires solid and Euroregion’s cooperation intensity cross-border (project,budget) through external grants a of boosting short-time Nonetheless, intensity. cooperation cross-border of form in the performance with high organizational is associated communication form of cross-border in social the capital between-group level a high the of that expectation support be to found a precondition for levels high social ofbetween-group capital. However, evidencecould not The dissertation therefore argues social high argues levels The dissertation serve as that therefore of within-group capital iii CEU eTD Collection University was very important for a critical perspective on new regionalism and regional new regionalism on perspective acritical for important very was University environment. stimulating overall an such offering for university as institutionan for providing me with the grants madethat these years and possible Kriszta andAnikoprovided valuable administrative andIam support, also grateful the to WritingAcademic Sanjay).(Reka and for the Center andto Anvar,Philipp, Norbert Lisa, formedinyear me last the helped intensivethe period: through write-up gotoSanja,thanks manybutKristin,Elene Jibladze,also Stefan, Thewriting-group we that and Vera, others. along in my the way, Andreeaco-students publicpolicy especially the Nastase andtrack, experience. PhD the of my of recollection core the stay at will but peripheral, becould called to donated time this to project. Thanks formany cups of coffee & tea! Some of the places I went collaboration. continue to hope I whom with and analysis, network social the for essential was who Nordlund, policiesinvestigated I whom with Demidov, Andrey to and of border, cooperation Swedish-Norwegian the from data at the helped empirical the Andreasme some of external Öjehag, who to analyze border, Hungarian-Slovak bordersGerg pages:to visible inthese of the European Union. Thanks panel,also Thilo Bodenstein and Tamas Meszerics, for stimulatingto discussions. Carl members supervisory the of other two the to thank Iwant Likewise, keep asking questions. to place. behind unfitting curtains,and surfaces cluttered with know wherewere Ididthings not to me mevisited furniture company missing,messy while therehidden stuff wasstill and was It is now time for the first proper reception, and here I would like tothank all youof who kept was bringmaterialthings anddecorate. task from organize scratch, buildto to this room, some used bymy early on was insteadsupervisor AndrewCartwright of that empty an My room. isIt inacknowledgments common compare abut with metaphorthe ajourney,to period PhD The semester I spent at the Department of Historical and Political Studies at Karlstad inhelpedme University Budapest Central andfriends atthe European Many colleagues who borderlands in European interviewees hundred two than more the thank also I Many thanks to my co-authors on various publication projects;Thanks Andrew,to therefore, for not losing calm in the face of chaos, and formuch urging me of our efforts is A Ę Medve-Bálint, who worked with me for a while on for with awhile methe who on worked Medve-Bálint, CKNOWLEDGEMENT iv CEU eTD Collection project. will myday nodoubt on that were still thinkabout this grandfathers who Istarted alive when coming forward havebeen lookingto ceremony be tothe degreewill the where and conferred, who my grandmothers, to least the not and my uncle, parents-in-law, parents, my family: the restof the focusing to pragmatic questions! Thanks for generalpeptalks andfor Martin, on brother my to Thanks more’). any you like won’t they stern are you when but misbehave, they will or students be the very with havestern to would career(‘you mescare a teacher’s off a mostly inbiginterest ‘what took won),finishing David Iwould after become’ and to tried (she bag school heaviest had the on who compete to used we program; PhD in the enrolled asI sametime the school at started be Hanna would ready; book’ ‘the when often asked forÁdám, his unfaltering belief in my takeability thisto thingtoan end. my To who children, who stepped in to help with final proof-reading: Bori, Heni and Lilla. ofyou those Special to support. thanks be agreat to continued there from colleagues and the Tomas. studies. Special thanks to the PhD candidates formany discussions: Line, Andreas, David and Finally, many thanks to my family for bearing withBefore me enrollingall this intime. the PhDTo programmy husband I worked at the CEU Center for Policy Studies, v CEU eTD Collection Chapter 3:Acase studyof two Euroregions atthe Hungarian-Slovak border methods and 2:Researchdesign Chapter Chapter 1: Literature review andanalytical framework Introduction List of Tables...... x ...... ix List of Figures ...... vi Table of Contents Acknowledgement...... iv Abstract...... ii Declaration...... i 3.2.1 Ister-Granum EGTC...... 79 3.2 The case study organizations...... 79 3.1.4 Regional infrastructure and economic development...... 77 3.1.3 The distribution of political ...... 73 and administrative powers 3.1.2 History and ethnicity: ...... 70 asset and challenge 3.1.1 Definition ...... 69 of the border area 3.1 The Hungarian-Slovak border area...... 69 2.6 Reliability, validity ...... 65 and replicability 2.5 Ethical ...... 63 considerations 2.4.2 Social network analysis...... 63 2.4.1 Working with interviews ...... 61 and texts 2.4 Methods ...... 61 of analysis 2.3 The dependent variable and its ...... 52 operationalization 2.2 Type of data and data ...... 49 collection process 2.1 Selection of cases...... 42 1.5 Conclusion...... 40 1.4.3 Theoretical expectations...... 38 1.4.2 Adding local institutional networks as explanatory factor...... 36 1.4.1 Factors influencing Euroregional ...... 34 performance 1.4 Understanding Euroregional ...... 33 performance 1.3.3 Institutional social capital...... 25 1.3.2 Participation and interaction...... 24 ...... 20 1.3.1 Motivation 1.3 The membership ...... 20 of Euroregions windows functions...... 17 1.2.2 WhatEuroregions do:policy activities and the seismograph,loudspeaker and display 1.2.1 Historical and legal ...... 15 context 1.2 Euroregions as policy actors...... 14 1.1 Cross-border governance through networks...... 11 Research limitations...... 8 Structure ...... 7 of the dissertation Contribution and policy relevance...... 6 ...... 4 Research questions ...... 2 Key concepts 1.3.3.2 Key debates on social capital...... 29 1.3.3.1 Social capital in the literature on borderlands and cross-border relations...... 26 ...... 1 T ABLE OF ABLE ...... 41 vi C ONTENTS ...... 10 ...... 67 CEU eTD Collection Chapter 6: Asocial network analysis of relational data Chapter 5–Acase studyof two Euroregions at the Austrian-German border Chapter 4:Acase studyof two Euroregions attheSwedish-Norwegian border 6.4 Within-group social capital and between-group social capital institutional on level...209 6.3 The importance of the state borders...... 201 ...... 196 6.2 Method 6.1 Policy networks ...... 194 in borderlands 6.4 Conclusion...... 191 5.3.3 Appropriation ...... 180 of policy space 5.3.2 Cross-border cooperation intensity...... 176 5.3.1 Policy areas and typical activities...... 174 5.3 Function and performance of Salzburg-BL-T and ...... 174 Inntal-C-K-M 5.2.3 Interaction...... 172 5.2.2 Participation...... 168 ...... 165 5.2.1 Motivation Inntal-C-K-M...... 164 5.2 Motivation, participation and interaction of local in governments Salzburg-BL-T and 5.1.2 The case study organizations...... 160 ...... 157 the border area of characteristics politico-administrative and economic Cultural-linguistic, 5.1.1 5.1 The Austrian-German border area and the investigated Euroregions...... 156 4.4 Conclusion...... 151 4.3 Function and performance of ...... 142 OstBoh and VarmOst 4.2.3 Interaction...... 137 4.2.2 Participation...... 133 ...... 129 4.2.1 Motivation and VarmOst...... 128 4.2 Motivation, participation and interaction of local in governments OstBoh 4.1.2 The case study organizations...... 124 4.1.1 The Norwegian-Swedish border area...... 120 4.1 Cross-border cooperation in the Nordic Countries...... 118 3.5 Conclusion...... 113 3.4.3 Appropriation ...... 103 of policy space 3.4.2 Cross-border cooperation intensity...... 100 3.4.1 Policy areas and typical activities...... 99 3.4 Function and performance of Ister-Granum and Hidver 3.3.3 Interaction...... 95 3.3.2 Participation...... 88 ...... 84 3.3.1 Motivation 3.3 Motivation, participation and interaction of local governments in Ister-Granum and Hídver in Ister-Granum governments local of interaction and participation Motivation, 3.3 3.2.2 The Hídver 5.3.3.4 The governance space...... 188 5.3.3.3 Display window function...... 186 5.3.3.2 Loudspeaker ...... 183 function 5.3.3.1 Seismograph function...... 180 3.4.3.4 The governance space...... 110 3.4.3.3 Display window function...... 108 3.4.3.2 Loudspeaker ...... 105 function 3.4.3.1 Seismograph function...... 103 Ę ...... 83 Ę Euroregion...... 81 vii ...... 193 Ę ...... 98 ...... 155 ...... 116 CEU eTD Collection References Annex E –Overview of cases: key characteristics...... 256 Annex D – Sample of interview questionnaires...... 252 Annex C – List of interviewees...... 248 Annex B – Maps of cases...... 245 Annex A – List ...... 243 of Euroregions Conclusion Chapter 7: Discussion of findings Contribution to literature and policy relevance...... 241 Further findings and suggestions ...... 239 for future research Key arguments...... 238 ...... 235 Summary of findings 7.3 Conclusion...... 231 7.2.2 Assessing performance ...... 228 and function 7.2.1 What they do...... 225 7.2 Function and performance of the investigated Euroregions...... 225 7.1.3 Participation and different types of social capital...... 221 7.1.2 How ...... 219 they participate 7.1.1 Why ...... 214 they participate 7.1 The participation and interaction of local governments in Euroregions...... 214 6.5 Conclusion...... 213 ...... 257 ...... 235 ...... 214 viii CEU eTD Collection Figure 10. Communication patterns between local governments in Hídver Figure 9. Communication patterns between local governments in Ister-Granum...... 205 Figure 8. Communication patterns between local ...... 204 governments in OstBoh Figure 7. Communciation patterns between local governments ...... 203 in VarmOst Figure 6. The inter-organizational network in the border MLG ...... 196 landscape Figure 5.Involved in actors policy cross-border Salzburg-BL-Tissues: and Inntal-C-K-M 189 Figure 4. Involved actors in cross-border policy issues: OstBoh ...... 149 and VarmOst Figure 3. Involved actors in cross-border policy issues: Ister-Granum and Hídver Figure 2. The case ...... 48 study design Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationship...... 37 L IST OF ix F IGURES Ę ...... 206 Ę ...... 110 CEU eTD Collection Table 31. Function and performance...... 230 Table 30. Typical cooperation ...... 226 areas and activities Table 29. Within-group institutional social capital...... 225 ...... 221 endowments Table 28.Theinvestigated Euroregions todominating according of type social capital Table 27. Identity versus instrumentality as driving ...... 218 motivations members...... 217 Table 26. Examples how motivationsof towardsjoining aEuroregion were expressedby Table 25. Change in estimated contact ...... 212 density over time Table 24. Density values for ...... 211 domestic networks Table 23. Cross-border and overall ...... 208 density values Table 22. E-I index...... 207 Table 21. Overview of case study organizations...... 202 of Inntal-C-K-M and Salzburg-BL-T...... 191 governance space Table 20.Memberand appropriation of satisfaction cross-border Table 19. Cross-border cooperation intensity of Inntal-C-K-M ...... 177 and Salzburg-BL-T Table 18. Typical cooperation areas and activities of Inntal-C-K-M and Salzburg-BL-T.....175 Table 17. Between-group social capital of Inntal-C-K-M and Salzburg-BL-T...... 173 Austrian-German borderlands...... 164 Table 16. Key characteristics of Inntal-C-K-M and Salzburg-BL-T and the of OstBoh ...... 150 and VarmOst. governance space Table 15.Memberand appropriation of satisfaction cross-border Table 14. Cross-border cooperation intensity of OstBoh and VarmOst...... 144 Table 13. Typical cooperation areas and activities of OstBoh and VarmOst...... 143 Table 12. Between-group social capital of OstBoh ...... 141 and VarmOst ...... 125 borderlands Table 11. Key characteristics of OstBoh, VarmOst and the Swedish-Norwegian of Hídver governance space Table 10.Memberand appropriation of satisfaction cross-border Table 9. Cross-border cooperation intensity of Hídver Table 8. Typical cooperation areas and activities of Hídver Table 7. Between-group social capital of Hídver ...... 83 borderlands Table 6. Key characteristics of of Hídver 6.Key Table characteristics Table 5. Measurements of ‘success’ from academic and policy literature...... 57 politico-administrative similarity...... 46 homogeneity and proximity,Table 4.Cases tocultural-linguistic economic according Table 3. Interplay between border paradigms and cross-border cooperation ...... 22 leitmotifs. Table 2. Ideal types of cross-border cooperation ...... 21 regimes. Table 1. How a Euroregion can access and influence other policy actors...... 19 Ę and Ister-Granum...... 112 L Ę IST OF , Ister-Granum Hungarian-Slovak the and , Ister-Granum x T Ę and Ister-Granum...... 98 ABLES Ę and Ister-Granum...... 101 Ę adItrGau ...... 99 and Ister-Granum CEU eTD Collection Southeast AsiaSoutheast (J.W. Scott1999). NorthAmerica and in isespeciallynotable Europe, the which around authorities world, alliances localpublic of cross-border of is theproliferation manifestation on ground the has shifted(Castells 1996,1997and Lord2006,Harvey 1998,Deasand how power to 2006) referring away from and ofre-scaling reterritorialization analyzedprocesses have scholars ‘regionalization’ national and ‘globalization’ of terms umbrella the Under means. non-conflictual with inadequacy arenas to issuesandhas beenaddressingpolicy from derived new shift there that towards a remarkable territorial beenarbitrary, seen non-optimal or increasingly have borders as national in recentdecades However, scale. larger a on same the doing and with obsession nation-state’s the symbolize well non-territorialmaintain defendits and borders andits thereby personal space,territorial butcould just as spaces.New International mankind’s referringVersion) to andancient set, tendency enduring to One is‘Cursedman moves the neighbor’s hiswho boundary stone’, (Deut.is aBible 27:17, quote ameliorating disadvantages created by barriers. undoubtedly been persuasive (Foucher1998) andmay be one driving reason for creation the of alliances that strive for 2012).However, the neo-liberal argument stating that national bordersconstitute barriers for economic development has foreseeable future, and the length of heavily fortified ‘wall-type’ of bordershave actually increased (Vallet and David 2009, consensusamong borderland scholars that theoppositeis true; human-created territorial borders are hereto stay in the conflictresolution), and they notshouldbe taken asasign that borders (or their importance) are vanishing. There seems to be 1 an is original not observation.M Johnson“Europe Corey provides notes that an excellent in itself This initiatives. these of role the and governance cross-border local investigating for authorities, referred to in this dissertation as ‘Euroregions’. Europe is therefore an ideal setting external borders have examplesof cooperationcross-border initiatives set upby sub-national cooperation adecadeinto cross-border agenda, and 21 the Broadly,these alliances have been created for the purpose of public goods creation (e.g. economic development and In Europe, theCouncil and Europe of European the havebeenUnion long pushing a 1 I NTRODUCTION 1 st century virtually all internal and internal all virtually century CEU eTD Collection summarized below to aidsummarized below to understanding. in connection reviewwith literature the and in 1,butanalytical framework Chapter they are Each of in-depth will bethese are frequently in and thatdiscussed dissertation. terms used the main concepts I will the briefly clarify specifyquestions research to proceeding the Before Key concepts in particular,in a manner that is both theory-driven and rich in empirical comparable authorities data. local between cooperation cross-border and general, in governance cross-border to related questions research tackle to aneffort of result is the The dissertation 1993 and2012). Koff Scott 2007a, J.W. 2000,Deas 2006, andLord Perkmann 2007b, Blatter 2003, 2007a, tosystematicallyin study processesinborderlands order (notablegovernance exceptionsare data empirical comparative using of in terms done been has little relatively and level, general a very held at is discussion the or is single-case-based either much literature the of However, beto underlying research cooperation other initiatives as on cross-border in well.Europe and (Johnsonseems sameassumption the 2009a:177) development” interaction and economic laboratory forborder regions exploring new how spacesof/foroffer governance, cultural focus of this isstudy on Euroregions including local governments among its members. The both. of a combination or governments local regions, beadministrative can Euroregions borders” (Perkmann national Formally, membersof authorities 2002:104). the across sub-national contiguous between collaboration institutionalized less or “more definition: This often-citedEurope. heavily Euroregions understandingrelies of on Perkmann’s in ormorea border in countries close two to located andnon-profitactors, including private Euroregion : A formalized cooperation initiative between sub-national authorities, often authorities, sub-national between initiative cooperation : Aformalized 2 CEU eTD Collection one side of the border, whereas border, sidethe one of social capital borderlands. in the bylocal andgovernments owned created a resource context capital (2001:430).Ifurther Trigilia’s term comment usethe work on Coleman’s builds and primarily Coleman the(1988, 1990), on formulation definition the on of draws make use atany given moment. The understanding and use of social capital in the dissertation that they have the potential part take to in all stages of policythe (Lasswell process 1956). policy-makers inthemost traditional of but understanding word, the they in are policy actors not are Euroregions space. Lacking powers, executive cross-border tothe relevant processes involvedwhich within in interacts network as abroader of policy actor, actors policy delineated by membership)its unless otherwise stated. political-administrative regions (such as NUTS 2andNUTS 3regionsEuroregions or as 1998, deBlij In the and Murphy is2003). denotedissertation delinated usedto term the 1994,Keating (Hettne andidentity belonging of ofsharedperceptions theimportance stress interpretations constructivist whereas spaces, economic and/or political-administrative as regions on focus interpretations Materialist-functionalist connotations. different and meanings ‘local isgovernment’ used interchangeably municipality.with statistics, abbreviated system of i.e.Union, European the LAU 2orNUTS 5(Nomenclature of territorial forunits NUTS, see European Commission Eurostat 2012). In the dissertation Local governments Policy actor Social capital Region to denote a collective resource created and owned by a group of organizations, in and this by of owned acollectiveorganizations, a group created resource todenote : Unlike ‘local government’, ‘region’ is a term that often carries multiple (Grix and Knowles 2003) refers to the social capital of local governments on : Within the dissertation, Euroregions are understood both both understood asnetworks and are thedissertation,Euroregions : Within : A set of social relations of which a single or a collective subject can : The lowest administrative unit according to the territorial statistical territorial the to according unit administrative lowest : The between-group socialcapital 3 refers to trans-boundary social trans-boundary to refers institutional social Within-group CEU eTD Collection of the discussion is either held at a very general level or is based on empirical research on research empirical on based is or level general very a at held either is discussion the of governance. to attention aspecial with literature, of body this to contributing at aims dissertation investigating operation institutions in the political of setting,cross-border a European the in means By practice. that andwhat is importance, losing nation-state the what extent, is2011:8, Koff question if,and2011, Sassen to 2007:209). Acore 2007b:13-20, Brunet-Jailly 2007:53, Herrschel J.W. Johnson Tallbergmodesand ofpolicy-making Scott (e.g. 2009a:177, new a as governance multi-level to and level local the at understood be should globalization its debates linkage integration,how to noticed newregionalism, to primarily European on due been has this phenomenon literature academic the decades. In two past the sharply over risen has number The border. organizations of sidesuch other located the that on of governments close to a national border in Europe increasingly tend to formlocated or join organizations governments local that with localobservation empirical is the research the of point starting The questions Research policy space. haslandscape,i.e.question a appropriate governanceability the space in cross-border the to loudspeaker,seismograph, whichand to in display window, and the extent Euroregion the of (metaphorical) out organization the the roles how carries capacity, reviewing organizational by Performance isassessed well how this task. landscape and governance they perform institution. border members cross- of the thatare governments local by jointly the and owned i.e. created capital, As stated above, a review of the literature on cross-border cooperation reveals thatmuch Euroregional functionandperformance : The role Euroregions play in the cross-border 4 CEU eTD Collection (Eskelinen and Kotilainen 2005). on 6questionnaires from municipal governments, private companies andNGOs on one side of the border,and 11 on the other institutions, i.e. the number ofresearch isbased oninterviews ten open interviews with ‘key actors’from municipal, regionalwith and national levels, each and from expert of these Nonetheless,would an article on cooperationthe at Finnish-Russian be borderoneis probably typical.Anor endnotespecifies thattwo. the Moreover, thethat itresearch is therefore somewhat unfairin herethat to take as caseexample one reliedof those which actually does provide specification.2 presupposes a mapping institutions(how dothese perform question function?),is anditand in answering the second question, which focuses on the organization as the unit of analysis. It members.other isunderstand Thepurpose to degreetowhichthe createssocialthis capital. which theyto extent the areas, takepolicy in different cooperation partcross-border to attach they inimportance decision-making processes, Thisother. includes localsub-questions on motivationsgovernments’ membership, for the and how ofteneach totheorganizationlocal andto membership governmentsrelate andhow inEuroregions, they are inmaintain and join to contact decisions governments’ local behind motivations the understand with interact? questions: research specific two to rise gives This social capital will enhance the understanding of how of local theory cross-border the of help the cooperation with works. governments local of behavior and attitudes the uncovering in question. borderland in the center/s urban main the and level regional the from actors of selection narrow a relatively into translates usually which actors’, ‘key interviews with rely on tends to research empirical Instead, the on topic. writing academic the majoritymake that up local governments of perspective is the that observation Another single cases. of members of these organizations are curiously missing from most of the Itis striking how little detailon underlying data is included in much writing on cross-bordercooperation, and I am aware The knowledge gained by thefirstanswering question isplay expected to a crucialrole (2) How capitalimpacttheperformancedoes social of and Euroregions?function This focusesquestion onthelocal governmentastheunitanalysis.of aimis The to dothey and participateinEuroregions dolocal(1) Whyhow governments andhow 5 2 I claim that CEU eTD Collection multi-level governance, European integration and policy networks. The use of of concept useof the The networks. policy integration and European governance, multi-level works how governanceliterature inanintegratingon local Europe on level.to relates the This borderlands. of context in the before done been has than way connected organizational and membership levels of Euroregions; field duetolanguage and access difficulties; studies. governance European specializedfieldof studies, fieldborderland andtheThe dissertation addresses the broader of relevance andpolicy Contribution becould made. not project otherwise that one within insights enables level authority public local the on focus in-depth the Nevertheless, alwaysnot coincide with presencethe of initiativessupranational (Koff 2007b:28). Euroregions fashion, in a top-down Koff out,cross-border integration although as points does of may spurthe creation integration heading of European broader the pursued under initiatives integration regional and locally, taken not are borderlands affecting decisions Many or othergovernmentlevel importancepolicy non-governmentprivate, of actors. cooperative institutions. in capital these social cross-border driving plays toyieldexpected that role the knowledge on Second, by going down to the lowest level lowestSecond, bytothe dissertation the policy-making, down going of uncovers and empirically more structured ina capital social on theory the on drawing (c) (b) theunusual research in design of terms embeddedthe incorporatingboth cases the in such this to endeavors well-known despite challenges nature its truly comparative (a) First, dissertation the adds value growing tothe literature stockof borderlandson by: mean focus does onlocal The dissertation’s Idonotrecognize not governments that the 6 CEU eTD Collection operationalizationcollection and analysis. Special emphasis is placed on the methods of case selection and of the dependent performance. explain help may capital social incorporating variablefarhow has established so Euroregions about model perform organizations, andhowa as of the project.research what review Finally,I says topics. of on each literature these existing review what The attitudes andchapter behavior. This is divided into motivation, participation and interaction, and I is main parameters firstof the level analysis,of of membership that the of Euroregions andtheirnot merelythe I outline that, After perform. can they roles the and space, governance multi-level a such a I proceed within networks. forto account policy howEuroregions emergedaspolicy actors and on multi-level governance a larger literature to local governments between cooperation local cross-border onEuropean research dissertation’s the Irelate framework. of analytical the with literature review presentation the 1integrates the Chapter posed, To answer questions the the dissertation Structure of and place in alreadytook several dissemination activities 2011 and 2012. and interviewees organizations, all participating been to papers haveoffered short or lectures activity in aEuroregion joiningof or one.Dissemination of research findings in form the of policymakers can findingsassessuse the to thebenefits and potential of increasingcosts their local integration. In addition, cross-border promote, understand potential the of,seeking to or mechanisms of thatcan beEuroregions forvalue of European nationalor policymakers itexists. that from of a description a network resource settings network anddenote hasthedistinguishing advantageof the social trust capital to Chapter 2 gives a detailed account of the research design and the methods used for usedmethods data design and the of research the account 2gives adetailed Chapter Third, isin dissertation the policy-relevant of on terms functioningthe light shedding 7 CEU eTD Collection with only regional membership will therefore not be considered. The rationale is that the voice the is that rationale The considered. be not therefore will membership regional only with focusesThe members onlocaldissertation governmentsas Euroregions, andEuroregions of Research limitations final researchandofferssome further remarks. findings. empirical the with expectations theoretical used to test some of the theoretical expectations suggested in Chapter 1. between the local governments of four of the studied Euroregions, and the data derived is then links communication map to used are analysis network social from Tools method. different border. from Austrian-German the and 4 from material border, 5draws Chapter Chapter data on the Swedish-Norwegian the border, attheSlovak-Hungarian collected data 3analyzes the Chapter borderland.of each Euroregions of asunits analysis)answer aimsto and the two research in questions contextthe studies. Each is structured around the two levels ofanalysis (members as units of analysis and framework. review analytical and literature of the context do. In this way, the content of the methodtechnical account,chapter but also sheds additional light on what these Euroregions arecomplements and what they the information given in the The conclusion summarizes the dissertation and key arguments, proposes venues for venues proposes key arguments, and dissertation the summarizes The conclusion compare model revisitinitial and to the data cross-case I usethe 7, In Chapter uses a but studies, case empirical asthe questions same the 6 addresses Chapter embeddedcase to the 5) aredevoted 3through (Chapters chapters The following three 8 CEU eTD Collection cooperation at EU’s external borders. 3 integration. tosocio-economic cancontribute Euroregions extent, what andfor investigatingdevelop whether, andto framework suitable methods ananalytical to in is order needed outin and of more kinddissertation research this the carried data, comparable regarding similar problems from suffers integration socio-economic Cross-border availability before any credible theory-building can link Euroregions to regional development. foundation Muchisneededtheoretical one. improved data interms and statistical of be to likely is integration and cooperation cross-border of level the which of factors, many bodies this dissertation focuses on (Euroregions). Regional of kind development the within is influenced cooperation political by from follow not, may or may, which development, cooperation. in much researchon ‘local’ the neglected cross-border of been frequently has towns, major not are that those particularly governments, local of See Demidov and Svensson 2013 for adiscussion on the contested meaning of ‘local’when it comes to cross-border The dissertation does not deal directly with socio-economic integration or economic 9 3 CEU eTD Collection structure of the dissertation. andthe process research for the framework analytical of the implications the summarize I 1.5), Finally theory-building. (section further is for needed complementary knowledge what andsuggest literature the basedon be formulated can that expectations theoretical the explanatory model, which incorporates a bottom-up social capital perspective. I also spell out integration an influencing andcross-bordersuggests cooperation, cross-border and factors it to when comes previous research hasestablished what itorganizations; reviews as Euroregions to returns (1.4) section next The analysis. empirical the structure is dividedinto sub-sections onmotivation, participation and interaction, which will also section The function and performance. explain Euroregional to potential the with perspective onsocial especially largely resources, literature will missing the capital, a hitherto provide network on literature the how outline and organizations, the of members the i.e. analysis, of borderlands and borderlands In institutions (section section1.2). I focus 1.3, levelon firstthe on drawingliterature inter-disciplinary a specialized on Euroregions aspolicy actors, level governance and policy networks (section 1.1). Icontinue with an in-depth elaboration on governance arrangements. incross-border policy actors asimportant establish themselves to organizations these of Euroregions andthecapacity are members of that governments local of theactivity between link the on especially (Euroregions), cooperation organizations provide new knowledge onwhat happens inon groundthe local governmentcross-border elaborations on important concepts. As stated inand the introduction,definitions including the dissertationliterature aims relevant the to of areview with this integrates and investigation, thatwillThis chapterpresentsthe empirical structure framework analytical the C I will therefore start by outlining how the dissertation relates to the literature on multi- HAPTER 1: L ITERATURE REVIEW AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYTICAL AND REVIEW ITERATURE 10 CEU eTD Collection term, the notionfunds regime,butsoon was disbursement applied across policy fields. Deconstructing the of ‘level’Hooghe, seeHooghederived andMarks from 2001).It of studies structural European the refers to the coined who 1993:392and byGary Marks,see further Liesbet developed it402-403, with hierarchy was term (the system political new this for label used widely most be the to ofcome has (MLG) European, nationalas well.scholars For studying policy public in ‘multi-level processes Europe, governance’ and sub-national actors) quasi-state and term the ‘hollowing-out’ was quickly upbyscholarstaken elsewhere shifted down-wards(to up-wards(toEU), sub-national andunits) non-state side-wards(to or referringstarted (Jessop stateas‘hollowing-out’ tothe 1993,Rhodes1994),because power local and levels was‘glocalization’global 1995).Inthe 1990s, British(Courchene scholars andmaterial communication (Castellscorridors) 1996). flows’of governance upgeographically via linking places electronic distant (functional-based ‘spaces to boundaries) specific geographic tied to (government from ‘spaces a shiftplaces’ of entailed globalization that was thesis central one community; scholarly the beyond and within society’both 1990s,the on Castell’s trilogy receivedmuchattention, ‘network the Manuel place, how this buton beit shouldwhatischange and conceptualized, extent happening. to In taking is a change whether been not therefore has debate the of focus The only. institutions be can not by understood taken levelstudyingat national decisions andby political changing hasgainedvirtually in general thescholarly community;agreement policy public Since the last decades of the20 of decades last the Since throughnetworks governance 1.1 Cross-border Another less well-received term indicating interdependencies and interactions between andinterdependencies interactions indicating less term well-received Another th century the claim that worldwide the political system is system political the worldwide that claim the century 11 CEU eTD Collection 2012:630). authority is task-specific, where jurisdictions operate at numerous territorial levelsresponsibility and formay ‘bundle’ a of functions.be overlapping”By Typecontrast, II governingdescribes (Bache arrangements inwhich the jurisdiction of limited number of clearly non-overlappingdefined, jurisdictions atalimited number of territorial levels, each of which has where the former “describes system-wide governing arrangements inwhich the dispersion of authority is restricted to a 4 institutional from shocks risksand asameliorate as well of resources, allocation and efficient facilitate coalition building have been shownto Networks common (Börzel goals” 1998:254). achieve way to is best cooperation the that acknowledging interests shared pursue these actors, who share common linkingof variety a interdependent nature and non-hierarchical areof relationships which interests with regard to stable “as of aredefined a set relatively networks Policy based hierarchy government. a policy andor market than) whobetter possibly (and exchangefrom be different to networks by governance claims resources to policy networks has soughtto overcome the dividebetween andcorporatism,pluralism and modern focus the on However, and1979). Lehmbruch (Schmitter Latin American countries in interests and some European labor links organized powerful governmental with exclusive Lowi 1964, HecloandWildawsky 1974, Heclo1978, orneo-corporatism’s investigation of literature on the pluralism in its of study ‘issue networks’ and US,e.g. ‘iron triangles’ the and aswell. Union actors European by was 1987),which approach’adopted in (Laumann Knoke Europe state and ‘organizational groups” (Knokepublic interestetal. Knoke and 1996). Laumannhavecalled an this and societies, professional unions, labor associations, business to ministries government and parties legislative from actors, policy significant all among interactions analyze “describe and need to is a system,understand there involved. the To actors organizational isa logical there amultitude of framework, isthat consequence multi-level governance state actorsinto governance systems (Bache2012). orsemi- non-state of inclusion cross-sectoral refers to aspect ‘governance’ the whereas levels, Later,a distinction was made between two types of MLG arrangements, Type 1andType 2(Hooghe andMarks 2003), It should be emphasized that the idea of policy networks is not new. It can be to new. is It traced not networks ideathe policy of that shouldbe emphasized It If in in policy public Europe 21 the st century century madeis and implementedwithin such a 12 4 CEU eTD Collection multi-level governance” (Koff 2007b: 21). consequence. I concur Koff’s with argument that “border integration is not simply a logical outcome ofglobalization or 5 cooperation controlas to a means and reduce damage, thereby strengthening economic asharmfulHence, areinterpreted (Newman borders barriers2006:177). and cross-border notionhighly is ofa categorized” and transcends the world which compartmentalized a ‘world society’ 1990)“where 1998,Albrow belonging 1996,1997and (Castells common andbordering (see Globalization andLang e.g. Varwick islead2007:61). towards to expected processes 2012) orparallel de-bordering of 2006, (Newman securitization globalization and and handled in andare andincreasingin viewed practice David2012),borders (Vallet theworld discourse through two cooperation is generally Whilecross-border 2003:13). andidentities” (Newman affiliations different of within network groups, includedorexcluded ahierarchical and arerespectively people paradigms,in the sandon a map”, and or butconstructed evolving institutions “through which territories which can“lines arenever borders DavidNewman, scholar border human and Accordinggeographer to be referredparadigm to in shorthand of globalization as Scott 1999,van Houtum 2000:64 and 2003; 66; Perkmann 2003). O’Dowd can be J.W. (e.g. andborderlands nation the between states the powers understanding relative the challenged 1990s the and early focused 2000s on the extentof capturing transformationthis and by a competing 2004:532.) Blatter regions”, cross-border governing paradigm in national administrations of dominance the are challenging decentralization/regionalization of securitization.transformation. (In the words of Joachim Blatter: “transnational integration and domestic systemic of as a proof canbeseen institutions governance local cross-border of existence the accountability and concealingissues of (see power e.g. Lynn 2012). transformationbut have (Christopoulos been they also2006:786), for criticized weakening Note the emphasis here on the existence of cross-border organizations as a symptom of MLG arrangements, not a Second, the study of borderlands and borders also accentuate how the research the how accentuate also borders and borderlands study of the Second, First, areas. local for cross-border importance great areof above outlined The changes 13 5 Much research on cross-border areas in areas cross-border on research Much CEU eTD Collection harm economic development and social cohesion in the border areas. penetration (mainly illegal immigration and criminal activities), on the other hand,to express, but policy hard to solve; on one the hand,measures theUnion seeksin to thisstrengthen direction its border controls orderin often toprevent unwanted dilemma European Union policymakers face in relation to handling the EU’s external borders. The problem is straightforward 6 initiative between sub-nationalauthorities, potentiallyincludingprivate andnon-profit investigate, term the is‘Euroregion’. but This Idefineasa I use communities’ - many names are‘Cross-borderalliances’, ‘cross-border micro-regions’, ‘EU-regios’, used‘cross-border working by practitioners and academics actors as policy 1.2 Euroregions for the phenomenon I aspects. defined by using specific criteria andindices” (Herrschel and Tallberg 2011:8). territoriality, planning-related and from conventional the departure and practical conceptual marksa ‘new’ “prefix the where ‘new regionalism’, labeled have regions on researchers actors. including sometimes Euroregions non-state authorities, thereby fitneatly into what borderlands.relevance to The is,in alsoturn, consistingEuroregion anetwork of public network of actors with different competencies within a actor asonepolicy view Euroregion the to is helpful it area, cross-border particular and interests in relation to the policy issues of more difficultto cross (e.g. external borders to the Schengen passport-free area). aremade and borders etc), Israel/Palestine, US/Mexico, (e.g. of places number increasing an at erected being weseewalls andasaconsequence security, notitas far threaten does as ‘dangerous’ elements such as‘criminals’ ‘terrorists’. Thus, and is cooperation only desirable of penetration to prone spacesof weakness, are hand,borders other the on securitization, of paradigm In the andbeyond. areas inborder cohesion andsocial development I have earlier elaborated (Demidov and Svensson 2011) on how developments inthe last decade have accentuated the The purpose of the next section is to describe Euroregions in relation to these three to these in relation Euroregions describe is section to nextof the The purpose understandThird,to politicalthe powerof Euroregions overpolicy issues in a 14 formalized cooperation 6 CEU eTD Collection equivalent. studies outsidemicro-region’ Europe, term the is ‘cross-border probably closestthe andof in definition the Europe could asbe used other territorial contexts transcends well. For core but connotation,has the amacro-regional ‘Euroregion’ space.and Second, asterritorial both andas howmunicipalities states canbeunderstood dependingon organizations context localthe governments and regionsthatareits members 2011). (Medeiros This is analogous to a memorandum of understanding betweenmunicipal associations on each side of border, the the creation of the European Economic Community. This Euroregion started its operation via context The first Euroregion EU-Regio– the Dutch-German in –wasinitiated same yearas 1958, the legal and Historical 1.2.1 the isitEuroregions aredefinedrefer asorganizations, sometimes useful to totheEuroregion as 2002:23). tosecure informal structures, andthis end”engage (W.R.Scott in activities, who collective i.e. “collectivities therefore are Euroregions parties. the between of understanding memorandum whose participants of somesort on resting or association separate a within place taking collaboration share a common interestwith theirenforcement 1990:3).‘Formalized’arrangements” (North in this contextrefers to in the survival together game the of “rules as institutions of view institutionalism’s new from it ofdistinguish the system (Perkmann However,Iuse‘formalized’ratherthan to borders” 2002:104). ‘institutionalized’, national across subnational between contiguous authorities collaboration institutionalized Euroregions heavily relies frequently on lessPerkmann’s cited definition: “more or actors, locatedclosetoa border in two ormore countriesinEurope geographical space Two further clarifications deserve to be made regarding the definition. First, although within which the Euroregion operates, i.e. the territorial coverage of 15 . This understanding of organizations , CEU eTD Collection designed to facilitate and promote cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation” interregional and transnational cross-border, and promote facilitate to designed Territorial Cooperation The as EGTCis new(EGTC). “alegalpromoted European instrument legalwas instrument launched by European the inUnion 2007: European Grouping of and from 2007 through andfrom European the 2007 through CooperationTerritorial program. substantive have financialcontributions been distributed via funds, structural regional policy Until late1980sthethe European Union not an in was active actor field,this butsince 1990 value lacked (Art. included treaty they as guidance,although 1). andlocal level 3,para were on intrastate model agreements structures, public administration into integration the facilitate localcross-border To andbetween cooperation authorities. and regional promote support Inforegio 2012). Inforegio 8 2012). Europe of (Council regions” of frontier development and improvement authorities inEurope makes iteasier for them to carry out their tasks effectively and contributeslead to economic inparticular growth and social cohesion. to the See for instance the Preamble: “[C]o-operation between local and regional assumption isthatcooperation facilitatescross-border mobility of goods,services and people, which in turn is expected to 7 Authorities or Communities Territorial ‘Madrid Outline Convention’ (European Convention between on Transfrontier Cooperation Council of Europeself-evident,andnot tocoordinate policy efforts around this coordinated issue by were the rather than the in 2for (seeChapter theuniverse Europe this of dissertation). cases considered European Community.rapid in expansion started latethe 1990s, and today areupto200 there such initiatives in This in ÖresundA Gränskommitten 1964 andthe Østfold Committee in1980. -Bohuslän/Dalsland resultedfounded in 1960sand the 1970s, especially in Scandinavianthe instance for countries, the in the so area and were Euroregions (Müller Additional Hoebink V. of 2003). interests a cross-border called by Euroregionsofficiallyrepresenting the supported ascapable whosawof Claus, Prince itwas body, decision-making formed ajoint later WhentheEU-region tothese. solutions –and pointing suggesting problems–especially infrastructure within atspecificpolicy The cross-border The cooperation stranddisbursed 5.6million EUR in the2007-2012 budgetcycle (European Commission Thelanguage of treaty the demonstrates how Euroregions areviewed aspromoters of ‘peace andprosperity’; the How the Euroregions would fitinto existing structures of public administration was 7 ), signedin 1980 and mandating signatories to 16 8 In addition, a new CEU eTD Collection cooperation asa solution before other actors are aware that there is a problem. (SabatierWith 1988). such approaches, important an of role Euroregions might for be to identify instance cross-border model (Cohen, March andOlsen 1972) the policy streams model (Kingdon 1984) or the advocacy coalition framework ofpolicy real processes, Euroregions would also be identified as policy actors competing in models, such as the garbage can 10 9 as However, understanding of word. the they hence body,are and political (elected) if bybeing2002:15) governedweunderstand thedeferencedecision-making toby made one Euroregionsnot aregoverned in a conventional, territorial sense (Perkmann and Sum seismograph, of The space. territories cross-border the to relevant the processes in involved policy actors functions and windows activities above, acting withinAs stated network as networks broader are Euroregions policy of actors a policy display do: and Euroregions loudspeaker What 1.2.2 less than 30 Euroregions had chosenadopt to legal this form. inishere, definition the 2012 EGTC asub-type of the category andthis Euroregions of used bound only together byamemorandum shouldof understanding. It benoted accordingthat to sideof on been border the each have associations created separate andsometimes associations legaldisadvantageous situations; asvarious registered Euroregions have non-profit of kinds overcome It was complex or designed to 2012). (European Commission Inforegio organization pushing for evaluating policies dimension. onacross-border implementation organizations for certain and policies, would often be the only of type canbe makeissues. some They decisions on haveto members competences regional and local their context, national the on depending and stages, agenda-setting and formulation roles in 1956).They important problem- of the can play stages policy the (Lasswell process as a policy-shaper, and not a policy-setter as a 1994:71). (Scharpf policy-shaper, andnotapolicy-setter Scharpf applied to the various bodies of the European Union, a Euroregion can also be labeled For an overview of early challenges with the legal measure, see Committee of Regions 2011. While the stages model of policy process isfrequently rejected as being more of a heuristic device than an accurate theory policy actors 17 not policy-makers they can potentially take part in all 9 in the most traditional most inthe 10 Using the terms the Using CEU eTD Collection the Common Representation of the European Region Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino in Brussels, for inspiring these metaphors. these inspiring for Brussels, in Tyrol-Trentino Tyrol-South Region European ofthe Representation Common the 11 heardthose byrelevantpolicymakerslocal, at level. national regional,and European other In make therole to on cantake Euroregion the area, cross-border the to pertaining needs and conflict. of eruptions potential of actors other warn also can it further, analogy the Taking relevance. andhave measures theintensity preferences cross-border potential that Euroregion attitudes of movements.ground its Through political andby representative outreach activities, the it itisdetectfunctionsOften earthquakes,also usedbutmeasure as to to a meter normal intensity, of a movement duration of and FreeDictionary ground” direction, the (The 2012) described using the metaphors of loudspeakersseismographs, anddisplay windows: European program funding. model for how Euroregions involvedshould be in managementthe andimplementation of isnoHowever,standardizedthere 2012). of (Committee Regions the networks transnational It is Commission. European mandatory the and Ministers of Council European the Parliament, European the for is latter localis aEuropean andassembly body governments of anadvisory regions, which to these bodies Regions,Border closely which works in turn Committeewith the of Regionsthe (CoR).The to consult level2002). AttheEuropean they are representedprimarily by Association the of European the (Perkmann policies social and labor in economic, involvement of examples CoRmany also are in twelve butenvironmental al there 2006), et andtourismprotection, (Topaloglou andLord 2012, Deas areas, one of which is I am much obliged to Christian Bidner, District Governor of Kufstein, Austria, and former Head of the Tyrolean Office of The loudspeaker The seismograph be can that functions have Euroregions territories, their within actors policy As in linkages, includeTypical engage areas thatEuroregions policy transport : When ‘movement on the ground’ leads to the identification of gaps of identification the to leads ground’ the on ‘movement When : : A seismograph is an instrument forA seismograph “detecting is instrument recording thean and 18 11 . CEU eTD Collection formalized cooperation initiatives between sub-national authorities located close located toEuropean initiatives between sub-national authorities formalized cooperation are Euroregions asthis: farcan besummarized so approach theoretical essenceof the the 1.4), (section work howEuroregions of enhance understanding to the be can expected membership movingBefore on to membershipthe of Euroregions (section 1.3) andhowan analysis of strategies in border area” a given border (Perkmann 2007b: 867). cross- of context overall the within players important as themselves “establish can they which to do what Perkmann (2007b) refers as to the ‘appropriation of policy space’,i.e. the degree to andas acohesiveregion. population the members to internally and tourists, and investors instance, for for, a destination as externally imageof the Euroregion strengtheningthe thereby Euroregion, andtogether by the showcased territory of localthe forming governments and regions the Euroregions can bebrought Modes ofModes persuasion Channels for exerting influence Table 1. channels for exerting influence and modes of persuasion. itwords, performs advocacy for resources or work policy interventions. Table 1lists potential The fulfillment of these diferent functions influences the capacity of Euroregions capacity functionsthe influencesthe diferent of these The fulfillment The display window How How a Euroregioncanaccess otherpolicyactors and influence : Representations of Representations of symbols assetsavailable and within the 4) 3) 2) 1) D. C. B. A. 19 * Writing statements/resolutions decision-makers; to delegations Sending be raised; to issue the to dedicated conferences or seminars Arranging Commissioning reports on the issue to be raised; Partnerships with non-state actors;organizations; other via representation Indirect power; in people to contacts Within-party Multiple positions of member representatives; CEU eTD Collection than explaining the processes that causeit” (Koff 2007b:12).A critical observer of my research would probably have detected that “it seems thatauthors areforwarding normative judgments concerning the needfor heightened border integration rather 12 2007b:19-20)and atendency regardsuch to positively.a development (Koff in Europe” cooperation levels cross-border of for “deeper general expectation importancethereby ofborders, a decreasethe which generating process, integration seeks to regional the with intertwined closely as seen are They securitization. than rather globalization are borders usuallyseen from perspective of internalthe Euroregions at European Motivation 1.3.1 section. the formation of social capital, the use of which as a core conceptis justified at the end of this impactargue that factors these I with theEuroregional memberswithin territory. other interact of how they participate asan inthe organization, and a Euroregion,they way Euroregion the members join to stay and governments local for themotivation are These research. empirical inthe be crucial will that aspects the define to important is it actors, policy as performance Euroregional and social capital is between establisha link if there seeks to As thedissertation ofEuroregions 1.3 Themembership contested, in this dissertation. (Keating literaturetherefore 1998,Jeffery 2000, Brusis that willbebuilt 2000),andis on, not on multi-level (Marks 1993,Hooghegovernance and Marks 2001) andnew regionalism offered by systems with in literatures and the interpretation governance Europe of the political well fits Euroregions of increasing presence space.The cross-border the to relevant processes ininvolved policy actors of network within abroader actors They are policy borders. This positive attitude towards cross-border cooperation frequently extends to the scholarly community as well. Koff notes 20 12 CEU eTD Collection (Lijphart 1977) . consociations by Arendt Lijphart, who used the term to describe power-sharingconsociations of subnationsin ethnically (Duchacek 1986, 103;Duchacek 1984, 9). This isnot orwithin line linguistically the classical definition of divided societies 13 the process. initial normative assumptions as well. However, that does not mean that those assumptions could not bequestioned later in not arguments. thisthat Note authors’ does these distribution accordingof to Euroregions the asto predictions depicts The table borders. Schengen external became were or that in alongborders and2000swerecreated 1990s thatthe Euroregions numerous account the Source: Blatter 2000:49. Polity: Identity-based Policy: Instrumental Table 2. shown in the lower left box in Table 2, which depicts Blatter’s four ideal types. integration. networks driven bytheideadominated by European is of actor This regional institutions is conveyed by Blatter one of territorially bounded problems occurring (Blatter of out 2000). that The image of cooperation cross-border actual political to integrationandresponding without by following theme offree the trade instrumental primarily being of in terms ‘policy’, by driven was America inNorth cooperation ‘polity’ (identify-based as itscommunity-building) includinggovernmental both – and nongovernmental had actors beenprimarily by driven cooperation inHe arguedthatcross-border – national,on Europe local level and regional and 2000). America and (Blatter North inEurope regions infourempirical cross-border research Blatter followed Duchacek use of inthe ‘consociation’,the term seeing trans-border cooperation confederalist In the next Table (3) I combine the concepts of Newman and Blatter, takinginto combine ofNewmanand Blatter, concepts In thenextTable (3)I the This is alsoemphasized who byJoachimBlatter, in mid the out 1990scarried Ideal types ofcross-border cooperationregimes. Formal politicians Integrators: leading regional Affective symbols CONSOCIATIONS lawyers engineers, Experts: Expertise/rules COMMISSIONS 21 leitmotif Informal associationleaders Mobilizers: party leaders, Values, ideology COALITIONS developers business and economic planners, Urban Brokers: resources material Information, CONNECTIONS consociations, , whereas cross-border 13 increasingly CEU eTD Collection what iswhat perceivedas values isEuropean (e.g.cooperation inherently good). maintaining membershipin includea Euroregion common ethnicity as well as adherence to youbased what shouldin on doaspecific situation. Examples such abasis forjoiningof or appropriateness (local andfollowkey in would actors Europe, therefore driver a governments) later in (section chapter this and1.4.3), arebased ‘camps’ on two of ofmotivation.grounds be out will spelled expectations of leaders. The motivation the regarding these expectations organizations or not. The theory above can be used to construct competing theoretical stay in these whether to later,and not, join and a Euroregion to choicethe whether had local that leaders the of governments perspectives, different tothese to respond powers had decision-making that actors of one type at however, looks, The dissertation approach). (bottom-up how and discourses these were responding to actors consideration which (Newman) paradigm Border Table 3. as ‘filling thegaps’ Commission(European 2012). Inforegio referred to be contexts, national with dealtcannot within regionalthe that or problems policy local responding to asprimarily of European Union Euroregions tothe portrayal correspond Normative explanations into taking not approach, (top-down) macro-level a on based is theory This Interplay between border paradigms andcross-border cooperation leitmotifs. , using the well-known label of March and Olsen (1989) for behavior that isfor behaviorMarch labelthat (1989) well-known andof Olsen , usingthe Globalization Securitization : Following Blatter (2000), identification with a polity is a 22 Euroregions Internal Schengen: most Euroregions few borders: Schengen External Leading idea (Blatter) Polity Euroregions Internal Schengen: few Euroregions most borders: Schengen External Policy logic of logic CEU eTD Collection rational view ofpolicymaking. view rational leading factor,cross-border cooperation constitutes ameans to deviseappropriate solutions. This aligns with atraditional cooperation asa resembles non-rationaldepictions of policy processes (Cohen, March andOlsen 1972, Kingdon 1984) thesense in that 14 motivations. versus normative instrumental of categories 2012b). purpose the of For dissertation,the itis,however, distinguish between enough to the and2012a andMedve-Bálint Svensson 2013, (seeMedve-Bálint external actors or local isinduced and by factors, whether action normative andinstrumental obstacles in to relation and incentives between differentiated further have I Europe Eastern and Central on writings (Topaloglou groundsthe for functional problem-solvingcooperation towards andchallenge-tackling” e.g.“territorial infrequentlyoffers which is academicliterature, expressedcooperation also which ‘filling European the Union gaps’(European Commission Inforegiocalls 2012)and 2003). The second is motivation based on common policy needs, the reason for cooperation from European or national sources dedicated to cross-border cooperation, (grants funding see accessing Perkmann on based motivation is first The setting. border in the incentives myanalysis, (Koff instrumental major between strands2007b:21). In Idistinguish of two rational actors that compete within political and economic systems for various resources” leaders “are political and (Koff 2007b:22), entrepreneurs” of interests short-term the political unlike communitiesnot “border arepolitiesKoff, arebasedon wherepolitical other decisions by As expressed instrumental goals. clear achieving of expectations actupon the governments which follows a It can be added that grant-seeking coalitions may be rational on part of the actors, but still leads to a situation that It would be possible to develop these categories further; for instance, forinwould further; previous It develop these categories be to possible Instrumental explanation solution et al 2012:1). logic of consequences logic of is identified is 14 before theproblem.If, on other the hand, an existing recognized policy problem the is : The main alternative to this is instrumental explanations, instrumental is this to alternative main : The (again March and Olsen 1989), in (againMarchand Olsen 1989), local which 23 CEU eTD Collection Euroregions are essentially are Euroregions is taking place linesalong partisan ornot.Although a Euroregion in itself isa state not actor, directly by those Euroregion. created the of arranged events by itindicates Euroregion, presence the the goingof beyond opportunities framework the within place takes primarily communication if is question Another border. the border only, ifithappens or i.e. equally across wholethe network, Euroregional across also primarily happensbetween members belonging same tothe i.e. national state, side one of the between members, and the empirical question enabling assessment of this is if communication is bonds communicatation of of theexistence An indicator categories. from members different if contribute isnecessary higherif interaction arebonds establishedthere through between can floor’ the members ‘on the that chance the that be expected itcan Likewise, opposite. the than organization the within capital social of levels higher indicates in time point certain ifitrelied can upon Nonetheless, be havingthat called. membersmore expected a active at be might category third or second in the those development, ininstitutional part take few is evenifjust Moreover, a atstake. and on dependingboth who holding issues office on the contributing agendathe Euroregion to the apolicy of as actor. thereby approach, strategic with a events and meetings attend regularly members that active possibilities, butwithouta strategic objective fortheirmembership. Finally,they can alsobe isinformation in of ‘whatget on’ terms going on to meetings and events attend regularly who listeners be may They in person. than in writing rather information receive and events or in meetings participating rarely i.e. bedetached, may They ways. in different Euroregions of interaction Local thataremembers governments can of inthe lifeEuroregions organizational participate and Participation 1.3.2 A further lineinquiry of in participation relation andto is interaction whether discussion These categories are not static; members can change their engagement over time democratic political 24 policy actors, since most members arelocal since most actors, policy CEU eTD Collection been ill-defined. Below I will first give examples of earlier usage of social capital in cooperation,in which conceptthe of social -whencapital ithas been applied -hasfrequently capital will offer social 1990)of understandinga Coleman-based (Coleman argue that in Iwill Euroregions a valuableunderstanding organizational Fortheanalysisperformance. local of involvementgovernment contributionbetter for path a promising is relations inter-institutional and inter-human of recombination to the literature and via combination the canbecreated resources that possibility The authority. legal-political on with borderlandsinstitutions joint lack which settings, in borderland use to attractive concept the makes andThat variation. explain cross-bordersufficiently not do institutions, political classical as such factors, other where developments and phenomena understand us help can capital social how on capital. theory social in broader of the will to be relation used institutional social capital capital the – affect interaction and participation motivation, – outlined above aspects The three social Institutional 1.3.3 depolitisization. and consensus-seeking of climate organizational is internal if an surface,there or to allowed are opinions different and partisanship on whether depends this However, resources. over such as ones potentials coulddeal be beexpected to wellequipped to with inherent conflictual policy with problems spectrum than rather as adichotomy. Euroregion’s Duetothe composition of politicians they and canbe that blurredpublic (Ostrander 1987:7), is andprivate seen as a increasingly line private between and the in that public perspectives, modern governance thereby of typical andgovernments in represented regions, Euroregions officials. byelected are Euroregions A rich body of knowledge has been accumulated over a relatively short period of time of aims of defininghow this andthissection concept Euroregions, at 25 CEU eTD Collection there is no simple way to tell how close someone has to be to the border to be border-close. be to border the to be to has someone close how tell to way simple no is there the combined population.It is worth noting that they do notproblematize whatconstitutes one “side” of the border, although 15 capital social of maximization access or the hinder even might Euroregion the fact, capital. In levels of within-group social across borderthe (Grix andKnowles 2003:158). capital relations to latter the and seemcountry, in one municipalities to among networks limitofficial or personal the development of between-groupsocial capital. Theformer refers stocksto of social capital on either side of border,the such as social Especially isuseful their between social distinction within-group capital and between-group theinvestigation socialand structures. of context advocates instead Putnam 2000) and trust, on results survey or associations of number turnout, voter as such proxies measuring studying social (by capital to approach Putnam’s quantitative adirectstance against takes article The primarily. asset collective a as capital social see they that means which relations, Knowles 2003:154),whereas levelthe social of iscapital determined by quality the these of and (Grix actors” between interaction of product “the as capital social define Knowles and use. Grix to iteasier make and capital social level of the increase both i.e. capital, social of maximization and accessibility the improve to potential the with organization bridging 2003 essayEuropa Viadrina analyzing the Euroregion Polish-German borderPro atthe asa to behandled precision and care. with needs concept the how highlights Each of these threetexts. will I review studies, borderlands In order to demonstrate Social 1.3.3.1 in capital literature on and the borderlands relations cross-border that it is possible to capital. deploysocial social capital in the widerdebates borderlands studies,on relation to before positioning the dissertation as a conceptual tool in Thedefinition of group simple is in their account; ‘group’ refers to residentthe population on either sideof the borderor Arguably mostthe important piece isof work Jonathan Grix and Vanda Knowles’ 26 15 Importantly, they suggest that the low CEU eTD Collection manifestation of bridging social capital. Further, he points out that the tight links between tight the that out points he Further, capital. social bridging of manifestation immaterial an and a concrete be both to the river Hedeclares contact’. of ‘point a times other at and divergence’, of ‘force a being sometimes own, its of anagency with object boundary a of River canserveinvestigation Torniothe as theory inhis hewhether actor-network uses Instead trust’. stocks of ‘generalized aggregate capture to useof surveys the rejects therefore ininteractions, exists Finnish border.Ratherthanbeing Häkli personal and trust disposition, a Swedish- the at River Tornio the along cooperation cross-border to relation in it analyzes be to the keycomponentcapital,social of Häkli trust and (2009) considers capital Jouni trans-boundary social incapital Bavaria, whichmakes it adependent variable. little has added cooperation Euroregional the that writes also she However, capital. social of accomplishments Euroregionthe partly can beexplained byinsufficientlevels and use of and meager state weak the intervening as variable, variablean independent and be to is said capital Social performance. explain can governance regional and institutionalism actor-centered of theory the inwith combination which background as atheoretical capital since cross-border cooperationthan being “cooperation among localities”, a definition that brings forward a risk of tautology, is also thesocial capital objectchange throughout the text. It is not operationalized of or definedstudy. in terms other At ininsufficientinvestment social formation.capital one Unfortunately, role andmeaning the of point,in and capital shesocial existing of lack in the portrayssought is activity of lack this for explanation social level The Via characterizes as havingalow Deppisch 2008:78). Salina of (Deppish action Salina. Via Euroregion in Austrian-German the cooperation level of and process governance socialof evenwithin-group capital or rivalry between local encouraging actors. by focusingexclusively between-group social too on capital, the development andneglecting If Grix and Knowles, as well as Deppisch, concentrate on the network aspect of social of aspect network the on concentrate asDeppisch, well as Knowles, and If Grix Sonja Deppisch (2008) partlybuilds on Grix in and Knowles herinvestigation of the 27 CEU eTD Collection social capital the helpingcreate couldbe seen as across borders and groups networks working existence of concrete results in terms ofinvestments orphysical development. On the other hand, the mere of lack the to point might “Detractors regionalism: transnational of contributions governance development” (J.W. Scott2003:150).also on comments difficultythe in assessing the describes local whatScott as good, as and regional a “primary of goal regarded something (O’Dowd 2003:24,my such emphasis). In is social writings, capital often uncritically their home communities duelessto time without there spent this beingoffset bynew cross- form of labor commuting might be harmful for individuals’ networks and trust relationships in in the regions border of increased integration economic that Sophie Bouwen’s observation and ‘hard’ economic outcomes, rather than on ‘soft factors’ like factors’ than ‘soft rather on outcomes, and economic ‘hard’ fallsoften of short rhetoric.the It reveals […] excessive emphasis on physical infrastructure reality the that clearly shows cooperation cross-border existing of analysis “Close comments: border cooperation. cross- describing socialin be apart, mentioned whenanalyzingor or tore passing can capital A quote by Liam regimes border of socialstricter enforcements past O’Dowd that capital beenmadeto have references might be seenmay works, academic In other jigsaw. larger analytical beasmallerof piece a sometimes capital social asthat typicalemphasized be should it but discussion, forof forefront the theseat – trust kinds of to trust-building. flooding of unregulatedthe river have made the intoa river ‘bridge’ inwhich itself contributes mitigate borderlanders’the and to fabric”the efforts social political However, (ibid:237). leaving “the achieved transnational landscape hangingin airthe deeper […]without rootingin thereby populations, local the between trust or links by matched been not have officials References to the potential dark sides of social capital References potential the An much darksides capital social to is of are exception rarer. The three reviewed texts put social putits The three reviewed texts key and –networks capital two components ” (J.W. Scott 2003:136, my emphasis). 28 social capitalandtrust ” CEU eTD Collection other peopleother andauthorities Compared toColeman(Putnam his1993). focus is more on civil capital,by he which meant density combined networks of social with degree the in of trust social of stock in the variations by explained be could in Italy development regional how and (Colemanactors Putnam amongin actors” 1988:S98). his the utilized studies of concept “unlike other forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structures of relations between non-divisible andthat stated acollective capital 1986), Coleman arguedthatsocial good, was (Bourdieu capital of types other with in combination this resource to access disproportional reproducing contributes to social asmembers havedivisions privilegedclasseswouldthe of generally that aresource asset, individual as an capital saw social Bourdieu Whereas found. be can concept the to references if earlier even Putnam, D. Robert and Coleman James The conceptof ‘foundingfathers’-social tothree iscapital Bourdieu, Pierre usually attributed capital Key social on 1.3.3.2 debates research empirical the during be explored to expectations theoretical forward put to and above, mentioned issues the about clear is which model, a theoretical construct to be used then will This these. to relation in dissertation the and position sparked, ithas debates the and social capital of concept expectations. In order clearstate theoretical not anddid elaboration, or justification without capital social to avoid that, I will as different ownersgroups of variable to dependent referred research, the independent of or provide a background is the social capital clarify whether to failed frequently have scholars studies borderlands to the development of the Knowles) without increasing stocks of between-group social capital. decreasedof social stocks within-group capital (to usetheterminology by suggested and Grix cause might actually commuting) integration (cross-border for cross-border ‘good’ considered are generally ispracticesHer argumentbonds that that 2004). (Bouwens therefore border The review of these texts demonstrate that when social capital has been used in has whenused been social that capital demonstrate texts The review of these 29 CEU eTD Collection (Putnam 2000:338). acquiring “habits of cooperation and public-spiritedness, as well as the practical skills necessary to partake in public life” anis internal capacity-building mechanism residing in the individuals that engage incivic engagement, resulting in their through associations thatin neo-Toquevillian fashion are assumed to lend the represented views a‘clearer shape’.The second information,when people freely express their demands on government, and these demands andinterests are channeled mechanisms. The first is a mechanism that is external to the individual and that consists of improved16 flows of political governance good to contribute may etc.) associations, in (membership engagement civic of form the in capital social while production and of reproduction social, in andpolitical economic power borderlands. Likewise, general the on ismotivated research before relations, internal external and organizations’ cooperation in requires moreregarding Euroregions theoretical development these Putnam’s focus on civic engagementholds significantanalytical promise. focus The on (Putnam 2000). between actors relations than the rather associations, of importance the and participation fits the two-level approach of this dissertation. this of approach two-level the fits a Euroregional(e.g. examinationthe internalorganization) through system the of processes to systems social of explanation for advocacy Coleman’s hand, other the On inquiry. later a be Trigilia’s comment on Coleman’s work. Carlo from is anabbreviation taken therefore book theon and definition theory, social inindoes not express his definition his thissuccinctly, the article either 1988 seminal 1990 or any givenmoment use of make can collective subject According to Putnam, socialcapital contributes to a well-working democracy (and good governance) by two parallel For the purpose of the dissertation neither the class-based perspective of Bourdieu nor Bourdieu of perspective class-based the neither dissertation the of purpose the For Following Coleman, I see social capial as capial social see I Coleman, Following part of system.”(Coleman the 1990:2) maycomponent beparts institutions withinthatare orsubgroups the systems are individuals of that in system.the caseis prototypical parts The that which component the internal thesystem,involvingto its component parts, orunits ata level below who“Explanation of the behavior of social systems entailsare examining processes members of the social system. In other cases the 16 in the borderlands (as well as in other settings), that should that settings), in other as well (as borderlands in the 30 a set of social relations of whichor a asingle social relationsof set of a . It should here be noted that Coleman CEU eTD Collection McLean,Schultz and Steger 2002. 17 on manyon grounds, more than bein exploredcan thissection. linking social is capital often portrayed as normatively preferable. dark side capital” of social (Baron, whereas Fieldand 2002:10-11), Schuller bridging and 2009, Woolcock 2001,Mayoux 2001). Bonding social hascapital often been portrayed as“the peopleinstitutionsconnections to thathave formal or (Dahal informal or Adhikari andpowers such isit Thelatter professional heterogeneous groups. similar,shouldas differentbut be community.2002:26). Bridginglinking and both capital social emphasize links immediate outside the The first and Sweetser kinship)” topeople like“connections you (Woolcock (family, relatives, refershomogeneous to socialnetworks thatexample are morenetworks or less difficultis capital. Bonding social capital refers toties inexisting – closed networks frequently the thecited for outsidersinmafiasocial linking and bridging bonding, or between todistinction is the join.common most The between take. may or It canother be simply criminalgroups that dissertation. in this gang, Euroregion the as such enterprises are but collective i.e. systems, sociallysocial itwell-functioning to contribute to expected is canColeman just as information,well be other typesand normative of resources such as trust) whereby social capital according to commenton three points of criticism. For critical essays on social capital in general, see essays in Baron, Field and Schuller 2000. For criticism on Putnam, see The use of social capital as an explanatory factor in social sciences has been criticized capital social forms that different to the maderespect with have been claims Numerous This Triglia quote parsimoniouslyThis themechanisms captures (cognitiveTriglia quote resources such as 2001:430). realizedwhich or becould only obtained ata much higher (Trigilia cost.” benot otherwise would which torealize objectives –allowsuch actors trust as resources normative or as information –such resources cognitive relations, make usecan public) or (either private subject a collective or aworker) entrepreneur or at any given“a setmoment. of Through social the availability relations of this capital of of which a single subject (for instance, an 31 17 I will,however, briefly CEU eTD Collection cross-border regionalism be cross-border will apart of empiricalthe (see section 1.3.2). investigation in discourses theissue of de-politicized in since intodissertation, account the bewill taken redistribution zero-sum resources, of political trade-offs, and class-based power.This point povertyde-politicizein by poorcountries developmentholdingfor communities their responsible own ( by hegemonic powerexercised institutions suchas global Worldthe Bank (Harriss 2001),to development. further for resource alatent create would capital ofsocial theory the to according local governments of representatives between political patterns dense communication that section, where is model mainthe the research the presented, claim guiding is this of section inthenext this on elaborate further Iwill While from effect. cause distinguishing analytically second function, of isonedimension helpsEuroregional addressthis itcomeswhen to socialdifferentiation andbetween-group between within-group but that the capital, where is the: that reinforce, seeks to dissertation which Coleman’s response, this interaction and networks. social in of interested questions this dissertation will assume that cross-border social capital social cross-border that assume will dissertation this be in be1.4, need an As will not section seen to does problem. analytical clearly this applied is concept the as long as However, governance. good or development as such phenomena of asanoutcome for and asboth a precondition is capital presented in which social capital, A third point of criticism is that social capital has been deliberately used by aneo-liberal by used deliberately been has capital social that is criticism of point A third The first is that there is nothing ‘new’ with social capital; social science has always been The second point is that there is an element of circularity in much theory on social on theory much in circularity of element is an there is that point second The than than can beused by actors the to realizeinterests” their (Coleman 1990:305). as resources actors, to structure of social aspects of those value is the capital' identified by The function appearance, andconstruction. concept'social the form, in differences disregarding function, their by objects physical certain identifies 'chair' just concept asthe by function, their structure of social itaspects certain identifies lies infactthat the primarily concept of “value the they should create more socialcapital they shouldcreate 32 ) and by obfuscating issuessuch as is mutually reinforcing (circular), reinforcing mutually CEU eTD Collection cross-border cooperation between sub-national authorities. sub-national between cooperation cross-border of functions and performance the on literature the to contribute is to capital, of social concept The investigatingmembershipof purpose the local governmentEuroregions, using of the performance Euroregional 1.4 Understanding area. border of whole the social capital the former refers to social capital on one side of the border, whereas the latter refers to the anthropologists and political scientists. Below, I have made a narrow selection of relevant of selection narrow a made have I Below, scientists. political and anthropologists scientists, political economists, by geographers, hasexamined been borders national across between distinction Grix and Knowles namely cooperation, cross-border on literature from the taken distinction one rely on will also in futureon research,dueto limitations.time Inthemodel andresource in section next the I capital as a collective asset might not matter as well,but the role of these will have to be taken performance. not This meandoes individual that population-levelsocial capital, or social and function Euroregion to Euroregions, in part taking governments) (local authorities of relation the investigate I andinthedissertation moment, any given make of can use collective subject by 1990, interpreted I defineTrigilia 2001), of it as set social of relations which a a single or Coleman on growing reviewborderlands literature literature Drawing(1988, above). on (see in the little attention have received (interaction-based) approach this and governments) type (local actor Euroregions. This most basis of the constitute that governments local among the patterns interaction and motivation, participation may from emerge that cross-border social and economic integration, and probably on social-economic development, although that is outside the outside is that although development, scope of this study.social-economic on probably and integration, economic and social cross-border 18 In dissertation, the well-performing and well-functioning Euroregions areinturn assumed to have apositive impact on To sum up the argument so far: social capital is a convenient shorthand for the resource the for shorthand convenient a is capital social far: so argument the up sum To institutional social capitalas institutional a collectiveasset within-group 33 and , i.e. the joint social capital of public between-group 18 Cooperation and interaction social capital, where capital, social CEU eTD Collection differences related(large) but itis not economic similarities, “since likely fail markets are to labor cross-border to the existence of borders mentionedby integrated study Europeanpolicies (2004)arguedthat Bouwens topromote that seem to causeabove- the example, For conditions. economic different with areas between ‘friction’ creating cross-border commuting” can bea of borders same at the but dynamism- source mobility,time and economic activity increased to lead barriers can removed economic cohesion; cross-border for predictions opposing two make can theory economic that fact is the group one into approaches economic of bundling rational- vanHoutum’s against However, anargument 1990). andMartinez inefficientwhich leads sub-optimalto or spaces(seealso Hansen economic 1977 and1986 (Lösch marketin2000) invan borders are“distortions1940:205,cited networks” Houtum the assumption of how humans behave. are Borders seen as hindering ‘free flowing’ and state distinct rationality-based notion to it with ‘ with it to notion rationality-based distinct Of these, first the and the third will be used identify to factors importance.of approach’. people and‘the cooperation approach’ ‘cross-border the ‘flow the cited: approach’, van Houtum (2000) distinguishing between threetheoretical strands has of debate been widely studies matter (Jukarainenbutby a conceptual onthis andarticle theory-building Henk 2006), institutionalization. performance long-term for viability may and their influence aswell increase, chances caused as what this Euroregional As the number of Euoregions has grown rapidly, discussions have alsointensified on what has influencing Factors 1.4.1 function. contributions, which help independent identify variables that canexplain performance and The ‘flow approach’ is linked to classical and neoclassical economics and has a has and economics neoclassical and classical to linked is approach’ ‘flow The case of abundance an between a disconnect is there Jukarainen, by out pointed As Homo Economicus’ Homo 34 as both the role model and model role the both as CEU eTD Collection equally equally ‘well off’ butdepend on different sectors (services, industry, etc). 19 similarity refers to is variable first the Hence, Euroregions. of the performance willingness communicate across to which border, the beforwould function inhibiting the and and levels trust influence negatively would that tensions cause would levels economic to which ofclear is not as While literature the impacting cooperation. be afactor likely to is area therefore these could in homogeneity a border or heterogeneity Economic between levels countries. socio-economic be the is expected significantly varies What variable. independent an not is in itself that therefore and to further cooperation, acatalystfor cooperation. or either animpediment I as inbeThus, cohesion argue aborderlandinterpreted economic can (Bouwens 2004:148-149). that differences in safer to state that favorable, as itmeans control over more policies at local and region level,it is therefore even (see alsoHerrschel While it can be2011:171). assumeddecentralization in that is general werekey similar countries inthecooperating and furthermore that systems factor, a favorable inwas general founddecentralization that and system (2003) of administrative importance the Hooper 2004, Strassoldo1982, Newman 2003 and Jessop2002. Kramsch and andWever2003, work includes Anderson relevant people Other approach’). will cooperationfacilitate (this is studied by scholars within what van Houtum labeled ‘the culture, that ashavingasimilar languageandidentify themselves speak thesameorsimilar if side border ofthe words: peopleoneach the other In proximity. effect of cultural-linguistic the thirdvariable.the Note that this concept does not refer to differences or similarities in terms of economic sectors. Two economies can be The permeability of the border is a relatively constant factor across most of Europe Administrative settings have received less attention, but Perkmann did test for the for test did Perkmann but attention, less received have settings Administrative Another factor that draws both upon literature and common-sense is the favorable is the common-sense and literature upon both draws that factor Another politico-administrative similarity in terms of the level of economic development (GDP). 35 constitutes a favorable condition, which is economic homogeneity, economic 19 which CEU eTD Collection causes and consequences. causes and (Figure 1)of Euroregional function and can performance indicatingbe assembled, its both communities. at if this is preceded by alsolooks It relates toorganizational performance. similar howthat investigates and dissertation the endowments of capital, socialsocial levels of higher indicates participation andactive contacts close interact; they capital in domestic Euroregions. Itassesseslocal why and how local governments engage in andEuroregions, how government make upthe members that local of government the resources the at specifically variable, 2007b:28) areas where supranational initiatives are present whereas itsucceeds in places where such strategies areabsent?” (Koff 20 workefficiently underanycircumstances. to expected micro-regions couldnot be to speakofcross-border Euroregions, outside Europe, not Slovenian-Italian the or Spanish-French, the Polish-German, the at located factor Euroregions explanatory as homogeneitynetworks economic affinity, and cultural-linguistic of level administrativethe expect to naïve be would it Still, institutional local similaritiesAdding 1.4.2 to predict how Euroregions can perform. If so, Thelimitation of conditionsexternal asexplanatory factors waspointedout Koff in 2007, asking why “integration fails in Based on in buildingblocksthe presented and section, the addingsocial capital, amodel asa byfocusingstudy networks literature on tothe contributes This dissertation 36 20 CEU eTD Collection contains a two-dimensionalwhich dependent highlights variable mutually the reinforcing heldby sub-national localdomestic governments as On a group. output-sidethe model the design research andmethods. development. It should be andeconomic homogeneity contexts, noted that case selectionsimilarity may control for these, see Chapter 2 on development: cultural-linguistic proximity conditions favorable for cross-border cooperation (formalized in Euroregion), integration and asknown aredepicted factors three section, in previous the As outlined side. output to ‘speak the same language’ in its metaphorical both and literal sense, political-administrative The model includes institutionalalso within-group social i.e.capital, social capital The model’s vertical line emphasizes the main distinction between the input and the and input the between distinction main the emphasizes line vertical model’s The Figure 1. referring to the actors operating within broadly similar politico-administrative similar broadly within operating actors the to referring Model ofhypothesized relationship. , referring to broadly similar levels of economic of levels similar broadly to referring , , which refers , which to possibilitythe involvedof actors 37 CEU eTD Collection and interaction of andinteraction local inof governments Euroregions. questions (hypothesis-generation). research into the refine relation and theory build I willbut seekto also hypothesis-testing), in that notlimit dissertation the I do myself examining to these expectations(i.e.theoretical thatwillbe it of infocus theoretical study.expectations shouldbe the However, emphasized With and reviewedliterature the thesuggested model inspell is mindit some to possible out expectations Theoretical 1.4.3 social association between between-group expected capital and Euroregional performance. socialit an while isavoidsbetween-group reasoning, recognizing tautological that capital by dashed line), as is the possibility that economic heterogeneity would impact integration. (population-level social is capital). latter The thescope of outside study presentthe (indicated economic development and integration, and alsolead to peaceful relationssocio- among inhabitants overall influence to expected turn in are two These intensity. cooperation border institutional cross- social and capital (between-group) between trans-national the connection governments’ motivation for joiningandmaintaininggovernments’ based membershipinaEuroregion motivation for is 3. 2. 1. For each of these statements rivaling hypotheses can be formulated: (1b) formulated: be can hypotheses rivaling statements these of each For The first set consists of rivaling expectations related to the motivation, participation and between of The advantage model the within-group differentiation and the governments. The existence ofastateborderaffects significantly communication local between cooperationwithin thenationalstate. Cross-border draws cooperation increased ontheexperienceof inter-municipal Euroregion is based primarily onnormative identity-basedincentives. joiningandmaintainingmembership ina Local governments’ motivationfor 38 Local CEU eTD Collection performance. membership of a majority Euroregions, andof of refine measurements Euroregional the constitute that local governments of the andpriorities interests the on details capital, give by furtherknowledge betweenmotivation addtotheory onthe social adding andrelation researchis the expectedto examining expectations, In addition conditions exists. to these as: bespelledout cantherefore expectations intensity. is cross-bordersocial cooperation with inturn capital, associated which The affect border doescommunicationbetween localgovernments not significantly further cross-border cooperation between local goverments capital is therefore that within-group social capital serves as a implemented Euroregion. The theoreticalWe expectation of the in between links general study local representing governments). people, people (creating this role of different forms of social in goal tothe of Euroregions can berelated isthat social something capital Between-group beshould added. tautology andpossibly circularity about Again,a fewwords causality. primarilyinstrumental on incentives 5. 4. should For both, For rivalingthe hypotheses would simply benoassociation that between these The second set of expectations relates to the second research question, which includes to which question, secondresearch the relates of The secondexpectations set Euroregion’s cross-border cooperation intensity. withmembers isassociated a communication intensitybetweenEuroregional organizational In performanceofEuroregions. otherwords, highcross-border A highlevelof institutional between-group capitalis associated social with high networks increase strong the local likelihood for transnational networks. institutional between-group social capital.Inotherwords, strong local domestic A highlevelinstitutional within-group social capital isassociated with ahighlevel of therefore find between-group social social is there capital between-group finda successfully where therefore ; (2b): Domestic intermunicipal cooperationdoes not Domestic intermunicipal 39 ; (3b): precondition The existenceofastate for between-group . CEU eTD Collection controlled for. controlled dissertation, focusing on howwell. as key variablesand look will not althoughoutside Europe much cooperationcross-border is taking place there will be assessed, authorities, regional on not asmembers,and willgovernments onlocal focus It performance. and howcapital social the otherof the borderlanders,investigate i.e. it the population livingdoes in these areas, and the effect neither that mightvariables have on actors, individual of capital social the investigate are model that brings this together and will guide the research. resource of the community assetsdepending andcan bewithin-group between-group itis into divided on the whether on one side of the border outhowstudyingpointed motivation, and participation interaction add uptosocialor capital that across it, and it finally Itmembership network. latentin local resources missing,the been largely government the suggested a has that for aperspective shorthand auseful as social capital of theory identified the It then explain be cannot variance. expected to whythese all impact performance, whileemphasizing are mapfactors knownto that cooperation to the out oncross-border literature specialized andmulti-level Itthen utilized governance. networks policy on within literature the study the situated decades. This chapter pasttwo innumbersover dramatically the increased border cooperation organizations between sub-national authorities (Euroregions), which have The introduction established relevance the knowledge the of adding to onthelocal cross- 1.5 Conclusion In the next chapter I will move on to the research design and methodology of the of methodology and design research the to on move will I chapter next the In not does It do. not does dissertation the what chapter this from clear be should It 40 CEU eTD Collection the preceding chapter andwill precedingthe chapter give the readeradeeperunderstanding of topic.the in given information the complements chapter this of content the way, this In do. they what areand Euroregions what these on light shedbut additional also should account, technical However, it is also an such operationalizations. and caseselection as elements detail crucial and Itherefore intended secondary effect that this endeavor2009:54). should not be merelyselectedfor astopredict“contrasting2009:46) anticipatable but results (Yin reasons” a an chose I theory-driven, still Aswas inquiry the best option. bethe to (Yin appeared evident” 2009:18), notclearly are context and phenomenon between boundaries the when especially context, real-life its within and in depth phenomenon contemporary a investigates that inquiry empirical “an as Yin by relying on qualitative datawasimperative. The use of casestudy the definedresearch method, some limited, wouldtherefore beinstitutions. and extent to of value quantitative data The as Euroregions on the data noaccumulated virtually was there andthat say least, to the regionswere patchy, ingeneral on cross-border statistical data that knew I also language, and and access as resources, issues such bypractical wasconstrained my of questions set answer adequately to possibility the Iknewthat be context-dependent. also Euroregions would within these I assumed andoperations theprocesses 1), that (seeChapter performance were likely from functioning and literature that efficient tobe factors the to conducive project from its onset to its completion, each having its own difficulties.While I had identified landscape? governance What is the best way to investigate a new type of political institution in the European The primary aim of this chapter is to be transparent as to how I conducted this study, C HAPTER Methodological concerns by necessity accompany any any dissertation accompany bynecessity concerns Methodological embedded multiple-case design embedded multiple-case 2: R ESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS 41 with multiple units of analysis (Yin analysis of units multiple with CEU eTD Collection 21 in the be should involved authorities sub-national is cooperation itmeansnamely thatcross-border what include private andnon-privateactors, locatedclose to aborder in two ormore countries ( parts a Euroregion of my of especially dependsdefinition of two ontheinterpretation turn, howmany know necessary and to there are, wheresuch Euroregions in This,located. they are its ‘Euroregions’. developmentthe removingtowards borders as namelyobstacles hasgonefurthest, and Europe focusedproject. onapartof Instead, world itthe where aimswas beyond the current the of it endeavor, besurely arewarding would anddifferences commonalities for compare these categorize and to While high. an effort beencompassing very would thenumber authorities, would bein thousands.the Even formalizedwe only when count between cooperation public The of universe cases ofinstitutionalized cross-border of cooperation structures any kind ofcases 2.1 Selection records from the database of the Association of European Border Regions Border European of Association the of database from the records ‘The Working Community of Danube Countries’, ‘The Nordic Council of Ministers’ and the are structures thereby excluded (examples of cross-border continent European the of portions sizable span might that Communities Working of form inthe cooperation cross-border scale large- This listdetails dataset. contained also the contact into andsecretariat address website covered, area region, in the inhabitants of number establishment, of year national), regional, basic oncountries of members incorporated type (local, facts covered, onlineI sources of (2006)resultingPerkmann DeasandLord (2003) and in alistof 190 organizations. Using formalized cooperationformalized between sub-national authoritiesinEurope, extended frequently to Used with the permission of AEBR president Martin Guillermo-Ramirez (2009). For the research aims in general and the case-selection process in particular itis in particular process andthe case-selection ingeneral research aims For the Starting from inclusivean interpretation a I constructed dataset of Euroregions merging 42 proximit formalized y of a border. and what it means that the 21 with the listings the with ), CEU eTD Collection conditions derived from the definition. They should be: understanding of cross-border cooperation. relations. According to my definition there needs to be membership from at least two countries, which isthe usual 22 kind of legal entity). thisthat notrequire requirementdoes the organization that bebased onany should specific independence (i.e. not being projects or short-term spin-offs from regional agencies, but note in 2009, Ididnot include organizations established 2004),and after organizational The thresholds Iselected for this was a 5-year cut-off point (i.e. as the case selection was done minimal formationhave independent(the history. institutional of anorganization) andto a formalized Ideemedit that must have a formal institutionalagreement towards independence cross-borderalthough listingPerkmann’s (ibid.) differentiating between ‘integrated’ and ‘emerging’micro regions served as a 200 km a border. proximity to good startingin a50- areas covering usually regions’ cross-border as ‘micro to is referred Perkmann (2003) point. by what initiativesincluded only macroand Iexcludedsuch firststep asa participation, In order for and involvementinvestigate localof patterns AsIintended to ‘Carpathian Euroregion’). an organization to be Some listings in the AEBR database were also excluded because of being uni-lateral initiatives for improving cross-border improving for initiatives uni-lateral of being because excluded also were database AEBR the in listings Some To qualify for consideration casesas the Euroregions should several fulfill scope The second step involved interpreting formalization, which is harder to pin down, pin to harder is which formalization, interpreting involved step second The x x x x institutional history; i.e.by timeat the established2004, of selection havecase (2009) afive-year profit actors, located actors, profit frequentlynationalin Europe, extendedtoincludeauthorities private andnon- micro comprehensivethe term in is these used for project the Euroregions; the universe of cases is comprised of is cases comprised of universe the cross-border region and not large Working Communities; 22 Tosum up, close to aborder in two ormore countries, 43 formalized cooperation between sub- between cooperation CEU eTD Collection systems, so that the differences would be higher or lower than for another Euroregion along Euroregion another for than lower or be higher would differences the that so systems, economic partly separate constitute that may Euroregions of besmall cases there clear that economic activity of a lagging level the of approach can weakcountry in an otherwise region ina region particular growth region on the other side, anda is that possible It difficult. border same along the between Euroregions thedifferentiation other way around. It is also regionallow level pre-existing and ofindividual that knowledge madeEuroregional cases respectively. systems, political-administrative unitary or federal in 2008, GDP national understand ability the minority majorityto languageor ‘other’ side on the of border, the yet I usedrelativeindicators territorial intuitive, to assign values: crude,but governing). of in terms (similarity similarity politico-administrative and development), economic in (similarity homogeneity economic ties), historical and linguistic (ethnic, proximity’ ‘cultural-linguistic factors: as facilitating reviewhadidentified literature the that factors assuch. make judgmentprocedure of the is to acritical reader the invited context, this meanssection by no a final constitute orshould ‘truth’ be used as evidence in any other in presented tables the that mind in Bearing justified. was time-investment certain a hence and (me), investigator the of knowledge-building the asto well as selection, case the of validity the to adds assessment superficial a even time same the At needed. been have would that source secondary extensiveuseof primary tothe reducednumberof forand 91 cases,due the constraint, since a detailed,nuanced and fully accurate assessment wouldnotbe possible even resource containedaserious The nextstep variables. independent assessingof the process clarify conditions to scope of andlistthefor universe the wasanecessary cases preparation One weakness of the indicators is that the data was inferred from national rather than rather national from was inferred data is the that indicators of the One weakness ‘low’)value for or the (‘high’ adichotomous assigned each First,case of 91was the This ina comprisingresulted reduced dataset 91caseslistedinAnnex A. Thesetting of x organizationally independent with a long-term mission,i.e. notproject-based; 44 CEU eTD Collection legal decentralization differ widely. differ legal decentralization cooperate with a significantly should state devolved) in (or federal a a region as when such majormismatches, refers to weaker region asymmetry clarify, in administrative To grey. systems administrative disparate cases with of a unitary state andcultural-linguistic homogeneity, cases economic andhighlights the proximity accordingto or when levels of fiscal based onthe created from workdescribedtablethe in sorts resulting section. It previous the and 4was Table above. variables three onthe other each resemble that from cases selecting used due to its logical appeal and potential to aid inductive theory-building in social sciences. is Whilethemethodresearch. it is2005:153-179), debated(seeGeorge and widely Bennett playby mimicking arehenceestablishedassumed experimental to a role. Relationships be can study the variable If is butthe different, outcome one. in similar are every respect that Design) -datingleast back until at mandating John StuartMill (1865) – the selection cases of Similar Systems known as the Most (also technique of Difference’ ‘Method the of technique caseselection well-known the to according wereselected They studies. include ascase for PhDprojects.studies undertaken case-based small-N many other than for replication and open more transparent was also Thenumber allow includedenough high for some procedure of is to error. cases degree of large the that argue still I cases, in some values assigned wrongly to rise given has likely The samethe While very same border. maybe saidfor proximity. this cultural-linguistic In the context of the dissertation project in focus in this paper, the method implies in method paper,the in focus this of project In dissertation the context the to Euroregions final which of the selection wasthebasisfor of 91cases The table the 45 CEU eTD Collection

Note: Note: shadingGrey indicates differences in political-administrative systems. N=91 High economic homogeneity Low economic politico-administrative similarity Table 4. homogeneity Duna (Hídver Ister-Granum Euroregio HU/SK Irish Central BorderArea Network - ICBAN GB/IE Ipoly Euroregion HU/SK Inn-Salzach-Euregio AU/DE Hochrheinkommission CH/DE Hajdu-Bihar-Bihor Euroregio HU/SK Grensekomiteen Østfold –Värmland SE/NO Gränskommitten Østfold- Bohuslän/Dalsland SE/NO Euroregion Siret-Prut-Nistru MD/RO Euroregion Sesupe LT/PL/RU Euroregion Sajo - Rima - Slaná -RimavaHU/SK Zemplen Euroregion HU/SK Transmanche Euroregion BE/FR/UK Tornedalsradet FI/SE Region Insubrica CH/IT Oresundskomiten SE/DK North West Region Cross BorderGroup GB/IE Lille Eurometropole franco-belge FR/BE Duna-Hídver HU/SK Euroregio videk Euroregion Podunajsky Trojspolok / Harmas Duna- CH/DE/FR Euroregion Oberrhein (Trirhena plus Pamina) Euroregion Nemunas -Niemen-Hemah BY/LT/PL/RU Euroregion Ipel HU/SK Euroregion Evros -Meric - Maritsa BG/TR/GR Euroregion Delta - Rhodopi BG/GR Euroregion Country of Lakes - Ezeru Zeme BY/LV/LT Euroregion Bug PL/BY/UA Euroregion Bile-Biele-Karpaty CZ/SK Euroregio Neogradiensis HU/SK Europaregion Tirol AU/IT Euregio Zugspitze-Wetterstein-Karwendel AU/DE AU/DE ViaSalina Euregio Euregio TriRhena CH/DE/FR Euregio Steiermark - AU/SISlowenien AU/DE Euregio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein Euregio Pskov-Livonia EE/LV/RU Euregio Inntal AU/DE East Border Region Committees GB/IE Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza Euroregion HU/RO Conseil du LemanCH/FR region rhone alpes CH/FR Comite regional franco-genevois-canton de geneve Arko Cooperation SE/NO (West-Pannon Region') HU/AT Hungarian-Austrian Cross-border Regional Council Euregio Helsinki-Tallinn FI EE ih‘utrl–igitcpoiiy Low High ‘cultural-linguistic ‘cultural proximity’ –linguistic proximity’ Cases according tocultural-linguistic proximity, economichomogeneity and Ę Ę Euroregion HU/SK Euregio) HU/SK N=42 N=2 46 L’Espace Mont-Blanc CH/IT Ems Dollart Region DE/NL conseil Valais-Valee d'aoste du GrandSt.Bernard IT/FR Conference Hautesdes Vallees FR/IT Conference Alpesdes franco-italiennes CAFI/ IT/FR Comunidad de Trabajo Extremadure-Alentejo ES/PT ES/PT Communidade de Trabalho Regiao Norte de Portugal-Galicia Castillay León - Regiáo Norte ES/PT Castillay León - Regiáo Centro ES/PT Euroregion Erzgebirge Krusnohori DE/CZ Euroregion Elbe/Labe DE/CZ Euregio Silva NorticaAT/CZ Euroregion Spree-Neisse-Bober DE/PL Euroregion Saule LT/LV/RU/SE Euroregion Pro Europa Viadrina DE/PL Euroregion Pomerania DE/PL DE/CZ/PL Neisse-Nisa-Nysa Euroregion Euregio Weinviertel-Sudmahren/West-SlovakiaAT/CZ/SK Euregio Egrensis D/CZ Euregio Bayerischer Wald-Bohmerwald-Sumava AT/CZ/DE Sonderjylland-Slesvig DE/DK Skargardssamarbetet ('Archipelago') SE/FI BE/FR/NL Scheldemond Pyrenees Mediterranean Euroregion ES/FR PAMINA DE/FR Nordkalottrådet FI/NO/SE Mittnorden FI/NO/SE Kvarkenradet FI/SE Fehmarnbelt region DE/DK Extremadura -Centro ES/PT Euroregion Tatry SK/PL Euroregion Silesia CZ/PL Euroregion PuszczaBialowieska PL/BY Euroregion Praded - Pradziad CZ/PL Euroregion Nestos-Mesta BG/GR Euroregion Morava-Pcinja-Struma BG/MK/SRB BG/RO/SRB 21 Euroregion Middle Danube-Iron Gates + Euroregion Danube Euroregion Lower Danube MD/RO/UA Euroregion Glacensis CZ/PL Euroregion Euskadi-Navarre-Aquatiaine ES/FR Euroregion Beskidy-Beskydy PL/CZ/SK Euregion Tesinske Slezsko - Slask Cieszynski CZ/PL Euregio SaarLorLuxRhein DE/FR/LU Euregio Rhein-Waal DE/NL Euregio Rhein-Maas Nord DE/NL Euregio Maas-Rhein BE/DE/NL DE/NL EUREGIO N=11 N=36 CEU eTD Collection border. I then selected Austrian-German the theat Euroregion Land-Traunstein Salzburg Salzburg-Berchtesgadener the Euroregionand border, Swedish-Norwegian located the at Østfold-Bohuslän-Dalsland next Gränskommitten border, to each of them, to controlcooperation for variation on cross-border literature inthe coverage some had that cases three selected first therefore or in promotion materials: the Ister-Granum EGTC at the Hungarian-Slovak for the examination of variation within the same context. At three national borders national At three context. same the within variation of examination the for allow to case study organizations two to select borders these of ineach andfrom cell table, the casestudy. have the done independentthe knew I anduntil a case selected have dependentnot could I in which scenario 22 a Catch implying i.e. variables, and I could For moreindicators. precise case the wouldknowledge have studies themselves not beenneeded, have known these fullynational until I would borderthe local fall level of inthe accuracy the on about cautious Iwas addition, In was preferable. spread some geographical thecase selection.same boxes As showed due in Tableto 4 thethe Euroregions andcrude performance. function estimationfrom the same inlocal terms (between-group social networks institutional of capital) and organizational of the valuesindeed would indicatedthatthere existing studiesof bevariety Euroregions some of the cases and contexts national with of familiarity on drawing cases the all of examination preliminary a variable; study the on variance display must cases the that implies also Difference of Method the as that be added can It conditions. level economic and politico-administrative linguistic-cultural, similar with in areas operating cases contains which box, left lower Scandinavian languages, English, Hungarian and German but would need interpreters for any Slavic or Latin language. Latin or Slavic any for interpreters need would but German and Hungarian English, languages, Scandinavian 23 The final decision Thefinal wasalso based onlanguage knowledge andresource issues. I toconductwould beable the interviews in The strategy to deal with this was to select three national borders from the identified the from borders national three select to was this with deal to strategy The In for order the produceproject to added value beyond the theoretical advancements, inthe cases non-shaded the made among be to wastherefore cases of The selection 47 23 I CEU eTD Collection Figure 2. together comprising a secondlevel analysis.of itself constitutes thedepicted in Figure 2 and maps can be found in Annex B. first unitwere selected are casesthat The Inntal-Chiemsee-Kaisergebirge–Mangfalltal. EuRegio of analysis, but each member is another unit of analysis, case studies and how ithow was collected. and case studies along one national border: Hídver border: national one along Whatmakes this an multiple-case embedded research isdesign the that Euroregion In the next section I will elaborate on what kind of data that was extracted from these from extracted was that data of kind what on elaborate will I section next the In The case study design Ę Assocation, Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfold and Värmland-Østfold Grensekomiteen Assocation, 48 CEU eTD Collection of this large material in the analytical phase, 138 interviews were treated ascore material. weretreated 138interviews in phase, material analytical of thisthe large 2002:63).Out interviewee between and me (Mason inresearcher as the interaction knowledge generating aswell, thereby perceptions and into their tap thoughts interviews wasto the of purpose the sametimeat the but arecurrently running?), Which meetings? projects attend the form of facts (how often does the board of the organization meet? How often do you ‘truths’ in getis itto in early important as process the both. Especially be treated can fruitfully interviewee one in reality clear, analytically is distinction this While 2007). al. et (Esaiasson important more and thoughts are perceptions reality,about respondents with whereas informants and respondents,beinterviewees into al, divided can Esaiasson et According to made. were interviews where informants are seen as witnesses acrucial of source data. constituted that are able to Euroregions asmembersof the local report the governments Therefore, organization. the constitute that between actors links the of re-combinations in and combinations the resident resources behavior patterns of the local and voices the in study, gathering the present Moreover, member. of each representatives members is of specialpolitical highest the by taken are decisions importance, binding and offices, administrative small mostly since I seek to identify the going through the websites of Euroregions, as was done in the case selection phase, they As beinferredof from membership. alsocan the aspect political neglectsthe It consequence. have as bulk areleft of loss with a investigation, valuable of the of out members the data potential Kotilainen2004, Eskelinenmeans Knippschild 2008).Such approach and2005, thatan the towns (for examples micro-level caseof studies onthis relying Haase of type data, andWust major of managers representatives and as such actors, key of number focusinga small on often data, with empirical selective hasworked cooperation cross-border on Much research process collection and data data 2.2 Typeof A large numberofinterviewshave beenfor conducted study.the All in all,206 49 CEU eTD Collection accumulative effect took placein took if oneaspectemphasized accumulativeinformant/respondent effect inthat a one an standardized, was While hours. questionnaire the minutes and 1.5 variations between 30 45 minutes, Interviews part. lasted with questionsnetwork generally about and a also large numberincluded assessment a to open questions of thequestionnaire quite quantitative also made the note-taking easier. of partisanship within the organization, served well in order to make them also take stances and motivate their decisions.24 It both containedopen and closed questions. interview members with guide Euroregion.theiron The the relations other of communication one and involvement Euroregion their of experience specific their on one cooperation, border cross- attitudes towards on one their parts: three general contained member representatives with guide interview via The phone. conducted mayors were Norwegian with interviews although thirty memberinterviewsabout with in organizations theHungarian-Slovak four and Most of the non-response. inof interviews case phone calls andthen reminder by followed byone contacted email resulting not selected. wereeventually that from this took in andinterviews from organizationsetc.), (regional,actors or with Euroregions grant-giving place in authorities at other with carriedactors out interviews Ihave anumber for of The samegoes the officesin contacts have notbeen cross-border general, analyzed in they systematically this project. of on thecontext giving for valuable were they Although interviewee, 2012a). Svensson and Medve-Bálint (see be butarenot membersof thatcouldEuroregions oflocal potentially attitudes governments in interested the where wewerealso with a PhDcolleague, study conducted of a related Annex C). A in List (see sixstudiedthe organizations leadership of administrative the or organizations, member of mayors) (usually representatives political highest the with interviews were These Asking respondents to assign a value to the importance of cross-border cooperation in different policy fields, or the level the or fields, policy different in cooperation of cross-border importance the to value a assign to respondents Asking The highest political representatives of Euroregion members (mayors) were first were (mayors) members Euroregion of representatives political highest The About half of the remaining interviews (see List Bin Annex C) were done in the context 24 The interviews were semi-structured; inaddition semi-structured; were interviews The 50 CEU eTD Collection analytical and ethical implications of this is referred to in section 2.4.1 and 2.5. different localnumber of books, brochures and CD-ROMs on cross-border relevant projects as well as on the governments,much collected, of neverwhich was useddirectly in This stage. includesa analytical the but also the occasionalevents. workedwere afterwards ‘smallinto infield-notes resulted that in stories’ Englishon the souvenir gift. These observations a border. at meetingresearch Euroregional Swedish-Norwegian atthe How I dealtmy instance when asforIpresented in become aparticipant, Idid more, others emphasized with thewas part observation the of events these atsome While by Euroregions. the arrangements was later catalogued and categorized, it was notincluded in the analysis, see section 2.4.1. andgovernments Thismaterial their relatively was gathered andwhile profiles. randomly, it fieldwork, such as brochures on cross-border projects or institutions, and also on single local web sites. Avast amountof material additional was alsogathered duringtextual the inguides Annex D). (seeinterview key concepts on certain elaborate solidify and findings to research period the twice, once within thefirst round of empirical research, and once by phone towards the end of wereinterviewed of managers members Chairsand Euroregions were not a Euroregion). of monthsApril-May of 2010 (six members were interviewed and sixlocal governments that of questionnairethe apilot after study in Hungarian-Slovakthe borderlands in springthe interviewsspecificbein question, could2005). One raised this later (Trost overhaulwas done In connection with both interviews and observations, a lot of related participantobservations wasgathered ofmeetingsFinally, and through data some material was Textual includeddata primary data such as statutes, by-laws, strategy documents and 51 CEU eTD Collection slightly different and studies are thereby included in slightly the included existence are of and studies Euroregion which different(i.e. thereby are on focus these structures the although considered, also therefore is integration regional on carriedout and reports evaluations larger body of The studies. of comparative scarcity relative and the problematizeaspect, this notto studies single-case tendency by of hamperedthe been success of institutions of political-administration cooperation across borders. anthropology, oreconometric marginally methods,are only useful whenestablishing the geography and thatdominate disciplines;constructivist the approaches qualitative isoutcome from political sub- assessed scienceandits those and within practiced defined methods thatdifferinhow an Medeiros use 2009and 2010).Naturally,disciplines these (Lösch 1940, output reduceeconomic hinder and barriers that constitute borders state which to extent the on focused have especially and variable, dependent the as performance economic rely on economists beexpected, As can mentalities. ‘core’ versus ‘periphery’ interactions andidentities (e.g.Collins 2001),often 1998,Schack portrayed in of terms practices, borderland which arespecific there the degree to investigate sociologists 2004, 2003),while1990, KramschMamadou Kramsch and Hooper anthropologists andand Stoddard1986,Martinez to (e.g. correspond inaborderlandterritorial context delimitations of space mental images how landscapesor attransnational emergencelook of the might studied. Geographers ‘outcomes’ that are inthe variety of isreflected disciplines involved academic diverse the 2005)and 1986,Kolossov decades (Stoddard past the steadily over be As mentioned –assessedandabove,the evaluated.on literature ‘borderlands’ has grown can –and been has in general cooperation cross-border how of context in the Euroregions of and performance function the of variable project, the thedependent Iapproached athow look astep backhow wasanalyzed,is andtake necessary hereto data it to the proceeding Before operationalization andits variable 2.3 Thedependent This section aims to review how the literature has attempted the latter, an effort that has an that latter, effort the hasattempted literature the reviewhow to aims This section 52 CEU eTD Collection Google Earth, making a discursive non-dichotomous approach to any map imperative. any map to approach non-dichotomous adiscursive making Earth, Google example of how indicators ‘age’, as the mere existence of such a map is even more void of meaning in the age of GPS and canworking bea tool against unwanted mobility across border(Blatter the 2000:71).As happens, it thisis also a telling in aEuropean context would mark an emergent sense of cohesive ‘regionness’, whereas in theNorthern American context 25 in itself is irrelevant, instance is This for on there whether is basis of a ‘legal cooperation’. categories problematic, since having some sort of legal document (at least organizations (Perkmann 2007:12). a Memorandum society civil or entities of commercial authorities, semi-public or public as such agents other with compared policy-makingarena, playersin cross-border the as important stand out to policy cross-border withinreferred tothe ability theirareas.Theactivities Euroregions last of appropriate base, they whether and resource of diversification development, organizational in terms of their capacity becometo established as policy entrepreneurs.As indicators he used In 2007, policy heareas (Perkmann 2003:159-160). assessed alimited number of Euroregions strategy, adocumented in scopeof developmentandabroad secretariat, multiple cooperation cooperation intensity,measured by existencethe of a legal acommon arrangement, permanent EuroregionAn Euroregions in2003usedthe concept of 73 wouldassessment entail. whatawell-functioning conceptualize and operationalize whohasdonemostto author categories in coded easy dichotomous be cannot indicators that and logics, functional different their to according cooperation border in of cross- theforms duetothevariation complex isextraordinarily ‘dependent variable’ Euroregions cooperation with in North cross-border American two Inhisregions. view, the integration). socio-economic cross-border (i.e. variable dependent to the may contribute that variables institutional political-administrativecross-border is cooperation) one of several independent Theexample hegives theexistence is or non-existence of produced satellite maps marking the cross-border regions, which Perkmann’s indicators capture important dimensions but his use of importantdimensions capture buthisuse dichotomous of Perkmann’s indicators two of in study his indicators comparative useof againstthe common argues Blatter A is standpointdifferent takenby 2007a andPerkmann (2002, 2003, 2007b), whois the 25 (Blatter 2000:71). (Blatter 53 CEU eTD Collection namely of namelymay by be‘hyped’ that of thinkregions mediaacademics, policymakers, tanks and 2006 )and onby (2002), ‘added aninterestingelaborated aspect value’(J.W.Sparke Scott pursuing a‘wide range of thematic fields’ (Deppisch Other2008:70). examples include making capable and having ‘stablestructures of ‘reactive’, decisions’ rather than ‘proactive’ being factors, other among of, in terms Euroregion Austrian-German an assesses Deppisch Baranyi, cooperation promote with ‘ability along activities’to and‘tangible (2006). results’ populationthe such?)know theEuroregionthat usedby ‘social and existembeddness’ as Euroregion as of signifiers success. This is related to ‘visibility’ in largerthe community (does the of activities the on local actors and members of andperceptions’ ‘awareness the Koncz Szabóand volumes cooperation. edited oncross-border (2006)take andjournal articles in often Thefollowing in treated arejust afewpassing various from literature. the examples Malchus 2008:93). von and (Gabbe funds structural in EU in management involvement and covered themes of involved, range legal actors scope of indicators capacity, whichthey the for use cooperation’, medium, high) not. or implemented is in if it but is exception the Euroregions), (itamong like than rule exists rather the document that their is if not a importance wherethe can strategy, made development forthe be argument assessment instrumentrecently adopted European for TerritorialGrouping Cooperation. Asimilar via the for instance even entity, a common or option) (common countries in theconcerned of entities legal registered the parallel having to in comparison weakness indicating Understanding same apply.variable, Understanding)is a basic condition for being ‘formalized’, in definitionthe of Euroregions I What is‘intensity relevant is theof cross-borderstrength of the legal base, with a Memorandum of It is worth noting how the issue of what would constitute a well-working Euroregion is Euroregion well-working a constitute would what of issue the how noting is worth It avoidby scale (low, von Malchusproblems, these using atri-partite to Gabbe try and 54 CEU eTD Collection Oresund Network and Interreg IIIA rise to “the ambition to create an increasedintegrated Oresund region rests on thepersuasion that abigger andmore integrated region gives 26 growth and more welfare they have alarger arange study since limitedencompassing transferability, of comparative from both economic, do pictureWhilegive theseindicators of agood inoverall integration the Oresund region, cultural attitudesand towards, commuting, traffic, trade, housing, culture, tourism,social education and research. perspective’ and Network, Interreg IIIA 2004). ( on the Oresund region covering is integration a report cross-border measuring of aspects methodological discusses extensively parts of Denmarkthat report andconsultancy a of example An Sweden integration. of state general (Oresundsregionen,the map to out set but Oresund (Medeiros 2009:14). barrier effect” it “reducedthe nonetheless but that impact” have necessary the “didn’t funding decreases the reliability of his findings from the Swedish-Norwegian border that the Interreg This performance. for socio-economic play arole that factors other for many the control funded projects on socio-economic performance is an important issue, the study could not funds. indexeconomic theinvested externally effectof Whilethe amounts of Interreg with asocio- correlating by of regions these performance socio-economic the and cooperation (2009, 2010),who toestablish sought between acorrelation EUfundingfor cross-border working papers on andSwedish-Norwegian Portuguese-Spanish the borderlands, Medeiros of series is a this of difficulty the demonstrating example One cooperation. administrative political- than integration, socio-economic or in general development socio-economic regional success? in ‘effectiveframing’, should words of such ‘hype’,or beconsideredother constituent outlets as up and coming regions, but which have very little to show for it. To what extent This consultancy reportexpresses wellthe belief that enhanced welfare follows socio-economic cross-border integration: Similar indicators wouldby Similar thatdonottry establishstudies beused causallink this to of factors more to refer results,’ such as ‘tangible mentioned above, factors Some of the 2004:8, my translation). 26 Itsuggests 14 indicators including of, patterns and 55 Oresundsregionen, CEU eTD Collection difficulties in evaluating the impact of European funding on cross-border integration. cross-border on funding European of impact the in evaluating difficulties survey data. Short-comings European wouldregions consider have the varyingto availability of and statistics public in this area have been cited as one of the main reasons for the existing permanent cross-border cooperation (Pandeia/1 cross-border structures existing permanent orall andnature of program quality the of area, and parts within can beused cooperation for that instruments legal applicable directly the of and nature looking quality the factors at other 2009) investigated ‘theinterimintensity expost depthandterritorial of cooperation”, among and An interim lack literature. difficulties III2000-2006 (Pandeia/1 of of Interreg report (AEBR andEuropean Commission 2000:66). structures andformal cross-border theborder, theexistenceagreements of across cooperation contacts informal with of includesorganizations thepercent This category project. dissertation is under grouped ‘institutional forspecial this situation’ of therelevance of indicators which for fundingcross-border out indicators suggests assessing anumber program theInterreg, of document The 2000:59). Commission European (AEBR and results/impacts” many the of of nature “intermediate deal with to the of ‘measurements’” set subtle and and“more complex above advocates methods” useof“mixedquoted of the and qualitative packages quantitative when itinhibitingfactors comes evaluatingfunds forcross-border cooperation. to The report included in this review of the academic and policy literature. While surely not exhaustive, it exhaustive, not While surely literature. andpolicy in review of academic the this included The ex-post evaluations of the Interreg cycles have also emphasized the measurement the haveemphasized cycles also of Interreg evaluations the The ex-post In fact, the vast evaluation machinery of In fact, thevastmachinery with European the of has met evaluation Union a number of For convenience, Table Table Forconvenience, 5 a concepts and listing contains different indicators the table costs.”(AEBR and Commission European 2000:61) high such as implications serious with constrain major a represent unlikely to suit the INTERREG cycle. […] The sources of information commuting)cross-border but frequencythe updatingof andlevel of detail are workers’ beused(e.g. can sources statistical general when few examples be a tend to require special gathering of information, e.g. from surveys. There might is thatthey thischapter, accompanying in examples illustrative the presented like ones the indicators, specific of INTERREG/CBC “A characteristic general 56 st Interim Interim 2009:252). Expost st CEU eTD Collection variable inimplementation studies should be(goal achievement? outcome? governingoutput? it inis dependent concepts the frequently what orrelated includinggeneral; ‘success’ unclear by several implementationdecades of studies in public policy,obvious questions are raised by little relatively Asis onevaluation striking. demonstrated and assessment the bytheliterature guidance offered studies’), ‘borderlands as together bundled (sometimes science political attention from a variety of disciplines, including sociology, geography, anthropology and development socio-economic with indicators associated & concepts Conditions, integration socio-economic with indicators associated & concepts Conditions, Euroregion bythe cooperation with institutional indicators associated & concepts Conditions, Table 5. in are lacking operationalization. many that whiledisplaying also account, can into be that taken factors of diversity the shows To sum up, bearing in mind that Euroregions have attracted significant scholarly Euroregions attracted have insum bearingmind that To up, Measurements of ‘success’ from academic and policy literature academicandpolicy Measurements of‘success’ from improvement of the quality life of quality of the improvement libraries per 10,000 inhabitants, environmental protection and renewable energies, proportion of population with higher education, physicians per1,000 inhabitants, Tangible results, GNP per capita, activity rate, companies per 10,000 inhabitants, language, border, commonspatial planning, percent of population speaking other country’s the to productive fabric, improvement residents participating(transport), in culturalof isolation activities onreduction other side ofobstacles, on the cooperation administrative and legal of entrepreneurship, development health, and culture urban, rural and coastal development, cooperation inthe domains of RTD, training, physical situation (time saved and convenience gained in travel time), promotion of the in other country, volumestudies of for commuting forstudy loans purposes and research cooperation, student of registered number organizations, civil between housing (movement of residency),hotel nights, media usage patterns,cooperation patterns and traffic patterns, company activities and establishment of new companies, contacts with the official laboragency dealing with the region, people’s travel border traffic, foreign trade,commuting, attitude towards commuting, no. of territorial authorities that operate inpart or between all of the program established area structures cooperation cross-border permanent existing be usedcooperation forwithin partsor ofall the program area, nature and quality of can that instrument legal applicable directly the of quality and nature area, program of years structured no. the and visible cross-border cooperationagreements, exists within partsor all of the of cooperation no. forums, hoc of ad no. contacts, informal similar to conventional local or regional authorities, percent of organizations with involved, involvement in management and implementationof EU-programmes, scope of cooperation in multiple policy areas, legal ofabroad capacity,existence strategy, scope of actors development ofadocumented existence resources, own its controlling secretariat permanent common of a existence basis, arrangement legal areas, their within activities policy cross-border base, ofappropriating degree of resource diversification development, organizational decisions, making of capable structures stable fields, of thematic range wide capacity, entrepreneurship Euroregion activities, orientation towards the interest of the other side, policy Visibility, social embeddedness, local actors perceptions and knowledge about added value, perceived ‘regionness’, Ability to promote cooperation activities, 57 CEU eTD Collection budget size and project size, and will be elaborated below. size, will be elaborated size and project budget and statement, andmission developmentstrategy to meetingactivity, adherence arrangement, administrative of robustness capacity, legal are indicators These dissertation. this of aim the with line in most be to these shown has above review literature the as work, Perkmann’s operationalized via is cooperation cross-border Intensity of scale byPerkmann. dichotomous the used the use of six indicatorsallowfor some comparison with the work of Gabbe and von Malchus anddrawn avoid the pitfalls of from bothdissertation. the throughout used be Gabbetherefore and von Malchus the institutional of and and von performance 2008captures aspect cooperation, will andMalchus attributed to collective actors or not (Mintrom 1997 used policy entrepreneurs as a label of individuals, not collective actors). collective not of individuals, a label as entrepreneurs policy used 1997 (Mintrom or not actors collective to attributed entrepreneurs’, thiswill not be applied in the present study due to controversy around whether policy entrepreneurship can be 27 study.scope of the economic within Euroregionsdevelopment integration asand the isoutside territories the institutional cooperation within as Euroregions (organizations),policy actors whereas socio- the impact of Community funding). level, although these evaluations usually have asomewhat different baseline (i.e. evaluating involved in including cooperation,cross-border actors on Community,national and local bymainactors ordered or out carried from evaluations canbederived for reflection materials most with a summarizing being be at in theborderlands studiesbulk casestudies, of single generalmay work the dueto for involved, is Euroregions. which in scarcity thisissue The true around of discussions chapter if actors is Winter This and casewhentherearemultiple the 2006). especially Hupe2002, published Hill (e.g. success isevenmore complicated issueconstitutes what related the capacity?) and in an edited volume. More guidance and While I have elsewhere (Medve-Bálint andSvensson, 2013)also applied Perkmann’s 2007use of the term‘policy The label ‘ i.e. investigates performance andfunction The the the Euroregions, dissertation of approach: following the takes light dissertation reviewof In the above,the the intensity of cross-border cooperation’intensity of 58 27 This will assessed by a tri-partite scale to by Thisassessed a tri-partite will usedby 2003andGabbe Perkmann CEU eTD Collection ‘Medium’ assessment is for cases falling in between is inbetween those. casesfalling for assessment ‘Medium’ pursued. isstrategically agenda,which and realistic of adetailed thepresence indicates assessment ‘High’ document. the with consistency no and/or a document such of absence indicates assessment ‘Low’ ininterviews. or in reports to annual instance referred for on, development towhetherit followedis statement up and strategy/mission continuously exists, meetings. monthly approximately requires ‘high’ and more activity, regular indicate less‘medium’ often, yearly or meetings orcitizens) orevents attend toworkinggroups politicians, servantsappointed civil by A meetings arranged Euroregion. the ‘low’ meetingmembers (electedis activity where budgetwould yield a The ‘high’ valuesassessment. in fallbetween in the medium category. annual own in EUR million 1 than more having Euroregion a and ‘low’, as assessed are year ‘high’. as is assessed employees more and4or ‘medium’, as assessed is employees 1-3 ‘low’, assessment the yields its members) of one of resources administrative (relying onthe secretariat anindependent without AEuroregion secretariat. administrative making Euroregion the implementation a funding agency. to theheavyby itsEuropean ofthisinstrument for promotion higherUnion, and the potential European Grouping yields of Cooperation Territorial ‘high’. is The assessment the latter due personality basednational law on yieldsthe assessment ‘medium’and theadoptionof the legalindependent personality yields assessmentthe ‘low’, having any variation of legal Size of budget Size of statement mission Adherence todevelopmentstrategyand/or Meeting activity Legal capacity Robustness of administrative Robustness arrangementof refers to the organization’s own budget. Budgets below 100,000 EUR a Budgets below budget. 100,000EUR own the organization’s to refers refers to the legal arrangement of the Euroregion, where not having not where of Euroregion, the legalarrangement the to refers refers to the frequency of, and attendance rate, atclosed frequency refersandattendance rate, tothe public and of, 59 refers to the existence and size of an refers both to whether a CEU eTD Collection accordance with the framework laid out in laid 1. out framework Chapter with the accordance in loudspeakers anddisplaywindows three roles the of space by seismographs, carrying out using three analytical categories representing the extent to which they can group). appropriate policy presence the on local social of capital only among (within-border sideof one governments the to isapplied method same next The in the section. methods outlined usingthe representatives, its by political as estimated governments local between communication border social membersof and of (between-group measures cross- participating capital), Euroregions capital social the examines dissertation the words, other In issues). of (politisization conflict of absence/presence and side, other the of levelstrust of governments, local between contacts within-group andbetween-group social capital of absence or presence the indicates This whole. a as borderlands in the and side domestic the assess the seeks to assessed ‘high’. whereas aEuroregion with spreadovera highnumberof differentthemesprojects wouldbe ‘low’, the assessment years receive would past the same over the time runningprojects at two active advisor. A Euroregion that has not had or been in any way involved in more than one or owner (included inthebudgetbelow), butalso projects where the Euroregion is initiator or Project intensity Finally, how Euroregions function as policy actors will in the research bediscussed research willinthe actors policy as function Euroregions how Finally, of trend perceived communications, of indicatorscross-border areused:strength Four In addition to assessing the intensity of cross-border cooperation, the dissertation also intensity of cross-border communication refers to projects not only carried out by the organization as project 60 , respectively, asdefinedin Chapter 1. and trust relationships, both on CEU eTD Collection his/her phrasing, which was often close to impossible to translate. Moreover, there is always there Moreover, translate. to impossible to close often was which phrasing, his/her meaning turned out to by Uncountableata first be that glimpse quotes respondents seemedpregnantwith analytical so more in the way the Norwegian. or Swedish German, from Hungarian, original bethe translated needed to rest respondent had beennuance. Only a handful out moreof than interviews200 in was conducted wittyEnglish, the and or colorful in mayors. with interviews from thenotes distinguish this comparedand to not inusability of anydata Icould difference Euroregion managers and (especiallyassess chairs used to intensity), cooperation cross-border interviews with second-round andtranscribed all sake of I recorded checking reliability for the It canbeaddedthat veryminor. loss of this importance the Iconsidered In this case, withoutwill them.”you or show with what (ibid.) such thingsimportant can depend upon are whether Silvermanand alsoyou like”adds:“Now the thinkthat 2009:240). But (Silverman inbreaths aspauses,overlaps, such matters atthetime) note even remember (or to impossible is “It simply notes: As Silverman instances. insome nuances interpret analyze to and of loss possibility some havemight caused verbatim. arenot This quotes transcribed, were not interviews minorities. the Because issue of sensitive politically the talk dueto willingness to inhibit mightinterviewees’ atape border recorder Hungarian-Slovak the especially at judgmentfieldworkmade wasthat since recorded, before not the interviews were generally The English. into thesenotes Itranslated After that enhancereadability. to them afterwards during interviewlatter notesvia andrevised laptop Itook the ones. tothe encouraged also texts and both The interviewsincluded closed butcomments questions, were open-ended and interviews with Working 2.4.1 ofanalysis 2.4 Methods On the other hand, there was one factor that might have caused serious loss in terms inhavemight lossterms of serious factor that caused hand, wasone On there other the 61 CEU eTD Collection the recommendations of the when itRichardscomes (2005)tohandling data. qualitative is inline with coding, analytical topical to from going data, empirical to approach a two-step include‘loudspeaker’ theof Such functional ‘seismograph’, ‘display categories and window). cooperation’) and the other related to the organizations as units of analysis (examples of codes ‘instrumental motivation’, ‘normative motivation’, ‘information-seeker’ and ‘inter-municipal include of codes (examples units members of the analysis as to related one of codes, sets two were AtlasTi. There help software of the the with categories basedanalytical on material of research In thethe stage from I coded second questionnaire. topicsthe directly derived basedon sheets excel ordinary using material the sorted I theresearch of phase In the first material mugs). alimitednumber contained also of giftsnon-textual (postcards, in material foradditional The fact-finding. wasusedprimarily form the brochures of etc, grey additional of amounts vast the contrast, In interviews. the from gathered data to relation gather to(1) order facts organizational aims in and and(2)analyze interpret and justification identified. have mightotherwise not patterns I anddetect words of divergingupon understandings reflect ableto Iwas translating of process the asduring an into advantage, turned disadvantage this phase analytical the during times at hand, other the On translations. English in the data of loss acertain istherefore a There statement. misinterpreted meaning or ambivalent missed an possibilitythe Iasanon-nativethat speakerall languagesmighthave Swedish of except A qualitative content analysis (Patton 2002:453) of the data was conducted in two steps. in was two the conducted data 2002:453) of A analysis (Patton qualitative content in sites, and web documents strategy by-laws, statutes, as such data used primary I also 62 CEU eTD Collection during the period myfieldwork.exist when As I conducted notguidelines those atthe did a which university the adopted is guideline submitted for in this to dissertation ethics research and is attention, increasing scienceresearch receiving social aspectsof The conducting ethical considerations 2.5 Ethical was analyzed with the help of the softwares UCINET and CEUNet. those of directly relevance for the dissertation’s geographical distances. questions were applied.field ofborderlands studies, especially if data combined with network on infrastructure or The relational data it research for inthe has potential addressingother questions inthequestions dissertation, specific answer to is used it6. While seeChapter networks, policy cross-border of datasets cooperation relationalinmembers organization, areother there although across-border could be consulted. that cross-border and inter-municipal dealtwith The that moresources secondary were case there data is to the best in that However, bedata. usedonthis of not therefore analysiscould network and border social my knowledge the only Austrian-German the at done not was collection data full-scale A similar borders. two these relational dataset at members between 4Euroregions the of on communication the patterns data comprehensive of collected I Sweden-Norway) and (Slovakia-Hungary study under borders national 2000:9). For of two Lewin Scottthree the HeiderFritz Kurt J.P. and (see such as emigrées by in(introduced MorenoJacob 1930sandthe by complemented work of the German other WWII before and after immediately intheyears already wasrecognized something that by in graphs, can beinherentsociometric represented negative structures analysis Positive powers or network Social 2.4.2 Social network analysisSocial network multiplicityfor offers tools a various here of purposes, only 63 CEU eTD Collection traveled from medical research to social science research in a relatively short post WWII-period) and on challenges related to related challenges on and WWII-period) post acquiringshort ‘true’ informed consent. a relatively in research science social to research medical from traveled 28 (Silverman 2009:155-156). must beexplicit partiality or interest of any conflicts and must beclear, researchers of impartiality and independence avoided, be must harm voluntary, be must participation mustif must voluntarily,confidentially berespected participate participants promised, level of scrutiny. informants were mostly politicians (elected officials), whoin this capacity can expect ahigher or Respondents etc. experiments psychological vulnerable groups, involving children,such as (2010), the includedidproject not would anycomponents that raise normally awarningflag Council andSocial Research Economic by checklist British the atthe instance provided be neededthat Lookingfor made to for this were relatively straight-forward. dissertation considerations ethical the it that clear made that consulted were sources other design stage, presented with small gifts such as books, mementos with municipal logos etc, as well as well as etc, logos municipal with mementos books, as such gifts small with presented frequently quite I was venues.However, in other and papers asconference were presented dissertation of this versions when earlier later interview and the after directly both results research by sharing theirtime for participants ‘reward’ to intended I Instead, process. research 2007, Silvermanfocus the (Barbour butthisfor anissueduring wasnever 2009), groups requiredquestioned this or anonymity. respondents the of none and anonymity, of condition the upon given not was consent thisthat Note research. inthe were saying methey let usewhat agreedto he/she whether retelling this information and offeringanswer to questions. Ithen the respondentasked by eachinterview started and in initial email the project research the about information SeeWarren 2002 and Marzano 2012 for critical discussions on theorigins of the term ‘informed consent’ (how ithas All respondents gave informed consent In general I followed general practice in social sciences that demands that research Whether pay to participate is to people frequently an issue in or research experimental 64 28 to participate. to This impliedincludedI that CEU eTD Collection in terms of instancein external for terms of validity.and internal mapping question whether Onecould of be both something understood which 1990:57), it that can phenomena (Hammersley refers” to between frequency them. communication of assessment counterpart’s their with converge would respondents of majority the that showed which analysis, network social in the tested partially was issues factual on respondents between consistency The evaluations. different completely avoid to order compare our assessments. I further worked with more than one case in the same time periodin to amplewhich opportunity infellow offered a with conducted researcher, cooperation were border Slovak-Hungarian atthe a interviews about the third of that by enhanced fact the thefieldworkwas The reliability 1992:67). of occasions” (Hammersley observeron different same bythe or observers by different samecategory the to areassigned which instances by another differently observer. done been have would assessments that also and respondents, interview between This is the problemmost (and inconsistent were assessments risk that of the alsocontained project this research) quantitative qualitative reliability, all with As replicability. and validity reliability, i.e. on words few a “theFinally, degree of consistency with andreplicability validity 2.6 Reliability, this ratherunlikely. combination with my inability 200interviewsafter keep in to mind whoserved whatmakes giftsin of value these monetary small due tothe but me cake, with treated he/she because analysisthe in by way I would material have the interviewee ‘nicer’ treated that an generated influence would gifts such that in principle is conceivable It scale. asmall on up came process the from benefiting as a Hence, I researcher meals). few andtimes a tea (coffee, refreshments Validity refers to the “extent to which an account accurately represents the social the represents accurately account an which to “extent the to refers Validity 65 CEU eTD Collection validity of the present results. present the of validity case selection, and the parts itreplicate happen,be of wouldfeasible kind study the andgainful to a different with of results to coming unlikely is replication this though Even come. to years of a number outfor file on bekept will of this wouldmaterial underlying The analysis. havean alternative for look to my interviews use bearingor in office, be on the reliabilitywould who persons then the samequestionnaire the to six utilize these backEuroregions, to and inprocess Ihave which been engaged. research the challenge and question constantly and empirics, and theory between dialogue I see it, there is no ‘easy fix’ forvalidity, and my way to deal with this has been to allowfor a As emergence. of match alargerstory motivations of recollections own whether respondents’ social and or capital, between-group within-group captures really communication patterns Finally, would this study be replicable? In principle, yes, it would be possible to go 66 CEU eTD Collection cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe. Eastern and Central in cooperation participants the but side, Slovakian the on issues administrative with mainly dealt agenda The plentiful refreshments supplied by the host, the mayor of Radvan nad Dunajom/ Dunaradvány. over chats informal and laughs of plenty were there and present were members government hosted a monthlyDunaradvány meetingsmaller mayorsof group hadan amicable morning session. Radvan nad Dunajom (or of the Hídver would considerable andunderfunded costs tobe have at terminated. was started hadalready projectthat an EU-supported bethat clear also come itto would membersleavewere to wanting refusing or pay the organization to dues.Inthe monthstheir amongits Therewas memberswith difficulties. discontent widespread manager there and the utilize inserious new first inEurope to the legalform Euroregions was organization this - the itself much Grouping asaEuropean Cooperation Territorial – under of publicity and of asone hadreconstituted Ister-Granum the after years two than Less underneath. largerproblems the issues onprocedural heated discussions with masking was manager. tense, atmosphere The was to attend a special generalbe there reason 160 kilometers.The to for about and Slovakia between Hungary demarcation meeting; the task of border havingserved asawest-east after south theDanubesurrounding bends area,where the day was to dismiss and in the settlements andlarger from hadcomehall They smaller Esztergom. beautiful of town replace the mayors hall ceremonial On March once- the inthe weregathered 50 of 7, 2011,around 4.1.4 and 4.2 are similar.I am much obliged to Gerg analyticalframework this in chapter isdifferent from those publications, some paragraphs and sentences section in 4.1.2, Gerg 29 Some of the interviews in Hungary on which this chapter is built were conducted together with fellow CEU PhD candidate Ę Medve-Bálint, and were used in the publications Medve-Bálint and Svenson 2012a, 2012b and 2013.While the Two weeks later, on March 25, 30 kilometers on weeks later, on west Twoside the March other of 25, 30kilometers a the Danube, C HAPTER in the language of the Hungarian majority in this settlement located in Slovakia) located settlement inthis majority Hungarian the of language in the 3: A H CASE STUDY OF TWO UNGARIAN Ę foranuncountable numberof stimulating discussions on cross-border -S Ę Association. As usual, most of the 18 local 67 LOVAK BORDER E UROREGIONS ATUROREGIONS THE 29 CEU eTD Collection politico-administrative characteristics (partly relying on data gathered byinterviews gathered and ondata (partly relying characteristics politico-administrative Section 3.1 gives an overview of the region in terms of geographical, economic, historical and cooperation. and interviews within actors adozen Hungarian cross-border other with study the informedby is interviews additional madewith non-members side Hungarian on the In addition, carried out. were member representatives and interviews organizational eightwith Seventy- appropriate. and available wasusedwhere literature secondary and additional data, constituted meetings from minutes and associations of the statutes The collection. data the andimpact theperformance function Euroregions? of governments participate in Euroregions and how do they interact? (2) How does social capital local Why do how (1) and project: the answer guiding research two the questions seeking to were sodifferentin 2011. The aim is chapter this of tofind why, out atthesame while time organizations the of evaluations internal the that is puzzling it Therefore, members. honorary being technically (Hungary) side other the from members with (Slovakia), countries the organizations. Hídver adopting alegal form especially designed and by promoted European the Union for such had in organizational that worked structures Euroregions beyondother by went andeven that institutional ‘did Ister-Granum internal clearly right’:design, things organization the adopted 30 economic, politico-administrative and ethno-cultural conditions. Hídver were fewissues related to across-border dimension. whohad theenjoyed seemingly talking come from there for the factthat Hungary time despite Hence, these two cases reflect on the micro-level the overall research design of this dissertation project. This and followingthe empiricaltwo havechapters been built up in similar ways. of the core constituted observation interviews and participant 2, inChapter As outlined Why did Ister-Granum the reach verge Euroregion the of the whereas disintegration, Ę one showed no such tendency? They both operate in such nooperate areawith both showed one similar They tendency? a geographical Ę , on the other hand, works on the basis of an association based in one of 68 30 In addition, in terms of CEU eTD Collection frequently used in officialcommunication towards investors and tourists. 31 cooperationthe local governmentswithinof in Euroregions asargued that, 1,can Chapter be on It focuses border. of the vicinity immediate in in the area the micro-level, at the processes Basin”). Carpathian heartof the (“lies in the character its core/center toemphasize Budapest tends countries”), neighboring instance, whileBratislava itself city asaborder defines (“the border capital only to two includedoes isconsidered territory that not be to close toaborderin everyday For thinking. both countries. While such a definition of what a border area is can be useful, it is clear hascovers 61,500squarekilometers, million of a population includes8.7 the and of capitals that it on the Slovak side and European Union’s forprogram cooperation cross-border fiveeightsupport, level NUTS3 counties on the the of language the In Hungarian Carpathians). (the mountains or rivers) Ipoly the and Danube (the ways constitutearea one singleborder The border between Hungary and Slovakia is kilometers long680 andisformed by water the borderof area. ThisDefinition area3.1.1 area border 3.1 TheHungarian-Slovak social capital. (between-group) betweenrelation institutional of anddomesticendowments transnational (within-group) questions links analysis forward tothe in andpoints thetwo together, Chapters6andthe 7of conclusion The introduction. in this given was that snapshot the beyond Euroregions two the of andfunction performance analyzingthe question, research thesecond Section 3.4 discusses focuses interaction motivation, on the and (research 1). question of participation Euroregions in starts twoabout Euroregions. the of which chapter the The analyticalsection part 3.3, basicfacts introduces while and3.2 section documents), policy literature partly on secondary The formulations are from the official websites of Bratislava and Budapest, see reference list for details. Similar rhetoric is 31 The present dissertation, on the other hand, seeks to explain 69 CEU eTD Collection different standings. different twothe Euroregionsin examined thereby chapter, this puzzleregardingcreating the their very work for to have been of these expected economic None would differently homogeneity. and similarity, politico-administrative proximity, cultural-linguistic of in terms border selection, which case first-step the sections contextualize next The place. takes collaboration Euroregional was based on the constitutes sector an in economic environment, this caserelativelyunfavorable,in whichthe requirement of implications on ground.the local Likewise,the financial in situation thesimilarity public the and private between Hungary, central combination the government history andstrong of has acontested the two sidesand bythe constrained andinstitutional environment.political Inthe case of and Slovakia of the in 2) phase. (see Chapter history caseselection the institutionalization of 5-year criteria the to from according population the excluded inwas therefore and only 2010, registered first is outside the scope of the study as it functions only at regional level. Pons Danubii, wasVah-Danube-Ipel, Ister-Granum EGTC, Hídver of the Hungarian Pest county. andpart Komarom-Esztergom, of county Hungarian the of Nitra, Slovak district the area are this of boundaries administrative the south; bends Danube the where border the surrounding Scott 2005). This was further complicated by the ethnic cleansing after World2005). This WarIIthrough bytheethnic complicated after Scott cleansing further was frontiers heavily them burdened contested van andchallenge J.W. with conflicts Houtum 2005, (Hardi and asset The frequentchanges borders of instate Central inand Eastern Europe 20th the century made ethnicity: and History 3.1.2 seen as The ability localof governments to cooperate on, and shape, policy, is both enabled myfour Euroregions Currently, to are active inthis area according there definition: both organizations and territories. For this purpose, I focused on a smaller territory 70 Ę Association and Pons Danubii. However, the CEU eTD Collection following the disintegration of Czechoslovakia, the proportion hand, of Hungarian-speakers other the On travel. personal for used be easily more could Komarno/Révkomárom destroyed during the warandthe existing betweenKomarom bridge and formed Esztergom was soon that onrestoring between and Sturovo/Párkány thebridge inplans easier; became border-crossing particular, On ingeneral,and onehandtraveling the in in area. basic education the in Another chapter. this example is Hungarian that is still language dominantthe ofinstruction languages inboth given areconsistently names site reason, that For respectively. Marcelháza, and Lakszakállas asCsallóközaranyos, Marcelová and Sokolce naOstrove, Zlatná Hungarian names: for instance, the town of Štúrovo is referred to as Párkány, and the villages Hungarianssides onboth of refer border the villagesthe to with theirand towns original In the decades following the war the Hungarian minority only partly assimilated. For example, War treaty. World Ipeace injusticethe of perceived commemorate the to instead tend towns small and villages in stones memorial side Hungarian the On this. of reminiscence a constitute border of side Slovak yearsbeen invillageson raised inthe have recent memorial stones that amodern themanyexpulsion are today visitor understudy.For in Euroregions the what directly place indirectly swaps (Markusse2011:365)that took or people thousands of affected 1940s,forced population with late the Czechoslovakia. In reintegrated areawas war the again the of end the at but Germany, with sided Hungary when again changed temporarily borders the WorldWar II, Czechoslovakia. of During Hungarian, apart became spoke Hungarians or dual monarchy. At the end Austro-Hungarian Hungary’ the territory belonged‘Great of the understudy,during which to of World War I the territory, in areheavilynoticeable These country’ (Eriksonas principle region processes 2006). the in which the majority whichwere ethnicmillions of people were driven from their homes in the pursuit of a ‘one people one The end of The end Coldthe War of for theHungarianminority. hadconsequences contradictory 71 CEU eTD Collection emergence of the two Euroregions and does act as a facilitating factor for political and political for factor as afacilitating act anddoes Euroregions thetwo of emergence tothe contribute Theproximity did changes. in largerhistorical these light of interpreted the above (Vizi 2008:124). introduction indespite efforts atrevival via 1990s referred the self-governments to of identity in Slovakia. Very few and Germans use their Slovaks ona basis, tongue ethnic daily “government does not care”. on theimportance thecentral government putson cross-border cooperation. The dominant answer here was thatthe things would it much better” was a commoncomment.Yet, thesereferences contrastedwith the result of thedirect question border, often not related to any question asked in thequestionnaire.“If thesehigher-ups could leave us alone to dealwith 32 Swabians, (Interreg Hungary-Slovakiaas 1 andBeingpercent 3 2007:11). German (referred to inhabitants,below atas stillthis 1,000 comes out a very low share population,the between of Hungary villages these2010). Since very aremostly small in terms of population, usually (Slovak National inSelf-government German Hungary 2010, inNational Self-government established in minorities hadgovernments’ 2010.In both places three theirself-governments of Komárom-Esztergom villagesIn the German established of county ago. ethnic Slovakor population were centuries 10 settlements due from character settlement past: the during Habsburgpolicies many the to Monarchy, German or Slovak their preserved had that villages numerous of by existence the complicated Slovak, whilefurther isethnicity However, side. the on culture other thepreservation Hungarian of support 22 had German ’minority issuea recurrent 1990sand through the 2000s. self- tensionsin ledThis, between turn, government, which would SlovakHungarian to the be and secessionism beingperceived asareal by threat some Slovak politicians (Goldman 1999:199). Hungarian of in terms ramifications political had This Slovakia. became in what lived dramatically increased in relation to that of the majority, since most of the ethnic Hungarians In the interviews made with local mayors references to national-level politics came up frequently on both sides of the The cultural-linguistic proximity of mustThe the bordercultural-linguistic peoplethe of proximity livingbe close to On Hungarian the is andforemostside, ethnicity first anissue mayors of wanting to svábok ) or Slovak had, however, minor importance compared to the Hungarian the importanceminor compared to however, Slovakhad, ) or 72 32 CEU eTD Collection period. Hungary differentiates in that local governments have the right to be active within any within active be to right the have governments local in that differentiates Hungary period. same the for elected is directly mayor the and years, four every elected is which assembly, local isthe body decision-making highest the Slovakia and Hungary both In Governments. inparliament the thelocalgovernments, adoption Act1990 concerned of LXVonLocal Slovenia (Soósand Republic Czech the et Poland, with al.together ‘fast-movers’, the 2002). to belonged Hungary For instance, in Hungary, Slovakia and speed. Both variedwith through werecarried thereforms countries communist one of the first decisions of the new societies” than democratization of national political systems and capitalistthe resulting transformation publication up (Elander claimed built and that Gustafsson system, local government government 1991:1) local reforma modern for might be need morefrom decisivebelow” (Péteri1991:12). –their An international others for conference– among “stabilizing on local government washeld inthe expressed sameyear,theand post-socialist the editors regimes of and institutions old destroying revolutionary yearof East-Central1989 in Europe.The ‘velvet Czechoslovakian, “negotiating” Hungarian revolutions 33 1991:12, Elander and Wollmann Gustafsson 1991:1, 2007:17) for wasconsidered important andpowers stability the (Péteri newdemocracies survival the of implementing policy and setting policy both hold would that governments local elected on the agenda early on in cooperation. in cross-border theinvolvement for relevance of all are they as transitiongovernments), period. local andsize of autonomy, resources, political (local government of factors these Developing and local inmuchof in elaborate Europe, on each Eastern this section of I will governments powers a system with characteristics common arethe fact, these andsmall. In is poor democratic, that government administrative democraticallyand political of isThe typical memberof border alocal Hungarian-Slovak any the along Euroregion distribution The 3.1.3 level, local be function. at the and aswill cooperation 3.4 seeninsection performance on inhibit may that tensions national-level of cause a time same the at is proximity the However, identity. communal and capacity communication of interms both leaders, administrative Localgovernment expert Gábor Péteri wrote already in 1991: “Obviously local autonomy was themain issue in the Reforming the political and administrative structure at the sub-national level was high was level sub-national the at structure administrative and political the Reforming 73 33 . However, among the post- CEU eTD Collection (primarily (primarily bylack andcaused of taxraising managerial powers) capacity. countries, especiallyin Hungary, capacity theiris general inhibitedby a lack fundsof skills.” (LGI 2009:11)Hence, while thelocal governmentsonpaper seem fairly in strong both responsibilities, significant and clear need governments local constituencies, their to deliver To enough. not are Initiative 2008:“Freely mayorsits electing and inAnnualReport councils Sector Public by Government Local As stated organization the functioning local step democracy. towards public service duties that are difficult tocarry out at local level. on take for to instance form associations, regional to local governments andallow, encourage, 2 regions ( 2 regions they butweak. comparably are still theregions, have strengthened subsequent reforms countries, evenincomparison with condition2010:112).the underSeveral socialism (Soós 9 ( counties of Hungary as 9 ( Slovakia’s self-governmentregions (NUTS3level) ashaving anindexvalue of 6 and the index regional authority of byHooghe,Marksand Schakeldeveloped (2010)assessed almost everyone. Although, in the course of this fieldwork, I have seen many they saw theexamples economy of oftheir villages how or towns, external most answered funds “average”, – usually as they were aware thatEU thesituation– is dire for 36 2010:359). regions (Länder) receive avalue of 21, whereas Catalonia in unitary but devolved Spainget14.5 (Marks,Hoohe andSchakel same value asthe UK counties (9),whereas Slovakia’s have the same value asIreland. In afederal country Germanylike the 35 Brusisand 2005. 34 andHrabovská Bun (Lidström by 2003, Sopóci, state the implementpolicies within areasexplicitly permitted and set only can governments local Slovakian whereas important, find they areas policy For roleof the EuropeanUnion conditionality versus domestic political interestsin these processes, Pálné see Kovacs 2009 Therespondents inthisstudy frequently commented on theirdifficult financial situation,at but the direct question of how Theassessment isvalid for 2006and does not takesubsequent developments into account.Hungary’s counties receive the megyék Introducing local levelIntroducing andlocal in local areas various elections competences wasonly one The power of the regional level was reduced in the early days of transition in both in transition of days early in the reduced was level regional the of power The , NUTS 3). tervezési-statisztikai régiók tervezési-statisztikai þ ak 2006:357). 35 For statistical planning and some Hungary has seven purposes, NUTS samospravne kraje commensurate financialresources commensurate ) and Slovakia has four ( , NUTS 3) and the Hungarian counties avalue of 74 , andsufficient managerial oblasti ). Both countries also 36 34 The CEU eTD Collection identified as a remedy for this. In Slovakia the process has been mainly bottom-up and bottom-up mainly been has process the Slovakia In this. for remedy a as identified from forcedsocialist municipal restructuring. memoriesnegative to Horváth 2000) due 1999and 2009) andHungary 1999,Pfeil (Hajdú (Klimovsky inSlovakia both amalgamations to resistance heavy been has there However, economy scale. of andhamperfragmentationpolicy delivery makingdue to does efficient territorial is that view dominant the persist, assessments diverging While 2010. Swianeiwicz academic question. Anoverview andtestof arguments related to different canbethis foundin contested a is also government local of size optimal the of issue the and policymakers, inmore hadno inhabitants.than Slovakia) 175 both sides of borderthe aresmall; localone I visited government that for this (Zalaba project fieldworkthe place. took This manyexplains why so membersthe of of Euroregionsthe on extremely small local in Slovakia Central-South governments i.e. (Klimovsky 2009), where haveinhabitants lessthan (Swianewicz1,000 Moreover, thereis2010:2). a concentration of SlovakiaIn (Lidström 2003:183). both morecountries, halfthan of localthe governments respectively)local for a governments population of 10 million in Hungary and 5.4million in In 2003:219). mid-90s,the countries and the had stabilized 3,000(3,130 2,875 ataround copy effort to Western levelsEuropean pre-communist and history to connect (Lidström in local tothe an wereconferred units, after communism and powers dramatically increased (European 2012).Inboth countriesCommission numberoflocal Eurostat governments the Slovakian ininis Hungarian Pest 187and 76 HungarianKomarom-Esztergom Nitra 350, chapter belongs two three administrative NUTS 3 regions: the number oflocal governments in have taken place in locations with maintenance needs decades overdue. have been used to repaint or conduct light renovation of a town hall, a playground or aschool –the majority of the interviews Instead, in both countries, inter-municipal cooperation in forms was various early cooperation in inter-municipal both countries, Instead, by debated heavily been has that issue isan fragmentation territorial called so The isfactor The third theaverage TheEuroregions small of size oflocal governments. this 75 CEU eTD Collection which makes the central states appearaseven which makes central stronger.the states are weak, layers regional addition, In the heavily unequal. state central the relationship with make the size and small yet their poverty democracy, tostrengthen in order empowered provisions (OECD2007). jointservice least three 166, at usually to running rose micro-regions number of organize. The principle that territories without already existing voluntary micro-regions would be forced to accession(Pfeil toEU legislation the in2004(related 1999). New reforms) introduced officials central and governments local of consisting micro-regions development regional introduced in 1996that on importantlyRegional Act Planning most the changes weremade, subsequent Several associations. management institutional and associations, administrative municipalities could form associations: common body of representatives, official official partner on the Slovak side and Tata micro-region the partneron the Hungarian side. 37 Hidver formally, and region Granum Ister- membersthe mostly of are also Regió of Déli members region. The Hidverö also the 1990s and including early 2000s, theDéli RegióRegion),(South the Érsek-udvar region, and in the formed were associations regional institutionalized voluntary several Slovakia South In Central- tasks. have diverse more can micro-regions voluntary regional whereas collection, in garbage such toexecute Municipal Officesexistsomespecificcompetences as Joint order regional associations/micro-regions, associations and (4)specific-purpose (Klimovsky 2009:1107). institutionalized voluntary (3) offices, municipal joint (2) associations, voluntary.entirely There are four typesinter-communal of cooperation: (1)national Thisexplains why the Hungarian members arehonorary members.In theDanubeEuroregion from 2003 Hidverö wasan To sum up, on both sides of the border we find local governments that have been legally In Hungary, the Act on Local Government in In 1990specified Actthe on Hungary,Local Governmentin three ways which Ę is exactly such a formation of municipalities. of formation a such isexactly 76 37 CEU eTD Collection improved and was 7.9% inimproved andwas 7.9% of firstthe quarter 2012 (Hungarian butStatistical Office 2012), have sincethen rates 2009. Unemployment of 9.9 %bythethirdin quarter early% 2008to Esztergom hithardwas by 2008financial the with crisis, risingunemployment from a low 5.5 Komárom- of county asthe negatively affected mobility was cross-border However, data. in interview the mentioned employers’ ‘cross-border two only the are generally and border, the side of either people from employ factories these Both Nokia Corporation). subsidiary of in andSuzuki) factory theNokia Kft, Komárom Komárom (Nokia subsidiary of for cross-border mobility, the Suzuki factory in Esztergom (Magyar Suzuki Corporation, ininvestment large 1990s the Two and 2000s. foreign playedestablishments role an important substantial industrial presence, which by was followed a significantinflow foreign of had side Hungarian the communism of time the During sides. two the on starkly differs situation economic the however, Today, areas. rural surrounding in the conditions economic similar relatively with Esztergom around clustered activity economic that meaning Esztergom, of center church the around cohesion regional some was there time, that Atempire. vast Austrian-Hungarian monarchy at dual pre-1918, which of the wholetime this areawasapart and Tata. border towns Esztergom, Komárom (located opposite Komarnoin Slovakia, once one town) aswell as the Tatabanya, regional These includecapital the hascenters. urban several county Komárom-Esztergom whereas in in inhabitants Budapest, sidework county many of the Pest 2011). 39 38 development border. Hungarian at the right largesttowns are the Štúrovo and Komárno economic whereas and north, the in Nitra of city the is centre urban major the side, Slovakian the On infrastructure Regional 3.1.4 As ofDecember 31,2009: 32,052,76,644, 19,835, and25,644 inhabitants, respectively (Hungarian Statistical Office As of December 31, 2010, 83,444, 35,664 and 10,733 inhabitants respectively (Slovak statistical office 2011). The dominanthistorical among pointreference political leaders on both sides is the 39 77 38 On the Hungarian CEU eTD Collection introduce the two organizations that were investigated within were investigated framework of project. this that the two introduce the organizations region under study. Having thus contextualized the earlier case-selection factors, Imove on to in the activities economic different with but conditions living of levels similar generally hampered bylack offinancial and skill and (3) resources, mixedthe economicwith picture but powers constitutional significant having governments local small and layers regional weak states, central strong with set-ups administrative of in terms similarity the (2) minority, presence the a Hungarian of dueto Hungarians ethnic between cooperation of consist cooperation (1) highlighted: forto possibility cross-border the arelocated organizations study case where the part the and area border Slovak-Hungarian overall the of conditions workforce was workforce unemployed, with compared 12.5% in 2011 (Slovak Statistical 2012). Office Komárom-Esztergom though. Unemploymentpeakedalready in 2001,when of 23.1% the industrial The financial output. madecrisis 2008 of less of a difference for Nitra forthan important country’sagriculturalthe most only it whereas the region) produced 8.7% of inagricultural output Slovakthe in Republic wasproduced Nitrathe region it(making by far nationality,and had to drink the soup that came with it.” (Mayor,Slovakia, Ister-Granum and Hídver non-articulated punishment to Hungarianthe minority in the region.As expressed by one mayor the study: in “We keptour that acommon perception that is south Czechoslovakia,and later southSlovakia, was neglected developmentin policy as a 40 more in onagricultural relying than production Komárom-Esztergom. economy anda regional centers fewerurban with character different have aslightly Hungary, comingworkers from over significantly. has Slovakia dropped 2008, and numbers the comparedSuzuki of both have to workforces reducedtheir and Nokia It beyond is thescopeof present the study to these divergentexplain economicit is paths,but clear from the interview data This overview of cultural-linguistic, politico-administrative and socio-economic and politico-administrative cultural-linguistic, of overview This The bordering Slovak region of Nitra, especially the three districts (‘ districts three the especially of Nitra, region Slovak The bordering 78 * 40 In2011,31.9%of okres Ę : #A58 ) ’) adjacentto CEU eTD Collection the ferry lads or werebig waves, were not or there in blowing, the was wind mood or the fog, to was work.” there when working (Mayor, stopped often which Slovkia, by ferry, travel to Ister-Granum:had #A87) cooperation said: “The [idea of] Ister-Granum became interesting when the bridge [in Esztergom] was built. Before that you 42 41 Territorial Cooperation EC1082-2006).This had(EGTC, legal introduced personality been thelegalinstrumentof of Grouping European Slovakia.adopted 2008 the Euroregion In in county Nitra and Hungary in county Pest neighboring the and Komárom-Esztergom Euroregion in more 2003with was established than from governments 100 participating local covered 35 local governments across the border. After the preparatory stage, the Ister-Granum Hungarian Esztergom-Nyergesújfalu Microregional Development Association, which together border cooperation Slovakiansigned in Juzný Micro-region and was 2000 bythe the logofrom Euroregion. areaandin of the the the materials symbol frequently in important promotion of Thefeatures tourism bridge unity. precondition for setting up a regional cross-border cooperationnecessary the only not framework, as but perceived alsowas it as an bridge, the rebuild to countries two the between Whenwas in havingbeenafter War II. duringWorldreached 1999anagreement destroyed rebuilt not was them between bridge the since River, Danube the of sides opposite on located are which towns, two those between connection permanent no was there acentury, half than (Párkány)Štúrovo in Slovakia, with inhabitants30,000 and 11,000 respectively.more For approximately inhabitants175,000 in 2011. Thebiggesttowns in are Esztergom Hungary and governments cover an (Eck,area of 2,200 squarekilometers Jankai had and Ocskay 2007) and rivers Danube, Ipel and Hron the around located local consisting is of 82 governments EGTC a Euroregion Ister-Granum EGTC Ister-Granum 3.2.1 studyorganizations 3.2 Thecase The bridge was often referred to in interview situations as well. One long-time mayor and early initiator of Ipoly cross-border and Garam in Hungarian. The name Ister-Granum refers to the Latin names forDanube and Hron. It was therefore not a coincidence that the first declaration of intent to set up a cross- 41 at the central part of the Hungarian-Slovak border. The local The border. Hungarian-Slovak of the part central the at 79 42 CEU eTD Collection resources coverresources to pre-financing the a project of ontourism itforfrom had which wonsupport million inmemberships.HUF unpaid it Moreover, had unpaidbillsfind difficulties and to the soon as it could be legally arranged. legally be could it as soon HUF. This unit had been set up before the creation of EGTC, but was scheduled for liquidation and43 merger with the EGTC as (Magyar Állam 7017-7018). renewed. up or set been had of none these EGTC of the inauguration the years after but three legal reconstruction, specific issues culture,such as or someenvironment had of which been inbefore place the deal with to committees listsix working statutes The Chair. andDeputy asChair turns (Párkány) take and Štúrovo of members.Esztergom mayors The consistingeight Senate, of the of hands in the are powers Executive year. a twice least at meet should which Assembly, via General deputymayor the each local of mayori.e. or the government, members, and afurtherfour left in followingthe leaving years, the current membership at 82. EGTC, of the out opted in located Slovakia, primarily municipalities, Fourteen reconstruction. alegal around discussion process the mighthave legal instrument, EGTC accelerated the of usage the to related stakes personal with together show-case, a serve as to for Ister-Granum border areassurrounding Hungary (István Pálfi Memorial Website 2012).Thus,expectations in the cooperation most cross-border and comprehensive” the“most exemplary Ister-Granum was in promotingalso cross-border active cooperation, Hungarian-Hungarian and hadnamed He Pálfi. István MEP Hungarian others, among by, for lobbied actively been had regulation via in aregulation intended cooperation. 2006and tofacilitate was cross-border The A separate consultancy-oriented unit, theIster-Granum Euroregion Ltd.had aturnover of about 75,000 EUR, 20,652,000 In 2010 the EGC had a turn-over of In 2010theEGChad of 18,144,000HUF, approximately aturn-over or 65,000 EUR, The highest decision-making powerwithin EGTCisthe heldby representatives of its 43 However, in spring2011 organizationthe had more than 1.7 80 CEU eTD Collection the common Hungarian language thatbecamebilateral linkswereforged Often, common andheritage. the Hungarian on focus a special with and commerce handicraft entertainment, offered These days in 1990. newmade policiesborder possiblecrossings dueto following the of regarding change regime organize annual calledcultural events ‘Hídver towns Komárom–Komarno (Révkomárom) and Esztergom- Štúrovo (Párkány)began to mayor of one of the members on the Slovak side) of the organization. (the Chair the to belonging staff the by be undertaken to have tasks administrative that means havemeager EUR.Thenot anyemployees, which a annual budgetorganization 10,000 does have anyregularincome excepta membership feeof per0.30 EUR inhabitant, making the not inhabitants. The does exceedorganization not 30,000 does wholepopulation area the of (Marcelova/Marcelhaza),3,800 the and to from (Virt) small ininhabitants ranging 300 size, areall local governments The participating each other. to next located not are governments covered by is Euroregion the non-contiguous on Hungarianthe i.e. local side, the The territory there. held arealways meetings regular and from Slovakia is always Chairthe isthat butoneconsequence members, full andhonorary madebetween differentiation little is there Inpractice, members’. areofficially ‘honorary settlements thefiveHungarian whereas municipal only whichmeansthat can Slovakorganization, settlements fullthe be members, inter- asan in Slovakia is registered association The Euroregion. of Ister-Granum the west 45 in interviews and in the minutes as a crisis, or a very difficult situation. 44 The Hídver The Hídver 3.2.2 financingto theEUas project’s solved. the program. Interreg European Union’s the Between 2003 and 2008 known as the Danube Euroregion,but in this chapter referred to as Hídver This was thebackground to the difficult situation narrated in the introduction: situationthe wasfrequently described both In the early 1990s, villages located alonglocated In theearly between 1990s, villages Danube in the areastretching the the Ę Euroregion Ę Euroregion 45 consists of consists of andlocated thirteen fiveSlovak settlements Hungarian 44 The pre-financing subsequently had to be paid back be paid to had subsequently pre-financing The 81 Ę napok’ (‘Bridge building days’),which was Ę . CEU eTD Collection cooperation and the immediate solution was to ‘retreat’ to the original organization of 13 of organization original tothe ‘retreat’ to was solution immediate the andcooperation defunct. definition practical is byany and resignation, the after investigation a criminal into drawn was organization The Danube Euroregion Népszava,inend 2008,2008). April 2008 (Népszabadság resigned subsequently by tainted allegations of towards corruption mayorthe in of Neszmély, who the was Euroregion The others. than cooperation the of running and set-up in the active in Hídver members honorary been already had that those members, formally were Hungary in Micro-region Tata the of governments local all though Even in Hungary. anditwasregistered leading partner wasthe Neszmély Danube Euroregion. Hungarian side. In 2003,it set up an agreement together with Hídver 48 Association, March2, 2006. 47 minister for mostof the time between January 1993 and October 1998. alwayswhat thought once that brokehastogrowtogether.” (Mayor,Slovakia, Hídver country, and we saw the opportunity to break out of this, we joined with 12 other ministersettlements at the time,who in his opinion towards tried to prevent connectionsthe mother with Hungary. country.“They forbadethe contact Wewith the mother in settlements of too. regions other country and abroad the and towns with together work can Association “The Article: second the of end the at included is akey sentence However, Article II). (Statutes, problems common solve members and 46 its by-laws,According to Hídver above. asdescribed nation-building, but by also block, followingSlovak by both socialist fall the the of openness the characterized thatwas atime villages.between Hungarian partnershipsSlovakian This was and name of the which they samename as the the gave micro-region), (a voluntary cultural an formed days association festival, Hídver ‘Leading partner’ should not be confused with the technical term ‘lead partner’ used by some EU structural funds projects. My translation from the official Hungarian translation of the original Slovak, carried out by the Interpreter and Translator A mayor who took office in 1994 referred in one of the fieldwork interviews to this as the “worst time of Me However, the members who had been most active members still wanted to continue to wanted still members active most been had who members the However, In the same period, Tata Microregional Development Association was formed on the In involved hadbeen1999, 13settlements on Slovakthe in cultural side which these Ę 46 is an organization set up to protect the interest of protectits is theinterest of up to set anorganization Ę Társulás (in Slovak, 82 47 ” Zdruzenie most priatel´stva most Zdruzenie Ę : #A70)Me Vladimir Ę Ę were significantly more significantly were Association formto the þ iar wasprime þ iar”, prime 48 ). CEU eTD Collection Table 6. on analysisto findings, and research Table 6 provides a summary key of characteristics. borderland as well as a factual background to the two case study organizations. Before Imove interact with each other?’ This means that members of Euroregions are the primary of units primary arethe of members Euroregions means that This other?’ with each interact of organization?’,the ‘how do they inparticipate organizations?’the and‘how do they members governments local the ‘why are answer the questions seek to section. I focusthis of Slovak Euroregions in the study, Ister-Granum EGTC and HídverHungarian- two the of members among interaction and participation motivation, of Patterns Granum andHídver inIster- local governments of interaction and participation 3.3 Motivation, towns among the 13 members of the Slovak association. had partnership who those also but cooperation, continue the eager to most ones were the these settlements, Hungarian the Of members. Hungarian honorary five and members Slovak Regional GDP (Eurostat, NUTSII 2008) National GDP(IMF 2010, in USD) State form since existing Border Working language Approximate population 2010 Local governments in2011 Founded Euroregion This section has given an overview of the main characteristics of of Hungarian-Slovak the main of characteristics the hasanoverview given This section Key characteristics of Hídver Key characteristics of ŋ Ę Západné Slovensko 11,400 Közép-Dunántúl: 9,500 HU: 14,808, SK:17,889 unitary 1919 (except 1938-1944) Slovak (rarely) Hungarian (dominant), 175,000 82 2008 EGTC 2003 Euroregion Ister-Granum , Ister-Granum andtheHungarian-Slovak borderlands 83 * Slovensko 11,400 Közép-Dunántúl: HU: 14,808, SK:17,889 unitary 1919 (except 1938-1944) Slovak (frequently) Hungarian (dominant), 30,000 18 2003 Euroregion 1999 Association Hídver Ę Association, constitute the Ę 9,500 Západné CEU eTD Collection 50 were a part of Hungary before the peace treaty War World I: after signed peacetreaty before the Hungary were apartof overwhelming part of these emphasized that the Slovakvillages and towns in the cooperation in Hídver in their attitude towardsboth organizations. In67 out total, of 82 membersofIster-Granum (81%)and 17out of the 18members representedby their highestpolitical representatives. Sixof those have double membership,and have beeninterviewed as to 49 into multiplecoded categories and sectionalized were answers case in which motivation, one than more on membership based categories. Itshouldthese membership a localbe noted on that canbasegovernment its solved motivations thought tobebetter section jointly.thestated forIn this I analyze grant-seeking, andthesecondspecificare materialistic gainsthrough policy that problems analysis, instrumentality the has been group sub-divided into two further groups; firstthe is the In instrumentality. on based one and identity/polity on based one groups, two into divided broadly be injoincan andstay aEuroregion to motivation the in Chapter1, As detailed Motivation 3.3.1 below. 4.3.1 followsparticipation 1,and in what wasintroduced Chapter will in be briefly recapitulated analysis. of unit primary the as themselves organizations the treat section 3.4 will section, while analysis inthis The peace treaty between Hungary and the winning allies after World War I, signed in 1920. The analysis relies on primary data collection: 78 interviews were conducted with members of the two Euroregions as The first category is The firstcategory Ę “Here of course the Trianon the course “Here of the Hungarians.”the Slovakia-Ister-Granum: (Mayor, A108) regional […]the isof “Theconnection theHungarian-Hungarian goal cohesion Hungary, #A53) Ister-Granum: Esztergomold the of interests the in together, population the bring to] want “[We ‘castle region’Ister-Granum: #A138) and the Hungary, (Mayor, two Euroregion.” of the creation the through this careof can take sides of the current border.” (Mayor, Association (94%) were interviewed. See Chapter 3 for more details on method and data collection. data and method on details more 3 for Chapter See interviewed. were (94%) Association 49 identity/polity The analytical framework driving the analysis of motivation and motivation of analysis the driving framework analytical The 50 story is a Hungarian specialty, and a little bityou , and 40 respondents were coded in this category. The 84 CEU eTD Collection having historical it aspecial territorial tie; an covers area broadly the converging with the same, i.e. this sentiment was stronger in Hídver stronger was sentiment this i.e. same, the Hídver in Among it often how mentioned. was but there was a markeddifference organizations, political political changes in after 1989: Europe Eastern Hungary before World War I. 51 ‘NorthernHighlands’, or ‘upper province’Hungarian is the name forpartthe of southern Slovakia that belonged to Common identity ran as a theme through interviews with respondents from both from respondents with interviews through a theme as ran identity Common Several respondents mentioned that this cooperation was only possible due to the Ę (Mayor, Slovakia, (Mayor, Hídver countries. twothe Weimprove decidedwe wantedto the thatsituation.” between status enemy wasalmost there that such was situation political “The mayors don’t even know how it was.” (Mayor, Slovakia, Hídver were allowed to go over [to other side of the border] twice a year. we Perhaps haveThe anyconnections. not In 1989,wedid mother country young[…] “We formed this [cooperation] so that we can nurture the relations with the just asmuch as Hungarians.”the (Mayor, Hungary, Ister-Granum:A135). politicsput into to this,want we are in don’t I a good But relationship here. from with everyone there, different the Slovaksno is there over view of point understanding, from yes.international of point the law, Butfrom a cultural in a legal of side border the is it other is the on that true It Hungarians. Highlands’ ‘Northern in the live who those that say should I “First Hídver Slovakia, (Mayor, together.” bound be should together belong that riverbanks two the Hungary, and Slovakia between buildbridge to “We want aspiritual (Mayor, Slovakia, Hídver mother tongue.” andthe culture the traditions, keepthe Hungarian-ness, “The cooperation started after the change of regime, in order for us to keep the wanted to getWe closer to each other.” together. (Mayor,grow Slovakia, to has Hídver broken was once what that thought always “We A47) Hungarian historically and they are so today.” (Mayor, Hungary, Ister-Granum: were They Hungarian. are that settlements thereare side other “On the (Mayor, Slovakia, Hídver Hídver “For respondents, 13out of 17 referredwhereas tothis, in Ister-Granum of 35 out 72 did Ę : A69) Ę the main aim was the Hungarian-Hungarian connection.” Hungarian-Hungarian the was aim main the Ę Ę Ę : #A59) and Ister-Granum: #A68) and Ister-Granum: A 58) 85 Ę . This was in spite of Ister-Granum of inspite was . This Ę : A70) Ę : #A66) 51 are CEU eTD Collection Hungarian village without minorities. without village Hungarian villages: a Slovak Hungarian village, aSlovak Slovak-speaking village, aHungarian village with a Slovak minority 52 and a mentioned by several respondents, but more so on the Hungarian side than on the Slovak: were circumstances historical county. These Esztergom region administrative historical practices. This did among occur interviewees, butless frequently. local government element future current important and of isan cooperation municipal quotebelowthe by isa Hungarianmayor an exception: include governments would Euroregion. in seekto Thus, Slovakvillages Slovak-speaking the local i.e. Hungarian cooperation, forthat inter-ethnic neither thepossibility did cooperation, that cooperation has an intrinsic value, i.e. that i.e. value, intrinsic an has cooperation that Anotherexception is #A87, whichbesides itsEuroregional engagementa part is of arrangementa partnership of four The minority livingsmall seldom Slovak inHungary featured as a reason for Aside from ethnic belonging, identity/polity motivation can also be based on the belief the on based be also can motivation identity/polity belonging, ethnic from Aside #A109) wasit a historicalDanube], the thing, of sides we both found [on it natural.” county Esztergom (Mayor,the to Slovakia,belonged we Ister-Granum:“Once Granum: #A16) very much ourselves homeHungary,at in (Mayor, Ister- this organization.” region, had and Esztergom animportant role inbringing We this together. feel “It was a natural #A45) Hungary, Ister-Granum: (Mayor, acceptable.” were goals its thing that thought we and region’, ‘castle old the of tocohesion do becausebelongup forwe just wantedto the thecommunity. Euroregion was set to The we aresetup any “We did theparticipation for not [in Euroregion], goals the specific part of the Esztergom Micro- Hungary, #A49) Ister-Granum: speak, we were not the ones initiating this and we are notvery active.” (Mayor, to mass, so the Wewere leftbe not of something. out we’d better “We thought cooperation], we don’t say ‘no’.” (Mayor, Hungary, Ister-Granum: #A8) “We are open, if somebody door knocks on our invite[and a us to #A129) Ister-Granum: Hungary, (Mayor, interesting.” itis why was and that village, a Slovak weare because side, other the to connections get to “We wanted 86 cooperation 52 per se is valuable and that inter- that and valuable is CEU eTD Collection similar: very were situations in interview formulations the much; differ not did this to referred mayors group (29 answersin coded whereasthis), afewonly mentioned thisin Hídver Euroregion: in supporting outtheEsztergom some the European the Union, alsopointed roleof Euroregion by Ister-Granum members were seen as a direct means to access grants, evenif meansaccess grants, wereseenasadirect to members by Euroregion Ister-Granum Instrumentality Whereas expectations as expressed in the citations above mainly were directed towards directed were abovemainly inthe citations asexpressed expectations Whereas All these answers, which are just some examples from the interviews, express how the how express interviews, from the some examples just are which answers, All these Granum: #A61) “I thought it would be a good idea to get together.” (Mayor, Slovakia, Ister- Ister-Granum: #A110) The idea was that we should get more for development.” (Mayor, Slovakia,money, get money andfrom “The Europe, wasto regional main too. reason Hungary,(Mayor, #A17) cooperation.” cross-border supports apply,because EU to “The opportunities Granum: #A19) “We thoughtof applymoney.”opportunities for to Hungary, (Mayor, Ister- government.” (Mayor,Hungary, #A131) thanifyou advantage local apply a small as brings greater association always integrating a European possibilities; application the because of “We joined Granum: #A9) Hungary, (Mayor, Ister- access“We wouldlike funding.” of sources to (Mayor, Slovakia, Ister-Granum: #A64) villages.” to distribute gave money to that Esztergom of local government the “[The membership]broughta lot, both moral butalsosupport money.was It Slovakia, Ister-Granum, #A92) something.”get (Mayor, had chance to highest andthe smallest poorest cultural most in2009.We fromhouse the because got Ister-Granum the “I got money from Ister-Granum, it was not EU money though. It was for a , the second motivation category, was very common inthe Ister-Granum common was very category, motivation second , the 87 Ę . How the CEU eTD Collection provide funding for cross-border cooperation. cross-border for funding provide 53 Euroregional engage with local governments How andperformance. function Euroregional motivationLocal government formembership an piece constituted important of of picture the Participation 3.3.2 clearly: identity also played animportant role. this Sometimes, doublemotivation was expressed cooperation. Onlyafew pointed respondents a to specific policy problem: that common policy problems constitute an important reason for cross-border inter-municipal cohesion. and social economic achieve this Union” European the of co-financing the by is “that Grouping” the of objective specific “the specifiesthat statutes The come. should development for this resources where from regarding doubt no leaves text The cohesion”. social and economic strengthening and promoting for one lays down that the emphasis is on “the full range of regional development activities […] expectations, primarily in the form of access to grants, featured prominently as well. prominently featured inform togrants, of primarily the access expectations, materialistic in but in Ister-Granum both analyzed Euroregions, cooperation base-line for Curiously, wording the implies that therationale for organization the would Europeanthe notexistif Union didnot However, neither the statutes nor the interview material gives any support for theidea anysupport norgives theinterview material neither statutes the However, The statutes also emphasize this focus on economic (and social) development. Article The overall analysis therefore showed that identity/polity constitutes the motivational European money.”European Hungary, #A132) (Mayor, Ister-Granum: for apply to beable we should is that other the towns, the and villages the sides, other the on settlements sister our to connection have is to first “The another.” (Mayor, Hungary, Ister-Granum: #A15) was Infrastructure hospital. as the such be solved, to issues were “There Ister-Granum: #A52) corridor] whichwouldimply a reviving economical (Mayor, Hungary,role.” “They emphasized thatthere wouldbe corridor aninfrastructure [North-South 53 88 CEU eTD Collection inApril All initiative 2008; 2008),the 2008 (Népszabadság Népszava local diedout. investigation of corruption directed towards the mayor of Neszmély, and after his resignation the work was led by the underthename efforts cooperation cross-border mayor of Neszmély. Hídver with up joined had in Hungary Micro-region Tata the of However,governments the Euroregion was drawn into an modestthe fee membership and required.time investment even contribute to continuing worth not was it fulfilled been not had expectations if such that found some Ister-Granum, for motivation instrumental important an been had funds external membership.As individual expectationsdirect of localto returns governmentsintheform of took the moment of transformationinterpretations by other actors (other mayors, managers) give reasonassume to membersthat as an opportunity of and them representatives of three interviewsbut with and conversations exited, to reflect onsystematically governmentsnot framework approach study of that 2011). Within I did the this cost and benefits of leftremainin (sevenmore 2008- local the of EGTC governmentschoseto only out 103 89 the that was reorganization the of consequence An funds.unforeseen European accessto facilitate EGTC tool was supposed togive amore securelegal position, butmembers itexpected also to the speak atpractitioner Theintroduction of andseminars. leadership conferences political to and management its to invitations including attention, international received considerable Ister-Granum (EGTC). todoso,and in second Euroregion was the all ittherefore Europe of form. In 2008, Ister-Granum transformed intoa European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation incollected 2010 and2011)both Euroregions went through a significant shiftin legal their section. in this analysis of inwhichorganizations membersisthey a are second piece andof picture, the this is focus the Meanwhile, Hídver A couple yearsof prior to the recording of the interview material (the bulk of which was Ę had gone through a turbulent time as well. In 2003, all local 89 Danube Euroregion . As already . As mentioned, already Ę to continue the continue to CEU eTD Collection regional platform for cooperation within Slovakia. Especially changes and implication in implication and changes Especially Slovakia. within cooperation for platform regional concernitems agenda Most mayors. the between socializing Slovak informal of plenty for allow to is relaxed issues,Slovak members, andfrom theylastmorning usually until lunch.refreshments Theschedule as Hidverötypically functions lasts two-threeinformation from Managerthe on ongoing andplanned projects. Anassemblymeeting hoursas withboth food afterwards.a cross-borderagenda items such as elections of Senate and Chairs constitute a big part of Inthe meetings, asis Hídver Formal notalways debates. for place conducive settings take many inroomsseating persons, forum to have they members of number high the to Due (Párkány). andin Štúrovo located occasionally a micro- are they although Esztergom, in place take usually meetings assembly The conducted. fewactivities, which in were before yearsi.e.the interviews shortly the 2009 and2010, were all hasin members separate year,Granum generally opento 1-2meetings per to addition frequencythe and meetings stylein of whichmembers could takepartdiffered starkly. Ister- meetings the areincluded, istime investmentlimited. to attendance and time travel preparation, if Even meetings. to commitment time of terms feesmembership yearin per inhabitant10 Eurocents inboth (less than organizations) per or as none of the Euroregionsinvestment low-cost a considered was it generally settlements; in the issue requirepolitical a salient much from the members in terms of resources, either for (Ister-Granum and Hídver and (Ister-Granum insomething andmembers past, the the expected new and renewedforms organizational this name alone. settlements that had been previously in active Hídver five those the left Hungarian of except cooperation, Tatamicro-region the governments Before going into how members take part in the organizations, it should be noted that it noted organizations, should be partin memberstake goingBefore the how into At the time when the interviews were conducted these events were already seen as seen werealready events these conducted were interviews the when time the At Ę respectively) to function. Membership in the organization was not was organization in the Membership function. to respectively) 90 Ę , which now returned tocalling itself by Ę , meetings rotate among the CEU eTD Collection ineffective management: ineffective have an perceived the(activity organization to Euroregion)visible and the output of year. The reasonlast the over meetings any attended not had he/she that givenstated mayor the in which members), for this was mostly membersHungarian (especially of the a third roughly large a group, hand, was there that the members conditioneddelegated engagement attendancegenerally that mayor side Slovak on the one except in person, attend with would All mayors to his moreout. opting consistently experiencedsettlement no with rates, attendance high very have meetings monthly deputy mayor. In Ister-Granum, on the other they how regarding with engaged organization: the clean Danube beaches river banks, or preservation of ruins from Roman times). on items (e.g.projects arealso standard intheassociation betweenmembers planned projects social legislation constitute common themes. However, discussions related to ongoing or organizations, as organizations, below.outlined In the analysis of interview data, the local groups weredividedthree into local the In the interview data, governments analysis of Detached members. The results of the analysis demonstrated a distinctively different pattern between the two works.” (Mayor,it Hungary, how Ister-Granum: through see #A50)cannot I cooperation. in the layers many too are “There x x x approach approach and agenda. contributing tothe astrategic with events and meetings attending regularly Active: (mayors); representative political highest the than rather get information this to meetings sent to mightbe lower-ranked administrators seek information, or to deputies mainly it doing but events, and meetings attending regularly Listeners: organization; the from writing in rather information in receivingevents, meetings rarely Detached: or participating Hídver Ę did not have members did into asits this any not coded group, 91 CEU eTD Collection settlements: Slovak of with an thisoverrepresentation be group, into categorized couldmembers a strategic goal or set of detached ones, consistingpriorities group butthe members attending of meetings regularly butwithout for their relation with the organization. Roughly half the commitment: his settlement members, which previousthe one had, andinterviewees indicated seldom intrust many small of the representatives connect to to visible efforts make not manager did being personal withperceived mayor as difficulties dueto the subsequent The of Esztergom. members and to were unclear that circumstances dismissedunder was reconstruction EGTC. This ‘golden time’ ended when managerthe whohad been the driver of legal the Mayors would frequently (Párkány). ofEsztergom Štúrovo and and leaders lay with team the political the managing refer to a ‘golden time’ of enthusiasm around the creation of the happening’ at the level of level happening’ atthe Euroregion the of ‘nothing to reaction sound a as respondents by explained and disapproval, non-emotional as The implicit was responsibility moving expectation for the that thingsforward clearly Listeners. All in all, the interview material indicated significant amounts of indifference, of expressed amounts significant indicated material All in interview the all, Granum: #A47) “The colleagues here around don’t gomuch (Mayor,Hungary,either.” Ister- Ister-Granum: #A60) Slovakia, (Mayor, bridges.” Ipoly the are then there and justyears. reports, lasthappened some Therewere “Not much has inthe (Mayor, Slovakia, Ister-Granum: #A115) meeting.” the members attended morethe leastat than half see of to that one, and itlooks as if the situation might consolidate. We also could be pleased “I don’t participate very often,Granum: #A123) because of thirdthe in one Slovakia,this.a year,andthethings (Mayor, getstuck.” Ister- Although “The problem with I them is thatthey change managersdid all time,the this islike attend the last However, even in Ister-Granum, the largest group of members was not the not was members of group largest the in Ister-Granum, even However, 92 CEU eTD Collection (Párkány) in Slovakia in in asleaders are perceived cooperation: (Párkány) the Slovakia inand Esztergom Štúrovo Hungary asthetowns in respect, Granum significantly this differed The situationof in more members other. higher-rankedthe than the as wereperceived Ister- local governmentsbeing relatively equal insize andall beinglocated close noneto the border, participating the to due partially Probably year. a once least at agenda of the main part the set memberhas theto chance (Slovak) members, every between Slovak the rotate meetings participants: Active Also inAlso Hídver here.” (Mayor, Slovakia: Ister-Granum: #A125) Ister-Granum: Slovakia: (Mayor, here.” cannotdream thinking miracles than around 200.You us whohave about bigger that with settlements inhabitantsperhaps 3,000 have ways other of case the is really It continued. have could if that good been have would it […] “Esztergom everything,evenpaidforinsmall ruled they thevillagesprojects #A91) town would believenotsuch We becausethey could everything that abigwere strong. get into such in have let them we them and trusted that sostrong was leaders.Esztergom the seriousstill (Párkány) Štúrovo are Esztergom and but settlements, 100 “We arealmost troubles.” (Mayor, Slovakia, Ister-Granum: #A57) Hídver Slovakia, (Mayor, side.” Hungarian the hear about instance we for information, and experience exchange is to meetings the at activity main “The important for me.” (Mayor, Slovakia, Hídver information,freely colleagues, andyou get the cantalk whichis and there listen to like becauseI to arareexception, that’s meetings, go tothe “If I don’t (Mayor, Slovakia: Ister-Granum: #A63) “I always go to the meetings. If for some reason I cannotIster-Granum: #A128) go I send someone.” Slovakia, (Mayor, getmainly information.” to to the assemblies, “Igo usually information.” (Mayor, Slovakia, Hídver andinteresting contacts canget You meetings. friendly arepleasant, “These members. Ę , this group was , this constitutingrelatively large, more group than a third of Most of the Hídver the of Most Ę 93 members can be classified as active. Since active. as be classified can members Ę : A66) Ę : #A73) Ę : CEU eTD Collection which imply that the character of the Euroregion is perceived as depoliticized.towns,close vs farfrom theborder, administrative vs political status), scored higher but werestill not considered important, what lines of differences could cause conflicting opinions within the Euroregion politics. The other alternatives55 (small vs. big political-battles/ or http://www.localmonitoring.eu/en/article/1638 [Accessedarticlesin English athttp://www.politics.hu/20120117/multi-issue-referendum-to-be-held-in-esztergom-amid-ongoing- August 22, 2012]. both in terms of finances and time diminished: time and finances of interms both strife political This Fidesz. government), mayor, with whocould notcooperate in majority the party thelocal council national (and seen for theEuroregion.anindependenttherefore as amajor drawback also elected Esztergom 54 internalforirrelevant in and theorganization,debates decisions wasdescribed as party politics However, local the of servingChair). the government Hídver as serving (asmentionedparticipants employees servant civil secretariat regular in section 3.2, Ister-Granum only the with by officials, they elected are composed inthat sense political the are organizations both of participation, character political of the Interms Euroregions. and in Lábatlan Muzla/Muzsla Szob Hungary, and (e.g. mainly representatives in manner, town a strategic cooperation steer Euroregional the trying to Esztergom and Štúrovo (Párkany) were not on board, even if there were a few other actors mayors in the studied due tomayors in smaller settlements Hungarian usually areabeing whereas independent, Slovak generally belongableestablishalso not to any lines in party lines.dividing opinion according to ispartly This to one of the Slovakia’s two ethnic Hungarian Inorganizations, both party politics and nationaldifferences (Hungarian-Slovak)was ranked whenlowest asked about Interested readersmay consultwebsites such as When the local elections in 2010 resulted in a political stalemate in Esztergom, this When in in was local this the ina political elections stalemate 2010 resulted Esztergom, This section has so far outlined the degree of engagement of membersin of has two engagement This sofaroutlined thedegreeof section the This quote demonstrates that turning events around was perceived as an uphill battle if battle wasperceivedas demonstrates around an uphill turningevents that This quote Ę project].” (Mayor, Slovakia, Ister-Granum: #A87) Ister-Granum: Slovakia, (Mayor, project].” afailed tourism- we can [of EU-funded that pre-financing pay the advance, so pay,have pay membership wewill to members two ask or to feesinone “Now when is we nothing insuch[…]Now Esztergom a badsituation works. does not have an independent secretariat but relies on the administrative capacities of capacities administrative on the relies but secretariat independent an have not does Localand Regional Monitoring Institute 54 had consequences for Ister-Granum, as support as for Ister-Granum, had consequences 94 Želiezovce 55 /Zseliz in Slovakia). /Zseliz and in the analysis I was or Politics.hu . Seefor instance CEU eTD Collection minority minority being activein forward. driving organization the layered membership,partindifferent, with a significant majority the passive and a only had a oractivemeetings, aspassive members, information-seekers Ister-Granum either organizations. Whereas the Euroregion Hídver theEuroregion Whereas organizations. Hungarian side would resultin more support direct for the Euroregion. the on ‘friendly’ considered a government that openly their expectations stated mayors not for Hídver of thison the working or inner relations of either of the two Euroregions. political issue for all active politicians of Hungarian ethnicity in Slovakia atthe time,communicated I as ethnically aless could radical party not Hungarianthan the establish Coalition Party.this any While split undoubtedlydirect was abig effects 56 most analysis local cooperation.cross-border showed thatgovernments network social The Thispredated process settlements). small numbers of fragmentation (large local government dueto perceived inefficiencies counteract to inorder policies inter-municipal adopted cooperation involved supporting Both states delivery. and joinedservice upfor cooperation aslocal governments border both sides of the here. analysis oninnetwork Chapter beelaborated will findings6, and core the are included only social The communication. to relating statements of analysis andqualitative on respondents, findings analysis network are largelybased on of ascommunication data by provided the The email). or telephone meetings, face-to-face (via in communication personal manifested as other, each with interact members how, and extent, what to uncovers section This Interaction 3.3.3 parties. Before conduction the of interviews, in2009, asecond Slovak-Hungarian party was formed (the Bridge Party),which was In summary, the participation seems to differ considerably between two the between considerably differ seems to participation In summary, the Intermunicipal cooperation became increasingly common in becameincreasingly common period on cooperation theinvestigated Intermunicipal 56 On otherhandthe party waspolitics perceivedimportant for as Ister-Granum,but Ę , when it came to relations to the national level, especially Hungary. Many and 95 developed concurrently with the formation of Ę had regularly membersattended that CEU eTD Collection representatives from representatives from nearby settlements side on border other the cultural to of the events smallerlocalis governments, it perceived ‘good assomething manners’, positive, or invite to on political developmentor public service delivery more and on various events. Especially in When it communicationcomes to of outside theframework Euroregion,the focuses this less side’. other the ‘on done are things how on exchange information and governments local the of realities political the on focus to then tend and Euroregions, the by arranged meetings andevents place only at Much takes communication 1987). andKnoke of cross-border the transmission is one of most significant relationships for efficient network output (Laumann information hasshown that as relationships inter-organizational research important, This ison analysis. network Hídver in Ister-Granum there are few cross-border links on a weekly monthlyor basis, whereas analyzed Especially two the organizations. between differs cluster. Thepattern Slovak pattern one and Hungarian one into falls clearly pattern communication The context. nation-state the placewithin whichtakes to communication extent large the demonstrates also study the Nonetheless, communication. domestic as extent same the to not albeit time, over increasing havebeen to is claimed also communication social as cross-border capital of between-group capital). social (between-group capital social local transnational as institutions cross-border emerging the by social (within-group builtcapital)could institutions upwithin these be that potentially utilized capital social institutional domesticlocal of implies a presence This time. over frequency increase incontact indicated an Mayors much rarer. were region the outside domestic contacts whereas micro-region, in same the with local monthlygovernments contact or have weekly The next question is why, and about what, the mayors communicate with each other. This gives support for generation the the domestic leadsThis support claimlocal capital social to gives that Ę has somewhat more. Overall, the Hídver 96 Ę network is denser, as revealed by the social CEU eTD Collection solutions: general problems, such as unemployment, rather than around concrete ideas for cooperation or around revolve to tends conversation events, those at meet mayors the When day’). village arranged by in or municipality. instance,For the most villageshave annual cultural days (‘the different categories. different in the assessments the summarizes 7 Table Ister-Granum. in especially weak, relatively such as Szob, Salka (Ipolyszalka), Ipolydamasd, Letkes, Tesa, etc. acommon leading bridges for andlocal settlements governments constituted roads concern to cooperation could tourists.around It alsobefound around theIpoly wherebridgesriver, and and competition bridge, and bridge andaplanned current tothe issues related Esztergom, access in located hospital to the about instance for (Párkány), and Štúrovo between Esztergom All in all, the research shows that the reserves of between-group social capital are capital social between-group of reserves the that shows research the All inall, Examples communication focusingon policyon issuesconcrete could mainlybefound biggest problem.”(Mayor,Slovakia, Ister-Granum:#A127) We talk about area. inthis representatives mayors their and with other the in contact “We are our problems, that no oneIster-Granum: #A128) has money forother way around.anything, The same goes for sport competitions.”(Mayor, Slovakia, musicalothers’ performcultural our groups andevents, dance the and there, that is theeach to come and each other talk to to We use etc. Vámosmikula, Letkes, of] settlements [the theIpoly river, heremainly meet “We with around those 97 CEU eTD Collection words, what are the functions and performance of Euroregions? I first introduce introduce policy the Ifirst ofEuroregions? performance whatare functionsthe and words, dependent variable ofThis the project: section what do dealsthey do andwith how Hidver and ofIster-Granum andperformance 3.4 Function wellorganizations do they do this? In other as primary unitsdiscussing howthefunction and performance is related to discussed factors the in section.this of analysis,will now move on to how the organizationsand function and perform as Euroregions,elaborates before its due socialfrequentcommunication. I more to capital than Ister-Granum between-group on Hídver the showed which interactions, of analysis the by reinforced was finding This information-seekers. passive or indifferent either were members Ister-Granum of Hídver virtually the instrumental combined element, grant-seeking with identity/polity the was that component sole base wereof expected to show some variation. This turned theout correct, as Ister-Granum had that a stronger variables independent Hídver constitute patterns interaction and participation Motivation, other. with each interact they how butalso Euroregions, Hungarian-Slovak investigated two the primary why unit analysis,seeking answerof in asto to and questions howthey participate Table 7. BETEWEEN- GROUP SOCIAL This motivation,section on participation Euroregionsand interaction has treated as the

Ę CAPITAL had more active members, taking turns to drive the cooperation, whereas the majority Between-groupHídver social capitalof Strength ofcross-border Euroregion (politicization of issues) Presence of conflict Level of trust to other side Perceived trend of contacts communications Ę cooperation. Participation patterns differed in that 98 low medium somewhat increasing low Ister-Granum Ę and Ister-Granum Ę low high increasing high Hídver to have more bonding more have to ŋ Ę CEU eTD Collection millionEUR. settlements at these sites during Roman times. The project runs 2010-2012 and has a total budgetof 10.3 Cooperation Program 2007-2013 programorder in restore to erectand amuseum toeducate and remember Iza/Izsa (Slovakia) and Almásfüzít Historical site preservation food). performance, musical dance, (folk area the in heritage cultural common the with connect that activities on especially focuses event The Euroregion. ofthe members Bridge-building Days Most important to members: Pastovce/Ipolypászto (Slovakia) (Slovak Government Office 2010). Ipolydamásd (Hungary) andChlaba/Helemba (Slovakia), between and Vámosmikula (Hungary) and the time of writing interstate agreements to build (sharing costs) had been signed for two bridges: betweensupport forofmuch paperwork the to forapply money receiveand support state forrebuilding bridges. At Euroregion constituted has anfor arena discussing where bridges wouldbe needed, and has also given waswhich Euroregion inthe area, Letkes-Ipolyszalka at (HungarianGovernment Office 2012). The destroyed thewar Only during and not rebuilt. fourworked untilthechange of in1990, regime oneof Ipoly bridges Directorate. Water and Environmental Middle-Danube-valley the and Ipoly municipality of the town Esztergom, the district Banska Bystrica (Besztercebánya) in Slovakia,Ipolyszakállas Union (Slovakia). The Euroregion was officially one of the project owners, together with the Table 8. to. were frequently referred by that Euroregions the out activities carried two fields) and policy numbergrade of a to were asked (interviewees organizations the activities typical by membersimportant of mostthe are considered policy areas that the Table 8 summarizes and areas Policy 3.4.1 windows (see Chapter 1). anddisplay loudspeakers asseismographs, function border Hungarian-Slovak the cases at two assess2003, 2007),and to appropriation the of determinewhichpolicy space, I the to extent judged usedin by (primarily cooperation, of literature Perkmann categories cross-border the intensity of in terms beassessed can organizations case study two the of performance the how areas they concentrate on via typical projects and which policy areas they prefer. I then look at the the river Ipoly,especially in the area close to the local governments Tesa (Hungary) andIpe ladders Ipoly fish Most important to members: Typical cooperation areas and activities of Hídver : Before World War II there were 47 bridges crossing the river Ipoly, most of which were which of most Ipoly, river the crossing bridges 47 were II there War World Before : . Interreg III/A supported project to help enhance the free movement of water species in species of water movement free the enhance to help project supported III/A . Interreg . This is an annual cultural event, the organization of which rotates between the between rotates of which organization the event, cultural annual an is This . : “In the footsteps of the Romans at the Roma river”. The Hídver culture,regional identity-building, creating a common European identity culture, economic development, creating a common regional identity Ę (Hungary) received from funding the Hungary-Slovakia Cross-border Typical activities: Typical activities: Ister-Granum Hídver 99 Ę Ę andIster-Granum Đ ský Sokolec Ę members CEU eTD Collection the region. the in development overall the to contribute would it how nor themselves, for benefit immediate see any not did member municipalities inmost other mayors arelocated, where these in wereundoubtedly fewsettlements the positively projects received Ipoly these River. While actually themembersdoes, mentioned typically thefishladder and bridgethe projects atthe Granum the picture is different. When asked what they know about what the Euroregion Ister- For are culture-related. project heritage jointRoman the and days cultural the both related related identity-building.to InHídver as the second mostimportant policy area among 12, whereas Hídver table this reinforces by how Ister-Granumshowing members ranked economic development Ister-Granum was both instrumental ethnic kinship and expectations This (grant-seeking). primarily by identity/polity in form the of ethnic kinship, whereas motivationalthe base for 3.3.1 motivation,3.3.1 on in itwhich that Hídverwas demonstrated which I will then elaborate upon. elaborate then will I which assessments, the Table9summarizes 2). Chapter (see literature from the derived categories intensity I willcooperation now turn to theCross-border cross-border3.4.2 coooperation intensity, and assess how they perform in The difference in betweenthetwoEuroregionsin was priorities established section Ę the typical activities areinline with priority,this as 100 Ę membershipmotivated was Ę ranked those highest CEU eTD Collection similar, that wouldsimilar, that in draw a larger members: number of be On out. carried otherthe hand, noneof them haveset upworkingbeen able to or groups, Thisforcan support. hasconsequences theamount forlocated that administrative of activities Hídver whereas time employees, members in the association, which is registered in Slovakia. honorary only are settlements Hungarian five the as form, organizational aweak has hand, European Border Regions), to specifically serve cross-border regions. Hídver cross-border specifically serveRegions), to Border European of Association the and Regions the of Committee the with cooperation (in Union European legal form has of European Grouping Territorial Cooperation, been by which developed the intensity Project Budget statement Adherence todevelopment strategy/mission Meeting activity arrangement Robustness of its administrative Strength of legal arrangement Euroregion Table 9. Likewise, Ister-Granum has arobust has Ister-Granum Likewise, The #A113) working no are there EGTC the In stopped. just it somehow and came, crisis financial the do, to had we things were there less, committees, and less meet to started just we Then perhapsfour times much remember,a year,Idon’t has so happenedsince then. I meetand this members. wedisseminated among the examples; Weusedto don’t practices see could good others that was so That ithow works. municipalities, know in member Wedid collection years the eight ago. waste on astudy why.”“I (Mayor,used to be Chair ofSlovakia, the working committee Ister-Granum: on environment, six, seven or Cross-borderHídver cooperationintensity of legal arrangement of Ister-Granum is strong, as the organization has adopted the has adopted asthe is organization strong, of Ister-Granum Ę has to rely on the local government where the Chair is Chair where the local hasthe rely government to on medium medium medium low high high Ister-Granum administrative arrangement 101 Ę andIster-Granum low low low high low low Hídver Ę , since it has three full- Ę , on other , on the CEU eTD Collection between 1-4 projects, whereasHídver projects, 1-4 between receiving sponsors for events such as the annual Cultural Days. in successful been however, has, It members. its of selection a by run officially are projects consisting only membershipof fees, since itdoes have not any All external support. its governments. local of branches executive-administrative into links few with them leaving and forum assembly the with makingoverlapping administrative them partially staff, andnot by participants political reason might have been that the working groups that were set upbefore the EGTC were set up itwas getparticipants difficultto tobe committed beyond the initial meeting. An additional is muchfor werenotset up too and management, working timethe thatthey groups took that has only partially been fulfilled. Hídver fulfilled. been partially only has This expectation support. European Union with it especially bewould that aproject-owner, has been statutes) instance inthe for expressed (as the expectation name, inits own projects fundedneedfew projects Union.by not torun a Euroregion European Although the does national funding to secure its operational costs, but it has meetings. to members had difficulties to get more thanwere financial been buttroubles, agendasthe have not draw manyexciting enoughto a attendance. ActivityHídver place. taking two was higher at the time of the transformation to EGTC and when there The limited budget is reflected in is reflected budget limited The Meeting activity why for leadership administrative and political the with interviews by cited reasons The Ister-Granum has amedium sized Ister-Granum is low in Ister-Granum, with some years only one assembly, in others assembly, one only years some with in Ister-Granum, low is Ę , on the other hand, has regular monthly meetings with high with meetings monthly regular has hand, other the , on Ę has generally focused on atthetime. project one on hasfocused generally budget project intensity; Ę , on the other hand, has a miniscule budget, miniscule a has hand, other the , on 102 in a European perspective. It has received It perspective. in aEuropean Ister-Granum has annually had annually has Ister-Granum CEU eTD Collection 3.4.3.1 Seismograph function alsobut ondocumentsand interviews.member For this section I rely mainly on the interviews with managers and Chairs of the organizations, loudspeaker and display window. functions Euroregion three of can the seismograph, perform governments and their knowledge and practice of cross-border exchange. The study counted study The exchange. cross-border of practice and knowledge their and governments local cooperation with towards attitudes in their region, the society civil organizations only a few meetingswereheld.A few yearslatertheEuroregion a commissioned study of andpersist did not interest civilsociety organizations’ the However, function. seismographic The parliament was supposed serveto as a generator of ideas for the Euroregion,i.e. have to a a initiated involvement.institutionalizebeen In efforts have2002 the madetocivilsociety Euroregion partin to take Several (Smismans process 2006,Kohler-Koch policy-making the 2009). by areexpected ones affected the which major policies through the channels as organizations representatives idea have European adheredtothe of Union-promoted society civil made. been has area in the operating organizations society civil of inventory No events. different associations is in theirinvolvement engagementsport limitedchurch,of and tothe cultural and Chair, the to according partners important constitute not do organizations Civil society isnon-existent. and civilsociety organizations dialogue with strategic structured However, citizens. ordinary and mayor) (the Euroregion inthe representatives the between contact Hídver in the part taking municipalities The space policy of Appropriation 3.4.3 The appropriate ability thepolicyto in borderlands space depends on how well the In Ister-Granum the picture isits In existence, Throughout Euroregion’s different. the Ister-Granum picture the Civil Parliament , in , from which 50 organizations both part.sides border the took of 103 Ę Euroregion are all small, which facilitates which small, all are Euroregion CEU eTD Collection passive. The sheer number of participants inhibited the capacity of the leadership and the leadership the capacity the of inhibited participants numberof passive. Thesheer membersmany were functioning fully as not was this of Ister-Granum case regularly.the In meetingslocal easy as aresmall attended their most representatives and governments whole cross-border territory into the work of the Euroregion. For Hídver For Euroregion. the of work the into territory cross-border whole meetpolicymakers. would achance to have andCSOs wherebe business thatif time repeated, would representatives event, successful aone- of actors ‘Ister-Granum salon’, carryingout an wasenvisioned, the involving non-state relation the years difficult following in the with and either, off take not did initiative this civil However, level). society was Councilgiven should not be confused withless the Hungarian Regional attention.Develop Councils s on NUTS 2 would Advisory serve asBoard EGTC(this an to the newlyfounded Regional Development At that Council the Development a Regional to members six time appoint to supposed was parliament of writing, a new andthere-inaugurated wasallocated, 700,000 HUF(approximately 2,500 EUR) purpose, way of of respondingthe Slovak organizations said same the (Bartal 69). and Molnár 2006:45, while thatof they had regular Hungarian the organizations stated 14% civil society contacts, As with Molnár 2006:72,76). for contacts side, onthe civil society other organizations 20% from located (Bartal were furtheritand associations center this the away diminished the but in Esztergom, located associations among primarily center, in the highest was Euroregion the of knowledge The Euroregion. Ister-Granum the knew organizations civilsociety the butonly relations local had they a thirdthat with good stated organizations of governments, as the purpose of civil society organizations. A clear majority of the civil society Slovak 45).Onboth the sides dominated side(Bartal Molnar 2006:20, activities cultural and 432 civil organizationssociety operating within Hungarian the area of Ister-Granum and 85on Member representatives offer another route Member route representatives to channeloffer needs another andopinions of the Following thestudy, anewcivil effortsociety was madeparliament in 2007. Forthis 104 Ę this was relatively was this CEU eTD Collection have any indirect representation via other organizations though, and does not have and not though, organizations representation does via anyformal have other any indirect especiallyin national-level power, bureaucrats politicians or does not of Hungarian origin. It people to contacts and are there interests, Hungarian promoting ininstance organizations for channels for exerting influence. Persons theorganizationwithin have held multiple positions, any to haveaccess not does organization meanthe that not does This avoided. levels are andissues aretaken as set, rulesinvolvement andregulations of would thatother require the Euroregion. in todecision-makers; name of the delegations statements/resolutions the (4) writing bereports on issuethe raised;conferences, to (2)arrangingseminars or sending (3) commissioning (1) of persuasion: main modes four are there Further, actors. non-state with and(d)partnerships viaother organizations; representation peopleindirectto inpower; (c) contacts within-party (b), representatives; member of positions multiple (a) include: influence in 1,channels advance for Chapter exerting Asindicated to network interests. policy their There aremultiple in ways which Euroregions can approach decision-makers within the function Loudspeaker 3.4.3.2 him towantsucceeding tochange this:claimed care aboutservingnot smallthe local 2009-2010)did governments. Oneof managers the memberswas among leadership and small-size the manager(especially that management the complaint A common them. of all with contact and knowledge personal have to management Hídver Hungary, #A118) Ister-Granum: (Manager, having aquorum.” not for generalassembly reason the [sometimes] lack and members.executive [the relations] before Maybe the of wasthe good the between and EGTC, the within relations good about also is it because “It is alpha and omega that the director knows the needs of the members, Ę has largely on purpose avoided taking function onthe of loudspeaker. National 105 CEU eTD Collection party party politics in this part of Slovakia isnot divided along right-wing ideological lines: have since the Hungarian the parties, Onthe beenwith Slovakethnic sidecontacts 2010). coalition (2002- 2010--) or aSocialist-Liberal (1998-2002, in power Fidesz hasbeen party During thehistory itof Euroregion the hasmattered in support whether of terms thepolitical levels, Ister-Granum’s focus on socio-economic development makes it more vulnerable. in situations. backseat these the takes often Euroregion of the representative as their role However, national conferences. invited to frequently both Both heChair are Deputy andthe of2012). Regions the Committee countries (European consisting of 344 members representing local and from regional governments 27memberthe for instance also amember of the European Committee of the Region, an advisory body mayor The (Párkány), positions. of whoat the Štúrovo fieldworkis time of servedas Chair, (these positions rotate between the mayors of Esztergom and Štúrovo / Párkány) have multiple andconferences. seminars exception of with the occasional actors. four modes The non-state havelargely partnerships with of unused, been persuasion to-one basis. However, whereas Hídver whereas However, basis. to-one channel for exerting influence inboth organizations, andis something that is done on a one- The situation in Ister-Granum is more differentiated. The Chair and the Deputy Chair Deputy the and Chair The differentiated. is more in Ister-Granum situation The Within-party contacts to people in power (e.g. Ministers) is animportant Ministers) considered topeople (e.g. inpower Within-party contacts Ister-Granum, Hungary: #A119) forbig support Thisisthis. me, for an andadvantage Iuseit.” (Deputy Chair, and in relations there, good are there because orIster-Granum, Micro-region when situation, political a difficult in is I see Esztergom As Micro-region. thatNyergesújfalu Esztergom- the of Chair the there also but Ister-Granum, of Chair the is be can “I something the town name of thecannot region.” (Chair, Ister-Granum, Slovakia: #A122) do, chair.I try Soto I mobilizerather explanation,extra especially since it beingrotates between Chairand Deputy do itthe as I’mthe mayormore of knownin thatcapacity (Párkány),Štúrovo, because “I speakasthemayorŠtúrovo of usually than but of ascourse the ChairI speak inof theIster-Granum, that always need some Ę ’s cultural focus is less dependent on actors atother actors on is lessdependent focus ’s cultural 106 CEU eTD Collection should beinstead leftto management. the members. impatient by questioned been have they and however, prove, to is difficult activities these of efficiency interestingit,for such as bridges, civilsociety strategicdevelopment, plans and others. The society organizations as help inlobbying efforts. relations, but as this has been fraught with difficulties it was never possible to enlist civil process on the making hascultivateof been ambition The non-state thisto legalrestructuring. Regions, andvia its early adoption of EGTChashad the provide thepossibility to feedback to a very limited extent. Ister-Granum is a member of the European Association of Border delegations or written statements. Instead persuasion ismore persuasion Instead statements. written or delegations According to the Deputy evenitis According taskof politicaland leadership, the not Chair, Deputy the to the Ister-Granum has both arranged seminars and several commissioned reports on issues Indirect representation of the interests of the Euroregion via other organizations is interests done organizations representation of Euroregion the via the of other Indirect The hasbeen approach Euroregion formallyunwilling via to decision-makers do in this writing.” (Chair,Ister-Granum, #A122) Slovakia: we don’t so[in person], topic does bring upthe to whoseesachance “The one #A87) Ister-Granum: Slovakia, (Mayor, work’.” will it fine, be will this patience, this. I isI am always what asked often happening bythelocal council with representatives we trycan survive this. Our own connections are working, they workednot before too. “Ito trust that we can get special support for Ister-Granum.go IfFidesz stays strong, into a debate.government.” currentthe (Deputy Chair, Ister-Granum, #A119) Hungary: I relationshipwith agood whowas inquite for, manager can thank previous the tell them,from Euroregion maintenance support itsforgets This we costs. Ministry the ‘kids, “Iitbelieve isimportantlinks financial party support.Nowthe terms of be calm, have Ister-Granum: #A119) Hungary, Chair, (Deputy things.” see concrete like we ratherto that what, really studies know such or Idon’t ladders, so not asconferences things or fish likebridge or a are concrete, that projects rather support “We decidedto 107 ad hoc . CEU eTD Collection included the territory of several local governments that had never been a member. Another member. a been never had that governments local several of territory the included although it soon became obsolete as some members left the cooperation and the map also meetings, etc), international at presentations point power materials, promotional (website, projects. A map createdmunicipalities, and the Hungarian participantsat therefore are not located next toeach other. the specific between agreements time partnership bilateral on based was dimension border when the EGTCHídver was founded was in frequent use 3.4.3.3 Display windowfunction theoverall Euroregion: than act more strategically ableto aresometimes governments local single how illustrate also bridges The level. state the to up involvement needed which and 7), bridges over Ipoly the River, which outbymemberswas pointed as a typical (Tableproject Ister-Granum has tried to work with this function through several identity-creating several through function this with work to tried has Ister-Granum However, Ister-Granum can still point to some successes, for instance regarding the Ę Ister-Granum, Hungary: #A119) how It depends theiron skills contacts will and this Chair,succeed.” (Deputy lobbying towards the national level and to representconduct decideabout andto things negotiate,monitor to applications, to to task be their thewould interests That employees. of other thetwo EGTC.and manager the management, is by the work done concrete the EGTC, the mayors represent if weas “Even Granum: #A133) you would thiswas more important than bike road, isasmall part, a make that priorities, to have you that case the is it know you and crossing, a needhave to built, bridges to Honestly,change we gave priority with Helemba, Pászto and Vámosmikula to have the small to thesolve this. previousYoustate the oneleft long shadows,would and government, itin the is is hard to deal party with which this need now. We areirrelevant too not is it and the sure, not is state.land] agreements.” [ Thebecause wewould ownershipneed too. [of the Slovak the government andhas apply notbeenregulatedproperly, surrounding the area wecannot (Mayor,is funds. critical Damasd regulation andLetkes, the between of part The Ipoly apply butwe cannot biking for for Ipoly valley “We haveplan road, an river a Hungary, Ister- has done little to market itself as one coherent region, mainly because the cross- 108 Did this? youdolobbyingfor ] CEU eTD Collection forinhabitants within the Ister-Granum region: andexample indoor water ishowthe park ownedby outdoor fees offered reduced Esztergom recognition: population,leadersis name- impression the hasamong the Ister-Granum that good government: local for their own interests atconcrete looks everyone only that itwas stated members inwith Ister-Granum Frequently interviews members. among its cohesion feeling of regional actors at policymakers.levels, European actors towards other especially Although there is no survey data on how well the Euroregion is known among the among known is Euroregion the well how on data survey no is there Although However, this popular familiarity with the Euroregion is not translated into a general into translated not is Euroregion the with familiarity popular this However, Finally, the Ister-Granum has managed to function as a display window also towards Ister-Granum, Slovakia: #A122) declineit.” (Chair, hadto big weunfortunately project strategy regional tourism the won we when but these, like projects small Euroregion, the of calendar “There are such activities, small ones, like a map of the Euroregion or a (Manager, Ister-Granum, Slovakia: #A118) Slovakia: Ister-Granum, (Manager, means you that could themayors be, be, could Ister-Granum or of proud that our region.” brand, its with there present is Ister-Granum then events, cultural at and in thewine association part takes Ister-Granum behow could example one region, inthe activity any for used is which brand, isa “Ister-Granum (Deputy (Deputy Chair,Ister-Granum, Hungary: #A119) formicro-regional them, good do why wewould that’s I suggested plans.” butalso toexplaineverything that is that goodfor the regional isterritory also we get for it’, that’s why we need some concrete things that they get orcan get, local and governments, they ask ‘we paid membership fee, this but the tell for us what money little is there that expand, can we how with deals here everybody identity is you zero, really needwould todevelop Especially that. since “We wouldneed identity such an at development, inleast Hungary regional the Slovakia: #A118) exampleisThis also (Manager, usedin good Hungary.” Ister-Granum, mentioned as a good example, as a positive example of territorial cooperation. name this day isa reallygood you inBrussels structures know. It always until has it EU, in the EGTC second the as established was Ister-Granum “So 109 CEU eTD Collection Figure 3. space. Hídver vertical cooperation inserting abaseline as cross-border space. As and horizontal a separate by Euroregions) investigated governance the (included cross-border exclusively dealing with haveindicated actors the I placedeasilywithin not representation. a two-dimensional 2012) Bache Marks 2001, Hooghe and 1993, (Marks governanceframework Source: Multi-level diversity (the govern dimension Thevertical framework. multi-level governance within a Euroregions of the main partners represents the 3 represents Figure agendas. implementtheir to decisionmakers need other Euroregions where the actors, multiple with space agovernance constitutes area The cross-border different governance The 3.4.3.4 space levels and the horizontal dimension represents sectoral

MULTI-LEVEL DIMENSION Ę declines active lobby work, the figure only displays the Ister-Granum lobby the declines figure theIster-Granum activework, governance only displays Involved actors in cross-border policyissues: Ister-Granum andHídver Supranational Local Regional National ance part). The figure clearly displays how the cross-border dimension is (partially, via the Chair) Committee of the Regions Štúrovo (Párkány) Štúrovo members, especially Esztergom, are that governments Local Nitra district (Slovakia) Agriculture (Slovakia) of Housing, Ministry of Ministry Economy, of Ministry of Development (Hungary), Ministry Economy, of Ministry State Interreg (VATI) (weak connections for both) for connections (weak (VATI) Interreg GOVERNANCE DIMENSION Cross-border baseline 110 Határ Önkormányzati Szövetség Border initiatives (Budapest-based), Hét Cross- for Service European Central MissionOperationnelle Transfrontaliere, Studies, Border of European Association Local/regional businesses Local/regional associations Esztergom associations, Slovak local the work, but mainly successful with in associations in draw to efforts Several Agency Štúrovoin (Párkány) Foundation, Regional Development Eurohid Foundation(defunct), Jöv Chamber of Industry Commerce,and Non-state Ę Ę CEU eTD Collection were hopeful. supplementary interviewsin carried out topoint out 2012 tended recentthat developments as majority the interviewsof were conducted in 2010 and2011.Respondents in some though, in time, point one captures this that be added should It fulfilled. not are instrumental expectations when membership for motivation to relates satisfaction low The Ister-Granum. in mixedmore was the picture whereas their Euroregion, very towards positive in general preferentiallyis inits applicants: not treated applications project compared toother Euroregion the isthat perception the and funds, to access facilitate not did this status, EGTC Although received by 2012 budgetauthority.Ister-Granum cycle wasmanaged a Hungarian authority the managing the cross-border cooperationfunds, funds, Interreg which in 2007- the supranational than nationalthe level.A special weakness hasbeen lackthe of dialogue with the on contacts better had has Ister-Granum enough, Interestingly level. non-state national is the as empty, but all is level state regional The thin. is rather navigates Granum Table includes10, which also memberof an assessment satisfaction. Hídver Overall, the figure demonstrates that the network of actors within which the Ister- The results for appropriation of cross-border cooperation activities are summarized in aresummarized activities cooperation The results for appropriation of cross-border Granum: #A49) Ister- Hungary, (Mayor, stairs.” fish the instance getting for more active, were “I would say thatHídver Slovakia, the#A67) (Mayor, them.” colleaguestowards tilted more is it in Ister-Granum villages Hungarian more are from there because but bridges, [Ipoly] the Northerninstance the for arefor Slovaks, there the issay nothing would there not that Highlands is Hungarian the side. I feeljust moretowards directed “I Ister-Granum the that [in Slovakia] Slovakia: #A122) apply.”for (Chair, whichyouIster-Granum, cannot else,but needs something a settlement be that might it if even is, it how that’s apply, to have you that for money, is there which for that but need, villages small the what not often very ready facts.of in front placedjustWe Interreg]. are [the them influence really “We cannot These are the programs, whether you like them or not. [...] It is 111 Ę and Ister-Granum: and Ę members were CEU eTD Collection Hídver Table 10. other active cross-border forums in the area that could compete with this. but on the other hand it hasHídver them. appropriated of all with problems the cross-border spaceto carry out the functionsto someof seismograph, loudspeaker extent, and display windows, but it hasas had it has no ithas because madeefforts Ister-Granum cooperation activities, ofcross-border appropriation these results to the motivation, participation and interaction patterns discussed in section 3.3. link will space. Theconcludingsection in themselves governance situated the cross-border way they the and capacity organizational activities, of in terms differently very perform Ister-Granum, whereas it was high for Hídver itwas whereas Ister-Granum, in as low member satisfaction of assessment the justified Overall, this of cooperation. the more out got side’ other ‘the that members Ister-Granum among Slovakia and Hungary both Appropriation of cross-border Member satisfaction As seen in this section, Hídver As can be seen in the quotes, there were also perceptions, even if not widespread, in governance space Ę Ister-Granum: #A127) Slovakia, (Mayor, projects.” wasnobiginvestment there butcultural actions, a coupletourism, of area, some talkingbrochures, about are some wine parrot succeed Ister-Granum tobringnot did anything the Slovak Well, to part. there “Thus, itwas apolitical thing,nothingis picture the isworking, working. not went there, more I do not know.” (Mayor, Slovakia, Ister-Granum: #A110) “On many side other the bikethey got much money, roads and majority the andIster-Granum. Euroregion Member satisfactionandappropriationofcross-border spaceof governance Ę Ę has only properly carried out the seismograph function, seismograph the out carried properly only has and Ister-Granum are two Euroregions that function and Ister-Granum medium low 112 Ę * . Both organizations are assessed as medium in medium as areassessed . Both organizations Hídver medium high Ę CEU eTD Collection the perspectives of motivation, participation and interaction perspectives ofmotivation,and the participation This in interact. wasanalyzedand howthey from Slovak borderland participate Euroregions allows for making some statements in relation to the two main research questions. investigation difficulties, core the the had assessment In of spite organization survived. these of makeHídver to out grander something efforts While earlier in area. the contacts cross-border for mediator asa position unthreatened performanceits membersfavorably inassessed satisfied and dueto categories, two the equally ranked within organization. Finally, rankedwithin equally Hídver the the membersof Hídver thecooperation,clique whereas driving and only a small eitherpassive information-seekers, or thatwere indifferent share members (2000) and established had Theinvestigation Perkmann Ister-Granum how (2003). alarge Blatter both of findings the in line with were Theresults membership. their of result direct asa inflowresources of see concrete to members expected i.e. was mainly grant-driven, that motivation instrumental an by complemented was this in Ister-Granum but Euroregions, both analysis how identity/politydemonstrated a basisconstituted motivation formembership in functions of siemograph, loudspeaker and display window. Nonetheless, Hídver tofulfill also all intensity.efforts hadmadeconsiderable three cooperation It in cross-border in higherIster-Granum scored thanHídver discussed 2. Chapter whenit‘performance’ comes toorganizations ingeneral, in Euroregions as and particular, research theinherentand analysis difficultiesdemonstrated in ‘success’ defining or (Hídver latter the whereas disintegration of verge atthe EGTC)hadarrived former (Ister-Granum Why hadthe florished. seemingly that The scenes in beginningof the depicted chapter this oneEuroregion in crisis, another and one 3.5 Conclusion The first question asked why and how local governments in the central Hungarian- central in the governments local how and why asked question first The Ę Ę with the Danube Euroregion had come to nothing,had with Danube come to Euroregion the Association) showed no such tendencies? Further tendencies? such no showed Association) 113 Ę had densercommunicatonal Ę of local governments. The governments. local of Ę tended to be more to tended active and in five of six out categories Ę was CEU eTD Collection resources performattempt resources functionsto to otherthe two (loudspeaker and display window). these utilize not does but well, function seismograph the perform to it enables which capital, party-based affiliations of some actors, limitedin of some actors, party-basedscope. affiliations Esztergom. Both organizations have linking social capital, but concentrated to some personal cooperation, of the heart to the concentrated as well that and successful, moderately been only however, had, Ister-Granum scale. aregional on same the do to struggled has Granum Ister- locally, whereas sectors) other including network (a capital social bridging access institutional level for Hídver on capital social bonding strong of existence the indicated governments local between sets: bonding, bridging andlinkingsocial The analysis capital. that showed interactionthe social capital. (transnational) meetings,i.e. kind the signifies membership of that strong between-group presenceof the of Euroregion framework outside the also with other in each contact are close members, who actively participating create difficultmore to makes it This 1997a:19). Scharpf problem (see legitimacy output an from suffer will grants, visible on membership their base members in many which howthe showed aof Euroregional organization, case Ister-Granum of The actual of activities. and betweenmotivation importance the congruence demonstrated function influence Euroregional and performance patterns, interacting norm. the than rather exception the being contacts and monthly weekly with both for organizations, sparse is relatively communication both Nevertheless,networks, and border. the domestically overallcross-border across To sum up, Hídver Conclusions can also be drawn as to the distribution of social capital between three sub- The second question asked how social capital Ę possesses bonding social capital, alsopartially and bridging social Ę , whereas Ister-Granum had little of this resource. Hídver 114 , resulting from motivationresulting from and , . The analysis The . Ę had CEU eTD Collection before that, Chapter 4 and 5 give the results of the research at the two other national borders. national other two the at research the of results the give 5 4 and Chapter that, before be in in(domestic) 6.However, social capital anddiscussed will analyzed Chapter detail capital, but uses linkingthe in a non-strategic manner. social bridging create to is working capital, social bonding of in terms lacking is Ister-Granum To what extent such between-group social such To whatextentisa consequencebetween-group alsoof capital within-group 115 CEU eTD Collection exceptionalism’ whenitexceptionalism’ comes tocross-border cooperation. follows lineone additional inquiry, seewhether of there is to such a as‘Scandinavian thing chapter the addition, In function Euroregions? and of performance the impact social capital Norwegian borderlands in andparticipate howEuroregions dotheyinteract? does (2) How Swedish- South in the governments local do how and Why (1) study: overall the as questions Bohuslän-Østfold -Dalsland (henceforth ‘OstBoh’), as cases to explore the same research hadVärmland-Østfold referred thusbeenformed,toas henceforth ‘VarmOst’. Euroregion The in Norway. registered municipalities, member all from politicians leading the In mid-90s into of authorities aregular the consistingdeveloped each state. this of committee, and decision-makers central the towards coordinate actions to forum up a set border closestmunicipalities tothe joint located In 1990,theaction. anddecided border, totake crossing significantconfinedflowsNorway Sweden,notthe of goods peopleor and dueto to funding forimprovements. Local decision-makers on both sides realized that the problem was beinginneed of urgent andslow, borderthe theroad about and governments close unsafe to inthelocal andcitizens amongdecision-makers discontent 1980s therewaswidespread way it passes through forested rural areas in the area surrounding the border. At the end of the the main route for motor is traffic inNorway located It muchandin Sweden. kilometers its Russia,with 1,900 Petersburg of between the capital road European The international cities Oslo and Stockholm, and on that between globalization and local processes. local and globalization between inter-disciplinary project on the Swedish-Norwegian borderlands, also providedSvensson andOjehag valuable 2012. Andreas Ojehag, PhDcandidate intellectual at KarlstadUniversity ofand one leadresearchers the input an in on the links 57 C Part oftheanalysis of qualitative andrelational datainthischapter andinChapter7 has beenpublished in Swedish in HAPTER This uses chapter this organization and its neighbor to the Gränskommitten south, 4: A CASE STUDY OF TWO N E18 ORWEGIAN BORDER leads from from leads Craigavon in Kingdom Saint United the to 116 E UROREGIONS ATUROREGIONS THE 57 S WEDISH - CEU eTD Collection ground setforground thefinal in case study section 4.4. and aredrawn organizations. available the tothe Conclusions social endowments capital are prioritized. and thatprojects Ithen institutional typelevel policy the discuss areas and of units of analysis: I first determinefocuses as organizations of the on Section 4.3 framework Euroregion. andthe the outside the functions within both other, each with interact they how that also and the organization), the with organizationsengagement fulfill and the they in engage type cooperation Euroregional and howthey (mode anddo so intensity of of analysis starts in section 4.2 using the local governments as units of analysis. Itexamines why The organizations. two the of description brief a with finishes section The dissertation. in this be studied to those of areaasone border Swedish-Norwegian the select to decision documents.contextualize This also servesto andqualify forwere used that the criteria the literatureand gatheredpartly interviews secondary relying policy by and on partly on data settings, inhistory and politico-administrative described of economy,terms geography, is region the of part southern the at area The issues. border on emphasis its and integration Norwegian borderland in is cooperation introduced section of 4.1 against backdrop the Nordic andUciNet CEUNet. VarmOst Euroregions. VarmOst promotionalminutes, material) and 39interviews with of representatives and OstBoh the 2). Suffice tosay, dataunderlying the the analysis of consists organizational material (statutes, as mayors, although the officialtitle in Norway and Sweden is ‘chairman of the local government board”. 58 For the sake of consistency throughout the dissertation I refer to the highest political representatives of local governments local of representatives political highest the to I refer dissertation the throughout of consistency sake the For The chapter is structured in a similar way to the other case studies. The Swedish- The casestudies. totheother in a similar way is structured The chapter The same methods are used as in the other case studies in the dissertation (see Chapter in dissertation the casestudies in as other the areused methods The same 58 The analysis was facilitated by the use of the softwares AtlasTi, softwares the of by theuse facilitated was Theanalysis 117 CEU eTD Collection 1967:174). in (citedAnderson such topromote development” jointly endeavor shall parties these parties, joint economic developmentMarch Article23, 1962. 25stated whenthat “theneed andthenecessary conditionsfor exist of adjoining parts of thebetween territories the Nordic countriesof two or moreofup by Nordicthe founded Council, in 1952, andDenmark, included in Treaty the of Cooperation contracting Finland, Iceland, NorwayWorld War II years. Localand cross-border Sweden cooperation signed was one of the issues on that had been local taken1970s, and is cooperation the idea from beneficial that post- stems cross-border the variation. issignificant where there performance, and function the to applicable not is exceptionalism such hand, other the on that, argue further I (NordicMinisters). andof Nordic Nordic Council Council actors compared Cooperation to level actors (Council of Europe, European Union, Association of European Border Regions) by role European- played relative the unimportant refersto ‘exceptionalism’ Scandinavian of mainline the that Iargue in Instead, particular. context geographical one similarity within of inand assumption the general, assessment pitfalls the comparative of demonstrated However,2011:142). the previous Hungarian-Slovakian chapterontwo Euroregions (Medeiros impacts” territorial andeffective in positive generating outputs andbetter 2011:152), described as“older and, asa consequence, should have a higherdegree of maturity Medeiros in a 2011article refers tothe“so called Scandinavian-type Euroregions” (Medeiros having (Perkmann intensity Likewise,and high 2003). scope largegeographical cooperation type, aseparate all institutionsconstituted Scandinavian in atypology which constructed regions was made much of Europe in a cited articlefrom 2003. In MarkusPerkmann this, cross-border organizational andcompare categorize tosystematically thefewefforts One of Countries intheNordic cooperation 4.1 Cross-border Several in countriesSeveral wereestablishedas the1960sand Euroregions Nordic asearly the 118 CEU eTD Collection regions. border to financialgive and technicalsupport to andstarted borders, the to located close authorities local regional and between cooperation in the took an promoting on role active yet. The Ministers of Nordicjoined Council Union theEuropean none had of countries the Ministers social Article 1962, and economicCooperation, fields” (Treaty of 1).The “maintain and furtherbetweendevelop cooperation Nordicthe countrieslegal, in the cultural, to common goal the forth set that Treaty Cooperation the of negotiated and developed founded, Members consisting of of from Parliament participatingthe Togetherthey countries. the war). relations long after the war had ended (see Ekman 2005 on Norwegian-Swedish relations after pass on its soil on their way to Norway, letGermantroops Sweden of ‘neutral’ allegedly country remainedthe fact which that the resistance, meant an extrathe for strain center supply a as served casting borderland Swedish-Norwegian shadowsforested vast the and on the (Iceland, Sweden). Even though Sweden many accepted from refugees occupiedthe countries, declared islands) and occupiedneutral one of (Faroe war(Finland), two by the Allies the occupied byGermany in Norway),(Denmark, country liaison one with Germany part during history of wars and tensions. WorldWar IIadded additional strain countrieswith two fosterorder Nordicto unity.Althoughhaving inmuch common, also these sharea countries translation). developing and thereby benefiting the people in the Nordic border areas” (Nordic Councilof Ministers 2012:116, my Policy, the current aim is to make “functional regions located on two or more2012:5).According sides to the2009-2012 of strategy nationalplan of the Nordic Council bordersof Ministers forIn Business, Energy sustainable& Regional andof Euroregions. operation the to support addition, otherbudget linesdirect can beutilized forin project applicationsgiven depending was activitieson their (NordicEUR, Council of Ministers million 1.4 approximately MDKK, 10.5 of that Out 59 The annualbudget of the Nordic Councilof Ministers in 2012 was 932million DKK, approximately 125 million EUR. It was in this context of intertwined unity and discord that the Nordic Council was Council Nordic the that discord and unity intertwined of context in this was It Analogous Europeanintegration tothe intense was work done in inthe process, 1950s 59 , a similar cooperation on governmental level, was formalized in 1971 a time when time a in 1971 formalized was level, governmental on cooperation a similar , 119 Nordic Council of CEU eTD Collection argue that there is a case for talking about ‘Nordoregions’ rather than ‘Euroregions’. than rather ‘Nordoregions’ for isacase talkingargue thatthere about in andIwill later willtherefore of bethis chapter, presented latter Evidence insupport the andmembers. representatives with intheinterviews Nordicorganizational organizations support in organizational documents andmore reference to the Nordic Council and other this of importance operational see greater to expect we can Regions), Border of Association Union, of bythe andthe European Council Europe, cooperation (manifested the European the inScandinavia regions than for cross-border important moreis Ministers) distance between the towns Halden in Norway and Esztergom inHungary 1,588is kilometers. 60 of was perception relative the mattered Hence, what by Euroregions. the covered territory atlocated of outskirts the the were local unless their governments geographical distance, from evident from my interviews, to inwhichinterviewees rarely these referred organizations (see This was and Svensson which Medve-Bálint isthan 2012a). absolute rather relative is distance, matters cognitive what have elsewhere, argued However, asI 2003). (Perkmann many Euroregions islargecomparedwith European scopeof geographical Euroregions these the in that is right Perkmann sense, that In kilometers. 119 greater, even is Chair Norwegian andthe organization, studied other the of OstBoh, thesecretariat between The distance visit oneof VarmOst, studiedthe located 101kilometers to away.his organizations, deputy, of chair the for car by hour half a and one takes It Europe. of parts other in than settlements between longer distances by isit mainly area characterized a rural still than rest, the andforests lakes, plenty of andalthough southern the part of borderthe ismore populated in longestthe borders Europe. area border makingit of one over1,600kilometers, andNorway between stretches The border Sweden Norwegian-Swedish The 4.1.1 Inthe length fact, roughly theequals distance betweencenters the of two of thecase studies in this study,as the driving If the Nordic cooperation (manifested by the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council andtheNordic bytheIf Nordic Council Council (manifested Nordicof the cooperation 60 The mainly by borderlands are mountains,constituted pine 120 CEU eTD Collection employedin Sweden,Norway (Mayor, VarmOst: #A98). highthe proportion has average-affluent workforce the populationof dueto infact an but lists, income in Swedish low ranks which VarmOst), of (member Årjäng of municipality instance, the for affects, That country. in theother generated income account into take not do statistics official Oslo. However, close to located sideis Norwegian since the area, border in in Sweden 2009 (Haagensen 2012:66). This difference can bebe assumed higher to in the yearsperson household 64 (under of had higher income 27% age) disposable inNorway than 2012). Regionfakta 2012,Fyrbodal Intermunicipal Cooperation 2012, Østfold Analysis Regional from for Sweden-Norway economy the serving asamotor andOslo CERUT2007, (Interreg hasbenefited side loss, theNorwegian andpopulation by out-migration characterizedoverall for pastfour While decadeshasbeen the side theareas on Swedish each border. side of the the between aredifferences incomes, there high high taxes and welfare, high by characterized the Polish-German or Finnish-Russian border, there are still differences big enough to have effectson mobility patterns. difference) crude. is While the differences along the Norwegian-Swedish border notbig are as as for exampledifferences at phase of project, this homogeneity indeed a relativeis phenomenon andthe cut-offthat wasused point (50% national GDP- 62 languages (Nordic Council 2012). 61 area. localthe hasmanysimilaritiesSwedish dialect the Norwegian in languageto spoken that where areas, borderland the of true is especially This other. the of nationals the understanding noproblem have country one nationalsof so close languages the that are although the inmy afactor that will in analysis is feature therefore chapter. distance this absolute nor scope) away, absolute distance.the Neither (geographical size furthest being not Thismeans that althoughI categorized Sweden/Norway as aneconomically homogenous border area in the case-selection Romani and Sami with along nynorsk) and (bokmal language Norwegian of the versions two recognizes officially Norway 61 There is marked a also income; averageone- inequivalisedthe disposable difference Although has outsideScandinavia tothe world areputation homogenous a areaas rather The border between Norway andbetween and Swedenmarksalinguistic The border Norway cultural difference, 121 62 CEU eTD Collection regionalization through increased cooperation between local local governments. between increased cooperation through regionalization towards hasa trend been decades there in However, recent has beenweaker. traditionally level whereastheregional governments, local and states by having strong characterized insteadNorwegian of sources via Regional 2012). Sverige-Norge European the Fund (Interreg from directly assistance financial receive their owners project Norwegian separately. fundslocated program basis, are but as well avoluntary for cross-border on Interreg eligible for European forUnion funds cooperation; cross-border joined Norway the EUs became border areas cooperation was thatthe Whatdidfor cross-border changepopulations. did nothave any significant consequences for everyday life municipalitiesamong nearby and of controls at the Swedish-Norwegian border Swedish-Norwegian atthe of controls 2008:207). by the Norwegian state, but a blessing forThis Gottfridsson 2011). hasbeen often seen called an“unplannedintegration, as a problem the weak economy on the Swedish side”Swedish side in 1990s the and 2000s more(for on this(Löfgren see Löfgren 2008, Olsson, Bergerand Norwegian specifically haveof centers customersshoppingcatering to sprungupon the it purchase.Norway, flow Anumbercomes toshopping the isreversedwhen andreal estate DenmarkSweden to (Haagensen 2012:90). While is labormobility gravitating towards 21,000 from toNorway, to compared from daily Sweden persons weekly commuted or in2008, 26,000 In more receiving from media and attention researchers. thelatter despite bigger in than Oresund Swedish-Danish the border area(InterregSverige-Norge 2007,32), Agreement on Suspension of Inter-Nordic Passport Controls (Nordic Council2012). 63 Nordic citizens have been allowed to freely pass the borderwithout passports since the 1950s, according to the 1957 The politico-administrative settings are similar in the two countries in that they both they are countries inthat in two the aresimilar settings The politico-administrative The Swedish entry The intoSwedish entry the European inUnion had effects1995 some on frequency the In total, the volume of commuting taking place across the Norwegian-Swedish border is 63 122 as well as on customs regulations. However, it CEU eTD Collection health provision for elderly, garbage collection education. for elderly, or health collection provision garbage municipalities in increasingly Norway form specific-purpose organizations, for example on dozen of haveless municipalities investigated the inhabitants. Instead, than 2,000 a half than more result a as and 2006:1) Analyse (ECON place taken not has consolidation problem having many too small municipalities. In spite ofmuch debate, municipal transparency and political legitimacy (ECON Analyse 2006). networks and trust relations (i.e.social capital), it is also true that these organizations may weaken general societal increased nesting of municipalities into intermunipal organizations in this study used is as an indicator of strengthened 64 back formalization 1970s tothe inwith the ofmutual 1980sand 1990s.The discourse Cooperation dates generally and KommunalforbundetDalsland. as Fyrstadskansliet BOSAM, Kommunalförbundetincorporated from in Fyrbodal actors 2001 such organizations previous policy). development (business Värmlandssamarbetet Västra and management) Kommunalförbund,market WestSweden, FinsamVärmland insurance (labor social and Fyrbodals Götaland, Västra Region Värmland, Region include Examples initiatives. regional (Regional forPortal IndreØstfold 2012). ora non-profit either viamunicipal companies, task-specific agreements asjointly owned These berun can etc. fireprotection, children, such vulnerable as tasks, of protection the inmunicipalities for Østfold.specific there arenumber Inaddition of organizations created highest organ for inter-municipal regional cooperation. It is an organization consisting of ten is the in Østfold Indre Norwegian In the VarmOst, part of partake any such organization. not municipalborder town of exceptAremarkHalden does organization The and Moss. inter- IndreØstfold the members of also are VarmOst of members all whereas Mossregionen, primarily members of inter-municipalthe organizations (regionrad) NedreGlomma and NUTS 3 region, three inter-municipal organizations operate. The members of OstBoh are A survey from 2006showed that many of themhave badoversight and knowledge of these organizations. Hence, while the In Norway inter-municipal cooperation has emerged as an answer to the perceived to the asananswer has emerged cooperation inter-municipal In Norway The number of specific task organizations is lower in islower areseveral butthere The number taskorganizations of specific Sweden, 123 64 In the Østgfold administrative Østgfold the In CEU eTD Collection and the main characteristics of mainand two Euroregions. the the characteristics municipalities. Table asummary 11provides casethe selection of criteria above) (outlined of associations regional or bodies decision-making elected regional to power increased i.e. regionalization, political of aprocess through gone has Sweden, especially countries, via Norway (in administration state arenaof an largely been has tier The regional activities). of scope and independence historically strong strong financial combinedstates terms with of municipalities (in road in their territories.amount, Interreg Sverige-Norgeeach 2007:33),but constitutes road most the public important Administratively, load (approximately four The has former annual times the ahigherEuroregions gather. traffic both Norway and Sweden vital around which infrastructural andelements two the E18(Oslo-Stockholm) constitute are unitary states roads E6 (Oslo-Gothenburg)Oslo, Gothenburginternational andStockholm.European The with of cities major three the between anexus constitutes still which but populated, is sparsely much of which cover aterritory andVarmOst) Euroregionsin area(OstBoh two operating the roughly mountainous areas.archipelago of The andHvaler beginning to of Strömstad the the organizations inThe focus is this most of chapter southern on from part long the this border, jointthe study case The 4.1.2 Association 2004:8). Intermunicipal (Fyrbodal region” a strong develop jointly to in order other each need area the within municipalities the that clear become has it more and More Fyrbodal. in coordination for has region] opportunities increasedthe county of creation design [the VastraGotalands several institutions for cooperation this geographicalwithin area.is What new is changethe of of creation the implicated has This of advantages cooperation. havethe seen municipalities is independence for as emphasized its justification existence: overall the “Since long the fylken , in, Swedenvia 124 lansstyrelserna ), even though both though even ), CEU eTD Collection located between them. between located municipalities smaller the than active less been have but cooperation, the for locomotives as acted not have Karlstad and Moss However, between. in municipalities midsize or small each sidewith poles at by two characterized region arectangular creating thereby territory, andKarlstad Moss are towns biggest The side). Swedish the on two and side Norwegian the on (seven border the from distance kilometers 50 within Swedish Nineof Årjäng, andKarlstad. Bengtsfors side (Säffle,them Grums, arelocated Eidsberg, Römskog, Marker, Trögstad, Skiptvet, Spydeberg, Hoböl and Moss) andfive on the Askim, (Aremark, side Norwegian the on ten municipalities, fifteen of consisting Norway, factual factual background. will be analyzedtogether, but they hereintroducedare separately in toprovideorder abrief hence also the most peripheral. mirrors such a structure on the scale of the Euroregion, as those municipalities directly at the border66 are the smallest ones and (Säffle) (Norwegian Statistical Office 2012, Swedish Statistical Office 2012). 65 2 2008) Regional GDP(Eurostat,NUTS USD) National GDP(IMF 2010, in State form since existing Border Working language Approximate population 2010 Local governments in2011 Founded Characteristics Table 11. In academic the literature, borderlands have oftenbeen characterized as In 2010 Moss had30,030 inhabitants, Karlstad 86,348, whereas the remaining ranged from 688(Romskog) 15,466 to Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfold (VarmOst) members andtheir organizations two relevantaspects In section of 4.2 and4.3the the Key characteristics ofOstBoh, VarmOst andtheSwedish-Norwegian borderland Euroregion 66 Out of Outof inRegion municipalities the Østfold, 55%aremembers of Østfold 32,755 Norra Mellansverige: 31,100 SE: 61,098, NO: 96,591 unitary 1751, 1905 (dissolved union) Norwegian (dominant), Swedish Swedish (dominant), Norwegian 470,000 22 1980 OstBoh 125 65 is an association registered in registered association isan , located at each end of covered each atthe of located end , peripheral Østfold 32,755 Norra Mellansverige: 31,100 SE: 61,098, NO: 96,591 unitary 1751, 1905 (dissolved union) 210,000 15 1990 (van Houtum 2000:60).VarmOst VarmOst CEU eTD Collection Council as aborder region association,it and received anannual of assistance 400,000 NOK. million SEK millionand NOK).In 6.5 organization 2011, the was recognized by Nordicthe stimulatingat tourismin area,hadatotal the million of budget approximately 1.5 EUR (6.4 aimed which region”, border “The children’s project instance the three-year-long For owners. official municipalitiesproject stand as let asthe organization by VarmOst initiated projects NOK (approximately However, this include40,000 EUR). didnot the funds for any the of Expenses funding in2010were304,095 forexternal receive operational costs. anydirect firstthe years 20 its had of existence the alimitedannual sincebudget, organization itdid not Värmland, municipalities,For eachfinance Swedishmunicipalities the and Norwegian 25%. basic operation of the organization is split into four parts. The regions of(Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfoldmy 2011, translation). Østfold it”of apart and thatare municipalities between andthose cooperation contact continuous municipalities article, first the through which statesthat organizationthe “[…]is an for organ of primacy in2001and confirm adopted the VarmOst,valid2011, were through ituntil amulti-purpose became regionalcross-border body in themid-90s. Revisedby-laws of more and on tasks single-issuefoundedgradually took VarmOst in1990asacommittee was chapter, this to introduction in the stated As character. regional, than rather (inter-municipal), haslocal aclear members, organization although the Østfold arealso andRegion Värmland VarmOst,and out of municipalitiesthe in Värmland Region 31%aremembers. BothRegion It further states the goals of goalsorganization: of the further states It The management isThe management by carried out and of employee, financing part-time the one the (Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfoldmy 2011, translation). in for cooperation region.” favorable the whichit considers tasks can take also [It] border. the at municipalities to the interest are of that projects coordinate [TheEuroregion] analyzeand initiate, shall development. competence cooperationobstacles, inadditionto withinbusiness health, development and special emphasis infrastructure,on information and removal of border with border the across incooperation and participate promote actively “to 126 CEU eTD Collection association, i.e. it does notithavei.e. does ownlegal its personality. association, regional character. although as in the case of VarmOst, this organization also has a local government rather than a The point). regionaltwo membersfylkeskommune areØstfoldGötaland and Västra county, crossingborder main nearest tothe (within 50 kilometers border very tothe close located inFredrikstad of Four municipalities Swedish the and are2009. seven Norwegian of the ones municipalitysmallest Aremark inhabitants, only while were having in 1,420 registered 72,760 with The local54,873. Norwegian governments have widera somewhat span,with the number of inhabitants, ranging from Färgelanda with 6,691 inhabitants in 2009 toTrollhättan of in terms mid-size to small all are municipalities Swedish The votes. individual cast to them inter-municipal association Fyrbodal, whereas others have individual membership allowing eight on the Norwegian side. Some members on the Swedish side are indirect members via the and border the sideof on Swedish the situated are municipalities Fourteen regions. and two VarmOst and OstBoh have different legal arrangements members). are side 68 Norwegian the on region Østfold in the on members municipalities are of 18 of 49 8 out out (14 whereas OstBoh of side, members Swedish not are region large very this in municipalities of the Most Skaraborg. 67 is: theorganization that peoplethree 2012).Theby-lawsstate Østfold-Bohuslän-Dalsland in2011(Gränskommitten employed secretariat Its border. the to close municipalities five of leaders political highest ofmost consistingleaders of andan member of the municipalities, the Committee Executive feesandmember (0.5million It is SEK). by steered comprisinga Board political thehighest millionmoney financial support(1.3 Nordic(approximately 2 million Council SEK), SEK) and EUR) projects;incomelargest overhead390,000 (approx on various costs the wasproject Thelegalset-up of Euroregions Scandinavia in variesgreatly (Hörnström 2011),and itis hencenot acoincidence that Vastra Gotaland isrelatively new region, createdin1998 by merging the counties of Alvsborg, Goteborg and Bohus and OstBoh OstBoh inwas funded inter-municipal underFyrbodal 1980and the operates Gränskommitten Østfold-Bohuslän-Dalsland, 127 OstBoh, 68 In it2010 spent3,900,000 SEK consists of 22 municipalities 67 CEU eTD Collection section 4.3 will treat the organizations as the primary unitof analysis. the section deals that means This each other?’ with interact they do ‘how and in organizations?’ the participate with the membersthey ‘howdo of members organization?’, the are they ‘why questions the answering of Euroregionsaims at It VarmOst. and OstBoh Euroregions inthe members are that governments local as the primary among interaction and participation motivation, of understand patterns seeks to This section unit of analysis, and VarmOst while inOstBoh local governments of interaction and participation 4.2 Motivation, insection. thenext starts questions research tothe in relation thisand bestudiedThe by introducing twoorganizations border. analysis at data of the the to areas, casestudy of the asone border select Norwegian-Swedish the usedto macro-criteria the work work followsthus thestrategy Nordicthe of Council. Nordicthe countries” (Nordic Council my 2010:3, The translation). strategy prioritizeto this within borders the across activities business conduct or move, commute study, to problematic defined by as“official Nordic decisions,make lawsand Council the regulations it that This section has set the ground for the analysis by elaborating on the local context of context local the on elaborating by analysis the for ground the set has section This In the much2000s OstBohhas devoted reducing itsof worktowards ‘borderobstacles’, Bohuslän-Dalslandmy 2012, translation). that and inhabitants disregard practical encourage formal the mental, to border and divideshelp,facilitate cohesion, to linguistic and historical, cultural to the contribute region,work to for the region’s resources beto seen as common, and tofurther thesustainable development andfaith inthefuture among theinhabitants of the tworegion and the regions, aimingpromote to such contact. Itscountries task iswork to for a […] aforum formunicipalities continuous between border incontact the the of the region” (Gränskommitten Østfold- 128 * CEU eTD Collection that is expected ofthem: isexpected that common membership of type answers was that isconsidered andsomething unproblematic elements of this side in theirmotivation. Half 8 interviewed VarmOst,the out of of 15 mayors werecodedashaving answers, and 13 out of 22 of the OstBoh members. The most reflected on. In fact, throughout the history of the organizations, there have been few cases of few cases have been there organizations, of the history the fact, throughout In on. reflected membership israrely the indicate that also it. answers The do you dobecauseothers that driven driven from (expected gains policyaround cooperation needs). policy-need or opportunities) funding form inthe return instance (for material directly either be can which motivation, on rational/instrumental relies whereas theother ideas, leading As 1, first discussedin nature. typethe explanation identity Chapter of draws on and polity as Euroregion for the investigated local was normativegovernments primarily instrumental or by Motivation 4.2.1 These answersall forwardbring notions of reasonableness, expectations, andsomething The analysis found that in both organizations in both that found analysis The is] the herd animal mentality.” (Mayor, Sweden, VarmOst: #A99) “Often itis some type of youaction, and then join if you wanttoornot. [This it, everyone agrees.” (Mayor, Sweden, OstBoh: #A35) around wasnodiscussion There arenot. institutional member,and we a direct samethe decision, and wethoughtitwouldlook strange if municipalitythat is inter-municipal organization Fyrbodal “As of 2010 weare directinstitutional [ members tourists, and in that way itis natural.” (Mayor, Sweden, OstBoh: #A33) for instance and here, problems, wehave many Norwegians border-related is about organization] inthe [work much it, in not were if we strange seem “For usit is a bitfar off […] we are in the periphery. At the same time it would organization is in neighboringour area.” (Mayor, Norway, VarmOst: #A107) largerthe it is tobe region, natural for in support Trogstad it. The to and that is of apart thinks one one be of this, because to apart been a wish “There has #A35)OstBoh: Sweden, (Mayor, we arein. otherwise.” cheap that Seems seems“It reasonable The aim of this section is to establish whether the motivation for membership in a membership for motivation the whether establish to is section this of aim The 129 ]. The municipality of municipality made]. The of Bengtsfors identity/polity and notmembers viathe was the dominating the was CEU eTD Collection of Indre Østfold members of VarmOst). the Euroregions (the members of Yttre Østfold were generally members of OstBoh, and those elementimportant of current and future local practices.government thatcooperation indicate frequently Answers alsobeen hadchallenged. inbutmost not membership casesthe local councils, localand government Swedish two ones had discussed the value of membershipinthe their briefly in the 1990s rejoin only to achangeafter in politicalthe Another majority. Norwegian OstBoh left municipality Norwegian one and VarmOst, left municipality Norwegian One exit. organization This isarrangement butunique, on Norwegian the side membershipin the inter-municipal whereas others have institutional membership inter-municipalthe via Fyrbodal.organization Swedish assome side, members aredirect local membership) governments (individual the on structure the ispartof OstBoh this thecaseof In as as amotivation well. featured domestic from actors sectors(Sundin different andHagen 2006:101). evoked by from respondents publicspherebothin the cross-borderrelation to cooperation and frequently Sundin watchword’ as a‘political cooperation 2012:107). and Hagendescribe studies inthesameclose-by orand areas (Sundin 2006:101,Olsson Hagen and Miles Embeddedness ininter-municipal cooperation domesticallyarrangements frequently This belief in cooperation havingas anintrinsic value hasbeen confirmedin also other Swedes.” (Mayor, Norway, OstBoh and VarmOst, #A30) decidedwe shouldmoreinvolved that Østfold get butalso with , with the “We joinedMoss 1993.Beforearound both that, bit its on own.was a I #A42) Norway, OstBoh: (Mayor, generally.” inassociations is increase an “There is the future “ (Mayor, Sweden, OstBoh: #A39) “I workwill least hopethe on samelevel at the continue as today, cooperation Yttre Østfold and Indre Østfold per se per is valuable, that inter-municipal cooperation is an is cooperation inter-municipal that valuable, is 130 still played an important role for membership in CEU eTD Collection following quote followingunique quote in context: this due totheexpanding Osloregion. municipalities in either Euroregion hoping to capitalize on the growth on the Norwegian side well. as reasons dofeatureSuch found andinanswers were most of interviews, these member ten Swedish rational/instrumental are there whether to turn now I category. identity/polity respondents on the Swedish side would also share fact snippets they had picked up elsewhere up theyhad picked fact snippets also share would Swedishside onthe respondents setting), recorded the after before or (often interviews the Throughout importance. strategic References to common heritage, history or culture were rarely made, which makes the made, wererarely which culture or history common heritage, to References Thus, the stated motivations for being a member of a Euroregion mainly belong to the These quotes clearly how These cooperation quotes with illustrate isNorway perceivedashaving #A26) OstBoh: Sweden, (Mayor, meaning.” a symbolic have would but difference, makedoes anypractical not members. It aboutbecoming direct thought “We joined 1981,via predecessorthe calledis of now what Fyrbodal.Wehave same municipalities that are in.” (Mayor, Norway, VarmOst: #A99) “It is a part of the regional solution, what we do on this side as well. It is the we should do more.” (Mayor, Sweden, VarmOst: #A105) butin dissolved 1905, good thethat Union and[between Norway) was Sweden inbutwe have Norway,high leg lifted from too one it ground.the Iguess was “Basically, Värmland (the county) stands with oneleg in Sweden and the other VarmOst:A100) Sweden, happens (Mayor, Oslo.” of around on Värmland,what depending “I think the Norwegian issues are very important, not only for Säffle, butfor all 105) area, much andthere, growth StockholmisSweden, as well.” hot VarmOst: (Mayor, #A is a Oslo other. each to turn should they think I but Brussels towards south look and other each to next stand Both other. each need they think I make them closer. and Osloand connect Stockholm role to much clearer better to Oslo, “Norway isØstfold important. I think wedotoolittle, andwe should that connect and the Østfold region.one place and work in other.” (Mayor,I Sweden,think OstBoh and VarmOst: #A28), Karlstadwe want tomake the region ‘rounder’ so to speak. couldOne should be able to live in play jobs here,and 1,700 Wehavemarket. lost is of labor the It Norway. because a “It is a part of our stated political objectives and aims to work with contacts in 131 CEU eTD Collection interviews: in visible clearly was problem, policy joint or factor, a rallying as road the of importance The road E18 led to the creation of a single-issue committee that became the Euroregion VarmOst. European theinternational of quality deteriorating the about growinghow concerns detailed needs.introductioninstrumental tothis chapter expectations The regardingpolicy common maritime traffic. However, rather than spurring cooperation, the irritation on both sides was so border between and for astate also heavy Sweden over-used was andpolluted Norway, 1970s. in the already cooperation cross-border for catalysts as served have could that problems policy potential been not had there that mean not fundingall Accessingfundsare answersreferring andgrantopportunities. to EUorother is Norway tourists to mayor, #A22,OstBoh: VarmOst:(Mayor, not A104).Whatdo featureat Norway Sweden OstBoh:to (Mayor, mentioned #A31) two and the needtogetmore Swedish from stream shopping one-sided the reversing help might Euroregion the that mentioned onerespondent fewfar in between, although were material and to returns references side border municipality X depended‘if that I knew area in Scandinavia’, hottest isOslo theeconomically ‘that in Norway’, region on Norway for X numberand found clearly such relevant, as asking me if knewI that‘Østfold is fastest-growingthe of jobs’, etc. On the Norwegian an important for motivation being amemberin a Euroregion. The major difference between the two Euroregions manifested in areaof the manifested Euroregions two between the Themajor difference OstBoh inOstBoh fact emerged ofless duringa salient period policy not This problems. does bad and narrow, and so it continued.” (Mayor, Norway, VarmOst: #A103) “It started as a cooperationon both the Swedish pushed we and Norwegianthat, side.” around (Mayor, Norway, cooperation VarmOst: #104) agood been has there forumextension, E18 “The for the challengewas very active in that.” (Mayor,of Sweden, VarmOst: #A98) the Committee roads andtheBorder is ita success there far, really hascome this side which “The goal getwas [the wereto road] E18improved andextended. Norwegianthe On 132 Idde fjord , the inlet from the Nordic Sea that is CEU eTD Collection relatively similar as they are only one type of Noteactor. that this assessment partially differs from Sundin and Hagen 2006, dependency theory (Pfeffer Salancik and 1978, Scharpf 1978).The resources that the different municipalities bring in are also 69 activities. type of compared to other very isit still not resource-intensive and attendance, preparation 2010:25). While costs extra are still incurred by travel meetings,to working time in invested Grensekomitteen 2010:9,andVärmland-Østfold Gränskommiten Bohuslän-Østfold-Dalsland and perlocal 3,600EUR 36,000SEK,approximately (see 200 EURand government miniscule in overall municipal relation to Fees in expenses. 2010 ranged between 2,000 NOK Beingmember of atwoEuroregionsinvestment. isalow-cost Themembershipthe feesare Participation 4.2.2 anniversary: long-time vice of on remembered president OstBoh occasionthe organization’sthe of 25 with a lower profile that (Gränskommitten wouldØstfold Instead, it -Bohuslän-Dalslandwasa 2005:3). political initiative eventually lead to high agenciesmuchand were state involved so the thatcooperation broke downtotally efforts creation of the OstBohEuroregion. A concern about quality the numberroad of E18. However, VarmOst also has a strong policy-need dimension, as the cooperation grew out of backseat. the takes needs) policy materialor to (related reasons instrumental whereas reasons identity/polity of to maintain in reasons, primarily due Euroregions the membership than ‘doingsomething something about specific’. Dueto this low intensity in terms of resources, participation and interaction cannot beexplained very well by resource To sum localTo Swedish-Norwegian in case governments join two the and up, the studies The again indicatesquote how ‘doing something’ in a general importantsense wasmore Norwegians.” (Gränskommitten Østfold -Bohuslän-Dalsland 2005:3). [politician askedif inStromstad] notstart doing should we somethingthe with Mattson Kjell A. and restaurant TanumsGastgifveri the at meeting “We hada 69 133 th CEU eTD Collection components: informationof Euroregions can provide tothese listeners mainly consists of three (this also varies over time as political majorities and personalities leadersof change). The type side. Swedish the Fyrbodal on of memberswhogovernments are indirect OstBoh via inter-municipal the organization standing item ‘goingof around the table’ was mentioned byseveral useful.as political, social and cultural developments on ‘the other side’, for example the OstBoh and active. listeners detached, from interview data: inferred as with organization the on their engagement border. Out of the four pairs they investigated, one is located withinwho find resource dependencethe theoryarea applicableof when comes it this to cooperationstudy between twin(Årjäng-Marker). towns located directly theat The number of based were local groups three into the divided As intheprevious chapter, governments Both Euroregions in ofknow more study the emphasize importance about the gettingto of The group what’s happening atmeetings.” (Mayor, Sweden, #A34). OstBoh: know really I don’t Otherwise ameeting.Then I wasthere. hosted we “Once #A36)OstBoh: Sweden, agenda.” (Mayor, look atthe organization I Sometimes [Fyrbodal]. participate in We don’t meetings, butgetinformation us. through inter-municipal the to interesting been not has it representation, any have don’t “We happened in each municipalitywhetherhappenedin each this issomething– you can about think “We have started to always take a round around the table to hear what has x x x project and funding opportunities. etc); migration, larger in trends borderlandthe area employment, (commuting, the border; of side other the on especially municipalities, other in happens what listeners detached members was larger, was constituting half roughly one third to members the of 134 was low,mainly consisting of a few local CEU eTD Collection follow-up on meetings. This was stated in only one case: fundingproject or makeupanimportant opportunities partof agendas.the being amemberit of a Euroregion,is notsurprising that membersthe alsodo notmention that line with findingthe above fundingthat grants not or do feature asimportant statements for basis. In irregular an so on hasdone VarmOst borderland, whereas relevantto the and reports supplier of statistics hasa constant been OstBoh country. other inthe whathappens space to meetings as more than information points: morethaninformation as meetings generateor ideasfor joint constituteprojects, roughly half of members.Theythe perceive of cooperationcross-border institution. the to attached meaning political the to points themselves meetings attend that mayors of ratio Engagement can also be passive if the highest leadershipif Engagement not attend be highest or can also passive does (Mayor) the This is perceived as especially important, since local newspapers devote very limited newspapers sincedevote local important, This is asespecially perceived Active participants, While delegation does not have lessmean in high not the While outcomes, to terms of does anything delegation Norway, #A41) OstBoh: we should – about think this information not havewe did before.” (Mayor, delegate this to (Mayor,others.” Norway, and#A30) OstBoh VarmOst: to chosen have I travels, long involve they long, not are meetings the if even and mayor a as invitations many so get You attend. to not chosen have “I have been established before.” (Mayor, Sweden, #A40) OstBoh: questions The debate. hot a not is it if even discussion, living a be can “There (Mayor, Sweden, OstBoh and VarmOst: #A35) shouldeverything themselves,butnowthereismore do of cooperation.” Euroregions] havedealt not very much this because municipality before every registration [of Norwegians owning housesin municipality.the [The borderthe for commuting children] wewanttoraise theissue housingof organization to be? [...] In addition to the school issue [settling”There of fees across is an internal andOstBoh #A28) VarmOst: Sweden, (Mayor, important.” is this that strategicmunicipality in the consensus political is There significantly. increase will inOstBoh debateactivity our that think “We now: what do we want the role of the who utilize meetings to advance issues of cross-border relevance issuescross-border of advance to meetings utilize who 135 CEU eTD Collection somethinghides structures that that of afterpower all still exist. which (Hudson consensus 2001, Säll is valued2011) rather assomething than good, in depolitisization, of is aprocess there in Scandinavia, forums regional other to Similar with. dealt issues are for how lowvery as parties of political importance the rate all respondents and meetings, at adifference makes rarely origin party in political differences in that partisan, has several thatwouldinclude working staff, especially groups administrative OstBoh usually although project groups havestanding of None them participants. servant civil asregular employees secretariat with civilpartisan servant participation. However, the groups are not is more at the exploratory stage where potential conflicts do not matter. do conflicts wherepotential stage exploratory is more atthe The work and atmosphere of both Euroregions are described as described are Euroregions both of atmosphere and The work Policy areas that could induce conflicts are either not entered into atall, cooperation intoentered or not areeither conflicts induce could that Policy areas Norwegians] belong to, I don’t ask.” (Mayor, Sweden, OstBoh: #A26) Idon’t least[all know the whatparty for common denominator. “You look Norway,(Mayor, #A31) OstBoh: instanceinstance, forfor railway political.” geographical andthings, not upareoften general, issueswetake butthe they can seewhichparty represent, you“I find jacket the party, sometimes haveapin on usually out so their they they represent.” (Mayor, Norway, OstBoh: #A22) party which Swedes] ask [the I never uninteresting, are totally parties “Political and #A28) VarmOst: Sweden, OstBoh (Mayor, [OstBoh].” committee border in the feel that cannot you but Party, Center the by ruled been have municipalities many Dalsland “In andNorway, OstBoh #A29) VarmOst: meetings“At which always you (Mayor, don’t know party people represent.” conditions.conflict. Competition If is not badwe as long as itlook is open competitionshouldthey on thebecause same atnot doing, are we it what about open morebeen have I this. about Säffle broadly, not wehave[VarmOst]. But we are alwayscan open, aslate as yesterday I talked Årjäng to and see that committee whatborder the not represent we do towns] border from Swedish the when itthey comes“[When we meet government representatives on the issue of unfair competitiontoget, but because we need more. That is not a . By ‘political’ I mean that the organizations consist of elected officials, with only the 136 political butnot CEU eTD Collection results isresults in given 6. Chapter with each and every member frequency communication of valuesof analysis network self-declared from of social tools of the of help Euroregion. the with done be can This members. its between communication political institutional A detailed account testingof the method and whetherthe for allows dissertation of the framework the within collected data the but on, elaborated not OstBoh (Gränskommitten How thisis was Østfold -Bohuslän-Dalsland statement at 2005:3). arrived or VarmOst densestfrequentthe pattern contact and most along border” the whole Swedish-Norwegian has the In issued a booklet for 25 the most intensiveInteraction 4.2.3 contact pattern in terms of interaction that local governments within the Euroregions show. within Euroregions local the governments that interaction of the patterns investigates section the next that, Before Euroregions. the of performance and in section 4.3 function on be which will clarified arenotin connections, utilized contacts other notparty avoided. mean in are This does that topics difficult culture which consensus-seeking isoneof culture depoliticized i.e. organizational the partisan, butnot as beingpolitical by organizationsmembers their werecharacterized Both via inter-municipal organization. an membership its membershipmainly indirect on strategy of allowing side due to Swedish the inactive, were that members hadsome OstBoh that exception with the similar, relatively In short, the analysis of participation showed the patterns of the two organizations to be (Mayor, Norway,(Mayor, VarmOst: #103) stand donot still.”things happens somethinginregion,because our then distance is good, if itis on the Norwegian or Swedish side it does not is[central location Every matter,Marker) of good. kindthat person movingto of establishmentof companies, everything within50 kilometers from Orje th anniversary of OstBoh, it was stated that the organization “has it organization was stated the that OstBoh, of anniversary 137 CEU eTD Collection referred to contacts asclose: tocontacts referred directly border knewthe at more into than living further country.theirthe peers otherside,the whereas many notknow any.do surprisingly, Again, not mayors the located other side of the border. However, the variance is big,i.e. samethe average country, the mayor knowsonly (and a half)mayorby one name as on the some mayors know 3-4 by name on of 10.6 out of 21 other mayors in the Euroregion, but out of these an average of 9.2 were from names the give to able average on were they that showed members OstBoh the of recognition has difficultiesmembers tofrom recallthe meets majority The other itself. Euroregion the by country arranged events and the meetings of framework only nameson those occasions of their (three-four the interact outside likely to most ones andare the they border, atthe directly located partners times a year), governments local the between anddeveloped isbest also network on communication thecross-border otherthe surprisingly, Not links. side. transnational of number asmall by connected location, national A survey of name The politicalclearlycross-border basedsub-groups networks networks. two display on between the two, and that itis premature to refer tothe Euroregions as cohesive and integrated type of question. some cases mayors had just that stepped down were interviewed via phone andthe phone setting was not conducivefor this 70 The data for VarmOst for this question is incomplete. Due to elections taking place the month prior to the fieldwork, in The assessment of contacts as sparse is not shared by members themselves, who often who themselves, members shared by is not assparse of contacts assessment The OstBoh,In brief,my findingsdemonstrate VarmOst, that not hasthedenser network where they stand, than it is easier to go to the phone afterwards and say ‘thanks say and afterwards phone the go to to easier is it than stand, they where friendship, whichmakes cooperation the Ifyou better. met, know work have politicians]is new [elected it the also for an because but becausearena is it that useful, Therefore we important. in haveajointWewill in Karlstad December. do day there are tochanges”I think we knoweachotherquite well isand that good.Butevery yearsfour meet with the elections.eachEidsberg.” (Mayor, Sweden, VarmOst: #A98) But Norwegian cooperationelections. Most is with Aremark,Römskog, the and other. administrationin [geographically]don’t know.Rightnow Idon’t I many knowso due to the whoare further Those committee. isexecutive inthe who everybody “I know remains,Knowledge so it is of each other leads also to 138 70 CEU eTD Collection that contacts are much denser, expressed in terms as in the two quotes below: stated half other whereasthe incontacts, adecrease all or at changeno see Euroregions) both (in respondents the half About answers. varied are there years, five last the time-span, shorter that do exist include an agreement on shared water/sewage for a small location at the border the at location for asmall shared water/sewage on anagreement exist include do that for how this can be done (Skomsöy and Sundin 2005). Examples although along border, legalarrangements wholeSwedish-Norwegian the are there provisions of the formal arrangements legal such only are a few there However, a tie. of indication as the local governments between formal legal arrangements of use the existence to be policyspacewould cross-border perform. and function organizations the how influencing factors of several asone serve then capital can social capital on the domestic level (within-group). The argument to be advanced is that social strengtheninginstitutional of social between-group followscapital a path of strengthening This that area. indicated levels inthecross-border capital and the institutional social However, asked specifically how the contacts across the border have developed over a over havedeveloped border the across contacts the how specifically asked However, An alternative way to demonstrate ties between local governments in an advanced joint advanced in an governments local between ties demonstrate to way alternative An The social network analysis also revealed a relation between the domestic levels of levels domestic the between relation a revealed also analysis network social The Mayors…”Norway, (Mayor, #104) VarmOst: informativevery been has it side, other the on think they how about learned have “We coffee together.” (Mayor, Norway, VarmOst: #103) on know each other. Icallwhat X when I take the boat on the channel and then we have a coffee challengesto take […]we yesterday Säffle border about andtalk there“I have comeis to knowon Årjäng#103) the veryNorway, VarmOst: (Mayor, discuss’.” need to is issueI an there last time, for well,other and with herside, [the Mayor] I waswe in learned things, met Euroregion (Mayor, Sweden,started.” #A32) OstBoh: Stromstad and Halden continuously. increased has border the across cooperation “The had years it has increased.”not (Mayor, Norway, VarmOst: #106) talked“In the beginning with there waseach not so muchother contact, veryon sporadic.a political The last 15 level before the 139 CEU eTD Collection labor market (Lorentzon 2006). involved in consultations regarding the establishment of a call center company in Dals-Ed,opening ashopping center inDals-Ed, as when theopinionit saw of the neighboring advantagesHalden wasasked for.In addition,Halden was of a joint Dals-Ed exchanges urban planning plans with its Norwegian neighbors.An exampleconcerns the award of alicense for be assumed to be less substantial. Halden and Stromstad cooperate on business, environment, culture, education and care. 71 obstacle. It follows that development that has taken place has done so not because of mobility closestsituated itis to – viewed asboth of a source income (unequally andasan distributed) for those especially border asthe regions, cross-border functioning on creating progress ambivalence symbolicalthe towards inhibit border andmay also practical position the of The longer compete. no could an local shops when annoyance –constituted perspective –from borders the riches. addition, ofshoppersgoing across policymaker’s the In caravan the such is going well, it economicdoes situation of their localnot governments as if meanto emphasize thatjust because thatNorway as local governments are sittingexist, noevidence ofmistrustcould befound among interviewees. the onissues these that any awareness raising from apart oil However, capital. funds social institutional of level or the affecting as well, mayors the among be present could some extent to similar opinions that and found, jealousy could be if even frequent.they Itisare not unreasonable not assume to resentment as such sentiments human common that indicated prices cheap at houses bought population-levelin andnurture local social where Mayors capital. Norwegians governments not conducive for the kind of mutual trust and, to a certain effect, liking, that it takes to sustain butis border, generally the fostersacross mobility local heterogeneity economic levels. Such in terms of the availability different casesare in border these the at local conditions the countries, Scandinavian well-off of employment, price level, and also, a ski slope. operate to a lesser extent,arranged municipalities by of Dals-Ed andAremark,the andÅrjäng while jointly Marker income Policy cooperation is also said to take place without legal arrangements, even though less formalized cooperation can also Norwegian respondents, on frequently on theirof subjectNorwegian the precariousthe side, to respondents, turned generally belongto inthischapter regions investigated theEven cross-border though 71 140 CEU eTD Collection Table 12. 2). (seeChapter categories different inthe theassessments 12summarizes investigated Table Euroregions. the two between small, albeit some variation, alsodemonstrate results The intense. wasmore if interaction itbeincreased significantly couldcooperation, butthat each and to to other positive attitudes if rates’ yield more profitable exist. not heterogeneity ‘interestdid economic the would andresource this similarities, culture, meetings, common the reinforcing face-to-face Swedish border is an ‘engine for regional development’ (Lorentzon 2011). (Lorentzon development’ regional for ‘engine an is border Swedish 72 VarmOst. Participationin stronger somewhat but institutions, in both existed capital social between-group Bonding patterns weremotivation. in relatively identity/polity-based primarily were both although element, policy-need similar, with the exceptionexpected that OstBoh to show had somewere variables that independent constitute patterns interaction and participation Motivation, variation. This turned with but alsohowthey investigatedinteractEuroregions, Swedish-Norwegian each other. two out to be correct as in they how answerthe onwhy participate questions and seeking to analysis, primary of unit VarmOst had a stronger but in spite of it.

This is partially against the argument of some economists, that for instance increased shopping along the Norwegian- BETEWEEN- GROUP SOCIAL The results demonstrate The results demonstrate exists there that institutional abonding social capital, dueto This motivation,section on participation Euroregionsand interaction has treated as the CAPITAL Between-groupOstBoh social capitalof and VarmOst of issues) of Presence of conflict (politicization Level of trust to other side Perceived trend of contacts communications Strength of cross-border Euroregion 72 While much institutional social capital While capital social muchinstitutional becan amassedjust by repeated 141 low OstBoh low medium increasing * medium VarmOst low high increasing CEU eTD Collection the isthe give primarily table to aquick of activity. overview policy and project members The specifichighlighted. of thatnumber fields),andpurpose two of policy activities grade a important by wereaskedto membersmost (interviewees of the organizations the are considered that thepolicy areas Table 13summarizes anddisplay windows. loudspeakers seismographs, function as judged they to which extentby space, the cross-border cases arethen assessed interms of cooperationcross-border intensity and appropriation of via onwillThetwo introduced policy andpreferred concentrate projects areas. be typical areasthey policy the First Euroregions? of performance functions and what are the words, dependent variable ofThis the project: section what do dealsthey do andwith howand VarmOst ofOstBoh andperformance 4.3 Function wellorganizations do they do this? In other as primary unitsmembership onthe Swedish side via an inter-municipal organization. of analysis,some memberswere inactive,mainly membership its that indirect due to of strategy allowing and elaborates on the 142 CEU eTD Collection the assessment of this dimension is summarized in Table 14 and is elaborated on below. on is elaborated and 14 Table in is summarized dimension this of assessment the andby follow-upannual and evaluationits work of see to it that follows its setpriorities. obstacles’ ‘border of concept Council-developed Nordic the using by issues policy towards both VarmOst, than strategically more worked also OstBoh development. economic thereby on working directly with business topromote increases in businesscross-border links and more focuses OstBoh whereas VarmOst, for importance greatest the isof still infrastructure that show do they actually what and activity each policy to were attached values that absolute Most important to members: and of VarmOst OstBoh areas andactivities Typical cooperation Table 13. Most important to members: 2. 1. 1. Supporting 2. Following operationalization the of cooperationcross-border as laidoutin Chapter 2, identical, inAs areasisalmost of rankedpreference butseen Table 13,the policy the Children’s borderland Children’s agencies/ministries or to other fora that can take them further (i.e. Grenseradet).countries that hinder mobility business,and and lay forward these issues either directly to assess and evaluate Collect, name Europartenariat by DG XVI (Regional policy) DGXXIII and (Enterprise Policy). short (25-minute meetings) witheach otherduring the fair. The modelwas developedthe under request to catalogues online use businesses Participating part. take organizations and companies benefittingmutual Swedish Norwegianand companies border inthe area. Typically 100-150 The Contact Fair. (http://www.barnensgransland.se/). outside world especially targeting families. The project has a joint website Indre Østfold .Itserves to coordinate tourism promotion by displaying ajoint image to the (Årjäng, Bengtsfors, Säffle) andall Norwegian members via the inter-municipal organization same route as the (a) there is that a need for ahigh-speed decision-makers convince trainto been between has 2000s the itscapitals, in and resolutions (b) and that this capitals should tothe go alongdelegations the high-speed train connection train high-speed European route E18 Annual business fair that has been organized since 1999 and which aims at infrastructure, economic development, facilitate cross-border mobility infrastructure, facilitate cross-border mobility, economic development . The project was developed by three of the five Swedish members Swedish five ofthe three by developed was project The . border obstacles Typical activities: Typical activities: , the original joining issue of the Euroregion. the of issue joining original the , VarmOst OstBoh Oslo-Stockholm. Focus of several meetings, seminars, meetings, several of Focus Oslo-Stockholm. 143 , i.e. differences in legal frameworks between the between frameworks legal in differences i.e. , CEU eTD Collection EUR in has(approximately2011), whereas asmall VarmOst budget 94,000 EURin2011,but them in accordance with strategic goals. with in strategic them accordance classify and activities up more infollowing active has been butOstBoh mission statements, assessed medium for bothorganizations. Both have as plans and strategic organizations the majority mayorsof take part in two to four meetings a year. down. costs operational inlocated butNorway, hasbeen skilled in using the itsresources keep membersof to employee half-time one has VarmOst The projects. specific for working part-timers several or one usually and in Sweden, located employee full-time permanent one has OstBoh staff. independence. Likewise, VarmOst through operates Norwegian Østfold Bedriftscenter. itfind does themselves stakeholders arrangementsatisfactory, the ensurenotlegal the Although (Sweden). border the of side one on organization inter-municipal an of underbut auspices operates the islegally independent organization, an not category. OstBoh European Grouping of BothTerritorial Cooperation Euroregions(EGTC). lowin score this intensity Project Budget strategy/mission statement Adherence todevelopment Meeting activity arrangement Robustness of its administrative Strength of legal arrangement Euroregion Table 14. In a European perspective, the perspective, In aEuropean Both meetings, at have Both organizations least members andmost regular yearly; participate Strength of The Cross-borderOstBoh cooperationintensity of andVarmOst administrative arrangement legal arrangement high medium high medium medium low OstBoh is rated highest if the organization uses the instrument is robust in both cases insofar that both have permanent have both that insofar cases in both is robust budget of OstBoh is OstBoh medium size of 300,000 of (approx 144 Meeting activity medium low medium medium medium low VarmOst wastherefore CEU eTD Collection the mostthe frequentactor type they contacted by get isadministrators. politicians or Managers or Chairs in as theirInstead, capacity area. governance cross-border tothe related leadership Euroregion the andmanager) (Chair directly by getcontacted aboutissues citizens does cases the of none In public. general the by be well-known to seem not do organizations political forums. In way that they bring inissues of political salience, although the Chairs have, as as a importance issues of measuring they also function as Mayors organizations,the also but ondocuments andinterviews.member of a town, of Chairs and managers with interviews the on mainly but rely I section this For window. alsodisplay as participants loudspeaker well how and Euroregion ofseismograph, threethe functions the can perform in other itsproject‘Barnens Grenseland’). VarmOst the accounting partof not (e.g. active part, but whereis it notthe project owner and the resources of that project therefore are takesavery sometimes in Euroregion which the development’, as ‘project to be referred activity can The project-related year. remaining runninginagiven more afew(2-3) had than notin As inrunning in VarmOsthas 2000,13in2006and17 2011). a comparison, 1994,4 pasttwodecades (6 overthe of projects OstBoh has hadanincreasingnumber projects, Euroregions usually intensityin only canbe 2010).Comparing assessing and project deceiving,as 40,000 EUR work both as project owners and as project developers. As for owning issuesisburning are to run permanent inworking groups policy different areas of consisting society, such sport groups or churchesas #A100).One(#A95, mode to geta feeling forwhat The main channel for knowing what is going on depends on 1) Chapter (see borderlands in space policy the appropriate to The ability and what people care about, i.e. However, citizens’ opinions aretosome extent channeled Euroregions the to via civil via Gränskommitten.” (Chair, #A42)OstBoh: funds which hadpoliticians,they or some for applied represented organization as positions from earlier knew it“Generally was people whoGränskommitten seismograph 145 , is the multiple positions that especially the especially that positions multiple the is , CEU eTD Collection of these at times: at these of all has used OstBoh statements. written or level, atregional or in thecapital decision-makers delegations tothe commissioned reports, people arrangementin the of events, to power, leadership,in contacts within-party can be top viathe of positions with persons dealt multiple the Euroregions need decision-makers on regional and national (possibly also European) level for byboth Political which important issues isorganizations. very making considered power, OstBoh, but it did not work satisfactorily. Such both politicians andadministrators. hadpermanentworkingbeenby groups out tried are. meetings. its at officials administrative haswhereas highest soughttoincludethe VarmOst politicians andadministrators, consisting of groups morehas with ad-hoc project InsteadOstBoh worked been out. tried OstBoh OstBoh has worked much with single companies in order to find out what their issues The by-laws of VarmOst allow having for standing butworking it groups, has never VarmOst has been much less direct in its contacts with the business sector. business with the in its contacts less direct has beenmuch VarmOst The (Chair,OstBoh: #A42) we havein pipeline.” what iton thematic depending totake chosen therefore groups, and they sort of don’t have the energy keepto on in way.that Wehave and lots of all and thereare time same the projects, bewouldpeople in the meetings, attend people make to have you then, but years, several it had “We business organizations.”(Manager, Ostboh: #A5) Ostboh: business organizations.”(Manager, and companies single both to out reached we Recently meet. they obstacles work very hard with business organizations, toget their help tosee what border We obstacles. border identify to trying ofcontacts lots wehave now “Right business VarmOst: sector.”(Manager, #95) the mobilized haven’t we that say can you maybe But business. to importance much so issuesof but work “We withwe workwith business, don’t directly loudspeaker function , i.e. to bring issues to the agendas of those that have decision- have that those of agendas the to issues bring to , i.e. 146 CEU eTD Collection contacts) or sendingOslo or to or Stockholm issue:contacts) delegations a specific on through party (eithermultiplehigh leadership contacts of or positions network through anonymous among public the andrelevantpolicy actors: weight arguments,it butis to also required organization bythe in tomake order itless Mayor of Säffle. Being a Chair of a cross-border organization is perceived as giving extra distributing and allocating Interreg funding. Whereas the manager of OstBoh (located in (located OstBoh funding. themanagerof Whereas Interreg and allocating distributing resources by any of the two Euroregions. What matters ishave to relations with the authorities VarmOst, ontheother modesof hand,has focusedontheVarmOst, lessresource-intensive The Chair of VarmOst frequently introduces himself as Chair of VarmOst, and not as Interacting directly with agencies and actors in Brussels has not been given priority or priority given been not has in Brussels actors and agencies with directly Interacting that we must have this.” (Manager, Ostboh: #A5) resolutions, also do our own studies toshow the need, so that we not only sayyou minister,infrastructure work theministry,towards have […] we the with contacts had have We do. can you how discuss to representatives collected where Wewe hadseminars, have group. Gothenburg Oslo we takeis “Itdepends on very whatyouhow. issues.ItButif the different can do and the double railway line as an example, we work closely with the #A100) VarmOst: Sweden, (Chair, them.” help will we and Norway-perspective’ “I talk with MPs quite often and we tell them ‘don’t forget the Sweden- Østfoldof and Värmland.” regions the (Manager,with Norway, VarmOst: raised have #A95) we then and know, they someone to talked to Norway and Sweden, related of issues character principal more general more, take you engage could but it takes resources.worked very effectively with low costs Iton administration. is If youmore had more time that say,should one write.a what Wehave, time to takes capacity. It of question is also it politicians but transport, national for declarations] have[writing it done have “We (Chair,Sweden, VarmOst: #A100) is fun. issue.You Itcan alsobe the Minister ofAgriculture, or Minister of Infrastructure,canit Norwegian forside. This meansIam sidesdo in both spokesperson a concrete the also but quiteissue, in this active is and is affected that Värmland only not a Värmland, for lotissue an just not is this that say then I while problem, policy wolf thenotice instancethis,minister. for environment Lena the example Takethe Ek, of the immediately level politicians] [national they network, contact of the existence ofshows it fun, is that and work this, do should I that said members] [the “They is still reasonable.” 147 CEU eTD Collection an applicant among others: an applicant more as hastreated been VarmOst aredeveloped, priorities multi-year the when is consulted and Euroregion the office, Interreg with the weekly)least (at contacts very has close Sweden) very useful: of the region both externally and internally is therefore downplayed. istherefore internally and externally both region the of isregion-building interms identity as aprioritized not issue.Thefunction of which mighthave long-term consequences for identity butis prioritized:not Finally,multiple ofleading positions persons within organizationsthe are considered Despite polity factors playing amajor role in local why governments join Euroregions, This may be due to the little emphasis on history, and rather on the value of cooperation, #5) Europeanthe not but Nordic, the and level, regional and local the to Union,priority give “We except locally withhave not been theconsulted directly” (Manager, Norway,Interreg VarmOst: #A95) meeting, Board as aEuroregion atwe but our Interreg “We have discussed office.” (Manager, OstBoh: consensus among them, we got in two representatives.”(Chair, OstBoh: #A42) was there area,and as be acommuting must seen area, one Gothenburg to from Oslo area thewhole that because we thought too, this organization decisions takenoverour heads, an sowewrote forapplication membershipin “Oslo, they have this Oslo Gothenburg cooperation, and wefelt that there were Sweden,#A100) VarmOst: exist now, both whatpoliticians should andyou civil bemust servants,done. involve for Region ismore infrastructure for Värmland] andmoreresponsible with us, theyI believe referthem. isto why[person That megives connections. that Värmland, something VarmOst.”You that are (Chair,givesa representative“When it comeseffect, to infrastructure, more and I amtry peoplealso toa member monitor of knowthe Board and thatof Region tell we (Manager, OstBoh: #A5) you then don’t getcourse, of that much by recognition name public.”the public, and for the an information service not weare externally, work really that should get to know each other, we work for the municipalities, so we don’t atit, members.look it Ifyou foris the “We arean members the organization 148 display windowdisplay CEU eTD Collection writing writing not joined any of the ‘supra-regions’, such as Vastra Gotaland. 73 such as customs, labor mobility, tax2012) issues,Bache Marks 2001, Hooghe and 1993, (Marks governance framework Source: Multi-level butWorking Council Nordic alsoSweden, Group on Cross-borderInterreg Cooperation Cooperation, Goteborg-Oslo one Grensetjensten, OstBoh, VarmOst, issue with high salience locally, Figure 4. Oresund heavily does conceptthe promote of ‘Oresundthe its and region’ historical links. Scandinavianitself.instance, in phenomenon Danish-Swedish the For region cross-border Thetendency Swedenin has been towards merging regions to create ‘super-regions’, butVärmland had at the time of In terms of policy emphasis, Figure 4 demonstrates that the focus is on specific issues is specific on focus the that 4demonstrates Figure emphasis, policy of In terms It should benoted thisthat downplaying identity of issuesregional and a history is not “Since Värmland will not merge with Vastra Gotaland MULTI-LEVEL DIMENSION VarmOst:#A100) Sweden, (Chair, Norway].” in north [further Hedmark be also can Østfold, only nottowards is Thatalternative, the integrate. to westwards, step actual more and more about Norway.We cannotstand alone, then we have totake the Involved actors in cross-border policyissues: OstBohandVarmOst Local Regional National Supranational Governments, Local for working Servants Civil LocalGovernment Boards and Councils, Customers Service Units Regional Agencies, Tax Regional Public Employment Service Units, Inter-municipal associations,Regional (Sweden), Regions Political countries), County Administrative Boards (both Agencies Agency, Norwegianand SwedishCustoms Tax Norwegian and Swedish Agency, Administration, SwedishSocial Insurance Welfare and Labour Norwegian especially Ministry of Environment; Agencies: Infrastructure, Ministry of Agriculture, of Ministry especially Ministries, Ministers of Council Nordic representatives, Interreg State GOVERNANCE DIMENSION Cross-border baseline 149 73 , we in Sweden talk local parties culture, and sports for OstBoh), associations (especially companies Individual business parties Regional chambers, business Regional National parties (Sweden Norway),and Hunting Association Non-state CEU eTD Collection network convincenetwork to membersmuch organization that the incould do lobbying of terms inter-municipal a tighter on coulddraw VarmOst Nonetheless, capacity. organizational assess usedto indicators six of the out three on VarmOst than higher scored OstBoh organizations. Member satisfaction governance space Appropriation of cross-border Euroregion includes of Table also an assessment 15, which several duringtimes his period, whichinstarted 2010. (Chair,Sweden, VarmOst: #100) wolves in the area (SverigesØstfold,decrease demanding that hunting forwolvesshouldthe to beallowed number of Radio 2003). and Akershus inVärmland, representatives regional state’s tothe letter a and resolution The Chair of VarmOst has in ona namely in For instance, presenceof agreed the wolves area. 2003 VarmOst the also raised this issue OstBoh andVarmOst. Table 15. more of a project applicant among others, the assessment here is medium. is As VarmOst activities. cross-border to comes it when partner policy dominant the is which and high for VarmOst. As for appropriation of policy space, this is assessed high for OstBoh, medium for OstBoh assessment the warrants This members. passive are andsome big’, ‘too grown has opinion members’ some in organization the that reservation the with OstBoh, for said be can same The organization. the about positive very generally are Euroregion VarmOst The results for The results This section has showed that there is variation in both performance and function of the of function and performance both in variation is there that showed has section This Member satisfactionandappropriationofcross-border spaceof governance appropriation of cross-border activities cooperation appropriation of medium high OstBoh 150 * member satisfaction high medium VarmOst are summarized in aresummarized . Members of the CEU eTD Collection interaction local of governments interaction thing as ‘Scandinavian exceptionalism’ itwhen comes tocross-border cooperation. and function of these Euroregions?” performance the social impact does “How do andcapital interact?” they andhow Euroregions how dolocal in governments south the Swedish-Norwegian borderland in participate The line inquiry of in has chapter this been by guided tworesearch the questions: “Why and 4.4 Conclusion loudspeakers. as than windows anddisplay asseismographs less they so butloudspeakers functions, do anddisplay three roleswindows the of seismographs, fulfillfunction)for fewBoth itsEuroregions issues resources. (loudspeaker do with relatively those who are indirect members whoare indirect viaFyrbodal. those organizations is the has OstBoh that larger a relatively portion inactiveof mainly members, between A difference inactive. members are few whereas group, a significant constitute also information-seekers butmajority passive members, the relative of membersActive constitute areavoided. topics in culture isdifficult which consensus-seeking culture oneof depolitisized partisan, organizational i.e. the not butbeing as political arecharacterized organizations both This indicatesnumber support for(2000) rather Blatter E18. than (2003). Perkmann road quality the of of about concern out cooperation grew the policy-need as dimension, has astrong also VarmOst However, backseat. the take related) needs policy or (material reasons instrumental reasonsidentity/polity, whereas of to due Euroregions primarily of members stay and become Euroregions in both governments local that showed has analysis members, based on frequency of communication between frequency aremainlymembers, between political the basedon leadership, of communication The first question was analyzed from the perspectives of motivation, participation and motivation, participation of from perspectives the wasanalyzed question The first , and I will here summarize the results of these. In addition, I sought to establish whether there is such a such is there whether establish to sought I addition, In 151 Third , the interaction patterns between patterns interaction , the First Second , the , , CEU eTD Collection members, as part-time positions of local development units. development oflocal positions part-time as members, affiliated with a Swedish inter-municipal organization. The management of VarmOst has been vested with Norwegian implementation where it isadministratively embedded. The secretariat of OstBoh is in Sweden, and it isorganizationally74 context. in meaning the Scandinavian practical butspokespersonsindependent ofboth status, hasorganizations legal that contested status any higher legal duetoits wasin of VarmOststrength scored arrangements, category of the where only assess one The usedto capacity. organizational of sixindicators the out three primary infrastructure goals investments. related to Nonetheless, scored higher OstBoh on make in anddirectlobbyingit to progress the hand, other hasthe contacts party utilized less embedded, not receiving such external funds until nearly after years20 of operation. On was VarmOst, one, other The funds. European for bodies disbursement the with and Council and hasbeenclosely involved policy with related cross-border both inwork the Nordic inis variation performanceboth andfunction organizations. of the functions of cross-borderspace (appropriation governance within thecross-border actor become theleading to capacity space)along index in developed special theperformance andfunction Chapter 1,with focus on their and how that couldcapital). social between-group with compared be capital social interpretedcapital,but thatthe domestic levelsarehigher than localthe transnational within-group (i.e. in social relationbonding such is there that indicate results The level. political institutional an on capital to how theypositive, the frequency of communication isfulfill an indicator of endowments of bonding social as linkswas mainly fewer with Ascommunication described inbetween. relatively networks withinregional one cross-border space, butconsistof Swedish and separate Norwegian integrated arenot This political the bound meansthat networks within states. national the For bothorganizations actors on that side of the border appear to be strongerin influencing strategy and project One of the organizations, OstBoh, has had an annual turnover ten times that of the other, Euroregions assesstwo the firstneeded to I answer question second the to In order as seismographs, loudspeakers asseismographs, thatthere The display and showed windows. analysis 152 74 In terms of Interms infrastructure, of policy orientation, CEU eTD Collection should be promoted as one region. similarities, the regionsdisplay window function are not portrayed as areasnational that ‘naturally’ belonglevel,important together or whichwhereas for both, OstBoh VarmOst also does works this mainlywith reports,via direct conferencescommunication andto actorsseminars. at the The region Oresund very much promotesthe conceptof the ‘Oresund region’. 75 fact,Norwegiansurvey. questionthe met often alaugh In on respondents Europeanness with in priorities farthe the listof policy came down (creatingsense‘Europeanness’) of Europe a to haslimited. Relating been Europe of influence ideational the that establish didThe chapter types. cooperation cross-border continental and Scandinavian between difference fundamental indicating a initiatives for than‘Euroregions’, cooperation appropriate these cross-border sectors. other atcreating social bridging capital hasto OstBoh beenbetter However, both, in terms of administrativesomewhat higher for Varmost. In terms of linking social capital, this is well developedand of party institutionallinks to actors at on the social capital bonding of existence the indicated local between governments interaction regional the that level, showed analysis andthe above, mentioned As national capital. social of types different three but level. that the level was not very high in the cross-border space, albeit seismograph function the and public, general the by well-known are them of none However, institutions. governmental with more exclusively hasworked VarmOst whereas representatives, business much andindividual organizational morepractice worked directly with in has OstBoh somewhat. differ them between priority the though even issues, important cross-border labor mobility and economic development/business promotion are the most Note thisdownplaying that of regional identity is notissues aScandinavian phenomenon, the Danish-Sweden crossborder Finally, put the chapter question the whether the label‘Nordoregions’ bewould more The argument in relation to the second question is that these functions can be linked to be can functions these that is secondquestion the to in relation The argument could therefore be improved. While the is – generally downplayed whileorganizations both emphasize 75 153 loudspeaker function is CEU eTD Collection own. its be of seenas not a species cooperation should cross-border Scandinavian andthat contexts, use ininternational term is ‘Euroregion’ and argue to a justified appropriate that therefore between them. I andalsoshowvariation initiatives, cooperation cross-border European other as similar dimensions along they easily assessed respect, are In that activity and performance. notto exceptionalismexceptionalism origins interms of organizational and only refers to this However, than Euroregions. Nordoregions areindeedrather organizations these incentives (rhetoricfunding) or from European the Union. In terms of origin andemergence, memberships. None of the organizations were funded as a result of normative or instrumental firmly European polls are asopinion against thehopelessness of Union their cause recognized in the membership Norwegian support officially that parties of Politicians comment. ironic or 154 CEU eTD Collection Salzburg ruled the area, the area, the ruled Salzburg of Archbishopric Austria andthe Tyrol, Habsburgs, the as Bavaria, changed repeatedly, boundaries, of changing ‘enemy’ Whilethe andterritorial allegiances allegiance. the shape centuries,keep were supposed to fortifiedout? Throughout these cliffsubjectsof rocks the cannons of Kufstein be directed? And which enemy or enemies were the walls of Salzburg salience of defense policy in medieval times. But atwhom, and towards what direction, would The fortress of Kufstein and the Salzburg Castle are historical landmarks signifying the Traunstein. in partner important most the is Salzburg and of center administrative become the Union, their and in role isregional policy relatedtotourism insteaddefense. of Kufstein has inlocated are tobesustained. 1995both regional European the continuous Since efforts 76 time of its presumptive and attention the for compete needto which new organizations, as act borderlands German members, the local function performance? and on impacts social How does (2) capital dointeract? how and they governments. in The borderland in participate dolocalhow Euroregions Austrian-German andthe governments way to compete (1)Why structure outline the chapter: the sub-sets of serveto ofquestions work?”, whiletwo is to find, studies. case empirical following accession, and they be whichwill inthis examined chapter, presents lastthe of the C For the sake of consistency with the rest of the dissertation, the term ‘Euroregion’ will be used instead of ‘Euregio’. HAPTER In addition, I will in the chapter seek to demonstrate how Euroregions demonstrate how In seek intheAustrian-inaddition,to Iwill thechapter cooperation is: “Howdoes central research question the in chapters, Here, asprevious 76 These Euroregions are two out of seven that were set up in the immediate years immediate in the were setup of seven that out two are TheseEuroregions 5 – A CASE STUDY OF TWO raison d’etre G ERMAN BORDER ERMAN EuRegio Inntal-Chiemsee-Kaisergebirge–Mangfalltal,EuRegio of these impressive structures, i.e. required defense, structures, impressive these of 155 E EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land- EuRegio UROREGIONS ATUROREGIONS THE A USTRIAN - CEU eTD Collection the border is referred to as the to is referred border the i.e. of state Bavaria, federal and German the Austria runs between border the program Interreg speech and in official documentation such as that of the European Territorial Cooperation perception of whether they live in a ‘border area’ or not. or area’ a‘border in live they of whether perception NUTS 3 levels closest to the borders. Note that such as border area definition does not necessarily coincide with citizens’77 as theborder longislarge referred an to line thearea, map,and a522km² In chapter on 822 kilometer this Euroregions theinvestigated areaand border 5.1 TheAustrian-German interaction patterns (its social capital). Conclusions are drawn in the final section (5.4). organizationsthe how on question the answering hence question, research second the to devoted functionis 5.3 Section local governments. interaction of and motivation, participation tothe related and perform as well organizations. as how that micro-level.(5.1.2) gives The second part a is introductionbrief twoto the case study related onthesea elaborates and homogeneity) economic and similarity politico-administrative to its motivation proximity, (cultural-linguistic thisdissertation for borders determinedof selection that the and area. in borderland the suchcooperation cross-border documents, on internal evaluations, and secondary literature as supplemented by chapters, butthismore existence or of wascompensated primary the dimension. border justify and establish theexistence of andpolicy policyproblems, with opportunities, a cross- Borderarea as defined by the European TerritorialProgram (Interreg Bayern-Osterreich 2007-2013, 2007), incorporating Further on, the first research question is dealt with in section 5.2, which states findingsFurther in researchquestion on,is first 5.2,whichstates the section dealt with factors focuses on the (5.1.1) part first The with section. a descriptive starts The chapter previous the than interviews of (n=20), number on a smaller relies The research between and the border area border between the and Bavarian- Austrian border, not the German-Austrian border. German-Austrian the not border, Austrian 77 156 of Austria and German y . However, in daily However, . CEU eTD Collection place in connection with the Napoleonic wars in the early 19 inthe early wars Napoleonic with the inplace connection emperors (Dopsch emperors (Dopsch 2004). orHabsburg counts kings,Tyrol Bavarian archbishops, Salzburg bythe years ruled were became the dominant tongue in the area,southwards, regardless which had as a consequence that various dialects of the Germanic language ofgroup whether its speakers inSalzburg 2004c:18).However, area(Moosleitner frontierpushed wasgradually the the next 1,000 wasin and areas Roman-inhabited the show how between thefrontier Bawarii-inhabited inmillennium struggle uptothefirst centuries power for the area,and from the findings grave the 5 borderthe the between Archive of andRatien Noricum provinces City (Rosenheim 2012).In Moosleitner Aeni, 2004b:12).Pons tothelocation close of today’s Rosenheim, waslocated at and precious the saltmines convenientproximity offered (Moosleitnerto 2004a:6, routes traffic important of two crossing the at place aresting as serve would Iuvavum, which during Roman instance,Times. For Salzburg founded was in 15 BCas Roman the city of characteristics urban already has beeninhabited sincetheStoneimportant Age, centers border contained and politico-administrative and located, Euroregions are two wherethe area, border Austrian-German of the part The middle economic area border the of Cultural-linguistic, 5.1.1 2007 for discussions onthemeaning of borders between sub-national units). borders 2012 Magandaborder studies beyondnationalof (see state or Scott that e.g. J.W. of field the moving of potentials the highlights but symmetry, politico-administrative of analysis of context in the feature will it although analysis, the for importance minor is of This th This century, as the Roman empire imploded, the Bawarii people (later Bavaria) entered the entered Bavaria) (later Bawarii people the imploded, empire Roman asthe century, language homogeneity language was not affected by wasnot border revisions majorthe took that 157 th century, ending with a series of CEU eTD Collection border are incorporated in a federal state, but nonetheless the actors in the border area the that inarea theborder theactors nonetheless but in state, federal a are incorporated border (Dirninger 2004: 99,my translation). Austrian Anschluss] of thetwo parts in theNazi time could presumably in noaspect beseen as afavorable constellation” surrounding the Euroregions. Economic historian Christian Dirninger writes: “The forced integration [following after the partof NaziGermany. For understandable reasons, this period does not receive much space inofficial documentation structure of the border area is diverse, although tourism plays amajor role. economic The heterogenic long-term. more the area might turn growth Bavarian overall of in 20 the terms lastdecades the in economic favorably borderthe developed Euroregion Inntal-Chiemsee-Kaisergebirge-Mangfalltal Both sides 2004:98). (Dirninger of town Austrian of today’s just central Kufstein, the as was space, Habsburgeconomic the into incorporated townsof Salzburg were Customsother east Union, Salzburg and whereas into German the incorporated were rule and thereby Bavarian under demarcation, came border new becamethe which Salzach, sideof river western the the areason The interactions. economic limited andchanged borders new the that meant period industrialization the (Roth 2004: In64). the20 78 overall fürArbeitisHence, while Wirtschaftskammer there 2012). 2012, Bundesagentur Österreich 2012, inand(Eurobarometer Tyrol in 128% was in Salzburg 141% UpperBavaria, 161% average EU27 income income (2011)showedthatthe compared to statistics Eurobarometer latest The area. border studied in the districts Bavarian in the 4% below and Tyrol, 76.9% in Tyrol. The unemploymentrates for the central parts were werein 79.5%in2000s. In2011,employment rates UpperBavaria,Salzburg 77.8% and accession, although Bavaria has been showable more to impressive figures growth in the economy sides 25).Indeed,the economy both for M.H.2008: grewafter the on (Müller in those favour of inhoped itAustria of further EUaccession the 1995 mean a boost would today validare still that borders setthe which treaties, Treaty of1813, RiedTreaty of Munich 1816, and minor border corrections made inadditional treaties 1818 and 1851 An advantage for cooperation in for cooperation An advantage economic homogeneity th century borderwasthe facto de removeda as state border during 1938-1945,when Austria was a (see Müller S. 2009:48), especially close to the border, the border, especially the close to 2009:48), S. (seeMüller politico-administrative 158 78 . However, economic policy during policy economic However, . terms is terms 4.5% in 5.9% inSalzburg, that both sides of the of sides both that th century, but century, CEU eTD Collection midsized and towns one bigger city (Salzburg). lists fourlists possibilities: working agreements, purpose communities, purposeassociations and cooperation inter-municipal lawon asthe forms, several can take cooperation Inter-municipal sincepromoted were the1960sand1970swhen reforms also taking place (Bolgherini 2011). gives the right to municipalities to cooperate (art 28 II), and cooperation has been actively and ‘Towns not belongng to districts’ in the first layer,and the level of towns and municipalities the second. or not (there is also a third status called ‘market town’). In Germany there are two layers with different functions. Districts79 ( governments local small relatively of multitude a is there border the of sides both On spaces. border European other many in than heterogenic less is border the of setting politico-administrative the Nevertheless, #A79). Salzburg-BL-T, alwaysEuroregion is not the case,Manager, officials,that and although Chairelected the officials, approach non-elected to tend countries manager the (ingeneral, inthetwo districts towards differently behave may Euroregion the that means This councils. political have do districts German the whereas are merely administrative, but representation, have political Austria 2007-2013. Land Berchtesgadener and of Traunstein districts the from distance a greater is at Salzburg,Munich state federal the of capital the also is Salzburg of city the While different. is size Also in Bavaria. than shorter is and local governments state federal between the distance andpolitical administrative the “on side Salzburg the that stated Land-Traunstein Euroregion Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Austrian and German stakeholders have different possibilities and capacities toact. A study of Berlin), which is expressed in the name of the European funding program:Interreg in which isBerlin), nameof the European the expressed of (instead takes on role inhabitants,a quasi-national respectively). thatBavaria means This millionstate (12 Tyrol inhabitants) than or andineither Salzburg (530,000 Austria 714,000 In Austria all local governments have thesame fundamental rights and duties, regardless of whether they have town status Inter-muncipal cooperation is prevalent in both countries. In Germany, the Basic Law Basic the Germany, In countries. both in prevalent is cooperation Inter-muncipal A further political-administrative difference is that regional districts in Austria do not do Austria in districts regional that is difference political-administrative further A ” (Müller my is S.2009:38, Bavaria translation). a muchbiggerfederal 159 79 Gemeinde ) along with a smaller number of Bavaria - CEU eTD Collection addition, the membership consists of two German regional districts ( nearly In local and incorporates 100 governments. currently historical Salzburg, region (www.euregio-salzburg.eu) and Euroregion Inntal (www.euregion-inntal.com), or provided in interviews with the Managers the with interviews in provided or organization. of the (www.euregion-inntal.com), Inntal Euroregion and (www.euregio-salzburg.eu) 80 Salzburg the well as local and governments) federal states the between level intermediate ‘Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T’) wasfounded in 1995 of two andthe membersorganizations theirbeanalyzed will together. Thisprepare for sectionschapter. isdoneto aspects ground the 5.2and5.3wherethe relevant organizations This section brief provides factual backgrounds for twoEuroregionsthe in investigated this study case The 5.1.2 Bayern-Osterreich(Interreg 2007:53).2007-2013, Mangfalltal Bad 1998and 1998 Tölz-Wolfratshausen-Miesbach-Schwaz Cooperation Inntal-Chiemsee-Kaisergebirge–1998, Via Zugspitze-Wetterstein-Karwendel 1997, Salina Bohmerwald 1994,Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein 1995, 1993/94, Inn-Salzach Euroregions along were all the border founded after EU Accession: BayrischerWald- infoundedconference 1972,and planning were ODROKin the spatial conference 1973. The ARGE lake ALPand workingBodensee The committee 1970s onwards. International the partners. important Pinzgauare Regionalverband and as Regionalverband Seenland Salzburger encourages (AustrianTowns Association 2012) andcooperation regional such of associations Austria Also 2012). Interior of Ministry (Bavarian companies municipal owned jointly Wherenot otherwise indicated,section this builds on material provided onthe websites of Euroregion Salzburg The Salzburg the from developed border German-Austrian entire the along cooperation Cross-border – Berchtesgadener Land – Traunstein Euroregion Land–Traunstein – Berchtesgadener 160 * 80 and is located in the heartland of of in the andlocated heartland the is Landkreise , NUTS 3, an (henceforth CEU eTD Collection and Price Issues) has played akey role in negotiations and policy-setting (Müller S. 2009:51) necessary to efficiently deal with economic A issues. social partnership body founded 1957 (Parity Commission for Salary they in practice become semi-public bodies. Inclusion of, with, or interaction theseorganizations istherefore as seen of members, incombination with extensive participation of these organizations policy-makingin and policy implementation, employers in Austria and membership in the latter compulsory for all employees.associations Due typical ofto Austrian neo-corporatismthis (Schmitterpolicy 1979) wherebyof membershipcompulsory in theformer iscompulsory for all inclusion 81 which includes project planning,and conceptualization within the realization activities of between its cooperation members, assistand the regional support, coordinate cross-border “to as Euroregion ofthe tasks lists the treaty The Peoples” European between the connection a closer to “contribute and will treaties” of these spirit the to “dedicated is Euroregion “the objective [is] to realize the aims of the treaties that form the European Union”, while theorganization is linked to foundingthe ideas of European the Union, containing phrases such as implement activities the of 2008:11, Euroregion.”the my (Ritter translation). and support and kinds different of resources give to governments, local the on primarily in this and organizations, of carrying willingnessthe the on strictly dependent is therefore limits thedecision of competences local activity The field of the Euroregion the governments. a islegal not make cannot have anddoesnot bindingperson, competences decisions that the Euroregion. Tothe external world, the Euroregion is presented as one organization,but “it of Chair Deputy and visible)Chair be (externally the to turn take two andthese aChair, has ‘carryingofficially legally organizations’ of thetwo the Euroregion. support Each pillars that Labor. of Chamber Salzburg Chamber of andthe Commerce they are called ‘carrying organizations’ ( organizations’ ‘carrying are called they ensureestablishedeach sideof bordertolegal on inthe both countries. InGerman presence butjoint2009:12), organizationsactivities the were would (Müller S. be forassociations used joined Euroregion, It by German agreement. was a binding agreed that law onprivate of purpose creatingup specifically a for the separate set organizations, of consists two Wirtschaftskammer Salzburg The preamble of the treaty between the two organizations emphasizes that the that emphasizes organizations two the between treaty the of The preamble (Chamber of Commerce) and Trägervereine 161 Arbeiterkammer Salzburg ), and they can be seen as separate 81 (Chamber of Labour) economic are Legally, Euroregion the CEU eTD Collection EUR came out of the European Territorial Cooperation Interreg support. EUR cameInterreg Territorial of European out the Cooperation and 146.892,54EUR, 236.553,59 including andMembers, Salzburg, districts contributed EUR, the two majoritems being (220,898)and staff costs project (107,587 EUR). support Euroregionthe Chamber ofLaborcontributeon of top In2011,2011spent374,244 this). the and Commerce of Chambers the Region, Salzburg (the Austria in year and inhabitant Secretariat. andAssembly totheBoard viathe ideas, brought and Board generate Assembly the and ensuring continuity in The policy work. working both groups implementideas conceivedby by on unlimited terms,thereby appointed Board the inspecificpolicy civil servants areas which had beenworking years continuously for ten ormore. The consisted working groups of holds threeadditional employees.2011 In Euroregionthe had most 15working groups, of and of German side border, the town on inFreilassing,the asmall islocated organization of secretariatthe but 2011), of (Hamedinger Euroregion center the is the undoubedtly was held bythe individual same as organizationthe when founded. The was city Salzburgof tasks that the with assist are to Council assigned.Administrative an and members, eight of Board a elects assembly The Board appoints the Managing Director,Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein 1995, my translation, preamble andArticle 3). a position that (Treaty Salzburg inEuregioInterreg” of framework Union Initiative - European the the of 2012 features as the motivation Union European of the of spirit’ the the‘embodiment again its for Hence, by-laws. preamble for founding thein Euroregion several (Euregio respects ‘Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M’)founded was years four after Euroregion which Salzburg-BL-T, Inntal-C-K-M 1998).was Theused as a model organization. For instance, it utilizes the same The Inntal Chiemsee- -Kaisergebirge –Mangfalltal inhabitantThe membership of cost is26cent per in andyear Germanyand 15 per cent The year. a twice meets which assembly, isthe body decision-making highest The 162 Euroregion (henceforth CEU eTD Collection section. innext starts the research questions the in relation to data the of Table 16.The analysis in summarized are section the from Key facts thisbe border. studied at to organizations two as select border the of usedto one macro-criteria the study areas, andbyintroducing the case governmentdoes notexceed 200Euro ayear. Traunstein and district on Austrianthe side paytheir own dues, which for asmalllocal inthe governments local whereasthe for fees local the also membership governments, officials. administrative and political between links better create to in order Board, the into sectors administrative different inA of revision statutes inclusionthe 2011 allowed for an ofnon-voting of representatives statutes envisioned butsuch theset-up of have group, beenworking nevergroups functioning. original The Germany. and Austria between alternate should and years, three every changes helped out by interns.is regularly of college,and the within structure the support administrative whoto has access The president Director, Managing of a half-time consisting College, based Kufstein atthe asecretariat has of the Euroregion law association, private municipal a as M isformed German-Austrian is elected a it of that follows although similar logic.Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T, Euroregion Inntal-C-K- by the general assembly in long name. somewhat asindicatedofficial the that, The territorial core of the Euroregion is the valley around the river Inn, but it stretches beyond Rosenheim inand Traunstein Germany, the and local organization of consists andfour (the 66 regional governments districts This section has set the ground for the analysis by elaborating on the local context of the of context local the on elaborating by analysis the for ground the set has section This the pay to undertaken has district regional Rosenheim the side, German the On The organizational of Euroregionstructure isInntal-C-K-M more straightforward than 163 * Bezirke Kufstein inand Kitzbühel Austria). registered in Austria. It Landkreise CEU eTD Collection Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M, which contained responses from fifteen members who were or had whowereor fifteen members from responses contained which Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M, by collected the data survey 2012 advantageof couldtake The analysis actors. cooperation cross-border with interviewsother wereconducted in three addition, interviewed twice); membermanagers fourteen with or representatives wereconducted interviews were (three with each interact dothey other?’). (‘how their communication of content and intensity the and organizations?’) in the participate they do (‘how participation modes of their members of organization?’), the arethey (‘why membership basis for Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion Euroregional members. Here,the membersof andEuroregion Inntal-C-K-M constitute among interaction and participation motivation, of patterns around the revolves section this primary units border, andSwedish-Norwegian Hungarian-Slovak atthe on Euroregions As inthechapters of analysis. The section andInntal-C-K-M Salzburg-BL-T seeks to in local governments establish of interaction and participation 5.2 Motivation, the not members. Note: Thepopulation number is based onregional membership, somelocalgovernments are 2008) Regional GDP(Eurostat, NUTS2 National GDP (IMF 2010, inUSD) State form Border existing since Working language Approximate population 2010 Local governments in 2011 Founded Euroregion borderlands Table 16. The analysis relies both on primary data collection and on secondary sources. Seventeen sources. secondary and on collection data primary on both relies The analysis Key characteristics of Inntal-C-K-M andSalzburg-BL-T andtheAustrian-German Inntal-C-K-M of Key characteristics Inntal-C-K-M 35,200, Tyrol:32,200 ,Salzburg: Oberbayern:37,700 AU: 50,504, GE: 44,558 federal border 1938-1945 1813 (Treaty of Ried), non-state German 630,000 66 1999 164 Salzburg-BL-T 35,200, Tyrol:32,200 Salzburg: , 37,700 Oberbayern: AU: 50,504, GE: 44,558 federal border 1938-1945 1816 (Treaty of Munich), non-state German 800,000 97 1995 CEU eTD Collection Euroregions by Councilof the Europe. promoting these organizations until is and1990 neglected, sois thelong-term support of integration laboratories of European or assmall ‘mini-EU:s’, of anarrative Euregions within placed them founders deliberately Euroregions Thus, of these as “formerthe borders”. to already referred “promote a closer union of European peoples’. It calls for action to completely remove what is in their desire”“united members are the that by-laws state their to preambles above,the Asstated later. years to achievefoundeda few Inntal-C-K-M, Euroregion was momentum, as of that achild was andclearly the Salzburg-BL-T founded Austrian year in1995,the was of into the European entry the Union, objectivesbeshould bymembership.mentioningitis Inthis supported context, worth thatEuroregion of the Europeantheme was the idea Union of a united Europeand asthat the motivation they forseek why cross-border to cooperation OfficialJournal of the European Union (Committee of the Regions 2011). 82 categories. exclusive) stated motivationsmembership for by organizationthe based on these mutually (not seeking those benefits through solvingspecific policyproblems. the In section this I analyze contains thesecond funding, while seekingmaterialisticexternal gainsthrough those direct sub-groups, two analysis, firstthe into hasbeen the instrumentality contains divided group the In instrumentality. on based one and identity/polity on based one groups, two into divided member be motivationthe broadly bea As detailed inChapter2, can a Euroregion of to Motivation 5.2.1 representatives of local governments (mayors) from Euroregion S-BL-T (Müller S. 2009). been on board, Euroregional the aswell as astudy containing interviews five with The‘laboratory’ anoften-used is metaphor for a Euroregion, recently repeated by the Committee of the Regions inthe The first category is The firstcategory 82 . The fact that the European Union was not directly wasnot . The fact involved the European or infinancing that Union identity/polity, in answersThe which ten dominating werecoded. 165 CEU eTD Collection were perceived to be less enthusiastic than their local political leaders: local betheir than political less to enthusiastic were perceived wasmadepicture ofmember by inhabitants more the complicated municipalities factthat the Inntal-C-K-M, yellow features much which like stars thoseon flag. EU the However, the of inEuroregion logo the is alsopresent EU with connection close and the of interviews, the K-M: downplay or European the connection.As expressedby Managerof the Euroregion Inntal-C- populations, there have no been discussions toreplace of logothe Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M respondents expressed belief in cooperation having anintrinsic value: This belief in Europe (equal to the European (equal European the asa Union) This beliefinEurope to In spite of these perceived negative perceptions among the member municipalities’ among member the perceptions In spitenegative of these perceived In addition to the European identity theme expressed in the quotes above, identity afew in In addition European expressed quotes the theme the to (Mayor and Deputy Chair, Austria, Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T: #130) sell.” to idea isa difficult it connotation EU this has always Euroregion] [the it since But EU. the than and Austria maybe then Euroregion, the of EU. He/sheis still Neumarkt citizen first, then Salzburg, the perhaps inhabitant border, then in theirthoughts [cross-border cooperation] surely comes before contacts withWhenmany you thenaddthehave or Euroregion,projects andpersons us, and a Salzburger, as seethen citizen, Neumarkt that a as primarily feels town] it this [in citizen makes“The then senseperhaps to have Austrian, cooperationEuroregion #84) Salzburg-BL-T: and onassociated with “ when somethingwork. doesn’t(Mayor, Germany, fourthacross theor “The European Union is unfortunately viewedfifth negatively,always itis always place as European.Salzburg-BL-T: #85) important in decision most70 years.” Euroregion Austria, last (Mayor, the I was is…] jointbelievepeace projectEurope. […which the Europe’s that the aim joint a have they and mayor the have always you meetings the “In when ridethe is getting rocky.” (Manager, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #A80) is from train firstthe thing that bethrown “I Europe the should think that don’t Austria, Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T: #A85) learn from andto local governments, other with familiarization facilitate to “We wanted each other, and be able to give each other some things.” (Mayor, 166 leitmotif could befound inhalf CEU eTD Collection rarely rarely history, were culture or ethnicity alluded to,although itdid in occur both Euroregions: cooperation is animportantelementof local current andfuture practices.government More refers directly to external funding: external refers directly to two quotes below are theThe jointly. bewith dealt need to problems that only arepolicy there that perception based onthe ones illustrating grant-seeking, identity includes both category. It motivationgrant-seeking for membership, andmembership and only the second of these border cooperation funding.is It also by supported fromstatistics program. Interreg the for cross- toapply opportunities forpersuade local existing hasgovernments actually to often ChairleadershipEuroregion whotestified the of that Inntal-C-K-M, of Euroregionthe Such answers indicate that indicate Such answers Instrumentality That grant seeking is rare as motivation among members was also confirmed by by the confirmed memberswas also motivation among as seeking israre That grant (Mayor, Germany,(Mayor, #A84)Salzburg-BL-T: Euroregion eachother.” know isto something] doing key[for the that am “Iconvinced (Mayor, Germany,(Mayor, #81) Salzburg-BL-T: Euroregion ‘Salzburger’.” a was he Austrian, an never was Mozart now, you Also, saint. is joint our saint, Rupert for our instancetheHoly “We havethe sameculture, (Chamber of commerce member, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #A74) positive.” find I something is which North, the from German a with than them with in common more have We well. other each We understand in Bavaria. and inTyrol both strong, very always was identity regional the And identity. Inntal is an There borders. on be dependent not should identity regional “The #A84) what isfunding there (Mayor, for.” do Euroregion Germany,Salzburg-BL-T: Austrians the But not. or funding is there whether think I then important, is getisable tothe‘cooking wouldwhatI think to that amazing.Irather pots’, do are they how Salzburg, see you When somehow. donors became always “We Inntal-C-K-M: #A76) could be for Austria, certain municipality.”advantages the (Mayor, Euroregion “Well,cross-border wethought cooperation andwas important thought there , the second motivation category, featured lessfeatured prominently than secondthe motivation category, , the cooperation 167 per se isvaluable inter-municipaland that CEU eTD Collection references to policy problems were that specific: that policy were problems to references no Euroregions, both for areas activity major been have infrastructure and development received funding. This was the highest out of 14 cross-border programs. (Hummelbrunner 2010: 41-42) 83 organized by Euroregion.the Theinvitations usually target mayor,the may butthey also be invitationsMembers of getanumber Euroregions inparticipate the of eachyear to events Participation 5.2.2 question already existing memberships, mainly explain long-time memberships. institutionalmanifested ‘stickiness’, orinstitutional inertia as 2000), (Pierson unwillingness to played a key membership for role inboth investigated Euroregions. This,in combination with Union linkedEuropean tothe integration project, foras European support accession-induced namely incentives, normative identity-based that is therefore sub-section this of conclusion policy causingproblems local toenter andgovernments engageinthe Euroregions. The substantial and any concrete is not there development’), as‘economic (such general terms hadproportion highest the of projects. approved border German-Austrian programs, the 14cross-border of study a comparative According to Eighty-five percentof ideasand ninety-fiveof percent submitted full applications wereassessed positively,98% of these Regarding problem solving policy asaninstrumental motivation, although spatial The quotes illustrate illustrate The quotes whilethat can mention respondents policy invery problems #A74) of Commerce: member Chamber Inntal-C-K-M of Euroregion (Representative for cooperationcross-border economicimportant development.” itsindeed own.is Itis was on it but like “Earliercountry still each a bit that, (Deputy Mayor and Chair,Austria, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #A3) ‘ say and other, each call actually Bavaria and Tyrol from mayors see that you “Today invent wheel the Germany,twice.” (Mayor, Euroregion #A81) Salzburg-BL-T: exchange –you“I that of donot isimportant believe experiences need to wewe havethatandproblem, can solve this how jointly? 168 83 ’”. CEU eTD Collection the federal state of Bavaria, the President of the Parliament of Tyrol, the Regional Leader of Leader Regional the of Tyrol, Parliament the of President the of Bavaria, state federal the alecture ledby and of Minister discussion Finance formalwas the round-table points, agenda the After Bavaria). of LudwigII king’, by ‘mad the erected castle’ ‘fantasy for(famous the islandHerreninsel on the held was Inntal-C-K-M Assembly Euroregion of General the terms of the time and effortit takes formembers attendto them. Forinstance, on July 9, 2010, attract the members of the second group (listeners) than to make these events efficientin in the be to secondmembers get to even innovative be to needs organization the that means it but group decisions, (listeners). aformal notdoes create take in for aquorum,ability of to required that terms problem Arranging is thepresenceof a third only members of the attending. Since half than members the of spectacular events mean less when it comes to generally has around 40 persons showing up, this only represents half of the members. The hesitance toagree with the statement might be due to the fact that while assembly meetings in Euroregion Inntal attend assemblies regularly.”Four agreed with the statement,whereas nine answered ‘rather agree’ andone didnot agree. mayors representing local governments. Fourteen reacted to the statement: “Mayor work actively in theEuroregion and 84 amongof groups the by Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M they andlisteners engage with active. organization: detached, the how be theprevious local depending on governments groups dividedinto chapters, can three Asin Salzburg-BL-T). 97(Euroregion members other Inntal-C-K-M), the (Euroregion largeinterms ofmembership; are both relatively organizations has66local one government municipalities areattend welcome therefore as to well. Euroregions two in The chapter this specific themes in order toEuroregion towhich Salzburg-BL-T), both Euroregionsworkshops attach orlectures on attract members to attend.assemblies are regular events (one peryear in Euroregion Inntal-C-K-MParticipants perand year two in not representing The general regarding specialized topics. employees tomunicipal administrative directed member In 2012Euroregion Inntalconducted asurvey among current or former members of the Board, the majority of whom are According to attendance data from from According internal attendance to survey data assemblies and an out general carried detached members listeners or 84 , most of the members in both organizations can be found 169 . Assembly meetings rarely more meetingshave rarely . Assembly CEU eTD Collection the secretariats: the in by frequently orsecretary) by carried out membersas treasurer handled are (such practice still does not mean a large investment in terms of time-commitment, and even duties formally 35 persons. The total wasonly attendance of newspaper. a largeAustrian Rosenheim editor anddaily the was 97.This isduetothe organizatin’s growingand campaigning: reputation deliberate Salzburg-BL-T outwith started 87 local as members,governments andin 2012 the number instance, Euroregion havebeenadded.For with andothers in leadership, change political haveThere have beenin local both that usually organizations, governments connection left members to attend events. these tempt to utilized been have etc.) care, social hunting, prevention, hail transportation, opportunities for cross-border cooperation. Information about specific topics (highways,local funding utilize to members ispersuade to difficulty the that experienced rather has K-M leadershipInntal-C- above,of Euroregion the out grant access.Aspointed to primarily relate The group The listenersof group most is group the likely experienceto changeinits composition. The information sought by those belonging to the category doesnot category listeners the belongingby The information to of sought those The A80) the castle,visit he’d Finance hadlike Minister liketocome of theandwould ideathat to and that’sespecially if they havewhy to travel. But we did that for this one occasion,we since the did theyand it.”choose, to have they (Managerappointments, these all have mayors the oftenand the boat, take to have you know, You Euroregion there. get to difficult of sort but cannotexperience, Inntal-C-K-M:was island agreat in castleof the that course the of Chiemsee, Herreninsel in make assembly general the had We meetings. the have you where important “It’s # themselves available for a half-day or a full-day, Salzburg-BL-T: #A79) (Manager,we wonlocal Euroregion that more Through one government.” Pinzgau whenweinformed and allmayors them become invited to members. you deliberately have instance forto target, through Weprojects. had a drive in areaddedwhenlocal us.Others lookfor “Sometimes new governments they active members active mainly consist of those that volunteer to engage in the Board. This 170 CEU eTD Collection majority voting procedures were given in the study (Müller S. 2009). 85 in interviews for this dissertation: political-society system. At municipal level personal contacts and informal information is information informal and contacts personal level municipal At system. political-society that on both sides issueis itfactors’, clear, “Looking at‘actor-dependent etal.Bechtesgaden (Aufschnaiter 2008): politics rule, not cross-border cooperationparty between two of the Euroregion Salzburg-BL-Tmembers Hallein and politics, when it comes to anchorage in the 2009:59 (Müllerwhich S. conflicts wererare interest study to according ina 2009 wasestablished this Salzburg-BL-T, caseEuroregion For the of rarely discussed. mayStability also befurthered by in climate, a depoliticized issueswhich conflictpartisan are leaddidany not to of change inthecomposition Euroregion the Inntal-C-K-M Board. in inTyrol 2010 instance,elections For be general reelected. and to intend years Salzburg) five Tyrol, and in Bavaria years (six time of periods long relatively for elected are Mayors mayors intheBoard. elected and thereby stability tothe partly achieveamong results due According to the study, interest conflicts, if existing, would be solved by majority voting, but no examples of such The non-partisan-ship of political at localrelations level was confirmed ina study of are activeto areable that those members, lowactive shareof relative the Despite Salzburg-BL-T: #A81) Germany, (Mayor, someEuroregion someone says understand things.“ why black “I- usuallywe askhave about party affiliation.the M: #A75) same It is not a problem problemfor topics that all have ifan interest in.” (Mayor,it Austria, Euroregion is Inntal-C-K- red, yellowgovernments, or - but local from 64 politicians allmunicipal weare boat, inthesame “We areall itwhich stillparty we belong interests BL-T: #A85) to is not important both Austria, formulation is onEuroregion sides.” (Mayor,Salzburg- same the problem if the see can we where me,[…] denominator, common joint wea find to try “We arebecause looking you #A75) Inntal-C-K-M: Euroregion Germany, (Mayor, years.” every three positions change to use we this, with can deal Manager] he [the treasurer, the formally just I’m Manager, the by is done accounting the reality in the However, Board. in the longer even been have and years, three since treasurer been have “I 171 85 ), and was also seen CEU eTD Collection beyond hard politics. governments, Laufen andOberndorf, on areas suchschooling as and spatial planning, shows that itispossible to cooperate systems the in two countries (Aufschneiter et al2008).On the otherhand, the cooperation between two other local areas’such as sport and cultural events. ‘Hard politics’cooperation was prevented by competitive thinking and different legal 86 country: own in their those with than border the of side other the local links governments on with fewerhad weakercommunication mayors and significantly linkagesFirst, the cross-border arestill weak.Allinterviewed localrelatively the government for propositions. three members support some provide madewith interviews thatwere the mapping politicalrelationsEuroregionsthe of within border, the two Austrian-German atthe full allowfor a not fielddid for research resources theallocated Although dissertation. analysis, which be appliedin will 6for Chapter four of casethe study organizations inthis network social is method suitable one Euroregions, in these exist community political representative of the other side, as to someone on his/her own. Toassess whatto extent such a a to write or meet, talk recognize, to representative administrative) (or for apolitical common as is it when is created community, a political or network, integrated an borderlands the In Interaction 5.2.3 for politicsimportant andin thecivil society andBerchtesgaden.” Hallein participate actively participate in organizational affairs. not do who which of majority the members, many have Both organizations. two the between al.my 2008:30, translation). The study concluded that the visions of the Euroregion were hard to realize on local level for other than ‘soft politics All in all, ofmemberpatterns participation representatives differ notdid significantly K-M: #A76) Austria, (Mayor,cooperation Euroregion].” Inntal-C- [the Euroregion outside nois butthere you meetthem, recognize when them You loose. is rather network the meet but not otherwise, We would side. other from the colleagues your meet you that reason the for important is it But efficient. very not perhaps “The discussions [at the Euroregion assembly] are very interesting, but they are 172 * 86 (Aufschnaiter et (Aufschnaiter CEU eTD Collection mayors know each other. each know mayors this, for instance through organization the of special “Mayor marches” across theborder, having the explicitaim of making 87 Table 17. Euroregions. the analysisin be used social capital, to between-group usedtoassess indicators the of estimation tentative of the secondnetworks research i.e. within increaselocal also networking, contacts tend to domestic governments cross-border question, on one siderelated anincrease.indicated organizations of theto theborder,amount of cross-borderperformance contacts over the past five years, most respondents invia both micro-regional and function of associations. This enables a variation. The chapter demonstrated the primacy of identity/normative motivation over motivation identity/normative primacy the of demonstrated chapter The variation. Unlike thecase study in onesorganizations chapters, the in showedprevious less chapter this also interactother. with but theyparticipate, howthey why andhow each questions asto answer to seeking analysis, of primary unit asthe Euroregions investigated Austrian-German

This is sometimes promoted by direct activities by the Euroregions. Especially Euroregion Salzburg has been active in BETEWEEN- GROUP OCIAL Second, contacts are perceived to have increased over time. When asked about the askedabout When time. over have increased to areperceived contacts Second, This section on motivation, participation and interaction has treated members of two hasthe treated interaction and participation motivation, This on section

CAPITAL Salzburg-BL-T: #A79) must (Manager, It are.” behowpeople Euroregion associations. intermunicipal meet,“Most Traunstein of the people know each other, atbut despiteone of that,table when an assembly and Salzburg at another. It is the same at Between-group socialand capitalofInntal-C-K-M Salzburg-BL-T (politisization of issues) Absence/presence of conflict Level of trust to other side Perceived trend of contacts communications Strength ofcross-border Euroregion 87 Third, parallel with the tendency towards increased towards tendency the with parallel Third, 173 low high somewhat increasing medium Inntal-C-K-M * low high increasing medium Salzburg-BL-T CEU eTD Collection carried by out Euroregion hasbeenInntal-C-K-M more limited, mainly focused spatial on rangemost von Malchussee the of 2008:93), of this, alsoactivities and these (on Gabbe Inntal-C-K-M However, whereas Salzburg-BL-T1998). Euroregion hashad within projects Euroregion 1996, Salzburg-BL-T (Euroregion concerns publicon security cooperation and education, services,cooperation, communication, emergency social cooperation on public transfer, technology innovation and agriculture, tourism, treatment, waste energy, care, health andsports, culture environment, traffic, economicdevelopment, development, spatial engage: activities typical can theEuroregion which within list of a number activities statutes organizations’ Both and areas Policy 5.3.1 landscape. place within governance the take isto to their capacity related that andhow display windows, and loudspeakers asseismographs, roles on take they whether on focuses latter of the analysis The space. policy appropriate to are able which they to extent the and capacity organizational toassesstheir in,and proceed engage they activities typical the and active, Euroregions are by preceding Istart casestudy policy the chapters. outlining areas within which the in 1and two carriedthe out established inChapter framework analytical the accordance with in performance and function their assess to is objective the and analysis of units the constitute The previous section membersdealt with asunits of analysis; in thissection, organizations the Inntal-C-K-M and ofSalzburg-BL-T andperformance 5.3 Function institutionalof endowment between-group social becapital could identified. increasing across were borders strengtheningthe and Networks alow but active members. not and listeners, or detached were members of majority the both, In motivation. instrumental 174 CEU eTD Collection Inntal-C-K-M has economic development there. Notable is the high score of of European score high isthe Notable there. development has economic Inntal-C-K-M being in has that Euroregion environmentSalzburg-BL-T place thirdwhileand Euroregion Table 18. members and/orfeaturing in prominently Euroregional documents). areas saidmembersimportant, by bemost and to typical mentionedactivities (frequently by 88 development, business promotion, higher education The University of Kufstein has a large intake of students from the other side of the border. 2. 1. Most important to members to important Most Most important cooperation areas Between the two organizations, the priorities resemble each other, the only only difference the other, each resemble priorities the organizations, two the Between Euroregion Summit (EuRegio Meeting Gipfel). governments, and not only local the regional ofincluding level, was importance The highlighted area. in all borderland programthe in documentation.development spatial for plan a master in support as well asserved as a focal point forits members forthis three-year-projectwhich resulted project Coordination Planning Spatial the Interregthe policy program after 2013. system; the promotion of new hydroof a location power2001; bridge at Oberndorf/Laufen;after at theFair to lowerdevelopInformation theidea of the transnational Salzach, Professional regional City annual an Transportation on joint cooperate efforts to continue to influence the shape of Bavaria and the central of Salzburg Chancellery administration. State the Bavaria, Five topicsof Upper were dealt government with: the The intention ofSalzburg, city to regions, Traunstein sp? and Bercthesgadener ofthe leaders political ofSalzburg, government the of representatives was by arranged governor(Landeshauptfrau)the of Salzburg. Inthe meeting, were there meeting The Salzburg. in 2010 5, May on place took meeting 2010 the instance, For Euroregion. politicians from regional and national level are invited to learn about topics prioritisized within the 2. 1. Typical cooperation areas and activities of Inntal-C-K-Mand Salzburg-BL-T cross-borderforum for mayors tobe heldin the house is scheduled for2012 or 2013. compensation, and the training will of besort carried some receive outwho together volunteers use will with center care theThe Austrian roof. one under Red children Cross. A Germany, right at the Austrian border, seeks to integrate care activities house–Flintsbach for generation Multiple elderly and young Bavarian hail prevention team to fly also the overTyrol. allowing Tyrol and Bavaria between agreement an tobrokerage was operation its of prevention hailstone Coordinated : infrastructure, European identity-building, economic development : infrastructure, European identity-building, environment Typical activities: Typical activities: Salzburg-BL-T Inntal-C-K-M . An initiative that the Euroregion took in the first years first the in took Euroregion the that initiative An . . The The . Euroregion provided co-funds and management 175 : The local government of Flintsbach, situated in situated ofFlintsbach, government local : The Annual meetings/conferences to which leading which to meetings/conferences Annual 88 and youth policy. Table 18 lists the CEU eTD Collection on below. is inTable is summarized 19 and elaborated scoring intensity. assessment The size andproject budget statement, strategy/mission development to meeting adherence activity, arrangement, its administrative of robustness legal of arrangement, strength assessed: were dimensions scale, six Using cooperation. atri-partite oncross-border have in been literature used the intensity that from those were selected intensity cooperation of indicators cross-border 1 In Chapter cooperation Cross-border 5.3.2 Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M was beasked to an advising member. T was included as a voting Euroregion; for 2007-2013programming the the Manager of period memberEuroregion Salzburg-BL- of the Monitoringin(see more section below).5.3.3 is contact This mostly kept upby themanagersCommittee, of the whereas the program Interreg andthe Euroregions the between of and contact connection natural point Manager of a implies also It fund. project small in the included not those even programs, CBC European members and make asgrant-givers, first them of pointa natural for information contact about 25,000 EUR.Thereby become the interestingEuroregions members for both and non- project fund’ from which each This has at located meansa‘small that border. Euroregion Euroregionsthe the directly to it can award funds for projects forprojects smaller tasks implementation hasallocated (Interreg) cooperation for cross-border up to total project values of up to formotivation membership. identity-building, supportingmade argumentin the previousthe section on as this a In addition to these ‘typical activities’, the European Territorial Cooperation program 176 CEU eTD Collection consists of two organizations ( organizations two of consists structure, even legally legal does not exist butthough Euroregion the organization asone medium, havefunctioning chapter score as they a in this Euroregions Both registered. European Grouping of Territorial and lowestCooperation (EGTC), if itisformally not intensity Project Budget strategy/mission statement Adherence todevelopment Meeting activity arrangement Robustness of administrative Strength of legal arrangement Table 19. Cross-border cooperation intensity Inntal-C-K-Mof and Salzburg-BL-T Salzburg-BL-T ledSalzburg-BL-Ta decision to not to take ideathe of reforminginto an forward:EGTC place inEuroregion did take that discussion an whereasthe into EGTC, reconstituting asof 2009:66) However, raised 2012 Euroregion had not Inntal-C-K-M adiscussion around S. initself.” (Müller canbealegalperson the Euroregion since […] notbeneededanymore, [this law] the national isimplemented, ‘carrying of associations’ Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion as “As in soon 2009 wrote Müller cooperation. for cross-border tool as a positive promoted In severalis Evrard andand (e.g. Chillarecent EGTC the projects ongoing research 2012) Euroregion Strength of Euroregion Austria: Salzburg-BL-T, #A130) riskwantmanyto follow.” thatlocal donot governments (Deputy Chair As I have said every EGTC] localwould again government vote have to on membership. the that [the intoan wehave wewantedtoregroup members. “As you [If know 100 around Euroregion] is always connected with EU, we don’t legal arrangement Trägervereine medium low medium medium medium medium Inntal-C-K-M is rated highest if the organization uses the instrument ) having a cooperation agreement between them. 177 high medium high high high medium Salzburg-BL-T CEU eTD Collection organizations’, better external representation), he repeats the concerns of the Deputy Chair: Deputy of the concerns the he repeats external representation), better organizations’, legal own carry entity,projectsto own ability out insteadof onthe‘carrying relying Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M onlyhas a half-time manager, assisted by Kufstein College staff whereas manager, full-time a including team four-staff a has Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion development’. moves and initiatives strategic ‘takes measurable”. The majority did not agree with the statement that Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M and operationalized clearly “aims are that and realize, to were possible development regional thethat aims for of thought long-term joint of 15 objectives. Onlyfourset-up out aims and documents or parts of theinreferred andto other developed, are notfurther not itson arestated website, but objectives website. An internal surveyjudgments. On otherthe hand, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M receivestheassessment ‘low’, asits showed some dissatisfactionmakefollow-up they used formembers and to still allow work, theirexternal parties own be can that withindicators quantitative theincludes concept development the nor statement mission 2000) was used as a guide for project generation in theyears to follow. While neither thelong done toenhance integration, and this ‘Developmentconcept’ (Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T Early it a longalso650-page on, conducted would be assessmentstudy need whatwork to on statement. mission the on elaborating in adocument and mission original its in important as theareasoutlined init all has activities as in ‘high’ category, this theassessment receives While the Manager sees several advantages of an EGTC formation (easier structure, The Adherence to development strategy/mission statement. Adherence todevelopmentstrategy/mission T: #A79) Euroregionexit.” Salzburg-BL- (Manager, to anopportunity reconstruction as the andtake interested’ not are say ‘we they so that backfire, could andthat that, approve to have councils local the then members, same the with person, to themembership anew of local Inordertocreate legal the governments. comes it when brings EGTC an of introduction the risk what question the bit a “It does not have anything to do with the construction of the EGTC. It is rather administrative arrangements are robust in both in both are butdifferin organizations, robust scale. 178 Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T CEU eTD Collection third isthird needed for aquorum, low the numbers are not seen as a problem by leadership.the a only Since members. of half than more gather rarely meetings assembly annual though even the Therefore, runs with15 working groups meetingadministrators between twice and eighttimes a year. managerial resources. the with dissatisfaction indicated interviews no Salzburg, of evaluation equivalent no is there While management. network and project- personnelfor theifis question there gaveanunqualifiedenough ‘yes’ to of 15 respondents isassessmentby internalaffirmed member Board an survey from in 2012, which only one out the latter, the For Inntal-C-K-M. Euroregion for ‘medium’ is evaluation the whereas and interns.into Euroregion occasional is put Salzburg-BL-T therefore ‘high’ the category, interview was a civil servant with the Rosenheim withregion Rosenheim the wasacivilservant interview short time in the early workingwere envisioned groups (mentioned butthey inthestatutes), functioned only for a 2000s, according to an early Board member, who at the time of the However, a revision of the statutes in 2011 allowed for an inclusion of non-voting of inclusion an for allowed in 2011 statutes the of a revision However, Both organizations have regular meetings. However, Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T also meetings. Both have organizations Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion However, regular Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M does not haveEuroregion Originally doesnot Inntal-C-K-M workinga numberof groups. As of 2012, nonew initiatives had reinstate taken permanentto working groups. (Manager, Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T: #A79). make to decisions.” have capacity wealways is the actually good, quite “When you into take the account appointment-related stress mayorsthe it have, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #A78) cross-border cooperation soon were hit by reality.” (Formermanager, ideas onthe domesticwehadon Sothe side. cooperate local governments makeitis difficultrealizedenough that But wesoon border tourism to area. first meetingand which for workingtothe tourism,area of group wehadthis culture, sport in the instance, For 50illusion. an were people cooperation in the imaginations some that came to try lots very wefelt but soon involved,of saw working groups, were and people to discuss “In beginningthe wemadelongand of lists setup wetried priorities, to how we could create a cross- meeting activity is assessed as ‘medium’ for Inntal and ‘high’ for Salzburg, 179 CEU eTD Collection image, both towards external and internal communities, of the Euroregion as a single area. a single as Euroregion the of communities, internal and external towards both image, loudspeaker attitudes and preferences with cross-border relevance, and can thereby convince its members of their existence.As a 89 mainlyconductitEuroregionsis and taskof Chair/Deputy the Chair to secretariat the the memberships, a relative large partof iswhich passive intheirmembership. Inboth communication members.its inof Asseen the both section,previous Euroregions havelarge and participation through is undoubtedly important most The Euroregion. the of territory Euroregion importance tothe issues of measure policy ways categorizewhich itA and through has can different Euroregion register, receive, 5.3.3.1 Seismograph function interviews. interviews managers and of organizations,with Chairs butdocumentsalso on andmemberthe loudspeaker anddisplay seismograph, window. in borderlands, which depends on how well space the Euroregion can perform the threepolicy functions As in of previous of chapters, Inow move on howto well Euroregions can appropriate policy space Appropriation 5.3.3 comparingprevious andassessing chapters, years. pastthe ten Thebudgetfor Euroregion Inntal inwas 42,500 2011. Aspointed outin (374,244 EUR in andhas varied2011), between 300,000EURand approx. 500,000EURover officials. administrative and political between links better create to in order Board, into the sectors administrative of different representatives Euroregions, the task Euroregions, task the to manage funds small the project Euroregional the boosts budgets. two these caseof the In developers. and owners asproject as project both usually work SeeChapter 1and previous case study chapters forelaborations. In short,asa The it budget performs advocacy work for resources or policy interventions, and as a as and interventions, policy or resources for work advocacy performs of of from Euroregion Salzburg-BL-Tismedium-sized perspective a European projectintensity 180 89 For this section I rely mainly on the on mainly rely I section this For constituency can be deceiving, asEuroregions seismograph , i.e., inhabitants the of the display window itmeasures the intensity of it strengthens the CEU eTD Collection Euroregions is areknown, perception thatrecognition the growing. the existence of the Euroregion.representations (civil society or firms).A precondition for this is that these groups know about While no dataAnother is availableway to serve ason a seismographthemakingit exercise only. without a grant-access preferably strategicthinking, municipal extent tois whichthrough thedirect in dimension include cross-border the to members them and encourage to active outreach two contacts with citizens and interest study highlighted which groups thethat Euroregion wouldbe known to. The secretariat. the of location the Freilassing, of town the outside known little but assessed, positively was Euroregion the that was interviews these upon based drawn conclusion The interviews Euroregions). other in(as were her two of within project research framework the 2009. Interviews five with mayors within the Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T areawerecarried out governments, civil society organizations andfirms. For this tohappen,isit important that the local from andareevenly distributed tofunding, related andtechnicalities possibilities of concern inquiries a year. Most the yearsbeen 70-80 around have in past which visits, the A similar effort to estimate how well Euroregions are known was made by Müller S. Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M monitors the flow of incoming spontaneous phone calls or should not be shouldnot (Chair, #A3) Austria: overestimated.” Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M, who know us from media, so I would say that we are increasingly known, butit more us more and approaching are interestingly people but there of course, earlier [ supported “Those whom we have tasks.” (Müller S. 2009: 71, my translation). for isnecessary Euroregionspolitical and knowledge about theirprocesses in local interest level of minimum a certain that Itcan bework. established, their in Euroregoion the to areas contact have don’t who groups, professional so is known Euroregion less not among peoplethe and and elderly educated hand, other the On Euroregion. the of know persons interested or engaged classes to whom the Euroregion is a concept. In addition, of and courselocal regional it politicians, ismainlypolitically highlythe and other educated professional middle and governments local the of representatives to addition “In 181 with the small project fund small project with the ] knowus CEU eTD Collection notably notably as a mayor: when he is the Deputy Chair, and 20% in the yearswhen he isChair. annual basis. TheChairof Inntal estimates it to 10-15%,whereas the Salzburg estimates half aday per week (10%) inyears 90 maybackfire: also that something Germany are seenasintimately entwined with integration European the which is project, in and Austria Euroregions the EuropeanUnion. increased hostility towards perceived regarding civil such society organizations as tourist were only organizations better. slightly andin answers the firmswork, Euroregional did thinknot takepart of that respondents the Chair is known as this, even though he/she performs other public functions as well As seen before, this ideas. of generators asimportant canthen serve networks These etc. hasminute-writing, localities, not been the case inmeeting them by in agendas, meticulousby work supporting administrating secretariat the Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M,region. Themain vehiclefor this is 15 the working groups, which function well due to which after a decision-makingperceived (politicians) toknowabout bodies long problems issues and thewithin information between political and administrative officials, thereby also helping the Euroregion Chairs of both organizations estimate the time they dedicate to Euroregional work to be between 10% and 25% onan While the Euroregions have done much for increasing cooperation, an obstacle is the obstacle an cooperation, increasing for much done have Euroregions the While The previously mentioned internal survey in Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M showed that half that showed Inntal-C-K-M Euroregion in survey internal mentioned previously The In Euroregion is Salzburg-BL-T there a well-functioning for system exchanging Chair,Euroregion Austria: Salzburg-BL-T, #A30) I’metc, picture, more well-known”. (Deputy Chair andformer/rotatinggetting isthere a monthly newspaper with a page on Euroregional newsin it, with the Euroregion. Maybe partly due to me being mayorfor longer time, and since “I’m sure that I’m more well-known as a mayor than as chair ordeputy chair of Euroregion Austria: Salzburg-BL-T, #A30) Chair, (Deputy that.” from harvest to nothing simply is there politically itmyitdown bit, andbut Ido a work enthusiastically,[Euroregional] Ido would be enthusiastic for this. So for electoral strategic reasons I have to play it they that history so of European be importance the people realize would that would it thought I as not it’s positively, very seen not is EU “Unfortunately, 182 90 , most , CEU eTD Collection who the mayor is, that makes it easier, just to have this personal contact.” (Member, Chamber of Commerce, Euroregion Commerce, of Chamber (Member, Salzburg: #A83) contact.” personal this have to just easier, it makes that is, mayor the who managing the knows company a if instance, For director in Rosenheim and companies. other institutions,the thanfor it isgoodgood are forbothsides. Ifwhich you settle wantto Germanyin created, and already be knowcould networks good holidays, contacts better are andmore intensive, especially in newbusinesses. Through manyyears’ participation infairs, autumn means extra channels outwards: “At least the networks here have become deeper.In thearea of thechamber of commerce the 91 border, meaning behind anystatements: nation-state political weight name of Euroregion. the conferences; sending todecision-makers;delegations and writingstatements/resolutions in the or seminars arranging be raised; to issue the on reports commissioning actors; non-state with topeoplerepresentation via organizations; partnerships in contacts indirect other power; in 1:multiplepersuasion outlined Chapter member of positions within-party representatives; Both Euroregions have utilized the various channels for exerting influence and modes of permanentworking groups. system of adjunct Board members. This was explicitly said as an alternative to try to reinstate withoutperiod anyinstitutionalized officials ofnon-elected has introduced participation a 5.3.3.2 Loudspeaker function Loudspeaker 5.3.3.2 instilling creativity into system. the by groups permanent of lack the can rectify from areas a few board on the people adjunct a structure working for a information implementingsmallerand Inntal-C-K-M has policy,set up Euroregion been to struggling organization. It remains to be seen whether the system of Thatmembership stretches beyond local governments (including chambers of commerce andchambers of labor)also Successful utilization of any of these is increased by support coming from two sides of a Whereas Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T has found a system for collecting policy-related collecting for system a found has Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion Whereas and create contacts.” (Manager, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M:Euroregion #A80) (Manager, contacts.” and create know people in region isthe to it all, Becauseafter important Board. into the them integrate and for certain topics, persons, certain select wechoseto instead groups all was “Yes, that ideathe the behindthis. needs It to adviseresources working time, to write protocols, to follow-up some projects, and then 91 183 CEU eTD Collection spoken for in the name of the Euroregion. the of name in the for spoken form joint delegations and toalways make surethatissues prioritized by is Euroregion the Minister, who had a background from the region: reason to believe that a large chunk of the territorial cooperation funds would go to the eastern the goto would funds cooperation large territorial of the a believe chunk that to reason distributionthe funds Interreg funding inthe upcomingof (2013-2020) There period. was to pertained An examplefrom Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion representation. systematic interest A difference could be seen in that Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T has taken greater careto hasgreater taken inbeEuroregion Salzburg-BL-T couldA seen that difference Such an adhoc possibility was for instance the entry instance in German fortheentry 2009of Traffic Such possibility was the an adhoc an hashadrather Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M Both Euroregions could bringforward arange issues, for which of have they conducted speak.” (Manager, Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T, Germany: Euroregion #A79) Salzburg-BL-T, speak.” (Manager, members of the Euroregion, is which all localbut isaposition this represents governmentthat talking, this“This means thatthis isnot only committee, aworkinga political or group one means all votes thrown intovoice.” (Manager,Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T, Germany: #A79) one vessel so tointensivemeans lobbying; that 100 local joining governments as together one in weconduct be region the cannot decided is that “When there something #A80) Austria: Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M, (Manger, agendaonboard.” Euroregional go towhere itis suitable for them, and itis if possible they also bringthe we don’tdo although that, itcouldhappen. say Iwould members boardthe currently that background, the in is rather That Board. the for task a is rather “This Germany: A79) Salzburg-BL-T, Euroregion (Manager, be there.” must them of both meeting, a top have we and when sides], different represents ChairDeputy [who the and Chair the both by signed is always it statement, a written is there “As Euroregion, wealways act try to together when we approach one side.If Euroregion #A130)Salzburg-BL-T: sides twothe notonly ofside.”Austria,for (Deputy border, the Chair, our goaloneis twoifitforYou possible,representative]. or speak butwealways as mayor “I inlobby regional of [not name Euroregion the or the movement.” (Mayor, Germany, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #A75) “When you whoknowsthe haveaminister youinto cansomearea, then things 184 adhoc approach to this. approach CEU eTD Collection most crucial getto on board, and therefore approached a German Minister. the government German the considered They border. Austrian-German the at funds of utility borders, andthe Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T persuadedecision-makers decided to onthe small shops.The Euroregion was by asked authority the give approval granting to anopinion. local to asathreat saw mall the borders the sides of atboth local surrounding governments potentially visitors by external passing themainhighway.attract north-south on However, border next approve highway tothe A12) wanted to the building a mall could of shopping that atthe directly located and Inntal-C-K-M memberEuroregion of (a local one government opinion ininterest.In local of conflicts 2010and2011 Euroregion the of carry weightdoes the that demonstrates that example one however, is, There player. small a nonetheless is K-M (Chair, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #A3). Berlin orMunich to come to events, with the purpose to keep this issue on the political agenda from secretaries state and ministers invited therefore Euroregion the occasions several and at this project, prioritize not sidedid levels theGerman andstate on federal state the was that for theInntal well. ramificationsperception area as The butwhich has infrastructure project, construction of a tunnel through the Brenner Base Tunnel, which is mainly an Austrian-Italian such infrastructure, as thelocation largeof highway projects. decision-makers. forwardedhave Euroregions to concerned primarily then These and of the representatives by the signed and Assemblies inthe which were discussed letters, In the politics surrounding such a large infrastructure project,infrastructure Euroregion the In surrounding such a large politics the Inntal-C- the to related events numerous in involved been has Inntal-C-K-M Euroregion Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T has over the years written a number of resolutions and Austria, Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T: #A130) convinced, inhim get hishands,and Minister We reasonstothe give could respects. these so that they make inmany sense because should continue theseprograms Parliament, he will act participation of its members, andthroughhim we could say ‘dear German on behalf“We could comehim an get to to event arranged by Euroregion the with high of these programs.” (Deputy Chair, 185 CEU eTD Collection explicitly toinitsexplicitly objectives: referred Of the investigated two Euroregions, only Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T has the display function would speak against the project. The resolution written on the topic states: much in andinAfter Board the it decidedthattheEuroregion deliberation assembly,the was statement has indeed taken place since then, as has extensive media contacts and active media contacts extensive has then, as since place hasindeedtaken statement 5.3.3.3 Display windowfunction issues. own their for campaigns used for goodwill when individual members, especially businessthe chambers, conduct The information workandabout service activities mentionedthus in missionthe be can name its that enough regarded well and is known Salzburg-BL-T Euroregion document, p.3) Mission Salzburg, utilized.” (Euoregion better become offers service and activities existing that also but Euroregion, the with identify better can inhabitants that means This activities. in those participation inspire to also is as well as cultural andwork service activities informationabout This meanscontinuous account. and into spare diversity regional taking while timeinhabitants, its activities,among identity regional joint a of creation the to incontribution theimportant an make whole shall Euroregion “The area of the region. It 4, my translation) 2010:3- (Resolution be rejected.” itonly perspective,can current unfortunately goes against the aims of the spatial and regional largearea the Also, shopping andTyrol. areaof Bavaria in surrounding the planning of Bavaria. From the planning, project the mightimpact negatively and local the governments towns andregional oflandscape from aspects critical the area, the driving through visitors through forparallel power additional purchase with potential the shops “Theand projecttown wouldstructures not have only positive on both effects sides on the liveliness of the of bordersingle […]To sum up, in #A83) representative Chamber of of Austria:Commerce,Salzburg-BL-T, Euroregion […] that hasavalue. already that Euroregion, the of you the blessing have necessary. If is why“Lobbying canbemade you plansomethingwhen for which funds EU are we also want to have the Euroregion with us.” (Member 186 CEU eTD Collection mentioned by media. the regional level in public work”,butfewer agreed that theEuroregion andits supported project owners were indeed 92 region: coherent window function among its objectives,has it alsomade efforts promoteto their region92, as a have display notthe joint Euroregindoes Inntal-C-K-M events. Whilethe to project support investments has proved more difficult then tourismthe promotion: attracting around Cooperation investment. for location a as and destination a tourist as both region, the of marketing external in their tools other and maps with extensively worked has giveinwards, to a inhabitants sense ofbelongingto one region. Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T 2000),(Blatter is maps the Annexproduction of is territory the of (see B). This work directed Another model,frequently applied by initiatives cooperation cross-border the around world display. to want governments local that identifications signal locations, different to distances A majority of respondents the toasurvey by EuroregionInntal agreed with the statement ‘”it isimportant to be seen in on The roadsigns attheentry likepoint, similarsigns displayingpartnership towns, or (Manager, Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M, Austria: #A80) Euroregion,signifies because that alsoterritory the of Euroregion.”the local governments have signs at their entry, which contains also the logo of the some see that to I’m glad of discussions. content the forwards mayor the that is and known, Euroregion the that isit important making Therefore process. and citizensthe are apart liveintheselocal of goverments their decision- population. theprimary group Of course is target localthe butgovernments, important“I it that theEuroregion in consider more becomes known the Tyrol they have made investment somewhat easier and faster in Tyrol. In in Tyrol. faster and easier somewhat investment made have they Tyrol “You know, sometimes Bavaria and Tyrolians were competitors as well, and in #A82) border cooperation].” (ChamberCommerce, Euroregion of Salzburg-BL-T: advantages[with in the butcross- jealousy recognize people general there, the accessis“There in especially some in branches of a thinking areas where competition, to the #A79) professionand (Manager, Salzburg-BL-T, develop together.” Austria: this Euroregion together cultural organizations work or because theretourism organizations is differentinterests. We do work together, but it is noteasy. The other part is much easier, atlooks sois not itseasy, marketing own eachregion also since “Location (e.g. craftsman). You might have 187 CEU eTD Collection in various combinations (approx. 340 versus 35). The same is true for regular Google (September 2012). (September Google regular for true is same The 35). versus 340 (approx. combinations various in 93 space. level governance well, whereas four thought that itdid rather not work or they could notsay. rather or well worked actors regional other with cooperation that found respondents most management– withinactive region.” network According samethe tothe and outside survey, and organized an has Euroregion “the statement the with agreed respondents the of most the previously mentioned survey Inntal-C-K-Mof Euroregion local members,government issues that policy for dealing with are relevant a havethat actors themselves amongspace for out the carved years,and Both respectively. 13 At Euroregionsthe timethe writing examinedhave for 17 existed (2012), of inthischapter 5.3.3.4 The governance The 5.3.3.4 space to Salzburgin academia. less caseof the Aconsequence Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M. is this higher attentionof given the European Regions,Border Euroregion isSalzburg-BL-T visible on European level, is which previousthe its section on membership loudspeaker Through the function. in Association of in discussed representation interest the facilitate can visibility External interests. competing competition for resources, and the region’s ability to act as one agent is hampered by For instance,a search inGoogleScholar results inten times more hitsfor Euroregion Salzburg than for Euroregion Inntal, Figure 5 contains the main actors with whom the Euroregions interact within a multi- The quotes show that when it comes to attracting investment, there is internal Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M: #Flintsbach) Inntal-C-K-M: Euroregion Germany it is rather restrictive, you need a plan, etc.” (Mayor, Germany, 93 188 have a cross-border dimension. For instance, in instance, For dimension. across-border have CEU eTD Collection Chancellery Chancellery 2012) national They borders. significantlycontribute European integration.”to (Austrian Federal Euroregion is the termfor aregional trans-border organization aiming towork stronger across “Euroregions whichcoordinators, state: constitute aspecial form management.regional of management regional the of website the on externally, least at is demonstrated, Euroregions the of Theappreciation focal points. become have space, they governance cross-border in the Also integration. regional for jointly work can actors which through system institutional regional action is theAustrian system of managementregional coordinators, offering an and Marks2001,Bache2012. Hooghe see governanceframework Marks 1993, Source: For onthemulti-level references Figure 5.Involved in actors policycross-border Salzburg-BL-Tissues: and Inntal-C-K-M Interreg (strong connections with Euroegion Salzburg-BL-T, relatively strong for Euroregion Three points shouldThree points befor figure.animportant First, the reference madeinrelation to MULTI-LEVEL DIMENSION Local Regional National Supranational Kufstein, City of Rosenheim Regional administration Regional government, Monitoring Committee, participants in the Interreg Cultural Ministry of Bavaria, Federal State of Bavaria, Economic Ministries of the points, Salzburg, Spatial and ministries Office Salzburg Brussels governments, Local Bavarian of Office Brussels (EuroregionSalzburg-BL-T), GOVERNANCE DIMENSION Cross-border baseline Inntal-C-K-M) City City of Salzburg, City of State Regional coordination Regional Infrastructure/traffic Committe of the Regions (rare) 189 LEADER program) action groups (within the protection associations, local Wirtschaftseinrichtungen Regionale Turismusorganisationen, groups, Regionale Leader ofLabour, Chambers members), (Euroregional ministries Salzburg-BL-T) Border Regions (Euroregion Hunting association, fire association, Hunting Chambers of Commerce Chambers Infrastructure/traffic of European Association Non-state (rare) CEU eTD Collection representatives of two interest representation offices in Brussels (Office Salzburg and Office and Salzburg (Office in Brussels offices representation interest two of representatives shouldnot be over-stated though. Interviewsin carriedout 2009 (seeMüller2009) with S. LEADER visibility The Euroregion level the and supranational secretariat. on European institutionalized meetings between local information regular through the latter the LEADER+, program the andwith Bavaria-Austria 2012) Interreg cooperation (ETC intensely Euroregion funding both than with European Inntal-C-K-M for cross-border more has Euroregion cooperated also Moreover, Salzburg-BL-T space. emerging governance BL-T has enabled the Euroregion becometo morefirmly embedded in as an actor an technical implementing institutions (Manager of program:Interreg #B61) distributefunds political’better EUwith to itispurely ‘too thethat andthat Euroregions are Program 2012). (ETCInterreg project” Bavaria-Austria of a whenpoints you arethinking arecontact Euroregions Therefore, projects. Interreg upon themselves a keyfunction concerning theimplementation promotion, and advising of years taken have “In lastEuroregions cooperation important the partners: as project applicants prospective Officially,financial support. fund) andEuroregions outto receive arepointed have been charged with certain implementing functions within the program (the small projects andthey 2007-2013) Bayern-Osterreich (Interreg Euroregions of importance the emphasizes project applicants among Theoperational others. program of 2007-2013 period funding the justas them treat whereas others account, into Euroregions the take does border German Austrian- found atthe model the areas; national can be seenacross Largevariation funding. space ishow they position vis-à-visthemselves administrative the managing bodies European important even by people working day-to-day with regional integration issues. integration regional with day-to-day working people by even important political weight. The statement demonstrates that thecreation of a cross-border political space issometimes not assessed as 94 I am aware that this speaks against the previous argument that aEuroregion always brings an added-value by bringing in Third, the system of Third, functioning long-term system groups Euroregion the the of working Salzburg- Still, supportfor the the Euroregions isnotunquestioned. Voices have been raised tosay Secondly, increasinglyissue an importantfor role the of in Euroregions the policy the 190 94 action groups of groups action CEU eTD Collection Membersatisfaction space governance of cross-border Appropriation Euroregion C-K-M andSalzburg-BL-T Table 20. internal memberevaluation of satisfaction for both Euroregions. [than others]” (Müller S. 2009:61, my translation) Euroregion its inSalzburg-BL-T visit through annual contacts closer Brussels, hassomewhat be to theiris association.That even whyall areequally Euroregions though treated, towns, but or singlerepresent districts not to is of offices the task the that dueto is primarily That actively contacted. are not but offices the to “The come Euroregions among other. actors for Bavarian Local demonstrated Governments) thethat Euroregion islobby seen asjust development level), they were founded relatively close in time, are of of close in a similarsize and are founded relatively level),time, they were development economic homogenous and similar, political-administratively close, linguistically caseselection determined the (cultural- that context inoperating within asimilar to addition appear similaraspects; from a numberof Euroregions two that hasinvestigated This chapter 6.4Conclusion functions of loudspeakerseismograph, window. and display three the of application awider has and capacity, organizational of of six categories out and higher perform. Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T scored than Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M infive Table the 20 gives forspaceassessment appropriation cross-border together with of the To sum To variation inhas demonstrated up, section how the5.3 twoEuroregions function Member satisfaction and appropriation of cross-borderof Member satisfactionandappropriation governancespaceofInntal- medium medium Inntal-C-K-M 191 * . Salzburg-BL-T high high CEU eTD Collection Austria. 95 function. and performance to relation in ofmember andinteraction morein-depth the importance participation reasoning around andif impacts social and performance capital the function of Euroregions? asking Euroregionslocal in governments whyand cooperate, how Euroregions,participate institutions cooperation investigatingempirical how cross-border in chapters form the of a bigsecretariat tosupportworkingresources to groups. enough study areas strategic mapping, through of early allocation the and the better, of has performed with mind. opportunities problems inIn existing or respect,Euroregion this Salzburg-BL-T specific, policy policy or problems as membersopportunities, enter donot cooperationthe tobemore or of search challenge, in Euroregions are these In away, stay. they information, and for offerspossibility events, – ofmembershipislow,theorganization sowhile the organizations should solve. However, the cost –in terms offinancial and human resources part of membershipinthe both organizations is see passive andnot policy does problems that Asnumber more in alarge of demonstrated areas andsupportingpolicy projects. chapter, this alarge within activities governance by conducting space in cross-border the becomean actor has Salzburg different. are organizations the of outputs the Nonetheless, documents. original structures with similar operate Themain difference isthat Euroregion Salzburg has amirror arrangement andEuroregionInntal isregistered only in The next chapter will ask the same questions, but using a different method toallowmethod for butusinga different thesamequestions, will ask The nextchapter The study was of border organizations lastat the two the Austrian-German out of three 95 and have the same overall EU-related rhetoric in their rhetoric EU-related overall same the have and 192 CEU eTD Collection analyzed (section 6.2). Section 6.3 tackles the first chapter-specific question the question and appraises firstchapter-specific Section 6.3 tacklesthe 6.2). analyzed (section elaborating on method in the of terms how thedescribing datawas collected andhow itwas proceeds by It 6.1). mainstream usage (section from and myapproach differs how contexts, borders. at andlocated Hungarian-Slovak the Swedish-Norwegian allow for four analysis casestudy The datahas organizations the to of coverage enough was analyzed in chapters. interviews, qualitativethat which the material provided previous during the this data Euroregions. Icollected of (mayors) representatives hundredone political Euroregional function and performance. on discuss impacts question sucha beusedto will of how results relation the latter the 7, border? InChapter the across and networks topography border, communication the the of on eachsideof thelocal between governments networks of communication topography) the (the characteristics specific the between a relation is there Second, neighbors? domestic with local in how across much with they communicate theborder comparison counterparts First,extentdo towhat local within governments Euroregions communicate with their analysis.Two questions from application network arespecific fortools thisof social chapter: is Themethod in Europe. cooperation institutionalizedmuch cross-border backbone the of centered, focusing oncommunication amongpatterns the local thatconstitute governments a by regionalization method.approach isdifferent approach The applying and network- issuefunction. responds chapter intrans-border tothe However, this of governance andinteraction inengagement influenceshow theseperform Euroregions organizations and local how isconcernedwith government this chapter chapters, In lineprevious with C The withchapter starts a review ofhow network analysis hasbeen used in cross-border consisting onmore than data of The onanextensive uniquedataset relies and chapter HAPTER 6: A SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF RELATIONAL DATA 193 CEU eTD Collection Hungarian-Slovak border (Ger border Hungarian-Slovak Preliminaryat mappingnetworks has been cross-border Ukrainian- the of out carried borders. whichEU’s external Regions study of acomparative entails EUBorder project, the research program. of Luxembourg. Fund Research 98 by National funded and (CEPS/INSTEAD) Studies Policy Public and Poverty 97 the conference ‘Unpacking cross-border governance’, held September 6-7, 2012, Luxembourg.in 96 regions. dedicated to networks marketinginandtransportation regional four cross-border western policy of effect studies the Metronet project The wasplanned. this dissertation the time when network-approaches toborderland studies are currently underway,didexist that projects not at borderland ispolicy-making, for to andthis true relational haveincreasingly approaches applied scholarsemphasis as on well.the role offittingEuroregionsmulti-level inwith as the view well as governance the of Europe, on policy networks in policy-making.view landscape).cross-border policy-decisions of isa in playersto This the taken relevant Over (otherbroader of within organizational network theactors a actor governments), and apolicy as past years researchersAs stated in Chapter 1, a Euroregion inborderlands networks 6.1 Policy can be seen as a network of actors (local or regional topic. overall dissertation both question. the inrelation and findings posedquestions the conclusion discusses the to The deals with the relation between internal and external networks, i.e. the second chapter-specific whereassection 6.4 political actors, between limitcommunication which borders extentto Theproject EUBorderregionsfour-year isa project ledby Universitythe Finlandof Eastern and funded by EU the FP7 For instance, this chapter benefited from discussions among researchers working on relational data andpolicy networks at The project Cross-border metropolitan governance in Europe is a three-year project led by the Centre for Population, for Centre the by led project three-year a is Europe in governance metropolitan Cross-border project The 97 The border area as a complex governance system is also an important component of 96 Ę At leastmajor European At two including research projects and Micsinai 2012). 194 98 CEU eTD Collection consists of actors, within amulti-level governance space. within landscape. governance the understandingus information, whichcontributes to the position organization/network the of gives within ‘network the network’ to the argue that approach takingrelations. I arelational multiple-purpose action across policy fields one organization, within studies and internal their formal (e.g.privatedecision-making power firms), this study looks atactors joining upfor both fields with markets), and andregional included actors policy and(transportation without communicate with domestic neighbors? they howmuch with in acrossthe comparison border with their counterparts communicate question thisextentof towhat chapter: do local withingovernments Euroregions Both arevirtuallythese (Dörry 2012:19). actors?” firstand Decoville research sameasthe the extent is the presence asked“towhatAnother and Reithel partners”(Walther 2012:3). between interactions the of a statelimit still […] borders border national of existence the which to extent “the out affecting finding as objective the forms of research the projectstated Metronet from the resulting theexample, publication For one to. relate networks and the roleare that asked,but delimitation the and definition questions networks of typethe of those of substantial further data collection would be needed for a social network analysis. 99 Aqualitative analysis of each Euroregion’sposition within the governance space wasconductedin chapter4-6,but a However, while their questions pertained to governance networks in two specificin networks governance policy two to while pertained questions However, their questions is the not this dissertation and projects research these between The difference 99 Figure 6 depicts the Euroregion as one actor, which in turn 195 CEU eTD Collection cooperation on policy in forms.different Talking is usedhere as a metaphorforall of kinds That policy actors talk to each other is both a condition for, and a result of, coordination and 6.2 Method social andwithin-group between-group capital. such see arelation between be to then would in chapter this expectation The capital’. social social local ‘between-group social as‘within-group border and capital as capital’ transnational Knowles (2003), who referredThe terms ‘within-group’ and social ‘between-group’ capital followingwas used Grix and to social capital.capital social institutional transnational local of creation the facilitate to was expected border in the form of networks accumulationthe embeddedin institutionsof social capital governing on each sideof the on one side of theIn 1amodel how (the Chapter’s second question). Chapter of presented border research was networks sideone on communication acrossthe and networks of border the communication see if butalsois first research) between toalink political there bound Chapter’s (the Marks 2001: 2-4,Kochler-Koch 1996:366-375, Bache 2012. Source:the Theauthor’sinterpretationMLG framework, of & seeMarks 1993:392,Hooghe Euroregion inthemiddleisavisualization of Hídver The initssimplestdimension indicatessectordiversity(stateandnon-state typology). Note: Thevertical dimensionlevels. indicatesthehierarchical notionof Thehorizontal Figure 6.The inter-organizational network in borderthe MLG landscape

LEVEL Moreover, the objective is not only to see whether communication networks arenation- networks communication seewhether is only not to objective the Moreover, Supranational Regional National Local State GOVERNANCE 196 Ę Associationnetwork,seeFigure10. Supranational Non-state Regional National Local CEU eTD Collection (Euroregions), for(Euroregions), partial networks (domestic networks on one side of andfor border), the networks entire forthe has beencalculated areas.Density ininvestigated staff the 2006:69), in this communicationcase linksreferring to mayors between and immediate their index,measures density, E-I the andvisualizations). (the applied be will chapter this to specific questions two the for relevant directly those geographical distances. borderlands studies, especially if data network combined with infrastructureon or dissertation,the ithas forin research potential other thefield addressing questions of knowledge and uniqueinits scope coverage.Whileitis used for aquite specific in question drawing on Wasserman and Faust 1994:4). (Dorry channelresources” 2012:15, flowsand Decoville of they are able (in-tangible) to ties because of their relational andthat interdependent, are andtheir actions actors crucial, that are interactingactors among “relationships is that assumption Theunderlying 1997). Everett 2000, HannemannScott SNA Wassermanand1994, J.P. andFaust2001,Borgatti (see e.g. between members of which by Euroregions, the investigate networkI analysis,using social patterns communication is the data The this statement. test to data provide dissertation Lorentzon the study little tobackin whereas contained evidence upthis I statement, this my 2006:15, However, municipalities” of representatives member (Lorentzon the translation). “daily and “leading place”andforum politicians between contacts cooperation where take that? example,For 2006study one of Euroregion OstBoh the described the organization a as dojust how usualisis policy that it actors But place. topic taking onwhich conversation the of the email, or regardless telephone contact, as face-to-face such communication, personal Density Density “describes the general level of linkage among the points in a graph” (J.P. Scott analysisSocial network multiplicityfor offers tools a various here of purposes, only my andthebestof is to of the dissertation for purpose the was collected The dataset 197 CEU eTD Collection am grateful to the Center’s 100 was contact’ issues. ‘Weekly own their with preoccupied arerelatively local governments could networks like. look itfieldwork However,of during thebecame course the clear that communication how my of on assumption were based categories weekly’.least These and ‘at leastmonthly’ ‘at leastbi-annually’, leastyearly’, ‘at ‘at between ‘nocommunication’, choose could the respondents communication, intoaccountthefrequency of as my study also took however, samefor their work, publications from Unlike Durandthe study). and Nelles2012 circulation of documents’ seealso (Walter and Reitel 2012:6, and Dorry Decoville2012and which included allexchanges throughpersonal interaction, phone, email,media social or network is close to what Walther and Reitel in their studygovernments in investigatedthe areas. Note ‘communication’that as basisthe for linksrefer in the to as ‘information exchange’, local other email, with or via telephone inperson, communication as specified contacts, program for network analysis in the social sciences, and CEUNet. and Freeman used mostthe widely (Borgatti, Everett 2002), and visualizations: Ucinet been for calculations programs have algorithms.by Two used done software approximations 100% between nodes not representations but of thewithin visualizations are underlyingdata, distances the instance, For literally. too graphs interpret to not careful be should one although analysis, network social of aspects alluring more the of is one networks of display visual the althoughproject,measure willhas some the that be outin deficits pointed section 6.3. Finally, main forincluding reason enableis it to comparison studies with from Metronetthe 2012 internal ties are subtracted from external ties and then divided by the total number of ties. The anda simpleformulaand(1988) numberof inwhich devised byKrackhardt is the Stern The index within E-I sub-groups. whichwas for links thedegreeto measure areconcentrated vectorslinkages). intra-group (cross-border index be E-I ismeant intuitive to an The easy CEUNet is program under development at the Center for Network Science at Central European University. I University. European Central at Science Network for Center the at development under program is CEUNet The political representatives of local governments were asked to rate the frequency of rate thefrequency asked to were local governments of representatives The political Carl Nordlund for guidance with the software and valuable input to this chapter. this to input valuable and software the with guidance for Nordlund Carl 198 100 CEU eTD Collection studies. involved. impossible toavoid due to the different times at which elections take place in the six countries beginning.While mighthave this outcome, influenced differences of the wouldthis sort be the towards made rather in were Sweden interviews the cycle, election endthe an of made at instance were in whereas interviews for the that this InHungary means election practice cycle. thinking around election i.e. cycles, they were thinking how they behave in their current framing thatthey their were ingeneral interviews indicated face-to-face in questions the interviews, and2011for some). way the However, mayorsthe around reasoned thisand other for majority the (which meant2010 assess ‘now’ of situation wereaskedto the respondents frame when assessing their exchange weekly havecommunication’ beenincluded in oftables. information. In of andsome‘atleastcut-off points, made outputs different with also limited calculations the framework of thisdichotomized along sake the thedata lines.For how patterns change, of these seeing Ihave dissertation andhence point, cut-off the monthly’ leastas ‘at Iused analysis thefirst For communication. asfrequent beinterpreted least ayear’should monthly’ ‘at least twice or ‘at was whether bemade to decision primary analysis, the of purpose for the Hence, requirement. very strict a it constitute link, would communication for a athreshold andifconsidered rare, therefore The lack oflongitudinal isdata a curse thatplaguesmost social analysisnetwork time consider atwo-year to asked were respondents above mentioned studies In the 2011:40) Ingold and (Christopoulos projects.” research most of resources the beyond can is through be longitudinal unfortunately analysis captured which only of action effects the that recognize We also and action. preferences volition, number of methodological thatshouldtools beutilized in a anagent’s capturing of one but be would SNA environment, operationalization ideal an “In 199 CEU eTD Collection (symmetrized andmaximized).(symmetrized requirednot in toestablishlink order a data and thatthe could betherefore mirrored the lower response rate for Ister-Granum. rate lower response the indicated provide deal way This strength. arelation of with wasthe didor data weaker to not alocal communication that linkwith someonegovernment hasindicated communication if of 82%. rate response had a larger whereas Ister-Granum the rate, i.e. response they had a100% were complete, VarmOst,andOstBoh networks Hídver 2005).Inthis study,non-response the (Kossinets inaccuracy or respondent areill-defined networks, missing for data The mostcauses common above 2000). is but Scott a responserate 85-90% data, (J.P. complete usually recommended missingof is multiplied data throughoutthenetwork. Preferably with should work one can not begenerally used (although can beexceptions madefor some measures)and effectthe election cycle earlier), but itis clear that this data is only a proxy. in an all cases years (i.e. fiveago with compared incommunication change overall the weekly or at leastmonthly. least at government local another with contact in was he/she that said mayor one that enough numberthe i.e. of grewby ties 25%, numberoflinks the higherifwas 25% be allowed itI to Komarom-Esztergom. By Hungarian of county already data, symmetrizing the dichotomized municipalities inthe network, a separate Ichecked density of the network, density a of symmetrisation.” (Dorry and Decoville 2012:20) did. However, the reader has to be aware that there might be aslight overestimation of the network’smissing densityout on actorsdue to the when people forgot to mention established relation to otherrelations betweennetwork the actors, actors instead we whereas symmetrised and maximizedtheir counterparts them. This allows us to overcome theproblem of 102 one of the generally recognized methods (see Stork and Richards 1992). missing data are still understudied (Huisman 2009, Borgatti, Carley and Krackhardt 2006, Kossinets 2005). However,this is 101 The same was for instance done in the Dorry and Decoville cross-border study: ‘We did not consider the direction for the for direction the consider not did ‘We study: cross-border Decoville and Dorry the in done instance for was same The In thefast-growing literature on network analytical methods and network science, it is acknowledged that approaches to The direction of ties was notconsidered in the analysis. The assumption is that there is a Samples analysis. instatistical than analysis innetwork serious ismore data Missing assess to made byasking the respondents capture the was timeto An effortdimension 102 In order to test to which extent this would increase the 101 In technical terms this meant that reciprocity was reciprocity that meant this terms Intechnical 200 Ę CEU eTD Collection hypotheses are easy to state: areeasy to hypotheses Rivaling local limitsbetween borders interactions governments. existence national of the establishwhether to seeks section the differently, Formulated neighbors. local domestic with communicate they much how to in comparison border the across counterparts their with which the extent This section local within analyzes communicate to governments Euroregions borders ofthestate 6.3 Theimportance we still fact knowanythingnot about that non-reporting actors. ties between do Second, the symmetrization led to areal gain in data.Nevertheless, this does noteliminate the yearly”). least “at than monthly” least “at of value the to closer seemed them to which month, options of‘monthly’ and ‘bi-annually’ instance (for when everythey communicated second between the choose to found it difficult some mayors moreas reliable set the made even have can symmetrization the fact, In other. each with familiar are they whether question the such as we would have if we symmetrized data between ‘ordinary people’ and ‘celebrities’ on bein found from outcomes the project Metronet the (Walter andReitel 2012, Durand and forOn border regions” H1can in hand,partners other the Houtum (van 2000:66). support the cooperation, sometimes frustratingprohibiting and efficient directand dialogue between forms the structured authority over portionsand of of political to their sovereignty vanscholarship in of are “generally Houtum, who wrote thatstates hand2000 unwilling to This indicates two things. First, there is no majorThis indicatesthings. there First, in isno twodistortion high-responsedata, the Research emphasizing the lingering effect of borders (H0) includes, for instance, the instance, for includes, (H0) borders of effect lingering the emphasizing Research between local local between governments. H1: The existence local between governments. communication affect doessignificantly not border of a state existence H0: The of a state border significantly affects communication 201 CEU eTD Collection organizational capacity, low membership satisfaction, medium appropriation of policy of appropriation medium satisfaction, space. membership low capacity, organizational Medium Assessment: latter. the as efficient most been has but window, display has and loudspeaker functions tofulfill organization aspired of all three seismograph, it Slovakia between equally had 81members,almost and Hungary. The distributed a Europeanconverted into in Cooperation Grouping of Territorial (EGTC) 2008. In2012 Founded asan ambitious association of more than in 100 local governments 2003, and EGTC Ister-Granum capacity,high membership satisfaction,low appropriation of policy space. loudspeakercarry dispayout functions. or Assessment: Loworganizational window therefore has significant potential to function as a seismograph, but by its meetings.especially characterized (monthly) and frequent It does well-attended not attempt to isand close-knit mid-1990s. Theassociation since on the cultural events cooperated hadin participating formalized local 1999butthe organization was governments governments with 5 Hungarian local added as governments members.honorary The micro-region is13 Slovak of asa local The association registered consisting Slovak Hídver medium satisfaction, of appropriation space. policy membership high capacity, organizational Low Assessment: state- to politicians. ties level personal of utilization the through mainly efficiently, function loudspeaker conductit the organizationalislimited,hasbeen in but to able capacity Norway). Its 18.route Locatednorth itof has OstBoh, membermunicipalities15 in (5 and 10 Sweden Founded dedicated in1990asasingleto theimprovementof issuenetwork European Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfold (‘VarmOst’ high appropriation satisfaction, policy of space. membership medium capacity, organizational High Assessment: downplayed. is function function,whereas display loudspeakerwindow the fulfilling geared towards a are strategicadherence goals.Efforts inrelation to to especially capacity, organizational hasIt members22 local government (14in and Sweden 8inNorway).in Itexcels border. partof atthemost Swedish-Norwegian located the southern Founded in1980and Gränskommitten Østfold -Bohusländ-Dalsland (‘OstBoh’ Table 21. herefor easy reference. basic factsarerecapitulated chapters, previous from them with be familiar readershould While on four the cases. 1,andweretested Chapter policytransport network. governance Nelles 2012), which foundnationality that for notdid matter information exchange of a within The two hypotheses were derived from in from The twohypotheses theoretical presented thirdexpectation the were derived Ę Association Overview Overview case study organizations of 202 ) ) CEU eTD Collection Figure 7. a monthly basis. existon that show the networks in the two Swedish-Norwegian Euroregions, showing communication links Figure 8 Figure network. 7and political communication oneintegrated Euroregions constitute the whether of assessment aquick enables networks of the avisual display First, calculations. favorable conditions. least under canfunction, political at networks integrated that indicate other hand,the would beit cannot verifiedhypothesis is here, unlikely to be Verification, anywhere else. verified on cultural-linguistic affinity they represent cases that are favorable for communication. If the H1 their due to but sample, of arepresentative a test be seenas not should border the across expresses thedistance to theboarder, with largercircles less signifying distance. = Norwegian municipality.circle Black =Swedish municipality.the cirle Thesize of Note: Three social network analysis network Three index social and E-I were used:visualization, the tools density whatAsking extentlocal to within fourthese governments Euroregions communicate The figure is The figure based onmeasurements ofcommunicationonmonthlybasis. Whitecircle Communciation patternsbetween localgovernments in VarmOst 203 CEU eTD Collection clique largely consist oflocal governments located east of Danube and east of theborder river sub- other the whereas river, of Danube the south-west located local governments of consists mainly sub-clique One divisions. administrative internal and geographic follow largely sub-networks that dividedinto is two network further Ister-Granum Hungarian the side of the how is A particularity three. other the of any than network communication political mayorsknow 3-4 by name on the other side,whereas many do not know any. mayor knows onlyOstBoh’s members (their own nameone excluded). Out of these an average 9.2were from(and the same country, the i.e. average a half)of other local governments. Onaverage, the members ofmayor theOstBoh were ableto name 10.6 out of 21possible among by name at103 the other side of the border. However, the variance is big, as some in case the even Hídver isof visible, clearly state Again,below.the of primacy displayed the data, appearingfrom Hungarian-Slovak the those differ not from do forbutnotdecisive The communication. results isimportant large circles) as (shown border the to that closeness indicate also visualizations The affiliation. state on cases, inthese networks expresses thedistance to theboarder, with largercircles less signifying distance. = Norwegian municipality.circle Black municipality.= Swedish Thesizethe circle of Note: Figure 8. Ascontrol a question, mayorsin OstBoh were also asked to write down thename of the highest political representatives The figures show that it is premature to talk about cohesive and integrated cross-border isit totalk andintegrated cohesive show The figures that premature about The figure is The figure based onmeasurements ofcommunicationonmonthlybasis. Whitecircle Communication patterns between localgovernments inOstBoh 103 since the networks are clearly divided into separate clusters based clusters separate into areclearly divided networks sincethe 204 Ę which seems beintegrated which amuch moreto seems CEU eTD Collection governments have notbeenincludedduetoreadability concerns. distance to theborder with largercircles signifying less distance.the local Thenames of The size circle=Slovakmunicipality. ofthecircleexpresses Black Hungarian municipality. Note Figure 9. in Euroregion. Ister-Granum the somewhat matters itstill although ones, Swedish-Norwegian the compared networks to role inboth in both Pest and Komarom-Esztergom counties. Distance to the border seems playto less of a is formersituated the county, belongs whereas Pest area to latter The Ipoly/Ipel. to Slovakia, : The figure is based on measurement of communication onmonthly basis. Whitecicle= is basedonmeasurement ofcommunication : Thefigure Communication patterns between localgovernments in Ister-Granum 205 CEU eTD Collection 22 shows the result both on group level and for the overall network. overall the for and level group on both result the shows 22 studies, Ifirst calculated E-Iindexthe values for both and group the network the level. Table with those in the sameexchangeinformation to i.e tendency homophily, the of such measure extent made the were to country. In order to enablea crucial limitingfactor for communication a betweencomparison political actors, two sets of calculations with the Metronet project distance to theborder with larger less circles distance.signifying The size circle=Slovak municipality. ofthecircleexpresses Black Hungarian municipality. Note Figure 10. : The figure is based on measurement of communication on monthly basis.Whitecircle= communication onmonthly of isbased onmeasurement : The figure While the visualizations already support the H1 hypothesis that state borders constitute Communication patterns between localgovernments inHídver 206 Ę CEU eTD Collection 2012:6). The study 2012:6). in dissertation onthe this and chapter, other this hand, arealistic paints Reitel and (Walter network the to belongconsidered to not were and therefore activities”, cross-border no “had they because analysis network the from removed even were respondents relevance. Afew issues dealing cross-border of actors with sought actively researchers studies mentioned2012:31). above.Nelles and (Durand organizations” Belgian for play role a minor it whereasappears to actors First,Nelles foundthose in their Durandand homophilic ties, of percentage the by calculating Likewise, Reitel 2012:15) publicstudies transit (Walther and and0.033respectively). had actually andFrench actors values(0.63 positive study thatpertain “the border whereas index German had negative policy,(-0.271) E/I amoderately transport actors Swiss effect to is nota a For example,specificfactor in the Walter and Reitel study of the Basel regionfor governance network on French remarkably findingsagainst the ofWalter and Reitel’s (2012) and Durand andNelles (2012). policy area where on overall level, with the exception of the Hungarian Hídver Hungarian the of exception the with level, overall on VarmOst (15) Euroregion Table 22. Ister-Granum (81) OstBoh(22) ’missing’ links. of only acouple is calculatedon therefore rescaled value nearly 100%andthe Hídver *The rescaledvalueof networks perEuroregion. Note: Hídver Ę I see two likely explanations for why the findings of this dissertation diverge from likelyfrom dissertation this I see findings of forthe diverge explanations why two the The E-I indexThe is network E-I homophilic shows that the both on (country)group level and (18) The table shows the E-I index values partial index The tableshows (domestic)networksfor andoverall theE-I E-I index -0.032 (S) -0.032 Country 1 0.524 (H) 0.524 (H) -0.724 (S) -0.837 Ę ismis-leading,sincethenetwork hasadensityof PARTIAL NETWORK 207 -0.709 (N) -0.709 Country 2 -0.418 (SK) -0.746 (SK) (N) -0.529 -0.552 Unnormalized Rescaled -0.158 -0.735 -0.758 OVERALL NETWORK OVERALL Ę sub-group. This contrasts This sub-group. -0.842 -1* -0.735 -0.939 CEU eTD Collection Table 23. each linked to other. itsmuch nodes be in hascan limits how basedpractical communication obviously network on a although values The beactually are scale-free, compared. can that measures analytical sizes different of (andnetworks comparing when be careful to needs one general, In 23. in Table heregiven with differentmeasure overall homophily. valuesare of asamorecomparison to reliable These densities ratesin links cross-border of densities usageof the I advocate with and caution, interpreted of missing data), 2012, Durand andbut Nelles 2012)leads samethe to problem, theresults arenormalized. unless density misleading for ofhomophilic comparisons.links Usingthe (Walterpercentage andReitel is one of them makes and the E-Ivalues, the distorts this sub-groups, in sizes the different have Granum network exceptAs into Ister- account. allnetworks not takethesize index of sub-groups does the initiatives. irrespective active of how in they these are cooperation actually organization cross-border calculations. measurements and explanationsof textfor Seebody weakly assessment. monthly and Note: Hídver Ister-Granum (81) VarmOst (15) OstBoh(22) Euroregion are that local between governments exchange ofinformation picture Ę Therefore, I argue that the results of index that the resultsTherefore, be Iargue of E-I the inTable 22should displayed E-I The results. can divergent the explain that reason is there amethodological Second, (18) The tableshows the density for investigated values Euroregionsbasedon Cross-border andoveralldensity values 0.98 0.05 0.30 0.14 Monthly CROSS-BORDER DENSITY CROSS-BORDER 208 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.02 Weekly 0.99 0.19 0.62 0.57 Monthly OVERALL DENSITY OVERALL formally 0.31 0.07 0.23 0.15 Weekly involved in a CEU eTD Collection cross-border political relationships that could have possible spin-off in effects political of spin-off could have possible terms that relationships cross-border tofoster isin asmembership a expected is This Euroregion border. the important, across and side, one on networks of strength the between link is a there whether namely this, of steps disentangle is ofthis two thefirst task to section The function andorganizations perform. governmentslocal between the networks communication the of andtopogography main characteristics on each side are.The the that Euroregional the has hypothesized dissertation networks densely connected of the border,the nation-state and boundaries, across is political heavily towards section While theprevious establishedtilted that communication it also demonstratedthe border, diversity among is level institutional the relatedcases in terms capitalon social andbetween-group capital of social 6.4 Within-group howto how these stating that the national state is irrelevant is not supported. H0 hypothesis On hand, other the state. in same the local governments with communication less likely significantly than states each close butindifferent to located other actors political between makescommunication border therefore a The of state existence section 1.4.3). see expectation, theoretical third the to (corresponding matters still state national the that (H1) between (in political politicians)actors caselow,this elected supporting is the hypothesis border and overall density. On a weekly level, there is, however, already a stark difference. Hídver is exception inallcases.The border of state the factor limiting the values,indicating density overall All in all, there is strong evidence to say that the extent of cross-border communication of say extentcross-border the evidence to that is strong All inall, there Values on both monthly and weekly scales are given. These are considerably less than less considerably are These given. are scales weekly and monthly both on Values Ę , which on a monthly basis shows nearly the same results between cross- between results same the nearly shows basis monthly a on which , 209 * CEU eTD Collection between-group between-group social capital, and the null hypothesis and hypothesis would be: which in wouldturn enhance thelikelihood of well-functioning Euroregions. capital), social (between-group capital social cross-border of creation the facilitate would capital) social (within-group border the of side one on capital Social constellations. smaller in so cooperation local initiate as facilitator of that a serves Euroregion contacts governments the that but Euroregion, the by arranged events at communicate only not would actors encouraging policy cooperation of outside the framework Euroregion. Imeanthat By this considerably lower densities on both sides. political onamonthlyis communication basis. has exception The Ister-Granum, which isinhalf’) therethat generally summarized density inTable24anddemonstrate a high of are Euroregions. findingsthe tell about presence the us social of within-group incapital investigated the bylookingstarts atwhat section The final chapter. therefore in interpretations bethe usedfor will evidence SNA and of qualitative amalgamation whereasthe data, analysisthe of network found be social is the evidence inthe thatcan concerned with chapter clarify this further, The expectation in this chapter is to see a relationship between within-group and see isbetween a relationshipwithin-group to in this chapter The expectation The social network analysis of the domestic networks (the Euroregional networks ‘cut networks Euroregional (the networks domestic the of analysis network social The The H1 corresponds to the fourth theoretical expectation spelled out in Chapter 1. To levels of institutional between-group social be high capital. will also there that thelikelihood increases connections network of H1: Having highlevelsinstitutional social of within-group incapital theform found high levelsbe of institutional between-group also social capital. will there that likelihood the increase not does connections network of H0: Having highlevelsinstitutional social of within-group incapital theform 210 CEU eTD Collection of measurements andcalculations. weaklyEuroregions based bodytext explanations onmonthlyand assessment. See for Note: the methodology section, lack of time-series data that could indicate change, especially to see to especially change, indicate could that data lack time-series of section, methodology the middlethe range, whereas Ister-Granum has thelowest values (0.19/0.07 and 0.05/0.01). for links) cross-border andthen (0.57/0.15 and OstBoh They be 0.14/0.02). in can be saidto is for 0.30/0.02links It (0.98andoverall network, the followed(0.62/0.23 0.09).byVarmOst highestthe density values,overall and both and onlyfor0.31), (0.99 calculated cross-border numbers. have lowest the networks domestic whereas the Ister-Granum lower, come somewhat VarmOst and Swedish Ostboh the canandinfound Hídver be (Norway) VarmOst networks and density is notabsolute. members of number between relation the that means This ones. other the than density lower significantly has side) Swedish the on (VarmOst networks smallest the of one that noting Granum networks is the larger number of members in these networks. However, it is worth Hídver Hídver Ister-Granum Slovakia (39) Ister-Granum Hungary (42) VarmOst Sweden(5) VarmOst Norway (10) OstBoh Sweden (14) OstBohNorway (8) Network clique (member nr) Table 24. Ę Ę These density values do not take developmentThesenot take valuesmentioned over time As density do into in account. If we look again densitiesthen (Table at the 22) we cross-border see Hídver that diminishes. The strongest networks the between difference basis the On weekly Ister- in the basis monthly a on density lower the for close-at-hand explanation An Slovakia (13) Hungary (5) The tableshows density measures andcentralization theinvestigated for Density values for domesticnetworksDensity valuesfor 1.0 DENSITY 1.0 0.37 0.31 0.80 0.98 0.99 0.93 Monthly 211 0.50 0.30 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.49 0.25 0.36 Weekly Ę (Slovakia). The networks in (Slovakia).networks The Ę has CEU eTD Collection change’. and5’muchless contacts’ years? contacts’,1is’no Notethat1means’muchmore Note: would be possible to return to the same actors in 2015-2016 to do a follow-up series. afollow-up do to 2015-2016 in actors same the to return to possible be would 104 communication on one side of the border and the density of communication across the border. Hídver Ister-Granum (81) VarmOst (15) OstBoh(22) Euroregion Table 25. Hungarian and Slovak mayors. than the contacts of growing domestic in their assessment surer significantly mayors were border contacts is strongest cross- of increase the of assessment while that noted can be It time. over communication in OstBoh, VarmOst, isof intensification there claim that for the support provides resources tentative network and Hídver of within-group relativegrowth of assessment stronger This side. domestic the especially on networks, looser tighter than towards more is tendency the Yet, more communication. of in thedirection change indicate values lower whereas nochange, represents in thetable change over the past 5years (i.e. stretching back into the previous election cycle). The value 3 of change time. over assessment is adeficit. effect), staggered levelsincrease and (a whether between-group inoverlapping within-group time-periods While a time series of social network analysis is nigh-impossible to include within the time period of a doctorate, it Ę What we can see regarding this in Table 25 is that respondents saw only incremental sawonly respondents is that in25 this Table seeregarding Whatwe can The task of this section was to elucidate whether there is a link between the density of is density the between there alink whether elucidate was to section of The task this (18) How How would havedeveloped overthepast youestimatethatyourcontacts 5 Change inestimated contact density over time 2.58 2.69 1.91 1.85 104 The only substitute for now is to use the actors’ own DOMESTIC TREND 212 * 2.50 2.79 2.42 2.43 CROSS-BORDER TREND CROSS-BORDER Ę , the Swedish and Norwegian CEU eTD Collection chapter, such causal inference will need to be qualified to somebe qualifiedto will need to extent. such inference causal chapter, maintaining and Euroregions. However,developing in be aswill seen thenext final and resourcescan that be constitute usedfor andmicro-regions associations inter-municipal instance, membershipsfor Thisbuilt in, overall border. through the indicatesthatresources up communicate with each other on one side of the border, and the way they communicate within oflocal governments representatives political how is between there a relationship Secondly, operate. organizations study case these which within as those such circumstances infavorable even political within networks Euroregions integrated presence of any This demonstrated support forchapter twoarguments. Firstly,isitspeak tooearly about to the 6.5 Conclusion terms. of terms cultural-linguistic in is close theborder of side other the on if counterpart the not least at of others, exclusive Communication on one side of the border does not create such bonding social capital thatis space. achieve sameinthecross-border the higherto to probability translate will builtup during aperiod of increasedinter-municipal cooperation on one side of border,the capacities skills and assume that isitto time, reasonable over development fully asserting or causality, of direction the confirming allowfor not does data While the case. the indeed is this that indicates analysis network social of help the with forward brought evidence The 213 CEU eTD Collection for function and performance, which will be discussed in the subsequent section. similarities and differences across the cases prepareto for the analysis of how thismay matter is understudy.members Special governments)of attention to given institutions the (local level at of the the out carried was analysis the words, other members. In between interaction mutual extentof looksparticipation join like,and understudy, their what the the Euroregions In this section highlightI mainthe in findings relation whatmotivatedto local to governments inEuroregions local governments of andinteraction 7.1 Theparticipation questions. research dissertation’s the to answers the forward brings 7.3) (section conclusion The theorganizations. level of the analysis; insection analysis7.1 the is carried outat levelthe members andinof section 7.2 at and formulates cases, across questions these in relation to findings the synthesizes chapter This organizations. the dissertation’s of andperformance these the function influence can interaction patterns and participation commonkey arguments. on European so become have that organizations cooperation in cross-border the participate governments It is structuredterritory, withinrole has ofEuroregions aspolicy It actors how these. local done sobyasking whyand along and and investigate hasThe governance sought localto cross-border structures dissertation the bythe askingtwo levels whether of social capital derived from their formation of Euroregions. Blatter argued (2000) for formation Blatter theimportanceidentification, a of of Euroregions. mainThe whatliterature section claimsin previous as two has outlined the to driven the participate they Why 7.1.1 C HAPTER 7: D ISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 214 CEU eTD Collection cooperation. intervention from the national level did local politicians open up to the idea of closer ‘givingin’ other side. tothe Only problemthe hadwhen beenpartially addressed through beas seen would institution-building joint feared that local politicians that extent tothe heated in and shippingwas Idrefjord1960s around 1970sthe debate extensive pollution and early late the In Euroregion. OstBoh the with case aswasthe institution-building cross-border in evenstand way can of the policy fact, potentially In was formed. problems organization cases the other the all In body. identification a multi-task into transformed later only and improvements, for sides of policy both level national on the pressure exerton aiming to asasingle-issue Committee created problems wasinitially was The Euroregion E18. Route European of wasthedeficientcondition factor a process that mainlyborder. Norwegian-SwedishThe the a policy at catalyzing problemwasVarmOst response to took place after the fashion. deviseto solutions. appropriate Thisaligns with a traditional viewrational of policymaking a mean constitutes cooperation cross-border factor, leading isthe problem recognized policy cooperation as isa solution identifiedbefore problem. the the If,on hand,other an existing because andKingdon March 1984) depictions processes Olsen 1972, of (Cohen, policy may be rational on part Perkmann’stechnical policy-problem support, argument) or based. coalitions Grant-seeking of the actors, and financial EU of importance (the is grant-driven it but whether to according candifferentiated lead to be can turn in situations explanations instrumental that proposed I explanations. instrumental rational for that resembles non-rational Olsen as logic of appropriateness (March and Olsen 1989),whereas Perkmann (2003) argued and by March to referred behavior of explanation the following largely dimension normative Out of the six incases this study, the only was that Euroregion clearly formed in 215 CEU eTD Collection before the Euroregion established. was before Euroregion the with German local governments in the fields of water provision and sewage treatment decades T Euroregion, Austrian wherethe city hadof Salzburg hadsome joint technical cooperation government leading taking on active or with roles, possiblethe exception of Salzburg-BL-the in wasfound the localtown/partnership side.Noevidence of administrators with other the had village atwin or town whose wereactive leaders political case those as inthat typically leading actors in the initial phase. Hídver instrumental grant-seeking dimension. the timeof Austrian accession totheEuropean Union, and were driven by Europeanization norms in combination with an 105 cases. the across and interviews in the throughout includedfew voices themes 27 toindicatethese how reoccurred are Table either the identification/polity dimension or to instrumental expectations materialof returns. A to related cases of wereinthemajority (mayors) by interview respondents given motivations join local Thetaken had not. todecide surroundingplace, or governments whetherto Thisdoes notmean thatSalzburg was policy-driven.All sixEuroregionsAustrian-German atthe borderwere created at The political leaders of Theleaders of located political closest to a fewlocal were the border governments 105 After the initial negotiations between key actors had actors between key negotiations initial After the 216 Ę offered the only variation to this scenario, CEU eTD Collection Germany, Interview #A84) anymore in half-circles but infull circles.” wascenter always Salzburg You […] don’t think Munich,or even whichquitefar isactually from us. Our This ties us more to thesewhip-cracking, theculture isthe sameboth on sides. people than to thosementality isrelatively in similar, weBerlin havethe traditions of 1000 years. Since 1810we toBavaria, belong butthe of belonging together. WedidbelongtoSalzburg for “ wise “ Border Regions (Klatt 2006:139). taking place in 1972. Itbeen frequently has mentioned inEuropean policy documents and by the Association of European 106 “ (Mayor,Hungary, Ister-Granum:# A48) past,manythe their inhabitants and of often visit us.” “ members 26. Table optimal space) encapsulates the idea of borders as arbitrary ‘scars of history’. of ‘scars asarbitrary borders idea the of space)encapsulates optimal (the circle’ ‘full the to opposed as border) nation-state by the inefficiency into constrained whether instrumental motivations (grant-seeking or policy-solution) also occurred. also policy-solution) or (grant-seeking motivations instrumental whether theme was present tosome extentin all cases andthe variation constituted of differences as to identity/polity casesthe investigated However, the among each other. with in or conjunction interviews. number of large a implicitly throughout or explicitly present thatwere returns, expectations notmissingon material something’ ‘better expression expectationsthe outof articulates the whereas polity-dimension, the to refers bridge’ asa‘spiritual Euroregion of the metaphor The vision ofThe vision Europe was amajor reasonandafeeling reasonableIt seems weSeems that in. arecheap other- A spiritual bridge” These areHungarian villages, they belonged tousin Martin Klatt traces the expression ‘scars of history’ back to the first European Symposium on Transfrontier Regions .” (Mayor, Sweden, OstBoh: #A35) In the quotes, the use of the metaphor of the ‘half-circle’ (policy spaces that are The two themes of identity and instrumental expectations may occur either separately Examples of how were ofhow joiningaEuroregion towards expressedby Examples motivations Identity/polity (Mayor, Slovakia, Hídver Ę (Mayor, : #A69) 217 M: #A74) Inntal-C-K- Austria, representative, member commerce cooperation foreconomic development.” indeed isimportantthat, but it havecross-border to “Earlier each country was own. onits It isstill a bit like #A28) VarmOst: and OstBoh market.We 1,700 havelost jobshere workwith contacts in Norway.It is because ofthe labor “ #A110) more for development.” regional moneytoo. Theideawas thatwe shouldget “ Slovakia, Ister-Granum: #A86 ) cooperation,and the funding EU etc calls, “I think it was becauseof development and such things, something “ It is apartour stated politicalobjectivesIt is of andaims to The mainreasonwas from Europe, togetmoney, and We that thought we hadbetter not miss out on Instrumental expectation of material return ”. (Mayor, Hungary,Ister-Granum: #A49) (Mayor, Slovakia,Ister-Granum: 106 Likewise, the Likewise, .” (Mayor, Sweden, (Mayor, .” (Chamber of (Chamber ”. (Mayor, ”. CEU eTD Collection to join. to For experiences. have such all cases OstBoh, Except left organization. the but Euroregion, two German-Austrian cases, and toa lesser degree in the Ister-Granum case. in the especially played arole, Euroregion thepartof the on active recruitment Furthermore, same. did the organization in samearea/cooperation the others because a joined Euroregion regions. to also but bodies, cooperation in inter-municipal especially local had already with other governments, that areat factors other play well andas (Medve-Bálint Svensson 2012a). were members Komarom-Esztergom not that Hungarian of any county showed of Euroregion policy Interviewsproblems. ofnearly with representatives in 40 local the governments might identity-based also appreciate materialjoint community-building, gains or solutions to notdo join that a local governments a Euroregion Euroregion, since to determine accession However, it is important to note that the existence of such motivations in itself does not validity of these concepts when applied casesto that are situated differently in time and space. (all operating inlinguistically andit culturally similar areas),nonetheless but confirms the governmentswhich inthe19 have to be current to influence the decision. In theIster-Granum Euroregion, representatives of someof the local 107 Table 27. Inntal-C-K-M Salzburg-BL-T OstBoh VarmOst Ister-Granum Hídver In Medve-Bálint andSvensson 2012a I referred to thisfactor s‘administrative embeddedness’. The affiliation does not Further research might focus also on local governments that had been members of a of members been had that governments local on also focus might research Further local governments the affiliations wasthe factors additional of these important The most selection case the entirely surprising given not ideas is of The polity/identity presence Ę Identity versus instrumentality as driving motivations 107 th The presence of this factor indicates a certain herd mentality; many mentality; herd indicates acertain factor The of this presence century belonged to thehistorical church county of Esztergom would bring this upas areason POLITY/IDENTITYINSTRUMENTALITY ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 218 (grant access) partial (Nordic Council) ¥ ¥ (EU) (EU) ¥ problems) (solving policy INSTRUMENTALITY ¥ CEU eTD Collection governments of all six weredividedcases into three groups: have inlocal mightaccessto.Intermsorganizations ofparticipation patterns Euroregions, organization the with engagement of in terms first participation, of theme the on focuses sub-section This participate and they thenHow in7.1.2 relation to endowmentsform capital. how social andthat of different types consolidating thefindings in this study. of social capital members,both whichthose never joined andthose left,that would befruitfulfor the non- of research Further motivations. normative/identity initial the overrides negative, isinif Thisleadstoacost-benefit and overall. memberships then analysis, that organizations conjunction with change of majority political ina local andgovernment aquestioning of happeningin for withdrawal speaks often evidence the accumulated systematically, these leftSalzburg-BL-T Whileapproach Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M. one and thisstudy not did ininstance,local 2011four left leftgovernments Ister-Granum, Euroregion one Euroregion a maximum of one or two tendencymeetings was haveto a large share of the members falling intothe ‘detached’ group, attending or events per year. The cases that stand out from this Moving on, I turn tohowlocal participatewithin andinteract governments Moving Euroregions, on, Iturn All case study organizations showed variation along these categories, but the general butthe categories, these along showedvariation All casestudy organizations x x x approach approach and agenda. contributing tothe astrategic with events and meetings attending regularly Active: (mayors); representative political highest the than rather get information this to meetings sent to mightbe lower-ranked administrators seek information, or to deputies mainly it doing but events, and meetings attending regularly Listeners: organization; the from writing in rather information in receivingevents, meetings rarely Detached: or participating 219 CEU eTD Collection identity vs. policy dimension discussed above. with the that cross-tabulates Table 28 to. haveaccess they resources capital social type of European Euroregionsarena, Ihave theinvestigated theclassified dominating according to (civillobbyingsectors business) the society, andcarry nationalout activities towards or different with interaction incorporate they whether and ‘outsiders’, with interact members its classified linking.bridgingas bonding, or Based degreethe on towhich and organization the not play such a crucial role. does long-term wouldwhich outcome, bea integration socio-econonomic whereas an ‘output’ to wouldhere correspond Grants 1997:19). legitimacy Scharpf problem from (see an output may funding, suffer receive expectation external on to the membership members base the their the Ister-Granum EGTC at the Hungarian-Slovak border, those. with connection an organizationin asassemblies such meetings place organizational to and (mayors), inrepresentatives member which many of attract could that conceiveactivities to strategically worked but groups, large detached ends of the Euroregional territory. inpopulation in size: Moss Karlstad geographically two andthe Norway Sweden, situated at biggestmembers intermsof engage its two forto VarmOstEuroregion the strategic challenge a it whereas posed membership viaaninter-municipal Swedishside on organization, the case its of wasOstBoh mainly this membership due to strategy indirectallowingof Swedish-Norwegianthe border, both organizations had some detachedbut members, in the years.Along more two than for any meeting attended not had time interview the of the who at membersmany had other(Ister-Granum) whereas the membership pattern, even andactive pattern are the two Hungarian-Slovak Euroregions. One (Hídver One Hungarian-SlovakEuroregions. arethetwo pattern The empirical case studies referred to whether institutional social capital be can capital social institutional whether to referred studies case The empirical Participation is by motivationalso affected membership. for the As seenin thecaseof The two Euroregions at the Austrian-German border had 220 Ę ) was characterized by an ) wascharacterized CEU eTD Collection performance and function, which is the main theme of the next section. organizations’ the on impact an have to hypothesized be then may capital social in variance within-group institutional type social capital capital Thissocial and of what dominates. of strength in the as well as events, in Euroregional involvement and patterns communication inof terms is alsovariation There joiningfor aEuroregion. motivations the cases regarding level. European and national the towards effectively most agencies, trade chambers), regional development (e.g. from sectors other actors with interaction activities range of and OstBoh, VarmOstHídver and Salzburg-BL-T are the ones working there isthere in a increased areas. trend towards cooperation inter-municipal all investigated associations, inter-municipal of strength and presence (1) of analysis My capital). social institutional and (2) the densityrole (between-group joint play important in creation recourses expected an to of the ofwas capital capital) social communicationinstitutional (within-group border the social of side one on of governments local types betweendifferent of by interactions the created thesocial inChapter1, capital model proposed the According to and political Participation leaders,7.1.3 showed that Linking Bridging Bonding Type of network endowments Table 28. Overall the case studies demonstrated variation across local governments and across local governments across variation demonstrated studies Overall case the Table 28 showsthat the Euroregion primarilythat holds bondingsocial is capital Ę . Ister-Granum . Ister-Granum haveand Inntal-C-K-M theirbroader bridgingcapital, due to social The investigated Euroregions according to dominating type of social capital The investigatedEuroregionsaccordingtodominatingtypeof Salzburg-BL-T Ostboh Inntal-C-K-M Ister-Granum Hídver Polity/Identity Ę 221 VarmOst Policy CEU eTD Collection the interviews with the mayors,much more often than to the county regional level. They could during made frequently were micro-regions to References Vac. Szentendre and Szob, Dorog, the Ister-Granum Euroregion, although members have alsojoined from the micro-regions of the municipal of Euroregion, members Micro-region core Esztergom the andthe of constitute The former was officially a part when the Hídverof VarmOst. the Hungarian-Slovakian cases,influences localwhich join governments a Euroregion not.or This could especially be seenin the OstBoh Euroregion (both that boundaries administrative creates also network cooperation inter-municipal above, the sides) and the Norwegian side governments, thereby creating need both and opportunity for cooperation. As mentioned in the in local of context bringingregime numberof change anincrease independent the and inter-municipal in 1990s,whereas mustcooperation be Slovakia andHungary interpreted followed in 1970s,SwedenandNorway 1980s in the becameinstitutionalized cooperation the borders of the country. The difference lies in the temporal dimension. In Austria and Germany exchange)not and only joint delivery.service also included institution-building and policy coordination for instance(via bestpractice I that is Swianeiwicz from difference major The 2011:3). (Swianeieicz cooperation.” from municipal governments keep at least indirect control over the decisions and services that result competencies; local or of tasks is transfer definitive no toamalgamation, there contrast in and time, same the “At incidental. not and voluntary is that governments, local more and institution-building, refer to policy jointcoordination and delivery services of 108 But I also count cooperation on projects and significant policy coordination via best practice exchange practice best via coordination policy significant and on projects cooperation count Ialso But For instance, in For instance, micro-regions of Hungary the Tata andEsztergom acrucial played role. All investigated borderlands have increased inter-municipalseen cooperation the within By inter-municipal cooperation followed the I largely by definition Swianeiwicz (2011) 222 Ę Euroregion was still called the Danube 108 by two bytwo or CEU eTD Collection 109 and VarmOst. OstBoh for andmedium-level border networks. This value is very low for Ister-Granum Euroregion, very high for Hídver fully. Ichecked for this possibility by withcomparing density the values of overall the cross- socialcreation between-group of capital,it leadnotbeingcan also tothe network developed such asymmetry (when only one side has strong networks) might have carryover effects in the althoughon strong networks, is significantly VarmOst Swedishside.While the weaker on network base to build on, especially on Hídver the is Slovaknetworks side. domestic OstBoh and VarmOst both can draw and showed that four of Euroregionsthe under study. of The analysis results the in waspresented Chapter 6, among those via network analysisbased from helpofsocial the was measured with oremail)phone on data personally, four other each with communicate governments local of representatives the political often Euroregionimportant infrastructure for communication. standing The density of communication networks (how out as having elderly care. schoolson or thecooperation as such micro-region inthe projects strongest cross-border) (non other to made frequently roleimportant Interview #A45).Likewise,references inbringing this together,” were had an Esztergom and micro-region, of Esztergom the becausedo wearepart to natural thing was a “It Ister-Granum: of member Hungarian a mayor of instance, the (For so. did region inthe micro- others because the joinedEuroregion a local government a instancethat for state entail,but remarksthe and expressedby comments to the following. intervieweesthe point of OstBoh. those higher than values are as its Swedish) than the more connected being side of Norwegian the (in terms from asymmetry the A morein-depth analysis of the communication networks is available in Swedish in Svensson and Ojehag 2012. Inter-municipal cooperation networks on one side of the border therefore creates therefore border the sideof one on networks cooperation Inter-municipal The social network analysisThe network designedsocial captureis what tool not the to communications Ę . Ister-Granum has less of such a domestic communication domestic a such of less has Ister-Granum . 109 223 VarmOst does not, however, seem ‘suffer’ seem however, not,to does VarmOst Ę , CEU eTD Collection The average assessment therefore gives a higher value to cooperative power for VarmOst. support. in hostingin force driving terms the secretariat/administrative the of cooperation the countries is of two the indicates which also Thetable value. andanaverage side, each 29, on mayors by name at the other side of the border. 10.6 OstBoh members. Out of these an average 9.2 were from the same country, i.e.theno averagereason mayorto see substantial knew fewer than variation two from the case of OstBoh, where – on average – a mayor was able to name the mayors of except inexcept Euroregion Salzburg-BL-T. rare, is staff administrative between communication Fourth, membership. for motivation directly adjoining. This underscores again relativethe absence of policy needs a as driving when amunicipality has an official partnership/twin town, or when two local governments are and thereis alow numberof respondents the in Austrian-German cases. Nonetheless,with the exception of Hídver of highestthe politicalrepresentatives of otherlocalgovernments, interviews conductedvia phone were notconducive to this 110 by name was Hídver side mayors other the two on or one than more mention could (mayor) representative political average the where Euroregion only The impersonal. and general is often forums Euroregional at communication the Second, such meetings. of frequency the on communication depends the Hence, level). regional by arranged meetings Euroregions, the micro-regions, associations, (inter-municipal institutions of context the within place takes communication the of bulk The municipalities. adjoining directly three) or two (usually few its and governments local a between cases, except across arerare contacts spontaneous casesbilateral across First, The data underlying this claim is not fully comparable. Although the aim was to ask all mayors to write down the name This leads to the overall assessment of within-group institutional social capital in Table capital social institutional within-group of assessment overall the to leads This Ę . 110 Third, moreintense cross-border communication occurs primarily 224 * Ę there is there CEU eTD Collection investigated areas were asked both cooperation in assess areaswereaskedboth to of importance the investigated cross-border the of Members projects. or events few concrete a with associated become often they practice Euroregions of The statutes typically activities. general first outline Iwill question answer that To roles? three these state isendure. to organization likely Howdid that more relate Euroregions to the investigated that they can multifaceted moreimplies a roles allthree of undertaking simultaneous the act contrary, the within a broadloudspeakermutually orawindow display. a seismograph, threearenot To These exclusive. range of policyOn ando fields, aggregatethey What but in7.2.1 level the Euroregions 2. in andcriteria discussed Chapter in indicators of of the terms their performance assessments can take roles (areas of they and performed) then projects, do theoutline activity, typical actually on three different Ifirst issection into parts. divided two present bybriefly the Euroregions describing what analysis. The of unit primary hereasthe Euroregions, treated investigated ofthe performance roles, the functions the In thissection pertaining analytical and to of results I provide asummary the role of a Euroregions oftheinvestigated andperformance 7.2 Function and noton SNA-analysis. Note: Thevalues forInntal-C-K-M and Salzburg-BL-T are based onqualitativeinterviews, Average acronym country in Second in acronym country First Indicators Table 29. Euroregion Within-group institutional social capital low low (driving) medium (HUSK) Granum Ister- high high medium (driving) high Hídver (HUSK) Ę medium (driving) medium (SENO) OstBoh 225 (asymmetrical) Medium low high medium (driving) (SENO) VarmOst medium medium (AUGE) C-K-M Inntal- medium medium-high high (AUGE) BL-T Salzburg- CEU eTD Collection also serves as an example of how there is a struggle for resources that are seenasfinite. are that for resources isastruggle there how of example an as serves also it from Euroregion, the see as output wantto membersmany projectsthat kindthe concrete of fishisladder theof project While Ister-Granum the Euroregion.an constitutes of this example Salzburg-BL-T (AUGE) Inntal-C-K-M (AUGE) (SENO) VarmOst (SENO) OstBoh Hídver Ister-Granum (HUSK) Euroregion Table 30. donot converge. projects symbolic and members’priorities when conflict for potential the also cases,and across practices diversity the to highlight case, thebreadth of one but is tocapture within of activity not here information duetospace notberepeated will reasons, Tablelists these. 30Thepurpose commonly mentionedfeaturedby members inhighly or material.written theirWhile all important to members togetherare mostcooperation that of types havethe andcase studies discussed displayed cross-border with The presentationsin. engage Euroregions the activities the name to and activities, and fields policy different of ‘typical activities’, activities that were Ę A case that demonstrates the potential for conflict between priorities and actual practices and priorities actual between for conflict potential the demonstrates A that case (HUSK) Typical cooperation areas and activities (3) Europeanidentity-building (2) regional identity-building (1) culture (3) environment (2) Europeanidentity-building (1) infrastructure development economic (3) (2) Europeanidentity-building (1) infrastructure development economic (3) (2) facilitate cross-border mobility (1) infrastructure (3) facilitate cross-border mobility development economic (2) (1) infrastructure (3) regional identity-building development economic (2) (1) culture members Most important to 226 and Almasfuzito Historical site preservationIza/Izsa event) Bridge-building Days (cultural project Spatial Planning Coordination (EuRegio Gipfel). EuroregionSummit Meeting Flintsbach Multi-generational house – Coordinated hail prevention Children’s borderland lobbying. High-speed train connection work assessment obstacle Border event) (business Fair Contact The Ipoly river bridges lobbying Ipoly fishladders Typical activities CEU eTD Collection typical Euroregion can provide on its typical own,whereas otherprojects on Euroregion providegeneral arerelying calls can on levels and sectors. multiple across of of authorities a series demandedThe cooperation the latter whereas the actors, development of a spatialscales differenta limited Theformerof few involving requiredactivities. coordination task plan entirely of examples are requiresbut priorities, with line in are and contested not are (Salzburg-BL-T) much more resources than Theresources. coordinated hail coordination (Inntal-C-K-M)prevention or spatial planning a and inscale highlightdifferences also by Euroregion undertaken the asactivities emphasized area than vice versa. border Norwegian booming the with contacts extended by win to more have companies Swedish that prevails perception from in companies municipality,their own overrepresentation by or companies.Swedish The are among by discontentdisappointed that some local generates low interest governments fairalso contact the Nonetheless, development. economic to an obstacle constitute borders that members among belief held acommonly with resonates and development, business and fair economic to contactresponds byOstBoh primacy Likewise, the the to organized assigned sides living heritage of of two Hungarian on jointthe attach to the inhabitants border. the the members of the Ister-Granum Euroregion). Itstrongly resonates with the importance members by also mentioned frequently was event (the border Hungarian-Slovakian whole the along cultural The event ‘Bridge-building is Days’ probably one of well-known most activitiesthe cross-border priorities. own their with line in entirely events are members its by Euroregion further involvement in the Euroregion. in the involvement further local the legitimize government’s to cannot serve afish ladderproject Therefore settlements. fish ladders mightbe thing’ a ‘good they butthat have not dowithdo anything to their that sentiment the expressed River Ipoly the from far side Hungarian the on members Several The ‘typical activities’ derived from the analysis of material membersof from and what written The ‘typical analysis the derived activities’ In the cases of Hídver Ę and OstBoh, the activities most strongly associated with the 227 CEU eTD Collection turn to regarding cross-border activities. Between-group social capital was operationalized as social wasoperationalized capital Between-group activities. toregarding cross-border turn which to appropriate policy space, havebecome degreeto to the theEuroregions mainactors influencingloudspeakerof thecapacity window, ofseismograph, anddisplay therole playing in terms assessed was Function intensity. and project statement strategy-mission development budget, robustnessits administrativeof arrangement, meeting activity, to adherence legal control of arrangement, strength overcooperation intensity was operationalizedas social intensity,inbetween-group function, of terms cross-border and capital. Cross-border assessing more fieldwork aimed performance problematic.at even its My operationalization The function dependent variable in research cooperationon iscross-border frequently ill-defined and and performance Assessing 7.2.2 display. rolein the of out window active mostcarrying Euroregions were the BL-T at many forums.European Among the investigatedEuroregions, Ister-granum and Salzburg- (Slovakia),less(Hungary)hasother andtowards butso government alsobeenpresent one the towards has been active Ister-Granum both governments. national towards high speedtrains the loudspeaker of example An capital. social bonding reinforce also can but function capital, social linking generate is the advocacy ofthereby VarmOst on behalf portraying of bridgingcreation bonding social Carrying the‘display and window’ role, of out capital. European route E18,the increasesor linking social cross-bordercapital, whereas the ‘seismograph’ role is important both for the display beginning window)outlined atthe of section.this Taking on rolethe of ‘loudspeaker’ regionin (bonding,bridging, section linking)7.1.3 three andthe loudspeaker, roles (seismograph, as a coherent unit to theHídver outside funding for European fish ladders)orpooling applications of Ister-Granum resources (the (the world, may These activities can be related back to the types of social capital endowments discussed endowments capital social of types the to back berelated can These activities Ę ‘Bridge-building ‘Children’s Days’, the Borderland’ of project VarmOst). 228 CEU eTD Collection definition of network effectiveness). network of definition individual membersachieve could not independently (see Provan and Kenis for 2008:230 this the what achieving indeed is institution formalized the via channeled action collective the i.e. belief the that organization, the members with of is satisfaction which the performance, of indicator evaluation internal the was This fieldwork. of analysis ongoing of consequence asa investigation the wasaddedto of performance indicator Oneadditional lowest. score highest overall, Inntal-C-K-M and VarmOst receive middle valuesandHídver receive VarmOst and highest overall, Inntal-C-K-M score indisplayed how Table Euroregion OstBoh, 31,andshows andSalzburg-BL-T Ister-Granum is for eachcase The result conflicts. border-related of and appreciation/absence trust level of least fieldand in one at cooperation service-policy intensity of contacts, agreement-based of personal trend institutions, perceived betweenmember contacts of strength personal 229 Ę scores CEU eTD Collection pattern between between-group social and member between-group between internal the capital pattern of evaluation congruent is a there that but co-vary, not do intensity cooperation cross-border and capital ***AUGE=Austria and Germany. Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein.*HUSK=Hungary and Slovakia, **SENO=Sweden and Norway, Dalsland,Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfold, Euregio Inntal-Chiemsee-Kaisergebirge-Mangfalltaland Euregio Note: +Fullname of cases: Ister-Granum EGTC, Hídver INTERNAL BETEWEEN-GROUP SOCIAL Table 31. FUNC CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION EVALUATI CAPITAL

The key conclusion shouldthat from be drawn Table 31 is social between-group that TION INTESNTIY ON other side Level of trust to of contacts Perceived trend communications cross-border Strength of governance space cross-border Appropriation of intensity Project Budget statement strategy/mission development Adherence to Meeting activity arrangement administrative Robustness of its arrangement Strength oflegal Indicators satisfaction Member politisization) of conflict (issue Absence/presence Function andperformance Euroregion+ medium low medium low medium low low high high (HUSK)* Granum Ister- low low medium increasing somewhat low medium high low high increasing high medium high low low (HUSK) Hídver Ę 230 High high medium low high medium low medium increasing low medium mediummedium high medium mediummedium high low ** (SENO) OstBoh Ę Tarsulas, Gränskommitten Østfold -Bohuslän- medium medium high medium medium high medium medium medium (SENO) VarmOst medium high low high increasing medium *** (AUGE) K-M Inntal-C- low medium medium low high increasing somewhat medium (AUGE) -BL-T Salzburg high medium high low high increasing medium CEU eTD Collection shown (Herrschel and Tallberg 2011), local shown in governments cooperation 2011), (Herrschel cross-border and Tallberg has domestically of (new) regionalization more; inline research processes on want with what is often explained by ‘not much happening in although Euroregion’, the some might also not Passiveness arepassive. organizations of these members many cases, the measuredacross be variation can significant sparse.Although localis between generally interaction governments is preconditions andthatcross-border for 2005) Bennet cooperation’, see George havinggood likely evenin image (in Overall, ‘most of Euroregions these cases’ of emerging terms the reinforce and create Euroregions for whichinstrumental the importantgrant-seeking played an role are lesslikely to kind of networks conducts. aEuroregion ofactivities range and the that members the of the motivation between fit are beneficial is a there that is important it Euroregion inthe for capital social between-group of creation for the Euroregional performance. motivation foundfurther and type between alink the of amount the of social created; capital instrumental motivation to access funds, but only rarely solveto policy needs. The dissertation the with conjunction in sometimes identity, of dimension normative a by driven mostly interact? do they Euroregions andhow model. a revisedtheoretical present and expectations, initial theoretical the to these relate questions, research the thatanswer studies from case the findings summarizes finalsection This 7.3 Conclusion questions. research two dissertation’s findings.these Thisis thefocus conclusion,the of which thisdoes by returning tothe integrate model modify to the aneed to towards pointed therefore results The satisfaction. The first research question asked question research The first why and how dolocalgovernments in why andhow participate The dissertation found thatlocal governments are 231 CEU eTD Collection by the organization, the presence of a secretariat, the size of the budget and numberof the of budget size the the of a secretariat, presence the by the organization, used legalinstrument the of sophistication as the capacity, such and organizational intensity thought to be. in Perkmann notindicators some frequently related used(e.g. 2007)are were way the they that itcan but be done, that standpoint the maintain and this, on stance adifferent have taken I 2000:71). (Blatter be categories in coded cannot easy dichotomous indicators logics, and cooperation functional to theirvary differentforms according because thecross-border of North American Inhisview,is regions. the‘dependent complex variable’ extraordinarily in cooperation Euroregions inhis two with cooperation study two of comparative cross-border offunction Euroregions? communities wascreatedwithin Euroregionsthe (nosupport for no.3). political andintegrated wasnoevidencedegree, toasignificantthere that local governments between communication limits) (and still determines border national the 2).However, (no. state national the with cooperation inter-municipal of experience on the draws cooperation Euroregion is based primarily on normative (no. identity-based factors 1),and cross-border Chapter 1. Local motivationgovernments’ forjoining andmaintaining membershipin a unwillingnessquestion to already memberships.existing level institutional of institutional ‘stickiness’, or inertia (Piersonmanifested as 2000), iscertain often a this against andtheonly protection represent, areas the Euroregions border vulnerable,members mayand change doexit, whichalso the geographic territories the of sometimesinstitutionally prefer arrangements.As they thin organizations’ ‘thin are The cooperation measuresconventional focustocross-border indicators related on of cross-border indicators cross-case of against use argued the (2000) Blatter asked The secondresearch question Thesefindings support two out of three the theoreticalin spelled expectations out how capital impacts socialhow the performance and 232 CEU eTD Collection networks andrelationships. trust networks cross-border of deepeningthe both before parallel and place to domestic taking are side networking on multi-level the ofintensifiedand cooperation processes in Instead, time. within-group social viacapital associations is andhappening communication not point atone in Euroregional the organization. become members engaged the are related actively tohow border sideof on one the networks timethe of Euroregional formation laterintoand its operation, and densecommunication roleimportant six case plays that is Inter-municipal at studies. both cooperation aresource an by from the data supported empirical the parts and andthiswas thereof, not area cross-border entirethe to reservebelonging integrated and pooled sociali.e. capital, a between-group (no. 4)that high levels social of within-group becapital would with associated high levels of not fulfilled. motivations,legitimacy especially grant-drivenexpectations canlead tooutput ifproblems instrumental than creation social capital of the for conducive are more motivations Normative by favorably members,its andbetween-group own socialwithin-group both matters. capital intensity,forbut cooperation high with Euroregionstobe associated evaluated cross-border processes intensifiedof and multi-level cooperation networking on domesticthe side. border networks and trustrelationships is a process happeningboth after and parallel to taking place on the globalshould as wellbe understoodas on the Euroregions that suggests be sides research the Instead same coin. outto European two of the not turn in the policycontext arena. did these social capital. However, of between-group with in Iassessedthis conjunction projects. theA deepening general of processcross- towards networked governance How does this compare to the second set of theoretical expectations? It was expected It expectations? of theoretical set second the to doesthis compare How clearly not are capital, social of indicating presence patterns, Dense communication The only qualification is that the creation institutional creation of isthe that qualification 233 CEU eTD Collection term viable option either. viable option term isimportant to point out that it canbe done, and that sole reliance on‘networks’ isnota long- it governancespace.Nonetheless, placein cross-border to itthe management technical skillful inresource is networks, communicationof form the andtrust riskyand solid requires and underlying external that budget) through cooperation without intensity (project, grants across-border of Euroregion’s boosting social capital. Short-time between-group generates is space of levelshigh cross-border dependenton social of within-group which capital, successful appropriation thatlong-term andstates management, resource totime and related is therefore question second research the in to relation argument My theoretical generation). (hypothesis- question research overall the to relation in theory build and refine to sought didnot only examiningaim at theoretical hypothesis-testing), (i.e.expectations butI also so far. haveoperated Euroregions most which within time-span short in the impact an has it that evidence clear no is there survival), enhance organizational likely thechancefor isto long-term and(it performance cooperation intensity.While capital social may still be for Euroregional important function in form of the performance withcross-border highorganizational is associated communication (no 5)thatahigh level between-group social in of the form capital cross-border of As stated in connection with presenting the theoretical expectations: in the dissertation I in dissertation the expectations: theoretical the in presenting with As stated connection theexpectation support benot as indicatedabove, found could to However, evidence 234 CEU eTD Collection It argued that study both moreitisemerging,their therefore and to constraints. andwhere possible opportunities attention areclearly arrangements new governance where spaces territorial constitute borderlands to the role of The introductionlocal study argued thatthe inborderlandsof policy-making important, is since governments couldSummary offindings be expected to yield andacademic literature policy makingmaking, before some final remarks. findings that will requiremain furtherarguments, research. comment Finally, on I thewill generalizabilityelaborateEuroregions constitute. on how it contributesrelation and to thelimitations borders, their on tostatements made it to initiatives; thecooperation ‘otherin cross-border involvement side’,politicians’ andof to theresults, relatively new type asof policy as obstacles hindering efficient policy-making. This well investigateddissertation local level actor thatas on social constructs still need to be related to, for instance as accepted ends of political realms, or presented already in the opening sentence of this dissertation. But borders as man-made and as which I asman-made, aperspective borders theideaof it encapsulates also war, US-Mexican the and colonization both to allusions through policies immigration and management border me.”– crossed border the border the cross “I border: not US-Mexican did atthe heardfrequently and displayed There isasaying free–Man divided her”. youbelong don’t here’ Let/ me remind the Gringo ThatI / didn’t crossthe border, the border crossed me America/ was born winning 111 Thesentence can beseenon t-shirts andbumper stickers, pops upartexhibitions at and was included inthe Grammy- On these last pages I will provide a summary of the dissertation and recapitulate its Somos mas Americanos performed by Los Tigres del Norte: “A thousand times they have shouted at me / ‘Go home, 111 C ONCLUSION While it is used as a political slogan to protest US 235 CEU eTD Collection Euroregions at one national border (the Hungarian-Slovak, the Swedish-Norwegian and the and Swedish-Norwegian the Hungarian-Slovak, (the border national one at Euroregions replicability. further It discussed methodsof ethical considerations,analysis, and validity reliability, inthis dissertation. taken operationalization for the arguing before development, cross-border measurement cooperation of intensity,relating and cooperation cross-border to cross-border literature review offered a also chapter are.The organizations what these understanding of the improve and ensurein transparency to detail waslaidout selection procedure material. case secondary survey The or lack relativeof quantitative, question,the dueto a proposed model beto investigated by empirical work. and asset, as a collective capital social institutional interest to of typecapital of social the andInarrowed any moment, can make at use given collective subject which or a single most Euroregions. Followingdefined Coleman, I social asetcapital as of social of relations of basis the constitute that governments local the among patterns interaction and participation motivation, from emerge may that resource the for shorthand a convenient is capital social that argued chapter The other actors. in to relation window display and loudspeaker Olsen 1972, Kingdon I outlined1984), how the Euroregion can function as a seismograph, stages heuristics model,Lasswell to anon-rational1956) or ‘garbage can’ (Cohen, March and Instead cycle(the arational policy of actors. the relatingnon-state to as process including consistingThe is,in alsoa network Euroregion of authorities,sometimes turn, public region. cross-border the issuesof policy the to in relation interests and competencies different contexts. in other and settings in borderland both work, arrangements governance how into insights Chapter 3 through 5 presented the case studies. Each containedof Each two casestudies. those the 3through 5presented Chapter for method 2justified as appropriate answering method most thecasestudy the Chapter of with withinactors anetwork aspolicy actors 1established Euroregions Chapter 236 CEU eTD Collection among municipalities generally intensify on one side of the border before they extend to the to extend they before border the of side one on intensify generally municipalities among networks that the demonstrated cases. It across results the andcompared application, analysis area. in cross-border the communication for dense capacity the and communication domestic of strength the link between governments is constrained bynational borders, and provided for support existencethe of a local between extentto which communication significant the analysis demonstrated The data settings. cross-border in European networks policy at looking projects research major current social analysis.network The showed chapter how the application methodof this isin line with dimension. policy issuesbe need actively to sought andframed as problems with a cross-border foundchallengebeimportant that Euroregions to an two German-Austrian the atchapter as isforimportant not cross-border developmentas previously believed.Thecase study of problems. borderlands Swedish-Norwegian foundthe Thechapteron European Union that the on paper’ mayhaveseveresustainability good i.e. ‘looks members,which a Euroregion among satisfaction of evaluation internal match not do performance of indicators external conventional that argument the advanced Euroregions Hungarian-Slovak two the of study case differentlinkages to the membership base. In addition, each chapter ran a different theme. The showed function and performance The analysis of more similar. were patterns participation whereas interaction, and motivation of in terms cases across variation significant showed This interaction. and participation motivation, of in terms interviews through yielded data empirical the analyze to I proceeded then border. atthe actual the situation phaseto case selection in the macro-perspective when movingfrom the played those how out andselection criteria, Austrian-German). The chapters had a uniform structure. First I elaborated on the case Chapter 7 integrated the findings from the empirical case studies and the social network andthesocial studies findings 7integrated case from the empirical the Chapter method,but 6askedsimilar did questions, sobyusingadifferentChapter research 237 CEU eTD Collection performance. are beneficialfor Euroregional that networks kindthe trust-based andcreate of reinforce Euroregions for whichinstrumental importantgrant-seeking played an role are lesslikely to conducts. a Euroregion activities range of members andthe the motivation of the between solve policy needs. to rarely only but funds, access to motivation instrumental the with in conjunction sometimes identity, of normative dimension by a driven mostly are organizations these Instead concerns. argue that: Euroregions I in participate local how governments and onwhy questions research tothe first Related Key arguments management. technical skillful and solid with in combination grants external boosting intensity cooperation budget) through a Euroregion’s of (project,cross-border short-time via place this hold to possible is it short-term capital, social between-group and appropriation of cross-border spaceislikely on bedependent levelshigh to of within-group in leading governance policy actor landscape. cross-border Eveniflong-term,the successful precondition for short-term successful Euroregional performance in terms of becoming a capital will be created as well. However, contrary expectations,to such a social capital is nota one side of the border increases the likelihood that local transnational institutional social entireincluding borderland, cross-borderlinks. The creation institutionalof social capital on (1b) For the creation of between-group social capital it is important that isafit is that there it social important capital of the creation between-group (1b) For policy due to join Euroregions primarily form or not do Local governments (1a) section. next in the summarized are findings these from following arguments key The 238 CEU eTD Collection further research and elaboration, they might constitute fruitful terrain for fruitful newprojects. terrain mightconstitute they andelaboration, research further beenintonot the worked model for Euroregional performanceI proposed With function. and have which but fieldwork, my during repeatedly resurfaced have that themes three are There futureresearch for andsuggestions Further findings space. governance cross-border in the it place to management technical skillful and solid requires and risky, is networks, trust and communication of form in the resource, underlying that without grants external intensitybudget) cooperation time through a Euroregion’s boostingof cross-border (project, between-group social capital. social generates Short- levelswithin-group capital, which of cooperation and multi-level networking onthe domestic side. intensified of processes to andparallel after both place taking is aprocess networking, relationships, happensin intensified which conjunction with cooperation and multi-level arena. policy European the on as well as global the on place taken governance networked on performancethe andfunction Euroregions, of Iargue that: influencesocial capital of tothe and border) related same atthe national cases located across many cases,the members arepassive. of organizations these bemeasured across can variation significant sparse.Although isgenerally local governments between interaction cross-border is that cooperation) for preconditions good having of terms (2c) Long-term successful appropriation of cross-border space is space highof (2c) Long-term dependenton appropriation cross-border successful (2b) Following deepeningnetworksof the and abovestatement, cross-border trust towards inof general process the context bethe understood should (2a) Euroregions and similarpreconditions with borders national (across invariation outcome Based on (1c) Overall, emergingimage the of even in ‘most-likelyEuroregions these cases’ (in 239 CEU eTD Collection policy is shapedby and within Euroregions would be valuable. further away. research what, More whenon ‘who gets how’ (Lasswelland 1935/1958)when located with those in comparison have border at the directly members located that interest members. The largersidesbetween smaller or of and two border the the lines,between exist partisan along only line oflines conflict of deny that generally Mayors entities. ‘de-politicized’ consensus-oriented or conflict that‘non-political’ members as bytheir are portrayed frequently how organizations these striking is to some extent acknowledgedwork. isfunding bodies ratherthe than to engage in the slow democratic differentprocess of cross-border assembly communication European with direct prefer members potential members or sidelinedas some being like risk initiatives Euroregions bottom-up occasionally indicatethat observations Territorial Cooperation andInterreg/European program iscontested both diverse. Preliminary Euroregions and institutions disbursementthe of Structural European through Funds the natural spaces. uncover economic institutions its portrays European the that themas Union, which policy documents through strategies byits This members. finding image the challenges of Euroregions as putforward by strategies anddevelopment as determinedby Euroregions recruitment games, political Euroregions how andcontract demonstrate expand casesinstead investigated boundaries. The Third, Euroregions constitute new arenas for executing political power. Yet, itis Yet, power. new for political executing arenas constitute Third,Euroregions between that relationship the from suggests case evidence the Second, studies set territorial representing agents static be seen as not should Euroregions First, 240 CEU eTD Collection linkages across administrative boundaries. linkages across thin anddefacto communication between normative frction inthe belief ‘cooperation’ see Euroregions such inter-municipal as similarities not despite asanew typeorganization of found Thethemselves participants did research network. cooperation policy anddomestic that . arguments. newtheoretical enabling data empirical comparative up-to-date of interms generating several advantages offered study researchdesignof this the Svensson 2012a, 2012b,andwhereas 2013), thelatter is part of an ongoing which debate to of hasby my not previously the (except former beendone knowledge, Medve-Bálint and best the To that. influence may that factors the and Euroregions, of performance and function governments in local political organizations,cross-border understanding andbetter of the on stock of literature in-depthborderlands by providing local of knowledge rolethe of members. its by evaluation internal in well performing for chances the enhancing thereby capital, social within-groupbe social not conduciveforas suchwouldcapital creation the ofbetween-group of existence believe the thereisreason that to no However, maybeslower. social capital by furthered is social between-group within-group capital process whereby the differences), language or unfavorable politico-administrative (e.g. combinationspreconditions of cooperation universe of cases (allEuroregions) as institutionalizedwell as to forms of cross-border between sub-national the for be valid to be expected can results the results, the of generalizability the Regarding units in relevance andpolicy toliterature Contribution other parts of the world. For cases with other The dissertation is also relevant for researchers interested in domestic inter-municipal in domestic interested researchers for relevant is also The dissertation In addition to the arguments outlined above, the dissertation contributes to the growing 241 CEU eTD Collection structures. cooperation for function-specific instancecompare useof bilateral partnerships or the to these cross-borderpurpose cooperationas bodies referredto Euroregions inthe dissertation, and discussions and reflections stimulate in conclusions can and casestudies the involvement overall Euroregions, on their own policy-makers. locally,these motivationsFor local beupto involved would governmentsorconsidering and expectationsas to the engagement. Whether this wouldjustify a more uniform system fromor itis good to tailor the kindpatterns different very show cases from six data empirical the Euroregions, mechanisms and of all- funding between relation the on depth into going not While activities. and motivations is if well-functioning membernetwork loose the organizations and thereis between a misfit legalthe form European Grouping of CooperationTerritorial is inunlikely itself leadto to support for that instance, researchsuggests cross-borderintegration. the For promote further (Euroregions and their members presentations at assembly meetings of Hídver of meetings assembly at presentations from theAustrian-German case studies were presented at the University of Salzburg on November 15,2012, and opportunities to summarize my research findings to Norwegian,Swedish, Hungarian and Slovak stakeholders.The findings organized astudy tour tovisit theHungarian-Slovak borderarea. Within theframework ofvisit that I had several December 14, 2011, Igavepresentation a to members of the VarmOst Euroregion inKarlstad, Sweden, which subsequently 112 Dissemination of early findings to some of theEuroregions studied in the dissertation generated much interest.On Finally, in terms of policy practice, the findings are relevant both at the local local level both at the relevant are findings the practice, in terms of policy Finally, 112 Ę and Ister-Granum are planned for spring 2013. spring for planned are Ister-Granum and ) and for national and European for) and national policymakers seeking European and to 242 CEU eTD Collection than five yearsthan the five before start of thedissertation project. Europe, andthe excludeslist therefore macro-regions aswell asEuroregions formalizedless morecountriesin toaborderintwo or close actors,including privateand located non-profit as defined formalized cooperation initiativebetween sub-national authorities, potentially Name Euroregions and countrywere of that considered for case selection. Euroregionswere Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea 8 Irish Central Border Area Network 38 - ICBAN North West Region Cross Border 37 Group GB/IE North West Europe Euroregion 36 Tatry SK/PL Euroregion Beskidy-Beskydy 35 PL/CZ/SK Euroregion Bile-Biele-Karpaty34 CZ/SK AT/CZ/SK Euregio 33 Weinviertel-Sudmahren/West-Slovakia Euregio Silva Nortica32 AT/CZ Sumava AT/CZ/DE Euregio Bayerischer 31 Wald-Bohmerwald- Euregio Egrensis 30 Euroregion Erzgebirge Krusnohori 29 DE/CZ Euroregion Elbe/Labe DE, 29 CZ CZ/PL Euregion Tesinske Slezsko - Slask27 Cieszynski Euroregion Silesia CZ PL 26 Euroregion Praded - Pradziad 25 CZ/PL Euroregion Glacensis CZ, PL 24 Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa 23 DE/CZ/PL Euroregion Spree-Neisse-Bober DE 22 PL Pro DE Europa Viadrina Euroregion PL 21 Euroregion Bug 20 PL/BY/UA Euroregion Puszcza Bialowieska PL BY 19 Central and Eastern Europe Arko Cooperation SE 18 NO Sonderjylland-Slesvig DE 17 DK Fehmarnbelt region DE 16 DK Euroregion Pomerania DE PL 15 BY/LT/PL/RU Euroregion Nemunas 14 -Niemen-Hemah Euroregion Sesupe LT PL RU 13 Euroregion Saule 12 LT/LV/RU/SE LV LT Euroregion Country of 11 Lakes - Ezeru Zeme Euregio BY Pskov-Livonia EE LV 10 RU Skargardssamarbetet ('Archipelago') SE 9 FI Euregio Helsinki-Tallinn FI 8 EE Tornedalsradet FI 7 SE Nordkalottrådet FI NO 6 SE Kvarkenradet 5 FI/SE Mittnorden FI NO SE 4 3 GrensekomiteenØstfold – Värmland SE NO NO SE Gränskommitten Østfold 2 –Bohuslan-Dalsland Oresundskomiten SE 1 DK A NNEX A – L IST OF 243 8 Euroregion Siret-Prut-Nistru80 MD/RO South WestEurope Euroregion Lower Danube MD/RO/UA 79 EuroregionDanube 21 BG/RO/SRB Euroregion Middle Danube-Iron Gates78 + Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza Euroregion 77 HU/RO Zemplen Euroregion 76 HU/SK Hajdu-Bihar-Bihor Euroregio 75 HU/SK HU/SK Euroregion Sajo - Rima - Slaná 74 - Rimava Ipoly Euroregion 73 HU/SK Euroregion Ipel 72 HU/SK Euroregio Neogradiensis 71 HU/SK Duna/Hídver 70 Ister-Granum Euroregio 69 HU/SK Duna-videk Euroregio HU/SK Euroregion Podunajsky Trojspolok 68 / Harmas Council (West-Pannon Region') HU/AT Hungarian-Austrian Cross-border 67 Regional Euregio Steiermark - Slowenien AT SI 66 Tirol Europaregion AT/IT 65 Inn-Salzach-Euregio 64 AT/DE/HU AT/DE Traunstein Euregio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener 63 Land- Euregio Inntal 62 AT/DE Euregio AT Zugspitze-Wetterstein-Karwendel 61 Euregio Via Salina 60 AT DE Hochrheinkommission 59 CH/DE Region Insubrica 58 CH/IT IT/FR Bernard conseil Valais-Valee d'aoste du 57 Grand St. L’Espace Mont-Blanc 56 CH/IT Conference des Hautes Vallees FR/IT 55 IT/FR Conference des Alpes franco-italiennes54 CAFI, Portugal-Galicia ES/PT Communidade de Trabalho Regiao 83 Norte de Euroregion Euskadi-Navarre-Aquatiaine 82 ES/FR Pyrenees Mediterranean Euroregion ES/FR 81 Alpes andDanubeArea Alpes Conseil du Leman 53 CH/FR geneve region rhone alpes CH/FR Comite regional franco-genevois-canton 52 de CH/DE/FR Euroregion Oberrhein (Trirhena plus51 Pamina) Euregio TriRhena 50 CH/DE/FR PAMINA DE/FR 49 E UROREGIONS Ę Euroregion CEU eTD Collection 48 Euregio Euregio SaarLorLuxRhein DE/FR/LU 48 Euregio Maas-Rhein 47 BE/DE/NL Euregio Rhein-Maas 46 Nord DE NL Euregio Rhein-Waal DE 45 NL EUREGIO DE/NL 44 Ems Dollart Region43 DE/NL Scheldemond 42 BE/FR/NL Lille Eurometropole franco-belge FR/BE 41 Transmanche Euroregion BE/FR/UK 40 East Border Region Committees39 GB/IE GB/IE 244 1 Euroregion Evros 91 - Meric - Maritsa Euroregion Delta BG/TR/GR- Rhodopi90 BG/GR Euroregion Nestos-Mesta89 BG/GR Euroregion Morava-Pcinja-Struma 88 BG/MK/SRB South East Europe ES/PT Comunidad de Trabajo 87 Extremadure-Alentejo Extremadura - Centro 86 ES/PT Castilla y León - 85 Regiáo Centro ES/PT Castilla y León - Regiáo84 Norte ES/PT CEU eTD Collection Member municipalitiesMember of Ister-Granum Euroregion at the Hungarian-Slovak border. municipalities of Member Hídver A NNEX Ę Euroregion border. at the Hungarian-Slovak B – M 245 APS OFCASES APS CEU eTD Collection Swedish-Norwegian border. municipalitiesMember of Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfold (Euroregion at VarmOst) the border. Swedish-Norwegian at the municipalitiesMember of Gränskommitten Østfold -Bohuslän-Dalsland, Euroregion ‘OstBoh 246 CEU eTD Collection Membermunicipalities of Euroregion Inntal-C-K-M at the Austrian-German border. municipalitiesMember of Euroregion atSalzburg-BL-T Austrian-German the border. 247 CEU eTD Collection Group A: Members of Euroregionsthe under study (core interviewswith mayors and managers) 5 József Bérces, Ister-Granum EGTC: Csolnok, Tibor Mayor, Pallagi, Hungary,A50 Ister-Granum 2010.08.04EGTC: Bajna, Mayor Károly (phone), Kollár, A49 Hungary, Ister-Granum 2010.08.03 EGTC: Sárisáp: Mária (phone), Nagy, A48 Hungary,Ister-Granum 2010.08.03EGTC: Piliscsév, JózsefMayor (phone),Pósfai, A47 Ister-GranumHungary, EGTC: 2010.08.02 Úny, Imre Mayor Muszela,(email), A46 Ister-GranumHungary, EGTC: 2010.07.28 Epöl, Mayor Zoltán Tóth,(phone), A45 Ister-GranumHungary, 2010.07.26EGTC: Bajót, Mayor Kurt (phone), Svensson, A44 Hungary, OstBoh: 2010.07.20 Amal, Per-KristianMayor, Dahl,Sweden, A43 OstBoh: 2010.07.07 Halden, Mayor, KjellNorway, A42 Lökke,2010.07.07, 2012.05.15 OstBoh: Råde, Roland Mayor,A41 Karlsson, Norway, OstBoh: 2010.07.06 Kenneth Lysekil, Carlsson, A40 MayorOstBoh: Färgelanda, Mayor Ronnie Sweden,Brorsson, A39 2010.07.02OstBoh: Strömstad, Mayor Alf Sweden, A38 Sifversson, 2010.06.30 OstBoh: Lars-Åke Munkedal, Gustavsson, A37 Mayor, OstBoh: Sweden, Orust, Martin 2010.06.29Mayor Carling, Sweden,A36 2010.06.29 OstBoh: Dals-Ed, Robert Mayor, Svensson, Sweden, A35 2010.06.29OstBoh: Mellerud, Mayor, Mats SwedenAbrahamsson, A34 , 2010.06.28 OstBoh: Sotenäs, Clas-Åke Mayor, Sörkvist, Sweden,A33 2010.06.28 OstBoh: Tanum, Inger Mayor, Skartlien, Sweden,A32 2010.06.24 OstBoh: Rygge, Paul-Erik Mayor, Krogsvold, OstBoh Norway,A31 and 2010.06.24 2010.06.24 VarmOst: Moss, Mayor, ToreNorwa, A30 Johansson, OstBoh Per Eriksson, and A29 OstBoh VarmOst:and VarmOst: Aremark, Gerg-Inge Bengtsfors, 2010.06.24Andersson,Mayor, A28 Mayor,OstBoh: Sweden, 2010.06.23 Norway,Trollhättan, Mayor, Sture Sweden, A27 Svennberg,2010.06.23 OstBoh: Lars-Goran Uddevalla, Ljunggren, A26 Mayor,OstBoh: Sweden,Vänersborg, Jan 2010.06.22Mayor, Gunnarsson, Sweden,A25 OstBoh: 2010.06.22 Uddevalla, Deputy Lars Mayor, Braekke, A24 Sweden, OstBoh: 2010.06.22 Staff member, Eivind Norway,NormanA23 2010.06.21 Borge, OstBoh: József Hvaler,Miskolczi, A22 Ister-GranumMayor, EGTC: Norway, Nyergesújfalu, 2010.06.20Mayor, A21 Hungary, 2010.08.04 2 Péter Lévai, Hidver Janos Tóth, A20 Ister-Granum EGTC: Leányvár, Istvan Mayor, Hungary,A19 Ferencsik, 2010.06.16 Ister-Granum: manager, József Hungary,Petrik, A18 Ister-Granum 2010.06.08 EGTC: Tokodaltáró, István Mayor, Török, A17 Hungary, Ister-Granum 2010.06.07 EGTC: Lábatlan, Tamás Mayor, Meggyes, A16 Hungary, Ister-Granum 2010.06.03 EGTC: Esztergom, Béla Mayor*, Horváth, A15 Hungary, Ister-Granum 2010.06.03 EGTC: Neszmély, János Mayor, Tittmann, A14 Hungary, Ister-Granum 2010.06.03 EGTC: Dorog, Lajos Mayor, Szenes, Hungary,A13 Ister-Granum 2010.05.19 EGTC: Tát, Lajos Mayor, Novák, A12 Hungary, Ister-Granum 2010.05.19 EGTC: Dömös, László Mayor, Benkovics, Hungary,A11 Ister-Granum 2010.05.19 EGTC: Pilismarót, Mayor, A10 Hungary, 2010.05.19 A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 Nr A52 Tibor Havrancsik, 2010.08.24 Mayor Hungary, (phone), Tibor Havrancsik, EGTC: Mogyorósbánya, Ister-Granum A52 5 Lukács Karánsebesy, Hidver A51 Name, Organization &Title, Country,Date Tamás Steiner, Ister-Granum EGTC: Dág, Mayor, Hungary, 2010.05.18 József Bánhidi, Ister-Granum EGTC: Annavölgy, Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.09 Murczin,Kálmán Máriahalom,Ister-GranumEGTC:Mayor,Hungary, 2010.04.08 Bódis Jánosné, Hidver János Czermann, Ister-Granum EGTC: Sütt Mihály Pánczél, Ister-Granum EGTC: Tokod,Mayor, Hungary,2010.03.11 WalterJ. Mayr, Inntal-C-K-M: Chair, Austria, 2009.08.03, 2012.06.25 (phone) Rudolf Szép, Ister-Granum: Štúrovo/Parkany, deputy mayor, Slovakia, 2009.07.23 Yvonne Samuelsson, OstBoh: Manager, Sweden, 2009.06.26, 2010.06.21, 2012.06.11 A Ę : Dunaalmás: Mayor (phone), Hungary, 2010/7/26 NNEX Ę : Kocs, Hungary, Mayor, 2010.04.08 Ę : Almásfüzit C – L IST OF INTERVIEWEES IST OF Ę , Mayor, Hungary, 2010.08.12 Ę , Mayor, Hungary,2010.03.16 248 , Sweden,, 2010.07.02 CEU eTD Collection 18 Eva A108 Tor Melvold, VarmOst: Trögstad, Mayor, A107 Norway, 2011.12.14 Herland, Knut Jørgen, A106 ordfører, VarmOst: 2011.11.25 Per-Inge Eidsberg, Liden,Mayor VarmOst: (phone), Sweden, A105 Norway 2011.11.11 Trygve Westgaard, VarmOst: Askim, Mayor A104 Norway, 2011.11.09 Stein Erik Lauvås (vice ordförande), VarmOst: Marker,A103 Mayor, Norway, 2011.11.09 Nils Nilssen, VarmOst: Römskog, Mayor, A102 Norway, 2011.11.09 11 Britt Gulbrandsen VarmOst: Spydeberg, A101 Mayor (phone) Daniel Bäckström, VarmOst: Chair and Mayor of A100 TorbjörnSäffle, Sweden, Bood,2011.11.03, 2012.06.29 VarmOst: Grums, Mayor, A99 Sweden, Katarina 2011.10.31 Johannesson, VarmOst: Årjäng, Sweden, A98 2011.10.31 A97 Svein Svein Olav Agnalt, VarmOst: Skiptvet, Mayor (phone) A97 Håvard Jensen, VarmOst: Hoböl, Mayor (email), A96 Alf Norway, Johansen, 2011.10.20 VarmOst: manager, Norway, A95 2011.10.12, Vidar Östenby,2012.06.29 VarmOst: former manager, A94 Norway, 2011.10.05 9 Pál Banai Tóth, Hídver mayor, Monika 2011.07.28 Slovakia, Gora, A93EGTC: Ister-Granum Pavlová/Garampald, A92 Pál Bakonyi, Ister-Granum EGTC: Želiezovce/Zseliz, Mayor, A91 Slovakia, 2011.07.28 9 Ervin Varga, Hídver Jan A90 Teglas, Ister-Granum EGTC: Strekov/Kurt, mayor Zuzana A89 Slovakia, Matuskova,2011.07.27 Ister-Granum EGTC: Nana, mayor, KarolA88 Slovakia, Drapak, 2011.07.27 ster-Granum EGTC: Mužla/Muzsla, mayor, Arnold A87 Slovakia, Azsvald, 2011.07.27 Ister-Granum EGTC: Ipelsky Sokolec/Ipolyszakallas, Peter A86 mayor, Schroder, Slovakia, 2011.07.27 Salzburg-BL-T: Oberndorf bei Salzburg, A85 Hans , MayorAustria, Eschlberger, 2011.05.13 Salzburg-BL-T: A84 Germany, Ainring, 2011.05.13 Mayor Stefan Pfisterer, Salzburg-BL-T: Wirtschaftskammer Salzburg, Responsible for contacts A83 with Christian the , Moller, Salzburg-BL-T: A82 Wirtschaftskammer, Josef 2011.05.12 international Austria Flatscher, contacts Salzburg-BL-T: Germany, WalterA81 Freilassing,Weiskopf, 2011.05.12 Inntal-C-K-M: Mayor Managing Director, Austria, 2011.05.11, Steffen A80 Rubach,2012.06.19 Salzburg-BL-T:(phone) Managing Director, Austria, 2011.05.11, A79 and 2012.05.06 (phone) Gerhard Prentl, Inntal-C-K-M: Landesratsamt Rosenheim, Leader of A78 the Christian department ofBidner, economic Inntal-C-K-M, Bezirkshauptmannschaft, Austria,A77 Josef 2011.05.10 Dillersberger, Inntal-C-K-M: Schwoich, A76 MayorAustria, Wolfgang Berthaler,2011.05.09 Inntal-C-K-M: Flintsbach, Mayor, Bruno A75 Germany, Astleitner, 2011.05.09Inntal-C-K-M: Wirtschafskammer Tirol: Managing Eva Hídver Varju, director,A74 Austria, 2011.05.09 A73 Sara Lucza, Hídver A72 A71 Ladislav Forró, Hídver Ladislav A71 7 János Szigeti, Ister-Granum EGTC and Hídver A70 6 Olga Szabó, Hídver A69 A68 Jozsef Jozsef Sipos, Hídver A68 A67 A67 Stefan Edes, Hídver Anna A66 Mormarova, Ister-Granum EGTC: Male Kosihy/Ipolykiskeszi, A65 mayor, Etelka Michlian,Slovakia, 2011.03.21Ister-Granum EGTC: Zalaba mayor, AlexanderA64 Slovakia, Hubac, 2011.03.21 Ister-Granum EGTC: Bruty/Bart, Mayor, A63 Slovakia, 2011.03.21 5 Gabriel Duka, Ister-Granum EGTC and Hídver István A58 Domin, Hídver A57 Jan Engsmyr, OstBoh: Sarpsborg, Mayor, EvaNorway,A56 Kristin 2010.12.21 Andersen, OstBoh: Fredrikstad, Mayor, A55 Gyula Norway, Ocskay, 2010.12.21 Ister-Granum: former manager, A54 Lajos Hungary, Gaál, 2010.11.24 Ister-Granum EGTC: Kesztölc, Mayor, A53 Hungary, 2010.10.06 6 Jan Varga, Ister-Granum EGTC: László A62 Magat, Ister-Granum EGTC: Kamenný Most / K Robert A61 Kis, Ister-Granum EGTC: Nova Vieska/Kisújfalu, mayor, Robert A60 Csuda,Slovakia, Ister-Granum 2011.03.07 EGTC: Hronovce/ Lekér, mayor, Slovakia A59 , 2011.03.07 Austria, 2011.05.12 develoment, former manager, Germany,2011.05.11 Slovakia,2011.04.19 ď 2011.02.23 ubomír Púchovský, Ister-Granum EGTC and Ister-Granum ubomír Hídver Púchovský, ý ákváriová, Ister-Granum: Bény/Bí Ę Ę : Zlatná na Ostrove/ Csallóközaranyos, Mayor, Mayor, : Zlatná na 2011.04.20 Csallóközaranyos, Ostrove/ Slovakia, Ę Ę Ę : Chotin/Hetény, Mayor Slovakia, 2011.04.20 Ę : Patince/ Pat Mayor, Slovakia, 2011.04.19, 2012.06.11 (email) : Modrany/Madar, Mayor, Slovakia, 2011.04.19 : Marcelová/Marcelhaza, Mayor, Slovakia, 2011.07.27 : Bátorove Kosihy/Bátorkeszi, Mayor, : 2011.04.19 Slovakia, Bátorove Kosihy/Bátorkeszi, Ę Ę : Iza/Izsa, Mayor, Slovakia, 2011.02.23 Ę : Vrbová nad Váhom/ 2011.04.20 Mayor, Slovakia, Vágfüzes, : Mo þ a/Dunamocs, Mayor, Slovakia, 2011.07.28 ý ata/Csata, Mayor, Slovakia, 2011.03.07 Ė a, Mayor (phone), Slovakia, 5.6.2012 249 Ę Ę : Bú : Kravany nad Dunajom/Karva, Mayor Slovakia þ /Bucs, Mayor Slovakia, 2011.04.19 Ę : Radvan nad Dunajom/Dunaaradvány, Mayor : Radvan nad Dunajom/Dunaaradvány, Ę hídgyarmat, mayor, Slovakia, 2011.03.07 Norway Norway 2011.11.08 2011.10.21 CEU eTD Collection Group B. Informants (interviews that informed the context of the study) the of context the informed that (interviews B. Informants Group 18 László Petrovics, Ister-Granum: Nagymaros, Mayor A138 (phone), Hungary, 6/25/2012 17 Irma Gembolya, Ister-Granum: A137 Per Vilmosne Sinko, Ister-Granum: Zebegeny, Mayor, A136 Hungary, 6/19/2012 Zoltán Remitzky, Ister-Granum: Szob, Mayor, A135 Hungary, 6/18/2012 Gyuláné Antal, Ister-Granum Nagybörzsöny, A134 Hungary, 6/18/2012 Laszlo Kiss, Ister-Granum: Letkés, A133 Mayor János Bedros, Ister-Granum: Kemence, Mayor, A132 Hungary, 6/18/2012 Ferenc Rományik, Ister-Granum: Ipolydamásd, MayorA131 (phone), Hungary,6/18/2012 Emmerich Riesner, Salzburg-BL-T, deputy chair A130 (phone), Austria, 6/11/2012 Bethlen Farkas, Ister-Granum: Ver A129 Irena Skladanová, Ister-Granum: A128 Ipolybél/Bielovce, 6/10/2012 Ján Mayor Józsa, (phone), Ister-Granum: SlovakiaIpolyszalka/Salka, A127 Slovakia, 6/9/2012 Ján Elzer, Ister-Granum: Garamkövesd/Kamenica nad/Hronom, MayorA126 (phone), Slovakia 6/9/2012 Zoltán Bacsa, Ister-Granum: Kisölved/Malé Ludince, A125 Mayor (phone), Slovakia, 6/7/2012 14 Katarína Grófová, Ister-Granum: Kisgyarmat/Sikeni A124 Zoltán Kanizsay, Ister-Granum, Ipolytölgyes, A123 Hungary, 6/6/2012 Jan Oravec, Chair, Ister-Granum, A122 Slovakia, 6/4/2012 Lendvai József János, Ister-Granum: Pilisszentkereszt A121 Hungary, 6/4/2012 Rita Pásztorová, Ister-Granum: Kicsind/Malá nad/Hronom, A120 Mayor, Slovakia, 6/4/2012 Eva Tetenyi, Deputy Chair, Ister-Granum, A119 Hungary, 5/31/2012 Peter Nagy, Manager, Ister-Granum, A118 Hungary, 5/31/2012 György Illés, Ister-Granum: Pilisszentlászló, Mayor A117 (phone), Hungary, 5/11/2012 Beata Székelyová, Ister-Granum: Sárkányfalva/Šarkan, MayorA116 (phone), Slovakia, 5/10/2012 15 Ing. A115 Mgr. Štefan Kuczman, Ister-Granum: A114 Lontó/Lontov, 5/10/2012 Mayor Gabriel (phone), Mihalik, SlovakiaIster-Granum: Köbölkút/Gbelce, A113 Slovakia, 5/10/2012 Oto Mészáros, Ister-Granum: Ipolypásztó/Pastovce, Mayor A112 (phone), Slovakia, 5.9.2012 Tibor Nagy, Ister-Granum: Ebed/Obid,A111 Mayor 5.9.2012 (phone), Slovakia 10 Alexander Mezei, Ister-Granum: Leléd/Le A110 Iren Mikus, Ister-Granum: Érsekkéty/Ket, Mayor A109 (phone), Slovakia, 5.7.2012 B25 B24 B23 B22 B21 B20 B19 B18 B17 B16 B15 B14 B13 B12 B11 B10 B9 B8 B7 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 Pál Pogrányi, Dunaszentmiklós: Mayor (phone), Hungary, 2010.07.26 Hungary, (phone), Mayor Dunaszentmiklós: Pogrányi, Pál Alajos Valter, Bokod: Mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.07.22 Lajos Pintér, Bakonyszombathely: Mayor(phone), Hungary,2010.07.20 László Rohonczi, Ete: Mayor(email), Hungary,2010.06.30 János Zatykó, Komárom: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.06.16 the the Gy of (Office Eurorégió Duna-vidék Hármas and Pannonia West ofthe Secretariat Lakatos-Novak, Eva György Ácsteszér:Lunk, Mayor, Hungary, 2010.06.10 Kisbér: Mayor,Dr. ErzsébetHungary, Udvardi, 2010.06.07 Sándor Nagy, Vértessz Ferenc Kiss, Köml Oszkár Harmados, Vértestolna: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.05.18 Imre Pet Gusztáv Imre Takács,Császár: Mayor, Hungary,2010.04.22 Attiláné Szücs, Dad: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.22 Ferenc Mezei, Szárliget: Mayor (in person*), Hungary, 2010.04.22 György Nagy, Szomor: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.12 István Maszlavér, Naszály: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.12 Klára Horváth, Bábolna: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.09 Lajos Futó, Tárkány: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.09 István Aranyosi, Csém: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.09 István Weilandits, Bakonysárkány: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.08 István György, 2010.04.08 Kerékteleki: Mayor, Hungary József Áy, Mocsa:Mayor, Hungary, 2010.04.08 Imre Csöbönyei, Acs, Mayor, Hungary, 2010.03.11 GáborRajnai, Oroszlány: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.0816 ď udovít Nagy Ister-Granum: Oroszka/Pohronský Ruskov, Mayor 5/10/2012 (phone), Slovakia Ę r-Moson-Sopron Region): official, Hungary, 2010.06.16 Ę cz, Bana: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.05.07 Ę d: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.05.18 ĘOĘ s: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.05.18 Ę Ę ce, Pilisszentlászló, Hungary, 6/11/2012 csény Đ á, Slovakia, 5.7.2012 250 þ ka, Mayor (phone), Slovakia, Hungary, 6/21/2012 Hungary, 6/18/2012 6/7/2012 CEU eTD Collection *Questions answered first by a civil servant andsubsequently approved by the respondent. B66 B65 B64 B63 B62 B61 B60 B59 B58 B57 B56 B55 B54 B53 B52 B51 B50 B49 B48 B47 B46 B45 B44 B43 B42 B41 B40 B39 B38 B37 B36 B35 B34 B33 B32 B31 B30 B29 B28 B27 B26 Maria Takatsne Tenki,Advisor tothe City ofCouncil Szombathely,Hungary, 2012.01.13 2011.11.28 Sweden, Director, Värmland): (Länsstyrelsen Secretariat Technical Joint Interreg Dagerhorn, Magnus Regions (AEBR): Värmland representative,Sweden, 2011.11.17 Paul Nemes,Värmland County: international strategic analyst; the Association of BorderEuropean WalterScherrer, University of Salzburg: expert on regional development, Austria, 2011.05.12 Christian Dirninger, University of Salzburg, Expert on regional economic history,Austria, 2011.05.12 Manuela Brockler, Interreg Joint Technical Secretariat: Managing Director, Austria, 2011.05.12 2010.07.22 Hungary, (phone), Bakonybánk: Major, László 2010.06.21 Anette Olofsson,Interrreg/European Territorial Cooperation Program: staff member, Sweden, Sweden, 2010.06.21 Bo Hamra, Interreg/European Territorial CooperationProgram: Manager, OstBoh: former manager, TiborSchunder,, Baj: ( phone), Hungary, 2010.06.10 2010.02.10 Imre Székely, RegionalDevelopment Council of the Gyor-Moson-Sopron County: Director, Hungary, 2009.12.10 Lyubashenko,Igor PAUCI Polish-Ukrainian Cooperation Foundation: ResearchFellow, Poland 2009.07.23 Anders Olshov,Slovakia, Øresundsinstituttet (think tank): Manager, member, Sweden, 2009.08.31staff (Štúrovo): Agency Development Regional Jenei, Sarolta Istvan Bihari,Sopron-FertIstvan 2007-2013, (VATI Kht), Hungary, 2009.06.09 Program Cooperation Cross-border Austria-Hungary Secretariat, Technical Joint Horváth, Csaba Andrea Frauschiel, Eisenstadt: Mayor, Austria, 2009.06.09 2007-2013, (VATI Kht.): manager, Hungary,2009.06.09 Yvonne Brodda,Joint Technical Secretariat, Austria-Hungary Cross-border CooperationProgram Urban and Planning): manager, Hungary,2009.05.14 Development Regional for Company Nonprofit (Public Hungary VATI Barányi, András Márta Regner, Europrosperitas 2010 Foundation: staff member, Hungary, 2009.05.07 Brigitta Lászlo, Carpathian: manager,Hungary, 2009.04.27 József Michl, Tata: Mayor,Hungary, 2010.08.30 BélaCsabán, Tardos: Mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.08.23 2010.08.18 Hungary, (phone), Mayor Bársonyos: Lamanda, Károlyné Attila Pécsvárady, Kisigmánd: Mayor (phone), Hungary, 2010.08.17 József Hajnal,Vérteskethely: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.08.10 Csaba Schmidt,Tatabánya:Mayor, Hungary, 2010.08.09 Gabriella Menoni,Várgesztes: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.08.09 József Hartdegen, Vértessomló: Mayor, Hungary, 2010.08.09 László Beke, Környe: Mayor*, Hungary, 2010.08.09 Ferencné Szijj, Nagyigmánd: (phone), Hungary, 2010.08.04 János Jelli, Tarján: Mayor (phone), Hungary, 2010.08.04 József Pölöskei,Réde: (phone), Mayor Hungary, 2010.08.03 Antal Mór,Aka: mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.08.03 Miklós Sógorka, Súr: Mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.08.02 László Kálmán, Szákszend: Mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.08.02 Antal Hanig, Csatka: Mayor(phone),Hungary, 2010.08.02 Zoltán Grúber, Kecskéd: Mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.08.02 János Dékán, Héreg: Mayor(phone), Hungary, 2010.07.30 2010.07.27 Hungary, (phone), Mayor Gyermely: György, Sáros, Lajos Árvai, Ászár: Mayor (phone), Hungary, 2010.07.27 Ę d micro-region:official,Hungary 2009.06.10, 251 CEU eTD Collection Closed questions (scale 1-5, reasoning around assessment and comments encouraged) andcomments assessment around reasoning 1-5, (scale questions Closed C1. Translation into English of the Swedish questionnaire for the VarmOst Euroregion for theVarmOst questionnaire Swedish Englishofthe into Translation C1. samples below are abridged The German. versionsand withHungarian simplifiedSwedish, in formatting, administered were Both translated Euroregions. into English. investigated six ofthe managers governments or other memberorganizations, second oflocal the wasfor usedfollow-up interviewswith representatives Chairs with and interviews for used was one first The used. were guides interview standardized Two Open-ended questions I: Part ON THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROREGION General information: location, permission to use interview data, interviewee x x x x x x x x x cooperation is within the following areas In order toenable international comparison, Ialso ask you toassess how cross-borderimportant VarmOst gives priority to six policy areas. How important do you consider these to be? to: in relation Euroregion the in conflicts ofinterest absence or ofpresence importance the Assess network? cooperation cross-border the in influence/power greatest the have yousay would actor) (which Who how? and projects, Can you describe the decision-making process in process decision-making the youdescribe Can years? next the Do you think that the local government’s involvement in Haveyou takenpart in any meeting or activity arranged by What activities do you know about that have been carried out by out carried been have that about know you do activities What joining, expectations, activities etc.) What doyou know thelocalabout government’s early membership in o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o A NNEX Service provision Service Emergency/fire Higher education education secondary and First Environment Culture development Competence development sector/business Economic care Health obstacles Border of experience &exchange Information Infrastructre Swedishversus Norwegian municipalities administrative versus political actors parties municipalities governed by partiesleft-leaning versus municipalities governed by right-leaning small municipalities versus big municipalities border the from far versus close municipalities resources Get Make work flow smoothly projects in part Take ofideas Generation D – S AMPLE OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES OFINTERVIEW AMPLE 252 Gränskommitten Gränskommitten Gränskommitten Gränskommitten ? Who decides on strategy and strategy on decides ? Who Gränskommitten will increase or decrease in decrease or increase will in the past two years? in the past two years? ? (Reasons for ? (Reasons CEU eTD Collection EUROREGION Part II:ONCROSS-BORDER COOPERATION OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE A listoflocalgovernments members in the Euroregion contact in = never (-) staff (4) = at least yearly you oryour staff talk/meet/or communicate in writing with the local governmentleader or leader its orstaff its (3) = at least every 6 months youoryour staff talk/meet/or communicate inwriting withthe local government staff its (2) = at least monthly you oryour staff talk/meet/orcommunicate in writing with the local government leader staff its or staff) (1) = administrative at or least weekly (political you or your staff contact in talk/meet/orare you communicatewhich with in writing with governments the local local4 for governmentor 2, 3 1, leaderAdd or Fill in the frequency of contacts with other local governments Part IV:Communication mapping COOPERATION SUPPORT FOR CROSS-BORDER III: ON Part x x x x x Gränskommitten? whatotherIn contexts local isthe government interacting cross-borderthanwithin theframework of years ago. years five was it how with situation the compare respectively, contacts cross-border and domestic Regarding government. local ofthe name the after that add please name, by mayor the know you If What is reasoningaroundassessmentencouraged) yourIn opinion, how do inhabitantsmuch the of local governmentthe ingeneraltrust (scale1-8, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o y Norway/Sweden Has the municipality taken part in externally financed (i.e. EU) projectswith partners from cooperation cross-border sector Business Civil society cross-bordercooperation delivery onservice cooperation municipal International Creationof joint European identity Creationof joint regional identity Prevent conflicts Administration migration cross-border & Commuting The same The Somewhat more contacts contacts more Much business and other private enterprises on the other side of the border? ofthe side other the on enterprises private other and business border? ofthe side other the on governments national border? ofthe side other the on authorities local border? ofthe side other the on people enterprises? private other and business national government? local authorities? each other? cooperation? cross-border for importance democracy’s local on cooperation? cross-border of quality and scope the for importance government’s national The cooperation? cross-border of quality and scope the for importance EU’s our opinion about opinion our ? 253 CEU eTD Collection Section A: Internal policy-decision making policy-decision A:Internal Section General information: name, title, position since, permission C.2. Translation into English of Swedishthe follow-up questionnaire with Managers and Chairs PART VI: ON THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ( Part V(if time allows) x x x x x What is the state of entrepreneurship and business in thesettlement? in business and of entrepreneurship the state is What How would you characterize the economicsituation of the inhabitants? How would you characterize the financial position of the government?local residents of theØstfold region than with residents in for instance Blekinge county.” Do you agree with the following statement? Which of the following statements on borders to you agree with (multiple choices allowed) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o very bad very bad average good rather good very poor struggling average doing ratherwell doing well position bad very less than average position average position strong position very strong position false false rather rathertrue true No people should be separated because of borders because of borders be separated should culture asimilar share and language similar a speak who No people of borders. rid fully get ever we can think I don’t but good, is passport a without Travel same be the will everyone and disappear will cultures distinctive that arisk is there borders, no are there If Borders are impediments foreconomic growth great. It is not realistic to expect too muchcooperation across borders. The obstacles aresimply too In a modern Europe there shouldbe bordersno know Don’t contacts fewer Much Somewhat fewercontacts 254 “The residents herehavemore within common the if time allows ) CEU eTD Collection border cooperation forums, non-governmental organizations, etc). actorsother (e.g. regionalornationalgovernmentagencies, regional andnational governments, cross- other actors. He/she was ofthe the aim section toldthat was moreto learn onhow Euroregionthe relates tosuch The intervieweewas information given onhow dissertationthe interprets the essenceof Euroregions as policy Section C: Relations with other policy actors referred to in shorthand as that of a seismograph, a loudspeaker and a window display. Information waswith shared theinterviewee onhow can takeEuroregions ondifferent roles, which canbe Section B: Examples of work in practice to clarify or further elaborate onspecific issues within thefollowingareas. on thespecific Euroregion. Depending on the specificities of the Euroregion in question, he/she was thenasked The intervieweewas asummary given of research findings from thecomparative research andfrom the research x x x x x x x x x x Other institutions important for your Euroregional work Euroregional your for important institutions Other forums Cross-border government / the EuropeanUnion /other actors: How youdo represent the Euroregion towards the local population /tourists / investorsactivities. / thenational such require typically would issues what and work ofsuch examples any yougive can – level European and national onregional, decision-makers influence to youattempt If decide to focus onthis issue? Did it involve the cooperation ordecisions of other institutions? Many mentionedmembers xxas importantan activity carried outEuroreigon, byyour why youdid them. with If you cooperate withNGOs or the business sector, give examples onwhat issues youwould cooperate On your responsibilities Euroregion): your in any are there (if groups working On committee: executive the On assembly the On o o o o o Provide contact persons if possible if persons contact Provide Who is usually responsible forinitiating and/or maintaining contacts with these institutions? NGOs) regional, national, Europeanand international level, also private actors suchas business and List institutions that you considervery important foryour Euroregional work (e.g. at local, institutions? those with working for reasons the are What networks? those in municipality) your (e.g. institution oranother Euroregion the represent you Do relevance? What other networks/institutions do you know of dealthat primarily issues of cross-border 255 Euroregion+ Chiemsee-Kaisergebirge-Mangfalltal and Euregio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein. 2 2008) (Eurostat,NUTS Regional GDP USD) in GDP(IMF 2010, National State form since Border existing language Working population 2010 Approximate 2011 governments in Local Founded Characteristics ***** ****Norwegian Statistical Office, data for Østfold (NUTSIII) in ***AUGE=Austria and Germany andNorway **SENO=Sweden *HUSK=Hungary and Slovakia +Full name of cases: Ister-Granum EGTC, Hídver Based on regional membership, some local governments are not members. not are governments local some membership, on regional Based Slovensko 11,400 9,500 Západné Közép-Dunántúl: 1919 (except 1938- 2003 Euroregion HU: 14,808, SK: Slovak (rarely) Ister-Granum 2008 EGTC (dominant), Hungarian (HUSK*) 175,000 unitary CEU eTD Collection 17,889 1944) 82 A NNEX Slovensko 11,400 9,500 Západné Közép-Dunántúl: Hungarian (dominant), 1919 (except 1938- Slovak (frequently) 1999 Association 2003 Euroregion HU: 14,808, SK: E (HUSK) Hídver unitary 17,889 30,000 1944) 18 – Ę Tarsulas, Gränskommitten Østfold -Bohuslän-Dalsland, Grensekomiteen Värmland-Østfold , Euregio Inntal- O Ę VERVIEW OF CASES VERVIEW 2007, 272883 NOK in 2007, converted to EUR according exchangeto rateDec 3, 2012. (dissolved union) SE: 61,098, NO: 31,100, Østfold Mellansverige: 32,755 **** SE31/Norra (dominant), 1751, 1905 Norwegian (SENO**) 470,000 Swedish OstBoh unitary 96,591 22 1980 256 : KEYCHARACTERISTICS (dissolved union) SE: 61,098, NO: 31,100, Østfold Mellansverige: 32,755 **** SE31/Norra (dominant), 1751, 1905 Norwegian VarmOst (SENO) 210,000 Swedish unitary 96,591 15 1990 Oberbayern:37,700 , Ried), except 1938- Salzburg: 35,200, AU: 50,504, GE: 1813 (Treaty of 630,000***** Tyrol: 32200 (AUGE***) German federal 44,558 Inntal 1945 66 1999 Oberbayern: 37,700, Salzburg: 35,200, AU: 50,504, GE: Munich), except 1816 (Treaty of 800,000***** Tyrol: 32200 1938-1945 German federal 44,558 97 (AUGE) Salzburg 1995 CEU eTD Collection Bache, Ian. 2012. “Multi-level Governance in the European European In Union.” in the “Multi-level Governance 2012. Bache, Ian. 2012. [Bundeskanzleramt]. Chancellery Federal Austrian Aufschnaiter, Ines, Stefanie and Breinlinger,Sylvia“Nordic Peer, Daniel 2008. Schaidinger. Regions,Association Border Commission.European andof 2000. European Anderson, Stanley V. 1967. Anderson, Joan, EgbertWever.2003. “Borders, and border regions andeconomicintegration: Martin.Albrow, “Introduction.” 1990. In ———. 2000. border-focused Joachim.and border- “Explaining cooperation:Blatter, A crossborder 1997. 2006. Krisztina Molnár. Anna and Bartal, Mária, Baron, Field, Stephen, ed.2002. Schuller, Tom John and Baranyi, Béla. 2006.“Euroregions along of the Eastern Borders Hungary:A Question Scale.” of Bavarian Ministry 2012. Interior. of Rosaline.Barbour, 2007. University of Washington Press. Governance http://www.bka.gv.at/site/3499/default.aspx September(accessed 20,2012). Offices EUREGIOs. [RegionalManagement and Euroregions] Author. University of Salzburg. Grenzgemeinden’, Bayerisch-Salzburger the Coursefrom ‘Aspekte Grenzüberschreitender interkommunaler Beziehungen anhand Walking alsinterkommunale Zusammenarbeit: Hallein-Berchtesgaden". Martinos, H. Available at http://www.aebr.net/ (accessed February 8, 2010). Cross-border ThirdEdition Cooperation. One world, ready or not.” Sage Publications. International Sociology external external approach.” September 20,2012). http://www.stmi.bayern.de/buerger/kommunen/zusammenarbeit/detail/17007/ (accessed intermunicipal cooperation]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ResearchQualitative Doing In Jahrhundert. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Baden-Baden: Jahrhundert. Grenzüberschreitenden Nordamerika RegioneninEuropaund Eurorégióban James Wesley 149-162.Aldershot: AshgateScott, Publishing. EU Enlargement, Region Building and Shifting Borders BuildingandShifting Inclusion andExclusion EU Enlargement,Region of , ed. David, ed. Levi-Faur,Oxford: Oxford 628–641. University Press. Entgrenzung Der Staatenwelt?: PolitischeInstitutionenbildung in . Esztergom: Eurohid Alapitvany. Introducing Qualitative Research: Guide AStudent’s to the Craft of Journal ofBorderlandStudies The Nordic Council: A StudyofScandinavian Regionalism , ed.Martin Albrow and King, Elizabeth 3-16.Newbury Parks: Journal of Borderlands Studies . London: SagePublications. Grundlagen der kommunalen Zusammenarbeit R Globalization, Knowledge,Society: Globalization, and Readings from EFERENCES 257 . Texts Prepared by Gabbe, J., Malchus, V., and V., Malchus, J., Gabbe, by Prepared Texts . Convened by Michael Ritter." ObtainedConvened byMichaelRitter." by the Civil kapcsolatiIster-Granum hálókaz 12 (1 & 2). 12 (1 Social Capital -CriticalPerspectives 18(1):27–38. Regionalmanagements und Available at Available The Oxford Handbookof Oxford The . Weltpolitik. im 21. Practical Guide to . Available at . Available Working Paper [Basis for . Seattle: , ed. . CEU eTD Collection Castells, Manuel. 1996. Bundesagentur fürArbeit. Website. 2013. BudapestCity British Research Social and 2010. Economic Council. Website. 2011. Bratislava City Bouwens, Sophie. 2004.“TheDynamics ofCross-Border Labor:from Commuting Dutchto the Burnham, Peter, KarinBurnham, Peter, Lutz, Wyn andGilland ZigLayton-Henry.Grant, 2008. Brunet-Jailly, Borderlands An Emmanuel. 2011."Borders, andIntorudction." Theory: De Blij, andAlexander H.J., B.Murphy. 2003. ‘spaces———. 2004.“From flows’? ‘spaces ofplace’ to of Territorial functional and ———. 2005."The Instrumental Use Conditionality: inof European Union Regionalization the “Between EURequirements,CompetitiveBrusis, andNational Politics 2002. Traditions: Martin. Bourdieu, 1986.“The Pierre. In Forms Capital.”of Borgatti, K S.P., Carley,and 2006. DKrackhardt. “Robustness ofCentrality Measures under Bolgherini, 2011. Silvia. Börzel, Tanja A.1998.“Organizing -On Babylon Differentthe Conceptions of Policy Borgatti, S.P., M.G. Everett, and L.C. Freeman. 2002. “ October 15,2012). Society, andCultureVolume I (accessed January (accessed January 2013). 26, http://budapest.hu/sites/english/Lapok/General-informations-about-Budapest.aspx 23, 2011). (accessed August http://visit.bratislava.sk/en/vismo/dokumenty2.asp?id_org=700014&id=1179&p1=6463 Studies German Meuse-Rhine,the Part of 1960-2000.” EUregio the Methods inPolitics Geopolitics (accessed January 2010). 15, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf 2010. Sociology ofEducation 7th Edition. and RegionalResearch of Urban America.”North and in regions Europe in cross-border governance Czech Republic and Slovakia." Czech Republic 531–559. Governance:Policy, AnInternationalJournal Administration, of andInstitutions Re-creating Accession inCountries Regions the of Central Europe.” and Eastern Data.” Imperfect of Conditions Politikwissenschaft. Germany. Networks”. Network Analysis 19(2):135-152. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. NJ: Hoboken, 16:1-6 Public Administration Occasional Papers No 12/2011. No Occasional Papers ”. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. LocalGovernment andInter-MunicipalCooperation in Italy and The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age:Economy, the Network Society:The Riseof The Information . Palgrave Macmillan. . Palgrave Official Official website , ed.JRichardson, Greenwood. 241–258.NewYork: Official Tourism andTravel GuidetoBratislavaOfficial Available online at . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. General Information aboutBudapest General Information East European Politics & Societies Social Networks 28 (3): 530–548. 28(3): 76(2):253-273. . Available at http://www.arbeitsagentur.de/ (accessed http://www.arbeitsagentur.de/ at Available . 258 Human Geography:Culture,SocietyandSpace. Handbook of Theory andResearch forthe Handbook of 28:124–136. Ucinet forWindows: Software forSocial ESRC FrameworkESRC forResearchEthics Universität Giessen: Institut fürUniversitätGiessen: Institut Journal of Borderland , 19 (2): 291-316 , 19(2): International JournalInternational . Available at . Available at Research 15(4): CEU eTD Collection Collins,“The Lyndhurst.1998. of Dynamics Regional inIdentity Region: aFrontier Caseof The ———. 1990. Dirninger, “Wirtschaft Christian.bis 2004. undBevölkerung vom ins20.Jahrhundert18. Deppisch, Sonja. 2008.“Social Capital Main and Other on Governance in Processes Influences Demidov, Andrey,and SaraSvensson. 2011. Deas, Iain, and Alex Lord.Dahal, Ram, Ganga Krishna PrasadAdhikari. and 2009. 2006. “From a New Regionalism Regional/International Interface.” “Glocalization: The Thomas J.1995. Courchene, to an Unusual Regionalism? 2012. Council Europe. of The ———. 2012. Committee of the Regions. 2011. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on'New Perspectives Capital.” Human of Creation the in Capital “Social 1988. S. James Coleman, ———. 2013. “Local Cross-border Cooperation at the European The at the“Local European Union’s ExternalBorder: Cooperation———. 2013. Cross-border Cohen, Michael, James March, and Johan P. Olsen. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational of Model Can Garbage “A Olsen. P. Johan and March, James Michael, Cohen, Christopoulos, Dimitrios,Karin and Ingold.“Distinguishing & between 2011. brokerage political Christopoulos,———. 1998. Dimitrios C. 2006. “Relational Attributes of Political Entrepreneurs: a Network ———. 1997. Alsace.” Land-Traunstein. Zukunft In century].” 20th to 18th from Population and [Economy Heidelberg: Verlag. Springer Markus RobertKnippschild,Leibenath, Eva 67–83.Berlin, Korcelli-Olejniczak, and Cross-border Governance andSustainableSpatialDevelopment. MindtheGaps! Cross-border Micro-regions: The Case of the Austrian-German Euregio ‘Via Salina’.” In issuefor 3(2)or3(3). Brief. European Neighbourhood PolicyCross-BorderCooperation Initiatives.PASOS Policy State.” of the Reorganisation EmergenceCapital inCollective Action ScienceJournal ofRegional of Non-standard 2013). 26, January (accessed http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/106.htm Territorial or Communities 21.V.1980 Authorities Madrid, European Union opinion)". (own-initiative Regulation' EGTC the of revision the for Regional Spacesof Sociology and Lessons for the Territorial Meaning of Local in European Neighborhood Policy.” inMeaning Neighborhood European Local of Choice.” 42. political entrepreneurship.” Perspective.” Warsaw: Policy Association for an Open Society. About CoR. End ofMillennium Foundations Social ofTheory The Power ofIdentity , ed. Gabriele, ed. Pursch, 98–118.Freilassing:Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Euregio Journal ofBorderlandsStudies Administrative Science Quarterly 94(January 1): S95–S120. Journal of European PublicPolicy Journal of 2011/C104/02. European OutlineConvention onTransfrontier Co-operation between Available athttp://cor.europa.eu (accessed November 19,2012). . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. . CAPRi Working Paper No. 79. 18(1):1–20. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences and Procedia -Social . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Urban Studies . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 259 Friendly Neighbours: Increasing thePotential of 13(1):29–55. 17 (1): 1-25. 17(1): 43 (10): 1847–1877. 13 (5):757–778. Bridging, Linking,and Bonding Social Regions & Cohesion Heimat mitGeschichte und Official Journal of the Journal of Official 10(January): 36– . Available at . Available American Journal American , scheduled Canadian , ed. CEU eTD Collection European European 2012. Commission Eurostat. European Commission. ETC Interreg Program Interreg 2012. ETC Bavaria-Austria. Eskelinen, Heikki,Juha Kotilainen. and 2005.“A Vision a TwinCity:of Exploring the Only Esaiasson, Peter, Mikael Giljam, Henrik Oscarsson, and Lena Wägnerud.Esaiasson, Mikael 2007. and Giljam,Henrik Oscarsson, Peter, Eriksonas, Linas. 2006.“Historic and Borders in Ethnic Arguments afterEastern Europe 1918.” and 1991. Gustafsson. Mattias Elander, Ingemar, Ekman, Stig.“Förbindelser 2005. krig under [Connections during In war].” ECON Analyse.2006. Jankai,Eck, András, Norbert Gyula Ocskay. and 2007. 2012. Frédéric,Jen Nelles. Durand, and ———. 1986. Duchacek, Ivo. 1984. “The International Dimension of Subnational Self-government.” Subnational of Dimension International “The 1984. Ivo. Duchacek, and 2012. Dörry,Antoine Decoville. Sabine, Dopsch, Heinz. 2004. “Länder und Landesgrenzen bis 1803 [Countries and country “Länder bisborders untilDopsch,Landesgrenzen and undcountry Heinz.2004. 1803[Countries (accessed October 31,2013). (accessed October http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction. Introduction. 15,2012) (accessed October http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm 2012). 15, September (accessed bayaut.net/interreg_iv/links.html Borderlands Studies Border.” Finnish-Russian the at Settlements Urban Adjacent of Case studying the society, the individualandthemarket studying thesociety, Konsten attstudera samhälle,individochmarknad [Themethodguide: Theart of Eslov: Gondolin. Boulder, London. In Research, University of Örebro. FirstExperience Central Europe:The Nilsson Torbjörn, 197–214.Stockholm: Carlsson. morska 1814tillidag motståndare:Sverige och Norgefrån (accessed July econ_05403_interkommunalt_samarb_rapp.pdf 21, 2012). http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/krd/red/2006/0040/ddd/pdfv/288681- 057, commissionedby Kommunesektorens Availableorganisasjon. at [Intermunicipal incooperation Norway: scopeandpoliticalno. steering].Report 2006- cooperation facilitating networks]. Ister-Granum Euroregion Agency.Development megalapozó és segít Transportation. Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai (ELKT) the Through Example ofCross-border Public (4): 5–32.(4): Euregio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein. Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Euregio Region Regions. First aSocial Resultsfrom Network Analysis in Luxembourgandthe Greater 1803].” In 1803].” Crossing Relationsin theBorder: Boundary a Changing Europe . CEPSINSTEAD Working2012-22. papersNo The TerritorialPolitics. Within,Among,andAcrossNationals Dimensionof Heimat Mit GeschichteundZukunft Heimat Mit Available at CEPSINSTEAD2012-16. Working papersNo Interkommunalt samarbeid i Norge – omfang ogpolitiskstyringInterkommunalt samarbeidiNorge–omfang 20 (2): 31–46. 20(2): Ę hálózatlétrehozása Cross-border Governance Within the Eurometropolis Nomenclature ofterritorial unitsforstatistics. Eurobarometer. . Örebro, Sweden: for. Örebro, Centre Housingand Urban 260 Official website Transportation PolicyNetworks inCross-border The Re-emergence of Local Self-government in ofLocal The Re-emergence . [Establishing economic andcultural , ed.Gabriele Pursch,49–57.Freilassing: A gazdaságiés kulturális együttm ]. Stockholm: Norsteds Juridik.]. Stockholm: Norsteds . Available athttp://www.interreg- , ed. Öystein Sörensen and Sörensen Öystein ed. , Available at Available , ed. Thomas Lundén. Thomas ed. , Goda grannareller Metodpraktikan: Journal of Publius Ħ ködést 14 . CEU eTD Collection Foucher, Michel. 1998. “The Geopolitics of European Frontiers.” In Evrard, Estelle, and Tobias Chilla. 2012. European Commission 2012. Inforegio. Haagensen, KlausMunch,2012. ed. Grix,Knowles. Jonathan,“The andVanda 2003. Euroregion andthe of Maximization Social Free Dictionary. 2012. German in National Self-government Hungary. 2010. 2005. Andrew AlexanderL, and Bennett. George, Gabbe, von Jens,andViktor Malchus. 2008. Fyrbodal Kommunalförbund [Fyrbodal Association).Intermunicipal 2012. KommunalförbundFyrbodal Association]. [Fyrbodal Intermunicipal 2004. ———. 2012. ———. 2011. Gränskommitten Østfold-Bohuslän-Dalsland. 2005. Goldman, F. Minton 1999. Ger Grensekomitteen Värmland-Østfold. 2010. Grensekomitteen Värmland-Østfold. ———. 2012. ———. 2011. Ę , Márton,andIstvánMicsinai. 2012. 6-7, 2012.6-7, ‘Unpacking byCEPSInstead, Governance', Cross-border Luxembourg, hosted September Cross-borderInstitutionalisation of Cooperation. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/cooperation/index_en.htm 2013). Wilson, 155–178.London: Frank Cass. Cooperation andGovernance. Viadrina.”In Europa Capital: Pro 15.Pinter Chapter Publishers. Anderson Malcolm and Bort, Eberhard Social Sciences Nomos. Review Europeanand Perspectives.Association Border of Regions Available atwww.fyrbodal.se (accessed July 20, 2012). 15, 2012). [ Inc. Available at www.thefreedictionary.com (accessed March 10, 2012). CT: Praeger Publishers. CT: Praeger and Ukraine.” http://www.ldu.hu (accessed May 20, 2010). (accessed January (accessed January 2012). 25, http://www.granskommitten.com/media/103197/stadgar_gk_revidering_2010.pdf http://www.granskommitten.com (accessed January 25, 2012). http://www.granskommitten.com (accessed January 25, 2012). Evaluation and program declaration], available at www.fyrbodal.se January Evaluation (accessed available at declaration],and program Stadgar [By-laws]. Official website Conference paper.“EUBorderregions, May Budapest, 12, 2012. Årsrapport 2010 [Annual Report 2010] Report Årsrapport 2010[Annual . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Dictionary, EncyclopediaandThesarus Slovakia since independence: a struggle for democracy astrugglefor Slovakia sinceindependence: Stadgar [By-laws] . Available at http://www.varmost.net/ (accessed January (accessed26, January http://www.varmost.net/ Available at . Obtained by the author. the by Obtained Nordic StatisticalYearbook , ed. James Anderson, Liam O’Dowd, and Thomas M “Mapping Cross-border Networks: Hungary,Slovakia Arsrapport New a for Changing Europe. Borders Cross-border 261 Cooperation Between EuropeanBorder Regions: European Territorial Policy The New Governance ToolEGTC:Double Case andTheoryDevelopment Studies inthe [Annual Obtainedreport]. by author. the “Gränskommitten 25År.” . Available at Paper Presented at the Conference the at Presented Paper . Huntington Valley, PA: Farley Official website . Copenhagen: Nordic Council. The Frontiers of Europe Frontiers of The Bakgrund ochförslag . Available at . Available at . Available . Available at . Baden-Baden: Available at Available Information . Westport, , ed. . CEU eTD Collection Hardi, Tamas. 2007. “Az Eurorégiók, mint a határon átnyúló fejlesztés eszközei átnyúló eszközei fejlesztés mintHardi, Tamas. 2007.“Az a Kárpát- a határon Eurorégiók, Hansen, Niles M.1977. Herrschel,“Introduction: Tallberg. ‘Fuzziness’of 2011. Pontus Tassilo, and Regions, Heclo, Hugh, and Wildavsky. Aron 1974. In Establishment.” and Executive the “Issue Networks Heclo, Hugh.1978. Harriss, John.2001. “TheHansen, and 1986. Niles. of Significance CooperationNature inTransborder the Mexico- andMarkHanneman, Riddle. Robert, 2005. Hill,Michael, Hupe.2002. Peter and in ‘The 1994. Regional Bjorn. Factor Formation the Hettne, a NewWorld In of Order’, Harvey, David.2006. Hammersley, Martyn. 1990. in cross-borderAlexander. city Hamedinger, two Challenges ofgovernance 2011. regions: Häkli, Jouni. 2009. “Boundaries of Trust: Building“BoundariesHäkli, ofTrust: aTransnational Jouni. 2009. Space inHaparanda-Tornio.” Hajdú, Zoltán. 1999. Haase, Annegret, and Andreas Wust. 2004. “Advancing Integration or Construction 2004.Construction NewBarriers “Advancing andAndreasWust. or Integration Haase, Annegret, Basin]”, In medencében in asthe Meansof Development[Euroregions, Cross-border the Carpathic BorderResearch Program. Mexico-United States Project, WorkHistorySample Data An Percent Continuous Analysis UsingEconomic Areas,1968-1972and1972-1976: One 65. Longmans. Opportunity?” In Opportunity?” and Policy InsideBritish Politics Political System MTA Budapest: Szociológia Kutatóintézet. 31-45. Evidence.” Empirical Some Borderlands: U.S. CA: University of California Press. 232. Surrey, Ashgate Burlington: Publishing. Practice United Nations University Press. ChallengesTransformation: to theStateSystem Skåne. Development Research & Practice 'CENTROPE'Land Salzburg the-Berchtesgadener 'EuRegio and - Traunstein'. Anthem Press. Anthem In forCentre Regional Studies. (2):77-100. Eastern Border on the Eve of the EU Enlargement.” Polisy EU the of Eve the the on Border at Eastern Communication Cross-Border for Restrictions and Stimuli Co-operation? to Social CapitalandUrbanNetworks Trust of . First Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. A régiókMagyarországa . London and New York: Verso. Depoliticizing Development: TheWorld BankandSocialCapital Regional Processes and Spatial StructuresRegional Processes andSpatial inHungarythe1990’s , ed.Anthony King,American 87-124. Enterprise Institute. Employment Structure andChangeinSouthwest Borderlands Functional Spaces ofGlobalCapitalism: ATheoryofUnevenGeographical The Role of Regions: Networks, Scale, Territory Networks, ofRegions: The Role , 4 (2): 153-174/ , 4(2): Reading Ethnographic Research: ACriticalGuide . Southwest Borderlands Regional Economic Development Economic Regional Borderlands Southwest . Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory andin inTheory Implementing PublicPolicy: Governance . Berkeley: University of California Press. The Private Government of Public Money:Community The PrivateGovernment of , ed. Kaiser Tamás, Ágh Attila, Kis-Varga Judit, p Introduction toSocial Network Methods 262 , ed.Jouni Häkli and ClaudioMinca, 205– Journal of Borderlands Studies Journal of , ed. Y Sakamoto, 123–166.NewYork: , ed.YSakamoto, Journal ofBorderlandsStudies , 7-20. Malmö: Region , 7-20. The New The American . Riverside, . 1 (2): 57– 1(2): . London: . London: Global . Pecs: . Urban 19 CEU eTD Collection Hungarian Statistical Office. 2011. Office. Hungarian Statistical Hungarian Statistical Office. 2012. Hungarian Statistical Interreg Bayern-OsterreichInterreg 2007. “Operationelles2007-2013. Programm ‘Ziel Europaische Hungarian Office.Government 2012. Hummelbrunner, 2010. Richard. Data:Huisman, Some“Imputation M.2009. Missingof Network SimpleProcedure.” Hudson, Christine. 2001. 2005. WScott. Van Houtum, Henk, and James Van “EuropeanHoutum, Henk. 2000. andGeographical Research on Borders BorderRegions.” “Municipal TamàsHorváth, M.2000. Autonomy Relationsand -The Intergovernmental Hörnström, Lisa.2011. H.Schakel. andGary Arjan 2010. Liesbet, Marks, Hooghe, Multi-level butHow? Governance.” of Types “UnravelingCentral State, ———. 2003. the Hooghe, Liesbet, and Liesbet, Hooghe, Gary Marks. 2001. 16, 2012). (accessed August egyszerusiti-es-gyorsitja-a-kozos-magyar-szlovak-kozutfejleszteseket http://www.kormany.hu/hu/nemzeti-fejlesztesi-miniszterium/hirek/keretegyezmeny- http://statinfo.ksh.hu (accessed September 6, 2011). (accessedSeptemberhttp://statinfo.ksh.hu 6, E/2007/1971 - C(2007)4242. E/2007/1971 - 2007CB163PO004”. Genehmigtam Entscheidung Kommission 18.09.2007 der Zusammenarbeit’Territoriale Deutschland/Bayern-Osterreich 2007-2013. CCI-Nr Hungarian-Slovak publicroads the agreement speedsupthedevelopmentof [Frame szlovák közútfejlesztéseket. October 1,2012). Self-governing Region of of Bratislava. Region Self-governing Europe. Operational Aspects Cross-programme of Cooperation inCentralandSouth-Eastern Social Structure Umeå:Working Paper36:2001. Umeå universitet. demokratin? http://www.ctc.ee/exlinea/pub/EXLINEA_Policy_Paper.pdf (accessed 29April, 2010).” PolicyPaperExlinea Practices’ ofCross-Border andSituationalEthics Cooperation. andNijmegen: Berlin Journal ofBorderlandsStudies Self-Government Hungarian Case byTamas M.p 46-72.” Horvath In 26, 2013). (accessed January http://www.granskommitten.com/media/92973/nordregio__egtc.pdf electronic working paper2011-1 Comparative Studyof42Democracies Review American PoliticalScience Lanham, MD:Rowman& Littlefield Publishers. INTERACT Programme Secretariat on behalf of the Managing Authority, the [Regional partnerships - a threat or a fulfillment of democracy?]. CERUM 10(1). , ed. ErikAmnå and StigBergen: Montin, 46–72. Fagbokforlaget. EGTS - Europeiska grupperingar territorielltsamarbete.Nordregio EGTS -Europeiska for Regionala partnerskap-etthotmotellerförverkligande av INTERACT Study Towards Cross-programme Evaluation. Social statistics. 15(1):57–83. Keretegyezmény egyszer 97 (02): 233–243. 97(02): ]. Population statistics database Multi-Level Governance andEuropean Integration . London . London and NewYork: Routledge. Published February27,2012. 263 Policy Considerations of ProjectResults: ‘Good Policy of Considerations Available at http://www.ksh.hu (accessedhttp://www.ksh.hu Availableat , Available at Available , The Rise of Regional Authority: A Regional Authority: The Riseof Towards aNewConceptofLocal Ħ síti ésgyorsítja aközösmagyar- . Available at . Available . Available at Available at Available Journal of . CEU eTD Collection Kohler-Koch, Beate. 2009. “The Three Worlds of European Civil society—What Role for Civil Role for society—What European Civil Worlds of “The 2009. Three Beate. Kohler-Koch, Koff, 2007b."Power,Politics Harlan. Deceivingand In (Dis)Appearances." Koff,2007a. ed. Harlan, Knoke, Tsujinaka. David, and Yutaka Broadbent, Franz Urban 1996. Jeffrey Pappi, 2008.“Inter-urban in Triangle.” Cooperation German-Polish-Czech Knippschild,Robert. In the Klimovsky, Daniel.“Inter-communal 2009. Features:Co-operation and The Case Its of “Regional Klatt, Martin. Minorities in 2006. Cooperation Cross-broder and National Border Kingdon, JohnW. 1984. Keating, Michael. 1998. “Is Theory.” in and Practice “Border Research 2006. Pirjo. Jukarainen, There a Regional Level of Government in Johnson, RegionsM. 2009.“‘Cross-Border Corey and Territorial Restructuring inCentral Europe?” In ———. 2002. ‘The———. 2002. PoliticalIn Economy of Scale’, a Bob. 1993.“Towards Schumpeterian Jessop, Workfare State? Remarks Preliminary onpost- Jeffery, C. 2000. “Sub-National Mobilization and European: Integration: Does It Make Any Make It Does Integration: European: Mobilization and “Sub-National Jeffery,C. 2000. István Pálfi Memorial Website. 2012. Sverige-NorgeInterreg 2007-2013. 2007. European andNorth AmericanBorderRegions Society Society for What Kind of Europe?” Border Regions Current andNorth(Dis)Appearances: Analyzing American DevelopmentsinEuropean Lang. Cambridge University Press. Germany,andJapan Policy Networks: LaborPoliticsintheU.S., Heidelberg: Verlag. Springer Markus Knippschild,Leibenath, Eva Korcelli-Olejniczak, andRobert 101–115.Berlin, Cross-border Governance andSustainableSpatialDevelopment. MindtheGaps! CERS, 2009. Slovakia". Paper presented at presented Paper Slovakia". Identities Regions -aProblem an Opportunity.”or In Routledge. Europe 470-473.(4): 16 (2):177–191. Room Europe: Transboundaryfor More Space.” Border Regions Fordist Political Economy.” Political Fordist Difference?" http://www.palfiistvan.hu/index.php?go=cikk&cikkid=24 (accessed August15, 2012). December 1, 2005. Association. the SevenBorder Chair of Parliament, 11-15 C(2007)5461. Interreg Sverige-Norge,CCI:2007CB163PO016 , eds.Patrick Le and 11–29.London andGales Christian Leusne, NewYork: , ed.Zaneta Ozolina. Riga: University Latvia.of Journal ofCommonMarketStudies , ed. Harlan Koff, 11-33. Bruxelles and New York: P.I.E. Peter Lang. , ed. M. Perkmann and N-L Sum, 25–49. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. Agendas, Alternatives, andPublic Policies Deceiving (Dis)Appearances: Analyzing Current Developments in CurrentDevelopments (Dis)Appearances: Analyzing Deceiving Studies in PoliticalEconomy 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science Regional in Conference European 3rd Central Interview with Member IstvánPálfi, ofEuropean Policy andSociety Program for Europeiskt Territoriellt Samarbete. 264 Globalization, RegionalizationandCross- , 38:1-23. . Bruxelles and New York: P.I.E. Peter . Godkant av Godkant EU kommissionen 2007- . Expanding Borders: Communities and European Urban andRegionalStudies 28(1)(April): 47–57. 40:7–40. . Boston: Little Brown. Cooperation andConflict . First Edition. First . Available at Available Comparing Regions in Deceiving , ed. 41 – CEU eTD Collection Lowi, Theodore J.1940.Lowi, Theodore Lösch,August.1975. “The of Nature from Economic Regions.’Reprint1938.” In Lorentzon, Sten. 2006. Löfgren, Orvar. “Regionauts: The Transformation of Cross-border Regions in Scandinavia.” LGI -Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative. 2009. andLGI -Local 2006. PublicServiceReform Initiative. Government Lijphart, Arend.1977. Laumann, EdwardO.,and DavidKnoke. 1987. Lidström, Anders.2003. ———. 1956. Lasswell, 1935/1958. Dwight. Harold ed. 2004. andBarbaraHooper, Kramsch, Olivier, Kramsch,“Crossing of Oliver, andVirginie Mamadouh. 2003.Governance Borders Political and Kramsch, Oliver,Henkvan Houtum, andWolfgang Zierhofer, ed.2005. Krackhardt, David, and Robert Stern. 1988. “Informal Networks and“InformalAn Crises: Stern. Organizational 1988. David,andNetworks Robert Krackhardt, Kossinets, Gueorgi. 2005. “Effectsin Kossinets, Gueorgi. Social Missing Data of Networks.” 2005. In Approaches.” New Analytical Limology: “Theoretical 2006. Vladimir. Kolossov, Kohler-Koch, Beate. 1996. “Catching up with Change: The Transformation of Governance in the Governance of Transformation The Change: with up “Catching 1996. Beate. Kohler-Koch, 1898-1958 Press. MIT MA: Cambridge, andApplications Policy: ReadingsinTheory Handelshögskolan, Gothenburg University. Kulturgeografiskaandapproach Institutionen. Papers 2006:4. Occasional questions]. och frågor European Urban andRegionalStudies Institute. Society Initiative,ServiceReform Open Government Budapest:and Local Public Institute. OpenSociety Initiative, Service Reform Public Local and Budapest: Government Books. andSlovakia Bulgaria,Estonia, DemocracyCentral from inEurope:Reports Press. University Yale National Policy Domains Maryland: University Maryland Press.of World Pub. Co. Union Democracy.” AshgateBurlington: Publishing. Experimental Simulation.” Experimental 247–268. Gondolin. Border: BoundaryRelationsinaChangingEurope European European Union.” . London and New York: Routledge. The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. of functional The decisionprocess:sevencategories . Glencoe: Free Press of Glencoe. Free Press . Glencoe: [Västra Götaland [Västra and under transformation. Östfold -Borderland Research Journal of BorderlandJournal Studies of Democracy inPluralSocieties:aComparative Exploration Västra GötalandochÖstfold -Gränslandiomvandling. Forskningsansats Kommunsystem i Europa At thePleasurethe Mayor: Patronage of andPowerinNew City,York Journal of European PublicPolicy Journal ofEuropean . Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press. Wisconsin of University Wis: Madison, . Social Psychology Quarterly Politics: Who GetsWhat,When, How 15(3):195–209. 265 [Municipal systems in Europe]. Solna: Liber. Solna: in Europe]. systems [Municipal 18 (1). The Organizational State:SocialChoice in Cross-Border intheEuropean Governance , ed. John Friedmann and William Alonso. 3(3):359–380. 51 (2): 123–140. 51(2): , ed. Thomas Lundén. Eslöv: Lundén. Thomas ed. , Social Networks Annual Report2008 The StateofLocal B/ordering Space . With . postscript. College Park, . NewHaven: Crossing the Regional 28(3): . LGI . . CEU eTD Collection ———. 2012b. “A Helyi Önkormánysatok Eurorégiokban“A ———. 2012b. Közép-Európában Önkormánysatok Helyi Való Részvétele Medve-Bálint, Gerg Medve-Bálint, Medve-Bálint, Gerg ———. 2011. “(Re)defining———. 2011. Euroregion the Concept.” ———. 2010."Old Recent Cooperation: Cross-border Vs Portugal-Spain and Norway-Sweden". 2009. Medeiros, Eduardo. ed.2002. L., Steger, David andManfred A.McLean, Scott Schultz, Mayoux, L.2001.“Talking Downside: Capital,Women’s Social and the Micro- Empowerment Mason,2002. Jennifer. Marzano, Marco. 2012. “Informed Consent.” In Cross-border Linkages in Mexican Border 1990. “Transnational Martinez,Fronterizos: Oscar. Markusse, D. 2011. “National Jan Regions.” in European Minorities Border In In EC.” in the Governance Multilevel and Policy “Structural 1993. Gary. Marks, Both? Adaptation? “The Transformation? 2012. Many Facesof Governance: Lynn, E. Laurence March, James G, and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Magyar Állam [Hungarian State]. 2011. “As Ister-Granum Korlátolt Felelösségu Európai Teruleti in America.” North Water ManagementStructures “The New Needfor Maganda, Carmen.2007. and EverydayLifeinEurope Euroregions", in Füzetek in Euroregions].” [Local participation government Geography ed. Hilpert, U. & N.Bellini In Europe. Central Communist 158. Area Faculdade daUniversidadedeLisboa.Working Paper. deLetras Press. Perspectives onCommunity and“Bowling Alone” in finance Cameroon.” Washington DC: SagePublications. Singapore, Karyn D.McKinney, 443–456.Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications. the Craft Complexity of Society.” Surrey, England; VT:AshgateBurlington, Publishing. Research CompaniontoBorder Studies Rosenthal,London: Longman. 391–410. and Beyond Debates Maastricht European Community:The In Neither?” EGTC]” Egyuttmuködési Csoportusulás 2010.évibeszámolója. of [AnnualReport Ister-Granum American Border Regions In OxfordYork: University Press. Deceiving (Dis)Appearances: Analyzing Current DevelopmentsinEuropeanandNorth Analyzing Deceiving (Dis)Appearances: , 42:434–443 9 (1): 19–32. 9(1): Magyar Közlöny Hivatalos Értesít Journal ofBorderlandsStudies , 145-170. London , 145-170. and NewYork: Routledge. Ę Oxford Handbook of Governance Handbookof Oxford Ę , andSaraSvensson.local join notjoin) "Why 2012a. do governments (or . 2013.IncentivesCross-Border and Obstacles Cooperation to in Post- The Border Multiple: ThePracticing ofBorders between Public Policy Qualitative Researching The Cross-border CooperationBetween Sweden-Norway Development andChange , ed. Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein, Amir B Marvasti, and , 93–116.Brussels: Peter Lang. P.I.E , 219-243. Farnham,Surrey: Ashgatepublishing. Rediscovering Institutions 266 The SAGE Handbook of Interview Handbook of The SAGE Research. The 5(1):79-99. , ed.Doris Wastl-Walter, 351–371.Farnham, . 2nd ed. Los Angeles,. 2nd London,New ed. Los Dehli, Ę , 36 szám edition. szám 36 , , ed.DavidLevi-Faur,Oxford; 49–64. New European Planning Studies 32: 435–454. . New York: New York University . NewYork: Észak-magyarországi Stratégiai . New York: Free Press. , ed. A Cafruny and G Social Capital: Critical Europe’s Changing The State of the The Stateof 19 (1): 141– 19(1): The Ashgate (Interreg-A) . CEU eTD Collection Nordic Council.2012. ———. 2012. “Borders and———. 2012. Resolution.” Conflict In in Us: `borderless’ world.” Borders Separate our “TheContinue ———. 2006. LinesThat to Newman,“On and 2003. David. A Borders Power: Theoretical Framework.” Népszava. 2008. “ Népszava. 2008. Népszabadság. 2008. Népszabadság. Müller, HeinHoebink. and 2003. Verena, Müller, Sonja. 2009. Heinz.2008. Müller, Martin undSiedlungen Grabfunde Romanen: -Baiuwaren ———. 2004c.“DasFrühmittelalter und In ———. 2004b.“Urgeschichte.” Moosleitner, Fritz. 2004a.“Die Zeitder römischen Herrschaft [The time of the Roman Rule].” In Innovation.” of Diffusion the and Entrepreneurs “Policy 1997. Michael. Mintrom, ———. 2013. “Diversity Policy ———. 2013. andInitiatives of Development: EntrepreneurshipEuroregional Mill, John Stuart. 1865. Mill, John Stuart. nordic-region/language/ (accessed July 20, 2012). July (accessed nordic-region/language/ Wilson andDonnan 249–265.Hastings, ed., Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell. Progress inHumanGeography Borderlands Studies 2012]. June15, [Accessed Http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=47604 Available at: deficit - one million forint income in Neszmely] income forint million one - deficit 15, 2012). Online April28,2012" work work of a political body in 'small EUregio.Europe']. Gronau/Enschede: EUREGIO. im‘kleinenEuropa’ Gremiums politischen Bohmerwald]. Maas-Rhein andBayerischerWald- Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein,EuRegio Development potentialoftheEuRegiowiththe exampleof Salzburg- EuRegio EuRegio Bayerischer Wald-Böhmerwald-Unterer Inn[Structuralproblems and undder Salzburg-Berchtesgadenerder EuRegioMaas-Rhein EuRegio Land-Traunstein, Vol Geneva:Institut européendel’Université57-2009. deGenève. the ArgumentsofIts Referendum Campaignin1994 Traunstein. - Land Berchtesgadener - Salzburg In Heimat mitGeschichteundZukunft settlements].” and findings Grave Romans: and Baiuwarians - Age Middle [Early 11. Freilassing: EuRegioSalzburg -BerchtesgadenerLand -Traunstein. Traunstein. - Land Berchtesgadener - Salzburg Heimat mitGeschichteundZukunft Journal ofPoliticalScience Green. Longmans, in Central in Central and Eastern Europe.” or 28.2. Negyvenmilliós hiány - egy forint bevétel Neszmélyen bevétel - egyforint hiány Negyvenmilliós Strukturprobleme undEntwicklungspotentiale derEuRegio.Am Beispiel der “Neszmély koldusboton Master Thesis. Salzburg: UniversitätSalzburg. The Nordic region:language A System of Logic, RatiocinativeA Systemof andInductive 18 (1): 13–38. 18(1): Taking Stock of the Austrian Accession to the EU: With Regard to AccessiontotheEU:With the Austrian Taking Stockof . Available at http://nol.hu/archivum/archiv-489779 (accessed June (accessed http://nol.hu/archivum/archiv-489779 . Availableat 41(3)(July 1): 738–770. Heimat mit Geschichte undZukunft Heimat mitGeschichte 30(2)(April 1): 143–161. Journal ofBorderlandsStudies 25 Jahre EUREGIO-Rat Rückblick auf die Arbeiteines auf Rückblick EUREGIO-Rat 25 Jahre , ed. Gabriele, ed. Pursch,Freilassing: 18–30. EuRegio Gabriele, ed. Pursch,Freilassing: 12–17. EuRegio [Neszmely with the beggar's staff] beggar's the with [Neszmely 267 [Lookingyears back of at 25 the EUREGIO, . Available at http://www.norden.org/en/the- at Available . A CompaniontoBorderStudies . Népszava OnlineApril23,2008 . Master Thesis. Collection Euryopa . Scheduled for issue. Scheduled for 28.1 , ed. Gabriele, ed. Pursch,6– [Forty million forint million [Forty . 6th ed. London: ed. 6th . . Népszabadság , Thomas M Journal of American ". CEU eTD Collection Patton, MichaelPatton, Quinn. 2002. Pandeia. 2009. inThreeEastern/Central Europeanisation Governance Territorial of Ilona.Palne 2009. Kovacs, Ostrander, Susan A.“Shifting 1987. the Debate: Public/Private SectorRelations in Modern the ———. 2003.“Cross-border Regions in SignificanceEurope. and of Drivers Cross- Regional Perkmann, Markus.2002.“Institutional Entrepreneurship in European the Union.” In Østfold 2012. Analyse. Oresundsregionen, and Oresund Interreg Network, IIIA. 2004. Gottfridsson. 2011. Olof Hans Olsson, SuneBerger,and Eva, Olsson, David,andLee Miles.2012. OECD. 2007. Liam.O’Dowd, In of 2003. “The ChangingBorders.” European Significance North, DouglassNorth, Cecil. 1990. Nordic Council Ministers.of 2012. 2010. NordicMinisters. of Council Nordic Council. 2012. 20, 2012). January January 28, 2013). (accessed http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/rado2_en.htm European Commission Regio. DG Regional DevelopmentFund 1stInterimreport (ERDF)(No. tothe 2008.CE.16.0.AT.016) Countries.European Welfare State.” border Cooperation.” 103–124. NewYork: Palgrave-Macmillan. Globalization, RegionalizationandCross-Border Regions Calif: SagePublications. nale_analyser_januar_200422.pdf (accessed January 1, 2009). http://www.oresundskomiteen.dk/public_site/webroot/cache/article/file/slutrapport__regio gränskommuner iVärmland University.Karlstad [Regional acting - broad or narrow? TheJames Anderson, and M Thomas London:Wilson, 13–36. Frank CassPublishers. case of Varmland].Changing Europe:Cross-border Governance. Cooperation and University Cambridge:Press. Cambridge (accessed July (accessed July 20, 2012). medborgarskap-och-folkbokfoering/den-nordiska-passkontrolloeverenskommelsen/availablehttp://www.norden.org/sv/om-samarbetet/avtal/nordiska-avtal/passfraagor- at: council for economic, energy and regional politics ]. Internal working document obtained by author. the document working Internal ]. politics regional and energy economic, for council Naering,Ministerradet energiogregionalpolitik for 2012). at http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2011-740,(accessed July 20, OECD EconomicSurveys: 2007 Hungary Ex-Post Evaluation INTERREGof 2000-2006.InitiativeFinanced bythe Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Statistical databases Agreement on Suspension ofInter-Nordic Passport Controls (1957) Halduskultuur European Urban andRegionalStudies Institutions, Institutional Change,andEconomicPerformance Qualitative research andevaluationmethods. . Karlstad: KarlstadUniversity Press. Planer och budget 2012, Planer och budget Regionalt agerande -brett ellerbmalt? FalletVärmland. Mandat Arbeidsprogram 2010. Arbeidsgruppene under 2010.Arbeidsgruppene Mandat Arbeidsprogram . 10 (1): 40-57. . 10(1): . Available at www.ostfoldanalyse.no (accessed July (accessed www.ostfoldanalyse.no at Available . 268 . OECD Publishing.. Main Report. Available at Available Report. Main [Plans andbudget Available 2012], [Working under Nordic hte groups Gränslöst liv? En studieavtvå Gränslöst liv? Oresundskompass. 16 (1-2): 7–10. 16(1-2): , ed. M Perkman and N-L Sum, 10(2):153–171. Working Paper , ed. Liam, ed. O’Dowd, New Borders for a for Borders New Thousand Oaks, Available at Available . Karlstad: . , CEU eTD Collection Rosenheim City Archive.Rosenheim City 2012. Grenzüberschreitender Interkommunaler Formen “Institutionalisierte 2008. Michael. Ritter, Richards, Lyn. 2005. W.Rhodes, “The R.A. of 1994. Hollowing State: the The Changing Out Nature of Public the ———. 2006. “Policy Analysis.”———. 2006. Network In Regional forPortal IndreOstfold. 2012. 2012. Regionfakta. Péteri, Gábor. 1991. Péteri, Gábor. Perkmann, Markus,and N-LSum.“Globalization, 2002. Regionalization and Cross-border Putnam, Robert D.Putnam, 1993. Robert Putnam, D.2000. Robert Provan, Keith, andPatrickKenis. 2008."ModesNetworkof Governance: Structure, Pfeil, 1999.“Cooperation Edit. among local governments as for foundation the regional Pfeffer, Jeffrey,Gerald R. Salancik. and 1978. andA Framework the Case Study Scales:———. 2007b.“Constructionof of New Territorial ———. 2007a.“Policy and Multilevel Entrepreneurshipof aComparative Governance: Study (accessed September 26, 2012). (accessed September26, Sage Publications Ltd. Border Settlements]."Border University Salzburg.of Grenzgemeinden Grenzüberschreitender Interkommunaler BeziehungenanHandBayerish-Salzburger Land-Traunstein. Workingfrom PaperResulting Course the unter BerücksichtigungSalzburg-Berchtesgadener der EuRegio inKooperation Europa Michael Moran, Martin Rein, and Robert Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. in Britain.” Service (accessed January 2012). 15, With Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2012). Availablewww.regionfakta.com Administrativeand July County 20, Boards. at (accessed Europe: WorkingPapers Macmillan. Cross-Border Regions In andGovernance.” Discourses Scales, Regions: New York: Simon & Schuster. 18 (2):229-252. Management, and Effectiveness." Zoltán Hajdú, 77-98. Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences In subdivision.” Row. Perspective Resource Dependence EUREGIO Cross-Border Region.” 25 (6):861–879. Regions.”European Cross-border Statistical databases onregions inSweden Handling QualitativeData: APractical Guide Events andChanges:Local Transitionin TheFirst StepsofEast-Central Regional Processes andSpatialStructures inHungary inthe1990’s ’ [Aspect of Crossborder Intermunicipal Relations for Bavarian-Salzburg Bowling Alone.TheCollapse andRevival of AmericanCommunity The Political Quarterly , ed. M Perkman, ed. and N-LSum,New York: Palgrave- 3–21. . Budapest:Helyi Demokrácia és Alapítvány.Ujítások Making DemocracyWork: CivicTraditionsinModernItaly Stadtgeschichte. Official websiteOfficial Journal ofPublic AdministrationResearch andTheory Environment andPlanning C:Government andPolicy Regional Studies . Stanford Business Classics. New York: Harper & Harper NewYork: BusinessClassics. . Stanford 269 The Oxford Handbook of PublicPolicyThe Oxford 65(2):138–151. The ExternalControl ofOrganizations: a Available athttp://www.stadtarchiv.de/ Available . Availablehttp://www.indreostfold.no at 41(2):253–266. Globalization, Regionalizationand . Maintained by Regions . Maintained Swedish . 1sted. Thousand Oaks, CA: ‘Aspekte , ed. , ed. . . . CEU eTD Collection Slovak Government Office. 2010. Office. Slovak Government Skomsöy, andAlf Gunnar, Sundin. 2005. Silverman, 2009. David. Säll, Line.2011. Scott, W.Richard. 2002. ———. 2006. “Cross-border———. 2003. Governance intheBaltic SeaRegion.” In Scott, James “European W.and 1999. North-American Contexts for Regionalism.” Cross-Border Philippeand 1979. Schmitter, C., GerhardLehmbruch. ———. 1997b.“Introduction. The Problem-solving Capacity Multi-levelof Governance.” Welfare State.” Democracy and the “Economic1997a. Integration, ———. ———.1994. andScharpf,W.“Intergovernmental Policy Issues,Concepts Fritz 1978. Studies: Perspectives.” Schack,“Regional Regions: Michael.2001. in The Make.” Borders Difference Border Identity Sassen, ed.2007. Saskia, Scott, John Scott, John P. 2000. Symbolism———. 2012.“European Borders, Border Politics of Cross-Border and of Framework of Policy andthe “An Advocacy Coalition Change Role A.Sabatier, Paul 1988. von biszurGrenzziehungthe “Vom 1816 [From Roth, Hans. Salzburgs desErzstifts 2004. Ende the Hungarian Governmentthe onthe buildingof Ipoly bridge,atjointpublicroad the CERUT. Kommunalmellan Norgeoch näringslivsutveckling ochSverige samverkan Hall. policy] development praktiker Publications. Liam andThomasO’Dowd, MWilson, 135–153.London:Frank Cass Publishers. Changing Europe.Cross-borderCooperation andGovernance Regional Studies Intermediation Journal ofEuropeanPublic Policy Public Policy Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico: EUI-RSCAS Working Paper 94/1. Kenneth Hanf Fritz W.and Scharpf,London: Sage 57–125. Publications. In Journal ofBorderlandsStudies London and Routledge. NewYork: Cooperation.” In Cooperation.” Exclusion Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” Land-Traunstein. Berchtesgadener Geschichte undZukunft border demarcation In the 1816].” endto of Salzbburgthe archbishopry of Interorganizational Policy Making. LimitstoCoordination andCentral Control Community and Autonomy Multilevel Policy-MakingintheEuropean EU Enlargement, RegionBuildingInclusion and Borders andShifting of . Ashgate Publishing. [ClusterKluster som teori ochpolitik:Omdenregionala tillväxtpolitikens diskursiva as theory and politics: On the discursive practice of regional 4(1):18–36. Social Network AHandbook Analysis: . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 33 (7): 605–617. A CompaniontoBorder Studies Doing Qualitative Research Organizations: Rational,Natural, andOpenSystems . Deciphering the Global: Its Spaces, ScalesandSubjects Its theGlobal: Deciphering Licentiate Thesis, Monograph. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press. , ed. Gabriele Pursch,58–66.Freilassing: EuRegioSalzburg - Negotiations 16(2):99–114. 4(4):520–538. Policy Sciences Varför inte Varför mer samarbete närmöjligheter finns? 270 . Agreement between the Slovak government and the Slovak between Agreement . Sage Publications.. Sage , 83–99.Hoboken,NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 21:129–168. . 2nded.Thousand CA:Sage Oaks, Trends toward Corporatist , ed. James Anderson, James ed. , Journal ofEuropean New Borders for a for Borders New . 5th ed. Prentice ed. . 5th Heimat mit . Karlstad: . 1st ed. . 1st Union , ed. . CEU eTD Collection Svensson, Sara, and Andreas Ojehag. 2012. “Politik bortom Svensson, AndreasOjehag.2012.“Politik Sara,and lokala bortom trendergransen: och globala Sundin,A and 2005. Hagen S-E. Collaboration Conflict?”“Frontier Future Strassoldo, Regions: or Raimondo. 1982. Stork, D, andStork, W.D.“Nonrespondents Studies: in 1992. Richards. Communication Network Stoddard, Ellwyn StudiesStoddard, R.1986.“Border asanEmergentField of Scientific Scholarly Inquiry: Statistics Sweden. 2012. Statistics Norway. 2012. “Nota State, 2002. Sparke, Matthew. More Than But of Mind: CascadingCascadias and a State Sopóci, Ján, AnnaHrabovskáandJán Bun Soós, Gábor, Gábor Tóka, Glen Wright, and Local Glenand Gábor, and Reform Wright, Local PublicGovernment GáborTóka, Service Soós, Gábor. 2010.“Hungary.”In Soós, Research to Concepts Governance: “Civil From Smismans,and European Stijn.2006. Society 2012. Office. Slovak Statistical Slovak Statistical 2012. Office. Slovak Statistical Slovak National inSelf-government Hungary. 2010. realiteter [Politics beyond the border: global trends and local realities]", In Ericsson,Hauge, andBirgitta Karlstad: University Karlstad 269-284. Press. realities]", local and trends global interaktion, attraktivitetochglobalisering iInreSkandinavien border: the beyond [Politics realiteter in Scandinavia]. WorkingInner paper2006:12. Karlstad: KarlstadUniversity. Arbetsrapport 2006:12 European Politics Problems and Possibilities.” and Problems Contributions of U.S.-Mexico Borderlands Studies.” http://www.scb.se (accessedJuly 26, 2012). [Accessed July 26, 2012). Gábor Soós,351-472.Budapest: Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative. local democracy Central Estonia,andSlovakia in Europe:ReportsBulgaria, from and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. and NewYork: Cross-Border Regions the Geoeconomics of Cross-Border Regionalism.” In Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute. Initiative. 2002. Routledge. to Intergovernmentalism Publishing. Linkages. Agenda.” In http://portal.statistics.sk/ (accessed September 6,2011). http://portal.statistics.sk/ (accessed October25,2012). http://oszo.slovaci.hu/ (accessed May (accessedMay http://oszo.slovaci.hu/ 20, 2010). 141832?prefixFile=m (accessed August16, 2012). http://www.rokovanie.sk/File.aspx/ViewDocumentHtml/Mater-Dokum- Hungarian at joint nationalborder, between , ed.Stijn Cheltenham, andSmismans. UK USA:EdwardElgar Northampton, Civil Society andGovernance inEurope:FromNationaltoInternational Civil Society The State of Local Democracy in Central DemocracyThe StateofLocal inEurope 5(4)(October): 123–136. Befolkning , ed. Markus Perkmann Ngai-LingMarkus Hampshire and, ed.Perkmann 212–238. Sum, [The conditions and the development of the border municipalities border the of development the and conditions [The , ed. Michael and108–126. London:, ed. Goldsmith EdwardPage, Befolkningsstatistik Gränskommunernas villkorochutvecklingiinreSkandinavien, Changing Government -FromLocalism Relations inEurope Group andOrganization Management [Population database]. Available at http://www.ssb.no/ at Available database]. [Population I Macroeconomic statistics database polypásztó (Pastovce) andVámosmikola (Pastovce) polypásztó Demographic statistics database þ ak. 2006. "Country -Slovakia", "Country report ak. 2006. In 271 [Population statistics]. Available at Available statistics]. [Population Journal ofBorderland Studies Globalization, Regionalizationand Official website , ed. Eva Olsson, Atle . Local Government and 17 (2): 193–209. . Available at Available . . Available at Available . . Available at Available . . Available in Available . På Gränsen - The stateof 1(1). West , ed. CEU eTD Collection Winter, Sören. 2006. “Implementation.” Sören.Winter, 2006. In In “QualitativeWarren, Carol. Interviewing.” 2002. Walther, Olivier, andBernardReitel. 2012. Vizi,“Hungary: LastingA Model with Balazs.2008. In Problems.” Varwick, andKai 2007. Olaf Lang. Johannes, “Introduction:Vallet, Élisabeth, 2012. Charles-Philippe and (Re)Buildingof Wall the David. The Vallet, Elisabeth, andCharles David.2009. “Working Course the Papers from UniversitySalzburg. 2008. of Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Faust. Katherine Wasserman, Stanley, and Jan.Trost, 2005. Development.” Local and Capital “Social 2001. Carlo. Trigilia, Topaloglou, Lefteris, Dmitris Kallioras, PanosManetos, and GeorgePetrakos. 2005. “A Border Cupcea,Dmitris Pantazis. 2012. Topaloglou, Kallioras, Lefteris, andPanagiotis Victor Hungarian-Romanian the in Interaction “Transboundary 2006. Koncz. Gábor and Gyula, Szabó, ———. 2011. Swianeiwicz, Pawel,2010. ed. Sveriges Radio. 2003. Applications Region ofBasel and EasternEurope the EU-PolicyTowards the New Neighbours Relations.” in International Conference Borderscapes II AnotherBrick in Wall,the Sicily,2009. 13-16, September all? The(re)building ofwall the inInternational Relations. Author. by the Obtained Ritter. Michael by Convened of Crossborder Intermunicipal Relations for Bavarian-Salzburg Border Settlements], Grenzgemeinden’Interkommunaler anHandBayerisch-Salzburger Beziehungen Pierre,151–166. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications. F. Gubrium and JamesA. 83–102.Thousand Holstein, Oaks,CA:SagePublications. Theory (2). Regions Typology inRegions Typology the Enlarged European Union.” Luxemburg. EU NeighboringRegions and Non Cooperation intheOldEU,New EU ofTerritorialDomains andDrivingForces Ashgate Publishing. Borders Inclusion andExclusion. of Region: In A View.” Local Border Institute. Society Countries 26, 2013). January (accessed http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=93&artikel=195242 at Available wolves], 4(4)(November): 427–442. Working together: Intermunicipal Cooperation in Five Central European in FiveCentral Cooperation Intermunicipal Working together: . Budapest: Local and Local PublicServiceReform Open Initiative, Government . Budapest: Kvalitativa intervjuer Kvalitativa . Cambridge University . Cambridge University Press. . CEPSINSTEAD WorkingNo 2012-26. papers Gränskommitté vill skjutaavvargar . Reprint. London and New York: Routledge. Territorial ConsolidationReformsin Europe . Workshop Paper. RISC Writing Workshop, Paper.RISCWriting -23d, June Workshop 21st . Journal ofBorderlandsStudies [Qualitative interviews]. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. interviews].[Qualitative Lund: Studentlitteratur Handbook ofPublicHandbook Policy Mirror, mirror whyon thewall, is there a wall after , ed. James Wesley Scott, 163–170.Aldershot:, ed.James Wesley Scott, Cross-border PolicyNetworks intheTrinational EU Enlargement,RegionBuilding andShifting 272 European Neighbourhood Policy:Challenges for European Neighbourhood . Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Barbara Opladen: . Handbook of Interview Interview Handbook of Research Social Network Analysis: Methods and [Border committee wants[Border toshoot Journal of BorderlandJournal Studies of ‘Aspekte Grenzüberschreitender ‘Aspekte 27(2):111–119. European Journal of Social European Journal of Minority RightsinCentral , ed. Guy B Peters and Jon Paper Presented atthe Presented Paper . Budapest:OSI/LGI. , ed. Jaber , ed. [Aspect Types, 20 CEU eTD Collection Woolcock, M, and TSweetser. 2002. “Bright Ideas: Social capital - the bonds that connect.” Wollmann, 2007.“Changes, Hellmut. and Ruptures, Continuities in Local European Government Yin, Robert K.Yin, 2009. Robert Wirtschaftskammern Österreich. Wirtschaftskammern Review Wollmann,Hellmut Lanham, 15–38. MD:Rowman& Publishers.Littlefield Countries inTransition In Governance.” and Government Between Systems. October 15,2012). Oaks, CA: SagePublications. 34 (2): 26. 34(2): Case Study Research: Design andMethods Case Design Study Research: , ed. Frank Lazin, Matt Evans, Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot, and Official website.Official 273 Available at http://portal.wko.at (accessed http://portal.wko.at at Available Local Government Reforms Local Governmentin Reforms . Fourth edition. Thousand ADB