Minas Conclusions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ESPON 1.1.3 TIR, Part I August 31, 2004 ESPON action 1.1.3 Particular effects of enlargement of the EU and beyond on the polycentric spatial tissue with special attention on discontinuities and barriers Third Interim Report Part I Lead Partner: The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Department of Infrastructure Division of Urban Studies Stockholm, Sweden www.infra.kth.se This report does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the members of the ESPON Monitoring Committee Comments may be addressed to Lars Olof Persson ([email protected]) or Lisa Van Well ([email protected]) ESPON 1.1.3 TIR, Part I Lead partner The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Division of Urban Studies, Stockholm, SWEDEN Partners Nordregio, SWEDEN Institute of Community Studies, University College & Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA) London, UNITED KINGDOM Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (ÖIR), AUSTRIA Spiekermann & Wegener, Urban and Regional Research (S&W), GERMANY TNO Inro, Netherlands Organisation of Applied Scientific Research, Delft, THE NETHERLANDS Karelian Institute, University of Joensuu, FINLAND Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, Ltd. (CEDRU), Lisbon, PORTUGAL Department of Urban Planning and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), GREECE Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies (ITPS), Stockholm, SWEDEN (Swedish ECP) University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, SLOVENIA Hungarian Public Company for Regional Development and Town Planning (VATI), Budapest, HUNGARY Institute for Economic & Regional Studies at the University of Neuchâtel, SWITZERLAND The Prague Institute for Global Urban Development, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, (ASSOCIATE CO-OPERATION PARTNER) Stanislaw Leszczycki Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, POLAND (ASSOCIATE CO-OPERATION PARTNER) 2 ESPON 1.1.3 TIR, Part I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I.1 Normative objectives and multi-level spatial governance 5 I.2 Polycentricity and Enlargement 6 I.3 Spatial diagnosis of Enlargement 9 I.4 Typologies of Needs 12 I.5 Scenario studies of effects of enlargement 17 I.6 Recommended Policy combinations 19 I.6.1 Principle-based policy combinations 20 I.6.2 Capacity-based policy combinations 21 SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY 24 II.1 Concepts, indicators and methodologies 24 II.2 Measuring Polycentricity 24 II.3 Evaluation of polycentricity 25 II.4 Analysis of convergence: concepts, definitions and indicators 26 II.5 Unemployment 26 II.6 Analysis of spatial association 27 II.7 Regional Specialisation and geographic concentration 28 II.8 Formulating typologies 29 II.9 Scenario Studies 31 II.9.1 Scenario Study 1 31 II.9.2 Scenario Study 2 32 II.9.3 Typologies developed 33 II.9.4 Typologies of regional specialisation and geographic concentration 34 II.9.5 Typologies of regions with needs after enlargement 35 II.9.6 Border regions 36 NETWORKING WITH OTHER ESPON PROJECTS 38 FURTHER RESEARCH ISSUES 39 DATA REQUESTS AND DATA GAPS TO OVERCOME: 39 3 ESPON 1.1.3 TIR, Part I Executive Summary When the European Union increased in population by 28 percent and expanded its territory by 34 percent on 1 May 2004, new challenges and possibilities of the enlarged Union have advanced to the forefront of European spatial development, particularly with regard to cohesion policy and sustainable economic, social and ecological development. For this fifth wave of enlargement, the process of integration of new member states into the EU has been an ongoing task for the European Union - a process of cohesion, assimilation and convergence that was begun many years prior to the accession date and will continue on for many years to come. Yet enlargement also represents one of the most important opportunities for the EU as a whole to increase international competitiveness, and through sustainable growth, become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world. Effects of enlargement and integration are already being seen and these present, not unsurprisingly, a mixed bag of results: Growth rates in the enlargement area1 are above the EU15 average, but real economic convergence remains limited. Economic restructuring is occurring in the enlargement area from primary sectors to the service sectors, but employment levels have fallen. The spatial challenges and possibilities that enlargement poses have not taken the Union by surprise, as indeed efforts towards enlargement have been forthrightly underway since the process to develop the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) began in 1993. ESPON 2006 is one of the current efforts to address the spatial tissue of the Europe in its near entirety (EU 27+2) with its mandate to indicate, map and diagnose spatial development of the European territory. Polycentricity is one of the core concepts of ESPON. Following the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the promotion of a 'balanced polycentric urban system' is one of the most frequently cited policy objectives of the programme. The interest in polycentric development is fuelled by the hypothesis put forward in the ESDP that polycentric urban systems are more efficient, more sustainable and more equitable than both monocentric urban systems and dispersed small settlements. If we assume this to be so, then one of the territorial tasks of the enlargement process is to utilize the tool of polycentric development to boost competitiveness, social and economic cohesion and conservation of natural and cultural resources. ESPON 1.1.3 takes up the particular effects of enlargement on the polycentric spatial tissue with special attention on the discontinuities and barriers implicit in this process. In order to do this, we ask ourselves the following relevant research questions: 1 By enlargement area we mean the 10 new member states, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, also referred to as EU10, or EU12 when we include Bulgaria and Romania as the next candidates. 4 ESPON 1.1.3 TIR, Part I • Which are the current process of polycentric development in the enlargement area? • What is the existing diagnosis of the spatial tissue in the EU-25 with special emphasis on the EU-10? • Where are the particular areas at risk in the Enlargement area with regard to sectoral specialization? • What are the special needs of border regions in the enlargement area with regards to barriers inhibiting flows? • What are the possible futures of the enlarged European Union with regard to accessibility to promote polycentricity and performance of regions? • In response to processes induced by EU enlargement, what policy combinations at all levels are (or could be) efficient in order to enhance competitiveness in all parts of the EU? In addressing these questions we employ statistical methods to measure polycentricity according to the indicators of size, location and connectivity to ascertain how polycentric Europe, and particularly the Enlargement area actually is. A study on the Transnational Regions and Transnational Urban Networks (TUN) takes polycentricity a bit deeper and shows areas of the Enlargement area with the potential to compete with the Pentagon. We then take a step back and set the stage for enlargement by making a diagnosis of the European (and particularly the Enlargement area) to determine the spatial trends. This includes visualizing economic and population redistribution before enlargement, examining convergence/divergence trends in the EU10, and analysing the degree of spatial association of regions. A focus is placed on the risks and opportunities of enlargement by measuring the regional specialisation and geographic concentration of sector employment in the EU-12 and drafting typologies for particularly vulnerable regions. The special needs of border regions are highlighted with typologies based on the particular barriers to flows of people, goods, services and knowledge. We then take a forward-looking perspective via two complementary scenario studies on the effects of selected EU policies on the Enlargement area. Finally we present preliminary “policy combinations” to enhance the polycentric development of the Enlargement area. I.1 Normative objectives and multi-level spatial governance The objectives of the ESDP, competition, cohesion and conservation (or sustainability) are not strictly codified in terms of EU policy legislation. Spatial development policy, in which these three objectives are operative, is still the formal and legal domain of national and local governments. However, while the EU does not have full competence in the area of spatial development, it has been active in producing a set of common objectives or norms for the area. We will address these objectives as norms, or normative objectives, which prescribe or proscribe the range of acceptable actions for an actor (governmental or non-governmental) that adheres to a certain identity, in our case a European identity. As Kratochwil (1989: 11) states, "Norms are therefore not only "guiding devices", but also the means which allow 5 ESPON 1.1.3 TIR, Part I people to pursue goals, share meanings, communicate with each other, criticize assertions, and justify actions.” These “norms” also guide the scientific ESPON efforts and to a large extent also policymakers on the EU, national, regional and local levels. Europe “should” be one of the most competitive areas in the world, capable of sustainable growth. Social and economic cohesion in terms of levelling