R O U T L E D G E . T A Y L O R & F R A N C I S The Future of Regions and Regional Development A curated chapter sampler in collaboration with the RSA wwww.rowuwtl.erodugtele.cdogme./ccoamrees Contents 1. Going for ‘smartness’: reframing city-regionalism From: Smart Transitions in City Regionalism, by Tassilo Herrschel and Yonn Dierwechter 2. European macro-regions as a new dimension of European geography: Networks of collaboration in the light of culture, history and language capabilities by Alexander Nagler From: Europe's Changing Geography, edited by Nicola Bellini and Ulrich Hilpert 3. Configuring the new ‘Regional World’: On being caught between territory and networks by John Harrison From: Regional Worlds, edited by Martin Jones and Anssi Paasi 4. Path renewal in old industrial regions: Possibilities and limitations for regional innovation policy by Lars Coenen, Jerker Moodysson and Hanna Martin From: Evolutionary Economic Geography, edited by Dieter Kogler 5. The future of public spaces in the dawn on rapid urban growth by Kyle Farrell and Tigran Haas From: In The Post-Urban World, edited by Tigran Haas and Hans Westlund 6. Sharing cities for a smart and sustainable future by Duncan McLaren and Julian Agyeman From: In The Post-Urban World, edited by Tigran Haas and Hans Westlund 7. Learning from each other: Planning sustainable, future-oriented, and adaptive cities and regions by Jörg Knieling, Frank Othengrafen and Galya Vladova From: Cities in Crisis, edited by Jörg Knieling and Frank Othengrafen 30% Discount Available Did you know? As an RSA member you can enjoy a 30% discount on books in the Regions and Cities series, and other subject related Taylor and Francis books and e-books including Routledge titles. To order simply e-mail Joanna Swieczkowska, [email protected], or phone on +44 (0) 207 017 6364 and declare your RSA membership. www.routledge.com/careeswww.routledge.com Copyright Taylor & Francis Group. Not for distribution. 4 Going for “smartness” Reframing city-regionalism Introduction This chapter provides an overall analytical framework for the empirical appli- cation of the conceptual fusion of transition and smartness in city-regional governance. The evaluation adopts two comparative perspectives based on our synoptic concept of a “dual transition,” which we argue shapes the ways in which specific city-regions move towards adopting smart governance prin- ciples and practices. The dual transition consists of changes to the external context, that is, the situation of city-regions, as well as changes to their internal conditions. In addition, we propose that both transitions are circumscribed by place-specific interactions between structure and agency. We thus study these interactions at two scalar levels: within and outside city-regions. The key idea advanced throughout our discussion is that interactions between external and internal transitions produce time- and place-specific circumstances for the adoption and concrete manifestations of smart governance. In this sense, we emphasize the nature and relative “weight” of the two processes of change, that is, the negotiated balance between external and internal factors as they impact the city-regional adoption of smart governance. This includes the primary rationales, values and goals underpinning established “orders” in governance regimes for city-regions and how they help to address competing interests and expected policies (both electoral and special-interests). One example is the current tension between globalization-based competi- tiveness and socio-spatial cohesion within (and especially in Europe, between) states. The role of the state thus differs between fostering competitiveness, actively facilitating economic development through state support, and seeking to maintain cohesiveness through redistributive interventions and economic and fiscal equalization measures. These rationales, and their respective impor- tance, manifest themselves in public and political discourses and values which shape justifications, expectations and modi operandi of governance in city- regions. Indeed, place-based factors matter too, such as established values concerning the interest of the individual vis-à-vis that of the collective, historic experiences with municipal self-government versus a centralized state system or just the simple habits and inherited routines of governing. Importantly, we 3 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group. Not for distribution. 86 Going for “smartness” further posit that the ways these traditions, views and ways of doing things are brought together, and practically elaborated, in response to changing con- texts – especially when they conflict with one another – are empirical signs of “smartness” in governance. Building upon the themes introduced in Chapter 1, smartness is therefore broadly understood in this and subsequent chapters to include deliberation and negotiation – or “creativity” and “learning” – in the ongoing search for more effective and responsive governance structures and policies, viewed against agreed objectives and expectations, and within what we furthermore call the “power field” between external and internal structural and dynamic factors. Our initial framework of a “dual transition” in city-regional smartness is illustrated in Figure 4.1, which reflects analytical and normative considerations. Analytically, we explore the external transition specifically through three main “orders,” which embody more concrete regime principles and rationales of control and operation between the development-political “poles” of com- petitiveness and cohesiveness. These orders help to define the external position ‘Neoliberal’ order 34 ‘Social market’ order 1 2 ‘Statist- dirigiste’ society model-market-i.e. shifts in state order External transition in political values & agendas Localism Regionalism Internal transition in city-regionalism Propensity for policy innovation and collaborative action based on internal political-economic milieux 1 = statist/localist, non-collaborative, hierarchical, dependent, defensive 2 = statist/regionalist, collaborative through state-incentives/intervention, also reaching across scales 3 = neo-liberal competitive/localist (metropolitan elitist), self-centred (‘independent- minded’), feeling ‘held back’ by struggling neighbouring localities, or seeking support by ‘clinging on’ successful 4 = neo-liberal-competitive/regionalist, opportunistic-collaborative at different scales, internationlist in networking, ‘elitist’ metropolitanist, confident Figure 4.1 Smart city-regionalism as “dual transition.” 4 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group. Not for distribution. Going for “smartness” 87 of city-regions as crucial nodes of economic activity and policy-making in rela- tion to locally-defined priorities as well as developments and policies in wider national settings. For instance, are city-regions allowed to “leave behind” their respective national territories in pursuit of their own opportunities and policy agendas? Alternatively, are key city-regions required to follow external trends and national processes as part of a strictly hierarchical, top-down political- administrative project? (The remarkable insistence by hundreds of US cities to ignore in toto the Trump administration’s high-profile withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017 is a recent example of the growing conflicts in American society between “internal” and “external” transitions and shifting political values.) Different principles connect to different types of city-regional govern- ance experiences, based on pre-dominant rationales, the relative roles of the state and capital in shaping space-economies and of course policy approaches. Accordingly, equitable (social market economy, neo-Keynesianism), dirigiste (socialism, ideology/idealism, statism) and competitive (market-centric, neo- liberal) principles give rise to: 1 a “neoliberal market” order, which is largely business-driven and set in a free-market, corporate understanding of individualism, globalization, and associated uneven opportunities between inevitable “winners” and “losers”; 2 a “Social market” order, which is driven by greater socio-spatial equity, democratic accountability and social justice, such as reflected in conven- tional, territory-based equalisation policies in the EU’s Structural Fund scheme; and 3 a “Statist-dirigiste” order, which is more driven by the state apparatus in a neo-mercantilist tradition, wherein city-regions are “pushed out” as the best (competitive) horses in the race for economic opportunities and appeal to (presumed) globally footloose capital. City-regions are thus expected to act both individually (to be successful) and on behalf of the state as a whole. The “choice,” or, as the case may be, requirements, among these orders is a product of the “dual transition” advocated here: that is, the time-dependent varying interactions between two main (changing) factor dimensions, and the negotiated aspirations around topical priorities and modi operandi of govern- ing a city-region. The result may be different, place-specific, “paths” towards adopting smartness in city-regional governance, as shown in Figure 4.1. The conditioning impact of external parameters on actors within city- regions, combined with place-specific internal factors, circumscribe the acceptability of policies among local electorates. This shapes the conditions within which policy-makers feel able, as well as compelled, to deliver poli- cies more likely to lead to political