Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Conferences » Cultural actions for Europe 1994 » The Workshops 1 - 10 » Workshop 2: "Regional / Urban Planning and Culture" » Regional/Local Development Policy and Culture by Anna Arvanitaki

Regional/Local Development Policy and Culture by Anna Arvanitaki

"....we must not blindly borrow concepts from other disciplines without being aware of their wider implications. If we think it is important to take culture seriously, we must make ourselves aware of the complexities associated with cultural studies." (1)

1. Development in geographical / Regional Theory

1.1 The concept of region

a. Traditional geography was primarily concerned to understand the aerial differences on the earth's surface by studying specific regions and emphasising the unique synthesis of physical and human characteristics found within them.

b. Regional Science emerged as a new discipline in the U.S.A. in 1954, with the formation of the Regional Science Association, Walter Isard being its founding father. In its early years, the new field was nearly synonymous to regional economics, which means that its main concern was to give a spatial dimension to economic theory.

c. Theoretical Geography evolved in the 1950's in the U.S.A. as an anti-thesis to the traditional geography, focusing on the study of spatial variables and spatial systems, as opposed to the "exceptionalism" of the old geographers. Later this school of thought, boosted by the new technologies of computers, spread over to Europe and created the well known positivist tradition of quantitative geography.

The latter three being the "root disciplines" dealing with the notion of region, all served in reality to displace the concept of region in favour of a concept of undifferentiated space and a research agenda of pure spatial analysis.

Indicative of the clumsiness with which regional science dealt with the notion of region are some of Isard's definitions of regions:

" Broad geographic arenas significant for the human race" or,

" areas that would acquire a concrete form and character with respect to a pressing situation of reality", etc.

In these disciplines, there is a familiar distinction of 3 types of region:

In fact, the usage of the notion of the region by this school of thought was pragmatic, in other words served as area unit for the collection of data and the testing of hypotheses, in the search of "universal laws of spatial patterns". (Characteristic of the cynicism with which the notion of region was viewed by "quantitative geography" is a remark by Hoover - 1975 - that "region means an area which a researcher gets a grant to study".)

This marginalization and trivialization of the notion of region is also apparent within the Anglo-American regional development theory. As D. Massey observed in 1978: "the notion of region served only as a methodological tool used in analysis, a starting-point in which the problem under study was given definite boundaries.

The new Geography centred around Massey's work on "Spatial divisions of labour" (1979, 1984) coincided with the rediscovery of space in Sociology. (2)

And while it goes without saying that no social or cultural consideration were absent in the positivist tradition of (quantitative) geography, the "new" or "critical" Geography tries to reconcile space with society, to re-educate geographers / planners into sociological thinking, to make social agents reappear in the analysis of geographical phenomena.

1.2 Beyond City and Region: The concept of locality

Locality is a central idea of this new trend in Geography (and Sociology), in the area of "urban and regional studies". This concept emerged in the context of research programmes initiated in Britain with the aim of studying the rapid social and economic changes in that country during the 1970's and 1980's.

Phil Cooke, who is most closely associated with this "locality debate" explains that: "Localities are not simple places or even communities, they are the sum of social energy and agency resulting from clustering of diverse individuals, groups and social interests in space. They are not passive or residual but, in varying ways, centres of collective consciousness." (3)

The development of "locality research" has emerged partly as a reaction to the sociological theorising of the 70's, namely the structuralist tradition. This means that it tries to avoid explanations of the particular through the general, the structure. It emphasises the importance of small-scale, sub national levels of realities in order to understand social and economic processes at a macro scale: "it is impossible to understand universal processes without appreciating small-scale, local changes, given the inevitable of social life". A main concept in locality research agenda is this of the local labour market.

In practice, "locality" defined as "local labour market" replaced the earlier focus on "region" precisely because it is easier to conceptualise links between industrial restructuring at an international level and changes "on the ground" in the context of local economies.

Locality research and culture (economism versus culture)

Standing in between the orthodox Marxist tradition and the post-modernists, locality research has been accused by both:

a) by the former (conspicuously by D. Harvey) as risking to discredit the need of general theories and to fall into a post-modern kind of "agnosticism".

b) by the latter as being basically economistic (precisely because of its emphasis upon labour markets), falling back into weak forms of structural explanations.

Despite these epistemological considerations, it is clear that locality researchers show considerable interest in "local culture" since the latter concept intervenes in the conceptualisation of "localities".

There are writers from the side of the humanities, who find the integration of the concept of culture in locality studies insufficient, and theoretically weak. For example, P. Jackson (4) maintains that writers connected to locality research want to do justice to the cultural, but they also want to relate it to some sort of economic structure. He argues that, on the contrary one can understand contemporary economic restructuring in the light of cultural concerns. "Culture", he points out, "is not simply used by capital, but is integrally involved in the process of urban and regional change."

He continues saying that an appreciation of culture does not mean we have to reject research on economic restructuring and uneven development. Rather, it helps us to provide a better understanding of these processes, which up to now have been the domain of structurally focused approaches.

A. Paasi (5), attempts to integrate issues of culture with more orthodox geographical concerns. He argues that cultural life is extremely important for understanding social change and he attempts to integrate the theorisation of culture with a more rigorous approach to the analysis of regions and places in contemporary geographic thought. Paasi shows that we need to unpack the notion of culture if we are to succeed in understanding it. He distinguishes two senses of culture:

In the first case, culture is linked to experience. In the second case culture is linked to representation. In focusing on culture as representation, Paasi points out how vital it is to see how spatial units (specifically regions) become institutionalised historically, partly through cultural processes.

This historical creation of regional identities means that the latter cannot be reduced to the consciousness of particular social groups at particular points in time.

In the approaches mentioned above, a belief is underlying that an appreciation of culture enriches rather than invalidates, existing approaches to urban regional studies.

2. Developments in Regional Policy

2.1 Regional disparities and the first phase of European Policy

Regional policy has been exercised, during the post-war period, by national states with the aim of achieving a more equal, distribution of benefits of the overall economic growth.

The external intervention of the States in favour of lagging regions has indeed, in many cases, achieved to bring about an improvement of the welfare of underdeveloped areas at national level, while, at a European level, a relative convergence of economic indicators between advanced and lagging regions has also been documented.

However, following the economic crisis of the 70's, these trends have been reversed, while the budgetary constraints of central governments made it impossible for this redistributive policy towards the regions to be continued. Nearly the same period this model of regional development policy, known as the "top-down" model, was in the process of being theoretically discredited. In parallel to the economic crisis, the environmental crisis (at international and local level) made the limits of the dominant growth model as well as prevailing regional policies quite apparent.

The existence of considerable disparities between the regions of the EU in terms of GDP is well recognised and are, at least, twice as wide as those in the USA. As an integral element of the cohesion policy of the EU, the reduction of these disparities remains a priority.

According to the 4th periodic Report on the social and economic situation of the regions of the Community (6), there are two phases in the evolution of regional disparities in Europe:

2.2 The Structural Funds Reform (1988): towards a new policy model

After this complete reversal of trends following the economic crisis, and after some years of experimentation and consolidation of its regional policy, the EU slowly moved towards a new concept of policy which tries to integrate other components having to do with social, cultural and environmental aspects of development.

Jacques Delors, in 1989, at a Conference about the Development of European Islands (7) made clear that it was the aim of the Commission to make out of the European Community not simply a Common Market, but a unified space where the social, environmental and cultural dimensions will play a decisive role.

This new vision of European Integration is quite well reflected in the Structural policy of the EU as has been shaped after the Reform of the Structural Funds of 1988. The following elements can be considered as expressing best this re-orientation:

The regional policy of the E.U. is primarily directed to three types of "problematic regions":

The regional policy of the E.U. is exercised through

- Community Support Frameworks (CSF)

which include regional Operational Programmes consisting of coherent sets of multi-annual measures in both infrastructures and the productive sector;

- Community Initiatives (CI) consisting of transnational programmes, which better express the E.U. policy priorities (compared with the C.S.F.'s which are based on national development plans) and are for the most part directed towards creating favourable environment for enterprises, so that they can adapt to the single market and the increased competition.

Although they are transnational, they have an equally strong accent on the involvement of regional and local authorities in their preparation and implementation.

A good example of the mentality of the Structural Funds Reform as expressed in the C.I.'s, is the programme LEADER: its aim is to promote rural development by fostering a "bottom up" mobilisation of local potential, in order to promote the diversification of rural economies and the maintenance of an adequate social and economic fabric. It provides assistance for networks of local rural development bodies. It also aims to promote new communications technologies. Its intention is to experiment with innovative solutions and a better integration of sectoral measures (6).

As for the anticipated real effects of the Regional Policy of the E.U.?

The same Report 1991, (7) aptly stresses:

" ...If these resources are used for consumption instead of investment...., barely any lasting effects on production growth and income can be anticipated. If instead these resources are used for additional investment in raising labour force qualifications, infrastructures and the real capital stock of firms, substantial lasting effects should materialise."

However, it is recognised that, in the light of the size of the regional disparities, no impressive outcomes can be expected for the weaker regions, even after the doubling of the Structural Funds.

2.3 The EU Urban Development Policies

As for urban policy, until today, the E.U. cannot be said to have one: it only initiated and implemented specific actions and measures concerning the cities, but these actions and policies are not co-ordinated at the urban level.

The most important action of the E.U. about the cities, has been the encouragement of networking, which is seen as central for the European integration of the 90's. In 1992, eighty-one cities were identified as belonging to one or more European networks, initiated through EU projects, of which the most important are (8):

a) Poverty programme (DG5)

b) Migrants (European Centre for Work and Society)

c) Quartiers en Crise (DG5)

d) LEDA (DG5)

e) Urbanisation and the Changing Function of Cities (DG16)

f) Elise (DG5)

(For more analysis of the EU Urban policies, see paper of M. Parkinson.)

3. New Trends in EU regional / urban policies and the problem of culture

3.1. The new spatial Development Dynamics: from bi-polarities to multiple spatial polarisations

The shift in the EU regional policies and the emphasis being given to the local, occurred in a period when the theorists were discovering the new forms of territorial development which were shaping during the 80's, after the economic crisis of the 70's: what this shift in the spatial dynamics meant, can be summarised as a shift from bi-polar development (the contrast being between developed centres and underdeveloped peripheries) to multi-territoriality: a diversified spectrum of development trajectories. This reality didn't lend itself easily to schematisations either on a theoretical level or on a policy recipe level.

Despite this "resistance" of current forms of local developments to be categorised, most analysts agree that there are three types of areas which have successfully resisted or responded to the economic crisis:

- the restructured and rising metropolises

- the high-technology "poles" (centres of A and D and high-tech industries created through

public policy intervention)

- the industrial districts (diffused, but networked local production systems in areas of mixed rural / urban character).

What is common in all three types of local development is:

a) first, that they are precisely local, emphasising the fact that the local level is the appropriate level for reconstructing and development in the current period.

b) second, that they are all networked production systems exhibiting certain common characteristics of which the most important is the fact that economic development is no longer based on the availability of material resources (infrastructures or direct access to natural resources), but on the availability of non-material assets linked to local conditions, such as know-how, entrepreneurial skills and organising capacity, information processing, networking etc.

If these are the success stories of the new spatial development paradigm, at the other end of the spectrum stand the peripheral localities (cities or regions), areas which were not able to "adjust positively" to the economic crisis and the changing economic paradigm.

By looking at areas which, on the total, show an "inhibition" of local initiatives aiming at local development, one easily understands how many factors, economic, but mainly non-economic, underlie this inhibition for local development initiatives.

How is regional / local development policy to face this complex reality? Theory is largely at a loss, looking for, or shaping new, paradigms. In the meantime, policy cannot rest upon theoretical references to the past. They no longer provide bench marks on which to base sustainable development policy.

At this state, "all one can do is to suggest policy guidelines for adaptation to the specific socio-economic situation in each area." (9)

However, the basic elements of a new regional / spatial policy are already emerging. In a recent publication of the Council of Europe (1993), M. Ouevit suggests that: "Regional planning policies should give priority to the requirement of making the best use of non-material resources, linking this requirement with a fresh approach to the creation of infrastructures". This means that the organisational dimension of local development should be given special emphasis.

3.2 The EU policy response to new challenges; and the possibilities

for the introduction of cultural dimensions in urban and regional policies:

a) To meet the challenges presented by a fast changing reality in Europe, the EU has responded by reshaping its structural (regional) policy as presented above, following the latest theoretical development in regional science.

b) At the same time, there are signs that the EU will procede to a more coherent urban policy model, due to the severe social problems experienced by the big European cities. This tendency is pre-announced by the new Community Initiative for the cities (URBAN) launched in June 1994.

c) Meanwhile, the emphasis upon the environment and sustainability is already a fact in the context of the EU policies.

d) Added to these, there is a recent emphasis on the spatial dimension of European development and the effort to integrate the spatial dimension in other policy areas of the EU.

All the above developments create favourable conditions for the inclusion of cultural considerations in regional / urban policies of the EU for the purpose of making the actions and the programmes more culturally adapted and coded. Such positive conditions or factors are:

- emphasis on bottom-up processes of planning,

- the growing importance of regional and local level,

- the recognition of the importance of strategic planning with the sense of fostering local

specificities and strengths,

- the recognition of the need for re-including social equity goals in regional and - most

importantly - urban policy, which means that - cultural policy will have to be an integral

part of the newly emerging EU urban policies,

- the need for a cultural movement on problems of sustainability and environment protection, if the current development and - mainly - consumption model is to be reversed.

Of course, there are also negative trends some of which can be mentioned:

- the technocratic bias in the decision making apparatus of the EU,

- the subsidiarity principle which delegates, up to now, culture and cultural policy to the

national level,

- the lack of dialogue between academic and policy areas dealings with urban/regional

development on the one hand and culture on the other.

References:

  1. Duncan, S. & Savage, M. (1991) "New Perspectives on the Locality Debate", Environment and Planning A, vol. 23/2.
  2. Gore, Ch. (1989) "Regions in question. Space, Development and Regional Policy", Menthnen, London.
  3. Cooke, Ph. (1989) "Localities", Unwin and Hyman, London.
  4. Jackson, P. (1991) "Mapping meaning: a cultural Critique of Locality Studies", Environment & Planning, Vol. 23/2.
  5. Paasi, A. (1991) "Deconstructing region: notes on the scales of spatial life", Environment.
  6. CEC (1991) "The Regions of the Community", 4th periodic Report, Brussels.
  7. Spilanis, I. (1993) "Island's development and networks of cooperation of the EEC islands", Topos, 6/93.
  8. Getimis, P., Economou D. (1992) "Urban restructuring and urban policies in the New Europe", Spetsai European Workshop on "Policies and institutions for the development of cities and regions in the single European market".
  9. Quevit N. (1993) "Regional planning priorities seen in terms of common economic development issues...", Council of Europe, European Regional Planning, No. 54.
  10. Parkinson, M. (1994) "Cultural Policy and European Cities: towards a European Union response", Athens Seminar, "Culture, Building Stone for Europe 2002".

^ Top

« Further Proposal by Frank Moulaert | Social Innovation in Local Economic Development Strategies by Frank Moulaert and Jean Cedri Delvainquire »