European Planning:The Third Way

Andreas FaludiDelft University of Technology

Aveiro, 5th july 2013

Content

1. Background

2. The EU: Two or three positions?

3. The spatial dimension of territory

4. European spatial planning

5. The ‘learning machine’

6. Perspectives

Background

• UK:– Planning Theory

• NL:– Leiden – Oxford– Planning Doctrine

• Europe:– ‘ESDP’ (2002)– ‘CCC’ (2010)

• Space/territory

The EU: Two Positions Or Three?Worning Shot

Internationalists:

Recognise complexity; no clear message

Neo-nationalists:

Not ideological but protectionist

Required:

Unity to adjust the Netherlands and the West to‘modern times’

The EU: Two Positions Or Three?Federalist Campaign

• Answer to euro-crisis

• Supranationalism against inter-governmentalism

• No third way(s):

– Governance

– Networking

The EU: Two Positions Or Three?Neo-nationalists

Democracy:

Territorial loyality

Reconsideration of:

Supra-nationalism/ multiculturalism

‘Undemocratic’ EU

Future:

Multicultural nationalism

Sovereign cosmopolitism

Flood of Reactions

The EU: Two Positions Or Three?Alternative Conceptualisations

EU resistance against:

Concentric circles

Variabel geometry

Multi-speed Europe

Hard core

À la carte

Ideology of state-nation-territory, but:

Europe as it is

"We can have a flexible Europe where we don't all have to do the same things in the same way at the same time."

The Spatial Dimension of Territory:Beyond National Borders

Security policy makes it imperativeto break out

Critique of:

Territorialism

Territoriality

Container-thinking

The Spatial Dimension of Territory:Rethinking Hierarchy

• Territory (Baudelle et al. 2011) =

– Sovereign

– Control

– Borders

• Territorialism (Scholte 2000): Macro social space organised in districts, towns, provinces, countries and regions: container view of territory

• Metageography (Murphy 2008): Spatial structure of thought:

– Map of sovereigns states

– Map of, e.g., river basins

The Spatial Dimension of Territory:Theoretical Dimension

• Nested jursidictions:– Hooghe, Marks

(2010):

• Type I MLG

• Type II MLG

• Absolute and relativespace (Harvey 1969):– ‘…no longer feasible

to take a container view of space…’

The Spatial Dimension of Territory:Control

• Sack (1986): ‘…spatial strategy to …control resources and

people by controlling area…’ - often equated with state control

• Hajer (2003):

– Diminishing ‘territorial synchrony’

– Policy works next to or across established orders

– Institutional void

• Marks (1992): EU an ‘untidy multilateral polity’

• Burgess, Vollard (2006): unbundling of territoriality

• Accepted wisdom: Governing becoming (territorial) governance

European spatial planningInfluence Jacques Delors

Cohesion policy

Europe 2000

(NL/F) planners to the front

But: state territoriality

Commission only the paymaster

End of story

European spatial planningThe ESDP

Spatial approach = Territorial integrationGuidelines:� Polycentric

development� Access� Management

heritage

The ‘Learning Machine’

Modest success, but:

� Transnational

� Crossborder

EU nor member-state

planning: Third-way!

What role politics?

Perspectives:Representative Democracy?

Nauwelaers (2012) over '...myopic approaches, confined to regional boundaries and overlooking potential cross-border synergies’ in innovation policy

Key issue in (European) spatial planning

Territorial representation >< network society

Perspectives:Networks around Delft

Perspectives