Johnson 1

Emily Johnson
Prof. Dominic Stead
SPT-E5010 Urban and Regional Development
3 June 2021

EU Cohesion Policy in Stockholm City Plan

1. Explicit consideration of EU Cohesion policy

Setting an EU context very early in the document, the Stockholm City Plan (2018) describes that...

An urban agenda has been drawn up to attain sustainable urban development. A cohesive policy
is to lay the groundwork for sustainable, innovative and economically strong development for
the cities of Europe.

What they have described, Dühr et al. (2020) calls the ‘urban focus’ that has been an evolving aspect of
EU cohesion policy since 1989. It was incorporated into the EU Cohesion Policy’s ‘07-’13 period with
these recommended actions for developing urban areas:

to promote cities as motors of regional development; to promote internal cohesion inside the
urban areas and improve the situation of crisis districts; and to promote a more balanced
development between the economically strongest cities and the rest of the urban network.

To make these recommendations a reality, EU Cohesion Policy is supported by its three funds: the
European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). There is no
mention of the first two in the Stockholm city plan. Dühr et al. (2020) describes of how the ERDF is used:

“Infrastructures of research and innovation, telecommunications, environment, energy and

transport; direct aid to investments in companies (SMEs); and financial instruments (capital risk
funds, local development funds, etc.) to support regional and local development”

The Stockholm City Plan (2018) describes their current and planned use of regional development funds:

Stockholm’s Regional Development Plan “revolves around the vision that the Stockholm region is
to be Europe’s most attractive metropolitan region. The new plan will develop sustainability and
physical infrastructure in the region. Buildings, infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, and green
spaces are examples of central functions...”

More specifically, its goals include:

• An accessible region with a good living environment

• An open, gender equal, equitable and inclusive region

• A leading growth and knowledge region

 Johnson 2

• A resource efficient and resilient region without climate emissions (The Stockholm City Plan
2018)

Furthermore, the Regional Development Plan for the Stockholm region states that “at least 14,550 and
up to 22,600 houses must be completed each year in the County of Stockholm" (The Stockholm City Plan
2018). In summary, EU Cohesion policy is explicitly considered in the Stockholm City Plan. They plan to
use ERDF to support their rapid growth (especially housing growth!) so that the growth is sustainable,
high-quality, etc. The infrastructural uses described above are consistent with how the funds should be
used.

2. Implicit consideration of EU Cohesion policy

As mentioned, one of the urban focus topics in the previous period (‘07-’13) was that cities become
motors for regional development. The Stockholm City Plan is to strengthen and focus on cities
neighborhoods with strategic regional importance (2018). The plan also makes many mentions of how
the Stockholm County region can approach different kinds of projects, problems, and infrastructures

 Utilities
 Employment centers
 Schools
 Housing
 Freight traffic
 Airport access
 Carbon sinks
 Climate change strategy
 Ccological corridors
 Bicycle plan
 Water supply

The general idea behind all of these was that localities should 1) share the burden and responsibility of
regional challenges, 2) share the benefits more evenly. Of special importance are the many
transportation connections, which enable this sharing. The plan describes how current blockades to
movement are a reason why the city lacks cohesion (Stockholm City Plan 2018).

Another implicit topic is EU-wide competition. Paasi (2009) describes how regional identity has been a
recent buzzword, but really it’s a stand-in for regions to describe how their economy will develop or how
they can “provide new sustainable and attractive environments for migrants seeking ‘a new way of life’.”
At least in rural areas, topics disguised as cultural identity, local tradition and historical heritage are only
a tool to recognizing commercial potential (Paasi 2009). Stockholm is far from rural, but still seems
happy to follow suit and talk about its identity (Stockholm City Plan 2018):

 unique archipelago landscape

 historical mosaic of architecture
 interplay between the natural landscape and the built environment
 changes in the seasons and Nordic light

...And to draw comparisons to Europe:

 Johnson 3

 Stockholm-Mälaren region is currently one of the fastest-growing regions in Europe

 Stockholm is now one of Europe’s most visited destinations
 Stockholm Royal Seaport is one of... the largest urban developments in Europe
 Stockholm region is to be Europe’s most attractive metropolitan region

A first read through the Stockholm City Plan seems extremely resident-oriented and focused on
wellbeing, quality of life, etc. However it can also be re-read with the possible pretext that this “identity
stuff” is only economically-driven.

3. Opportunities for closer links to EU Cohesion policy

In terms of communication, the links to EU cohesion policy were mostly clear. The introduction
straightaway EU’s urban development goals (which we now know is part of cohesion policy). These goals
(not stated in the document) were all about regional cohesion. The intro also mentions the Cohesion
Policy’s ERDF and what Stockholm’s region’s goals are related to that. It’s quite nice then that the city
planning goals are basically the same four (slightly reworded) goals as these. It creates consistency
between the city and regional level. It’s the remove of an administrative boundary, in a way.

Those four goals (access, inclusivity, growth, and resource efficiency) didn’t take match up with every
single EU cohesion policy theme, but narrowing down to key targets is part of how the region and city
play off their strengths.

4. References

Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadin, V. (2020). EU Cohesion Policy and EU urban policy. European Spatial
Planning and Territorial Cooperation, 298–322. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203895290-33

Evers, D., & Tennekes, J. (2016). Europe exposed: mapping the impacts of EU policies on spatial planning
in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 24(10), 1747–1765.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1183593

Paasi, A. (2009). The resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe. Review of International Studies, 35(S1),
121–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509008456

Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2008). The rise of the “city-region” concept and its development policy implications.
European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1025–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802315567

Stockholm (2018) Stockholm City Plan