This article was downloaded by: [Brown University]

On: 23 May 2013, At: 02:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

The Europeanization of spatial planning

through territorial cooperation
Stefanie Dühr , Dominic Stead & Wil Zonneveld
Published online: 29 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Stefanie Dühr , Dominic Stead & Wil Zonneveld (2007): The Europeanization of
spatial planning through territorial cooperation, Planning Practice & Research, 22:3, 291-307

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697450701688245

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp. 291 – 307, August 2007

INTRODUCTION

The Europeanization of Spatial Planning

through Territorial Cooperation
STEFANIE DÜHR, DOMINIC STEAD & WIL ZONNEVELD

Introduction
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

The influence of the European Union (EU) on spatial planning systems, policies
and processes in the member states is steadily increasing. Whilst the Community’s
direct role in spatial planning is limited, EU sectoral policies in the fields of
environment, transport, rural development and regional policy have considerable
spatial impacts and often require institutional adjustments within member states
(see van Ravesteyn & Evers 2004). Consequently, the impact of EU legislation
and policies on domestic planning is considerable and growing. This is
contributing to a ‘vertical’ exchange of ideas and concepts between EU and
national/regional institutions. Furthermore, initiatives related to the coordination
of sectoral policies and more harmonized spatial development of the EU territory
are being actively supported by the European institutions. Planners across Europe
are now routinely involved in transboundary cooperation networks and
interregional collaboration initiatives and thus subject to foreign experiences
and exposed to a variety of planning approaches from other member states. Such
cooperation between member states and regions on spatial planning is leading to
horizontal processes of policy transfer and institutional adaptation between
member states and regions.
The focus of this special issue is on the Europeanization of spatial planning,
and in particular the effects of territorial cooperation across national borders.
Many of the authors of the articles in this special issue have been involved in a
variety of recent research on European spatial planning, while others reflect on
the practice of transnational territorial cooperation. Together, the articles provide
a wealth of information on recent experiences of EU influences on domestic
planning systems, policies and practices. They present reflections on the impact
of territorial cooperation on institutional and policy change within the member

Stefanie Dühr, Radboud University Nijmegen, NSM – Department of Spatial Planning, PO Box
9108, NL-6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: s.duhr@fm.ru.nl; Dominic Stead, OTB
Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, PO Box
5030, 2600GA Delft, The Netherlands. Email: d.stead@tudelft.nl; Wil Zonneveld, OTB Research
Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5030,
2600GA Delft, The Netherlands. Email: w.a.m.zonneveld@tudelft.nl

ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/07/030291–17 Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis 291

DOI: 10.1080/02697450701688245
 Stefanie Dühr et al.

states and ultimately the contribution it makes to the Europeanization of spatial

planning.
This introduction sets the scene for the articles in this special issue by giving an
overview of the history of transboundary cooperation in Europe and an
introduction to the emergence of the EU territorial cooperation agenda and the
current scope of activity. This is followed by a brief discussion of the literature on
Europeanization and the insights these theoretical approaches allow for the field of
spatial planning. The articles in this special issue consider different aspects of the
Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation. A glossary of
terms and key concepts and a list of acronyms used in the articles is provided at the
end of this introduction.

Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

The benefits of collaborating on spatial development issues across national borders

have long been recognized. Initiatives such as the Conference of Regions of North
West Europe (CRONWE), set up in 1962, helped to increase the awareness for the
interlinkages between the nation states and regions of Europe, and the need for
coordinated action. The Benelux countries have arguably been most active in
cooperation on spatial planning. The first joint policies were prepared in 1986 and
updated through the Second Structural Outline for the Benelux in 1996
(Secrétariat Général de l’Union Économique Benelux, 1996). Similar steps were
taken in the Baltic Sea Region in 1994 with the adoption of a joint spatial policy
document and action programme to tackle issues of common concern
(VASAB2010, 1994). The strategy document was updated in 2001 under the
framework for the Community Initiative INTERREG IIC (VASAB2010, 2001).
Initiatives at the transnational scale followed earlier experiences on cross-border
cooperation and have in some cases resulted in more formal arrangements for joint
decision making. One example is the Deutsch-Niederländische Raumordnungs-
kommission (German-Dutch Spatial Planning Commission), established in 1967 to
coordinate spatial planning measures in the cross-border region, which adopted a
joint Raumordnerisches Leitbild (Guideline Planning Concept) in 1997 and is
still active.
The underlying explanation for the growth in cooperation across borders starts
with globalization and its effects on weakening the autonomy of nation states, and
increasing functional interdependencies between places. Interconnectedness is
growing strongly in the EU, assisted by new and expanded communication
technologies and transport growth and reinforced by the effects of Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU) and the completion of the Single Market. Increasing
interconnectivity presents fundamental challenges for the way places are
governed, and how states intervene to influence spatial development (Harris,
2001). In the globalizing economy, cities and regions (rather than nation states)
have become the focus for investment. Increasing competition between regions is
facilitated by the related political processes of decentralization and devolution of
competences. More attention is turned to harnessing the assets of cities and
regions (described as ‘territorial capital’) that may contribute to prosperity and
quality of life and using these for competitive advantage. But there is also a
292
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning

recognition that processes and patterns of spatial development are more influenced
by non-local, transboundary factors, and that these need to be addressed through
wider cooperation and collaboration. An important asset that cities and regions
seek to exploit and enhance is their connectivity, as is demonstrated by
investments in strategic European high-speed rail connections and other large-
scale infrastructure projects such as the Öresund Bridge between Denmark and
Sweden. These actions then reinforce interconnectedness and contribute to
increasing awareness of its impacts and potentials, thus creating a need for further
cooperation.

The EU Spatial Planning Agenda and Territorial Cooperation

The European institutions’ interest in transnational cooperation began in the early
1990s with the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) studies Europe
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

2000 (CEC, 1991) and Europe 2000þ (CEC, 1994). Europe 2000 stated that ‘it
makes no sense for planning to stop artificially at national borders’ (CEC, 1991,
p. 3). The analysis which underpins this claim has two interrelated arguments
which remain at the core of the debate on European spatial planning. Firstly, that
spatial development has cross-border and transnational dimensions that cannot be
addressed by regions or nations acting independently and, secondly, that the
significant spatial impacts of the Community’s sectoral policies are not effectively
coordinated. The subsequent principal actions to address these concerns have been
well documented: the preparation of the European Spatial Development
Perspective (ESDP) in 1999 by the intergovernmental Committee on Spatial
Development (CSD, 1999), and the funding of cooperation activity through the
Community’s INTERREG Initiative (see Faludi & Waterhout, 2002). The ESDP’s
successor document, the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, was adopted
by the member state ministers for spatial planning in May 2007 (TAEU, 2007).
Since the early 1990s, these initiatives have resulted in a stronger awareness
among planners and decision-makers of the need for improved horizontal, vertical
and geographical coordination in an integrated Europe.
Increasing territorial cooperation on spatial development across national and
regional borders has also prompted a greater demand for comparable spatial
information. Initiatives such as the Urban Audit and the ‘European Spatial
Planning Observation Network’ (ESPON) have been set up in response. Preceded
by the Study Programme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP, 1998 – 2000),
ESPON was launched in 2002 to provide detailed spatial information for the EU
territory and to set up a decentralized network of spatial research institutes across
Europe. Until 2006, the programme funded thematic research on the spatial
impacts of EU sector policies, projects on ESDP concepts (such as polycentricity
and urban – rural partnerships) and cross-thematic studies. More than 500
researchers from research institutes and universities across Europe collaborated
on ESPON projects. The main outputs were vast volumes of reports and maps,
many of which of arguably limited practical relevance. The academic debate has
only recently turned to deconstructing the ESPON experiences (see Gløersen
et al., this issue 2007). In the EU Cohesion Policy period 2007 – 2013, the ESPON
2013 Programme will continue to focus on applied spatial research and territorial
293
 Stefanie Dühr et al.

indicators, with an increasing emphasis on the demands of practitioners and

policy-makers at all levels of governance (see ESPON, 2007).
The EU’s primary instrument to support cooperation across national borders,
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), is INTERREG.
The INTERREG Initiative was launched in 1990 with a budget of one billion
Euros in order to overcome the disadvantages presented by administrative
boundaries of adjacent regions in the emerging Single Market. The INTERREG II
Initiative, from 1994 to 1999, had a total budget of EUR 3.5 billion. It continued
the cross-border cooperation activities, but also provided funding for trans-
national energy networks. From 1997, in the context of the preparation of the
ESDP, an additional funding strand (‘C’) on transnational cooperation to tackle
flooding and drought problems and to develop spatial planning for large groupings
of geographical areas was introduced with a budget of 440 million Euros. The
Community Initiative INTERREG III, in the Structural Funds period 2000 –
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

2006, had a budget of more than five billion Euros. Three objectives were
supported: cross-border cooperation (Strand A); transnational cooperation on
spatial planning across large contiguous areas (Strand B); and interregional
cooperation to improve the effectiveness of regional development through
information exchange and sharing of experience (Strand C). Strand B was most
explicitly concerned with spatial planning and the application of the ESDP
policy concepts such as polycentric territorial development and urban – rural
partnerships. The INTERREG IIIB programming documents required coopera-
tion projects to pursue an ‘integrated spatial approach’ as promoted by the
ESDP. The funding available for transnational cooperation, although still
considerably less than for cross-border activities, had increased to 1.3 billion
Euros (Nadin & Dühr, 2005). The number of actors involved in INTERREG
IIIB cooperation projects has been impressive, with an estimated tens of
thousands of actors, most of whom from regional and local planning authorities
across Europe, now directly or indirectly involved in transnational cooperation
networks (Ahlke & Görmar, 2006).
Transboundary cooperation is set to continue in the EU Cohesion Policy period
2007 – 2013. However, as a result of the ambiguity over the European
Community’s involvement in spatial planning activities and spatial development,
these terms have meanwhile been replaced in the Commission’s vocabulary by a
discourse on ‘territorial cohesion’ and by the term ‘territorial cooperation’ in the
guidelines and regulations of the 2007 – 2013 Cohesion Policy. The Lisbon and
Gothenburg Strategies, agreed at the European Councils in 2000 and 2001
respectively, promote the new strategic goal for the EU to become the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of
sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion. All European funding programmes are now focused on achieving these
objectives. For the 2007 – 2013 programming period, Structural Funding is being
streamlined under three objectives: convergence, competitiveness and territorial
cooperation. INTERREG ceases to be a separate Community Initiative, but is
integrated into the new mainstream objective of ‘European territorial cooperation’
(CEC 2005, 2006a, 2006b), also referred to as ‘INTERREG IV’. The budget for
cooperation almost doubled to 8.7 billion Euros (about 2.5% of the total Structural
294
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning

Funds budget). Whilst the three strands of cooperation remain, the emphasis on
cross-border working has been strengthened. The funding available for
transnational cooperation has increased to 1.8 billion Euros, but this now has to
be shared between 27 member states. However, additional cofinancing from
government and other sources will be added to these substantial sums, thus
making INTERREG IV a powerful instrument in financial terms.
In the context of EU enlargement and the EU’s strategic Lisbon-Gothenburg
objectives, there have been many substantial and procedural changes to
INTERREG cooperation. The new transnational (‘INTERREG IVB’) programmes
are no longer targeted at the application of the ESDP, with funding instead being
aimed at thematic priorities such as innovation, environment, accessibility and
sustainable urban development. There is no longer a requirement for an integrated
spatial approach of cooperation projects, and while some of the proposed activities
such as the management of river basins and coastal zones or the creation of urban
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

networks still have a strong territorial dimension, others range some way from a
spatial agenda (CEC, 2006b, Article 6). Besides the changes to budget and funding
priorities, there have also been again changes to some of the transnational
cooperation areas (see Figures 1 and 2). The cooperation zones determine the
eligibility areas of the European territory, and thus ultimately which actors can
collaborate with each other. They are thus an important part of the definition of the
scope and rationale for transnational cooperation under INTERREG (see Dühr &
Nadin, this issue 2007).

The Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Territorial Cooperation

Thinking about spatial development as promoted in the ESDP has reportedly
influenced planning systems and policies across Europe (e.g. Shaw & Sykes,
2003). The ESDP and the INTERREG and ESPON initiatives have generated a
new discourse on European spatial planning characterized by ‘new policy ideas
and language, new knowledge forms and policies, and new institutional forms for
their application’ (Böhme et al., 2004, p. 1178). The absence of a clear
institutional and political framework for European spatial planning implies that the
dissemination and application of spatial policies as expressed in the ESDP and the
Territorial Agenda relies on the perceived need or benefit of actors at national,
regional and local levels to engage in supranational territorial cooperation. In light
of the changing European policy context and given the complexity of European
spatial policy making across multiple tiers of government, there have been calls for
more differentiated and critical investigations of the field of European spatial
policy, arguing that it is not ‘a question of the implementation of a single core
policy document (the ESDP)’ (Böhme et al., 2004, p. 1178; see also Dabinett &
Richardson, 2005).
The concept of Europeanization has been used to describe a variety of different
phenomena and processes of change in response to EU influences (Olsen, 2002;
Radaelli, 2004; Lenschow, 2006). It is closely linked to concepts such as policy
transfer (see for example Bomberg & Peterson, 2000; Dolowitz & Marsh 2000;
Radaelli, 2000), learning (see, for example, Bennett & Howlett, 1992; May, 1992)
and lesson-drawing (see, for example, Rose, 1993; Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996;
295
 Stefanie Dühr et al.
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

FIGURE 1. INTERREG IIIB transnational cooperation programme areas (2000 – 2006). Source:
EuroGeographics Ó European Communities (http://www.europa.eu.int) (accessed 5 July 2005).

Stone, 1999). Radaelli (2004) distinguishes two main reasons why Europeaniza-
tion takes place: firstly, in response to EU pressure, such as directives, regulations
or other requirements, and secondly because the EU becomes a cognitive and
296
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

FIGURE 2. Structural Funds 2007 – 2013 – transnational cooperation areas. Source: EuroGeographics Ó
European Communities (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm) (accessed 20 August 2007).

297
 Stefanie Dühr et al.

normative frame, and provides orientations to the logic of meaning and action. The
concept of Europeanization has been used to analyse EU influences in a number of
ways, including (1) top down (from the EU to the national level), (2) bottom up
(uploading of national ideas to the EU level), (3) horizontal (between EU member
states) and (4) circular (from the national level to the EU and back to the national
level, for example in the form of new EU Directives or initiatives) (Lenschow,
2006).
The top-down interpretation of Europeanization is the one most widely found in
the literature (see Börzel, 1999) and describes the

processes of a) construction, b) diffusion, and c) institutionalization of

formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways
of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and
consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and

public policies. (Radaelli, 2004, p. 3)

Three adaptation mechanisms to EU influences can be distinguished in such a top-

down conceptualization of Europeanization. In its most explicit form, European
policy may trigger domestic change by prescribing specific institutional
requirements with which member states must comply, with community policies
often explicitly directed at replacing existing domestic regulatory arrangements
(Knill & Lehmkuhl, 2002). Somewhat less directly, European policy or legislation
may affect domestic arrangements by altering opportunity structures and hence the
distribution of power and resources between domestic actors. In their weakest
form, European policies neither prescribe concrete institutional requirements nor
modify the institutional context for strategic interaction, but seek to trigger
domestic adjustments to EU objectives indirectly by altering the beliefs and
expectations of domestic actors. Hence, the domestic impact of European policies
is primarily based on a cognitive logic.
It is the latter adaptation process to top-down EU influences which may be most
appropriate to describe transnational spatial policy making in Europe. Given the
lack of a clear institutional, policy and legal framework for spatial planning at EU
level, processes of Europeanization often lead to different responses in different
contexts, depending on the ‘goodness of fit’ of EU influences and domestic
policies and the political opportunity structure (see Börzel & Risse, 2000). The
article by Waterhout in this issue (2007) illustrates the complex effects of EU
sector policies and spatial planning initiatives at the EU level on national spatial
planning in the Netherlands.
Horizontal, state-to-state transfer processes can take place independently of EU
influences, although EU institutions can facilitate such learning processes. This
happens notably through the EU’s extensive committee structure, which brings
national policy-makers and opinion leaders into contact with each other, thus
facilitating the exchange of ideas which may diffuse into national practices
(Lenschow, 2006). The ESDP was prepared by the intergovernmental ‘Committee
on Spatial Development’ (CSD) and the policy process has been attributed as
‘shaping the minds of actors involved in spatial development’ (Faludi, 2001,
298
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning

p. 664). Another important stimulus for horizontal processes of the Europeaniza-

tion of spatial planning is the INTERREG initiative. Farthing and Carrière (this
issue 2007) focus on horizontal processes of Europeanization through the
involvement of EU member states and regions in the preparation of a transnational
spatial strategy document for the INTERREG IIIB ‘Atlantic Area’ cooperation
area. The article by Colomb (this issue 2007) considers appropriate ways to
evaluate the added value of transnational cooperation and the learning effects
through horizontal relations under the INTERREG initiative.
While a horizontal conceptualization of Europeanization can help to explain the
learning effects and policy transfer between regions involved in transnational
territorial cooperation, the field of EU spatial policy making can additionally be
characterized by a circular, interactive process of Europeanization. The
contribution by Dühr and Nadin (this issue 2007) considers such circular and
horizontal Europeanization effects through transnational cooperation funded by
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

the INTERREG IIIB initiative. They argue that although a large number of actors
have been involved in cooperation projects to date, there is little evidence of
learning effects in terms of a ‘rescaling’ of planning agendas from the national and
regional to the transnational level.
In an understanding of Europeanization as a circular process, actors at national
and subnational government levels seek to ‘upload’ domestic policy models and
ideas to the EU, while at the same time also ‘import’ EU influences in the pursuit
of changes that suit their domestic political interests. The ESDP is an example of a
circular process of Europeanization in which member states shaped the content of
the document through the CSD during the preparation (see Faludi, 2004), and
subsequently applied the ideas to domestic planning systems, shaped policies and
contributed to institutional change (see, for instance, Shaw & Sykes, 2003;
Davoudi & Wishardt, 2005). In their analysis of the application of ESDP concepts
in INTERREG programmes and projects, Waterhout and Stead (this issue 2007)
investigate the circular processes of Europeanization and argue that the ESDP
influence is not always clearly retraceable. Gløersen et al. (this issue 2007)
examine the various interpretations of the concept of polycentricity within
INTERREG and ESPON programmes, and conclude that cross-fertilization
between the programmes has been limited to date. In their practice review on the
interpretation of the concept of urban – rural relationships in ESPON and
INTERREG IIIB projects, Zonneveld and Stead (this issue 2007) come to a
similar conclusion. These accounts raise important questions about the added
value of territorial cooperation initiatives, and in particular the learning effects
which are now widely considered to be the most important aspect of such
collaboration. Reasons for the limitations to learning effects from the application
of concepts such as polycentricity through EU funding programmes or the
involvement in cooperation projects cofinanced by the EU may be the still
relatively recent nature of such initiatives. The effects of horizontal and circular
processes which affect the cognitive logic of actors involved in spatial
development and transnational cooperation may still become more visible over
the coming years. However, there may be other reasons, such as the institutional
and political resistance to change in many member states, be it due to a ‘misfit’
between EU and national policies and rules, or a missing need for adaptation.
299
 Stefanie Dühr et al.

The changing ‘rules of the game’ and evolving framework for cooperation,
through policy shifts at EU level and changing funding requirements of the
INTERREG and ESPON programmes, may also have prevented more significant
learning effects. Yet, given the scale of activity on territorial cooperation, more
significant results could be expected. There may be a need to review the
framework for cooperation in the EU in the light of expectations for the medium-
to long-term effects of cooperation. The articles in this special issue contribute to
the discussion on the limited evidence of a Europeanization through territorial
cooperation and ways to overcome the limitations to policy learning.
The processes of Europeanization of spatial planning in the Western part of the
EU at least are thus subtle, and the effects complex and often not directly
attributable to a certain initiative. In particular the more recent results of intensified
INTERREG cooperation and ESPON research networks have yet to demonstrate
their contribution to horizontal and vertical learning processes and a Europeaniza-
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

tion of spatial planning. But if the Europeanization effects in the EU of 15 member

states are complex and often fuzzy, what effects has transnational cooperation had
to date on the Central and Eastern European member states, which have only
joined the EU over the past few years? Somewhat surprisingly, it has been
suggested that the extent of change due to Europeanization processes may be more
profound in the new member states than in Western Europe (Batt & Wolczuk,
1999; Grabbe, 2001; O’Dwyer, 2006). One reason for this are the changes
required in response to the acquis communitaire prior to accession with
accompanying wide-ranging effects including administrative and legal changes,
new regional institutions, new administrative boundaries and new powers
(O’Dwyer, 2006). In this climate of change, there may be less institutional
resistance to policy change than in the old member states (Grabbe, 2001). The
practice reviews by Peterlin and Kreitmayer McKenzie on Slovenia (this issue,
2007), and by Zaucha on the Baltic Sea Region and Poland (this issue, 2007),
show that indeed the Europeanization influences on planning systems in their
countries and regions are evident and manifold. However, there are also concerns
that learning effects and cooperation results may not spread beyond the circle of
spatial planners. These observations reinforce the calls for a critical assessment of
the added value of territorial cooperation in Europe.

Glossary of European spatial planning: by Vincent Nadin and Stefanie Dühr1

The Europeanization of spatial planning that is explored in this special edition of
Planning Practice and Research has added a further layer of terminology to the
language of planning. It has involved bringing forward into the European spatial
planning debate concepts and terms used in other fields or in national planning
contexts; and the creation of wholly new terms and acronyms.
The meanings of many terms are inevitably ambiguous and contested because
meanings embody particular interests and are dependent on context. This
complexity is multiplied in the European arena because of the many languages
involved. Terms are translated backwards and forwards especially into and out of
English, and sometimes without proper reference to the context which gives them
meaning. Ideally we would have a generic or universal language to describe
300
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning

European spatial planning which is divorced from meanings that apply in

particular countries,2 but this is very difficult in practice. The choice and definition
of terms is an intensely political process, especially so in the European context.
Euphemisms are often used because of sensitivities around certain terms. Even the
word planning is now often avoided by some authors. But confrontation with
alternative understandings of spatial planning through the Europeanization process
has also made a positive contribution to discussions about the role and purpose of
planning in some countries.
So there can be no hard and fast rules. We offer here a brief explanation of some
of the main terms in use as a starting point for discussion, especially for those who
are beginning their investigation of the field of European spatial planning.
Our starting point is the notion of spatial development. In many planning
contexts development means changes in the form and quality of the physical built
and natural environment, and to a greater or lesser extent, the activities that make
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

use of that environment. Thus, spatial development refers to the geographical

distribution of features in the built and natural environment and patterns and flows
of human activity. The social, economic and cultural aspects of development and
their geographical distribution may be considered, but in most domestic planning
contexts they are secondary considerations. The notion of planning is often
equated with the policy and regulation regimes that governments put in place to
intervene in spatial development in its narrow physical sense.
In the European Union context the starting point is a broader notion of
development. The debate on European spatial planning is set in the context of the
goals of the European Union, which start with concerns about the social, economic
and cultural experiences of citizens. Of particular concern are geographical
disparities in socio-economic conditions and life chances of citizens. The physical
form of development and quality of the environment remain significant, especially
urban sprawl, but this is more closely tied to questions of disparity through such
notions as ‘balanced development’. So the notion of planning at the European
scale should be seen in the context of a broad notion of spatial development. The
term spatial development policy is sometimes used as an alternative to ‘spatial
planning’ and perhaps helps to draw a distinction between domestic and European
concerns.
The concern with spatial disparities also means that there is a much closer
relation in European spatial planning between ‘regional planning’ and ‘regional
policy’ than in most domestic planning systems. Regional planning is primarily
concerned with influencing the organisation of the physical spatial structure within
a specified region. Its policies and tools tend to be directed at the shaping and
regulation of physical development. Regional policy on the other hand addresses
the problems of disparities between regions within a country and its policies and
tools are directed mainly at economic development and employment. Regional
policy is sometimes described as national-regional policy and at the EU level it is
now known as cohesion policy. About one third of the EU budget is spent on
cohesion policy (or the Structural Funds). In the current EU Cohesion Policy
period 2007 – 2013, structural funding amounts to e347 billion to support three
principal objectives: the convergence of the economically weakest states with
stronger economies; improving competitiveness and employment in weaker
301
 Stefanie Dühr et al.

regions (nominated by member states); and strengthening territorial cooperation.

This latter objective is closely tied to the notion of European spatial planning (see
INTERREG below). The strong relation between cohesion policy and planning in
the EU is reinforced by the work of DG Regio, the Commission Directorate
General for Regional (Cohesion) Policy which has taken the lead, with member
states, on European spatial planning initiatives.3
Patterns of spatial development result from the complex interplay of market
decisions (individuals and firms) and public intervention. In the government of
territories many sectors of public policy will have some influence on spatial
development. We mean here policy sectors such as agriculture, environment and
transport (all important at the European level), and others such as health, education
and research and development. For example, if a health authority decides to
centralise its facilities in a smaller number of larger hospitals, there are
implications for the spatial distribution of access to those facilities. We follow
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

Williams (1996) who described these spatial impacts of sectoral policies as

spatial policy.
Sectors tend to pay little attention to their spatial policy—the spatial impacts of
their sectoral policies and how they relate to the spatial impacts of other sector
policies. Thus there may be contradictions in how policies interrelate in particular
places or territories. For example, agricultural subsidies may actually increase
income disparities between places; or transport investment may be made in one
place whilst economic development is supported in another. In addition, the
impact of policies made at a higher spatial level (say the EU) may have unintended
and unseen consequences at lower (national and regional) levels (van Ravesteyn
and Evers 2004). The contradictions of policy in particular places or even the
failure to maximise opportunities for synergy lead to costs of non-coordination
(Agence Européenne 2001). Although domestic spatial planning systems some-
times claim an ‘umbrella role’ in coordinating spatial policy, most give limited
attention to coordination. In practice they tend to operate as another sector of
public policy dealing primarily with the regulation of land uses.
In the European debate on spatial planning the coordination of spatial policy takes
centre stage. Thus, the European spatial planning approach concentrates on
establishing better co-ordination of the territorial impacts of policy: horizontally
across different sectors; vertically among different levels of government; and
geographically across administrative boundaries. This message is spelled out in the
principal statement on European spatial planning, the European Spatial
Development Perspective (ESDP) (CSD 1999). It provides a reference point for
spatial policy and recommends policy options to create more polycentric spatial
development, improved urban-rural relationships, more parity in access to
infrastructure and knowledge, and wise use of the natural and cultural heritage.
Polycentricity became a central concept in European spatial planning in the
1990s. It means ‘many centres’ and is promoted as a way to achieve more
‘balanced’ spatial development. It can operate at different scales from European to
city-region (for example ‘greater London’ may have a polycentric structure at the
scale of the South East but a monocentric character at the European scale).
Polycentricity describes the functional complementarity of places (for example the
extent of competition or complementarity in the provision of services); their
302
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning

institutional integration (the range and integration of strategies and policies that
seek to guide the development of these places) and political co-operation (the
extent and further scope for mutually beneficial co-operation among the
governments and other stakeholders).
The Community’s INTERREG Initiative has been the principal means of
encouraging member states and regions to address the policy priorities of the
ESDP through co-financing of spatial planning projects involving partners in
different countries. INTERREG has been through three phases that have addressed
a spatial planning agenda – II (1994 – 1999), III (2000 – 2006) and IV (2007 –
2013). There are three strands of action: cross-border, between geographically
contiguous border regions; transnational, across large multi-national spaces; and
inter-regional, among non-contiguous regions across the whole territory of the
EU. In the latest phase INTERREG has been incorporated into the mainstream
cohesion policy under the objective of territorial cooperation. This implies
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

cooperation on regional and spatial planning together with other economic growth
issues more generally related to regional policy.
A number of the INTERREG transnational programmes produced transna-
tional spatial visions which drew together findings from individual projects and
provide an agenda for future co-operation and the development of new
programmes. The need to work across borders in projects or joint visioning
exercises is justified with reference to transnationality, which means having an
effect in more than one country. A railway line crossing national borders is
obviously a transnational issue, but arguably the concept might also embrace
issues of common interest, such as rural out-migration. Demonstrating
transnationality helps to justify action by the EU or other transnational cooperation
activities above the level of the member state. These actions should meet the
subsidiarity principle, that is, decisions should only be ceded to higher
jurisdictions when there is demonstrable need or benefit to be gained.
The European treaties that outline the Community’s competences do not make
reference to spatial planning and there would be significant opposition to any
suggestion of involvement in domestic planning systems.4 However, in the
process of reform of the European Treaty proposals have been made to insert an
overarching objective for the Community of territorial cohesion. This makes
explicit what may have been implied by the treaties all along, that there is a
territorial or spatial dimension to the primary sectoral social and economic goals
of the EU. An Interim Report on Territorial Cohesion (CEC 2004: Art. 16)
explained territorial cohesion as ‘the balanced distribution of human activities
across the Union. . . [and] includes the fair access to all citizens and economic
operators to services of general economic interest . . . irrespective of the territory
to which they belong’. A less ambiguous view is that ‘territorial cohesion means
incorporating a spatial planning perspective into decisions that are now made
primarily on economic and social grounds’.5 This makes more explicit the spatial
dimension of the Community objective of a more fair (or equal) access for all
citizens to services and opportunities (for example, housing, jobs and education)
irrespective of their location. It should mean that sector decisions at the EU
level will have to pay more attention to the spatial policy impacts and act
accordingly.
303
 Stefanie Dühr et al.

A commitment to pursue territorial cohesion and polycentric development of the

EU has been made by all member states through the Territorial Agenda of the
European Union adopted at a meeting of Ministers in Leipzig in 2007. The Agenda
also talks of ‘territorial solidarity - the need to secure better living conditions and
quality of life with equal opportunities, oriented towards regional and local
potentials, irrespective of where people live . . .’ (Art. 3). Alongside the Territorial
Agenda a more comprehensive report of the Territorial State and Perspectives of
the EU was published making use of the findings from ESPON: the European
Spatial Planning Observation Network. The Territorial Agenda is something of an
update of the ESDP though it pays more attention to economic growth and jobs in
the light of the Lisbon-Gothenburg Agenda. This Agenda sets out the overarching
priority of the EU to develop the knowledge economy in the interests of global
economic competitiveness. Like other sectoral programmes, it pays little attention to
the spatial or territorial dimension, so the Territorial Agenda, continues to call for an
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

injection of a territorial (or spatial) perspective into community policies.

Notes
1. The glossary is based on an earlier version by Nadin, V. and Dühr, S. (2005) Some help with Euro-planning
jargon, Town and Country Planning 74(3): 82.
2. The European Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies published by the European Commission
in 1997 attempted to provide a generic terminology for planning instruments.
3. DG Environment has also taken a keen interest in spatial planning especially in its potential role in delivering
more sustainable urban development. The activities of other Directorates, especially transport have also had
important influences on spatial planning.
4. There is a reference in section 175 which gives the EU powers ‘to adopt measure concerning town and country
planning . . . (English version) but it is agreed that this relates only to environmental protection measures.
5. This view was given by the Dutch Minister at a meeting of ministers on territorial cohesion in 2004, according
to a report in ‘Shared Spaces’, the newsletter of the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and
Environment in October 2004).

References
Agence Européene Territories and Synergies, Eure-consult, Nederlands Economisch Instituut NEI, Quaternaire
Portugal (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and Costs of Non-coordination, Strasburg, Agence
Européene.
Ahlke, B. & Görmar, W. (2006) Fünf transnationale Kooperationsräume mit deutscher Beteiligung – Überblick
gewinnen. Workshop ‘Perspektiven für Transnationale Projekte nach 2006’. Leipzig, Euregia, 23.10.2006.
Available at http://www.bbr.bund.de/cln_005/nn_21696/DE/Forschungsprogramme/Foerderprogramm
InterregIIIB/Downloads/DL__Euregia2006__AhlkeGoermarUeberblick__pdf,templateId¼raw,property¼
publicationFile.pdf/DL_Euregia2006_AhlkeGoermarUeberblick_pdf.pdf (accessed 23.02.2007).
Batt, J. R. & Wolczuk, K. (1999) The political context: Building new states, in: P. Hare, J. Batt & S. Estrin (Eds)
Reconstituting the Market: The Political Economy of Microeconomic Transformation, pp. 33 – 48
(Amsterdam, Harwood Academic Publishers).
Bennett, C. J. & Howlett, M. (1992) The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy
change, Policy Sciences, 25, pp. 275 – 294.
Bomberg, E. & Peterson, J. (2002) Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heineken Test? Queen’s
Papers on Europeanisation 2/2000, School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s
University of Belfast, Belfast.
Böhme, K., Richardson, T., Dabinett, G. & Jensen, O. B. (2004) Values in a vacuum? Towards an integrated
multi-level analysis of the governance of European space, European Planning Studies, 12(8), pp. 1175 –
1188.

304
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning
Börzel, T. A. (1999) Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation to Europeanisation in Germany
and Spain, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(4), pp. 573 – 596.
Börzel, T. A. & Risse, T. (2000) When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change, European
Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 4. Available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015a.htm (accessed 13
May 2007).
Colomb, C. (2007) The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating
learning and policy change, Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 347 – 372.
Commission of the European Communities (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the
Community’s Territory (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Commission of the European Communities (1994) Europe 2000þ: Cooperation for European Territorial
Development (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Commission of the European Communities (2005) Communication from the Commission. Cohesion Policy in
Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007 – 2013, COM (2005) 0299
(Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Commission of the European Communities (2006a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006
Laying Down General Provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

and the Cohesion Fund and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Official Journal of the European
Union, 31 July 2006, L210/25.
Commission of the European Communities (2006b) Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and Repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1783/1999, Official Journal of the European Union, 31 July 2006, L210/1.
Committee on Spatial Development (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and
Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the
European Community).
Dabinett, G. & Richardson, T. (2005) The Europeanization of spatial strategy: Shaping regions and spatial justice
through governmental ideas, International Planning Studies, 10(3/4), pp. 201 – 218.
Davoudi, S. & Wishardt, M. (2005) The polycentric turn in the Irish Spatial Strategy, Built Environment, 31(2),
pp. 122 – 132.
Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D. (1996) Who learns from whom: A review of the Policy Transfer Literature, Political
Studies, 44(2), pp. 343 – 357.
Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D. (2000) Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy
making, Governance, 13(1), pp. 5 – 24.
Dühr, S. & Nadin, V. (2007) Europeanization through Transnational Territorial Cooperation? The case of
INTERREG IIIB North-West Europe, Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 373 – 394.
ESPON 2013 (2007) ESPON 2013 PROGRAMME. European observation network on territorial development
and cohesion. Operational Programme, version 3, resubmitted on 16 July 2007 (Esch-sur-Alzette, ESPON
Coordination Unit). Available at http://www.espon.eu (accessed 5 August 2007).
Faludi, A. (2001) The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective: Evidence from the North-
West Metropolitan Area, European Planning Studies, 9(5), pp. 663 – 675.
Faludi, A. (2004) Spatial planning traditions in Europe: Their role in the ESDP process, International Planning
Studies, 9(2 – 3), pp. 155 – 172.
Faludi, A. & Waterhout, B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No
Masterplan (London, Routledge).
Farthing, S. & Carrière, J.-P. (2007) Reflections on policy-oriented learning in transnational visioning processes:
The case of the Atlantic Spatial Development Perspective (ASDP), Planning Practice and Research, 22(3),
pp. 329 – 345.
Gløersen, E., Lähteenmäki-Smith, K. & Dubois, A. (2007) Polycentricity in transnational planning initiatives:
ESDP applied or ESDP reinvented? Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 417 – 437.
Grabbe, H. (2001) How does Europeanisation affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity,
Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 1013 – 1031.
Harris, N. (2001) Spatial development policies and territorial governance in an era of globalisation and localisation,
in: A. Koresawa & J. Konvitz (Eds) Towards a New Role for Spatial Planning, pp. 33 – 58 (Paris, OECD).
Knill, C. & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002) The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: Three
Europeanization mechanisms, European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), pp. 255 – 280.
Lenschow, A. (2006) Europeanisation of public policy, in: J. Richardson (Ed.) European Union – Power and
Policy Making, 3rd edn, pp. 55 – 71 (Abingdon, Routledge).

305
 Stefanie Dühr et al.
May, P. (1992) Policy learning and failure, Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), pp. 331 – 354.
Nadin, V. & Dühr, S. (2005) The future for Cohesion Policy, Town & Country Planning, 74(3),
pp. 85 – 86.
O’Dwyer, C. (2006) Reforming regional governance in East Central Europe: Europeanization or domestic politics
as usual? East European Politics and Societies, 20(2), pp. 219 – 253.
Olsen, J. P. (2002) The many faces of Europeanization, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5), pp. 921 – 952.
Radaelli, C. M. (2000) Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy,
Governance, 13(1), pp. 25 – 43.
Radaelli, C. M. (2004) Europeanisation: Solution or problem? European Integration Online Papers, 8(16),
pp. 1 – 23.
Ravesteyn, N. van & Evers, D. (2004) Unseen Europe (Amsterdam, NAi Publishers).
Rose, R. (1993) Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning across Time and Space (Chatham,
Chatham House).
Secrétariat général de l’Union économique Benelux (Ed.) (1996) Espace de coopération. Deuxième Esquisse de
Structure Benelux (Brussels, Secrétariat général de l’Union économique Benelux).
Shaw, D. & Sykes, O. (2003) Investigating the application of the European Spatial Development Perspective
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

(ESDP) to regional planning in the United Kingdom, Town Planning Review, 74, pp. 31 – 50.
Stone, D. (1999) Lesson drawing and policy transfer, Politics, 19(1), pp. 51 – 59.
TAEU (2007) Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe
of Diverse Regions. Agreed on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and
Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig on 24/25 May 2007. Available at http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/
original_1010200/German-EU-Presidency-Essentials-for-European-Territorial-and-Urban-Development-
Policies.pdf (accessed 20 August 2007).
Van Ravesteyn, N. & Evers, D. (2004) Unseen Europe: A survey of EU politics and its impact on spatial
development in the Netherlands (The Hague, Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research).
VASAB2010 Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea 2010 (1994) Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic
Sea 2010: Towards a Framework for Spatial Development in the Baltic Sea Region (Gdansk, VASAB2010).
VASAB2010 Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea 2010 (2001) VASAB 2010þ: Spatial Development
Action Programme (Essen, PLANCO Consulting GmbH).
Waterhout, B. (2007) Episodes of Europeanization of Dutch national spatial planning, Planning Practice and
Research, 22(3), pp. 309 – 327.
Waterhout, B. & Stead, D. (2007) Mixed Messages: How the ESDP’s Concepts Have Been Applied in
INTERREG IIIB Programmes, Priorities and Projects, Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 395 – 415.
Williams, R. H. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning (London, Paul Chapman).
Zonneveld, W. & Stead, D. (2007) European territorial cooperation and the concept of urban – rural relationships,
Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 439 – 453.

Acronyms Used in this Special Issue

BSR Baltic Sea Region
CEMAT Conférence Européenne des Ministres de l’Aménagement du
Territoire (European Conference of Ministers responsible for
Regional Planning) of the Council of Europe
DG Regio Directorate General for Regional Policy of the European Commission
GIZ Global Integration Zone
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective
ESPON European Spatial Planning Observation Network
ETC European Territorial Cooperation, one of the three objectives of EU
Cohesion Policy 2007 – 2013
FUA Functional Urban Area
INTERACT INTERREG Animation Cooperation and Transfer

306
 Europeanization of Spatial Planning

INTERREG former EU Community Initiative to stimulate cross-border,

transnational and interregional cooperation in the EU, now as ETC
one of the objectives of the EU Cohesion Policy
MEGA Metropolitan European Growth Area
NSR North Sea Region; INTERREG area
NWE North-west Europe; INTERREG area
NWMA North Western Metropolitan Area; INTERREG area. The enlarged
area is currently known as NWE
PIA Polycentric Integration Area
SAUL Sustainable and Accessible Urban Landscape; INTERREG project
in NWE
SPESP Study Programme on European Spatial Planning; predecessor of
ESPON
TAEU Territorial Agenda of the European Union
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

VASAB Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea

307