Positioning European Spatial Planning

The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is being described as 'inter-governmental'. The original initiative was for a Community spatial strategy for the delivery of the Structural Funds. Coming from France, it met with opposition. So it was that the successive six-monthly Presidencies of the EU took turns in managing the process. In truth, however, without Commission support the ESDP would not have come about. Now that the ESDP is on the books, the Commission is claiming a leadership role. Taking a position on this, one needs to view spatial planning against the backdrop of general thinking about European integration. Positions in the literature are often presented as polar opposites, like that of 'neo-functionalists' putting faith in integration on the one hand and that of 'realists' emphasizing the continuing dominance of nation states on the other hand. However, a growing body of literature is not about these 'grand theories', but about the actual workings of European institutions. It takes a middle ground and invokes concepts which planning writers are accustomed to, like networks, discourses and governance. From this literature it appears that mutual learning, a feature also of the ESDP process, is common in European integration. European spatial planning must be seen as part and parcel of an emergent system of European multi-level governance. In it, power is exerted at multiple levels of government. Denying the Community a spatial planning role is not realistic, therefore.

[1]  [Federation and representation]. , 1970, L'Infirmiere francaise.

[2]  A. Pazy,et al.  Generation and Representation , 1983 .

[3]  N. Fligstein,et al.  Jacques Delors and European Integration. , 1994 .

[4]  Christoph Knill,et al.  Ringing the Changes in Europe: Regulatory Competition and the Transformation of the State. Britain, France, Germany , 1996 .

[5]  James Anderson,et al.  The Shifting Stage of Politics: New Medieval and Postmodern Territorialities? , 1996 .

[6]  Liesbet Hooghe,et al.  Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance , 1997 .

[7]  Michelle. Cini The European Commission: Leadership, Organisation and Culture in the Eu Administration , 1997 .

[8]  B. Kohler-Koch The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance , 1998 .

[9]  David Marsh,et al.  Comparing policy networks , 1998 .

[10]  S. Hix The study of the European Union II: the ‘new governance’ agenda and its rival , 1998 .

[11]  A. Benz,et al.  The Europeanization of regional policies: patterns of multi-level governance , 1999 .

[12]  B. Kohler-Koch,et al.  Governance in the European Union : A Comparative Assessment , 1999 .

[13]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Transnational Networks as Transnational Policy discourse: some observations on the Politics of Spatial Development in Europe , 2000 .

[14]  A. Faludi,et al.  Strategic planning in Europe: Institutional aspects , 2000 .

[15]  A. Benz Two types of multi‐level governance: Intergovernmental relations in German and EU regional policy , 2000 .

[16]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Discourses of Mobility and Polycentric Development: A Contested View of European Spatial Planning , 2000 .

[17]  Wil Zonneveld,et al.  The Committee on Spatial Development: Formulating a spatial perspective in an institutional vacuum , 2000 .

[18]  A. Faludi,et al.  The French pioneering role , 2001 .

[19]  The Emerging 'Urban Agenda' and the European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards an EU Urban Policy? , 2001 .

[20]  A. Faludi European spatial planning: A contested field , 2001 .

[21]  A. Faludi,et al.  The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan , 2002 .

[22]  A. Faludi European Spatial Planning: Lessons for North America , 2002 .

[23]  J. Shutt,et al.  Structural Funds and Their Impact: Signed and Sealed, But Can We Deliver? , 2002 .

[24]  B. Waterhout Polycentric Development: What's behind it? , 2002 .