Territorial Cohesion: Old (French) Wine in New Bottles?

Page created by Vernon Cruz

Food & Drink

English

Like
Share
Embed
Fullscreen
Slides
Download HTML
Download PDF
Abuse

←

→

Page content transcription

If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below

Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 7, 1349–1365, June 2004

Territorial Cohesion: Old (French) Wine in New
Bottles?

Andreas Faludi
[Paper first received, April 2003; in final form, November 2003]

Summary. If finally accepted, the new concept of territorial cohesion could mean a formal
planning role for the European Union. The paper traces the French roots of this concept. As
other concepts in European integration, it is subject to multiple interpretations. The initial focus
has been on regional economic development as such. At present, territorial cohesion is also held
to mean (for example, in the White Paper on European Governance) the co-ordination of policies
with an impact on one and the same territory. Originally adhering to a more interventionist
approach to spatial planning, the French have learned to factor balanced and sustainable
development, concerns of the so-called comprehensive integrated approach, into the equation.
Germans, in turn, are seeing sense in the new French focus on ‘services of general economic
interest’. Experts from both countries agree on the need for a spatial framework for Community
policies. Such a framework would look somewhat like the European Spatial Development
Perspective, but as part of territorial cohesion policy as a shared responsibility of the Union and
its member-states. This would vindicate ideas of the French pioneers of European spatial
planning.

Introduction
At the time of writing, the European Consti- torial cohesion? In a recent publication, Di-
tution (European Convention, 2003) is still rectorate-General Regio poses this very ques-
under discussion. Article 3 of the draft says tion, answering that it extends and builds
that the Union “shall promote economic, so- upon the notion of economic and social co-
cial and territorial cohesion and solidarity hesion as stated in the EC Treaty, in particu-
among Member States”. Article 13 in Part III lar the aim of contributing to the harmonious
(The policies and functioning of the Union) and balanced development of the Union as a
lists territorial cohesion as a shared com- whole. The publication then points to geo-
petence of the Union and the member-states. graphical discontinuities in the Union’s terri-
Whilst these discussions are going on, the tory, certain aspects of which cohesion
Commission is already invoking the concept policy already embraces, “including the pri-
of territorial cohesion—for example, in its ority given to support for regions whose
second cohesion report (CEC, 2001b). The development is lagging behind” (CEC, 2003,
third cohesion report, at the time of writing p. 40). Rather than giving a definition, the
eagerly awaited, is sure to make even more message seems to be that nothing radically
prominent reference to it. Now, what is terri- new is being proposed. Territorial cohesion
Andreas Faludi is in the Nijmegen School of Management, University of Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The
Netherlands. Fax: ⫹ 31 24 3611848. E-mail: a.faludi@hccnet.nl. The author wishes to thank Jean Peyrony of DATAR, Professor
Alain Motte of the University of Aix-en-Provence and June Burnham, Senior Lecturer in European Government at Middlesex
University for their comments.
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/04/071349–17  2004 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080/0042098042000214833

1350 ANDREAS FALUDI

is merely said to augment existing policies l’aménagement du territoire et à l’action
with a greater focus on development oppor- régionale), seconded by its Dutch counter-
tunities, to encourage co-operation and net- part, the Rijksplanologische Dienst, put on
working, to pay greater attention to strengths the agenda in the late 1980s.2 However, the
of areas and by a better targeting of policy Germans raised objections, subsequently
instruments. It is said to incorporate the sus- shared by most other member-states, against
tainability agenda (including the prevention a Community planning framework. As a
of natural risks) and to promote greater co- consequence, what came to be known as the
herence and co-ordination between regional European Spatial Development Perspective
policy and sectoral policies with a substantial (ESDP) attempting to provide such a spatial
territorial impact. So, in the eyes of the Com- framework was prepared by the member-
mission, territorial cohesion means more states jointly. The Commission input has
than distributing funds, but the essence of been substantial, nevertheless, but as soon as
what is involved beyond that can apparently the ESDP (CEC, 1999a) was on the books,
not be put into simple words. the Commission ended its support for the
The purpose of this paper is not, however, intergovernmental ESDP process, seemingly
to criticise the concept of territorial cohesion biding its time until territorial cohesion is
for lack of clarity. The context in which it accepted as an area of EU policy.
has emerged is after all a charged one and The paper first discusses aménagement du
definitions are not nearly as important as the territoire and the rise to prominence in this
ability to rally support. The purpose of this context of the concept of territorial cohesion.
paper is rather to document how the concept Then the paper indicates how French ap-
has come to occupy such an important pos- proaches contrast with others in Europe. The
ition in the draft Constitution. As the reader last part of the paper is about French and
will learn, one of the movers behind this has German positions converging. This raises the
been the current Commissioner responsible prospects of an, albeit modest, planning role
for regional policy (and coincidentally also for the Union under the flag of territorial
for institutional reform), the Frenchman cohesion.
Michel Barnier. Addressing a French audi-
ence, Barnier (2002, p. 201) leaves no doubt
Aménagement du territoire3
about what in his eyes territorial cohesion is:
another way of saying aménagement du ter- In 1947, the book Paris et le désert français
ritoire (see also Husson, 1999, p. 62). Rooted (Gravier, 1947) had drawn attention to spa-
in the French administrative model as it is, tial imbalances. This had led to an unsuc-
Barnier feels though that this is liable to be cessful initiative by the division of the
misunderstood outside France. However, Ministry of Reconstruction (where Gravier
whether territorial cohesion makes more was based) to launch a policy of aménage-
sense to the reader unfamiliar with French ment du territoire. In 1962, the idea was
thinking is a moot question. At the very least, revived. A Plan d’Aménagement du Terri-
the roots of the concept in French aménage- toire designated so-called métropoles
ment du territoire need to be laid bare. d’équilibre. After abortive efforts to set up a
If adopted, territorial cohesion in the Con- Ministry for aménagement du territoire,
stitution would help resolving the so-called DATAR was set up with a mission to “co-or-
competence issue. Indeed, that seems to be dinate the actions of the different ministries
one of the points of putting it forward. The in the domain of central territorial develop-
issue is this: Community policies have spa- ment” (Balme and Jouve, 1996, p. 225). The
tial impacts.1 It would seem appropriate, context was formed by General de Gaulle’s
therefore, for them to fit into a spatial frame- policies to modernise France “especially af-
work. Such a framework is what the French ter 1961 when a protected French economy
planning agency DATAR (Délegation à had to overcome the loss of the former col-

TERRITORIAL COHESION 1351

onial markets and a lowering of trade barriers the goals, the amount of money involved,
in the EEC countries” (Burnham, 1999, and the matters (in broad terms) for the
p. 80). plan conventions to be passed within the
The golden age of DATAR was in the Regions for five-year periods as provided
1960s and 1970s under its first délégué by the Planning Reform Act 1982 (CEC,
(Commissioner), the Gaullist Olivier 2000a, p. 19).
Guichard.4 Guichard was stamping a force-
ful, Gaullist and centrally driven image on
French regional planning. DATAR also renders advice to the Prime
Aménagement du territoire has no equiva- Minister chairing the Conseil national
lent in English. d’aménagement et de développement du ter-
ritoire (CNADT). Beyond that, DATAR has
The expressions most commonly used are taken to drawing up spatial scenarios, includ-
spatial planning and regional policy, but ing scenarios of the doomsday type (Levy,
these do not reflect the global ambition to 1997, p. 230), but scenarios are of course not
reach a harmonious allocation of economic statutory plans. The essence of aménagement
activities (Chicoye, 1992, p. 411). du territoire continues to lie in the will to
The ambition is rooted in the French concern manage the national territory overall, if only
with maintaining national unity. Aménage- no longer exclusively from the centre.
ment du territoire is about public action con- Rather, the commitment of regional and local
cerning the disposition in space of people, actors is seen as essential. Their involvement
activities and physical structures based on a is expected in itself to help to rebalance the
balanced notion reflecting the geographical French centralised system. It is said to reduce
and human situation in the area under con- the dominance of Paris, not only economi-
sideration (Dupuy, 2000, p. 11). Although cally, but also in terms of access to decision-
this is primarily a matter of concern for making.
national authorities, decentralisation ever The concern for decentralisation has
since the early 1980s has led to other levels turned DATAR into an ally of the regions.
of government becoming involved. As will There is endemic conflict between the
become evident, the mobilisation of regional Parisian élite and regional and local notables
and local actors around territorial policies is (Frémont, 2001, p. 86), sometimes described
one of the aims of present-day aménagement as the jacobins and the girondins. The ja-
du territoire. cobins are responsible for the “fabled tutor-
Aménagement du territoire is evolving in ship of the state” (Siedentop, 2000, p. 111)
other respects as well, with sustainability exercised by top administrators educated
being factored in. This, too, will be discussed mainly at the École Nationale Administrative
below. What is important to note here is that, (hence their designation in French as the
unlike other forms of spatial planning, amé- enarques). Decentralisation is challenging
nagement du territoire can do without a their position.
statutory plan. Regulating land use does not In the late 1980s, the fate of DATAR, too,
even enter the minds of DATAR, so why was hanging in the balance (Burnham, 1999,
should a statutory plan be needed? pp. 81–85; see also Guyomarch et al., 1998;
In lieu of statutory plans, present-day amé- Cole, 1998, p. 112). DATAR took a proac-
nagement du territoire relies on covenants tive approach, focusing on the French spatial
with the regions (contrats de plan Etat-Ré- position in Europe. This provided a rationale
gion, or CPERs). In this way, the volume on for its continuing existence (Burnham, 1999,
France of the Compendium of EU Spatial p. 86). Famous for giving rise to the concept
Planning Systems and Policies explains that of the ‘Blue Banana’, a DATAR-commis-
sioned study by Brunet (1989) was instru-
central government determines the scope, mental in this. Brunet concluded that France

1352 ANDREAS FALUDI

was vulnerable and Paris not in the European work on a spatial vision for Europe, eventu-
heartland.5 ally to become Europe 2000 (CEC, 1991).
The French role in European integration is However, the people concerned had nothing
often a pioneering one, so much so that like a masterplan in mind. Rather than want-
Siedentop (2000, p. 113) describes Brussels ing to regulate land use, what they wanted
as “in some respect an appendage to Paris was a strategic spatial framework for on-go-
and of the French political élite”. This élite ing Community policies. Instead of invoking
accepts loss of French autonomy in the wake gross domestic product as the criterion for
of integration in exchange for greater domi- defining areas due to receive support, spatial
nance in Europe, say the German authors criteria and concepts should form the basis
Eising and Kohler-Koch (1999, p. 281). In for regional policy.8 This started the process
fact, integration to the French is said to be a of making the European spatial development
“means of enhancing French national pres- perspective (Faludi and Waterhout, 2002)
tige” (Cole, 1998, p. 237). In this tradition, rolling.
DATAR exported aménagement du territoire Five years later, during the 1995 French
to Brussels (Levy, 1997, pp. 230–231). As presidency, DATAR introduced scenarios
Bailly (2001, p. 195) points out, the Eu- into the ESDP process. This was based on
ropean Regional Development Fund (ERDF) the experience of a national debate under
is “modelled on the DATAR …, which aims Charles Pasqua, Gaullist minister of the In-
to limit the Regional inequalities in the terior and Territorial Development. This de-
Union with particular concern for social and bate had resulted in a revised French policy
spatial justice”. Hence, the of what was from then on called aménage-
ment et développement du territoire (Lévy,
procedure for allocating structural funds
1997, p. 231).
following the structural funds reform of
Based on the same national debate, the
1988 reflects, in many respects, the struc-
‘Law Pasqua’ made provisions for a schéma
ture and the action principles of the French
national to be adopted by special law. The
CPERs that were conceived while Jacques
scheme should relate not only to classic amé-
Delors was a member of the French
nagement du territoire but also to sustainable
government (Balme and Jouve, 1996,
development (which is what the addition of
p. 231).
développement to aménagement du territoire
The Presidency of Delors (1985–95) was signifies). The scheme was to be formulated
particularly important in injecting French bottom–up, involving nation-wide consulta-
thinking into Community regional policy. He tions (Alvergne and Musso, 2000, p. 51). The
introduced new principles. Partnership was German ‘Guidelines for Regional Policy’
particularly important amongst them, based (Raumordnungspolitischer Orien-
on the view that local knowledge and the tierungsrahmen; Federal Ministry for Re-
forces of what Delors called ‘auto-develop- gional Planning, Building and Urban
ment’ were important, which of course refers Development, 1993) prepared jointly by the
to the mobilisation of local and regional ac- federal government and the governments of
tors aimed for in present-day aménagement the Länder, may have provided a model. The
du territoire. One of the members of the then délégué to DATAR, Jean-Louis Guigou,
Delors cabinet, Jean-Charles Leygues, joined was well acquainted with German planning
the directorate-general of the European Com- (Guigou, 1995).
mission responsible for regional policy, However, in 1995, a new French govern-
where to this day he fills the position of ment came to power and Pasqua’s national
director.6 A one-time staff member of scheme never saw the light of day. In 1999,
DATAR and member of the political cabinet yet another government got a new ‘Law
of minister Jacques Chérèque,7 Jean-François Voynet’, after the planning and environment
Drevet, was appointed to the Commission to minister, Dominique Voynet from the

TERRITORIAL COHESION                                  1353

Greens, accepted the Loi d’orientation pour        research, rural and natural areas and sports
l’ aménagement et le développement durable       and recreational facilities. They are 20-year
du territoire (making it even more clear that      frameworks for the next round of the con-
in this context développement means sustain-      trats de plan with the regions and also (this
able development). The law foresees nine           being an innovation) with so-called agglom-
schemes, one each per public service cluster,      érations (urban area communities) and pays
but does away with the overall scheme. With        (towns with their surrounding rural hinter-
its emphasis on public services, it foreshad-      lands). Agglomérations and pays are areas
ows the concern for the role of such services      characterised by geographical, economic,
in promoting territorial cohesion.                 cultural or social cohesion, where public and
   Rather than a national scheme, DATAR            private actors can be mobilised around a
was asked to formulate an indicative vision        projet de territoire. The sense of shared pur-
of France in 2020, which it did, stressing         pose resulting from participating in such a
amongst other things the European contex.          project is an important factor in territorial
(Guigou, 2000). In July 2002, the present          cohesion. So, territory not only refers to an
government under Jean-Pierre Raffarin re-          area of land, but also to a “rich, complex
placed Jean-Louis Guigou as délégué by          system of public and private actors”, says the
Nicolas Jacquet. Although the public service       Plan Commissariat in 1997 (quoted in Burn-
schemes have been put on a back burner,            ham, 1999, p. 89). Peyrony (2002, p. 33)
generally, the Raffarin government retains         brings this all to the point by saying: one
existing arrangements, but with an even            territory, one project, one contract.
stronger emphasis, as befits a government             Behind the rise of territorial cohesion one
under a former regional president,9 on decen-      discerns the influence of a number of key
tralisation.                                       French players using platforms like the As-
                                                   sembly of European Regions (AER), the
                                                   Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the
The Arrival of Territorial Cohesion
                                                   Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Re-
In this context, what does the concept of          gions of Europe (CRPM) for their purposes.
territorial cohesion add? As the reader has        The reader already knows Michel Barnier to
learned, to Barnier it is but another way of       be one of them. Another recurrent name is
saying aménagement du territoire. As French       that of the president of the region of
minister of European Affairs, he has been the      Limousin, Robert Savy. Savy occupies im-
one responsible for the inclusion of this con-     portant positions, including that of chair of
cept in the Treaty of Amsterdam (Husson,           the main CNADT committee. His aid,
1999; Husson, 2002, pp. 122ff). Since then,        Claude Husson of the University of Limoges
Article 1610 recalls “the place that ‘economic     (where Savy also holds a chair in aménage-
services of general interest’ have in the com-     ment du territoire) has authored a DATAR
mon values of the Union and the role they          publication on territorial cohesion (Husson,
play in the promotion of social and territorial    2002). An association with its seat at the
cohesion of the Union”. The idea underlying        same University of Limoges devoted to the
is that, in the interest of cohesion, state sup-   comparative study of public services, EU-
port for such services must be allowed in          ROPA, is organising courses and confer-
areas where they would otherwise be un-            ences. It works closely with the European
profitable. This is a new element in the equa-     Liaison Committee on Services of General
tion.                                              Interest (CELSIG). This is a lobby represent-
   As indicated, the ‘Law Voynet’ already          ing, as the name suggests, public service
reveals some of the thinking behind this. The      providers, with a strong French presence on
schemes in that law relate to traditional pub-     its board. This is significant. The European
lic utilities, like transport and energy net-      Commission has slapped France on its wrists
works, but also to higher education and            for providing subsidies to such service pro-

1354                                    ANDREAS FALUDI

viders, but Limousin is a region with a de-        Treaty was not enough. After all, originally
clining population where the maintenance of        the AER had proposed to treat it on a par
services is of vital importance.                   with economic and social cohesion. When
   Prior to the Intergovernmental Conference       the next occasion, the Intergovernmental
of 1996/97, the AER formed a working               Conference that would eventually lead to the
group chaired by Savy. It produced a report        Treaty of Nice, presented itself, Savy hit the
Regions and Territories in Europe (AER,            campaign trail again (Husson, 2002, p. 13).
n.d.) Based on this, the AER proposed to           Territorial cohesion should get its rightful
amplify the concept of economic and social         place. When he did not succeed, Savy under-
cohesion in the Treaty establishing the Eu-        took once again to get it on the agenda of the
ropean Community by adding that of terri-          next Intergovernmental Conference of 2003/
torial cohesion (Husson, 1999, p. 47). This is     04.
based on the distinction between economic             Summarising, territorial cohesion is not
cohesion on the one hand and social and            simply a recipe for more redistribution. Ever
territorial cohesion on the other. The former      since the early 1980s, French thinking on the
is said to refer to conditions for the function-   matter has addressed the social and institu-
ing of the market—what is often described as       tional dimensions of regions lagging behind.
a ‘level playing-field’. Social and territorial    Territorial cohesion thinking merely brings
cohesion, in contrast, relates to the adhesion     this more sharply into focus. This relates to
of citizens to a political body, be it the EU or   what Delors has been quoted as describing as
a nation-state.                                    ‘auto-development’—what the literature
   What lies behind this is French resistance      sometimes describes as endogenous develop-
to the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’ being imposed           ment.11 The French ‘non-paper’, to be dis-
through European competition policy.               cussed below, says likewise that public
Siedentop (2000, p. 136) identifies this as        policies
one of the strategies of the French political
class (see also Hooghe, 2001, p. 9). There is        should contribute to territorial organis-
a cultural dimension to this. Europeans, it is       ation, should promote at each spatial level
argued, are rooted in the soil. They are not         the forging of relations between actors,
footloose, as are “the much more nomadic             public and private (DATAR, 2002; em-
peoples of the North American Continent”             phases in the original).
(Guigou, 2001, p. 4). In their desire to con-
tinue to live where they have for generations,     Before discussing the French non-paper and
they deserve public support. So, subsidising       its impact, the French approach to planning
services is justified for the sake of the ‘Eu-     needs to be contrasted with that of some
ropean model of society’, a concept that           other member-states, Germany amongst
Jacques Delors was fond of invoking. Terri-        them.
torial cohesion figures in that model.
   Subsequent to getting the concept into the
                                                   Approaches to Spatial Planning
treaty, Barnier became Regional Commis-
sioner and responsible for the ‘Second Re-         The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning
port on Economic and Social Cohesion’              Systems and Policies (CEC, 1997) describes
(CEC, 2001b). It pays much attention to            aménagement du territoire, where territorial
territorial cohesion. By that time, the associ-    cohesion thinking comes from, as the ‘re-
ation EUROPA had already organised a con-          gional economic approach to spatial plan-
ference at Limoges on the implications of          ning’. The aim of the regional economic
Article 16 and of the concept of territorial       approach is to let regional economic devel-
cohesion (Pauliat, 1999; see also Burnham,         opment conform to some overall idea formu-
1999, p. 89). However, the cursory mention         lated by a central agency, using powers and
of territorial cohesion in the Amsterdam           funds at its disposal. Under this approach

TERRITORIAL COHESION 1355

spatial planning has a very broad meaning pacity of the land concerned. Naturally, this
relating to the pursuit of wide social and tradition has embraced the notion of sustain-
economic objectives, especially in relation ability, so much so that the revised German
to disparities … between different re- planning act includes sustainable develop-
gions …Where this approach … is domi- ment amongst the guidelines that planners
nant, central government inevitably plays must follow. Obviously, such a discourse
an important role (CEC, 1997, p. 36). will seem more appropriate where there is
conflict between dynamic and weak forms of
The regional economic approach has a land use—thus in densely populated areas—
counterpart, called the comprehensive inte- which is why this view is common in north-
grated approach.12 This is an approach that west Europe.
is conducted through a very systematic However, as economic development issues
and formal hierarchy of plans from na- force themselves onto the agenda, the com-
tional to local level, which co-ordinate prehensive integrated approach is taking a
public sector activity across different sec- more positive view of economic develop-
tors but focus more specifically on spatial ment. This is particularly true for German
co-ordination than economic develop- planning where unemployment and outright
ment. … This tradition is necessarily asso- decline, especially in east Germany, loom
ciated with mature systems. It requires large.14 German planners want to move be-
responsive and sophisticated planning in- yond regulative planning. They use ap-
stitutions and mechanisms and consider- proaches, like ‘regional conferences’, similar
able political commitment … Public sector to those invoked in France (Knieling et al.,
investments in bringing about the realis- 2001).
ation of the planning framework is also the The regional economic approach, too, is
norm (CEC, 1997, pp. 36–37). shifting. As a high-quality living environ-
ment comes to be seen as contributing to
Here the focus is on the use of land. Conse- territorial competitiveness (Camagni, 2002,
quently, the two approaches conceptualise p. 2396), the concerns of the comprehensive
space and spatial policy differently. The re- integrated approach are becoming more
gional economic approach focuses on the prominent. There are also grass-root move-
location of economic development and what ments in metropolitan areas asserting the
government can do about it. To this day, importance of quality-of-life issues. Conver-
territorial cohesion is seen as ensuring bal- gence between the two approaches is in the
anced territorial development and the estab- air.
lishment of solidarity between all French In this context, the concept of ‘spatial
citizens.13 This is the more relevant, the more development policy’ has cropped up, first
pronounced are regional disparities. Above, during discussions in 1991 concerning the
it has been pointed out that disparities be- name of a committee set up at the informal
tween the Paris region (the Île de France) and meeting of European planning ministers at
the rest of the country have been a long– The Hague. Williams (1996, p. 48) relates
standing concern. Agglomeration disec- that the Dutch presidency had wanted it to be
onomies such as congestion, pollution and/or named the ‘Committee on Spatial Planning’,
labour shortages in the core underscore the but ‘spatial development’ with fewer conno-
need for siphoning activities off to the pe- tations of state regulation was chosen instead
riphery where there is usually more oppor- (Faludi and Waterhout 2002, p. 50). Since
tunity for accommodating growth. then, spatial development has become a term
Coming from a land-use planning tra- of good currency. Thus, under the German
dition, the comprehensive integrated ap- presidency in 1994, so-called Principles for a
proach, in contrast, is more about balancing European Spatial Development Policy
development claims against the carrying ca- (BRBS, 1995) were adopted and, of course,

1356 ANDREAS FALUDI

the term figures in the title of the European A New Consensus?
Spatial Development Perspective. According
First, the evolving French and German posi-
to a working party of the German Academy
tions on European planning will be explored,
for Regional Research and Regional Plan-
starting with the French one. Then the sec-
ning, known by its German acronym as the
tion relates the content of a joint position
ARL, spatial development has the advantage
paper of high-level French and German advi-
of lending itself to translation into various
sory councils. This is where the new consen-
European languages.15 The working party
sus, at least between experts from both sides,
defined spatial development as policy that
becomes evident.
“promotes the development of space in ac-
cordance with specified general principles”
(ARL, 1996, pp. 56–57). Development re- The French Position
ceives more emphasis than in the German
notion of Raumordnung (which stands for The vehicle for articulating the evolving
regulative planning), but in contrast to amé- French position has been a ‘non-paper’—
nagement du territoire there is scope for wonderful jargon for a discussion document,
functions and activities other than the purely presented by DATAR to the Spatial and Ur-
economic utilisation of space. ban Development sub-committee of the EC
Territorial cohesion, too, incorporates the Committee on Development and Conversion
concern for co-ordination of the comprehen- of the Regions in June 2002.16 The non-paper
sive integrated approach. Under ‘principles spells out the intended role of territorial co-
of good governance’, the White Paper Eu- hesion in reforming regional policy after the
ropean Governance states that end of the current programming period in
2006. Many of the present beneficiaries will
The territorial impact of EU policies in loose their status due to the ‘statistical effect’
areas such as transport, energy or environ- of enlargement reducing GDP per capita in
ment should be addressed. These policies the EU. However, territorial development
should form part of a coherent whole as policy goes beyond traditional regional pol-
stated in the EU’s second cohesion report; icy. It should contribute, the non-paper ar-
there is a need to avoid a logic which is gues, to territorial organisation—a key
too sector-specific. In the same way, deci- dimension, as will be remembered, of French
sions taken at Regional and local levels views on territorial cohesion. Thus, policies
should be coherent with a broader set of should promote better relations between pub-
principles that would underpin more sus- lic and private actors at various spatial levels,
tainable and balanced territorial develop- not only horizontally, but also vertically.
ment within the Union (CEC, 2001a, Subsidiarity is thus not the only issue. In a
p. 13). barely veiled reference to the insistence of
The emphasis here is on policies forming a member-states, in particular Germany, that
coherent whole. So, like with spatial devel- spatial planning is not a Community com-
opment, territorial cohesion has two sides to petence, the paper says that one should cease
it, one more interventionist in the sense of to think merely in terms of horizontal blocks
actively pursuing balanced development of competencies. Rather, the principle of
throughout the territory concerned, like in the subsidiarity
regional economic approach, and the other should be complemented by the principle
concerned with co-ordination, like in the of vertical co-operation between the dif-
comprehensive integrated approach. This is ferent territorial levels (Europe, States, re-
an additional reason for expecting that the gions, local districts) (DATAR, 2002, p. 3;
protagonists of the two approaches will ar- emphasis in the original).
rive at a new consensus. This is what the
next section explores. Here comes the essence of the proposal

TERRITORIAL COHESION 1357

At the European level, putting such co-or- between the French state and the regions.
dination into effect might, to be operative, These tripartite contracts should pay regard
necessitate the introduction into the Treaty to the ESDP, in particular to the policy an-
of the notion of territorial cohesion, nounced in it of polycentric development.
alongside with economic and social co- The projects would be networked as under
hesion (DATAR, 2002, p. 3; emphasis in the Community initiatives LEADER or UR-
the original). BAN.
In addition, Community regional policy
This is, of course, the position, discussed should aim at co-operation and integration in
above, of Robert Savy and other French pro- the entire territory of the enlarged EU. The
tagonists of the concept. The non-paper em- idea is to organise a Europe without borders
phasises the need to supplement distributive by means of transnational co-operation, like
regional with real territorial development in the co-operation areas (what DATAR lov-
policies. In an obvious attempt to put issues ingly calls the ‘little Europes’) under the
of the past to rest, the non-paper adds that Community initiative INTERREG IIIB, and
this should not be taken to signify the exten- also by means of interregional co-operation,
sion of Community competence to include like in INTERREG IIIC. The non-paper con-
spatial development. The idea is apparently cludes from this that
to separate spatial development from terri-
torial cohesion policy and to leave the former it appears necessary to develop a legal
a competence of the member-states.17 Be- Community instrument allowing for oper-
yond this, the non-paper elaborates upon ational implementation of these co-opera-
three themes. tions (DATAR, 2002, p. 5).
The first theme is that traditional ‘catch-
ing-up’ policy for countries and regions lag- Under the second theme, territorial develop-
ging behind (the cohesion countries, ment forming a joint member-state/Com-
respectively the Objective-1 regions) should munity responsibility, DATAR points out
be supplemented by a policy of helping re- that the Community’s ‘catching-up’ policies
gions to improve their competitiveness. In are devoid of a strategic vision. They merely
other words, regional policy should become rely on statistical indicators, like GDP per
spatial policy. The term ‘catching-up’ in it- capita. At the same time, such a vision exists,
self holds a message. It is that by its very but it is one without teeth prepared by the
nature mainstream cohesion policy has a lim- member-states—i.e. the ESDP. In an attempt
ited time-horizon—i.e. until the recipients to relate territorial cohesion to the emergent
have caught up with the rest. The point is new agenda of the EU, the non-paper argues
that catching-up cannot be an indefinite pro- that regional policy should add a territorial
cess, which is why eventually increasing dimension to the political process which
competitiveness should replace catching-up started at Lisbon in March 2000, as amplified
as the central theme of cohesion policy. by the European Strategy for Sustainable
Be that as it may, according to the non-pa- Development (CEC, 2001c) adopted at
per, regions that are not the beneficiaries of Gothenburg. Invoking what is called the
‘catching-up’ policies should be encouraged ‘open method of co-ordination’, described as
to choose from a menu of themes (some of a halfway house between the Community
them reminiscent of existing Community ini- and the intergovernmental method, the non-
tiatives) and formulate a territorial develop- paper proposes that an enhanced ESDP be
ment strategy on that basis. This strategy made subject to the approval of the European
should form the object of a tripartite contract Council and that member-states, too, should
between the Community, the respective present their national plans at European
member-state and the region concerned, Councils, much as is the case with other
rather as the contrats de plan are contracts elements of the Lisbon strategy which are

1358 ANDREAS FALUDI

regularly discussed at a so-called spring Minister in the chair. It affirms French com-
council. mitment to cohesion policy benefiting the
The third theme is that new-style territorial least-developed regions in an enlarged Com-
cohesion policy should become part of the munity, but adds that there needs to be atten-
European sustainability strategy. Here, the tion also to cohesion in other regions and that
non-paper recalls that sometimes Community the programmes for transnational co-oper-
policies have territorial impacts that counter- ation need to be continued, albeit under sim-
act the cohesion objective. Co-ordination pler, clearer and more effective procedures, a
presumes a shared vision. This is what a point that also figures high on the agenda of
revised ESDP should provide. Co-ordination Commissioner Barnier. The memorandum
needs to take place at two levels. The first is affirms the need for a coherent and comple-
the level of policy. It is here that the non-pa- mentary approach to various Community
per proposes to add a territorial dimension to policies with a bearing on economic and
the evolving European Strategy for Sustain- social cohesion and asks for a better articula-
able Development. The second level is inter- tion of the relevant rules, in particular as
nal within the Commission. DG Regio regards state aid and services of general in-
should perform strategic territorial impact as- terest. As regards procedures, it advocates
sessments, based on a new ESDP, of the the ‘open method of co-ordination’: the
programmes of other DGs. So far, the need definition of objectives and common indica-
for internal co-ordination within the Com- tors based on the ESDP. What is missing is
mission has not received the attention which the demand for elevating territorial cohesion
it deserves. The conclusions will return to to a treaty objective on a par with economic
this important point. and social cohesion. For conveying this pro-
The non-paper reflects long-standing posal, different channels were used: the
French views, whilst at the same time French government representative at the Eu-
demonstrating that DATAR is going through ropean Convention. It will be remembered
a learning loop, absorbing the philosophy of that the draft Constitution indeed gives terri-
planning-as-co-ordination drawn from the torial cohesion this prominent place. A mem-
comprehensive integrated approach. It is ber of the presidium of the Convention on
clear also that DATAR wants to give the the Future of Europe, Commissioner Barnier
ESDP its rightful place. was sure to have been pleased.
The sub-committee on Spatial and Urban At the time of writing, it is hard to tell
Development apart, the non-paper has been whether, once the dust over the Intergovern-
presented also to a joint meeting of the mental Conference has settled, it will end up
CNADT and its German counterpart, the in the same places, Article 3 and Article 13,
Planning Advisory Council and, through or whether it will disappear. The game is
these channels, has had an effect on German anything but over. There are those who warn
expert opinion. Before discussing this against unwrapping the package deal
French–German tête-à-tête, it is as well to achieved by the Convention and, if this does
report that under the new government the not happen, then obviously territorial co-
French position has remained much the hesion will become a recognised aim of the
same. In January 2003, DATAR conveyed Union and a shared competence between the
the official French position to Commissioner Union and the member-states. However,
Barnier in a document entitled ‘Reform of there are those who insist on changes—for
the policy of economic and social cohesion: example, to the number of Commissioners
the French contribution’. This statement had with voting rights and the voting procedures
been prepared by DATAR and validated by on the European Council. Once that happens,
the CIADT (Comité interministériel pour there may very well be renewed discussion
l’aménagement et le développement du terri- over territorial cohesion, too. There is oppo-
toire) in December 2002, with the Prime sition from some net contributors to the

TERRITORIAL COHESION 1359

Community budget who think that territorial ESDP process forward; and, in so doing,
cohesion means an even greater burden on involving the accession states. The Advisory
the Community coffers. Council also notes that, with the bulk of the
structural funds likely to go to the accession
states, member-states should be given more
The German Position
scope for pursuing their own regional poli-
The Planning Advisory Council is one of cies. This is a position enforced by the other
three German panels involved in preparing recommendation on planning and regional
German policy with respect to European spa- economic policy. There, the butt of criticism
tial planning.18 The other two are the stand- is Community competition policy.
ing conference of planning ministers of the It is here, inter alia, that German concerns
16 German Länder with their federal coincide with those of the French fathers of
counterpart, known by its German acronym the concept of territorial cohesion. This be-
as the MKRO, and the Academy for Re- comes still more evident in yet another rec-
gional Research and Regional Planning, the ommendation on public services and
ARL.19 Of the three, the MKRO continues to Community regional policy. It points out that
be sceptical about a Community planning the German state has a constitutional duty to
role, even when going under the flag of safeguard access to such services. It reminds
territorial cohesion. However, the Planning the reader that the policy of ‘decentralised
Advisory Council and the ARL are shifting concentration’ has led to German federal
towards accepting territorial cohesion. agencies being decentralised and to state,
regional and local services being located ac-
The Planning Advisory Council. In the mid cording to central place theory. Since such
1990s, the Planning Advisory Council had services represent a major tool of territorial
supported the position that the ESDP should cohesion policy, their provision should form
be an intergovernmental document, but one a key consideration in formulating and evalu-
that is binding on the Community (a ating national policy, more and more depen-
reflection of what Germans call the ‘counter dent as it is on Community regional policy.
current principle’). In the early 2000s, the The recommendation ends by suggesting that
Advisory Council made several new recom- the issue be explored jointly with the
mendations relating to European planning, CNADT.
including the joint one with the CNADT. Before discussing the remarkable joint
The first relates to the application of the position which was the outcome of discus-
ESDP. It at least goes as far as accepting the sions with the CNADT, the newest ARL
need for reconsidering previous reservations position will be discussed.
as regards the Community role. Without
prejudice to national and regional competen- The ARL position paper. Evidently, at least
cies, the new position is that the Community as far as German experts are concerned,
has a right and, in the interest of transpar- scepticism as regards a Community planning
ency, even a duty to state its views as regards role is diminishing. In a number of scholarly
the type of spatial development it is aiming works, Gatawis (2000), Benz (2002) and
to pursue. However, its statement should be Graute (2002) each in their own way suggest
binding only on the Community itself. accepting a limited Community role. An
Further recommendations address the im- ARL position paper (Ritter et al., 2003) like-
pact on Germany of eastern enlargement and wise accepts the need for formalising Eu-
the relation between planning and regional ropean spatial development policy. Informal
economic policy. Going into fewer details co-operation around the ESDP has not been
than DATAR has done, the former confirms enough. Its informal character contradicts the
the need for: a cohesion policy to pursue fact that some criteria for support under the
balanced spatial development; taking the structural funds (CEC, 1999b) are based on

1360                                  ANDREAS FALUDI

it. Territorial cohesion should be seen on a    close.21 After preliminary discussions, on 28
par with economic and social cohesion, as       June 2002, representatives of the two advi-
the French are saying. Note also that the       sory councils met on Robert Savy’s home
reasoning is similar: moving territorial co-    ground, the capital of Limousin, Limoges, to
hesion out of Article 16, where its scope is    discuss a joint recommendation as regards
narrowly circumscribed, to a position such      the future of EU regional policy and the
that it would become an overall goal of the     spatial impact of Community policies. This
Union would imply, amongst other things, a      joint recommendation endorses territorial co-
duty for spatial co-ordination.                 hesion as a goal of the Union. It argues also
   The position paper stipulates further a      for turning the ESDP into a framework, not
need for a European Spatial Development         only for regional policy, but for other Com-
Perspective aiming at the balanced and sus-     munity policies as well, thus implying the
tainable development of the EU and, remark-     need for co-ordination at Brussels. Formulat-
ably, also for formulating minimum              ing the new strategic framework should fol-
requirements for spatial development poli-      low the German ‘counter current principle’,
cies for the member-states to meet. As re-      according to which
gards this new-style ESDP, it should be
formulated once again by the member-states.       the formulation of a spatial plan does not
However, the paper recognises that the Com-       solely reflect the considerations of the
munity, too, has a legitimate role in this,       higher level, but the relevant ones of lower
which is a departure from previous German         levels are also taken into consideration.
positions. The argument is also one for for-      This principle results in a continuous pro-
malising the Committee on Spatial Develop-        cess of co-ordination during which each
ment and the informal meetings of ministers       regulation on one level counteracting a
responsible for spatial planning. Minimum         regulation at another level must be dis-
standards for the spatial development policy      cussed and justified (BMVBW, n.d.,
of the member-states is but a consequence,        p. 185, translation by author).
the paper argues. Without such common           The joint recommendation further suggests
standards, co-operation becomes less use-       the formulation of measurable qualitative ter-
ful—this quite apart from the unfair competi-   ritorial indicators to replace or to augment
tive advantage which member-states that do      quantitative criteria as the basis for allocating
not meet such standards might gain.20           structural funds. The joint recommendation
   The position paper also makes recommen-      puts this as follows
dations for the cohesion reports of the Com-
mission to address (as they already do)           In this way the less developed member-
territorial cohesion and for a European Spa-      states would gain better access to Com-
tial Development Advisory Council of inde-        munity support than the comparatively
pendent experts to be set up. It argues for       better-off states, whilst the latter could still
giving the Committee of the Regions a say         obtain European financial assistance for
in preparing the new-style ESDP and, lastly,      projects that relate to priorities as
for loosening the straightjacket into which       identified in the framework document
Community competition rules have put the          (BMVBW, n.d., p. 186, translation by au-
regional development policy of the member-        thor).
states and their sub-divisions—the latter       The paper ends by once again pandering to
being a long-standing German grievance          shared French–German concerns about Com-
(Tetsch, 2002).                                 munity competition policy. Competition pol-
                                                icy
The French–German position paper. Since
the early 1990s, professional contacts be-        requires special consideration from the
tween German and French experts have been         point of view of the territorial cohesion

TERRITORIAL COHESION 1361

goal. On the one hand it needs to be spatial development, and not territorial co-
flexible so that the authorities in the mem- hesion, to the areas for supporting action on
ber-states retain the option of alleviating part of the Union in Article 15.
extreme spatial disparities and to solve The German Länder remain unconvinced.
specific problems arising from the liberali- In October 2003, Barnier had another en-
sation of economic transactions. On the counter with the MKRO. An internal memo-
other hand, it must not present a danger to randum of the Commission relates persistent
services of general economic interest, on suspicion that territorial cohesion might form
the existence and on the level of which the a pretext for the Commission to arrogate
competitiveness of individual regions de- competences to itself which at present it does
pends. Both councils recommend continu- not have.
ous attention to be paid to this, and they
underscore the need for a discussion on the
Prospects
European Council (BMVBW, n.d., p. 187,
translation by author). Be that as it may, as the reader is well aware,
from the beginning, Jacques Delors and his
So far, this position is only held by German French aids were in favour of basing regional
experts. Whether the Länder will concur re- policy on a spatial framework. The only at-
mains to be seen. At a meeting of the MKRO tempt so far to produce such a framework,
held in the presence of Commissioner the ESDP, has been stalled by the issue of
Barnier in 2001, the latter had volunteered to where the competence for planning rests
say that the Commission was not intending to (Faludi, 2003). There had better be recogni-
ask for a Community competence for spatial tion that, under a system of multilevel gover-
planning. The German minutes of the meet- nance in the EU
ing use the term Raumordnung, which sug-
authority and policy-making influence are
gests regulatory planning in the vein of the
shared across multiple levels of govern-
comprehensive integrated approach. At the
ment—subnational, national, and suprana-
same time, Barnier talked about Community
tional. While national governments are
solidarity, a theme close to his heart and
formidable participants in EU policy-mak-
germane to the concept of territorial co-
ing, control has slipped away from them to
hesion. In other words, there is a tendency,
supranational institutions. States have lost
already evident in the French non-paper, to
some of their former authoritarian control
draw a distinction between spatial planning
over individuals and their respective terri-
said to be the responsibility of the member-
tories. In short, the locus of political con-
states and/or sub-national levels of govern-
trol has changed (Hooghe and Marks,
ment, and territorial cohesion policy, for
2001, p. 2).
which the Community should share responsi-
bility. The ESDP process might undergo a revival
In a last twist to the story of the evolving in the context of French-style policy, albeit
German position, the new federal minister under the flag of territorial cohesion. Should
responsible for planning, Manfred Stolpe, other member-states feel concerned by
has formed an international ad hoc Council French dominance in this field? Many com-
of Experts for European Spatial Develop- munity policies bear the stamp of one or
ment once again to look into the issue. This other national tradition. Where Community
group, which reported in June 2003, has spatial planning is concerned, it has been the
advised the same: adding territorial cohesion turn of the French to show the way.
to the list of the Union’s objectives in Article The challenge is to translate this into insti-
3 of the European Constitution. However, tutional arrangements. Maybe the ‘open
rather than including it as a shared com- method of co-ordination’ should indeed be
petence in Article 13, it has suggested adding applied; it seems appropriate in such situa-

1362 ANDREAS FALUDI

tions. Naturally, though, any spatial frame- ability and the willingness to cross institu-
work would need to relate not only to the tional boundaries.
domain of DG Regio but also to that of other
Community policies. The ESDP, such as it
is, already argues the case for this. At the Notes
same time, this is the Achilles heel of the
proposals as they stand. After all, they say 1. There are two studies of the territorial im-
pacts of Community policies: Commission
nothing about internal co-ordination within Services (1999); Robert et al. (2001).
the Commission. The cards are simply 2. In fact, by 1958, the very first operational
stacked against such co-ordination, but this is year of the European Economic Community,
a problem that so far member-states, with the European Parliament and its predecessor,
their overwhelming attention to competence, the Parliamentary Assembly, had already
made similar suggestions (Husson, 2002)
have allowed to be ignored. By definition, a and so had Dutch planners (Faludi and Wa-
planning framework to promote territorial terhout, 2002, pp. 33–34), but to no avail.
cohesion would require Community spatial 3. This section owes much to the collaboration
policies to be integrated. However, as with Jean Peyrony of DATAR (Faludi and
Hooghe states Peyrony, 2001). It deals with aménagement
du territoire as practised by DATAR and not
with the manifold planning activities of local
report after report … has recommended and regional bodies and the Ministry of Pub-
strengthening central political control over lic Works. This paper does not cover them,
‘local fiefdoms’ or cosy networks. Co-or- simply because in the European context they
dination across units and directorate-gen- are not relevant.
4. Guichard was later to become minister re-
erals is perceived to be an endemic sponsible for spatial development and subse-
problem in the Commission (Hooghe, quently president of the Loire Region, in
2001, p. 39). which capacity he played host to the first
meeting of European planning ministers held
An internal working group on ‘Multilevel at Nantes in 1989.
5. For a review of this and other similar studies
Governance: Linking and Networking the of Europe in terms of a centre–periphery
Various Regional and Local Levels’ con- model, see Wilks-Heeg et al. (2003).
tributing to the White Paper on European 6. Jargon describes this process by which Com-
Governance has been even more highly criti- mission officials are being appointed from
cal of the lack of horizontal co-ordination outside the Commission as parachutage (see
Hooghe and Marks, 2001, p. 153).
within the Commission services (Working 7. Chérèque was the French minister presiding
Group, 2001). The same working group has over the first informal meeting of ministers
made a proposal to produce, at the beginning responsible for regional policy and spatial
of each programming period for the struc- planning held at Nantes in 1989.
tural funds, a European Scheme of Reference 8. Now, almost 15 years on, the European Spa-
tial Planning Observation Network, or ES-
for Sustainable Development and Economic, PON, is working on such criteria promising
Social and Territorial Cohesion (SERDEC). an analytical basis for policy-making. This
Nothing has been heard of this recommenda- may enable the so-called open method of
tion since, but whether the Commission will co-ordination, now practiced in European so-
be able to put its own house in order may cial and employment policy, to be applied.
9. Before being appointed prime minister by
turn out to be the key to the success of President Jacques Chirac, Raffarin was the
territorial cohesion policy. The Commission president of one of the French regions,
should do so, irrespective even of the out- Poitou–Charente. In this capacity, he had
come of the debates on the proposals of the been the initiator of co-operation in the Arc
Convention on the Future of Europe. This is Atlantique. He is said to be a personal friend
of Michel Barnier’s.
another lesson to be drawn from the French 10. Under the former numbering system, before
example: co-ordination requires no special the Treaty of Amsterdam consolidated the
legal competence. All that it requires is the unwieldy structure which had resulted from

TERRITORIAL COHESION 1363

frequent treaty changes, Article 16 was Arti- 18. During the period covered, the author has
cle 7 D. been a member of this Planning Advisory
11. The ESDP, too, reflects this thinking where, Council and has participated in the prep-
on the one hand, it identifies the need for aration of two documents to be discussed.
global economic integration zones develop- One is on the application of the ESDP and
ing outside the ‘pentagon’ of London–Paris– the other on the impact on Germany of EU
Milan–Munich–Hamburg, but without, on enlargement. For a compilation of the recom-
the other hand, entering a plea for more mendations by the Advisory Council during
distributive policies. Rather, the ESDP banks this parliamentary session see: BMVBW
on networking between actors in the field (n.d.). The author has been a member also of
(Peyrony, 2002, p. 33). the ad hoc working party preparing the ARL
12. The Compendium discusses two other ap- position, to be discussed below.
proaches which this paper does not refer 19. For an account of their previous positions
to—the ‘land-use management approach’ formulated in the run-up to the Treaty of
represented by the UK before New Labour Amsterdam see Faludi (1997).
took office in 1997 and the ‘urbanism’ tra- 20. This has been a long-standing concern of
dition with a focus on local land use and northern member-states as regards, for in-
urban design. stance, environmental policy.
13. See the letter at the occasion of his appoint- 21. Of course, meeting several times each year at
ment by Prime Minister Raffarin to the new Brussels, officials on the CSD had regular
délégue, Nicolas Jacquet, on the DATAR contacts anyhow.
website (www.datar.gouv.fr).
14. Since the re-election, by a hair’s breadth, of References
the Social Democrats and the Greens in late
2002, the development of east Germany has AER (ASSEMBLY OF EUROPEAN REGIONS, COMMI-
become the main concern of the planning SION V, INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVEL-
ministry. OPMENT) (n.d.) [1995] Regions and Territories
15. In this, the working party has been wrong. in Europe: The Regions’ View of European
For instance, the literal translation into Policies. Strasbourg: AER.
French would have been ‘développement ALVERGNE, C. and MUSSO, P. F. (2000) Aménage-
spatial‘. The closest that the French come to ment du territoire et prospective: Chroniques
using this term is in the French title of the d’un devenir en construction, Territoires 2020:
European Spatial Development Perspective, Revue d’études et de prospective, 1, pp. 47–55.
Schéma de développement de l’espace com- ARL (AKADEMIE FÜR RAUMFORSCHUNG UND LAN-
munautaire. Otherwise, rather than dével- DESPLANUNG) (1996) Europäische Raumen-
oppement spatiale gaining popularity, what twicklungspolitik: Rechliche Verankerung im
has happened as the reader knows is that the Vertrag über die Europäische Union, Arbeits-
term ‘développement’ has been added to material No. 233. Hanover: Verlag der ARL.
aménagement. The problem of translating BAILLY, A. (2001) Conclusions: Europe, today,
the term spatial development is not limited to tomorrow, in: A. BAILLY and A. FREMONT (Eds)
French. For instance, Böhme (2002, p. 3) Europe and Its States: A Geography, pp. 195–
reports on great difficulties in translating the 197. Paris: La Documentation Française.
title of the ESDP into the various Scandina- BAILLY, A. and FREMONT, A. (Eds) (2001) Europe
vian languages. and Its States: A Geography. Paris: La docu-
16. With many of the members of the now de- mentation Française.
funct Committee on Spatial Development BALME, R. and JOUVE, B. (1996) Building the
amongst its number, the Spatial and Urban regional state: Europe and territorial organiza-
Development sub-committee may really be tion in France, in: L. HOOGHE (Ed.) Cohesion
seen as its successor. Importantly though, as Policy and European Integration: Building
against the Committee on Spatial Develop- Multi-Level Goverance, pp. 219–255. New
ment, this sub-committee is chaired by the York: Oxford University Press.
Commission and works to an agenda set by BARNIER, M. (2002) Postface, in: C. HUSSON
Brussels. L’Europe sans territoire: Essay sur le concept
17. It might have been more convincing if the de cohésion territoriale, pp. 201–203. Paris:
line had been drawn between land-use regu- DATAR/éditions de l’aube.
lation and territorial cohesion policy. After BENZ, A. (2002) How to reduce the burden of
all, the latter is not that different from spatial coordination in European spatial planning, in:
development policy, whereas nobody has A. FALUDI (Ed.) European Spatial Planning,
suggested seriously that the Community pp. 149–155. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Insti-
should engage in regulative planning. tute of Land Policy.

You can also read