Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The localist turn in EU Regional Policy viewed from a Tuscan Perspective

By MILO FIASCONARO

Abstract

At a time in which European governments and senior officials are striving to find an agreement on the grand objectives for the new Lisbon strategy, scant attention has been dedicated so far to main economic policy of the European Union: the Regional Policy. The present work critically investigates the rationales and the intervention tools which shape the EU’s flagship policy, with a view to shedding light on the transformations which have lately affected the politics of local development in Europe. \ud The analysis will focus on the thematic and pragmatic relationship which links together Regional Policy and new regionalist theorisations. It will highlight how, by embracing an endogenous and punctuated definition of development, the Regional Policy has fashioned an institutional framework in which regions are enrolled as self-contained action units, and are expected to compete against each other to secure their economic prosperity.\ud Drawing on relational perspectives, I will contend that this approach is doubly problematic. From a substantive point of view, it leads to a prioritisation of local links, which fails to recognise the multifaceted spatialities characterising modern economic relations. In procedural terms, the institutional mechanisms involved in the Regional Policy encourage a “regional centralism” which, in the name of EU funds, compresses dissent and “technicalises” political choices.\ud These arguments will be empirically scrutinized through a study of the innovation policy implemented in Tuscany under the Structural Funds. Methodologically, the inquiry has a bi-focal nature: on the one hand, I will rely on official evaluation reports to assess the effectiveness of new regionalist policy schemes; on the other hand, I will reconstruct regional governance dynamics, by tracing how a certain policy concept (innovation networks) has been adopted by the EU, translated at the local level, and finally consolidated in a set of institutional relations, expectations and power asymmetries.\ud The heuristic hypothesis is that only by combining the two research levels it will be possible to grasp the direction and the significance of the political project pursued by the European Commission through the Regional Policy

Topics: "Regional Development" "Cohesion Policy" "Relational Approach" "New Regionalism" "European Union" "Tuscany" Innovation
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.dur.ac.uk:419
Provided by: Durham e-Theses

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. 66/2007, Piano regionale dello sviluppo economico (PRSE)
  2. (2007). 698/2007, Decisione della Commissione Europea C
  3. (1999). Activity-specificity in organizational learning: implications for analysing the role of proximity”,
  4. (1999). Actor-network theory - the market test”, doi
  5. (1999). An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development”, doi
  6. (2005). Analisi macroeconomica del distretto pratese.
  7. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: firms, capabilities, and communities. doi
  8. (2000). Assessment of the regional innovation and technology transfer strategies and infrastructures (RITTS) scheme -Final Evaluation report. Brussels: Commission of European Communities.
  9. (2003). Beni pubblici specifici e sviluppo locale sostenibile: alcune considerazioni preliminari",
  10. (2002). Beyond the regional lifeworld against the global systemworld: towards relational-scalar perspective on spatial-economic development”, doi
  11. (2004). Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy”, doi
  12. (1974). Change; principles of problem formation and problem resolution. doi
  13. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation”, doi
  14. (1995). Commission of the European Communities doi
  15. (2009). Commission Working Document -
  16. (2010). Communication from the Commission: Europe doi
  17. (2008). Communication from the Commission: Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion: Turning territorial diversity into strength”, COM
  18. (2003). Communication from the Commission: Innovation policy: updating the Union’s approach in the context of the Lisbon strategy”, COM
  19. Communication from the Commission: The regional dimension of
  20. (2005). Communication to the Spring Council - Working together for growth and jobs A new start for the Lisbon Strategy”,
  21. (1988). Competing Technologies: an overview",
  22. (2007). Cultural-economy and cities”, doi
  23. (2003). Culture, institutions and economic development: a study of eight European regions. Cheltenahm: Edward Elgar.
  24. (2008). Cyclical clusters in global circuits: Overlapping spaces in furniture trade fairs”, doi
  25. (2003). Decentering the Nation: a radical approach to regional inequality.
  26. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea?”, doi
  27. (2009). Editorial: Rescaling the state: new modes of institutional–territorial organization”, doi
  28. (2001). Enhancing SME competitiveness. doi
  29. (2001). Europe as a social process and discourse: considerations of place, boundaries and identity”, doi
  30. (2003). European Governance - A White Paper”, COM (2001) 428 final ---
  31. (2003). European Policy and the regions: a review and analysis of tensions”, doi
  32. (2001). European Spatial Development Perspective - Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union”. Luxembourg: Office for
  33. (2006). Evaluation of European Union Cohesion Policy: research questions and policy challenges”, doi
  34. (2006). Ex-post evaluation report on the Regional Programme for Innovative Actions Vinci
  35. (2009). Examining the interaction between vertical and horizontal dimensions of state transformation”, doi
  36. (1994). Flexible districts, flexible regions? The institutional and cultural limits to districts in an Era of globalization and technological paradigm shifts”
  37. (2005). For Space. doi
  38. (2006). Global Lifeworlds versus local systemworlds: how flying winemakers produce global wines in interconnected locales”, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, doi
  39. (2004). Globalisation or ‘Glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling”, doi
  40. (2007). Governance, science policy and regions: an introduction”, doi
  41. (2004). Heterodoxy and the governance of economic development”, doi
  42. (2005). Higher education excellence and local economic development: The case of the entrepreneurial doi
  43. (2008). Innovating to learn, leaning to innovate. doi
  44. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation”, doi
  45. (1996). InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. doi
  46. (1991). Introduction: from the local milieu to innovation through cooperation network",
  47. (1990). Introduction”,
  48. (1992). Italian industrial districts: neither myth nor interlude”,
  49. (2007). Key Dilemmas of regional innovation policies”, doi
  50. (2005). Knowing Capitalism. doi
  51. (2008). La Meccanica di Successo: innovazione e potenzialità occupazionali in Toscana. Pisa:
  52. (2006). La Toscana distrettual del tessile-abbigliamento e le reazioni alla sfida Cinese”,
  53. (1994). Living in the global”
  54. (2006). Localized learning revisited”, doi
  55. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries”, doi
  56. (1991). Milieu, idustrial organization and territorial production system: towards a new theory of spatial development",
  57. On the concept of territorial competitiveness: Sound or misleading?”, doi
  58. (2009). Open questions on state rescaling”, doi
  59. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution”, doi
  60. (2005). Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013)”, COM
  61. (1998). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment”, doi
  62. (2005). Proximity and Localization”, doi
  63. (2005). Reassembling the social - An introduction to actor-network-theory. doi
  64. (2007). Regional convergence and the impact of European structural funds over 1989-1999: A spatial econometric approach”, doi
  65. (1998). Regional governance structures in a globalised world”,
  66. (2003). Regional innovation policy for small-medium enterprises. doi
  67. (2003). Regional Innovation Systems and European Research Policy: convergence or misunderstanding?”, doi
  68. (2005). Regional Innovation Systems in the Lisbon Strategy”, doi
  69. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knwoledge economy”,
  70. (1998). Regional Innovation Systems. doi
  71. (2000). Regional institutions and knowledge - Tracking new forms of regional development policy”, doi
  72. (2004). Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the English question”, doi
  73. (2000). Regions, Globalization, and the knowledge-based economy. doi
  74. (2002). Researching Human Geography.
  75. (2001). Rethinking the region. Culture, institutions and economic development in Catalonia and Galicia”, European Urban and Regional Studies, doi
  76. (2004). Servizio di valutazione del Documento Unico di Programmazione (DocUP) Obiettivo 2 Toscana anni 2000-2006 - Rapporto di aggiornamento della valutazione intermedia. Available on line: http://www.docup.toscana.it/gestione/valutazione/valutazione.htm
  77. (2007). Slaves of Luxury. Report 2/12/2007. Available on line at: http://www.report.rai.it/Contents/files/2007/12/schiavi_del_lusso.pdf
  78. (2003). SMEs and the regional dimension of innovation”, doi
  79. (2006). Strategic Evaluation on Innovation and the knowledge based economy in relation to the Structural and Cohesion Funds, for the programming period 2007-2013”, report to the European Commission Directorate-General Regional Policy Evaluation and additionality.
  80. (1988). Technical change and economic theory. doi
  81. (1992). Technology and the economy: the key relationships. doi
  82. (2006). The ‘Added Value’ of European Union Cohesion Policy”, doi
  83. (2003). The ‘Tuscan model’ and recent trends”,
  84. (1998). The associational economy: firms, regions and innovation. doi
  85. (2001). The coming regional crisis (and how to avoid it)”, doi
  86. (2008). The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense a regional problem?”, doi
  87. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations”, doi
  88. (1999). The europeanization of regional policies: patterns of multilevel governance”, doi
  89. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”, doi
  90. (1997). The globalizing learning economy: implications for innovation policy. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities.
  91. (2000). The Governance of innovation in Europe.
  92. (2006). The impact and added value of Cohesion Policy”,
  93. (2003). The impact of EU regional support on growth and convergence in the European Union”, doi
  94. (1999). The learning economy, the learning firm and the learning region: a sympathetic critique of the limits of learning”, doi
  95. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion”, in
  96. (1997). The multi-faced dimensions of local development”,
  97. (1988). The nature of the innovative process”,
  98. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: universities as global-local pipelines”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, doi
  99. (1991). The paradox of the region: economic regulation and the representation of interests”, doi
  100. (2003). The past in the present: Prato’s people”,
  101. (2008). The promotion of innovative networks in a regional innovation system perspective”,
  102. (1990). The quantitative importance of Marshallian industrial districts in the Italian econonomy”,
  103. (1997). The regional world. New York: Guilford Press. --- (2000), “Globalization and knowledge flows: and industrial geographer’s perspective”, doi
  104. (1998). The remarkable resilience of the industrial districts of Tuscany”,
  105. (2006). The rescaling of governance in Europe: new spatial and institutional rationales”, doi
  106. (2000). The response of higher education institutions to regional needs”, doi
  107. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry”, doi
  108. (2009). The state and uneven development: the governance of economic development in England in the post-devolution UK”, doi
  109. (1999). Theory led by policy: the inadequacies of the ‘New Regionalism’ (illustrated from the case of Wales)”, doi
  110. (2004). Theory-Based evaluation and types of complexity”, doi
  111. (2000). Towards a theory of regional policy”, doi
  112. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial doi
  113. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development:a review of the evidence”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, doi
  114. (2008). Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy”, doi
  115. (1998). University research in transition. Paris: OECD. 149 ---
  116. (2007). What kind of local and regional Development and for whom?”, doi
  117. (2007). Which side of the coin? The regional governance of science and innovation”, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.