Traditionally peripherality has indicated remoteness, isolation and non-development. However, during the recent decades peripheral areas have lost or reduced their peripherality as technological advances have been introduced. This has created the potential for gradual but vital changes in connections between accessible and more remote areas. Some peripheral areas seem to take advantage of these new opportunities. However, at the same time some more accessible regions seem to lack behind.
Aspatial peripherality is a term devised by AsPIRE project team to collectively describe a range of various processes in changing essence of peripherality. The research project was planned in such way that a multifaceted concept of aspatial peripherality was first researched through five themes: impact of information technology, business networks, governance, social capital and tourism. The themes were explored in two case study regions in each country. First group of regions represented positive aspects of aspatiality, more peripheral but well-performing A regions, second group represented negative aspects of aspatiality, accessible but lacking B regions.
Within context of the research project governance was considered as one of the aspatial factors which play a role in finding out the overall developmental performance in case study regions. The assumption in the research project was that quality and also capability of governance will become important and vital as conventional spatial peripheral disadvantage weakens.
It is argued in this research report that regional governance has three components: organisational structures, governance processes and policy measures. The causal relationship between the nature and quality of governance is mostly described as implicit within the literature. The link is determined largely according to terms of an observed association and not as a real process. Nevertheless, hypothetically it can be assumed that there are implicit relationships between organisational structures and policy measures. Especially in the case of peripherality the links between regional policy measures and implementation are appealing area under discussion.
Besides the differences between A and B regions, the greatest differences seem to have been between member states. Distinct structural evolutions in different countries form relatively rigid structure of administration within which the variation is relatively limited. Nevertheless, considerable variation was found in terms of the policy and implementational milieux of the A and B regions.
The capacity of governance seems to be roughly the same in peripheral and in less peripheral case study regions. The peripheral/well-performing A regions have been capable to create effective and transparent integration of politics, public administration and processes. The inadequate structures and processes have driven various actors to organise effective decision-making processes in regional development policy. The A regions have reduced separation between policy tools, and each organisation have clear competencies for recourses at their command.
In the accessible/lacking B regions, new governance frameworks tend to be restricted and policy-makers are not capable to strengthen and to be adjusted in new modes of governance. There has been lack of ability to draw measures upon diverse problems, conditions and potentials in implementing measures in regional and local development. The B regions have also faced problems in associating governance processes with development procedures. Spatial planning in the B regions has merely contained technical procedures and indications to infrastructure development.
The geographical location and infrastructural issues were still considered as barriers to development in periphery. Especially the favour of transport and infrastructure investments and support for indigenous entrepreneurs was evident in the A regions. Interestingly IT infrastructural investment was not seen as a particularly effective approach.
The mode of governance in the peripheral/well-performing A regions demonstrated in comparison to the accessible/lacking B regions a greater capacity and willingness to work collectively. It is realistic to assume therefore that the regional governance of the A regions provides some compensation for the disadvantages of peripherality. New modes of governance are forcing policy makers to find new ways dealing with processes, which are emerging to compound or distort the handicaps conventionally, associated with remote locations. Regional governance may ameliorate peripherality in formulating coalitions within which interactive governance process is able to accept unified strategies
