strengthening the polycentric urban system in europe: conclusions from the esdp

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 07 December 2014, At: 07:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Strengthening the PolycentricUrban System in Europe:Conclusions from the ESDPStefan KrätkePublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Stefan Krätke (2001) Strengthening the Polycentric UrbanSystem in Europe: Conclusions from the ESDP, European Planning Studies, 9:1,105-116, DOI: 10.1080/09654310123925

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310123925

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09654310123925

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310123925

to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14

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

European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2001

EUROPEAN BRIEFING

Strengthening the Polycentric Urban System inEurope: Conclusions from the ESDP

STEFAN KRATKE

ABSTRACT The �rst European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) document agreed in May 1999calls for closer cooperation at the EU level in response to the challenges posed by globalization and theincreasingly transnational impact of spatial development in Europe. The ESDP maps out a common approachto spatial development in the EU member states and supports an integrated perspective for European spatialdevelopment which goes beyond specialist viewpoints. This article focuses on the relationship between keystatements on the European urban system contained in the ESDP and the ‘real ’ structures and changes withinthis urban system. It also examines possible conclusions from the ESDP for urban policy in Europe in the lightof the activities already launched to translate the ESDP into practice in the urban dimension of European spatialdevelopment.

1. Introduction

European spatial development is increasingly being determined by the transnational dovetailingof economic, social and political processes, which are generally discussed in the context of‘globalization’, ‘internationalization’ and the ‘Eastern expansion’ of the European economicarea. At the same time there is a growing awareness, as European integration advances, thatmany EU policies have a transnational impact in spatial terms and that the policies pursuedby the member states as well as by regional and local authorities have an in� uence on adjacentareas or produce ‘cross-border’ effects. The � rst European Spatial Development Perspective(ESDP) document agreed in May 1999 calls for increased cooperation at the EU level inresponse to these developments. The ESDP maps out a common approach to spatialdevelopment in the EU member states and supports an integrated perspective for Europeanspatial development which goes beyond specialist viewpoints. The emphasis on spatialdevelopment instead of spatial planning (which does not belong to the competences of the EU)gives way to a more appropriate understanding of spatial policy which includes the coordi-nation of sectoral policies and a more active approach to the economic, social and spatialdevelopment of Europe’s cities and regions. In many parts of Europe, spatial developmentmight increasingly demand initiatives for the strengthening of regional economies which areable to adapt to the changing economic and social environment. The ESDP aims to providecommon guidance and formulates a number of key targets. The strengthening and develop-

Stefan Kratke, Chair of Economic & Social Geography, European University, Viadrina, PO Box 1786, 15207Frankfurt (Oder), Germany.

ISSN 0965-4313 print/ISSN 1469-5944 online/01/010105–12 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/0965431002000952 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14

106 European Brie�ng

ment of balanced spatial and settlement structures is regarded as an overriding objective. Thisincludes the development of a balanced and polycentric urban system, the provision of equalaccess to infrastructure and knowledge, and intelligent management in the protection of thenatural environment and the cultural heritage. The ESDP is not conceived of as being a‘centralist’ planning instrument, but rather as a consensus-based framework policy documentfor the EU member states and as a source of guidance in the elaboration of structural policies,including the Structural Funds programmes, and of planning and policy at the national andregional levels. As a ‘non-binding’ document, the ESDP suggests a variety of policy optionsfor political actors at all levels of government (supra-national, national, regional and local). TheESDP is productive in that it emphasizes the European dimension of spatial development. Thisis designed to help the member states to overcome insular approaches to their territories andto take adequate account from the outset of European dimensions and connections in theirspatial policies (EUREK, 1999, p. 48). However, the particular concepts of European spatialdevelopment contained in the ESDP might partly be judged as an ‘idealistic’ approach,particularly with regard to the notion of combining competitiveness with cohesion.

2. The Urban System as a Special Focus of Spatial Development

Among the ‘spatial development issues of European importance’ the ESDP gives especialemphasis to the signi� cance of European cities and urban regions for trade and industry, thelabour market, social development and culture. Since roughly three-quarters of all Europeansnow live and work in urban areas, it is only logical that present and future policy should begeared to addressing the problems resulting from the development of cities and urban regions.The ESDP is, therefore, concerned to advance the European debate about urban developmentand its future. One of the ESDP’s key aims is to generate support throughout Europe for apolycentric and balanced urban system. ‘The urban dimension’ of European spatial develop-ment is expressly mentioned as constituting part of the Structural Fund programmes of theEuropean Commission for the period from 2000 to 2006.

Europe’s political and economic development has encouraged the formation of a polycen-tric urban system comprising complex agglomerations of large, small and medium-sized towns.This polycentric structure is regarded as being one of the strengths of the European economicarea. Although there are unlikely to be any changes in the geographical structure of theEuropean urban system and the prominent position of a number of European metropolitanregions in the long term (Heidenreich, 1998), the process of economic and social restructuringis already having a considerable impact on the urban system. This applies, in particular, to theunequal distribution of new functions, changed economic links between urban regions, theuneven development of economic potential and innovation capacity, increasing social segre-gation and an extension of districts inhabited by a new urban underclass even in ‘strong’ urbaneconomic centres in Europe, and the growing pressure for residential development on theoutskirts of many urban areas.

Present economic developments have greatly intensi� ed competition between cities andregions for investment in, and the expansion of, new areas of growth. The ESDP might be seenas an answer to the challenge of increasing supra-regional and transnational impacts ofEuropean economic integration, which calls for some coordination in order to avoid ruinouscompetition between European cities and regions. While it is true that an increasing numberof inter-city cooperation networks are being set up at both the European level and in individualmember states, they function primarily as ‘strategic alliances’ in the battle to attract investorsand companies which is being waged by urban regions throughout Europe. The Europeanurban system can, therefore, still be regarded from the regional economic perspective as asystem of competing location centres. Depending on whether the political and economic players

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14

European Brie�ng 107

at the regional and local level make this inter-urban rivalry a competition for more quality andinnovation or a competition to reduce costs (through subsidies or the provision of ‘cheap’labour), the outcome may well be problematical for the economic and social cohesion of citiesand regions in Europe. This statement should be seen as a criticism of the ESDP, which talksin many places about the ‘competitiveness’ of cities, regions and the EU as a whole, but turnsa blind eye to the fact that strengthening the competitive position of certain centres in theEuropean urban system does not automatically entail a lasting improvement in the competi-tiveness of the pan-European urban system. Indeed, it may even jeopardize the competitiveposition and development prospects of other towns and cities (in dynamic systems withcompeting cities and regions there are normally both winners and losers).

What actually is meant by a European urban system? Europe has a variety of dynamic‘nodes’ in the spatial organization of society and the economy, which are connected with oneanother via physical transport infrastructures and communications links as well as by economicties (and certain division of labour patterns) and political and cultural communication links(Kratke, 1993). These nodes must be distinguished from urban networks in Europe. Networksof this kind operate at the political level and are concerned with political cooperation betweenthe cities or urban regions involved (Blotevogel, 1998). Reference to a ‘polycentric’ urbansystem also requires some explanation. The existence of a polycentric ensemble of citiesindicates not only that there are many large, small and medium-sized cities distributed moreor less evenly throughout Europe, but that there are also functional economic/social connec-tions between cities which are not only different but also unequal. While the cultural,architectural and spatial diversity of European cities is correctly construed as being a speci� cfeature of Europe which is worth preserving, the inequality in economic capacity anddevelopment potential and the discrepancy in the social conditions of the cities constitutes aproblem in the European urban system, which might be ‘tackled’ in a constructive mannerusing the guidance framework provided by the ESDP. Given the many different economic andsocial structures in European cities, the repeated reference in recent years to ‘the’ Europeancity in German urban sociology (Haußermann, 1998) would appear to be a questionablegeneralization which pays scant attention to comparative European urban analyses with asubstantial empirical dimension. A polycentric urban system, in which a whole series of‘high-ranking’ location centres exist side by side with a large number of small and medium-sizedtowns and cities, is especially relevant in the pan-European perspective, whereas bothpolycentric and monocentric urban systems are to be found in the individual member statesand in eastern central European countries (or the candidate countries for the Eastern expansionof the EU). The Federal Republic of Germany is an example of a polycentric urban systemwith a structure which is very different from that of the French urban system. In eastern centralEurope, Poland is an example of a polycentric urban system which differs from themonocentrically structured urban system of the Czech Republic. However, the applicability ofthe notion of a polycentric urban system to the whole EU needs further discussion: There aremany people, e.g. in Scandinavia, who feel this notion is most relevant to particular EUcountries (like Germany) but has little relevance to their situation (Bengs & Bohme, 1998). Inthe long run, the applicability of the notion of a polycentric urban system depends on theprogress of European integration which might spread the opinion that the individual memberstates’ urban systems are forming a part of a pan-European urban system.

3. The Present Structure of the European Urban System in the Light of the FutureEastern Expansion of the EU

The ESDP’s polycentric development model for spatial structures in Europe aims to avert anyfurther excessive concentration of economic power and population increases in the so-called

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


core area of the EU so that a more balanced development can be achieved. The core area,which is bounded by the cities of London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg (in a variationof the well-known ‘banana’ spatial development model), can point to a concentration of manyof the leading urban location centres in Europe, ‘high-quality global economic functions’ anda well-developed infrastructure. However, a small number of other strong centres, such asBarcelona, are to be found in relatively isolated locations outside this core area. The ESDPdescribes the core area as the EU’s “outstanding geographical zone of world economicintegration” (EUREK, 1999, p. 21). This zone covers many different cities and urban regionswhich participate in a very unequal manner in the integration of the world economy. Thereis a huge difference, for instance, between Frankfurt-Main and Wuppertal, Paris and Bielefeld,Amsterdam and Duisburg, etc. Even within the EU’s core area the urban system is veryheterogeneous in economic/functional terms and comprises a highly selective distribution of‘global ’ economic functions. The ESDP says that current spatial development trends indicatea further selective concentration of “high-quality and global functions in the core area of theEU and a few other metropolitan cities”. In view of the future Eastern expansion of the EU,in particular, any further concentration of spatial development in a single, globally outstandingintegration zone would reinforce a polarized spatial structure in Europe and lead to increasingdisparities between the core zone and an expanding periphery (EUREK, 1999, p. 21).The balanced spatial development model aims to counteract this trend. The ESDP’s goalis to “establish several dynamic world economic integration zones evenly distributed through-out the EU” consisting of networked, internationally accessible metropolitan regions andassociated towns and rural areas of varying sizes (EUREK, 1999, p. 21).

Attention has already been drawn to the fact that global economic integration, whenexamined in detail, does not proceed by means of extended ‘zones’ within the EU, but via aseries of geographical nodes. These nodes exist in the form of speci� c location centres withinthe European urban system, primarily the European metropolitan regions. Within this groupof leading location centres there is again an uneven distribution of global economic functions.In future, the European urban system will continue to be dominated by outstanding ‘globalcities’, such as London and Paris, and a number of European metropolitan regions closelyconnected with them (such as Brussels, Milan, Zurich, Frankfurt-Main, Rhine-Ruhr, Ham-burg, Vienna, etc.). In the longer term, certain urban regions in eastern central Europe maysucceed in catching up with the group of leading location centres, provided they are upgradedinto locations for strategic corporate activities aimed at integrating the markets in easterncentral Europe and eastern Europe (e.g. Prague, Warsaw, Budapest). A regrouping of ‘centres’and ‘peripheries’ is also taking place in the urban system of the extended, pan-Europeaneconomic area. Centres with considerable development potential include not just most of theestablished metropolitan regions, but latterly also a number of ‘up-and-coming’ cities (includ-ing many medium-sized cities), where innovative regional production and regulation systemsare being established. Taken together, they constitute the development centres in theEuropean spatial structure (Kratke, 1997). By contrast, those cities which have hithertofunctioned mostly as major location centres in a national economic area, now � nd themselvesin a dif� cult position. In the new Europe these cities will need to integrate into the Europeannetwork of metropolitan regions if they are to avoid being relegated to the position of urbanregions with a limited functional specialization and a low economic innovation and self-regulation capacity. Looking at the countries of eastern central Europe, it will be mostly thoseurban regions which succeed in attracting strategic corporate activities and which have theinnovative production structures to link into the network of European industrial locations thatwill be able to � nd a place in the network of European urban economic centres.

The ‘lower echelons’ in the economic/functional urban hierarchy of the Europeaneconomic area are occupied, � rstly, by those cities which are specialized in standardized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


production functions and are dependent on the network of European metropolitan centresand, secondly, by (marginalized) cities which have no direct connection with Europeanproduction. Both these types of city will make up the economic/functional ‘periphery’ of theEuropean urban system, which to date has consisted in geographical terms primarily ofindividual regions in north-west and southern Europe. The incorporation of the easterncentral European countries into the extended pan-European economic area may well extendthis ‘periphery ’ of the European urban system further eastwards. In the extended Europeaneconomic area there is increasing competition between the economically weak urban regions,most of which are trying to respond to the challenge they face by offering their services aslow-wage locations. Today cities in Portugal and Spain, for instance, are competing with citiesin Poland and the Czech Republic to attract or take over industrial production sites fromWestern European companies. Following the ‘opening up of the East ’, the globalization ofeconomic organizational relations is beginning to make itself felt in the urban regions ofeastern central Europe, in particular.

This brings up the question of how eastern central European cities are being integratedinto the pan-European urban system. Which of these cities will succeed in being incorporatedinto the network of competitive metropolitan regions in Europe? In which cities can localproduction networks be revitalized and ‘innovative ’ industrial structures developed? In whichcities will there be a specialization of low-quali� ed production functions? And which cities willbe threatened by marginalization in the extended European economic area? In the short-sighted view propounded by neo-liberal economic ideology, integration should be basedprimarily on a functional spatial division of labour. This envisages urban regions in easterncentral Europe specializing in labour-intensive production, while the Western European urbanregions concentrate on knowledge and technology-intensive production. This division oflabour is sometimes euphorically propagated as a ‘dual restructuring’ strategy which is ofequal bene� t to cities and urban regions in both West and East (Kroger et al., 1994). Europeanspatial researchers have long established, however, that the transfer of production activities tonew ‘low-wage’ locations is by no means the dominant trend in the economic restructuring ofthe pan-European urban system. On the contrary, a whole series of urban regions in easterncentral Europe are now being integrated into pan-European production networks in line withstrategies for the opening up of new markets. The location policy of far-sighted Europeancompanies even involves the restructuring of some urban regions to provide innovativeproduction systems and their upgrading into regional competence centres for special areas oftechnology (Kratke et al., 1997). The challenge facing an ‘integration-based’ European policyfor the incorporation of urban regions in eastern central Europe into a pan-European,polycentric urban system consists not just in promoting the formation of a new periphery forthe urban system in the eastern part of Europe, but also in supporting a quali� ed incorpora-tion holding out the prospect of development, which would be fully in line with the key ESDPobjectives. Unfortunately, the ESDP contains formulations which � t in (probably unwittingly)with neo-liberal formulas advising the metropolitan regions on the European periphery toexploit, in particular, “their special advantages (…) such as low wage costs” (EUREK, 1999,p. 23). It cannot be stressed often enough that such concepts run counter to the innovationand competence-based economic development strategies for urban regions which the ESDPemphasizes elsewhere (EUREK, 1999, pp. 31, 32). A policy designed to promote a balanceddevelopment of the polycentric urban system needs to come to grips in economic terms withthe structures in the functional-spatial division of labour between metropolises, large cities andsmall/medium-sized cities (as part of wide-ranging and/or cross-border production networks),even though the cities and the regions themselves have only a modest control capacity in thisrespect and are faced with a dif� cult labour market situation which frequently leaves themwith very little room to manoeuvre when it comes to a selective location policy, for instance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Developing additional world economic integration zones outside the core area of the EUwould appear unrealistic in the light of the existing imbalances in the European urban andregional system. Extending a polycentric structure with several nodes would be a moreplausible way of proceeding. This could be done, for example, by strengthening the current‘peripheral ’ (in the geographical or economic sense) metropolitan regions and large Europeancities. Economic control and steering capacities and development and innovation capacitiesare likewise unevenly distributed or developed among the European metropolises and cities.The ESDP holds out the prospect here of an expansion of higher-quality services in themetropolitan regions and cities outside the EU core area, the creation or maintenance of anadequate economic potential in cities outside the global integration zone and the metropolitanregions, (e.g. by diversifying the economic base in mono-structured towns), and the spread ofinnovation and knowledge and/or the extension of innovation potential in cities and urbanregions outside the core zone.

This prospect is the outcome of equalization objectives and is in line with the key aim ofstrengthening a balanced polycentric urban system in Europe in the face of the globalization-related processes affecting the selective spatial concentration of economic potential. Theseprocesses have two aspects: � rstly, the selective concentration of economic control capacitiesand company-related service activities in selected ‘metropolitan’ location centres; and, sec-ondly, the selective concentration of competitive, innovative production structures in selectedurban economic areas. In the European metropolitan regions both these aspects regularlyoverlap. Hence, economic ‘prosperity ’ here can be founded on strong cross-spatial controlcapacities as well as on highly competitive regional industrial structures. These aspects canalso contradict one another. Confusion, therefore, arises if cities are regarded in a one-sidedmanner as ‘service centres’ or ‘industrial centres’. Those urban regions, in particular, whichcan point to a positive development in the industrial sector, have employment gains in the(company-related ) services sector, whereas cities with a ‘structurally weak’ production sectorcan hardly expect a lasting expansion of their services sector. Only the very small circle ofso-called ‘global cities’ might (theoretically) be an exception here, since they can prosper as theresult of a very marked functional specialization in the � eld of ‘global ’ strategic corporateactivities which might be relatively independent of the quality of their industrial productionsystems. Looking beyond the economic/functional polarities of the present urban system,however, European urban policy-makers need to address the challenge resulting from the factthat it is primarily the ‘successful ’ metropolises and urban regions in the global locationcompetition which are now confronted with trends towards social and socio-spatial polariza-tion and that poverty and run-down areas are on the increase in the economic modernizationcentres in Europe.

4. First Steps Towards Fleshing Out and Applicating the ESDP

The EU Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Urban/Regional Policy, meeting‘informally’ in Tampere (Finland) in October 1999, adopted an ESDP Action Programme anddiscussed continuing European cooperation in urban development on the basis of the thirdreport on the Urban Exchange Initiative. This highlighted the major importance of cities forspatial planning in the EU. As regards the treatment of the urban dimension of Europeanspatial development, there exist many complementarities between the ESDP and the thinkinginforming the European Commission documents preceding the European Urban Forum heldin Vienna in 1998 (European Commission, 1997, 1998). The third report on the UrbanExchange Initiative (Initiative fur Stadtedialog III, 1999) was only one more step in developingthe basic ideas of a European urban policy. Among the conclusions drawn by the informalmeeting of Ministers in Tampere was that European cooperation in urban development to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


date indicates that there are several ‘key themes’ important to all the EU member states whichextend beyond the existing variety and diversity of urban regions in Europe. This conclusion,plus the fact that urban development has long assumed a transnational dimension, representsa vote in favour of continuing the initiatives for European cooperation in urban development.European cities are taking on an increasing signi� cance as centres of regional economicdevelopment and social integration. The informal meeting of Ministers expressly noted thatequal importance attaches to the role of cities as regional economic development centres andto their social development. It added that urban policy must concern itself in the future withboth issues/areas of activity (Presidency Conclusions, 1999). A neglect of social and socio-spatial problems in the development of European cities could sooner or later hinder progresstowards sustainable economic development in Europe. Finally, the importance of incorporat-ing urban-related policies into a coherent method of procedure (a reference to the coherenceof local and/or regional, national and supra-national European urban policy) was also stressedin Tampere. Support for an integrated approach to urban development ranks as one of thekey areas of activity for future urban policy in Europe.

The ESDP Action Programme agreed in Tampere represents a � rst step towards theimplementation of the ESDP. It comprises 12 areas of activity, all of which are geared toincorporating spatial planning into policies at the national and Community level, improvingknowledge, research and information on territorial development (in Europe) and, last but notleast, to supporting preparations for the future expansion of the territory of the EU. TheAction Programme is designed to show how the ESDP can be applied through ‘examples ofgood practice’ at the transnational and European level as well as at the regional and local level(EUREK-Aktionsprogramm, 1999). It is important to note here that the EU member statesand the European Commission have committed themselves to promoting the policy aims andoptions of the ESDP in the Structural Funds programmes for Obj. 1 and Obj. 2 areas as wellas in the new Community Initiative, INTERREG III. The Federal Republic of Germany hasassumed responsibility for the ‘Future regions of Europe’ award, which is one of a total of 12actions. The aim here is to evaluate, honour and publicize outstanding projects for Europeancooperation in regional development, in particular transnational, interregional and cross-border cooperation projects, and outstanding projects in the application of the ESDP at theregional and local level. An action of this kind naturally also has an urban dimension not justbecause cities are increasingly being seen in their regional development context as urbanregions, but also in the light of cooperation projects between European urban regions and ofcross-border urban cooperation, which is being fostered in the border regions along thepresent external borders of the EU.

5. Problems and Practical Approaches in Strengthening and Developing aPolycentric European Urban System

The existence of a polycentric structure in the pan-European urban system accords with thekey objective of balanced spatial structures. It is only logical, therefore, that support should begiven to strengthening and developing this polycentric urban system. Pinpointing the resultingtasks necessitates a closer examination of the diverse elements of the urban system and thechanges it is undergoing (which may reveal a trend towards polarization). A European urbanpolicy ought to make this its point of departure and apply the key ESDP objectives in anappropriate manner to the urban dimension. The “proposal for a continuation of the work onurban issues in Europe following the Urban Exchange Initiative” (Stadtedialog, 1999)submitted in Tampere urges a pan-European discussion on how the different EU memberstates intend to interpret in practical terms the objective of establishing a polycentric andbalanced urban system when they formulate their national policies and what priority they wish

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


to give to the ‘problem-based’ approaches to urban development (i.e. how to handle poordistricts and social segregation in cities) and ‘opportunity-based’ approaches (i.e. how tostrengthen special economic development potential in the cities). These two approaches do notnecessarily contradict each other. However, they do not automatically complement each othereither. A ‘coherent’ combination of both approaches may well constitute the greatest challengefor future European urban development policy. There would appear to be many ‘bad’examples (i.e. a lack of coherence in these approaches) at the local level. In the FederalRepublic of Germany, for example, there are cities which apply ‘a little bit’ of the problem-based approach in their largely symbolic policy for ‘social urban development’ and a verynarrow version of the opportunity-based approach in local technology and economic policy.This leads to an urban modernization policy which either reinforces the social and socio-spatial polarization tackled by the problem-based approaches or (less harmfully) fails to comeup with economic development projects with a positive impact on employment and thusmakes no worthwhile contribution at all to the social stabilization of the city (Kratke & Borst,2000).

The question of practical interpretation and the establishment of priorities by the EUmember states is important because there are potential contradictions between the ESDP’sdevelopment (formerly growth) target and its equalization target. The ESDP correctly assumesthat the European area and the EU must be seen in a global perspective and that thedevelopment of cities and regions in Europe must be fostered under the conditions ofglobalization and world-wide competition. The framework condition circumscribed by theterm ‘globalization’ may also produce a contradiction of targets since the European area,including its towns and cities, needs to develop or maintain a structure—in line with the keyESDP objectives—which will enhance the competitiveness of the EU on the world market andat the same time encourage the sustainable development and the economic and socialcohesion of the regions of Europe. It is by no means certain that competitiveness on the worldmarket and the economic and social cohesion of the European regional system can comp-lement each other without con� icts ensuing. It is more likely that a policy geared tostrengthening world market competitiveness will lead in most cases to the ongoing develop-ment of the leading regional economic centres in Europe and thus to a polarized spatialstructure, which will tend to undermine the economic and social cohesion of the Europeanurban and regional system.

Many decision-makers in the � eld of politics and economics refer to the practicalconstraints imposed by globalization. They argue that world market competitiveness can beachieved or maintained at the pan-European level primarily by strengthening the core areaof the EU, which they see as the “core zone of world economic integration” with the greatestconcentration of global economic functions and the highest potential for growth. Theadvocates of strategies which give priority to the strongest spatial zones and/or developmentcentres—and hence to the target of growth—frequently refer to the (theoretical) positivetrickle-down effects resulting from islands of growth and to the spatially linear impact onneighbouring areas. In doing so, however, they neglect the polarization effects � owing fromthe islands of growth as well as the spatial withdrawal and ‘leapfrog’ effects (Kratke et al.,1997). At the regional level, too, the alleged constraints imposed by global competition areadvanced as an argument against development strategies which favour a ‘balanced’ spatialstructure. The metropolitan region of Berlin-Brandenburg is an example. The federal state ofBrandenburg has set up a regional planning model based on ‘decentralized concentration’,which is designed to avoid a splitting of the region into the (relatively) ‘powerful ’ area ofGreater Berlin (the core city and its ‘ring of fat’) and the stagnating periphery (the outerdevelopment area on the fringes of Brandenburg). Clearly, it will be dif� cult to implement adecentralized concentration model of this kind given the preferences many private investors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


have for certain locations. It should be stressed, however, that this regional policy perspectiveis geared to the target of equalization and is, therefore, in line with the approaches “for goodpractice at the regional level” mapped out in the ESDP Action Programme. There is vigorousopposition to this model (from Berlin). The DIW (German Economic Research Institute)recommends that structural policy funds should be concentrated in future on the alreadyrelatively strong areas and centres in the Berlin-Brandenburg region and that there should begreater exploitation than in the past of the opportunities for growth here (DIW, 1997). Thereason given for the recommended switch from ‘equalization targets’ to ‘growth targets’ isthat, in the Brandenburg economic region, the city of Berlin and its ‘ring of fat’ around it havethe best prospects for growth in the global competition between the regions and priority must,therefore, initially be attached to strengthening it. All over Europe, con� icts may ensue hereat all levels about the key goals and priorities of spatial development and they are likely tomake it dif� cult to achieve the consensus aspired to in the ESDP. It must be stressed, however,that some concepts of spatial development in the ESDP do not have a � xed meaning to allactors in the various member states, regions and localities, so that differences in perspectivesand priorities might continue to exist behind the ESDP framework. The ESDP documentcontains a broad guideline for European spatial development policy which puts forward aprocess of interpreting the overall targets in practical terms and leads to further discussion.

A policy designed to strengthen a balanced European urban system would attach especialimportance to the principle that politicians at their different levels of responsibility and inspecialist departments should not reinforce the polarization of spatial structures in order tomake individual centres (or certain types of city) competitive on the world market, but shouldrather improve the ‘opportunity structure’ of those places which do not rank among thestrongest centres. This calls for integrated development strategies. Moreover, from my pointof view, approaches designed to strengthen ‘dynamic and attractive cities’ with good transportand communication links (EUREK, 1999, pp. 23, 27) should be linked to approaches to‘disseminate knowledge and innovation’ (EUREK, 1999, p. 31). The future economic devel-opment prospects for urban regions outside the EU core area and for cities outside metro-politan regions could be greatly improved by a policy aimed at strengthening regionalinnovation systems. However, regional and local political decision-makers have a widelyvarying knowledge of the content of regional innovation systems in Europe (Braczyk et al.,1998). Hence they often use ‘innovation’ as little more than a fashionable paraphrase for thewell-known � xation on high technology.

Nevertheless, there are welcome initiatives to report regarding the development ofstrategies for regional and urban innovation policy. A strategy for a “competence-based economicdevelopment of urban regions” ’ was presented and discussed, at Finland’s instigation, as partof the 1999 Urban Exchange Initiative (Initiative fur Stadtedialog III, 1999). While the debateabout ‘Telematics and Urban Development’ continues to revolve around physical (communi-cation) infrastructures, the debate about competence-based urban development is focusing onthe quality of the institutional infrastructures in urban and regional economies. This approachis closely bound up with strategies for knowledge-based and innovation-oriented urbandevelopment. It emphasizes the fact that the prospects for a successful urban developmentpolicy in the economic � eld are best (a) wherever local or regional ‘clusters’ of specializedcompanies and other players can be identi� ed (and fostered or extended)—‘players’ includeproducers and service providers, research institutions, regional State support bodies, businessand labour organizations, and (b) wherever it proves possible to bring these companies andplayers together via networking and cooperation for an extensive exchange of knowledge,speci� c skills and ideas for innovation. What we are talking about here is not generallyavailable ‘information’, but specialist knowledge which frequently based on experienceconcentrated at the regional and local level. These clusters emerge in certain competence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


areas, which often go beyond the outdated sectors and branch divisions of the urban andregional economy and are linked in a new way with one another (in the ‘multimediaproduction’ competence area, for instance, certain technology producers and specializedproducers from the so-called culture industry combine with various specialized ‘serviceproviders’). The report on the Urban Exchange Initiative stresses that clusters formed inEuropean cities and regions are made up of a widely diversi� ed range of industrial sectorscovering everything from the traditional industrial sectors (including many design-intensiveand ‘low-tech’ branches of production) to very new industrial sectors dominated by high-techproduction. The competence-based economic urban development approach is, therefore, byno means identical with the well-established support for high technology, which exists invirtually every city and region in Europe (often in disregard of the real opportunity structure).

Many European cities are now attempting to become regional ‘competence centres ’ inthose areas which rank as future growth areas in the European and global economy. Thestandard list includes information technology, telematics, medical engineering, biotechnology,environmental engineering, the media, culture and education, etc. (Initiative fur StadtedialogIII, 1999). Individual cities frequently make a special selection from this list. Problems arisehere because the competence centre development strategy is mostly reduced to the samehigh-tech sectors. Many cities and regions, therefore, tend to overlook (or fail to identifyproperly) the speci� c competence areas they could develop. Secondly, insuf� cient attention isoften paid to the very different employment effects of the prominent innovative ‘areas ofgrowth’ (biotechnology, for instance, lies well behind the labour-intensive areas of the media,culture and education), although the labour market situation and the social development ofmany European cities would indicate that priority needs to be given to a development policywhich moves in this direction.

There are other trends in European urban development which run counter to the ESDPand its aim of strengthening a balanced urban system. Their in� uence on European urbandevelopment policy must also be taken into account. These trends include, � rstly, the possiblylimited impact of the EU Structural Funds (which are to be geared more closely to the urbandimension in the future) in the light of the location subsidy competition between the largecities (and the funds employed to that end), which has intensi� ed because of ‘global ’inter-urban competition. Secondly, there is the problem of the asymmetry of the economiccontrol structures in the urban system. This refers to the dif� culty of achieving balanceddevelopment prospects for cities in a situation in which the key decision-makers in the � eldof economic urban development, i.e. the major trans-European companies, assume littleresponsibility for the labour market development of individual European cities, preferringinstead to treat them as interchangeable ‘locations’, which can be played off against eachother. The great Monopoly game in the European corporate sector is now causing almostweekly job losses in one city or another as the result of decisions taken in external centres.These job losses can counteract any successes achieved elsewhere through an urban orregional development policy geared to creating jobs. This development spotlights the problemof the limited control capacity available to European and national urban policy-makerscompared to the control capacity enjoyed by the major trans-European companies in theeconomic and employment development of European urban regions.

6. Conclusion

The ESDP is a welcome common policy framework for the EU member states in their effortsto strengthen and develop a balanced spatial and settlement structure in Europe. Specialmention should be made of the attempt to harness various specialist policies pursued by theEU and the member states to a common strategy for European spatial development, which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


takes greater account of the urban dimension of the European area as well as of the economicand social development of cities. A strengthening of the polycentric structure of the Europeanurban system would improve the future economic development prospects of urban regionsoutside the core area of the EU as well as of cities outside metropolitan regions. A policydesigned to strengthen their regional innovation systems would � t in here. However, thepractical aims of the ESDP cannot resolve the old contradiction between the development (orgrowth) target and the equalization target in spatial planning. This contradiction is becomingever more apparent as attempts are made to strengthen the world market competitiveness ofthe EU in the face of what is referred to as globalization. Moreover, scepticism is calledfor in respect of the real control capacity which can be exercised by European spatialdevelopment and urban policy-makers when they are confronted with the economic forces ofspatial organization, which are continuing to work for a consolidation of polarized spatialstructures, regional disparities and economically and functionally hierarchized urban locationcentres.

References

BLOTEVOGEL, H. (1998) Europaische Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr. Theoretische, empirische und politische Perspektiveneines neuen raumordnungspolitischen Konzepts. Dortmund: Institut fur Landes- und Stadtentwicklungs-forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.

BENGS, C. and BOHME, K. (Eds) (1998) The Progress of European Spatial Planning, Stockholm: Nordregio.BRACZYK, H.-J., COOKE, P. and HEIDENREICH, M. (Eds) (1998) Regional Innovation Systems. The Role of

Governances in a Globalized World. London: UCL Press.DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FUR WIRTSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG (DIW) (1997) Uberlegungen zu den kunftigen

Leitlinien fur die Wirtschaftspolitik Brandenburgs, in DIW-Wochenbericht, Vol. 1997, No. 6, pp. 105–

110.EUREK (1999) Europaisches Raumentwicklungskonzept (European Spatial Development Perspective — ESDP). Auf

dem Wege zu einer raumlich ausgewogenen und nachhaltigen Entwicklung der EU. Potsdam 1999.EUREK-AKTIONSPROGRAMM (1999) Europaische Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Raumplanung 2000– 2005, Ms

Tampere, 22 September.EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1997) Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union, Communication from the

Commission, COM(97) 197. Brussels: European Commission.EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1998) Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for Action,

Communication from the Commission, COM(98) 605. Brussels: European Commission.HAUßERMANN, H. (1998) Zuwanderung und die Zukunft der Stadt, in W. HEITMEYER, R. DOLLASE and

O. BACKES (Eds) Die Krise der Stadte, pp. 145–176. Frankfurt-Main: Suhrkamp.HEIDENREICH, M. (1998) The changing system of European Cities and Regions, European Planning Studies,

6(3), pp. 315–332.INITIATIVE FUR STADTEDIALOG III (1999) Stadtentwicklung durch Kompetenz, Forschung und Information. Vorlage

des Innenministeriums Finnland in Kooperation mit Experten aus Finnland und anderen EU-Mitgliedstaaten, Tampere, October 1999.

KRATKE, S. (1993) Hierarchisation of Urban Regions in the new Europe, in P. GETIMIS and G.KAFKALAS (Eds) Urban and Regional Development in the New Europe, pp. 107–133. Athens: URDP.

KRATKE, S. (1997) Globalisierung und Stadtentwicklung in Europa, Geographische Zeitschrift, 85(2/3),pp. 143–158.

KRATKE, S. and BORST, R. (2000) Berlin—Metropole zwischen Boom und Krise. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.KRATKE, S., HEEG, S. and STEIN, R. (1997) Regionen im Umbruch. Probleme der Regionalentwicklung an den

Grenzen zwischen ‘Ost’ und ‘West ’. Frankfurt-Main, New York: Campus-Verlag.KROGER, F., HASSELWANDER , S., HENKEL, C., et al. (1994) Duale Restrukturierung. Wettbewerbsfahig durch

west-ostliche Arbeitsteilung. Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poschel.PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS (1999) Presidency Conclusions at the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers responsible for

Spatial Planning and Urban/Regional Policy (held in Tampere on 4–5 October 1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14


STADTEDIALOG (1999) Vorschlag zur Weiterfuhrung der Arbeit betreffend stadtische Fragen in Europaim Anschluß an die Initiative fur Stadtedialog I–III (Urban Exchange Initiative), 1998–1999.Vorlage zum Informellen Treffen der fur Raumordnung und Stadt-/Regionalpolitik zustandigenMinister der Europaischen Union, Tampere, October 1999.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

7:39

07

Dec

embe

r 20

14

strengthening the polycentric urban system in europe: conclusions from the esdp

Documents