Discourses of Mobility and Polycentric Development: A Contested View of European Spatial Planning

Abstract

This article carries out an analysis of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), a policy document which represents a critical moment in the emergence of a new discourse of European spatial development. The analytical approach probes at the power relations which have shaped the ESDP framework and its contents, focusing on the twin core themes of spatial mobility and polycentricity. The analysis concludes that in the contested policy process a new spatial discourse of economic competitiveness is emerging at the expense of social and environmental interests. This new discourse will be further contested as implementation takes place in an uncertain policy environment.

Discourses of Mobility: Institutions, Everyday Lives and Embodiment

“…Scholars have differentially drawn from Foucault, both implicitly (Shove and Walker 2010;Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012) and explicitly (Richardson and Jensen 2000;Jensen 2011Jensen , 2013Baerenholdt 2013) in seeking to understand the dynamics of power that characterise the labyrinthine relations between political processes at macro and micro levels. Paterson (2007) details Foucault's early engagement with mobility and governance in Madness and civilization, where he talks of 'the problem of movement' in governing populations.…”

Revisiting the ‘Informational City’: Space of Flows, Polycentricity and the Geography of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in the Emerging Global City-Region of Dublin

“…One of the key problems is the fact that the concept of polycentricity is itself subject to an important debate that leaves a definition of a 'polycentric city-region' somewhat problematic and inconclusive (e.g. RICHARDSON and JENSEN, 2000;JENSEN and RICHARDSON, 2001;BAILEY and TUROK, 2001;KLOOSTERMAN and MUSTERD, 2001; KLOOSTERMAN and LAMBREGTS, 2001;DAVOUDI, 2003;TUROK and BAILEY, 2004;PARR, 2004). In the absence of a generally accepted conceptual framework, this paper will refer to definitions proposed most recently by HALL and PAIN (2006) -who view 'polycentric mega-city regions' as emerging through a 'long process of very extended decentralization from large central cities to adjacent smaller ones' (p. 3) or 'outward diffusion from major cities to smaller cities within their spheres of influence ' (p. 12).…”

Cross-Border Policies and Spatial and Social Integration: Between Challenges and Problems

“…Fairly undefined relations between society, economy and the environment are reflected in development visions that concomitantly stress the importance of dense economic networks, the sense of cultural heritage and European identity, and innovation capability. The 'system' of European spatial planning thus remains largely symbolic and constantly vacillates between 'functionality' of development practices and situations in the most 'innovative' parts of the EU 15, in particular the European 'centre' delimited by the London−Paris−Milano−Munich−Hamburg pentagon which the 'rest' of Europe should simply 'follow' (or even 'submit' itself to), and 'polycentricity' of various subsystems that should co-create the European area and society in an 'equal' (yet 'divided') manner (Faludi, 2000;Richardson and Jensen, 2000). This development 'dilemma' is undoubtedly a representative reflection on broader 'wavering' between the federal and confederate concepts of how to organise the EU: the former presupposes a more integrated, as well as more hierarchical and centralised order with the 'free market' regulating social and spatial development potentials in an 'open' and competitive European system, while the latter gives precedence to 'diversity' and the possibility of fairly large interventions of state 'regulators' in the planning and implementation of development policies.…”