Globalization and the politics of local and regional development: the question of convergenc

Abstract

Globalization, and the increased exposure to international competition that it has supposedly induced, has led to expectations of institutional convergence in, among other things, local and regional development policy and the politics surrounding it. There have been changes in the United Kingdom, but not of the decentralizing, neo‐liberalizing form anticipated. A comparison of the British with the very different, highly decentralized, American case seeks to shed light on this. Emphasis is placed on both the strongly embedded nature of institutions and on misunderstandings about the strength of the forces of globalization.

Regionalisation, “virtual” spaces and “real” territories

“…This however, as Cox (2004) points out, has often been neglected in discussions on urban (and regional) government/governance, with the state and its activities/structure been treated more like a "background condition, as something mobilized in the service of, say, growth coalitions." (In: Wood and Valler, eds, 2004, p 247).…”

“…This matters in particular, when looking at conditions in Europe and North America respectively. In the former, the political-administrative organisation of the European Union, and its direct involvement , in local policy negotiations and networks through its various agencies, its control of fiscal and regulatory resources (Cox 2004), have created a strong government-centred framework for city-regional governance. "The American politics [, by contract,] continues much as it has been for fifty years or more" (Cox, 2004, p 240), with a distinct role for the business community as an integral part of local-regional policy making, and a deep suspicion of 'more government', seen as adding bureaucracy and potentially undermining local democratic control and autonomy.…”

“…Here, the main concern is about bringing local and regional actors behind the developed and marketed regional concept and its (virtual) territoriality. But there is another aspect to this inward-outward distinction, as pointed out by Cox (2004). While he, too, refers to policies aimed at 'shaping up' a locality for external 'consumption', he also refers to local/regional efforts to influence the outside conditions which circumscribe its own competitive prospects.…”

“…In the US, local growth coalitions are well established and are shaped by local/regional business interests, that is the 'capital classes' (Cox, 2004) which are rooted in, and dependent on, their areas' markets. They depend on local conditions "by virtue of some combination of local knowledge, property investments, dependence on specifically local markets, property investments…" (Cox, 2004, p 263).…”

Kalkinma Ajanslarinin Planlama Ve Fi̇nansman Açisindan Turi̇zm Sektörüne Sağladiği Katkilar

“…1930'larda ABD'de ortaya çıkan ve yerel potansiyeller kullanılarak giderilmeye çalışılan az gelişmişliğin ve bölgelerarası gelişmişlik farklarının getirdiği sıkıntılar İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında daha da belirginleşerek o dönemde uygulanan politikalarda farklılığa gidilmesini zorunlu kılmıştır (Cox, 2004;Köse ve Konur, 2011). Önceki dönemde yaygın olan yönetim ve planlama anlayışına uygun olarak gerçekleştirilen merkezden yönetim ve merkeziyetçi karar alma mekanizmaları bölgelerarası eşitsizliği giderememiş ve bölgesel kalkınmanın istenilen düzeye ulaşmasını temin edememiştir.…”