Neo-liberalization Processes and Spatial Planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An Exploration

Waterhout, Bas; Othengrafen, Frank; Sykes, Olivier

doi:10.1080/02697459.2012.699261

Cited by 109 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…"In these countries, the fragility of the planning systems following the breakdown of socialistinfl uenced structures led to a particular willingness to accept market economy and rather neoliberal tendencies" (Reimer, M. et al 2014. p. 8). This coincides with a more general neoliberal shift in public service provision, public government and policies being catalysed through processes of "Europeanisation" (Waterhout, B. et al 2013).…”

Section: Governance Of Core-periphery Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and Marsh, D. 2002;Bulmer, S. and Padgett, S. 2005). It is suggested to perceive this process as being part of a more general shift towards neoliberal development concepts in the fate of the globalisation debate and a general global trend favouring the big cities as economic engines and att ractive places to work and live in as a specifi c preference of the current capitalist society (see also Krätke, S. 2007;Waterhout, B. et al 2013). It is in this context that we should analyse next to the emergence, the institutionalisation and implementation of regional policies and various forms of public interventions applying concepts of governance, path renewal and leadership.…”

Section: Governance Of Core-periphery Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socio-economic and political responses to regional polarisation and socio-spatial peripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a research agenda

Lang

2015

HunGeoBull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past years, new patt erns of regional disparities between metropolised core regions and the remaining parts of Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) have emerged. Such spatial disparities have lately fuelled concerns about further regional polarisation and the peripheralisation of non-metropolitan regions in particular. This is the case although balancing spatial development has been a major goal of European Regional Policy. The paper argues that there is a clear need to bett er understand the social, economic, discursive and political processes constituting regional polarisation and to conduct further research on approaches to deal with and respond to peripheralisation. The proposed research agenda focuses on a multi-scalar relation between core and peripheral regions and applies a process based dynamic understanding of peripherality and centrality. Following this, peripheralised regions bear agency capacities and cannot be seen as powerless victims of some overarching processes associated with the globalising economy. Applying the notions of polarisation and peripheralisation to guide further research, off ers multi-dimensional, multi-scalar and process based conceptualisations of regional development research. With the proposed research agenda, I would like to open up the discussion on new interpretations of the terms peripherality and centrality, rurality and urbanity, border and rural areas, core and peripheral regions, and contribute to the development of new approaches in multi-level governance and ultimately in regional policy.

show abstract

Section: Governance Of Core-periphery Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Governance Of Core-periphery Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-economic and political responses to regional polarisation and socio-spatial peripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a research agenda

Lang

2015

HunGeoBull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The significant differences in instrument deployment and technical solutions across cases can be explained by country or cityspecific institutional settings. The cooperative planning approach in Denmark (Oteman, Wiering & Helderman, 2014), strong regulatory frameworks in German planning policies (Waterhout, Othengrafen & Sykes, 2013), or the decentralised governance approach in the Netherlands (van der Krabben & Heurkens, 2015) can be recognised within the cases as safeguarding mechanisms for energy target achievement, primarily approached via capacity building in Nordhavn, regulatory instruments in Wilhelmsburg-Mitte, or stimulus instruments in RijswijkBuiten.…”

Section: Inclusion Of Private Staff In Pbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing energy policies in urban development projects: The role of public planning authorities in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands

Petersen

Heurkens

2018

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governing climate mitigation is complex, as the recurring gap between policy intentions and actions exhibits. Interventions at the urban scale represent an opportunity to implement energy policy targets. Urban development projects can function as carrier to implement innovative energy solutions as 'by-product'. To do so, planners must proactively and strategically deploy planning instruments to influence market behaviour, since project realization relies heavily on public-private interaction. This paper explores how local planning authorities use a variety of planning instruments in urban development projects that assist in implementing both planning and energy policy targets. To understand how planning instruments can be deployed deliberately to implement energy policy targets and why a specific instrument mix was chosen, this paper presents a cross-comparison of three urban development projects from Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, which all successfully implemented innovative energy solutions. Results show that contextual differences in the processes entail the use of specific instruments to implement energy policy targets. However, the deployed instrument types, enabling factors and involved governmental levels in the technology-open processes showed a similar pattern across all three cases.

show abstract

“…Under the influence of European market integration, a process of regionalisation took off, shifting attention from national to regional planning territories and towards the economic competitiveness of regions in an international setting. The Fourth Report on Spatial Planning, published in 1988(Ministerie van VROM, 1988, was the first Dutch national plan that reflected this change (Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000;Waterhout, Othengrafen, & Sykes, 2012;Zonneveld, 1991), albeit in a careful manner.…”

Section: Room For Interpretation In Recent Dutch National Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformations of Planning Rationales: Changing Spaces for Governance in Recent Dutch National Planning

Balz

Zonneveld

2018

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dutch national planning has acquired an international reputation because it provides strong planning guidance while simultaneously being responsive to the particular spatial and political circumstances of different regions and areas. Spatial concepts, like the Randstad, are important vehicles for sustaining this approach. Such concepts incorporate select spatial planning rationales that justify operational decisions. Concepts can, however, also be ambiguous, and this can allow for different interpretations and deliberations about how guidance should take effect in different situations. In this paper we assess the degree of ambiguity contained in concepts outlined in Dutch national plans between 1988 and 2012. By focusing on the dimensions of spatial concepts, and the room for interpretation these create, we demonstrate how concepts were modified to accommodate a shifting appreciation of deliberation and, as a result, collaboration and governance. On a theoretical level, we propose a method that analyses in detail the ambiguity ("fuzzyness" or "softness") of spatial concepts. We argue that such sophisticated understandings contribute to explaining the variety of governance responses that these geographies produce in practice. On an empirical level we seek to increase understanding of change in recent Dutch national planning.

show abstract

Neo-liberalization Processes and Spatial Planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An Exploration

Cited by 109 publications

References 21 publications

Socio-economic and political responses to regional polarisation and socio-spatial peripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a research agenda

Socio-economic and political responses to regional polarisation and socio-spatial peripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a research agenda

Implementing energy policies in urban development projects: The role of public planning authorities in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands

Transformations of Planning Rationales: Changing Spaces for Governance in Recent Dutch National Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About