On the socio-technical practices of the European Union territory

Abstract

We examine the constitution of the European Union territory in socio-technical practices. We argue that calculative practices are central in the constitution of the European Union territory but that these practices need to be understood as being situated within the broader ‘teleological structures’ of European integration. This paper scrutinizes the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (formerly European Spatial Planning Observation Network) programme as one of the activity spaces whereby the calculative practices of the ‘European knowledge-based economy’, a term which arose in the 1990s, are constitutive of the contemporary making of the European Union territory. We thus highlight the practices of surveying, mapping and modelling as central components in the constitution of the European Union as a political object.

Notes on spatial transformation in post-Cold War Europe and the territory work of the European Union

“…The numerous fact sheets, regional statistics, rankings, reports and maps that are produced within the European spatial planning activities in and with the help of Eurostat and other "fact offices" together bring into existence a supposedly objective picture of EU territory as a policy object. These socio-technical practices are hence constitutive of EU territory (Painter, 2010; see also Luukkonen & Moisio, 2016). In such a view, EU territory is a structural effect of different kinds of calculative practices that result from networked social relations.…”

“…In the 2000s, ESPON and other EU-funded spatial projects constituted a significant body of the territory work of the EU. Our conceptualization draws from a theoretical standing in human geography which posits that territory is constituted through and in networked socio-technical practices (Luukkonen & Moisio, 2016;Painter, 2010 This has been called the "mother document" of European spatial planning (Faludi, 2010), and it has been followed by a series of other documents, as presented in table 1. indeed, in the name of the EU (Moisio, 2011). Activities within these networks constitute the territory work of the EU, in other words the more or less routinized practices through which the central discursive frames of European spatial planning are enacted in EU-funded expert networks.…”

“…The scientific techniques deployed in the ESPON research projects turn the complex political, cultural, economic and social realities of the region into simplified abstractions that can be presented in compact statistical charts and cartographic illustrations. Moreover, they also contribute to the homogenization of the regional diversity of the EU by providing uniform and comparable information of its different parts which may eventually lead to harmonized and standardized policy recommendations and procedures (Luukkonen & Moisio, 2016). decisions.…”

“…In the ESPON 2006 programme, the Lisbon strategy was explicitly involved in the activities of ESPON in the form of individual thematic and policy impact research projects which sought to explore the territorial aspects of the knowledge-based economy at different spatial scales. However, studies have shown that the strategy has become an axiomatic and normative framework which also conditions the policy and research practices in the more recent ESPON programmes (Luukkonen & Moisio, 2016).…”

Hotspot politics―or, when the EU state gets real

“…First, we argue geographers need to take seriously into account the ramifications of the EC's hotspot approach for the future of the EU integration project as a whole. This will then add to, and bring to date geographical thinking over the production of EU territory in the past decade (Bialasiewicz, Elden, & Painter, 2005) below and beyond its mainstream portrayal as an 'uncertain' Union (Bialasiewicz, 2008); one that is to the contrary built meticulously through everyday, calculative practices (Luukkonen & Moisio, 2016). Second, we argue that the birth of the hotspot needs to be brought into, and to update the discussion on the future of the nation-state within (Leitner, 1997) and beyond (Swyngedouw, 2000) the EU project.…”