Regions between imposed structure and internally developed response. Experiences with twin track regionalisation in post-socialist eastern Germany

Abstract

Abstract:This paper investigates the dual nature of regionalisation between imposed institutionalised territoriality and self-made 'ad hoc' collaborative regional arrangements between localities. This involves, as the paper sets out to show, different, but concurrent imagineerings of 'regions' to two audiences -within and without a defined region, and applied to the same territory, albeit with different images and sets of actors for internal (local) and external (national/international) consumption. These developments are examined within the context of the 'new regionalism' debate, in particular the notion of a replacement of 'old' through 'new' regionalism as a sequence. This duality of region making challenges the frequently somewhat simplistic presumption of regions forming as one complete entity, 'out there' to compete on a global market. They also have to fight for their recognition internally, but with different arguments, rationales and policies. This means that the possibility of overlapping single purpose ad-hoc formed regions, as postulated under the new regionalism, needs to take into account the likelihood of several meanings of one and the same territory. The examples demonstrate that the two possibilities overlap -multi-territoriality and multimeanings of (new) regionalism. The paper uses the example of post-unification eastern Germany, where in 1990 a completely new set of traditional regions was established, implementing a 1960s-derived western German model. Since this common starting point, strong economic, cultural and geographic differences have emerged, leading not only to policy adjustments, but also changes to the understanding of regionalisation and regional policy, and the actors involved.

Metropolitan Strategies and Climate Governance: Towards New Evaluative Approaches

“…(: 130) indicate that there is an inherent mismatch in terms of temporal, spatial and institutional scale between urban decision‐making and global environmental concerns, ‘where urban decision makers are often confined within their relatively short temporal scale of concern, within the spatial scale of their jurisdictions, and within nested governmental and other institutional settings’. In this circumstance, under the regionally oriented planning movement occurring over past decades, scholars advocate the concept of ‘new regionalism’ to provide relevant approaches for helping urban municipalities cope with different issues and policy contexts across multiple scales (Soderbaum, ; Herrschel, ; Bai et al ., ). Wheeler (: 271) indicates that the new regionalism requires ‘a more sophisticated understanding of a range of governance options, as well as careful analysis of social movements and the development of social capital within the region’ (Forster, 2000).…”

“…This approach is supported by Bai et al . as it can provide ‘the capability of resource sharing and deliberative policy making which can encompass complex issues beyond a single urban boundary, while maintaining local autonomy and issue‐relevance’ (Herrschel, , cited in Bai et al ., : 132). Additionally, this strategy can enhance the voice of local actors, and thus increase the level of influencing action and policy at broader institutional or spatial scales (Bai et al ., ).…”

“…As suggested by Bai et al (2010), one such approach advocated by scholars of new regionalism is the establishment of coalitions or networks between individual local governments forming a 'policy' or 'issue' region to address a given development or environmental problems such as transport planning or water security. This approach is supported by Bai et al as it can provide 'the capability of resource sharing and deliberative policy making which can encompass complex issues beyond a single urban boundary, while maintaining local autonomy and issue-relevance' (Herrschel, 2007, cited in Bai et al, 2010. Additionally, this strategy can enhance the voice of local actors, and thus increase the level of influencing action and policy at broader institutional or spatial scales (Bai et al, 2010).…”

Cross-Border Regions and Territorial Restructuring in Central Europe

“…Tassilo Herrschel has also written a number of pieces that resonate with Brenner and Gualini, though his empirical focus is on eastern Germany (Herrschel, 1998;. In his most recent piece exploring regionalization in eastern Germany (Herrschel, 2007), he engages 'new regionalist' discourse and documents the existence of dual messages among regional elites in eastern Germany: one geared towards an internal audience ('introverted') and another targeted at potential investors from outside the region ('extroverted').Many of the insights in this and other articles by the same author, particularly with respect to the motivations of regionalist governance, are highly informative. Yet again the empirical focus is entirely circumscribed by the border around an 'eastern Germany'.…”

The discrepancy in PAMINA between the European image of a cross-border region and cross-border behaviour

“…For some, the creation of new cross-border territories in the horizontal dimension is the most important consequence of the rescaling of political power (Perkmann 2007a, p. 256). For others, the importance of horizontal or vertical relations changes over time and differs between different cross-border regions (Blatter 2003(Blatter , 2004Kramsch and Mamadouh 2003;Herrschel 2005Herrschel , 2007. Some typify this hybrid character of cross-border regions as 'fuzzy regionalism' (Deas andLord 2006, p. 1865) or as 'patching up' institutionalisation (Blatter 2003, p. 50).…”