Spatial Governance across Borders Revisited: Organizational Forms and Spatial Planning in Metropolitan Cross-border Regions

Abstract

In Europe, cross-border cooperation in spatial planning has intensified in recent years. Organizations with varying institutional characteristics have emerged in urban areas that cross a national border. They deal with problems stemming from the cross-border situation. The institutional and spatial aspects of organizations on the sub-national level in nine European cross-border metropolitan regions are compared in this article. The analytical concept of metropolitan governance applied here takes into account the simultaneous existence of different cross-border organizations as well as their spatial and functional relationships. Subsequently, this article assesses the impact of governance on spatial planning in two cases, Basel and Lille, where institutional changes occurred on the sub-national level between 2000 and 2010. The way organizational and spatial attributes of new forms of cross-border metropolitan governance influence the coordination of spatial policies is discussed here. The comparison of organizational characteristics and capacity to coordinate reveals important differences. Furthermore, comparing spatial scales shows how new cross-border perimeters are drawn along existing national territories. Organizations' competences and interests are decisive for the coordination and implementation of spatial policies.

Building a cross-border territorial strategy between four countries: wishful thinking?

“…This situation creates problems linked to the decisionmaking process, since there is no clear and recognized hierarchy within cross-border governance (De Vries, 2008). Moreover, the competences related to spatial planning issues are allocated at different institutional levels, which have to cooperate in order to face the crossborder challenges, even if these institutional mismatches generate difficulties in terms of governance (Chilla, Evrard, & Schultz, 2012;Fricke, 2015). In addition, concrete actions remain very limited since there is no legal instrument at the cross-border scale which can directly impact on land use policy and since financial means remain very restricted (Evrard & Schulz, 2015).…”

Re-Framing historischer Grenzlandschaften. Das Beispiel Drachensee

“…Grenzüberschreitende Kooperationen sind im Kontext des europäischen Integrationsprozesses schon seit vielen Jahrzehnten fester Bestandteil der europäischen Strukturförderpolitik. Bereits seit 1958 ist mit der Gründung einer deutsch-niederländischen Europaregion mit Sitz in Gronau das Konzept erprobt (Fricke 2014;Church und Reid 1996 Durch den Rückgriff auf den Drachen wird nun ein Symbol gewählt, das die gemeinsame Grenzlandschaft diskursiv neu rahmt. Es wird damit das historische Erbe des 20.…”

Territorial Impact Assessment and Cross-Border Cooperation

“…In this regard, at present, there is still little evidence of the 'impacts of territorial cooperation on planning practices and policies across Europe' (Dühr, Colomb, & Vincent, 2010, p. 351), despite the fact of its importance in intensifying spatial development practices across national borders, especially at the subnational level (Fricke, 2014), and also in stimulating socioeconomic and cultural exchanges, as well as new relationships and policy transfers (Barca, 2009, p. 97-98). Further, it is important to mention that transnational forms of governance can be keys to 'ensure accountability towards citizens and socio-economic actors and make certain that they are acknowledged and receive support at a regional and national level (Peyrony & Denert, 2012, p. 229).…”