Utilizing endogenous potentials through EU cohesion policy: examples from Central Europe

Abstract

The Barca Report of 2009 firmly placed endogenous potentials on the European Union policy agenda. Now, as the current EU programming period 2014-2020 draws to a close, this article examines how such potentials are being shaped and applied at the local and regional levels. We reflect upon lessons learned from this approach, thereby contributing to the debate on the next European Union's cohesion programming period from 2020 onwards. The analysis deals with the valorization of place-based development potentials in case study regions, highlighting challenges in the current development of such regions. Examples are given of the utilization of endogenous potentials, and we consider lessons learned from this locally-led, place-based development approach for the wider framework of European cohesion policy. The focus is on (old) industrial regions, characterized by small-and medium-sized towns outside major agglomerations. The authors conclude that it is insufficient to merely consider the direct economic effects of endogenous development potentials. Instead, a more comprehensive perspective is required, one that pays greater attention to other functions of endogenous approaches, specifically their catalyst, identity and symbolic functions.

Overcoming Socio-Economic Problems in Crisis Areas through Revitalization of Cittaslow Towns. Evidence from North-East Poland

“…The process of revitalization of small towns should include multi-directional, coordinated and comprehensive activities in the entire area of these cities, but above all in the so-called economically [1], spatially [2,3] and socially [4] marginalized areas. In the case of large European cities, this process was started much earlier and often results from problems perceived on a global scale, while in small cities, some system and program solutions were adopted relatively recently [5][6][7]. It is in the smallest units, especially those located on the periphery, that social problems, just behind economic problems, are the main "slowdown" of regional development.…”

Discordant agendas on a just transition in Romanian coal mining areas: The case of the Jiu Valley

“…Ways to build community resilience have been increasingly explored in the study of risk management, also emphasising the adaptive capacity that requires access to relevant and timely information (Liu and Agusdinata, 2021). The role of risk management in building community resilience is to ensure sufficient resources (Pasteur, 2011) and to increase awareness and preparedness by creating an early warning system that will monitor local resources and stimulate endogenous potential (Harfst et al, 2020). To ensure sufficient resources, it becomes essential to strengthen community organisations and facilitate local people's access to skills and technologies designed for monitoring and evaluation.…”

“…The Paris Agreement explicitly stated, however, that the success of decarbonisation activities depends mainly on local factors, including some non-state actors (Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2018). In other words, no matter how good political discourse may sound, promising that no one will be left behind, the outcome of the just transition is not up to Brussels, but it will come down to the endogenous potential of each community (Harfst et al, 2020).…”

Industrial Heritage Tourism as a Driver of Sustainable Development? A Case Study of Steirische Eisenstrasse (Austria)

“…Cultural heritage can be seen as one element of place-based potential, which is now deeply embedded in EU strategies and is one of the main rationales in many sub-policies of the EU's Cohesion policies [34,35]. In this context, this article focuses on cultural, industry-based heritage as a specific, place-based resource of (old) industrialized regions, which is especially important for many peripheral regions.…”