Going beyond the territorial/relational divide in regional studies requires researchers to do more than examine the extent to which territoriality and relationality are complementary alternatives. The variety of networked regional spaces means it is intellectually unsustainable to simply relate a single networked regional space to territory–scale without first considering how networked regional spaces interact. Illustrated through the experience of Germany, our paper demonstrates that interaction between different networked regional spaces (eg, city-regions and cross-border regions) is resulting in new networked regional imaginaries (eg, cross-border metropolitan regions). Its overall aim is to show that the production of entirely new networked spaces can assist in overcoming the contradictions present in one configuration of regions, but this only serves to create a new ‘regional problem’ requiring ever more complex configurations of regions.
AgnewJ, 2013, “Arguing with regions”Regional Studies476–13
2.
AllenJCochraneA, 2007, “Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power”Regional Studies411161–1175
3.
AminA, 2004, “Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place”Geografiska Annaler86B33–44
4.
AndersonJO'DowdL, 1999, “Borders, border regions and territoriality: Contradictory meanings, changing significance”Regional Studies33593–604
5.
Association of European Border Regions, 2008, Cooperation between European Border Regions: Review and Perspectives (NOMOS, Baden-Baden)
6.
BBSR, 2012Raumordnungsbericht 2011 (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, Bonn
7.
BmBau, 1995Raumordnungspolitischer Handlungsrahmen—Beschluss der Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung in Düsseldorf am 8 MärzBundesministerium für Raumordnung and Bauwesen und Städtebau, Bonn
8.
BMVBS, BBR, 2006, Leitbilder und Handlungsstrategien für die Raumentwicklung in DeutschlandBundesministerium für Verkehr Bau- und Stadtentwicklung, Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Berlin
9.
CastellsM, 1996The Rise of the Network Society (Blackwell, Oxford)
10.
CochraneAWardK, 2012, “Researching the geographies of policy mobility: Confronting the methodological challenges”Environment and Planning A445–12
11.
DeasILordA, 2006, “From a new regionalism to an unusual regionalism? The emergence of non-standard regional spaces and lessons for the territorial reorganisation of the state”Urban Studies431847–1877
12.
FaludiA, 2013a, “Territorial cohesion, territorialism, territoriality, and soft planning: A critical review”Environment and Planning A451302–1317
13.
FaludiA, 2013b, “Territorial cohesion and subsidiarity under the European Union treaties: A critique of the ‘territorialism’ underlying”Regional Studies471594–1606
14.
HarrisonJ, 2013, “Configuring the new ‘regional world’: On being caught between territory and networks”Regional Studies4755–74
15.
HarrisonJGroweA, 2014, “From places to flows: Planning for the new ‘regional world’ in Germany”European Urban and Regional Studies2121–41
16.
HarrisonJHoylerM, 2014, “Governing the new metropolis”Urban Studies512249–2266
17.
HesseMLeickA, 2013, “Growth, innovation, metropolitan regions: Reconstructing the recent modernisation of spatial development guidelines in Germany”Raumforschung und Raumordnung71343–359
18.
IKM, 2003Strategiepapier—Initiativkreis Europäische Metropolregionen (Technische Universität, Berlin)
19.
IMeG, 2013Initiative Group of German Regions in Cross-border Functional Regions—Final ReportInitiativkreis Metropolitane Grenzregionen, Saarbrücken
20.
JensenO BRichardsonT, 2003, “Being on the map: The new iconographies of power over European space”International Planning Studies89–34
21.
JessopB, 2012, “Cultural political economy, spatial imaginaries, regional economic dynamics” CPERC Working Paper [English-language version of a paper which appeared in German in BrandOEserPDörhöferS, (Eds), 2013Ambivalenzen regionaler Kulturen und Identitäten (Westfälisches Dampfboot, Münster)], Lancaster University, http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/cperc/docs/Jessop%20CPERC%20Working%20Paper%202012-02.pdf
22.
JessopBBrennerNJonesM, 2008, “Theorizing sociospatial relations”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space26389–401
23.
JonasA E G, 2012a, “City-regionalism: Questions of distribution and politics”Progress in Human Geography36822–829
24.
JonasA E G, 2012b, “Region and place: Regionalism in question”Progress in Human Geography36263–272
25.
JonasA E G, 2013, “City-regionalism as a contingent ‘geopolitics of capitalism’”Geopolitics18284–298
26.
JonesM, 2009, “Phase space: Geography, relational thinking, and beyond”Progress in Human Geography33487–506
JonesMMacLeodG, 2004, “Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: Territory, insurgent politics, and the English question”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series29433–452
29.
JonesMPaasiA, 2013, “Regional world(s): Advancing the geography of regions”Regional Studies471–5
30.
LagendijkA, 2005, “Regionalization in Europe: Stories, institutions and boundaries”, in B/ordering Space Eds van HoutumHKramschOZierhoferW, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 77–92
31.
MarkusenA, 1983, “Regions and regionalism”, in Regional Analysis and the New International Division of Labor—Application of a Political Economic Approach Eds MoulaertFSalinasP, (Kluwer Nijhoff, Boston, MA) pp 33–55
32.
MasseyD, 1979, “In what sense a ‘regional problem’?”Regional Studies13233–243
33.
MasseyD, 2011, “A counterhegemonic relationality of place”, in Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age Eds McCannEWardK, (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) pp 1–14
34.
MayerM, 2008, “To what end do we theorize sociospatial relations?”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space26414–419
35.
MetzgerJSchmittP, 2012, “When soft spaces harden: The EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region”Environment and Planning A44263–280
36.
MKRO, 2013aDraft Leitbilder and Action Strategies for Spatial Development in Germany 18 April, Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung, Berlin
37.
MKRO, 2013bResolution Draft—Advancing Leitbilder and Action Strategies for Spatial Development in Germany 3 June, Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung, Berlin
38.
NellesJDurandF, 2014, “Political rescaling and metropolitan governance in cross-border regions: Comparing the cross-border metropolitan areas of Lille and Luxembourg”European Urban and Regional Studies21104–122
39.
PaasiA, 2008, “Comments on ‘Theorizing sociospatial relations’. Is the world more complex than our theories of it? TPSN and the perpetual challenge”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space26405–410
40.
PeckJTheodoreN, 2010, “Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations”Geoforum41169–174
41.
PerkmannM, 2003, “Cross-border regions in Europe: Significance and drivers of regional cross-border co-operation”European Urban and Regional Studies10153–171
42.
PerkmannM, 2007, “Construction of new territorial scales: A framework and case study of the EUREGIO cross-border region”Regional Studies41253–266
43.
ScottA J, 2001, “Globalization and the rise of city-regions”European Planning Studies9813–826
44.
ScottA J, 2012A World in Emergence: Cities and Regions in the 21st Century (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
TaylorP JDerudderBHoylerMNiP, 2013, “New regional geographies of the world as practised by leading advanced producer service firms in 2010”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series38497–511
47.
VarróKLagendijkA, 2013, “Conceptualizing the region—in what sense relational?”Regional Studies4718–28
