EU policies seek to bring the EU territory closer to resembling a ‘level playing field’. The paper first discusses efforts to inject a territorial dimension into EU policies, including the European Spatial Development Perspective. During its preparation, the same issue of national sovereignty has been dominant as in the subsequent debate concerning the European Constitution. Had it been ratified, the Constitution would have given European planning a boost. The paper discusses its rejection and reviews literature that presents views of the EU as an unprecedented, dynamic construct, with transnational learning as the engine. Next, the paper discusses the application of the European Spatial Development Perspective, during which planners have been learning about territory and territorial governance in the context of an integrating Europe. Like with European integration generally, European planning can thus be understood as a learning machine.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ, 1996, “The shifting stage of politics: New medieval and postmodern territorialities?”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space14133–153
2.
ArmstrongH WWellsP, 2006a, “Evaluating the governance of structural funds programmes: The case of Community Economic Development in South Yorkshire”European Planning Stadias14855–876
3.
ArmstrongHWellsP, 2006b, “Structural Funds and the evaluation of Community Economic Development Initiatives in the UK: A critical perspective”Regional Studies40259–272
4.
AxtmannR, 2003, “State formation and supranationalism in Europe: The case of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation”, in Europe Without Borders: Remapping Territory, Citizenship and Identity in a Transnational Age Eds BerezinMSchainM (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) pp 118–137
BohmanJ, 2005, “Reflexive constitution-making and transnational governance”, in Making the European Policy: Reflexive Integration in the EU Ed. EriksenE O (Routledge, New York) pp 30–58
11.
BöhmeK, 2002, “Nordic echoes of European spatial planning: Discursive integration in practice”, R2002:8, Nordregio, Stockholm
12.
BöhmeK, 2005, “The ability to learn in transnational projects”Informationen zur Raumentwicklungnumber 11/12, 691–700
13.
BörzelT A, 2002States and Regions in the European Union: Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
14.
BrennerN, 2003, “Urban governance and the rise of glocalizing competition state regimes (GCSRs)”, in Europe Without Borders: Remapping Territory, Citizenship and Identity in a Transnational Age Eds BerezinMSchainM (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) pp 140–166
15.
CalhounC, 2003, “The democratic integration of Europe: Interests, identity, and the public sphere”, in Europe without Borders: Remapping Territory, Citizenship and Identity in a Transnational Age Eds BerezinMSchainM (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) pp 243–275
16.
CEC, 1999European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EUCommission of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg)
17.
CEC, 2004A New Partnership for Cohesion: Convergence, Competitiveness, Cooperation: Third Report on Economic and Social CohesionCommission of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg)
18.
CEC, 2006The Growth and Jobs Strategy and the Reform of European Cohesion Policy: Fourth Progress Report on CohesionCommission of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg)
19.
Council of Europe, 2002, “Recommendation [Rec(2002) 1] of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the guiding principles for sustainable spatial development of the European continent adopted on 30 January 2002”, Council of Europe, Strasburg
20.
CullingworthBNadinV, 2006Town and Country Planning in the UK14th edition (Routledge, London)
21.
DelantyGRumfordC, 2005Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization (Routledge, London)
22.
EriksenE O, 2005, “Reflexive integration in Europe”, in Making the European Polity: Reflexive Integration in the EU Ed. EriksenE O (Routledge, New York) pp 9–29
FaludiA, 2000, “The performance of spatial planning”Planning Practice and Research15299–318
25.
FaludiA (Ed.), 2003, “The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective”Town Planning Review74(1) 1–9
26.
FaludiA, 2006a, “From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy”Regional Studies40667–678
27.
FaludiA, 2006b, “The king is dead—long live the king! Why there is no renewed European Spatial Development Perspective and what happens to the ESDP agenda anyhow”, paper given at the Regional Studies Association International Conference ‘Shaping EU Regional Policy: Economic, Social and Political Pressures’, 8–9 June, http://wwwregional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/leuven06/Faludi.pdf
28.
FaludiA, 2006c, “Evaluating plans: The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective”, in Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects Ed. AlexanderE R (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 119–143
29.
FaludiA (Ed.), 2007aTerritorial Cohesion and The European Model of Society (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA)
30.
FaludiA, 2007b, “Now more than ever: The Open Method of Coordination in EU territorial cohesion policy”European Spatial Research and Policy1511–24
31.
FaludiAWaterhoutB, 2002The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan (Routledge, London)
HeinC, 2004The Capital of Europe: Architecture and Urban Planning for the European Union (Praeger, Westport, CT)
36.
HoogheLMarksG, 2001Multi-level Governance and European Integration (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD)
37.
HuntingtonS P, 2005 (1st edition 2004) Who Are We?: America's Great Debate (Free Press, New York)
38.
Janin-RivolinUFaludiA, 2005, “The hidden face of European spatial planning”European Planning Studies13195–215
39.
JenkinsPHagueC, 2005, “Reconceptualizing the narratives of place identity in planning”, in Place Identity Participation and Planning Eds HagueCJenkinsP (Routledge, London) pp 207–223
40.
KnillCLenschowA, 2005, “Compliance, competition and communication: Different approaches of European governance and their impact on national institutions”Journal of Common Market Studies43583–606
41.
Luxembourg Presidency, 2005, “Scoping document and summary of political messages for an assessment of the territorial state and perspectives of the European Union: Towards a stronger European territorial cohesion in the light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg ambitions”, http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/documents_travail/2005/05/20regio/Min_DOC_1_fin.pdf
42.
MastopHFaludiA, 1997, “Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24815–832
43.
MeehanE, 1996, “The debate on citizenship and European Union”, in Visions of European Identity Eds MurrayPRichP (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 201–223
44.
MorinE, 1987Penser l'Europe (Gallimard, Paris)
45.
MüllerA, with DoschFGörmarWHachmannVSchäferN, 2005, “Bericht 2005 Transnationale Zusammenarbeit/TransCoop 05 Report”, Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn
46.
MurrayPRichP, 1996, “Introduction”, in Visions of European Identity Eds MurrayPRichP (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 1–20
47.
OECD, 2001Territorial Outlook 2001 (OECD, Paris)
48.
PedrazziniL, 2005, “Applying the ESDP through INTERREG IIIB: A southern perspective”European Planning Studies13297–317
49.
RadaelliC M, 2003, “The Europeanization of public policy”, in The Politics of Europeanization Eds FeatherstoneKRadaelliC M (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 27–56
50.
RifkinJ, 2004The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream (Polity Press, Cambridge)
51.
RobertJStummTVetJ MReinckeG JHollandersMFigueiredoM A, 2001Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and the Costs of Non-coordination (European Commission, Brussels)
52.
RossG, 1995Jacques Delors and European Integration (Polity Press, Cambridge)
53.
LeyBerry Sain, 2006, “The constitution must answer to the European demos”, Euobserver/Comment, 13 January, http://euobserver.eom/9/20671
54.
ScholteJ W, 2000Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
55.
ShawDSykesO, 2003, “Investigating the application of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) to regional planning in the United Kingdom”Town Planning Review74(1) 31–50
56.
Sykes O, in collaboration with A Motte, 2007, “Examining the relationship between transnational and national spatial planning: French and British spatial planning and the European spatial development perspective”, in Spatial Planning Systems of Britain and France: A Comparative Analysis Eds BoothPBreuilardMFraserCParisD (Routledge, London) pp 99–118
57.
ThalmaierB, 2005Die zukünftige Gestalt der Europäischen Union: Integrationstheoretische Hintergründe und Perspektiven einer Reform (Nomos, Baden-Baden)
58.
WallaceH, 2005, “An institutional anatomy and five policy modes”, in Policy-making in the European Union5th edition, Eds WallaceHWallaceWPollackM A (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 49–90
59.
WaltersWHaahrJ H, 2005Governing Europe: Discourse, Governmentality and European Integration (Routledge, London)
60.
WilliamsR H, 1996European Union Spatial Policy and Planning (Paul Chapman, London)
61.
ZeitlinJ, 2005, “Conclusions: The open method of coordination in action: Theoretical promise, empirical realities, reform strategies”, in The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies Eds ZeitlinJPochetPMagnussonL (Peter Lang, New York) pp 447–498
