As a governing process in which ‘European political space’ is dissected and regulated, the EU’s nascent spatial planning opens up a number of empirical and conceptual challenges for research. Even if the ‘governmentalization of Europe’ and the associated mechanisms, tactics, instruments, vocabularies, and technologies through which the power and rule of the EU are effected have been examined, the concept of governmentality offers a useful perspective to explicate European spatial planning. We analyze European spatial planning through the lens of governmentality and offer an ethnographic take on the issue of European spatial planning by problematizing the manifestations of the EU in spatial planning practices in northern Finland.
Academy for Spatial Research and Planning, 2008, “The territorial cohesion policy principles: positions paper to the EU green paper on territorial cohesion”, Position Papers from the ARL 78, Hannover
2.
BachmannV (2011) “European spaces of development: aid, regulation and regional integration in East Africa”. In: BialasiewiczL (eds) Europe in the World: EU Geopolitics and the Making of European Space, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 59–84
3.
BarryA (1993) “The European Community and European government: harmonization, mobility and space”. Economy and Society22: 314–326
4.
BarryA (1994) “Harmonization and the art of European government”. In: RootesCDavisH (eds) Social Change and Political Transformation, London: UCL Press, pp. 39–54
5.
BarryA (1996) “The European network”. New Formations29: 26–37
6.
BenzAEberleinB (1999) “The Europeanization of regional policies: patterns of multi-level governance”. Journal of European Public Policy6: 329–348
7.
BMVBS (2007) “Territorial agenda of the EU”, LeipzigFederal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs
8.
BöhmeK (2002) Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning: Discursive Integration in Practice, Stockholm: Nordregio
9.
BörzelTRisseT (2012) “From Europeanization to diffusion: introduction”. West European Politics35: 1–19
10.
BrennerN (2004) New State Spaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press
11.
BrighentiA M (2010) “On territorology: towards a general science of territory”. Theory, Culture and Society27: 52–72
12.
BristowG (2010) Critical Reflections on Regional Competitiveness, London: Routledge
13.
BulmerSLequesneC (2005) The Member States of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press
14.
BulmerSPadgettS (2005) “Policy transfer in the European Union: an institutionalist perspective”. British Journal of Political Science35: 103–126
15.
CEC, Commision of the European Communities, Brussels 1999 European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU Committee on Spatial Development, Brussels 2000 Presidency Conclusions Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm 2005 Working Together for Growth and Jobs: A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy COM(2005) 24 final 2008 Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion: Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength 6 October, COM(2008) 616 final 2010 Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth 3 March, COM(2010) final
16.
ClarkJJonesA (2008) “The spatialities of Europeanisation: territory, government and power in Europe”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series33: 300–318
17.
Council of the European Union, 2011, “Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions”, agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development, 19 May, Gödöllő, Hungary
18.
DavoudiS (2003) “Polycentricity in European spatial planning: from an analytical tool to a normative agenda”. European Planning Studies11: 979–999
19.
DeanM (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society, Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage
20.
De JongMEdelenbosJ (2007) “An insider’s look into policy transfer in transnational expert networks”. European Planning Studies15: 687–706
21.
DolowitzD PMarshD (1996) “Who learns what from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature”. Political Studies44: 343–357
22.
DolowitzD PMarshD (2000) “Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making”. Governance13: 5–24
23.
DührSClombCNadinV (2010) European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation, London: Routledge
24.
EldenS (2007a) “Governmentality, calculation, territory”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25: 562–580
25.
EldenS (2007b) “Rethinking governmentality”. Political Geography26: 29–33
26.
EldenS (2013) “How should we do the history of territory?”. Territory, Politics, Governance1: 5–20
27.
ESPON, ESPON Programme, Luxembourg 2004 ESPON in Progress: Preliminary Results by Autumn 2003 2006, “Territory matters for competitiveness and cohesion”, ESPON Synthesis Report III 2007, “ESPON 2013 PROGRAMME: European observation network on territorial development and cohesion”, adopted by European Commission Decision C(2007) 5313 of 7 November
28.
ExadaktylosTRadaelliC M (2012) Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization, Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmillan
29.
FaludiA (2004) “The open method of co-ordination and ‘post-regulatory’ territorial cohesion policy”. European Planning Studies12: 1019–1033
30.
FaludiA (2010) Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age?, London: Routledge
31.
FaludiA (2012) “Territorial cohesion and subsidiarity under the European Union treaties: a critique of the ‘territorialism’ underlying”. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.657170
32.
FoucaultM (1991) “Governmentality”. In: BurchellGGordonCMillerP (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, pp. 87–104
33.
GiannakourouG (2005) “Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change”. European Planning Studies13: 319–331
34.
GolobicMMarotN (2011) “Territorial impact assessment: integrating territorial aspects in sectoral policies”. Evaluation and Program Planning34: 163–173
35.
GualiniE (2006) “Politicizing territorial governance: embedding the ‘political economy of scale’ in European spatial policy”. In: DoriaLFedeliVTedescoC (eds) Rethinking European Spatial Policy as an Hologram: Actions, Institutions, Discourses, Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, pp. 113–134
36.
HaughtonGAllmendingerPOosterlynckS (2013) “Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality”. Environment and Planning A45: 217–234
37.
JensenO BRichardsonT (2004) Making European Space: Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity, London: Routledge
38.
JessopB (2005) “The political economy of scale and European governance”. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie96: 225–230
39.
JonesAClarkJ (2010) The Spatialities of Europeanization: Power, Governance and Territory in Europe, London: Routledge
40.
JupilleJCaporasoJ A (1999) “Institutionalism and the European Union: beyond international relations and comparative politics”. Annual Review of Political Science2: 429–444
41.
KangasA“Governmentality, the global, and Russia”. Journal of International Relations and Development. in press
42.
KeatingM (2008) “Thirty years of territorial politics”. West European Politics31: 60–81
43.
KunzmannK (2006) “The Europeanization of spatial planning”. In: AdamsNAldenJHarrisN (eds) Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union, Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, pp. 43–63
44.
LadrechR (1994) “Europeanization of domestic politics and institutions: the case of France”. Journal of Common Market Studies32: 69–88
45.
LarnerWWaltersW (2005) “Introduction: global governmentality”. In: LarnerWWaltersW (eds) Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces, London: Routledge, pp. 1–20
46.
LeitnerH (2005) “The politics of scale and networks of spatial connectivity: transnational interurban networks and the rescaling of political governance in Europe”. In: SheppardEMcMasterR B (eds) Scale and Geographic Inquiry, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 236–254
47.
LuukkonenJ (2011) “Europeanization of spatial planning: exploring the spatialities of European integration”. Nordia Geographical Publications40(3): 1–49
48.
LuukkonenJ (2012) “Making European space in spatial planning in northern Finland”. Growth and Change: A Journal of Urban and Regional Policy43: 392–418
49.
MacLeodG (1999) “Place, politics and ‘scale dependence’: exploring the structuration of Euro-regionalism”. European Urban and Regional Studies6: 231–253
50.
MajoneG (1994) “The rise of the regulatory state in Europe”. West European Politics17(3): 77–101
51.
MajoneG (1999) “The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems”. West European Politics22: 1–24
52.
MetzgerJSchmittP (2012) “When soft spaces harden: the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region”. Environment and Planning A44: 263–280
53.
MillerPRoseN (2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life, Cambridge: Polity Press
54.
MoisioS (2011) “Geographies of Europeanization: the EU’s spatial planning as a politics of scale”. In: BialasiewiczL (eds) Europe in the World: EU Geopolitics and the Making of European Space, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 19–39
55.
MoisioSPaasiA (2013) “From geopolitical to geoeconomic? The changing political rationalities of state space”. Geopolitics18: 267–283
56.
MoisioSBachmannVBialasiewiczLdell’AgneseEDittmerJMamadouhV (2013) “Mapping the political geographies of Europeanization: national discourses, external perceptions and the question of popular culture”. Progress in Human Geography37: 737–761
57.
OlesenKRichardsonT (2011) “The spatial politics of spatial representation: relationality as a medium for depoliticization?”. International Planning Studies16: 737–761
PorterM (1995) “The competitive advantage of the inner city”. Harvard Business Review74: 55–71
60.
PhelpsN ATewdwr-JonesM (2008) “If geography is anything, maybe it’s planning’s alter ego? Reflections on policy relevance in two disciplines concerned with place and space”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series33: 566–584
61.
PrinceR (2012) “Policy transfer, consultants and the geographies of governance”. Progress in Human Geography36: 188–203
62.
RadaelliC (2002) “The domestic impact of European Union public policy: notes on concepts, methods, and the challenge of empirical research”. Politique Européenne1: 105–136
63.
RosamondB (2002) “Imagining the European economy: ‘competitiveness’ and the social construction of ‘Europe’ as an economic space”. New Political Economy7: 157–177
64.
RoseN (1999) The Powers of Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
65.
RoseNO’MalleyPValverdeM (2006) “Governmentality”. Annual Review Letter of Law and Social Sciences2: 83–104
66.
RovnyiIBachmannV (2012) “Reflexive geographies of Europeanization”. Geography Compass6: 260–274
67.
RumfordC (2006) “Rethinking European spaces: territory, borders, governance”. Comparative European Politics4: 127–140
68.
ScottA (2001) “Globalization and the rise of city-regions”. European Planning Studies9: 813–826
69.
ShawDSykesO (2004) “The concept of polycentricity in European spatial planning: reflections on its interpretation and application in the practice of spatial planning”. International Planning Studies9: 283–306
70.
SidawayJ (2006) “On the nature of the beast: re-charting political geographies of the European Union”. Geografiska Annaler B88: 1–14
71.
StoneD (2010) “Private philanthropy or policy transfer? The transnational norms of the Open Society Institute”. Policy and Politics38: 269–287
72.
SykesO (2008) “The importance of context and comparison in the study of European spatial planning”. European Planning Studies16: 537–555
73.
WaltersW (2012) Governmentality, New York: Routledge
74.
WaltersWHaahrJ H (2005) Governing Europe: Discourse, Governmentality and European Integration, London: Routledge
75.
WaterhoutB (2008) The Institutionalization of European Spatial Planning, Amsterdam: IOS Press BW
76.
WilliamsR H (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning, London: Paul Chapman
77.
ZonneveldWWaterhoutB (2005) “Visions on territorial cohesion”. Town Planning Review76: 15–27
