Publication:
Understanding differences in the governance of macro-regional cooperation

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2017
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
AESOP
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Since 2009, the gradual establishment of four so-called EU macro-regions has signaled a more comprehensive macro-regional strategy at the EU level. Up until now, such macro-regions have been established in four European areas: the Baltic Sea (2009), the Danube river (2010), the Adriatic and Ionian Seas (2014) and the Alpine mountains (2015). Since they have only been in place for about 2 to 7 years, macro-regions can still be considered a very recent phenomenon. Hence a systematic empirical overview of them is still in a primary stage (e.g. EC, 2016a). When EU macro-regions were first launched, they were defined as areas ‘covering a number of administrative regions but with sufficient issues in common to justify a single strategic approach’ (EC, 2009: 5). From this definition, two elements are apparent. Firstly, EU macro-regions are composed of a number of smaller (regions or municipalities) or larger (nation-states) territorial entities each of them addressing their respective desires. Secondly, EU macro-regions correspond to areas with common issues, which may be geographical or sectoral in nature. These issues need a strategic approach in order to be addressed. Such an approach demands ‘integrated frameworks [which help] to identify needs and allocate available resources’, the so-called EU macro-regional strategies (Samecki, 2009: 1). Based on these two elements, it is fair to conclude that EU macro-regions encompass both a territorial and a functional dimension. Therefore, I argue that macro-regions are hybrid forms of organization balancing between these two dimensions.
Description
Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Spaces of Dialog for Places of Dignity, Lisbon, 11-14th July, 2017
Keywords
License
All rights reserved
Citation