Developing European regions ?

This paper introduces a project recently started by the authors on the relationship between European integration and regionalisation in both extant member states and applicant countries. Our main question is whether we are witnessing a process of Europeanisation in relation to sub-central state structures; a common pattern of regional governance within member states. Related to this, we are concerned with the extent to which EU membership, and EU institutional actors in particular, have influenced the pattern of regionalisation. This paper situates the influence of the EU in the context of other potential explanations for change in European regions beyond the EU system (globalisation) and within the member states (sub-central demands for greater autonomy). It also places the public policy literature on policy diffusion and policy transfer alongside the concepts of globalisation and Europeanisation to provide a framework for comparative analysis. We provide a brief picture of developments in regional governance in a number of states and reflect on the issues this picture raises for future research. INTRODUCTION Across Europe, both inside and outside the EU, regional politics, policy and governance is changing. At all levels of analysis, changes in regions are frequently presented as evidence of more wide-ranging trends in governance. The post-war process of European integration has developed in the context of two discernible trends in international politics: globalization and decentralization. At a global level, much of the literature dealing with international systems convergence points to increasing regional bloc formation as a ‘by-product’ of larger systems level change (Held et al, 1999). In this respect, the evolution of the European Union (and other regional blocs such as ASEAN and NAFTA) are often held up as evidence of this globalization process. This reconfiguration is said to impact upon the political organisation and administration of states. Yet globalization is a contested concept. How it has affected and been affected by the process of European integration is also contested (for a discussion, see Payne 2000). At sub-national level, this changing environment has led to new configurations of interests, new regional actors and new ‘rules of the game’ for regional politics, policy and governance (Rhodes, 1996; Rhodes et al, 1996). While globalization provides an important context, our focus here is on the relationship between European integration and decentralization in Europe, and specifically on the process of regionalization. Here we define regionalization as the process leading to enhanced governing capacity at the regional level, otherwise referred to as regional governance. This is distinct from regionalism, which we use to describe ‘bottom-up’ movements seeking to strengthen regional governance in order to develop or support their own political, cultural and/or economic autonomy within the wider state system. We are concerned with two main questions. First, has a common pattern of regionalization emerged in Europe, or does regionalization take manifestly different forms between and within European states? Second, what has been the influence of the European Union on the nature and pace of regionalization within EU member states and would-be applicant members? This paper sets out to characterise the range of forces for change in European regions and presents a summary overview of key developments in European regions. Europe and the Regions: Key Studies The study of the impact of European integration on territorial restructuring within member states has been popular among academics (see for example, Marks 1992 and 1993; Hooghe 1996; Smyrl 1997; Le Gales and Lequesne 1998). This relationship has been conceptualised differently during different phases of integration, giving rise to various slogans to approximate the closeness of ‘Europe’, meaning supranational institutions and actors, with subnational institutions and actors (‘regions’). ‘Europe of the Regions’; ‘Europe and the Regions’ and ‘Europe with the Regions’ have all been used at different times to describe this relationship. While the emphasis has changed, one constant has been the assumption that the process of European integration, and the actions of supranational actors within that process, has generally supported a greater role for regions. We take as our starting point for this discussion the conclusions to the study on Regions in Europe conducted by Le Gales and Lequesne (1998). Regions in Europe Le Gales (1998) concluded that globalisation had a mixed impact on sub-national territories. Some were ‘destructured’ by the proliferation of networks caused by globalisation, while the importance of others for economic development increased. For these regions, the impact of globalisation on the power of the nation state provided a new opportunity structure by drawing them ‘into the competition game in order to attract social groups and public and private investments’ (Le Gales 1998: 241). Overall, globalisation was seen to strengthen sub-regional mobilisation. However, while this process contributed to a strengthening of sub-national governance, there was little convergence in terms of the emergence of a subnational level of elected government. The study offered three explanations for the absence of homogeneous regional government in Europe: (1) the diversity of realities regrouped under the term region; (2) the rivalry between levels of government and (3) the reorganisation of states in relation with European integration. (Le Gales 1998: 248). On the first of these explanations, it was found that the term ‘region’ was used to refer to different realities in different countries and that, while useful, the categorisation of subnational units using the NUTS 1, 2and 3 schema failed to capture the extant diversity. On the second explanation, the study revealed that regional institutions faced competition with other territorial levels and, while this competition is not always a zero-sum game, it is rare that all levels win. Where there has been relatively rapid development of regions or federated states, for example in Germany and Spain, this ‘is partially explained by the opportunities created by reconstruction, or transition to democracy after periods in which the state lost legitimacy’ (Le Gales, 1998: 249). This point may prove to be particularly relevant in relation to developments in Central and East European Countries (CEEC). On the third explanation, it was noted that in the drive to meet the Maastricht convergence criteria, a number of member states had devolved some financial responsibilities to sub-national authorities. In concluding the study, Le Gales identified a mix of factors as important in explaining developments in Europe’s regions. European integration, identity and culture and globalisation all mattered: ‘Without denying the considerable indirect impact of European integration on intergovernmental relations and territorial restructuring, in this volume we have attempted to emphasise the fact that the economic and social effects of globalisation processes and the reorganisation of capitalism in Europe, are for the moment at least as important’ (1998: 266). As for the ‘Europe of the Regions’ slogan, this was seen to contribute to the social construction of European governance, but its impact would be limited because ‘the performative efficiency of the discourse can come across serious difficulties’ (Le Gales, 1998: 265). EC Regional Policy and Territorial Restructuring The 1988 reform of the structural funds introduced partnership as a key principle in the management and delivery of EU regional policy. The partnership principle was taken as evidence of emerging multi-level governance in which ‘decision-making competencies are shared by actors at different levels rather than monopolized by state 1 The acronym NUTS is derived from “Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units” and refers to the geographical scales which Eurostat the EU’s research office for census and survey data uses for statistical purposes. executives’ (Marks, Hooghe and Blank 1996: 346). Hooghe (1996) co-ordinated a study on the impact of the partnership arrangements on ‘territorial restructuring’ within eight member states. It sought to answer two related questions: § Have diverse territorial relations converged under pressure of this uniform EU policy, hence moving towards a systematic involvement of subnational authorities in all member states? § Or are uniform European regulations being bent and stretched so as to uphold existing differences in member states? (Hooghe 1996: 2). The Hooghe study showed that actors at different levels – national, subnational and supranational – controlled different resources in different member states, leading to differing impacts on territorial restructuring. For example, in Ireland, the gatekeeper role of central government was undermined by partnership, while in Greece there was no substantial impact on territorial relations. More recently, Smyrl (1997) tested the degree of regional empowerment through EC regional policy in Italy and France. Looking at two regions within each of the two member states, he emphasised the importance of regional rather than national factors in determining the degree of subnational empowerment: In both countries, national institutions defined an opportunity structure, but did not determine the ultimate outcome. Within these structures, elected leaders in some French and Italian regions translated management of EC programs into clear gains in discretionary authority while others in each country did not (Smyrl 1997: 293) Two factors were particularly important in explaining why some regions, rather than others, were able to maximise the opportunity for empowerment offered by EC structural policy: regional entrepreneurialism and the pre-existence of a territorial policy community for economic development. As Smyrl (1997: 298) put it: The first and most obvious condition of regional empowerment lies in the actions of regional-level elected leaders. Only in those regions where leaders took on from the outset the role of policy entrepreneurs with respect to ECRP [European Community Regional Policy] was empowerment possible