Knowledge base for Ore Mountains case study: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
*Heimpold, G. (2008). [http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3732824l813524r/fulltext.pdf Growth versus equalisation? An examination of strategies for regional policy in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland after EU accession.] Jahrbuch f\ür Regionalwissenschaft, 28(1), 1–29. (NUTS 2 region under our focus is "Severozápad" | *Heimpold, G. (2008). [http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3732824l813524r/fulltext.pdf Growth versus equalisation? An examination of strategies for regional policy in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland after EU accession.] Jahrbuch f\ür Regionalwissenschaft, 28(1), 1–29. (NUTS 2 region under our focus is "Severozápad" | ||
Abstract: This paper presents an analysis which regional policy strategies are conducted in the Czech Republic, in Hungary and Poland, i.e. in three of the new EU member states after EU accession, and whether these regional policy strategies give priority to the growth objective or whether they place emphasis on the equalisation objective. This question is of great importance for the respective member states when they are trying to cope with the balancing act between rapid macroeconomic convergence towards the EU level and avoiding marginalisation of less developed regions in the respective countries. The paper starts with a brief survey on regional disparities in the countries under consideration. Then, the general objectives of the respective regional policy strategies laid down in the context of using the EU Structural Funds during the period 2004–2006 are examined regarding the relevance of growth and equalisation objectives. To gain insights, how the general objectives are implemented, the procedures to select beneficiary regions are reviewed. Then, the individual measures designated to reach the policy objectives are examined whether they are targeted at spatial growth poles or at the weakest regions. Finally, an overview regarding the prospects of regional policies in the countries under consideration in the programming period 2007–2013 will be given. For the purpose of this paper, documents of the national governments of the countries under consideration as well as thematically relevant academic literature and regional data provided by EUROSTAT are explored.<br> | Abstract: This paper presents an analysis which regional policy strategies are conducted in the Czech Republic, in Hungary and Poland, i.e. in three of the new EU member states after EU accession, and whether these regional policy strategies give priority to the growth objective or whether they place emphasis on the equalisation objective. This question is of great importance for the respective member states when they are trying to cope with the balancing act between rapid macroeconomic convergence towards the EU level and avoiding marginalisation of less developed regions in the respective countries. The paper starts with a brief survey on regional disparities in the countries under consideration. Then, the general objectives of the respective regional policy strategies laid down in the context of using the EU Structural Funds during the period 2004–2006 are examined regarding the relevance of growth and equalisation objectives. To gain insights, how the general objectives are implemented, the procedures to select beneficiary regions are reviewed. Then, the individual measures designated to reach the policy objectives are examined whether they are targeted at spatial growth poles or at the weakest regions. Finally, an overview regarding the prospects of regional policies in the countries under consideration in the programming period 2007–2013 will be given. For the purpose of this paper, documents of the national governments of the countries under consideration as well as thematically relevant academic literature and regional data provided by EUROSTAT are explored.<br> | ||
*Leibenath, M., & Knippschild, R. (2007). [http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1663m1481v50280/fulltext.pdf Territorial Cohesion and Transboundary Governance: Insights from the Polish-German and the Czech-German Borders.] Territorial Cohesion, 123–150. | *Leibenath, M., & Knippschild, R. (2007). [http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1663m1481v50280/fulltext.pdf Territorial Cohesion and Transboundary Governance: Insights from the Polish-German and the Czech-German Borders.] Territorial Cohesion, 123–150. | ||
*Leibenath, M., Blum, A., & Stutzriemer, S. (2010). [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204609001686 Transboundary cooperation in establishing ecological networks: The case of Germany’s external borders]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(2), 84–93. | *Leibenath, M., Blum, A., & Stutzriemer, S. (2010). [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204609001686 Transboundary cooperation in establishing ecological networks: The case of Germany’s external borders]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(2), 84–93. | ||
Abstract: Many voices call for better transboundary coordination and management of ecological networks. Little, though, is known about the kind of transboundary cooperation currently going on in establishing ecological networks across European borders. The objective of the present research is to gain an empirical overview of transboundary cooperation in establishing ecological networks on Germany's external borders, to analyse reasons why such cooperation is launched and why some border regions seem to be more active in this than others, and finally to identify shortfalls in current practice and potential remedies. The empirical analysis is guided by a theoretic framework which includes hypotheses on: (1) the institutional context, (2) structural and situational contexts, (3) actors with their resources, orientations and interests, (4) actor constellations, and (5) ideas, symbols and discourses. The methodology consists of a literature review, a comprehensive internet survey in combination with exploratory expert interviews, and a series of semi-structured, open-ended, in-depth interviews. We identified 34 transboundary cooperation projects in establishing ecological networks across Germany's external borders in the period 2003–2007, the majority of which was located at Germany's western borders. Many factors that had been derived theoretically were borne out by the interviews. However, hypotheses on the influence of NGOs and on international institutions and organisations seem to be of specific explanatory value. In practical terms we recommend intensifying the flow of knowledge and information between practitioners in this field and strengthening the ties between ecological network planning and spatial planning in transboundary contexts.<br> | |||
*ZAPLETALOVÁ, A. V. J. (without date). [http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/mon/2010/ppn%20622880632.pdf#page=15 GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND]. DISCUSSION PAPERS Special, 15. | *ZAPLETALOVÁ, A. V. J. (without date). [http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/mon/2010/ppn%20622880632.pdf#page=15 GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND]. DISCUSSION PAPERS Special, 15. | ||
*Roseland, M. (2000). Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in Planning, 54(2), 73–132. | *Roseland, M. (2000). Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in Planning, 54(2), 73–132. | ||