Suchergebnisse

Inequality not only has an economic and social dimension, but also a territorial dimension with relevant political implications. The clear regional differences in economic development and employment and therefore in quality of life and opportunities in the European Union (EU) make the social situation increasingly unequal in territorial terms. There seems to be a growing consensus that large and dynamic urban areas are the future, while rural areas are perceived as having low potential. In many EU Member States, populism as a political force seems to grow in these so-called "places that don't matter", in numbers which may create systemic risks. The strengthening of the economic, social and territorial cohesion is one of the Union's main objectives. Already the Treaty of Rome (1957) established mechanisms to foster the economic and social cohesion, but it was not until the Treaty of Lisbon that a third dimension, the territorial cohesion, was introduced. Taking advantage of the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the aim of this text is to analyse the concept and instruments of EU's territorial cohesion policy in order to study the challenges of this policy.

The Territorial Cohesion goal was only included in the EU Treaty by 2009, with a view to promote a more balanced and harmonious European territory. One year earlier (2008), the European Commission (EC) published the 'Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion—Turning territorial diversity into strength'. Neither one, nor the other, clearly defines the meaning of the Territorial Cohesion concept. The later, however, proposes three main policy responses towards more balanced and harmonious development: (i) Concentration: overcoming differences in density; (ii) Connecting territories: overcoming distance; and (iii) Cooperation: overcoming division. Although not explicitly, this document identifies several 'urban questions' to be dealt when promoting territorial cohesive policies: avoiding diseconomies of very large agglomerations and urban sprawl processes, combating urban decay and social exclusion, avoiding excessive concentrations of growth, promoting access to integrated transport systems and creating metropolitan bodies. In this light, this chapter proposes to debate the importance of the urban dimension to achieve the goal of territorial cohesion at several territorial levels. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Se aborda el tema de la sostenibilidad urbana, a partir del carácter polémico de la categoría construida por la asociación de las dos palabras (sostenible y urbano); se plantean algunas consideraciones y se proponen perspectivas para tratar desde la geografía, situaciones temáticas que pueden circunscribirse en el marco de la sostenibilidad urbana. La síntesis de la reflexión valida la pertinencia de instrumentos conceptuales más integradores que trasciendan a perspectivas políticas o económicas, por lo cual se plantea la aproximación a la cohesión territorial con miras a la sostenibilidad. ; The issue of urban sustainability is addressed, based on the controversial nature of the category built by the association of the two words (sustainable and urban), some considerations are proposed and perspectives are proposed to deal with the geographic issues that can be circumscribed in the framework of urban sustainability. The synthesis of the reflection validates the relevance of more integrative conceptual instruments that transcend political or economic perspectives. For which reason the approach to territorial cohesion with a view to sustainability is proposed. ; 448-455 ; Israel.cabeza@uptc.edu.co ; Semestral ; http://www.saber.ula.ve/regeoven/

If finally accepted, the new concept of territorial cohesion could mean a formal planning role for the European Union. The paper traces the French roots of this concept. As other concepts in European integration, it is subject to multiple interpretations. The initial focus has been on regional economic development as such. At present, territorial cohesion is also held to mean (for example, in the White Paper on European Governance) the co-ordination of policies with an impact on one and the same territory. Originally adhering to a more interventionist approach to spatial planning, the French have learned to factor balanced and sustainable development, concerns of the so-called comprehensive integrated approach, into the equation. Germans, in turn, are seeing sense in the new French focus on 'services of general economic interest'. Experts from both countries agree on the need for a spatial framework for Community policies. Such a framework would look somewhat like the European Spatial Development Perspective, but as part of territorial cohesion policy as a shared responsibility of the Union and its member-states. This would vindicate ideas of the French pioneers of European spatial planning.

Territorial cohesion has figured in the lexicon of the European Union for some years. However, there has never been a clear definition of the notion, not even after its inclusion in the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, within the European Union Cohesion Reports and, more generally, within European Union documents, along with the other two dimensions of cohesion (economic and social) it has been treated separately without any serious attempts to reconcile them and develop a coherent interpretation of cohesion—the result being the creation of a contested and ill-defined understanding of territorial cohesion and its relationship to the other two dimensions of Cohesion Policy. Given that the approach advocated by Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy aims to embed the different dimensions and how they interact in specific spatial configurations (created by the confluence of a range of different 'flows' that can create multiple overlapping assemblages with 'fuzzy' boundaries), this raises important questions about how we understand these relationships. Moreover, the policy discourses in which each dimension of cohesion is situated create their own frameworks that are conducive to developing the conditions, including appropriate policy strategies, to supporting these individual cohesion formations. The rather arbitrary separation of these approaches in 'official discourse' impedes addressing cohesion in a coherent and integrated manner. Thus, after reviewing the relevant key policy literature, the article will seek to consider how territorial cohesion relates to the other two dimensions of cohesion taking into account the role of the place-based approach. However, it is argued that the search for territorial (social and economic) cohesion has been subordinated to neoliberal notions such as competitiveness and economic growth.

Territorial cohesion has figured in the lexicon of the European Union for some years. However, there has never been a clear definition of the notion, not even after its inclusion in the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, within the European Union Cohesion Reports and, more generally, within European Union documents, along with the other two dimensions of cohesion (economic and social) it has been treated separately without any serious attempts to reconcile them and develop a coherent interpretation of cohesion—the result being the creation of a contested and ill-defined understanding of territorial cohesion and its relationship to the other two dimensions of Cohesion Policy. Given that the approach advocated by Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy aims to embed the different dimensions and how they interact in specific spatial configurations (created by the confluence of a range of different 'flows' that can create multiple overlapping assemblages with 'fuzzy' boundaries), this raises important questions about how we understand these relationships. Moreover, the policy discourses in which each dimension of cohesion is situated create their own frameworks that are conducive to developing the conditions, including appropriate policy strategies, to supporting these individual cohesion formations. The rather arbitrary separation of these approaches in 'official discourse' impedes addressing cohesion in a coherent and integrated manner. Thus, after reviewing the relevant key policy literature, the article will seek to consider how territorial cohesion relates to the other two dimensions of cohesion taking into account the role of the place-based approach. However, it is argued that the search for territorial (social and economic) cohesion has been subordinated to neoliberal notions such as competitiveness and economic growth.

Territorial cohesion has figured in the lexicon of the European Union for some years. However, there has never been a clear definition of the notion, not even after its inclusion in the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, within the European Union Cohesion Reports and, more generally, within European Union documents, along with the other two dimensions of cohesion (economic and social) it has been treated separately without any serious attempts to reconcile them and develop a coherent interpretation of cohesion - the result being the creation of a contested and ill-defined understanding of territorial cohesion and its relationship to the other two dimensions of Cohesion Policy. Given that the approach advocated by Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy aims to embed the different dimensions and how they interact in specific spatial configurations (created by the confluence of a range of different 'flows' that can create multiple overlapping assemblages with 'fuzzy' boundaries), this raises important questions about how we understand these relationships. Moreover, the policy discourses in which each dimension of cohesion is situated create their own frameworks that are conducive to developing the conditions, including appropriate policy strategies, to supporting these individual cohesion formations. The rather arbitrary separation of these approaches in 'official discourse' impedes addressing cohesion in a coherent and integrated manner. Thus, after reviewing the relevant key policy literature, the article will seek to consider how territorial cohesion relates to the other two dimensions of cohesion taking into account the role of the place-based approach. However, it is argued that the search for territorial (social and economic) cohesion has been subordinated to neoliberal notions such as competitiveness and economic growth.

Studies of territorial cohesion combine aspects of effective national territory and spatial inequalities, focusing on better integration of regions through balanced economic growth, reducing regional disparities, and inclusive policies toward all citizens. Lack of cohesion and instability result from poorly managed government expenditures, clan politics, and policies toward minority ethnic groups. I examine territorial cohesion in Kazakhstan, focusing on territorial efficiency, quality, and identity to evaluate how government policies play out across the country. Analysis of official statistics shows that there is improvement in territorial efficiency and quality for most citizens, with the greatest investment in the resource-producing areas and in the rural south. There is less investment in the more heavily-Russified north. Not surprisingly, there is greater territorial identity in the south than in the north, which feels increasingly disenfranchised. This analysis was borne out in a survey of 255 university students. Ethnic Russians from the north felt most disenfranchised due to lack of opportunities and discrimination, while ethnic Kazakhs were more likely to view the future of the country positively and believe that they had greater opportunities. This research suggests that a multi-pronged approach toward territorial cohesion can be most helpful for both the governments of newly independent countries and for external assistance.

The notion of territorial cohesion resulted from a long process which was initiated as early as 1989, during the first informal ministerial meeting of ministers responsible for spatial planning (Böhme 2011: 18). It was, however, with the publication of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in 1999, that the concept of territorial cohesion was brought into the EU agenda (Vanolo 2010: 1305). Until it was formally included in the EU (Lisbon) Treaty in 2009, as an EU policy goal, alongside the goals of economic and social cohesion, territorial cohesion was an important line of enquiry in the first ESPON programme (2000–2006) (Abrahams 2014: 2136). ; info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion