190 likes | 274 Views
Place-based governance and regional policy. Ilona Pálné Kovács IRS, CERS. HAS palne@rkk.hu. Theor ies of decentralisation (disciplinary separation). State theory focus on structure : local governments as fourth branch of power or local states ?
E N D
Place-basedgovernance and regional policy Ilona Pálné Kovács IRS, CERS. HAS palne@rkk.hu
Theories of decentralisation (disciplinary separation) • State theory focus on structure: local governments as fourth branch of power or local states? • Public administration science focus on functioning: how much and what kind of decentralisation is „ideal”, • Institutional economics focuson economic and fiscal consequences (spill over, public choice, fiscal federalism, etc.) • Regional science and economic geographyfocus on territory: (economy of agglomeration, regional competitiveness etc.) How to measure? Few empirical evidences (Müller, 2009,Saito, 2011, lot of fiscal analysises) • Decentralisation is stillrather about democracy than performance (standards: European Charter of Local Governments)
Neoliberal „governance” likes decentralisation • Less public sector- enabling role of the state • New actors, stakeholders, political class (Oborne, 2007) • Social capital, cultural contexts • New (horizontal) mechanisms: policy networks, bargaining, grass-roots • Sensitive to thescale • Principles: subsidiarity, closeness to the citizens Decentralised governance is better : new regionalism, glocalism, MLG territorial reforms
Regional governance matters (Charron et al, 2011) • European quality of government index at national and regional levels (survey in 27 MS, in 172 regions, 34.000 residents) • Size of the region: no matter in general, and lower quality in larger cities! • Level of political decentralisation: no direct impact! Conclusions • The macro governance and socio-economic context and social trust have more impact on the quality of governance and performance, • but „Regional governance matters”: improving regional administrative capacities is one of the performance reserves.
Neo-Weberian turn Crisis and disappointment in neo-liberal, decentralised governance Renaissance of old public values • Strong (good) state instead of market • Traditional representative democracy and executive model instead of partnership • Hierarchy, centralization instead of fuzzy networks • Weakening regionalism (Keating, 2008), new secession movements (Spain, Italy, UK) Connecting neo-liberal and neo-weberian models: • NP Governance (Osborne,2011) • Place-based governance (Barca, 2009) • Emerging urban governance challenges • Territorial governance
Territorial governance: a new buzzword • Vague term and intention behind • Territorial governance for place-based development policy • Less about public power structure, more about soft, horizontal elements
ESPON TANGO Territorial governance is the formulation and implementation of public policies, and projects for the developmentof a place/territory by • 1) co-ordinating actions of actors and institutions, • 2) integrating policy sectors, • 3) mobilising stakeholder participation, • 4) being adaptive to changing contexts, • 5) realising place-based/territorial specificities and impacts. • Where is decentralisation?
How to govern the territory? The case of Hungary (and CEE) • History and cultural roots matter: never strong local governance in Hungary before • 1990: systemic change, dominance of political values, strong but fragmented bottom, weak meso: sand-glass shape • 1994-2010: rescaling experiments under the pressure of European cohesion policy
Rescaling for the money, mapdrawing Law about regional development in 1996, overture of EU accession • Micro-regional associations (1993-2004) • Macro regions (for NUTS, development, self-governance, state governance), 1998, 2004 • Empty counties
Misfit of regionalisation and partnership : hidden centralisation Weak meso and lack of political will to decentralise led to • the jungle of geographical units („fuzzy/messy” regionalism) • shock of the joining to the EU in 2004- centralised management of Structural Funds • exclusive, closed networks in the management of SF, it is not a friendly match!
2010 turning point: open centralisation Need (crisis, debt) and political chance (2/3)to do something: • New constitution, new act on local government • Crisis handling parallel with the paradigm change • Strong and expanding „Neo-Weberian”state • Regionalisation cancelled (empty map) • Nationalisation of many local services: local government system is almost empty bottle • As a compensation stronger involvement in development policy?
Boundaries in 2013 Készült: MTA KRTK, 2013
Hungary is not an exception. Common features in CEE • Top down rescaling (EU pressure): shifting power up (except Poland?)centralisation • EC ambivalent behaviour, lack of trust towards regionalism in CEE • Weak local governments and civic society (lack of social capital) Imitating instead of learning and adaptation
Paradox of uniformised cohesion policy: Mind a gap! Asimmetrical European landscape of governance model and uniformmanagement system of SFs • Vertical paradox: Dominance of centralised governance systems in CEE and Southern Europe • Horizontal paradox: Weak non public actors (partners) in CEE and SE • MLG paradox: Three-level governance only for the Core of Europe with regions and places strong enough
Lessons for us:Place-based governance is more than decentralisation • Do not confuse managing SFs and development policy • Do not hurry, copy and imitate • Less structural shock, more functional adaptation by small steps • Empowerment needs enabling (responsibilty+instruments) • Building capacity, trust and knowledge (local leadership) Territorial (place- based) governance= making policy sectors territorially sensitive: integrating, coordinating, local fitting etc.
Regional studies matter • Without regional studies there is no regional policy • Without navigation (information, skills, analytical tools) regional policy is just blind flying with big risk and waste of money Thank you for your attention