Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Shifts in EU Cohesion Policy and Processes of Peripheralization: A View from Central Eastern Europe

dc.contributor.authorFaragó, Lászlóen
dc.contributor.authorVarró, Krisztinaen
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-20T08:35:17Z
dc.date.available2016-07-20T08:35:17Z
dc.date.issued2016-07-07en
dc.identifier.issn1231-1952en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/18841
dc.description.abstractThe increasing dominance of neoliberalism as the key steering mechanism of the European Union (EU) since the early 1990s has implied the competitiveness-oriented reshaping of cohesion policy. The aim of this paper is to initiate a debate from a critical political economic perspective on the implications of this shift for Central Eastern European (CEE) member states. To this end, the paper discusses the formation of EU centre-periphery relations from a CEE point of view and formulates some preliminary suggestions as to how cohesion policy would need to be rethought in order to ensure the better integration of lagging CEE regions.en
dc.publisherLodz Univeristy Pressen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Spatial Research and Policy;23en
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0en
dc.subjectEU cohesion policyen
dc.subjectEU integrationen
dc.subjectcentre–peripheryen
dc.subjectLisbonizationen
dc.subjectplace-based developmenten
dc.subjectCentral Eastern Europe (CEE)en
dc.subjectVisegrad Group (V4)en
dc.titleShifts in EU Cohesion Policy and Processes of Peripheralization: A View from Central Eastern Europeen
dc.page.number5-19en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationFaragó, László - László FARAGÓ, Krisztina VARRÓ, HAS Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Institute for Regional Studies, Transdanubian Research Department, P. O. Box 199, H-7601 Pécs, Hungaryen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationVarró, Krisztina - László FARAGÓ, Krisztina VARRÓ, HAS Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Institute for Regional Studies, Transdanubian Research Department, P. O. Box 199, H-7601 Pécs, Hungaryen
dc.identifier.eissn1896-1525
dc.referencesAGNEW, J. (2001), ‘How many Europes? The European Union, eastward enlargement and uneven development’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 8, pp. 29–38. doi: 10.1177/096977640100800103en
dc.referencesALLEN, D. (2005), Cohesion and Structural Funds: Competing Pressures for Reform?, [in:] WALLACE, H., WALLACE, W. and POLLACK, M. (eds), Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–241.en
dc.referencesALLEN, J., MASSEY, D. and COCHRANE, A. (1998), Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesBACHTLER, J. and DOWNES, R. (2000), ‘The spatial coverage of regional policy in Central and Eastern Europe’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 7, pp. 159–174. doi: 10.1177/096977640000700205en
dc.referencesBACHTLER, J. and GORZELAK, G. (2007), ‘Reforming EU Cohesion Policy’, Policy Studies, 28, pp. 309–326.en
dc.referencesBACHTLER, J. and MENDEZ, C. (2007), ‘Who Governs EU Cohesion Policy? Deconstructing the Reforms of the Structural Funds’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45, pp. 535–564.en
dc.referencesBALÁZS, P. (2014), ‘Közeledés vagy távolodás?’ Közgazdasági Szemle, LXI, pp. 350–362.en
dc.referencesBARCA, F. (2009), An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner of Regional Policy, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meet-docs/2009_2014/documents/regi/dv/barca_report_/barca_report_en.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2015)en
dc.referencesBAUN, M. and MAREK, D. (2014), Cohesion Policy in the European Union. London–New York: Palgrave Macmillan.en
dc.referencesBORÉN, T. and GENTILE, M. (2007), ‘Metropolitan Processes in Post-Communist States: an Introduction’, Geografiska Annaler, 89 B, pp. 95–110.en
dc.referencesBORRÁS-ALOMAR, S., CHRISTIANSEN, T. and RODRÍGUEZ-POSÉ, A. (1994), ‘Towards a `Europe of the Regions’? Visions and Reality from a Critical Perspective’, Regional Politics and Policy, 4, pp. 1–27.en
dc.referencesBRUSZT, L. (2008) ‘Multi-level governance—the Eastern versions: Emerging patterns of regional development governance in the new member states’. Regional and Federal Studies, 18, pp. 607–627.en
dc.referencesBUDD, L. (1997) ‘Regional integration and convergence and the problems of fiscal and monetary systems: Some lessons for Eastern Europe’, Regional Studies, 31, pp. 559–570. doi: 10.1080/00343409750131695en
dc.referencesBUDD, L. (2007) ‘A Cohesion pact for the regions’, Policy Studies, 28, pp. 347–363.en
dc.referencesCEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2005), Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007–2013. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/osc/050706osc_en.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2015)en
dc.referencesCEC (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the Development of Partnership Agreement and Programmes in HUNGARY for the Period 2014–2020. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/pdf/partnership/hu_position_paper.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2015)en
dc.referencesCEC (2014), Investment for jobs and growth Brussels, Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.en
dc.referencesCOTELLA, G., ADAMS, N. and NUNES, R. J. (2012), ‘Engaging in European Spatial Planning: A Central and Eastern European Perspective on the Territorial Cohesion Debate’, European Planning Studies, 20, pp. 1197–1220. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.673567en
dc.referencesDĄBROWSKI, M. (2014), ‘Towards place-based regional and local development strategies in Central and Eastern Europe? EU cohesion policy and strategic planning capacity at the sub-national level’, Local Economy, 29, pp. 78–393.en
dc.referencesDUNFORD, M. and PERRONS, D. (1994), ‘Regional inequality, regimes of accumulation and economic development in contemporary Europe’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 19, pp. 163–182. doi: 10.2307/622752en
dc.referencesEHRLICH, K., KRISZAN, A. and LANG, T. (2012), ‘Urban development in Central and Eastern Europe – between Peripheralization and centralization?’, The Planning Review, 48, pp. 77–92.en
dc.referencesEUROSTAT (2015) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/GDP_at_regional_level (Accessed 23 September 2015).en
dc.referencesFERRY, M. (2015), ‘Synthesis Report: WP8. Cohesion Policy and its Components: Past, Present and Future’, GRINCOH Working Paper Series, Paper No. 8, http://www.grincoh.eu/media/syhtnesis_reports/grincoh_wp8_synthesis_report_ferry.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2015)en
dc.referencesFERRY, M. and MCMASTER, I. (2013) ‘Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Europe-Asia Studies, 65, pp. 1502–1528.en
dc.referencesGÁL, Z. and LUX, G. (2014), ET2050 Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Europe, Final Report 30/06/2014 Volume 8 – Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Central and Eastern Europe.en
dc.referencesGRABBE, H. (2001), ‘How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and Diversity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, pp. 1013–1031. doi: 10.1080/13501760110098323en
dc.referencesHigh Level Reflection Group (2014)’, Central Europe fit for the future – Visegrad Group ten years after the accession. Bratislava-Warsaw: CEPI-demosEuropa. http://www.demosservices.home.pl/www/files/demos_Central%20Europe_fit_web.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2015)en
dc.referencesHUDSON, R. (2003), ‘European integration and new forms of uneven development but not the end of territorially distinctive capitalisms in Europe’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 10, pp. 49–67. doi: 10.1177/0969776403010001539en
dc.referencesJUNCKER, J-C. (2014), A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change Political Guidelines for the next European Commission Opening Statement in the European Parliament Plenary Session. http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/pg_en.pdf (Accessed 23 September 2015).en
dc.referencesKÁPOSZTA, J. and NAGY, H. (2015), ‘Status report about the progress of the Visegrad countries in relation to Europe 2020 targets’, European Spatial Research and Policy, 22, pp. 81–99.en
dc.referencesKEATING, M. (2008) ‘A Quarter Century of the Europe of the Regions’, Regional and Federal Studies,18, pp. 629–635.en
dc.referencesKENGYEL, Á. (2014), ‘Az európai uniós tagság mint modernizációs hajtóerő’, Közgazdasági Szemle, LXI, pp. 493–508.en
dc.referencesMASSEY, D. (1979), ‘In what sense a regional problem?’, Regional Studies, 13, pp. 233–243. doi: 10.1080/09595237900185191en
dc.referencesMASSEY, D. (1984), Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production. Basingstoke: Macmillan.en
dc.referencesMASSEY, D. (2001), ‘Geography on the agenda’, Progress in Human Geography 25, pp. 5–17.en
dc.referencesMENDEZ, C. (2011), ‘The Lisbonization of EU Cohesion Policy: A Successful Case of Experimentalist Governance?’, European Planning Studies, 19, pp. 519–537. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.548368en
dc.referencesMENDEZ, C. (2013), ‘The post-2013 reform of EU cohesion policy and the place-based narrative’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20, pp. 639–659. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2012.736733en
dc.referencesMENDEZ, C., BACHTLER, J. and GRANQVIST, K. (2013), European Commission Perspectives on the 2014–2020 Partnership Agreements and Programmes: A Comparative Review of the Commission’s Position Papers, European Policy Research Paper, nr. 84, Glasgow: European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde.en
dc.referencesMinistry of Regional Development of Poland (2011), Evaluation of benefits to the EU-15 resulting from the implementation of Cohesion Policy in the Visegrad Group countries. Warsaw: Ministry of Regional Development of Poland.en
dc.referencesMONASTIRIOTIS, V. (2011), ‘Regional growth dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe’, LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.en
dc.referencesMRAK, M., RICHTER, S. and SZEMLÉR, T. (2015), Cohesion Policy as a Function of the EU Budget A Perspective from CEE Member States. Research Report 400, May 2015, Vienna: The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.en
dc.referencesNÖLKE, A. and VLIEGENTHART, A. (2009), ‘Enlarging the Variety of Capitalism: The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe’, World Politics, 61, pp. 670–202. doi: 10.1017/S0043887109990098en
dc.referencesPALLAGST, K. (2006), ‘European spatial planning reloaded: Considering EU enlargement in theory and practice’, European Planning Studies, 14, pp. 253–272. doi: 10.1080/09654310500418259en
dc.referencesPARASKEVOPOULOS, C. J. and LEONARDI, R. (2004), ‘Introduction: Adaptational Pressures and Social Learning in European Regional Policy – Cohesion (Greece, Ireland and Portugal) vs. CEE (Hungary, Poland) Countries’, Regional and Federal Studies, 14, pp. 315–354.en
dc.referencesRADVÁNSZKI, Á. (2009), ‘Old wine in a new bottle? The Hungarian approach to polycentric territorial Development’, Urban Research and Practice, 2, pp. 308–318.en
dc.referencesSCOTT, A. J. (2001) ‘Globalization and the Rise of City-regions’, European Planning Studies, 9, pp. 813–826. doi: 10.1080/09654310120079788en
dc.referencesSOKOL, M. (2001), ‘Central and Eastern Europe a Decade After the Fall of State-socialism: Regional Dimensions of Transition Processes’, Regional Studies, 35, pp. 645–655. doi: 10.1080/00343400120075911en
dc.referencesSMITH, A. and TIMÁR, J. (2010), ‘Uneven transformations: Space, economy and society 20 years after the collapse of state socialism’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 17, pp. 115–125. doi: 10.1177/0969776409358245en
dc.referencesTIMÁR, J. (2004), ‘‘More than ‘Anglo-American’, it is ‘Western’: hegemony in geography from a Hungarian perspective’, Geoforum, 35, pp. 533–538. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.01.010en
dc.referencesVANOLO, A. (2010) ‘European Spatial Planning Between Competitiveness and Territorial Cohesion:Shadows of Neoliberalism’, European Planning Studies, 18, pp. 1301–1315. doi: 10.1080/09654311003791358en
dc.referencesVARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary: The Interplay Between European and National Discourses of Space, European Planning Studies, 24:(1) pp. 39–60. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1066760en
dc.referencesŽENKA, J., NOVOTNÝ, J. and CSANK, P. (2014), ‘Regional Competitiveness in Central European Countries: In Search of a Useful Conceptual Framework’, European Planning Studies, 22, pp. 164–183. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.731042en
dc.contributor.authorEmailFaragó, László - farago@rkk.huen
dc.contributor.authorEmailVarró, Krisztina - krisztinavarro@yahoo.comen
dc.identifier.doi10.1515/esrp-2016-0001en


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
esrp-2016-0001.pdf
Rozmiar:
313.5KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.