Regionalisation in Europe the state of affairs

(1)

(2)

(3)

REGIONALISATION IN EUROPE

THE STATE OF AFFAIRS

(4)

(5)

REGIONALISATION IN EUROPE THE STATE OF AFFAIRS

Edited by

Grzegorz Libor, Dorota Nowalska-Kapuścik, Robert Pyka

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego • 2015

(6)

Referee:

Robert Geisler

(7)

INTRODUCTION

Transformations which are broadly associated with the development of the system of global interdependence and the economy based on human intellect have changed our reference to the territory and thus influenced the way we use space today. Although the state still is and undoubtedly will be a key point of reference and guarantor of social order for a long time, its effectiveness in many areas is weakening now. The initiative is taken by subterritorial units which heretofore remained in the shadow (for example regions) or new territorialities which were not always reflected in the administrative structure of the state (for instance metropolitan areas).

Economic development is one of those areas that has undergone a territorialisation process. The state has lost the ability of generating economic growth in the Post-Fordism economy, inter alia, in the region which accumulates capitals necessary for the development and creating local environment favorable to in- novations and creativity.

The transformation of the economic fundamentals is also accompanied by the changes of citizens’ identity, which is often associated with the crisis of a uniform civic identity within the nation-state. The place of a coherent national citizenship is being gradually replaced by pluralistic model including urban, metropolitan and, above all, regional identity.

Both groups of changes relating to the territorialisation, namely in the field of economy and citizenship, can overlap one another in different configurations, showing possible correlations between regionalism and regionalisation. Region- alism – being an expression of specific awareness of people living in a given territory, delineating their identity in cultural and ethnic, as well as economic and political levels – may or may not lead to regionalisation understood as such a transformation of territorial-administrative structure of the state in the case of which regions become independent local government units equipped with specific prerogatives and competencies.

(10)

Spain is an example of the state where the Catalan ethno-cultural and economic regionalism (metropolitan region of Barcelona), but also the Basque separatism have become the basis for the regionalisation of the state and extracting autonomous regions. But the real question is how such a type of regionalisation is deepening the existing regionalisms which after ‘satisfying’ their autonomous aspirations started to formulate independent demands now.

France is an example of a rationalist approach to regional issues. Regionali- sation carried out as a consequence of decentralisation in the early 1980s when 22 regions were created as local government units for the first time, was the result of an awareness of the need to adapt the country’s territorial structure to modern development processes as well as to the European Union’s regional policy. Adopt- ed on 17th January 2015, the law on the delimitation of regions which has reduced their number from 22 to 13 is a continuation of this process being the manifes- tation of political pragmatism. The main motives for this reform were to create large regions (average of 4 million inhabitants) capable to generate economic development effectively and able to compete with their European counterparts. The identity factors gave way to pragmatics and political alliances, as a result of which such regions as Alsace, Lorraine and Champagne-Ardenne have been merged.

In Polish conditions regionalisation took place due to the territorial reform of 1999 and is an example of a pragmatic approach to the issues of regional identity as well. This was associated with a high level of diversity when it comes to regional identity and regionalism in Poland and, above all, the will to maintain a homogeneous and unitary structure of the state. As a result, 49 voivodeships were replaced by 16 relatively large ones that loosely refer to the historical divisions. In such an approach, however, there was no place for political recognition of separate identity of some of them, including Upper Silesia, which for example in the interwar period had a large degree of autonomy. That is why today Polish regions have above all a functional dimension and are de-concentrated areas of both central government structures as well as local authorities.

The regionalisation taking place in new economic conditions seems to be a historical necessity arising from pragmatics of the economic system and the recognition of the rights of each individual to cultivate his or her own distinct regional identity. Therefore, the future of the state remains an open question especially from the point of view of independent tendencies in some parts of Europe. However, due to of the change in the Russian international policy and the threat from Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham we realise now more than a few years ago how important role the state has to play and how strong the European Union thanks to its member states should be.

This book is a joint initiative of the members of the international research network OLA (Observatory on Local Autonomy) and invited guests who con- centrate in their research on regional issues from different social, economic and political perspectives.

(11)

Introduction 9

This publication should also be seen as a contribution of the Polish branch of OLA led by Robert Pyka to its development as an excellent platform of ex- changing thoughts and ideas on issues crucial for the future of Europe and the development of local government.

Robert Pyka

(12)

(13)

PRÉFACE

Les changements dans le monde contemporain en relation avec l’émergence du système des interdépendances globales et de l’économie fondé sur l’intellect hu- main, ont affecté nos rapports au territoire et ont modifié définitivement la façon dont l’espace est utilisé.

Même si l’État conserve sa position prééminente puisqu’il est le garant de l’ordre social, s’observe conjointement l’affaiblissement de son efficacité dans un nombre important de domaines. Dans ce contexte, l’initiative de l’action publique passe aux échelons territoriaux inférieurs, et notamment aux niveaux territoriaux émergents, dont le processus d’institutionnalisation commence à peine (p.ex. les espaces métropolitains).

Le développement économique devient un des domaines du processus de la territorialisation. L’État a perdu la capacité de maîtriser la croissance dans l’éco- nomie postfordiste au profit de régions notamment qui cumulent des capitaux et ressources nécessaires au développement et créent le milieu local favorable à la créativité et à l’innovation.

Les changements des fondements du système économique sont accompagnés par les transformations de l’identité des citoyens qui peuvent se manifester par la crise de l’identité citoyenne unitaire au sein de l’État-nation. Le sentiment de la citoyenneté cohérente se substitue progressivement au modèle pluraliste, qui module l’identité citoyenne municipale voire métropolitaine, et avant tout l’iden- tité régionale.

Les deux groupes de facteurs relatifs à la territorialisation de l’économie ou à l’identité citoyenne peuvent se chevaucher mutuellement dans une variété de configurations, en révélant de multiples interdépendances entre la régionalisation et les régionalismes.

Le régionalisme, qui constitue une expression d’une conscience spécifique de personnes vivant sur le territoire, déterminant leur identité spécifique sur le plan culturel et ethnique, mais aussi économique et politique, peut, mais ne doit pas nécessairement, conduire à la régionalisation.

(14)

La régionalisation constitue à son tour une notion du registre juridique qui fait référence à la transformation de la structure administrative et territoriale de l’État, avec l’émergence de régions en tant qu’unités territoriales autonomes, disposant de certaines prérogatives leur permettant l’exécution de services publics spécifiques au profit de la communauté régionale.

L’Espagne peut être un exemple de l’État où le régionalisme catalan à ca- ractère ethnoculturel et économique (région métropolitaine de Barcelone) mais aussi le séparatisme basque, sont devenus la base de la régionalisation de l’État, qui se manifeste dans la création de régions autonomes. La question intéressante concerne la façon dont la régionalisation de l’Espagne a favorisé l’approfondisse- ment des régionalismes qui, après avoir satisfait les aspirations à l’autonomie, ont développé des revendications d’indépendance.

La France, à son tour, constitue un exemple d’une approche pragmatique aux questions régionales. La régionalisation était le résultat d’une prise de la conscience de la nécessité d’adapter la structure territoriale du pays aux processus de dé- veloppement moderne ainsi qu’à la politique régionale de l’Union Européenne.

La création de 22 régions en tant que collectivités locales de plein droit était un élément important de la phase I de la décentralisation des années 80. La loi relative à la délimitation des régions, adoptée en France le 16 janvier 2015, réduit en métropole le nombre des régions de 22 à 13 ; ce n’est que la continuation de ce processus démontrant le pragmatisme politique français. L’objectif principal de cette réforme est de créer de plusieurs grandes régions fortes (de 4 millions d’ha- bitant en moyenne, donc de niveau NUTS 1), disposant d’un potentiel nécessaire pour générer la croissance économique et capables de rentrer en concurrence avec d’autres régions européennes aussi importantes. Les facteurs identitaires ont cédé au pragmatisme et aux alliances politiques avec comme résultat la réunion de territoires différents, tels que les « anciennes » régions d’Alsace, de Lorraine et de Champagne-Ardenne. Reste que, contrairement à l’article 5 de la Charte euro- péenne de l’autonomie locale, la population n’a pas été consultée : les identités régionales n’ont pas été respectées, mais elles ont presque été forcées.

En Pologne, c’est la reforme territoriale de 1999 relative à la régionalisation du pays qui fait également preuve de la domination du pragmatisme sur les questions identitaires. Cette approche pragmatique peut être vu comme le résultat des faibles ou quasi inexistantes identités régionales en Pologne, à l’exception de la Silésie et de la région de Kaszuby. Ce pragmatisme fonctionnel prend égale- ment source dans le souci de maintenir l’unité nationale à l’aide d’une structure homogène et unitaire de l’État. Les 49 régions préexistantes ont été remplacées par 16 régions d’une taille relativement importante, mais ne faisant qu’une vague référence aux réalités régionales historiques. Cependant, dans cette logique, il n’y avait pas de place pour la reconnaissance des identités spécifiques de certaines régions, dont la Haute Silésie, qui disposait, avant la deuxième guerre mondiale, d’une large autonomie. Les régions polonaises ont avant tout un caractère fonc-

(15)

Préface 13

tionnel, parce qu’elles sont le terrain d’actions à la fois des autorités régionales décentralisées et de l’administration déconcentrée de l’État.

La régionalisation, dans le contexte d’émergence des régionalismes et dans les nouvelles conditions du marché, semble être paradoxalement une nécessité historique résultant du pragmatisme du système économique, mais aussi de la reconnaissance des droits individuels à cultiver leur identité régionale spécifi- que. Cependant, l’avenir de l’État reste une interrogation importante relative aux poussées indépendantistes de certaines régions européennes. Aujourd’hui plus qu’avant, à l’issue d’un basculement dans la politique étrangère de la Russie ou dans le contexte de l’émergence de l’État Islamique ; on se rend compte qu’on ne peut pas se passer de l’État comme de l’Union Européenne, forte de ses États membres.

Le présent ouvrage constitue un résultat des rencontres et des échanges des chercheurs, membres du réseau scientifique international OLA (Observatory on Local Autonomy), qui abordent dans leurs recherches les problèmes sociaux, économiques et politiques, qui semblent particulièrement important pour le fonctionnement des régions en Europe contemporaine. Nous voudrions que cet ouvrage commun soit aussi un apport de l’équipe polonaise d’OLA dirigée par Robert Pyka, au développement de ce réseau, offrant une excellente plate-forme pour l’échange des idées et des connaissances sur les questions qui sont cruciales pour l’avenir de l’Europe et l’autonomie de ses collectivités territoriales.

Robert Pyka

(16)

(17)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The articles that follow are the result of the academic work of our active and enthusiastic Polish colleagues, Mr Grzegorz Libor, Mrs Dorota Nowalska- Kapuścik, and Mr Robert Pyka of the University of Silesia in Katowice (Upper Silesia). As part of OLA’s Polish team, they deserve to be congratulated for this book, which will make a useful addition to the one recently published by OLA in October 2014 entitled Régionalisation en Europe. Regards Croisés (Bruylant Publishing).

As for their book, its title is Regionalisation in Europe: The State of Affairs. Far from being content to simply outline the current state of regionalisation in Po- land, and more specifically in Silesia (see the articles by Grzegorz Libor, Dorota Nowalska-Kapuścik, Barbara Słania, Monika Szpoczek-Sało, Robert Pyka, and Małgorzata Suchacka), the editors have collected articles on Scotland and North- ern Ireland (Greg Lloyd and Deborah Peel), Wales (Grzegorz Libor and Rafał Muster), Spain (Angel M. Moreno), Hungary (Gábor Kurunczi, Ádám Varga, and Erzsébet Csatlós), and Italy (Jolanta Gałuszka), by enlisting the help of specialists on these countries, along with an article penned by Agnès Ciccarone that provides a very interesting general perspective on the Assembly of European Regions.

The OLA (the Observatory on Local Autonomy), as a European network, is therefore proud to show its support for this excellent publication, which brings together the research of specialists in the domain of local autonomy.

Our network (www.ola-europe.com) now comprises 65 teams of research- ers and local civil servants across 35 European countries. It is based on a dual network of French points of contact – whose job is to coordinate local research teams in each member state of the European Union along with Iceland, Molda- via, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, Serbia, and Turkey – and of European cor- respondents.

Regionalisation is a political process that aims to create regions as territorial units of public management; by studying the question of what we mean by the word “region,” what we are actually doing is searching – however futile, it seems,

www.ola-europe.com

(18)

the search may be – for a common definition between the domestic law found in different European nations and the law of the European Union.

Incidentally, creating territorial divisions is not just a wholly mathematical and demographical process, but instead a far more complex human and sociological progression. Must this mean, though, that countries, as a result of their “territorial history,” are doomed to never be able to alter the borders of their administrative divisions? In Romania, for instance, the historical local government division is that of the county (județ), but does that necessarily make the creation of regions inconceivable? Especially considering that nothing stands in the way of existing local government entities becoming deconcentrated administrative districts within new, larger local government divisions. In this case, an odd combination of decentralisation and deconcentration could be devised that would preserve the cultural heritage of the past all while meeting the challenges of the present.

In the end, if regionalisation has become an inevitable part of political and administrative discourse, it is because, for many European and international organisations, decentralisation is now viewed as an inevitable managerial solution to recurring economic crises. Expanding local governments and granting them further powers is presented as a guarantee of better-managed and higher-quality public service – and also “less expensive” public service, which means a smaller drain on the economy. As a result, regions must guarantee quality service at the lowest possible cost, all while remaining close to (local democracy) and open to (participatory democracy) the population.

Yet regions can also be a threat to national governments, weakening them after a fashion; indeed, they can oppose the central state, like in the case of the Basque or Catalan autonomous communities in Spain. This is all the more true for regions with strong identities in which the phenomena of “region” and “regionalism” come together, such as in Belgium. Especially when we know that regionalism is often related to culture and identity at a territorial level that is not always exactly “regional” (in the geographical or demographical sense).

Regions, covering large swathes of domestic territory and benefiting from a strong sentiment of shared identity among their populations, can be organised and, if they must, oppose the central government more easily.

Consequently, regionalisation is also, in a way, the affirmation of local power at an important territorial level, a sort of re-feudalisation of certain national lands, with all the risks that go along with this from a political standpoint, in spite of the (real or imagined) benefits gained from a New Public Management approach.

In the end, studying local government means not just examining the form of a country, but analysing – and therefore calling into question – its territorial organisation. Indeed, countries, be they unitary or federal, are made up of a territory, a population, and a political and legal organisation. By handing over broad administrative and fiscal autonomy to sub-national entities – in a word, decentralising – national governments sometimes run the risk of exacerbating

(19)

Acknowledgements 17

a cultural and identity-based animosity, thereby leading to possible autonomist sentiments.

And it is perhaps precisely at this level that we find devolution in the United Kingdom; indeed, through this political and administrative process of transferring important powers from the centre toward a handful of UK “regions,” such as, in particular, Scotland and Wales, the United Kingdom has run the risk of bringing the Scottish and Welsh nations back to life.

Similar causes breed similar effects. The evolution of the (aforementioned) systems of national and local government in Belgium and Spain seem reminis- cent of the same sort of process. In sum, “administrative decentralisation” and

“political decentralisation” have now become one and the same, the risk being that a sub-national division such as Catalonia or Flanders might gain independence whenever the transfer of powers and/or the funds to put them to use comes packaged with a “strong regional identity” that previous administrative and political centralisation had been unable to repress and even less able to eliminate.

But it is at another level, the national level, that the question of the Irish identity must be studied, because we are reminded that there is an overlap between the people and the territory in question, and that the identity of a Nation is part and parcel of the attachment that a people hold for their “united territory.”

Northern Ireland is split off from the rest of Ireland like a limb severed from the rest of its body. Ireland has ended up with a part of its “historical territory” – and, consequently, a part of its national identity – amputated. Today, they are making subtle efforts to regain it, by means of “seemingly technical” economic development and improvement policies spanning the entire territory of the Irish island.

As the United Kingdom faces a risk of “regional or even regionalist disinte- gration” as a unitary state, or of a return to a “Personal Union” (a Confederation of States?) – because the British have perhaps forgotten that their nation is not uniform, but manifold, and that Great Britain is not made up of one single identity, but rather of English, Scottish, and Welsh identities – the Irish, firmly rooted in their national identity, are searching for a path, even if is difficult and requires patience, toward a territorial reunification that is ultimately unavoidable.

I would like to express my thanks to the writers and editors of this book, which contributes useful material to the dialogue on regionalisation in Europe and reminds us of why academic debate that spans borders and continents in the field of administration and public management is so very useful.

Stéphane Guérard¹

1 Professor at Lille 2 University (Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, France), CERAPS (CNRS, Re- search Unit 8026), France, stephane.guerard@univ-lille2.fr.

(20)

(21)

REMERCIEMENTS

Les articles ci-après réunis sont issus du travail scientifique de nos actifs et dyna- miques collègues polonais, M. Grzegorz Libor, Mme Dorota Nowalska-Kapuścik et M. Robert Pyka, de l’Université de Silésie à Katowice (Haute-Silésie). Membres de l’équipe OLA-Pologne, nous tenons à les féliciter pour cet ouvrage, qui com- plète et prolonge des plus utilement l’ouvrage publié par OLA, en octobre 2014, aux éditions Bruylant, sur la Régionalisation en Europe. Regards croisés.

Leur ouvrage s’intitule, quant à lui, Regionalisation in Europe: the state of af- fairs. Loin de se contenter d’exposer la situation de la régionalisation en Polo- gne, et spécialement en Silésie (voir les divers articles de Grzegorz Libor, Dorota Nowalska-Kapuścik, Barbara Słania, Monika Szpoczek-Sało, Robert Pyka, ou encore, de Małgorzata Suchacka), les co-directeurs de cette publication ont réuni des contributions sur l’Écosse et l’Irlande du Nord (Greg Lloyd et Deborah Peel), le Pays-de-Galles (Grzegorz Libor et Rafał Muster), l’Espagne (Angel M. Mo- reno), la Hongrie (Gábor Kurunczi, Ádám Varga, ou encore, Erzsébet Csatlós), ou encore, l’Italie (Jolanta Gałuszka), grace à des spécialistes de ces questions, ainsi qu’une vision générale très intéressante d’Agnès Ciccarone de l’Assemblée des régions d’Europe.

Le réseau européen OLA (Observatory on Local Autonomy) est donc fier de soutenir cette très belle publication, qui réunit des spécialistes de l’autonomie locale.

Notre réseau (www.ola-europe.com) réunit, aujourd’hui 65 équipes de chercheurs et de fonctionnaires locaux, couvrant 35 États européens. Ce réseau s’ap- puie sur un double réseau de référents français, – chargés d’animer les équipes locales de chercheurs de chaque État-membre de l’Union européenne ainsi que de l’Islande, de la Moldavie, du Monténégro, de la Norvège, de la Russie, de la Serbie et de la Turquie – et de correspondants européens.

Si la régionalisation est un processus politique visant à créer des régions en tant qu’unités territoriales de gestion publique, s’interroger sur la définition de la « région », c’est chercher, finalement – apparemment, assez vainement – une

www.ola-europe.com

(22)

définition unique entre les droits nationaux des États-membres de l’Union euro- péenne et le droit spécifique de cette dernière.

Par ailleurs, découper un territoire n’est pas un processus exclusivement ma- thématique et démographique, mais, finalement, un cheminement, humaine- ment et sociologiquement, plus complexe. D’un autre côté, est-ce qu’un État est condamné par son « histoire territoriale » à ne jamais pouvoir changer les limites de ses territoires pertinents d’administration publique ? Ainsi, en Roumanie, les départements sont des collectivités locales historiques mais est-ce que cela rend impossible pour autant la création de régions ? D’autant que rien n’empêche que les collectivités locales d’hier ne deviennent demain les circonscriptions territoriales déconcentrées de nouvelles collectivités locales plus grandes, sur un plan territorial. On pourrait ainsi envisager un curieux mélange entre décentralisation et déconcentration pour garder l’héritage du passé sans oublier de relever les défis du présent.

Finalement, si la régionalisation s’est imposée dans le débat politico-administratif, c’est parce qu’il semble que, pour de nombreuses organisations euro- péennes mais aussi internationales, la décentralisation soit apparue comme une solution managériale incontournable à la crise économique récurrente. Le dé- veloppement des collectivités locales et l’extension de leurs compétences sont, en effet, présentées comme des gages d’une action publique mieux gérée, plus efficace et de meilleure qualité ; ce qui signifie aussi « moins coûteuse » donc entraînant une ponction fiscale moindre sur le marché. Ainsi, la région doit garantir la qualité de l’action publique au meilleur coût possible, tout en restant proche (démocratie de proximité) de, et ouverte (démocratie participative) à, la population.

Reste que la région peut être aussi une menace pour l’État, une forme d’affaiblissement de l’État : la région peut, en effet, s’opposer à l’État telle que la commu- nauté autonome basque ou catalane en Espagne. Cela est d’autant plus vrai que la région a une identité forte et que « région » et « régionalisme » se rencontrent comme, en Belgique, par exemple. D’autant que le régionalisme est souvent lié à une revendication identitaire et culturelle attachée à un territoire de niveau. Pas toujours « régional » (au sens géographico-démographique).

Des régions, reposant sur des territoires infra-étatiques importants et bénéfi- ciant d’une adhésion identitaire forte de leur population, peuvent mieux s’orga- niser et s’opposer, si nécessaire, à l’État-nation.

La régionalisation est donc aussi, peut être, l’affirmation d’un pouvoir local à un niveau territorial important, une sorte de re-féodalisation de certains territoires nationaux avec tous les risques que cela peut comporter sur un plan politique, malgré les avantages, réels ou supposés, sur le plan du New public management.

Finalement à travers le questionnement d’un système d’administration locale, c’est, au-delà de la forme d’un État, son organisation territoriale qui se trouve étu-

(23)

Remerciements 21

diée, et par là même, interrogée. En effet, un État est constitué, qu’il soit unitaire ou fédéral, d’un territoire, d’une population et d’une organisation politico-juridique. En reconnaissant une autonomie administrative et financière forte à des territoires infra-étatiques, en un mot en se décentralisant, un État prend le risque, parfois, d’exacerber l’affirmation de revendications culturelles voire identitaires et politiques, et par là même autonomistes.

Et c’est bien là, peut être, que se situe plus la logique de la Devolution au Royaume-Uni ; en effet, par ce processus politico-administratif de transfert de compétences importantes du centre vers quelques « régions britanniques », telles que, en particulier, l’Écosse et le Pays de Galles, le Royaume-Uni a pris le risque de faire renaître – si tant est qu’elles avaient disparu – les nations écossaise et galloise.

Les mêmes causes entraînant les mêmes effets : l’évolution des systèmes (sus évoqués) d’administration nationalo-locale, en Belgique et en Espagne, semble rappeler ce même type de processus. En somme, « décentralisation administrative » et « décentralisation politique » ne font alors qu’Un au risque de conduire à l’indépendance d’un territoire infra-étatique, comme, par exemple, la Catalo- gne ou la « Flandre belge », lorsque le transfert de compétences et/ou de moyens pour les exercer rencontre une « identification régionale forte », que le mouve- ment unificateur d’une centralisation politico-administrative passée n’a pas réussi à endiguer et encore moins à faire disparaître.

Mais, c’est à un autre échelon, le niveau territorial national, que doit être étu- diée la question identitaire irlandaise puisqu’elle rappelle qu’un peuple et qu’un territoire sont « Un » et que l’identité d’une Nation est consubstantielle à l’at- tachement d’un peuple à son « territoire unifié ». L’Irlande du Nord est divisée du reste de l’Irlande comme un « membre » est détaché du « reste d’un corps ».

Finalement, la République d’Irlande est aujourd’hui anormalement « amputée » d’une portion de son « territoire historique », et par là même, d’une partie de son identité nationale. Elle tente donc aujourd’hui de la retrouver, de manière subtile, à travers la mise en place de politiques « apparemment techniques » de dévelop- pement économique et d’aménagement au niveau de l’ensemble du territoire de la grande île irlandaise.

Alors que le Royaume-Uni est face à un risque de « délitement régional voire régionaliste » en tant qu’État unitaire ou de retour vers une « Union personnelle d’États » (une Confédération d’États ?) – parce qu’il avait peut-être oublié que la Nation britannique n’est pas Une mais Plurielle et qu’il existe non pas une seule identité britannique mais des identités anglaise, écossaise et galloise en Grande- Bretagne –, le peuple irlandais, quant à lui, attaché à son identité nationale, cher- che la voie, même technique et patiente, d’une réunification territoriale, finalement inéluctable.

Que soient ici à remerciés les contributeurs et les directeurs de cette publication, qui nourrit utilement le débat sur la régionalisation en Europe et rappelle

(24)

l’intérêt d’un débat scientifique sur les questions d’administration et de gestion publiques locales, au-delà des frontières voire des continents.

Stéphane Guérard¹

1 Maître de conférences, habilité à diriger des thèses et des mémoires et hors classe, titulaire de la PES (2013−2017), à l’Université Lille 2 (région du Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France), CERAPS (CNRS, UMR 8026), France, stephane.guerard@univ-lille2.fr.

(25)

PART I

REGIONALISATION

AND REGIONALISMS IN EUROPE

(26)

(27)

Agnès Ciccarone

The Assembly of European Regions

“THE ROLE OF EUROPEAN REGIONS IN 2015”

A STATE OF PLAY OF SUBSIDIARITY AND MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

The Assembly of European Regions (AER) is the umbrella organisation and politi- cal voice of the regions in Europe. It embraces over 200 regions from 35 Council of Europe countries, and counts 15 member interregional organisations. As such, the AER is a key player in promoting regional democracy in Europe. For the past 30 years, the AER has been providing advice and expertise to regional governments on all issues of regional competence and facilitating exchange of experience between regions and identification of best practices of regions. Through its Academic and Training Centre, AER has managed to gather a pool of over 40 experts¹ who ac- cepted to share their views and knowledge about how regionalism looks like in their countries. The majority of them are involved in the AER Study about the state of regionalism in Europe as of 2015. This study will provide a detailed comparative analysis of the role of Regions in more than 30 European countries.

1 Names of the experts, in alphabetical order: Maura Adshead, Algirdas Astraukas, Anne Azam-Pradeilles, Paul Alliès, Nicolas Bouzou, Peter Bußjäger, Sona Capkova, Pablo Simón Co- sano, Giancarlo Cotella, Julien Danero Iglesias, Murat Daoudov, Iain Deas, Cian Finn, Thomas Fleiner, David Gabaidze, Jan Grasnick, Nico S. Groenendijk, Mujo Hadzic, Aksel Hagen, Niko- laos-Komninos Hlepas, Ulla Higdem, Annika Jaansoo, Pekka Kettunen, Martin Klatt, Ilona Pál- né Kovács, Snežana Kresoja, Damir Magaš, Enrico Martial, Miloš Matula, Gratian Mihailescu, Emmanuel Négrier, Carlos Nunes Silva, Santiago Lago Peñas, Primož Pevcin, Paul-Henri Phi- lipps, Lee Pugalis, Maris Pukis, Malin Stegmann McCallion, Adriana Skorupska, Anita Sobják, Çiğdem Üstün, Lorena Totoni, Vesselina Troeva, Olivier Védrine.

(28)

Introduction: For 30 Years, the Regions Have Been the Bedrock in Europe’s Construction

Since the creation of the AER in 1985, Europe has achieved significant advances along the path of regionalisation. This trend has obviously been due to the efforts of AER, who for 30 years has been militating for greater recognition of the key role played by the Regions in the construction of Europe, and specifically in its ownership at political and citizen level. Incidentally, over this period, most Eu- ropean countries have experienced decentralisation, to a greater or lesser degree depending on each one’s constitutional and political traditions. The Lisbon Treaty has taken these trends into account. The rise of the regional layer in multi-level governance is now widely recognised, even if only via the right granted to the Committee of the Regions to appeal directly to the Court of Justice of the Euro- pean Communities in the event of any violation of the principle of subsidiarity.

This shows that the principle of local autonomy has certainly been strengthened, but also fully institutionalised following the highly uncertain phase of European construction that culminated in the signature of the Lisbon Treaty.

But this does not mean that the dynamic of regionalisation and decentralisation has been completed. The economic crisis, the cuts in the budget of regional authorities show that nothing should be taken for granted. Sonja Steen, President of AER Committee 3, expressed these concerns during a debate at the Congress of the Council of Europe on October 30, 2013, when she declared: “Budgetary constraints should not be used to jeopardize the very existence of regional authorities, or to limit their remit.” The situation in Ukraine also shows that regionalisation can be misused to jeopardize the territorial integrity of countries. In the same line, the referendum in Scotland and the popular consultation in Catalonia demonstrates that regionalisation is still high on the agenda.

The AER study on regionalism, launched at the occasion of AER’s 30th An- niversary and to be published by the end of 2015 aims, however, to show that regionalisation is not only an issue in such countries, but that other parts of Eu- rope also experience changes in their territorial structures. These situations are less conveyed through the international press, and are lesser known, as they do not refer to such extreme situations such as in Scotland or Catalonia, but they are interesting to study, as they illustrate the diversity of regional models in Europe.

The present article aims at presenting the AER 2015 study, its state of play and first findings. It will be preceded by a presentation of what AER under- stands under the word “Region” and a historical overview of the rise of regions in Europe. The focus of this historical overview will be put on the recognition of Regions within the European Council and will not engage the rise of Regions in EU institutions (the creation of the Committee of the Regions, etc.). For this, we kindly refer to the AER regionalism report of 2010.

(29)

Agnès Ciccarone: “The Role of European Regions in 2015”… 27

What Do We Mean by ‘Region’?

Before we come back to the growth of regionalism in Europe, we must define what we mean by the term ‘region’. It is a term that is ill-defined in popular usage.

It is often taken to have a purely geographical definition, simply describing an area which has some common features which draw it together, but no administrative or governance structures. The term ‘region’ is also used on a supra-national level to describe the regions of the world, such as Europe and Australasia. In the European Union parlance, the term often refers to a statistical classification that does not relate to a sub-national governance structure, for example through the NUTS classification. None of these definitions reflect what the AER under- stands as a region. The AER Declaration on Regionalism defines the region as

“the territorial body of public law established at the level immediately below that of the State and endowed with political self-government” (Article 1.1). Accord- ing to this definition, European regions are in no way a homogeneous entity;

they vary greatly in size, population, institutional structures, competences and financial powers. At one end of the spectrum are federal structures, such as those in Germany, Austria, Belgium and Switzerland, which have legislative powers in a wide range of areas. At the other end there are the regions in relatively centralised countries, such as France (even though the situation has much evolved there since 1982), which have less power and operate within a highly restric- tive national framework. However, all regions share the same basic purpose: to democratically design policies and deliver services to the citizen at a level which is small enough to be close to the citizens’ concerns and needs, yet large enough to deliver economies of scale.

A study of regions is bound to make use of terms such as ‘regionalism’, ‘regionalisation’ and ‘subsidiarity’; it is important that we clarify the meaning of these concepts before continuing. ‘Regionalisation’ is the process of creating sub-units within a state and transferring power from the central government to these sub-units.

These sub-units are an intermediary level of government, between the national state and the municipalities. ‘Regionalism’ is the political notion which favours the process of regionalisation; it is generally seen to imply some struggle for a degree of political autonomy on behalf of the region(s) concerned. However, regionalism must not be misunderstood as separatism, which describes a movement to separate a particular region from the central state, either to create a state of its own or to join a neighbouring state. Neither is regionalism synonymous with federalism, although federalism can be a sub-category of regionalism. Under a federal system, sovereignty is divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units; this is not necessarily the case with other forms of regionalism. Fed- eralism develops either through entities uniting and giving sovereignty to a central level, or through the central level giving powers to the constituent parts.

(30)

The concept of regionalism has its roots in the principle of subsidiarity. This principle states that decisions ought to be taken at the closest possible level to the citizens. The word ‘subsidiarity’ implies that the central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed sufficiently by lower levels of government. The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on December 1, 2009, defines subsidiarity as follows:

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Natio- nal Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol (new Article 3b, as inserted by the Lisbon Treaty).

The Growth of the Regional Phenomenon in Europe Between 1985 and Today

²

The challenges of the first years

For the first time in the history of the European institutions, local authorities have a say in the formulation of the policy of nations … Everyone will realize that the Europe we are building will not be an abstract structure which removes all traces of national, regional and local origin. Your presence in Strasbourg will be the tangible sign of our common loyalty to this concept. It will testify that the Europe that we want to build will be a Europe which respects intermediate structures between the State and the Citizens. A Europe which protects personal liberty, of which the local authorities were the birthplace and are still often the asylum.

These were the words spoken by the President of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly when he opened the first session of the European Con- ference of Local Authorities. This first Conference was simply and literally a form

2 Contribution based on an article by Gérard Baloup, former counsellor at the Assembly of European Regions and Former Director at the Council of Europe.

(31)

of consultation, and involved both representatives of regions and communes. The 1960s, with the launching of the European Economic Community’s regional policy and the emergence of the debate on intra-Community regional balance, were to prove decisive for the clarification of the hybrid, misleading concept of “local authorities.” The first seminar on the peripheral regions and communes which the Conference of Local Authorities organized to mark the 20th anniversary of the Call by Robert Schuman on May 9, 1970 in Brest clarified the situation by laying down this principle in its final declaration:

The possibility of a dialogue between the European authorities and the relevant regional authorities appears indispensable. This implies the existence of regional authorities endowed with real legal status as well as the organization of authentic, effective representation of the Regions at European level.

The creation of the Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions in 1973 in Saint-Malo set the process in motion. It was then in Galway that the idea was launched for the first time to create a European Senate of Regions involving the

“collective and institutionalized representation of all the regions of Europe,” representation which could take the form of a second chamber – a European Se- nate of the Regions. It was at this time that “regional power” was really emerging in Europe. Under pressure from the Conference and the Parliamentary Assembly, and also from certain countries, mainly Switzerland, Austria and Italy, the Com- mittee of Ministers decided to amend the Conference’s status. Resolution 75–4 of the Council of Europe of February 19, 1975 officially opened the Conference of Local Authorities to the Regions. The Conference of Local Authorities became the Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. Its new Charter stated that the Conference “represents the regional authorities of the Member states.” Thus the Europe of the regions made its official entrance into the Euro- pean institutions.

A crucial, decisive stage: the recognition by governments of the principle of the representation of the regions at European level, and of the principle of the involvement of regional power in the construction of Europe.

From the Conference to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, from the Council of the Regions of Europe to the Assembly of European Regions: A Joint Destiny On March 29, 1984, something what might be called an uprising occurred. Pre- sident Jardim was the instigator. Having realised how inflexible the barricade was, the 2nd Conference of European Island Regions, convened in the Azores by the Permanent Authorities, took a decision which was to launch the process of

(32)

autonomous representation of the regions. The plan for a “European Conference of the Regions” was soon taken up by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of the Community which met a few months later, in October, in Trieste.

January 1985 finally saw the decisive meeting in Strasbourg. At the invitation of Edgar Faure, who at the time was the Vice-President of the European Parliamen- t’s Regional Commission and President of Franche-Comté, Presidents of Regions gathered in Strasbourg and set up the Council of Regions of Europe (CRE) with a view to establishing the Senate of European Regions. Due to the will of the Regions to have a European organisation which was specifically regional, the CRE held its statutory founding meeting on June 14−15, 1985 in Louvain-la- Neuve (Wallonia Region), attended by 47 Regions and 8 European Interregional Organisations. In 1987, the CRE changed its name and became the Assembly of European Regions (AER), underlining that way its will to be the political forum of all Regions.

From a Council of European Regions to an Assembly of European Regions, from a group of some 50 pioneering regions to an Assembly comprising practi- cally all the regions of Europe, an unstoppable force was set in motion. A final attempt by some States and associations of communes to block this succeeded once again: the Committee of the Regions set up by the Maastricht Treaty became a hybrid of regions within a set of diverse local authorities.

But the other wing of attack succeeded: thanks to the will of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly and with the support of certain governments (Austria, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium in particular), the Perma- nent Conference of Local and regional Authorities was split into two chambers by decision of the Committee of Ministers of January 14, 1994; one chamber for the Local Authorities and one chamber for the Regions – raised itself to the rank of third body of the Council of Europe – with the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authori- ties of Europe.

For the first time in the history of the European institutions, the regions were finally given their own representative body, with a number of seats that was prac- tically sufficient to ensure the representation of most of the main regions of the member states of the Council of Europe: the Senate of the Regions of Europe was virtually born – it simply had to develop and use its powers, take advantage of its potential, which each region occupying its seat.

(33)

What about Today?

Presentation of the AER 2015 Study and Preliminary Findings

Through its 30 years of existence, AER has been witnessing a great number of changes in the territorial structures of European countries. To assess the role which the Regions actually play in European politics, AER therefore decided in 2014 to launch a study, in cooperation with a group of academic experts. The objectives of the study, which is ongoing and is expected to be concluded in autumn 2015, are threefold. First of all, the study should give a detailed overview, by country, of the place of regional authorities in the national legislation and legal framework, with a historical background and an input on the planed reforms, if relevant. Second, the study will entail the findings of a survey currently run by AER on the role allocated by national authorities to their regions, or played by the regions, with regard to the planning and implementation of EU regional and neighbourhood policies. Third, the study will entail a comparison between the empirical findings and regions’ competences as fixed by national legislations, and lead to political recommendations on how to effectively improve multilevel governance in the various countries of Europe. To master this work, AER has been appealing to academic experts working in the field of territorial policies, or regionalism as such. As of today, about 40 experts could be convinced to join the AER experts’ team, and the study covers about 30 countries (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Study on regionalism 2014/2015 — state of play

(34)

The first 17 reports are already available and can be consulted on te AER website under: http://www.aer.eu/en/knowledge-centre/thematic-expertise-thematic issues/regionalism/aer-publications/20142015-study-on-regionalism.html.

General findings

A rapid comparison of these first reports leads to interesting results. In the majority of considered countries, one can say that the Regions have been increasing their influence over the years. This has been part of a general phenomenon – the rise of the Regions at the European level and in particular the EU level, encouraged through the EU regional policy – but also resulted from the acknowled- gement by national governments that they needed to include the Regions, key actors for their overall development, into their policy planning. Almost none of the challenges which nations face can be overcome without the involvement of the regional actors, which know best their territories, needs and assets.³ At the same time, the study – but also the AER activities run on the economic crisis⁴ – shows that many Regions in Europe were hit by the economic crisis and the reduction of budgets decided at national level (or following the reduction of in- come: less companies, less taxes). This element, combined with the greater use of intergovernmental decisions in the economic sector, to the expense of the

“community method” type of decision-making process, reveals that the Regions still have to fight to make their voice heard. If in some countries the development of regions is encouraged by the political culture and legal framework, such as in Sweden to a certain extent, the situation looks more challenging in other parts of Europe. Romania, for instance, has not achieved its territorial reform, whereby judeţs should be fused into bigger, stronger regions. Croatia still envisages to set up bigger regions but still suffers from an actual concentration of its powers and resources. The territorial reform in Albania – a case which will not be detailed below for reason of space – still lacks measures to allocate true financial autono- my to the Qarks, despite the recommendations of the Congress of the Council of Europe in its 2013 monitoring report.⁵

Beyond a general comparison, it is therefore interesting to look at the recent developments in specific countries. The choice of the countries below has been

3 See in that respect the AER position on the Europe 2030 project adopted at the AER Gene- ral Assembly in Istanbul, on November 11, 2011 available under: http://www.aer.eu/en/knowledge -centre/thematic-expertise-thematic-issues/regionalism/positions/aer-positions.html.

4 See: http://www.aer.eu/en/knowledge-centre/thematic-expertise-thematic-issues/economy -research-innovation/the-regions-and-the-economic-crisis.html.

5 See: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CG%2825%2911PROV&Language=lanEnglish&

Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=CACC9A&BackCo lorLogged=EFEA9CC.

(35)

made on the basis of the reports already available to the AER Secretariat and the first analysis which could be conducted. The final study, to be published by the autumn of 2015, should entail a more detailed overview between all countries of Europe.

Recent regional developments in some selected countries⁶ 1. Sweden

Sweden is an interesting example as it underlines how regions can develop

“naturally,” provided that the framework allows for it. Indeed known as a rather centralistic country at the beginning, Sweden has witnessed an interesting rise of its local and regional authorities over the past 15 years. “It can be argued that the current phase is the third phase since the introduction of regional (localisa- tion) policy in Swedish politics. The second phase started with EU membership (McCallion, 2014). As of January 1, 2015, indeed, the country has had 6 new regions, following the change of status – and sometimes fusion – of counties.

These regions could emerge thanks to the readiness of the Swedish government to allow for experimentation. Generally speaking, the allocation of tasks between the national level, the county councils/regions, and the local level (has always been) a matter of both principles (but) also practical considerations in Sweden.

However, since the late 1990s there has been a tendency towards more fragmentation of public administration ‘at the expense of territorial co-ordination. This fragmentation can be found between both levels and actors. In the literature this fragmentation is described as a ‘regional mess’. […] This is problematic in several aspects; for example, there is the democratic and accountability aspect from a citizen’s perspective. It is not an easy task for the citizen to see ‘who’ (i.e.

which actor) is responsible for which part of the decision making in the policy process, nor is it possible to hold non-elected actors accountable in the same way as elected politicians. […] At the time of writing, there is still a regional mess with a complex system of responsibility within the policy area and an asymmetry in relation to what different regional (public) actors can do.” (Mc- Callion 2014) (Figure 2).

6 Detailed reports on the situation in other European countries can be found on the AER website under: http://www.aer.eu/en/knowledge-centre/thematic-expertise-thematic-issues/regio nalism/aer-publications/20142015-study-on-regionalism.html.

(36)

Figure 2. State of play, January 1, 2015

2. Romania⁷

Although law 215 from April 2001 clearly specifies the decentralised status of Romania, as well as the power of local and regional administration, in reality things are more centralised in the country. The current legal and institutional framework does not stimulate the development of regional capacity to effectively manage regional development plans and programs. The idea of reorganisation of the country’s regions with legal and administrative power has been made repeat- edly in the last 15 years: several administrative proposals emanating from various forums were discussed on public agenda. Unfortunately, no political consensus was achieved. The last proposal of a decentralisation law was rejected by the Ro- manian Constitutional Court early in 2014 as being unconstitutional. Romania continues to function under the 1968 law of territorial administrative organisation, with small modifications – NUTS 2 regions were established in 1998, without administrative power. Romania, compared with other countries of its size, is one of the most centralised states in Europe and the financial redistribution is not correlated, public funds being sent from Bucharest to counties and municipalities based on political vote-catching criteria (Figure 3).

7 Based on Gratian Mihailescu, 2015, Report on regionalization in Romania. In Assembly of European Regions, The role of European Regions in 2015 – A State of play of subsidiarity and multilevel governance in Europe, Strasbourg.

(37)

Figure 3. Regions of Romania

Although elected president Klaus Iohannis during the Presidential election campaign had a public speech about the need of administrative reform of public administration and fiscal and administrative decentralisation, the year 2015 does not announce anything in this regard.

3. Croatia⁸

The current administrative and territorial division of Croatia reflects the changes resulting from the independence of the country in 1991, the negotiation period 2002−2013 before entering EU, and the last period after the accession of the country to the EU in 2013. Since January 1, 1993, Croatia has implemented a traditional network of 21 regions (20 counties / “županijas” and the City of Za- greb). The current administrative-territorial division of Croatia into 21 counties (Figure 4) was based on the idea of a decentralised and dispersed development of Croatia. However, there has not been a balanced development, but a noticeable concentration of resources, power and population in the capital city of Zagreb.

Therefore, proposals for restructuring the existing system of local (districts, cities) and regional (counties) self-government have been increasingly frequent. A new reform of the Croatian regions, formally and informally, has been announced for almost 10 years. All attempts and suggested “models” have not been successful in solving the basic problems of the whole system. A successful reform would have to improve financial relations, respectively to balance and equalise revenue between

8 Based on Pr. Damir Magas, 2014, Report on Regionalization in Croatia. In Assembly of European Regions, The Role of European Regions in 2015 – A State of Play of Subsidiarity and Multilevel Governance in Europe, Strasbourg.

(38)

state and counties/municipalities. Another important issue is a better and clearer allocation of competences (education, health, the judiciary, administration, securi- ty, customs, etc.) and there is still the question of reshaping the regions. However, instead of seriously considering the causes of excessive concentration, the inten- tion to reduce the number of counties and municipalities has been promoted.

Figure 4. Regions of Croatia

Among the legislative documents the government tries to implement or to modify, a couple have been of great significance. The most important among them is the “Proposal of Change and Modification of the Law on State Adminis- tration” (January 2014), and also significant is the “Draft Proposal of the Law on Regional Development” (November 2013). The first provides five regions (desig- nated by numbers: I, II, III, IV, V), the second also predicts five regions (1 NW Croatia, 2 Central Croatia, 3 Eastern Croatia, 4 Northern Adriatic and the 5 Cen-

(39)

tral and Southern Adriatic). An extremely significant reduction in the number of regions in Croatia, from 21 to 4 or 5, could, however, significantly worsen the development conditions and potentials of most of today’s regions – areas of counties. The government’s proposals of “new regions” in Croatia should therefore be the matter of a wide, democratic, as well as multidisciplinary debate.

Conclusions

Regions have been the bedrock in Europe’s construction for 30 years. A look into their development and recent changes, however, shows that the trend is unequal throughout Europe. Whilst in the majority of countries the Regions exist and are considered as key political actors, their status and real capacity to deliver their mission is unbalanced. The economic crisis has sometimes been taken as a pretext to review territorial structures and repartition their competences. Na- tional political elements are also influencing the debates, to the benefit or to the expense of regional authorities. The comparative study run by AER and its Academic Centre, which should be published by end 2015, will give an exhaus- tive overview of the current challenges linked to regionalisation and the place of Regions in multilevel governance in Europe.

References

Assembly of European Regions. 1996. Declaration on Regionalism. Strasbourg.

Assembly of European Regions. 2010. The State of Regionalism in Europe, an AER Report.

Strasbourg.

Assembly of European Regions. 2015. The Role of European Regions in 2015 – A State of Play of Subsidiarity and Multilevel Governance in Europe. Strasbourg.

Congress of the Council of Europe. October 2013. Local and Regional Democracy in Al- bania, CG25 (11) Final, Strasbourg.

Magas, Damir, 2014. Report on Regionalization in Croatia. In Assembly of European Re- gions. The Role of European Regions in 2015 – A State of Play of Subsidiarity and Multilevel Governance in Europe. Strasbourg.

McCallion, Malin Stegmann. 2014. Report on Regionalisation in Sweden. In Assembly of European Regions. The Role of European Regions in 2015 – A State of Play of Subsi- diarity and Multilevel Governance in Europe. Strasbourg.

Mihailescu, Gratian. 2015. Report on Regionalization in Romania. In Assembly of Euro- pean Regions. The Role of European Regions in 2015 – A State of Play of Subsidiarity and Multilevel Governance in Europe. Strasbourg.

(40)

Ulster University

Deborah Peel

University of Dundee

A SPECTRUM OF REGIONALISM IN SCOTLAND – HISTORY, EXPERIENCE AND INNOVATION?

Introduction

In the UK, and reflecting wider debates about the nature of power and constitutional relations between nation states and regions, the social constructions of the concepts of regionalism, regionalisation and (even) that of regions continue to be complex and contested. This reflects the dynamics of global and national economic restructuring, the associated social and environmental impacts and the regional geographical implications. Understandings of what is meant by the concept of regions are sensitive to perception, identity and scale – reflecting wider interpretations of history, culture and politics across space. Regions involve considerations of scale – in terms of the constituent geographies involved within a national space. This itself comprises an inter-active duality of inter-regional agendas (for example the relative comparisons of economic performance or in- ward investment in a national context) and the intra-regional matters which hold within a specific region. Regions take different forms. Regions can be defined in terms of rigid administrative governmental designations or as relatively more fluid frameworks in terms of policy implementation which respond to specific criteria, such as economic performance.

A turn to regionalisation can involve different forms responding to scale, time and space – place relations. Hameiri (2013, 313), for example, asserts that at ‘the heart of the politics of regionalisation is the attempt by actors and coalitions to relocate the governance of particular issues beyond the scope of national governance and politics’. Debates around regions, regionalism and regionalisation then involve ideological, political and policy matters taking place within national space. This creates what is described as the ‘double relations’ of regions to states (Van Langenhove 2013). This incorporates a mix of economic, social and environmental dimensions as well as dynamic political and power metrics in terms of

(41)

Greg Lloyd, Deborah Peel: A Spectrum of Regionalism in Scotland… 39

the national – regional relations involved in those relations. Regions are located within national space and comprise internal geographical agendas of localities, economies and communities.

This chapter considers the various manifestations of regionalisation in Scot- land – across different ideological and political domains – which is evident in iterative approaches to addressing its uneven regional economic performance.

Context is all important – regionalisation for Scotland has involved being recon- structed from an inter-regional matter with the UK as a nation state to a devolved region in which it has sought to address its own (internal) intra-regional issues.

The transformational constitutional context – devolution in 1999 – has enabled Scotland opportunities to explore different ways of dealing with its own internal regional agendas. In effect Scotland has sought to recast its approach to under- standing and addressing its own regionalism – drawing on an established tradi- tion of strategic thinking which was evident in its regional planning and land use planning arrangements and which now encompasses a deliberate city regional planning and development agenda.

Devolution has enabled Scotland new opportunities for greater experimentation in policy design and implementation. This has involved the moderni- sation of its land use planning system, the assertion of a National Planning Framework and the design of a National Performance Framework to secure a strategic and integrated context for planning and governance. Central to this approach is the move to active city regionalism – building on a rich provenance of city building and planning in Scotland. The chapter traces the ways in which these regional policy and strategic planning initiatives have evolved over time and which have been deliberately threaded together to inform the current turn to city regional planning. It argues that Scotland’s established experience with strategic planning has enabled it to devise a framework which seeks to address both an evident core-periphery in the UK and a sub-regional agenda in Scot- land itself.

Scotland, Devolution and Regionalism

Scotland forms part of the UK – its relationship with England having been for- malised in 1707. It lies on the UK’s northern periphery in economic and political terms and its recent history was characterised by powerful processes of de-indus- trialisation and economic restructuring (Danson et al. 1992a). Scotland’s relative economic performance has tended to lag behind most successful European economies, particularly with respect to rates of unemployment, investment, new firm formation and economic growth (Purves 2006).