THE END OF THE BORDERS?
THE POLITICS OF TERRITORIAL COOPERATION IN THE
MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM. A COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION INITIATIVES
José M. Magone
Berlin School of Economics and Law
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study wants to analyse the impact of the INTERREG programme of the EU
on the borders of the member-states. The first part attempts to present some
theoretical aspects of the impact of INTERREG on the nation-state as a “power
container”. The studies of Stein Rokkan and the further development by
Stefano Bartolini to contextualise the process of cross-border cooperation.
Afterwards, a chapter discusses the INTERREG programme in empirical terms.
Last but not least, a section is dedicated to the impact of the INTERREG
programme along the borders of Germany. There are fourteen programmes
along the German borders and this contribution tries to create a typology of
level of development in order to show the asymmetrical impact of such crossborder cooperation.
Professor in Regional and Global Governance at the Berlin School of Economics
and Law, Previously Reader in European Politics at the University of Hull, UK.
His main research interests are Southern European Politics, Comparative
European Politics, European Union governance and Global governance. He has
written several books including Contemporary Spanish Politics.Second
Edition(Routledge, 2009,2004), The New World Architecture. The Role of the
EU in the Making of Global Governance(Transactions,2006), The Developing
Place of Portugal in the European Union(Transactions,2004), The Politics of
Southern Europe(Praeger,2003) and the edited volume Regional Governance
and Institutions in the European Union(Praeger,2003)
Keywords: Cross-border cooperation; INTERREG; European Union;Germany;
regional policy
1.Introduction:Territorial Cooperation and the EU Multilevel
Governance System
Meanwhile we have been experiencing two decades of reinforced European
territorial policy, which is changing our understanding of the borders between
the member-states of the European Union. The objective three for the period
2007-13 of the structural funds related to “Territorial cooperation” clearly is
not the most important policy in terms of funding. However, it is probably
strategically the most relevant one due to its implications for a Europe-wide
single European market. The strategic nature of the funding related to
territorial cooperation cannot be underestimated. On the contrary, slowly its
eroding our understanding of the ‘hard’ borders of the nation-state and moving
towards a domestication of politics and economy across Europe.
Although most of the research so far has been heuristic, there is a multi-level
governance system in the European Union which cannot be interpreted merely
in economic terms, but it has to be thought in political and cultural terms.
The transformation of the European territory is slow, but gaining considerable
importance to change the way Europeans live together. The support for
nationalist and xenophobic parties across Europe in the recent European
elections are clear signs that something is happening, which is eroding the
traditional view of nation-state with ‘hard’ borders’. Clearly, the steering
possibilities of the nation-state are being eroded from ‘above’ and from ‘below’.
Transnational governance, such as ‘paradiplomacy’ of regions or cross-border
cooperation are important factors in this erosion of the self-contained nationstate.(Christiansen,Jörgensen,2000; Magone,2007).
In spite of this reality, very few studies are being dedicated to cross-border,
transnational, transregional cooperation within the European Union. The
majority studies on regional policy or EU structural funds are still about the
impact on national countries. This is certainly still an important approach, but
it does not tell us very much about European integration processes. It also
acknowledges that many scholars still think in national terms , not in European
integrationist terms. Cross-border cooperation is a strategic instrument of the
EU to change mentalities and the borders in the heads of the different national
populations. Such process of change can only take over a long period of time,
so that probably we are still at the very beginning of a new pan-European
reality.
A very important aspect in this regard is that the borders were always
neglected by most European countries. The INTERREG policies have allowed
border regions to become more self-confident and develop synergies with
partners on the other side of the border. In this sense, the inner borders of
the European Union are becoming ‘soft’ and slowly perceived only by the
centre as ‘hard’, but not by the periphery. This may lead to a split of
2
mentalities between the centre in the capitals and the border regions, which
probably are moving towards a more transnational or cross-border way of
cooperation and governance.
In this paper, we want to explore first theoretically which effects objective 3
‘territorial cooperation’ has on the change of mentalities from national to
European frames of mind. After this theoretical exploration, a quantitative
survey is undertaken of the projects and level of development of projects
across borders, using the databases of the EU. This is followed by a qualitative
study of Germany and its neighbours. Last but not least, some conclusions will
be undertaken.
2.The Transformation of the European Territory: Reflections on Crossborder Cooperation
In the past two decades, the European Commission was able to push forward a
strategy of territorial politics which clearly was linked to the establishment of
the Single European programme. In the 1980s, a strong alliance between the
European Commission and the regions led to the establishment of multi-level
governance. Gary Marks was one of the first to discover the transformation of
European Union politics. In a seminal contribution he writes:
Structural policy in the EC does not fit along a continuum running from
continued national state predominance in the emergence of the
Eurostate. Instead, it appears to be a two-sided process, involving
decentralization of new powers at the supranational level. If we
encompass the experience of structural policy in our notion of the future
European polity, it can be viewed as the leading edge of a system of
multilevel governance in which supranational, national, regional, and
local governments are enmeshed in territorially overarching policy
networks. Instead of a centripetal process where decision-making is
progressively centralized in Community institutions, in structural policy
we see a centrifugal process in which decision-making is spun away from
member states in two directions: up to supranational institutions, and
down to diverse units of subnational government; instead of the
unambiguous allocation of decision-making responsibility between
national and supranational governments, we see the institutionalization
of contested spheres of influence across several tiers of government.
(i(Marks,1993:401).
The regional policy of the EU based on substantially upgraded structural funds
gave an instrument to the European Commission to shape the national
territories towards a European dimension. Regional actors were an important
3
factor in this strategy and they were target by the European Commission in
order to strengthen its position in relation to the national governments.
(Tömmel,1998).
One particular important aspect of the territorial politics of the EU is that it is a
process of trial and error. The change from an individual nationally-oriented
project approach to a European oriented programme one, led to the
mobilisation of many public and private regional actors, which tried to
influence policies at supranational level. Between 1989 and 1999, the first two
multi-annual programme were carry out which allowed to collect lots of
information about the territorial policies of the member-states. This period
allowed also for the development of a proper a European Spatial Development
Plan which clearly envisages social, economic and regional cohesion across the
territory taking into account the environment. The ESDP was a major
compromise elaborated through committee governance. The socalled
Committee of Spatial Development is neither part of the comitology attached
to the European Commission, nor to the working groups of the Council of the
European Union. It started working in 1989 and met since then four times a
year. The work of the committee is quite interesting, because it tried to
achieve a common European approach. The ESDP is the result of this
deliberations. It was adopted by the European Council in Tampere during the
Finnish presidency in the second half of 1999. (Faludi,et. al.,2000;
Faludi,2000;Committee of Spatial Development,1999).
Figure 1.Triangle of Objectives:A Balanced and Sustainable Spatial
Development
4
Source:Committtee of European Spatial Development(1999),p.10
The three main aims of the ESDP were defined as being
1.Economic and social cohesion
2.Conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage
3.More balanced competitiveness of the European territory.(Committee
of European Spatial Development,1999:10).
These three aims are to be achieved at different levels of the European
territory: the Community , at national/transnational and local/regional levels.
Figure 2 shows how this multilevel governance, which does not include regional
policy, but also environmental, agricultural, and research and development
policies, should be carried out. Relevant for this paper, is the role allocated to
cross-border cooperation between the community and national/transnational
level(cross-border projects dealing with the external borders of the EU) and
the one between the national./transnational and the local/regional level(crossborder projects dealing with the internal borders of the EU).
Figure 2.Multi-level Governance in European Spatial Policy
5
Source:Committee of Spatial Development(1999), p.36.
The INTERREG programme has become a very important strategic instrument,
not only to secure the external borders of the EU by engaging neighbouring
countries in common projects, but also to soften the internal borders between
the member-states. The increase of mobilisation of regional/transregional
civil societies transforms these into ‘islands of advanced European
integration’. This means that the European dimension is central to the further
development and institutionalisation of such cross-border cooperation.
(Waterhout, Stead, 2007)
This has also major implications for European politics in the long run.
According to Stefano Bartolini in his excellent book “Restructuring Europe”, the
present territorial politics of the European Union have to be regarded as a new
major political development in Europe. In this sense, he clearly tries to
continue the work of Stein Rokkan and see the present political restructuring
of the European territory as a new qualitative transformation from the nationstate to a new European polity.(Bartolini,2005). Stein Rokkan developed a
theory of European politics which has been used in political science to
6
understand what is on in Europe. Most of his work is dedicated to the
development of the nation-state and its democratization.(Rokkan,1999). The
late Stein Rokkan was particularly interested in regionalism and the impact of
this on the nation-state. Already in the 1960s and 1970s he observed the rise
of regional consciousness in many parts of Europe such as Catalonia, Basque
Country, Flanders and Scotland. In a seminal book with Derek Urwin, they
write as follows:
It shook to the core the concept, held for much of the twentieth century,
of the nation-state as the norm for territorial organization, with Western
Europe as ist home, and challenged the validity of prevailing theories of
social mobilization, economic development, political integration and the
successful impact of distributive welfare
politicies.“(Rokkan,Urwin,,1983:118)
The conceptual map of Europe elaborated by Rokkan showed that the nationstate is clearly an artificial structure imposed upon different regions. This
political structuring along nation-states left many unresolved issues across the
European Union. The socalled stateless nations such as Flanders, Scotland,
Catalonia and the Basque Country are still examples for this unresolved
situation within nation-states. The European integration process is softening
the nation-state and allowing for old forms of political organisation to emerge
again. For Daniel Louis Seiler, many of the cross-border regions worked better
together, than with the respective national centres. In this sense, the
European integration process allows this regional consciousness, also crossborder cooperation, to become more intensified.(Seiler, 1998:164-167).
Such political restructuring has been possible, because we live in a period of
‘neo-medievalism’ in reference to the middle-ages. This means that the
traditional nation-state based on ‘hard’ borders and indivisible sovereignty and
working with other counterparts in an anarchical international society of states
is being replaced by a flexible multi-layered global governance system. In the
latter, the nation-state is no longer the only actor, but maybe primus inter
pares. Other actors such as
non-governmental organisations, subnational
actors, actors of the private sector, international, interregional and
supranational organisations are gaining influence across all levels of the EU
multi-level governance system(Bull,2002:245-6).
7
In this sense, the territorial restructuring of the European Union and its
political implications has to be seen in the context of a paradigm shift from
international relations to global governance. European Union multi-level
governance is part of this transformation. According to Michael Zürn, there
have been ‘de-nationalisation’ processes going on which have reduce the
steering capacity of the state. Such ‘de-nationalisation’ processes are visible in
all OECD countries, and particularly in the European Union. He describes a
society as denationalized ‘when transactions within national borders are no
denser than transnational transactions’(Zürn, 2002:237). The state lost also
the steering capacity in four main areas, which belonged to the golden age of
the nation-state: democracy, law, territory and welfare. In all four
dimensions, the state had to deal with processes of subnationalisation and
internationalisation. For our purposes, we are interested particularly in the
loss of steering capacity over the territory. There is a growing disjunction
between the traditional state institutions and new forms of cross-border
cooperation which require transnational coordinating institutions.
Desintegration o these four main areas of the nation-state
disintegrate(Zerfaserung) due to the growing pressures coming from
Europeanization and globalisation as well as internal pressures
(Leibfried,Zürn,2006:particularly p.41-57). The ‘hard borders’ of nation-state
as a ‘power-container(Giddens,1985:38) are replaced by the ‘soft borders’ of
the European Union polity. The latter concentrates its efforts in hardening the
external borders of the European Union space, so that the single European
market is protected against outside interference. The socalled incrementalism
of policies of the 1980s and 1990s under the leadership of president of the
European Commission Jacques Delors was extended this strategic
reorganisation of the European territory.(Pollack,1994,Pollack,2000) Among
these policies are the second and third pillar of the European Union Treaty
signed in Maastricht dealing with common and foreign and security policy and
home and justice affairs. Since 1999, such policies have become quite crucial
as complementary to the single European market. The cooperation efforts
have been reinforced in these two pillars, strengthening so the paradigm shift
8
from the nation-state to the European polity, which still awaits a final design.
(Wagner,2008;Diedrichs,2008)
In this context of reorganisation, Bartolini’s further development of Stein
Rokkan’s theories gains a new momentum. Bartolini differentiates between six
stages of political development in Europe.
Figure 3.Six developments of European Politics(Stein Rokkan/Stefano
Bartolini)
Source: Bartolini,2005:366.
From the sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century, one can observe the
emergence of state building and capitalist development. In some cases, there
is already early nation building, but this becomes more salient during the
nineteenth century. Democratization is a further development that became
relevant in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the welfare state
became the central development of European politics. Last but not least, since
the 1950s, one can see a shift towards European integration. This last stage is
considered as a shift from the nation-state to the European polity paradigm.
The origins of this development towards European integration is according to
Bartolini, the growing peripheralization of Europe in the global context.
9
National elites particularly in the mid 1980s moved towards a system of shared
sovereignty in order to increase its overall steering power in the global context.
Although this ceding of sovereignty was only limited, due to the still continuing
dominance of national thinking in strategic decisions. In spite of Jacques
Delors efforts to enhance Europe’s competitiveness, the end result is a growing
imbalance between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ integration processes. Memberstates unwillingness to give more power to the centre, creates problems of
governance in new created areas, in which member-states have to share
sovereignty such as the growing importance of a European asylum- and
immigration policy. One major factor undermining more steering capacity has
been so far the latest globalisation thrust of capitalism world development
which has remained a major pressure on the European polity to further
restructure its functional and territorial organisation. (Bartolini,2005:366367).
Although Bartolini writes about the growing importance of subnational
governance, this remained probably the weakest part of the book. He just
summarized many of the EU policies without going too much in detail.
INTERREG is highlighted as an important policy, particularly since the Outline
Convention of Frontier Cooperation adopted by the Council of Europe in 1980.
(Bartolini,2005:262). He regards transfrontier mobilization as one of the four
aspects of the territorial dimension of European integration. The other three
are access to resources through the enhanced structural funds after 1989,
institution building like e.g. the Committee of the Regions and Local Authorities
and new territorial coalitions.(Bartolini,2005:257-271). For Bartolini, crossborder cooperation is adding certain a new dimension to the European
integration process, however he frames it more as a competition for resources
than a genuine process. He asserts as follows:
This ‘mobilization’ of cooperation experiences has taken place under the
auspices and supporting role of both the national and the European
centres. That is, supra-regional centres fostered the mobilization of the
regional economic and social potentials. Notwithstanding this, the
structural changes affecting the role of sub-state regional territories are
numerous and conspicuous and should not be under-estimated,
particularly if one keeps in mind the historical obsession of the European
10
continental nation-state with any sign of territorial autonomy or exit
opportunity. These structural changes concern the regions, but the new
resources, institutions and fora may generate very different interests and
opinions, and not necessarily-and maybe very improbably-a general
‘regional’ view or a general increase in regional power. While regional
alliances continue to develop along common economic or infrastructural
interests, and sub-national territorial units try to establish their
institutional position vis-á-vis the EU and national governments, the
prospects of a harmonious ‘Regional Europe’ are non-existent given the
potential conflicts of interests among the regions and areas and given
the enormous differences in resources among them.[...]
Instances of meaningful, interregional alliances go hand in hand with a
growing trend towards ‘territorial competition’ for inwards investment
and Community funds in the internal and global financial markets.
(Bartolini,2005:268).
Certainly the scarcity of resources coming both from the European and national
levels will be a major factor in enhancing competition between the regions.
Cross-border cooperation can be regarded instrumentally as an additional
source of human, technological and financial resources. There is naturally the
danger to generalise all regions has having just an instrumental approach
towards cross-border cooperation. Many poor regions, particularly on the
Portuguese-Spanish or German-Polish border regard this as an unique chance
to overcome their ‘double’ periphery status vis-a-vis their respective national
capitals and Brussels.(see Covas,1997:175-92).
Such transformations are also related to the welfare state. The restructuring of
the European territory is shifting the welfare state towards welfare regions.
Regions are new ‘bounded space’ destructuring the national space. He
mentions particularly the growing regionalization of social policy in the Italian
case(Ferrera,2005:179;192). Spain and Germany can also be named as cases
where social welfare is extremely decentralized along regional terms.
One crucial category is what Bartolini recognised as the growing competition
between regions in the new structure of opportunities. The EU clearly allows
for an increase of political and economic competition. According to Tanja
Börzel this is a crucial characteristic of EU political system.(Börzel,2008:61).
The political competition dimension is crucial to understand the mobilisation in
cross-border cooperation. This can be confirmed particularly for the German
Länder which were used to a governance system based on joint decision11
making and the principle of territorial solidarity. However, European
governance does not fit in this national rationale. On the contrary, it has
contributed to an increase of competition between the regions within a
European and a global market perspective.(Benz,2007;431-433)
In sum, the present restructuring of the European Union frames discussion of
INTERREG in a different direction. It is certainly an instrument to soften the
internal borders of the EU and strengthen through neighbourly cooperation the
external ones. At the same time, it is embedded in the increasing important
role of the European Union as a structure of opportunities for political
competition. Cross-border cooperation is an important policy in order to
achieve transregional and transnational spaces of European integration, which
function as hubs for the dissemination of the principles of single European
market. Therefore, it is important to make first a review of the development
and existing programmes.
3.Cross-border cooperation:A quantitative study
The Delors Package I and II adopted in 1988 and 1992 respectively were quite
crucial for the emergence of the INTERREG programme.
Although the main
target of the structural funds were the regions in the member-states, other
parallel programmes were developed in order to achieve certain objectives.
The INTERREG programme was developed in strong cooperation with the
Association of European Border Regions(AEBR), the main interest group for
cross-border regions.(Sodupe,1998:29).
One of the first experimental programmes was dedicated to the poor crossborder regions between Spain and Portugal. Decades, even centuries of
neglect by two highly centralized countries until the mid 1970s, made the
border regions of the two country a good field of experiment. The first
INTERREG came into action in the 1990s and is now in the fourth round, which
runs from 2007 to 2013. However, the present round has enhanced INTERREG
as the main instrument for the third objective of territorial cohesion.
Moreover, it will cover quite a large area, because INTERREG programmes are
12
also used as instrument in the European Neighbourhood Policy.
(Cugusi,Stochiero,2006).
Its main aim is to prepare border regions for “Europe without borders”.
INTERREG is accompanied by other programmes such as INTERACT, Leader
and Urban.
The overall rationale of crossborder cooperation is naturally further informed
by
creating competitive regions, which are able to prevent further asymmetries
and
disparities within the European territory. In comparison with the United States,
the
gap between the less and more developed regions in the European Union is
much
larger. Such gap has risen after the enlargement to the central and eastern
countries
and the Mediterranean islands in 2004. INTERREG aims strategically to create
sustainable networks between border regions, so that regional economies
become
interdependent and integrated. The horizontal programmes INTERACT allows
for
transfer of knowledge, but also accumulation of knowledge after several
rounds of the
INTERREG programme. ESPON(European Spatial Programming Observatory )
is a
further device to monitor such integration and even development.
According to a European Commission information brochure cross border
cooperation
allows for a multiplier effect, which in the long term will be sustainable:
Cooperation without frontiers is a difficult and rarely spontaneous
process. For a long time, the authorities and structures concerned, at
different levels of government and power, were not used to working
together. Even when the mutual prejudices inherited from the past are
13
done away with, there still remain major obstacles that need to be
overcome. These have to do with differences in political institutions,
administrative systems and procedures, legal structures and provisions,
technical and environmental standards. In addition to these, of course,
are differences in language and culture as well as physical obstacles like
mountains, rivers and the sea.(…).
One of the most important aspects of cooperation without frontiers is the
‘multiplier effect’ that it produced, the energies that it mobilised and the
experience gained from obvious.
However, difficulties remain in defining common strategies and achieving
practical coordination, particularly with regard to legal or financial
aspects. Thus the main challenge today is that of setting up genuinely
common and integrated structures of cooperation to manage
programmes that have been developed and implemented together.
(European Commission, 2002a:7)
According to data from the European Commission in 2001, 39.1 percent of all
EU15
territory were border regions. Out of this 27.4 percent were internal borders
and 11.7
percent external borders. Moreover, 2.9 percent of the latter are now internal
borders
with the new member-states, while only 8.8 percent are with other countries
outside
the EU. In 2001, 17.8 percent lived in internal border of the EU15, 2.8 percent
in
external borders with the present new members and 4.3 percent with other
countries.(European Commission, 2002b:39)
The 2004 central and eastern enlargement has created new external borders,
but also a
larger population living in internal border regions. This shows that at least one
fifth
of the EU population lives in such border regions and therefore they are quite
crucial in order to make the SEM work.
According to the ESPON atlas 2006, after enlargement in 2004, the EU has
now 41 percent coastline and 59 percent land borders. This clearly has
changed the priorities of territorial cooperation substantially.(ESPON,2006:56).
14
Since the second round of INTERREG there are three variants of the
programme.
The first variant and the most important one is crossborder cooperate which
had one
allocation of 67 percent in INTERREGIII. The second is transnational
cooperation(INTERREG B) to which 27 percent of the funding was allocated and
third one is interregional cooperation(INTERREG C) with 6 percent of
allocations.
Such an approach wants to make sure that there is a multi-layered integration
of the
regions through different actions. In the fourth INTERREG, 8.7 percent of the
€ 347 billion has been allocated to European territorial cooperation. A small
amount that is supposed to be used strategically in conjunction with the other
objectives of convergence and competitiveness.(see figure 4 and table 1)
Figure 4.Financial amount for Cohesion policy according to
objectives(2007-13).
15
Source:European Commission website, http://www.europa.eu accessed on 26
June 2009
In spite of almost two decades of the INTERREG programme, there are still
major differences in the intensity of cross-border cooperation. According to
the research undertaken by the European Spatial Planning Observatory
Network(ESPON), there are still considerable intensity differences in levels of
cooperation. A study of the INTERREGIII programme between 2000 and 2006
found out that few regions had a high level of intensity in cooperation. The
Portuguese-Spanish border in Douro,Trás-Os-Montes, Galicia and Castilla-León
show a high level of intensity in cross-border cooperation. The same is also
observed in German regions of Traunstein, Kempten, Kindau and Oberallgäu.
Overall, one can recognise quite high intensity of activity along the Austrian
border, the border between Germany and Denmark and the Scandinavian
countries.(see Figure 5). One can also observe a strong participation along the
Hungarian and Slovak borders and the western part of the Italy-Swiss border
(Figure 6).
But most regions have a low level of intensity in cooperation.
Among the factors one can mention the difficult process of transnational
cooperation between different cultures, the linguistic differences, but also the
weakness of civil society in respective countries. Such problems emerged also
16
in other more long standing cooperation projects along the Portuguese and
Spanish border or the French and Spanish border.(Magone,2006b;
Harguindeguy,2007:322-331).
Last but not least, quite interesting is the fact that the clusters of cooperation
give us a picture of a territory that is far from being homogenous in economic
terms. The southern and central
17
Table 1.Distribution of Structural Funds for Programme 2007-13 according to countries
Source:European Commission, website http://www.europa.eu accessed on 28 June 2009
18
Figure 5.Intensity of cooperation between regions 2006
Source:Espon,2006:56
19
Figure 6.Level of cooperation in projects and of transnational cross-border cooperation
Source:Espon,2006:57.
20
Figure 7.Homogeneity across the territory 2006
Source:ESPON,2006:58
21
eastern regions are still characterised by weak economic clusters,
although the strong economic clusters are concentrated along the
French,Belgian, Dutch ,Luxembourg, German and Swiss regions. The
southern part of the United Kingdom with the important capital of London
is also part of this strong cluster. The centre of European capitalism is in
this west central European part of the continent. Ireland is an exceptional
strong cluster due to American foreign direct investment and the strategic
choice of policy makers for investment in new technologies.(Barry,et.
al.,2001).
In spite of this sober results on territorial cooperation, the number of
cross-border programmes increased from 40 to 52 and it was upgraded to
a proper objective European territorial cooperation for the multi-annual
programming of the structural funds between 2007 and 2013.(see Table 2
and 3
TABLE 2.CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (2000-6)
INTERNAL CROSS-BORDER PROGRAMS
Skargarden Islands
N Kvarken-Mittskandia
Austria,Bavaria
Austria,Czech Republic
Austria,Slovenia
Austria-Hungary
Austria-Slovakia
Sweden-Norway
Ems Dollart
Alpen-Bodensee
Saxony,Czech Republic
Rhein-Maas-Nord/NordRijn-Waal/Euregio
Lubuskie-Brandenburg
Italy,Austria
Alps
Italy-Slovenia
Sardinia,Corsica,Tuscany
Ireland,Northern Ireland
Ireland,Wales
Alsace/Baden-Württemberg
Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud
Bavaria,Czech Republic
COUNTRIES INVOLVED
Finland and Sweden
Finland,Sweden,Norway
Austria,Germany
Austria,Czech Republic
Austria,Slovenia
Austria,Hungary
Austria-Slovakia
Sweden-Norway
Germany,Netherlands
Germany,Austria,Switzerland,Lichtenstein
Germany, Czech Republic
Germany and Netherlands
Germany,Poland
Italy,Austria
Italy,France
Italy Slovenia
Italy,France
Ireland,UK
Ireland,UK
France,Germany
France,Germany,Switzerland
Germany,Czech Republic
22
Fyn/KERN
Sonderjylland/North Schleswig
Germany, Luxembourg,Germanophone Belgium
Saarland/Moselle/Westpfalz
Spain/Portugal
Italy,Switzerland
Öresund
Greece/Bulgaria
Greece/Cyprus
Mecklenberg,Poland
Euroregio Maas-Rhein
Franche-Comté-Rhone-Alps/Switzerland
Spain/France
Finland-Estonia
Flanders-Netherlands
Wallonia,Lorraine, Luxembourg
Kent/Sussex-Nord Pas de Calais/Picardie
France,Belgium
Greece-Italy
EXTERNAL CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
Spain/Morocco
Karelia-Russia
South-East Finland-Russia
Nord
Gibraltar-Morocco
Italy/Albania
Greece,Fyrom
Greece-Albania
Germany,Denmark
Germany,Denmark
Germany,Luxembourg, Belgium
Germany, France
Spain,Portugal
Italy,Switzerland
Denmark,Sweden
Greece,Bulgaria
Greece,Cyprus
Germany,Poland
Germany,Netherlands,Belgium
France,Switzerland
Spain/France
Finland,Estonia
Netherlands,Belgium
Belgium, France,Luxembourg
UK,France
France,Belgium
Greece, Italy
COUNTRIES INVOLVED
Spain,Morocco
Finland,Russia
Finland,Russia
Sweden,Finland, Norway,Russia
UK,Morocco
Italy,Albania
Greece, Former Yugoslavia Republic of
Macedonia
Greece-Albania
Source:Regional policy site of the European Commission,
http://www.europa.eu.int/regional_policy/interreg3/abc/progweb_en.htm, accessed on 28.11.2003 In italics cross
border cooperation with candidate countries, new members or European Economic Area members(Switzerland,Norway)
TABLE 3.CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION 2007-13
PROGRAMMES
COUNTRIES INVOLVED
Bulgaria-Greece
Bulgaria, Greece
Bulgaria-Romania
Bulgaria,Romania
Grande Region
Belgium,France,Germany,Luxembourg
Euregio Maas-Rhein
Belgium,France,Netherlands,Germany
France-Belgium
France,Belgium
‘Two Seas’
Belgium,Netherlands, France and
Germany
Belgium-Netherlands
Belgium,Netherlands
Austria-Czech Republic
Austria,Czech Republic
Czech-Republic-Bavaria
Czech Republic,Bavaria
Czech Republic-Saxonia
Czech republic, Saxonia
Czech Republic-Poland
Czech Republic, Poland
Czech Republic-Slovakia
Czech Republic-Slovakia
Syddanmark-Schleswig
Germany,Denmark
K.E.R.N
Denmark-Germany
Germany,Denmark
23
South Baltic
Germany,Denmark,Sweden,
Lithuania, Poland,
Denmark,Sweden,Norway
Germany,Austria
France,Germany,Switzerland
Germany,Switzerland, Austria
Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak
Germany(Bavaria)-Austria
Upper Rhine
Alpenrhein-BodenseeHochrhein
Lubuskie-Brandenburgia
Germany,Poland
Sachsen-Polska
Germany,Poland
MecklenburgGermany,Poland
Vorpommern/Poland
Germany-Netherlands
Germany, Netherlands
Estonia-Latvia
Estonia,Latvia
Central Baltic
Estonia,Finland, Latvia,Sweden
Greece-Cyprus
Greece,Cyprus
Greece-Italy
Greece,Italy
France-Spain-Andorra
France,Spain,Andorra
Spain-Portugal
Spain,Portugal
France-Italy(Alps-Alcotra)
France,Italy
Italy-Maritime France
France,Italy
France Channel-England
France,UK
Amazonia
France,Suriname,Brazil
Caribbean
French islands in Caribbean
Northern Ireland-Border
Ireland,United Kingdom
regions of Ireland-Western
Scotland
Ireland-Wales
Ireland,Wales
Italia-Österreich
Italy,Austria
Italy-Switzerland
Italy,Switzerland
Italy-Slovenia
Italy,Slovenia
Italy-Malta
Italy,Malta
Latvia-Lithuania
Latvia,Lithuania
Lithuania-Poland
Lithuania-Poland
Austria-Hungary
Austria,Hungary
Hungary-Romania
Hungary,Romania
Hungary-Slovakia
Hungary,Slovakia
Austria-Slovenia
Austria,Slovenia
Austria-Slovakia
Austria,Slovakia
South Baltic
Denmark, Lithuania,Germany,Poland
Poland-Slovakia
Poland,Slovakia
North
Finland,Sweden,Norway
Botnia-Atlantica
Sweden,Norway,Finland
Sweden-Norway
Sweden,Norway
Source:Own compilation based on Database of the European Commission
posted online a t the website http://www.europa.eu accessed date 27
June 2009
24
CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN BALKANS AND TURKEY
PROGRAMMES
COUNTRIES
Adriatic IPA
Greece,Italy,Slovenia,Croatia,
Albania,BosniaHerzegovina,Montenegro
Bulgaria-Serbia IPA
Bulgaria-Serbia
Bulgaria-FYRO Macedonia IPA Bulgaria,Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Greece-FYRO Macedonia IPA Greece,FYRO Macedonia
Bulgaria-Turkey IPA
Bulgaria,Turkey
Greece-Albania IPA
Greece,Albania
Romania-Serbia IPA
Romania,Serbia
Hungary-Serbia IPA
Hungary,Serbia
Hungary-Croatia IPA
Hungary,Croatia
Slovenia-Croatia IPA
Slovenia,Croatia
Source:Own compilation based on Database of the European Commission posted online a t the website
http://www.europa.eu accessed date 27 June 2009
25
Figure 8. CROSS-BORDER PROGRAMMES-INTERREGIVA 2007-13
Source:website of the European Commission, DG Regional Policy, http://www.europa.eu accessed
on 30 June 2009
Figure 9.Transnational programmes INTERREG IVB 2007-13
26
Source:website of the European Commission, DG Regional Policy, http://www.europa.eu accessed
on 30 June 2009
The main rationale of European territorial cooperation remains the
completion of the single European market. As already mentioned,
27
economic integration of cross-border regions is an important strategy of
the European Commission to strengthen European capitalism. In terms of
the future of the European territory, one has to acknowledge that the
economic and social disparities will remain a salient feature. In spite of
two decades of structural funds, the economic disparities between regions
remained almost the same, although there has been some national
convergence between member-states.
The best example is Spain, where
the gap between GDP per capita between the poorest regions of
Andalusia, Castilla-La Mancha and Murcia and the richest ones of the
Basque Country, Catalonia,Madrid and Baleares remained
al(Magone,2009:348;Puigcerver-Peñalver,2007:181).
The studies of ESPON seem to confirm that the trend of an economically
and socially asymmetrically Europe will be the result in 2050. The
dominance of west Germany, the Benelux, northern France, the south of
the United Kingdom and the northern part of Italy and the cross-border
areas to its neighbourhoods will remain the centre of European capitalism.
This socalled ‘pentagon’ runs through the main cities of London, Paris,
Milan, Munich and Hamburg. In contrast, southern, central and Eastern
Europe will be the periphery of such European capitalism. This means
that present policies targeting social and economic cohesion will not be
enough to close the gap between the centre and the periphery. On the
contrary, the technological advantage of the centre will be even more
salient than it is today.(Figure 8). It is predicted, that in 2030 the
European population will have deal with an exacerbated ageing of the
population. The demographic immigration pressures from the
Mediterranean and other regions of the world are a major factor shaping
the competitiveness of the European economy. The present cohesion
policies cannot change this centre-periphery relations of European
capitalism, nor the demographic trend. However, policy-makers believe
that the present policy-mix including the structural funds focusing
particularly on the poorer regions will allow for an expansion and linkage
28
of the pentagon to some of the peripheral areas.. Probably, in the
scenario only few areas would be outside the centre, but still integrated
like Portugal, southern Spain, reggio-calabria, Sicily and Sardinia in Italy,
Malta and Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania and the Baltic space.(Figure 9)
In sum, these trends are quite important to understand cross-border
cooperation along the German borders. The economic centre of Europe
characterised by the ‘pentagon’ includes two major German metropolitan
centres, Munich and Hamburg. In this sense, the next section will try to
find out, what the main objectives of such cross-border cooperation.
29
FIGURE 8.Competitiveness-oriented Scenario:Spatial structure and urban hierarchy in 2030
Source:ESPON,2007:11
30
Figure 9. Probable Territorial Impacts of the Cohesion-Oriented Policy Scenario
Source:ESPON,2007:12
31
4.Cross-border cooperation:Germany and its neighbours
In comparison to other member-states, Germany has already a long standing
tradition of cross-border cooperation. Probably, cross-border cooperation on
the Dutch-German border may be characterised as the oldest. There are
fourteen cross-border programmes in which German regions participate and
are financed by INTERREG IV.
One can recognise three levels of territorial
cooperation.
Particularly, well-developed is cooperation on the western borders of Germany
with Dutch, French, Belgian and Luxembourg regions. Cross-border
cooperation in these regions go back to the late 1950s,1960s and 1970s and
pre-date EU regional policy and the reform of the structural funds in 1988. All
of them developed own institutions and decision-making processes which
follow a rationale of socio-cultural and economic integration of the regions.
The ‘Rhein-Ems’ EUREGIO along the German-Dutch border, but also the
‘Grande Region’ of SaarLorLux including German, Belgian, French, Luxembourg
and Belgian regions.
As an intermediate level of cross-border cooperation one can mention the
programmes between German, Swiss and Austrian regions. Most of these
programmes emerged after the reform of the structural funds in 1988.
However, there has been also a history of some cross-border cooperation
before that date. Nevertheless, such cooperation remained informal and was
not institutionalised. Still today, the processes of integration of the region are
not as advanced as on the western part of Germany. Among the cross-border
programmes one can include the ‘Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein’ which
started in 1990 and includes regions in Switzerland,Germany and Austria. The
other example is the cross-border cooperation between the German region of
Bavaria and Austria. Most of the EUREGIOs were created in the 1990s,
particularly shortly before or after the accession of Austria into the EU. For
example,EUREGIO Inntal was founded in 1998 and EUREGIO Bayerischer
Wald-Böhmischer Wald-Unterer Inn in 1994.
- 32 -
The most recent cross-border cooperation can be found between German and
and the central eastern regions of Czech Republic and Poland. Most of these
cross-border programmes emerged in the late 1990s or in the beginning of the
new millennium. Among these cross-border programmes are e.g. between the
region of Lubuskie and Brandenburg in Poland and Sachsen and the Czech
regions. This cross-border cooperation is still at the very beginning. However,
in spite of the negative history between Germany and these central European
countries before 1945, there has been a strong will on both sides of the border
to overcome the past and build for the future. Probably, the Polish-German
cooperation is a good example of a successful cooperation. Naturally, this
cooperation is still lagging behind considerably in relation to German crossborder programmes with the western neighbouring countries
- 33 -
Table 4.Cross-border cooperation in Germany(2009)
COOPERATIO NAME OF EUREGIO(DATE OF
N LEVEL
FOUNDATION)
GROUP
I( Western
Regions)
Highest Level
of
Cooperation(
1950-1990)
GermanyNetherlands
Ems-Rhein(1958)
Ems-Dollart(1977)
Rhein-Maas(1978)
Rhein-Waal(1996)
Maas-Rhein(1976)
Pamina(Upper Rhine Interreg)
(1968/1989)
Grande Region(1980)
GROUP
II(Northern
and Southern
Regions)
Intermediate
Level of
Cooperation(
since 1990)
Fehrmarnbeltregion(Sjaelland-SchleswigHolstein)(2007)
Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N.(1990)
South Baltic(2007)
Bodensee(Alpenrhein-BodenseeHochrhein)(1997)
GermanyAustria
(BavariaAustria)
Via Salina(1997)
Zugspitze-WettersteinKarwendel(1998)
Tegern Declaration(1998)
Inntal(1998)
Salzburg-BGLTraunstein(1995)
Inn-Salzach(1994)
Bayrischer Wald-Böhmischer
Wald Unterer Inn(1994)
- 34 -
COUNTRIE
S
INVOLVED
Germany,
Netherlands
Belgium,Ger
many,
Netherlands
Germany,Fra
nce,
Switzerland
Germany,Bel
gium,France
,
Luxembourg
Germany,De
nmark
Germany,De
nmark
Germany,De
nmark,
Sweden,Pola
nd, Lithuania
Germany,Au
stria,
Switzerland,
Lichtenstein
Germany,
Austria
GROUP
III(Eastern
Regions)
Lowest Level
of
Cooperation
(mid 1990s)
GermanyPoland
GermanyCzech
Republic
MecklenburgVorpommern/Brandenburg/
Zachodniopomorske(1994)
Brandenburg/Lubuskie(1994
)
Saxonia-Slask Dolny(1994)
Saxonia-Czech
Republic(1994)
Bavaria-Czech Republic
(1994)
Source:own compilation based on websites of the EUREGIOS
- 35 -
GermanyPoland
GermanyCzech
Republic
Source:BMWi,2008b:44
According to an excellent study by Markus Perkmann, the cross-border
cooperation started in 1958. Since then, most of the initiatives were
- 36 -
undertaken by the regional authorities on both sides of the border. The role of
Dutch and German governments in investing in this kind of cooperation cannot
be underestimated. Such investment became quite crucial during the 1980s in
order to move to more sophisticated cooperation forms. The institutionalisation
of the EUREGIO ‘Rhein-Ems’ started in the 1970s and found its further
development in the 1980s. In 1985, a merging of the coordinating secretariats
create a more integrated approach towards the planning of the EUREGIO. In
1990, the EUREGIO were able to deal with the INTERREG programme and
since then profited immensely from it. The main task for the EUREGIO was to
transform a declining industrial zone into a more dynamics economy. The
support of several nationa entities and the EU funds contributed immensely to
this transformation.(Perkmann,2005) EUREGIO ‘Rhein-Ems’ is just one of four
Dutch-German cross-border cooperation programmes. Quite important is that
the EUREGIO was institutionalised through the activism of European
integration supporters like Julius Möser. A milestone of the EUREGIO was the
creation of EUREGIO-Council in 1978, which consists of 82 members(41
German and 41 Dutch representatives). The EUREGIO-Council consists of
experts which advise the EUREGIO Secretariat. The Secretariat is supported
by working groups on Environment and Agriculture, Public Security, Spatial
Policy and Traffic, Public Schooling, Tourism, Economy, EUREGIO Mozercommission responsible for the social cultural integration of the region and
labour market policy.(EUREGIOInform,2003:8-12; Müller, Hoebink,2003). The
EUREGIO invests a lot on growing cooperation of small and medium sized
enterprises in technological and innovative projects. It fits in within the
‘Pentagon’ as the centre of European capitalism.
- 37 -
Figure 10.Institutions of EUREGIO ‘Rhein-Ems’
Source: Euregioinform 2003,p.11
Quite established is also the MaasRhine Euregio which was established in 1976
and developed very important cross-border projects. Particularly relevant is
the German minority which leaves on southeastern part of Belgium and which
- 38 -
is extremely interested in cooperation in the Euroregion. This Euregio includes
the province Limburg in the Netherlands and Belgium, the region of Aaachen in
Germany, the province of Liége and the German-speaking community in
Belgium. The Euregio has its seat in Eupen which is the capital of the Germanspeaking community in Belgium. Like the Euregio Ems-Rhein, the
institutionalisation level is quite sophisticated. Its strategic vision for the future
is intrinsically linked to the policies of European integration. Apart from
INTERREG, the Euregio wants to use the new instrument of the European
Grouping of Territorial Cooperation in order to flexibilise even more the
interaction between the partners. The main leitmotiv for the cooperation in
the next years is “improvement of quality of life”, particularly through the
investment in new green technologies. The creation of Knowledge Institutes is
a major aspect of this strategy. The Euregio wants to achieve more visibility
within a globalised economy.(Euregio MaasRhine,without date:2-4).
A third Euregio with a high level of institutionalisation is the Grande Region
which includes Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg.
This is the
largest Euregio with 65,400 square kilometres and 11.2 million people.
(Dörrenbächer,2006:2). The development towards a Euregio started in 1969
and led to a bilateral “Regional Commission Saar-Lor-Lux-Trier/Westpfalz”
established between France,Germany and Luxembourg. In 1980, the regional
commission became a legal entity and in 1986 a Interparliamentary Council
was established. Finally, in 1998 Wallonia joined the Euregio and and it was
renamed
as the Grance Region.(Dörrenbächer,2006:5-6).
One of the
achievements of the Grande Region was the establishment of a social and
economic committee dealing with different issues, which advises the steering
executive bodies of the Grande Region.
Economically, the Grande Region
wants to focus in the future in three main areas, transport infrastructure,
machine building, particularly for energy efficient environmentally friendly
housing and ICT. Te role of cooperation between higher education institutions
is crucial in this respect.(Grande Region,2008:3-6). Moreover, investment in
social networks, particularly among the young and the promotion of exports
- 39 -
are further crucial aspects of the plans for the future.(Grande Region,2008:611).
This group of cross-border cooperation programmes can be summarized as
being quite advanced, based also on a genuine culture of cross-border
cooperation.
Still dominated by the regional elites, nevertheless with some
regional consciousness. Probably, the Grande Region has to be regarded as a
difficult project to develop a common identity.
However,
the
Dutch-German
cooperation
The region is far too large.
programmes
are
certainly
contributing to some identity building over the long run. In this context, the
‘Rhein-Ems’ Euroregio seems to be the most advanced of four cross-border
cooperation programmes.
The second group of countries in the southern and northern borders of
Germany are a step lower in terms of institutionalisation. Maybe an exception
is the Bodensee region which brings together German, Austrian, Swiss regions
and Liechtenstein.
As already mentioned cross-border cooperation has been
happening before the Interreg programme. However, it was the Interreg
programme that allowed for a proper institutionalisation of the Bodensee
Euregio. This region has a proper identity which is reinforced by the Lake
Constance(Bodensee). The different countries around the lake share common
interests and life styles. Moreover, many people cross-border to work in
another country. According to an excellent study by Joachim Blatter, in which
he compares the Lake Constance Euregio, the Pamina region of the Upper
Rhine and cross-border cooperation between US-Mexican and US-Canadian
regions, there are huge differences between the North American and European
model. The North American model is based on the preservation of sovereignty
and it is not interested in achieving regional integration. Cross-border
cooperation is more related to concrete environmental and/or economic
objectives. In contrast, the cross-border cooperation in Lake Constance and in
the Pamina region is fully embedded in the overall territorial cooperation and
integration of the European Union. It has transnational objectives leading up
- 40 -
to integration. It clearly wants to go beyong the nation-state. While the
Pamina-region is extremely institutionalised in comparison to the North
American cross-border cooperation, he was able to observe more harmony and
identity within the Lake Constance region.(Blatter,2001a:191-5). This strong
instittutionalisation and identity building on the western and southwestern
borders of Germany are clearly an example of what over time cross-border
cooperation can achieve. In contrast, the EUREGIOs along the BavarianAustrian border were established too recently in order to achieve the same
level of institutionalisation and self-understanding as the Lake Constance and
Pamina regions. However, they are quite small and there are common life
styles shared by the people on both sides of the border.
The third group of cross-border cooperation is based on an asymmetrical
developmental relationship. The level of economic development between
German and Polish and Czech regions is quite different, so that these eastern
regions are highly dependent on the INTERREG programme. Cross-border
cooperation started quite early after the Fall of the Wall. Already in 1991, the
EUREGIO Neisse was established between Germany, Poland and Czech
Republic. The German cross-border cooperation with Poland and Czech
Republic is a new very positive movement and certainly an important
instrument of confidence building. It is important to mention that Poland and
then Czechoslovakia victims of Hitler’s expansionist policies of Lebensraum.
Therefore, German-Polish and German-Czech relationships across the border
have to be regarded as very important for the further construction of the
European Union as an area of peace, freedom and security. In spite of the
short period of cross-border cooperation since the mid 1990s, two major
Euroregios stand out.(Yoder, 2003:95-96).
The ‘ProViadrina’ EU Regio which led a strong cooperation between the
German region of Brandenburg and the wojwoedship of Lubuskie.
It was
founded in 1993 after an agreement was signed between the partners on the
two sides of the border.(Yoder,2003:96-7). One of the big achievements was
the creation of the Viadrina University in Frankfurt/Oder in 1991.
- 41 -
Meanwhile,
the University has become an important hub for the understanding between
the two countries. According to Jennifer Yoder, it is a good example how
institutions can build cultural bridges.(Yoder,2003:99). Until the beginning of
the millennium , the secretariats remained separated. However, then it was
agreed to have a common secretariat based in Zielona Góra and a contact
point Frankfurt/Oder. There are still some issues of the difference between
administrative structures in Germany, which are more decentralised, and in
Poland. In spite of this, Poland rationalised their regional administrative
system, now has 16 wojwodships, which match in some way the 16 Länder.
Although they are still not very relevant, if compared with the communes, they
are directly elected and are gaining slowly on more competences in
coordination of regional projects. (Grix,Knowles,2002:167-8)
The relationship between Brandenburg and Lubuskie is also one of transfer of
knowledge from west to east. It is also about creating networks along the
border directed towards the future in order to overcome prejudices about the
past. Brandenburg has still strong rightwing extremist groups that are able to
get representation at communal and regional level. The construction of a new
future within the European integration process is one of the most difficult
aspects of this task.(Grix,Knowles,2002:165-6;168-72).
The other successful cross-border cooperation is on the triangle of borders
bringing together the Germany, Poland and Czech Republic. The Neisse
Euroregion has been quite important in pushing forward a new future in the
relationship between these three countries. In terms of cooperation, the
intensity has been increasing, although most of it is dominated by the Interreg
programme. It means that there is still a long to go, until cross-border
cooperation becomes part of the identity of the regions concerned.
The decentralised nature of German regional policy allows for a strong
engagement of the regions in cross-border cooperation. They have the
necessary flexibility, sometimes more than the neighbouring partner regions to
engage in such cross-border cooperation. The regional policy of Germany as a
whole is strongly integrated in European territorial policies. The closer the
- 42 -
integration, the more advantageous it is for the German economy which can
act as a bridge between western and eastern Europe. Basically, the principles
of social and economic are inherent values of the Federal Republic of Germany.
However, as we mentioned before there is a growing contradiction between the
traditional multi-level governance system of joint decision-making between
federal government and Länder and the more competitive EU multi-level
governance rationale.(Benz,2000;Benz,2007) Cross-border cooperation fits in
as an additional element in this competitive rationale. It allows also to weaken
the demands of the Basic Law of social and economic equality of opportunities
across the German territory, by using the priority of European integration and
single European market building.
Conclusions:The End of Borders? Cross-border Cooperation as
‘laboratory of European integration’
Although financially most of the EU structural funds go to the regions within
the tradition conception of the nation-state, growing importance is giving by
the EU to cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. In this
paper we tried to delineate some first theoretical and some empirical aspects
of cross-border cooperation.
Cross-border cooperation is an important process in order to soften the inner
borders of the European Union. At the same it is used through the European
neighbourhood policy to create confidence building measures along the
external ‘hard’ borders of the European Union. According to Stefano Bartolini
we are presently in a new phase of European development. In this sense,
cross-border cooperation gains a new significance as instrument or laboratory
of European integration.
In terms of territorial politics of the EU, it becomes clear that the structural
funds, and particularly cross-border cooperation projects financed by the
INTERREG are essential instruments for the building of a single European
- 43 -
market. The studies of ESPON have shown that structural funds help to ease
the growing division of Europe into a capitalist centre and a periphery. The
intensity and density of social capital of the regions plays a major role in this
respect.
In this context, Germany will remain at the centre of European capitalism. Two
cities of the economic capitalist ‘pentagon’ will be located in
Germany(Hamburg, Munich), one in the UK(London), one in France(Paris) and
one in Italy(Milan). Therefore, it is crucial to look at the cross-border
cooperation along the German border. It became clear, that cross-border
cooperation in the western borders of Germany is quite advanced all well
institutionalised. The southern and northern regions have an intermediate
level of institutionalisation, nevertheless the strong social capital in
Switzerland, Austria and Denmark will allow for a positive development in the
long run. Cross-border cooperation is less developed along the eastern
borders of Germany. Apart from historical factors, low social capital,
asymmetrical economic development, it is also a question of sustainability of
cooperation, if the structural funds would not be available. In this sense, the
German case makes us aware that we are dealing with different levels of
development in terms of cross-border cooperation. Therefore, it is important
to look at it in a differentiated way in terms of institutionalisation, sustainable
cross-border cooperation beyond INTERREG projects, adjustment of
administrative structures of the respective regions, the legal status of the
cooperation group and the role of civil societies on both sides of the border.
All these are important factors to expand cross-border cooperation to the inner
centres of the respective nation-states. The more the rationale of cooperation
expands to the inner centres of national territories, the closer we come to the
goal of a single European market and the implications for European capitalism.
In this regard, cross-border cooperation remains central to the territorial
politics of the European Commission, because it is not only a laboratory of
European integration, but also an instrument to widen the horizon of EU
citizens.
- 44 -
REFERENCES
Bartolini,Stefano(2005), Restructuring Europe. Centre formation, system
building and political structuring between the nation-state and the European
Union.Oxford:Oxford University Press
Barry,Frank, John Bradley, Aoiffe Hannan(2001), The Single Market, the
Structural Funds and Ireland’s recent economic growth.In:Journal of Common
Market Studies, vol.39, nr.3,pp.537-52.
Bayrisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur,Verkehr und
Technologie und Bayrisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt,Gesundheit und
Verbraucherschutz( StMUGV)
(2008), Europäische Territoriale Zusammenarbeit 2007-13. Interreg IV im
Freistaat Bayern.München: StMUGV
Benz, Arthur(2000),Two Types of Multi-Level Governance:Intergovernmental
Relations in German and EU Regional Policy.In:Regional and Federal Studies,
vol.10,n°3,Autumn ,pp.21-44
Benz, Arthur(2007)'Inter-Regional Competition in Co-operative Federalism:
New Modes of Multi-level Governance inGermany', In: Regional & Federal
Studies,vol. 17: issue 4, pp. 421 — 436
Blatter, Joachim (2001a), ‘Debordering the World of States:Towards a Multilevel
System in Europe and a Multi-Polity System in North America? Insights from Border
Regions’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 175-209
- 45 -
Blatter,
Joachim(2001b)
,
Netzwerkstruktur,
Handlungslogik
und
politische
Räume:Institutionenwandel in europäischen und nordamerikanischen Grenzregionen,
Politische Vierteljahresschriften, Vol.42, No. 2, pp. 193-222
Blatter, Joachim (2003), ‘Beyond
Change
in
Transboundary
Hierarchies and Networks:Institutional Logics and
Spaces’,
Governance:An
International
Journal
of
Policy,Administration, and Institutions, Vol.16, No. 4, October, pp. 503-526
Bull, Hedley (2002), The Anarchical Society. A Study in World Order, Palgrave,
Basingstoke
Börzel,
Tanja(2008),
Der
„Schatten
der
Hierarchie“-Ein
Governance-Paradox?
In:Gunnar Folke Schuppert-Michael Zürn(eds.), Governance in einer sich wandelnden
Welt.In: Politische Vierteljahresschrift,Sonderheft 41,2008,pp.118-131.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie(BMWi)(2008a), National Strategic
Reference Framework for the EU Structural Funds in Germany.2007-2013. Foreign
Trade and Europe.Berlin:BMWi
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie(BMWi)(2008b), EU-Strukturfonds
in Deutschland. Europa und Außenwirtschaft.Berlin:BMWi
Christiansen,Thomas,Knud Erik Jørgensen(2000), Transnational governance
‘above’ and ‘below’ the state:the changing nature of borders in the European
Union.In:Regional and Federal Studies, vol.10, issue 2,pp.62-77
Committee on European Development(1999), European Spatial Development
Perspective.Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of
the European Union.Agreed at the Informal Council of Ministers responsible for
Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999.Luxembourg:Office of the Official
Publications of the European Communities
Covas, Antonio(1997), Integração Europeia, Regionalização Administrativa e
Reforma do Estado Nacional.Lisboa:Instituto Nacional de Administração
Cugusi, Battistina and Andrea Stocchiero(2006),The Partnership Principle in
Cross-Border
- 46 -
Cooperation.Concept Paper.Centro di Studi di Politica Internazionale, Compart
Project, INTERACT Programme,January
Diedrichs, Udo(2007), Neue Dynamik in der Europäischen Außen- und
Sicherheitspolitik:auf dem Weg zu einer EU Security Governance.In:Ingeborg
Tömmel(hrsg.), Die Europäische Union. Governance and PolicyMaking.Politische Vierteljahresschrift,Sonderheft 40,pp.343-366.
Dörrenbächer,C.H. Peter(2006), From the “Mining Triangle” to the “Greater
Region”(“Großregion”/”Grande Region”) The Institutionalisation of the
SarLorLux Euroregion.Institut Universitari de Estudis Europeus.Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona, working paper online, nr. 12,2006
Euregioinform(2003), 25 Jahre Rat des Euregio ‘Rhein-Ems’ Sondernummer
Euregio Maasrhine(without date), Looking to the future- A vision for the
Euregio. Posted on website of Euregio Maasrhine http://www.euregio-mr.org
accessed 4 July 2009
European Commission(1999), European Spatial Development
Perspective:Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of
the European Union.Luxembourg:Office of the Official Publications of the
European Community
European Commission(2002a),Structural Policies and European
Territory.Cooperation without Frontiers.(Luxembourg:Office of the Official
Publications of the European Communities
European Commission(2002b), Unity, Solidarity , Diversity for Europe. Its
People and Its Territory. Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,vol.2
Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities
European Commission(2008), Growing regions, Growing Europe. Fifth progress
report on economic and social cohesion.Luxembourg:Office of Publications of
the European Communities
European Commission(2009), Sixth progress report on economic and social
cohesion.Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
- 47 -
Council of the European Union. SEC 2009, 828 final, ,COM (2009) 295 Final,
Brussels 25.6.2009
European Spatial Observatory Network(ESPON)(2006), ESPON Atlas. Mapping
the Structure of European Territory.October 2006.Berlin:Federal Ministry for
Building and Regional Planning
European Spatial Observatory Network(ESPON)(2007), Territorial
Futures.Spatial Features for Europe. Luxembourg:Ministry of Interior and
Spatial Planning
Faludi,Andreas(2000), The European Spatial Development Perspective-What
Next?In:European Planning Studies, vol.8,nr.2,2000,pp.237-50.
Faludi,Andreas, Wil Zonnefeld and Bas Waterhout(2000), The Committee on
SpatialDevelopment. Formulating a spatial perspective in an institutional
vacuumThomas Christiansen,Emil Kirchner(Eds.) Committee Governance in the
EuropeanUnion.Manchester:MUP,pp.115-131
Ferrera,Maurizio(2005), The Boundaries of the Welfare State. European
Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Solidarity.Oxford:Oxford
University Press
Giddens,Anthony(1985), The Nation-State and Violence.Vol.2:A contemporary
critique of Historical Materialism.Cambridge:Polity Press
Grix, Jonathan and Knowles, Vanda(2002)'The Euroregion as a Social Capital
Maximizer: The German-Polish Euroregion Pro-Europa Viadrina',In:Regional &
Federal Studies,12:4,154 — 176
Grossregion SarLorLux(2008), Gemeinsame Erklärung des 10.Gipfels der
Grossregion Namur, 1.Februar 2008 posted on website of the Grossregion
http://www.grossregion.net, accessed date 4 July 2009
Harguindéguy, Jean-Baptiste(2007) Cross-border Policy in Europe:
Implementing INTERREG III-A, France- Spain , In:Regional & Federal
Studies,vol.17,number 3,pp.317 — 334
- 48 -
Leibfried,Stephan,Michael Zürn(2006),Von der Nationalen zur post-nationalen
Konstellation.In:Stephan Leibfried, Michael Zürn(eds.), Transformationen des
Staates? Frankfurt a. M.:Suhrkamp,pp.19-65.
Magone,José M.(2006a), The New World Architecture. The Role of the
European Union in the Making of Global Governance. New
Brunswick,N.J.:Transaction
Magone,José M.(2006b), Cross-border Cooperation Between Spain and
Portugal:A Case Study of the Southern Regions.Institut Universitari d’Estudis
Europeus, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona,working paper online 13/2006
Magone,José M.(2007), Paradiplomacy Revisited:The Structure of
Opportunities of Global Governance and Regional Actors.In:Mario Kölling,
Stelios Stavridis, Natividad Fernandez Sóla(eds.) The International Relations of
the Regions:Sub-National Actors, Para-Diplomacy and Multi-Level Governance.
(Zaragoza:Zaragoza University Press 2007),pp.3-28.
Magone,José M.(2009), Contemporary Spanish Politics.Second
Edition.London:Routledge
Marks, Gary(1993), Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the
EC.In:Alan W. Cafruny, Glenda G. Rosenthal(eds.), The State of the European
Community.Vol.2:The Maastricht Debates and Beyond.London:Longman-Lynne
Rienner Publishers ,pp. 391-497.
Messner, Dirk and Nuscheler, Franz (2003), ‘World Politics-Structures and
Trends’, in Paul Kennedy, Dirk Messner, Franz Nuscheler (eds), Global Trends
and Global Governance, Pluto Press, London, pp.125-155
- 49 -
Müller, Verena in Zusammenarbeit mit Hoen Hoebink(2003), 25 Jahre
EUREGIO-Rat.Rückblick eines politischen Gremiums im kleinen
Europa.Gronau/Enschede:EUREGIO
Perkmann,Markus(2005), The Emergence and Governance of Euroregions: The
Case of the Euregio on the Dutch-German Border. Institut Universitari de
Estudis Europeus, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, working paper online
nr.11/2005
Pollack,Mark(1994), Creeping Competence: The Expanding Agenda of the European
Community.In:Journal of Public Policy,vol.14,n°2,1994,p..95-140
Pollack,Mark(2000), The End of Creeping Competence? EU Policy Making Since
Maastricht.In:Journal of Common Market Studies,vol.38,n°3,2000,pp.519-538
Puigcerver-Peñalver,Mari-Carmen(2008), The Impact of Structural Funds Policy
on European Regions’ Growth. A Theoretical and Empirical Approach.In:
European Journal of Comparative Economics.Vol.4,Nr. 2, pp.179-208.
Rokkan,Stein,Urwin,Derek W(1983)., Economy, Territory, Identity.Politics of
West European Peripheries.London:SAGE Publications
Rokkan,Stein(1999), State Formation,Nation Building and Mass Politics in
Europe.The Theory of Stein Rokkan. Based on his collected works.Edited by
Peter Flora with Stein Kühnle and Derek Urwin(eds.), Oxford:Oxford University
Press
Seiler,Daniel Louis(1998),Las Fracturas Politicas de la Historia Europea:Una
Aplicación de la Carta Rokkan.In:Francisco Letamendia(ed.), Nacionalidades y
Regiones en la Unión Europea.Madrid:Editorial Fundamentos,pp.161-182.
- 50 -
Sodupe,Kepa(1998) La Union Europea y la cooperación
interregional.In:Francisco Letamendia(ed.),Nacionalidades y Regiones en la
Union Europea.(Madrid:Fundamentos 1998),pp.13-60
Tömmel,Ingeborg(1998),Transformation of Governance:the European
commission’s strategy for creating a ‘Europe of the regions’.In:Regional and
Federal Studies,vol.8,issue2, 1998,pp.52-80.
Wagner,Wolfgang(2008), Europäische Governance im Politikfeld Innere
Sicherheit.In: Ingeborg Tömmel(hrsg.), Die Europäische Union. Governance
and Policy-Making.Politische Vierteljahresschrift,Sonderheft 40,2007,pp.323342
Yoder, Jennifer A.(2003)'Bridging the European Union and Eastern Europe:
Cross-border Cooperation and the Euroregions',Regional & Federal
Studies,13:3,90 — 106
Waterhoud,Bas, Dominic Stead(2007), Mixed Messages: How the ESDP’s messages
have been applied in INTERREG IIIB Programmes,Priorities and Projects. In:Planning,
Practice and Research, vol.22, 3,pp.395-415.
Zürn, Michael, ‘From Interdependence to Globalization’, in Walter Carlnaes and
Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations, Sage,
London, pp. 235-254
- 51 -
i