Border Surfers and Euroregions: Unplanned Cross-Border
Behaviour and Planned Territorial Structures of Crossborder Governance
AUTHOR VERSION
Published in Planning Practice and Research 27:3, 351-366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.670939
Kees Terlouw
[email protected]
Urban and Regional research centre Utrecht
Department of Human Geography & Planning
Utrecht University
Netherlands
ABSTRACT
The rise of cross-border relations is frequently linked to the decline of the
nation state and the emergence of new forms of European governance.
This paper challenges some of the assumptions behind the policies
stimulating regional cooperation along the national borders within the EU.
It questions the assumption that regional cross-border governance is
necessary for cross-border relations to develop. The paper argues that the
institutionalisation of different territorial nation states with different social
regulations not always hinders, but frequently stimulates cross-border
relations. However, the territoriality of the EU planning practice of
stimulating regional cross-border cooperation frequently hinders crossborder governance. The territorial administrative logic of cross-border
cooperation and its governance drift away from the border, where crossborder behaviour is concentrated. The emergence of cross-border
governance is further complicated while cross-border behaviour depends
on national and international regulations outside the control of the
midsized Euroregions. People living close to the border can sometimes
profit from these differences. The fluid and fragmented groups of these
border surfers are difficult to incorporate in the governance of territorial
Euroregions. This paper shows that unintended consequences of the EU
planning practice of stimulating cross-border cooperation sometimes
hinder the emergence of cross-border governance.
INTRODUCTION
This article discusses some of the contradictions between territorial crossborder governance and individual cross-border behaviour. The territorial
focus of EU policies to stimulate cross-border interaction within Europe is
discussed in this introduction. These policies have generated many studies
of the operation of European cross-border regions. The territorial focus of
EU policies is then contrasted with the growing importance attached to
individual cross-border behaviour in the study of borders.
The wish to remove the obstacles imposed by national borders to
economic development was an important motivation for starting the
process of European Integration after the Second World War. Initially the
focus was on the abolition of legal barriers for the movement of goods and
individuals within the EU. The Schengen agreement of 1985, which
abolished border controls for travellers between participating European
countries, and the creation of the European common market in 1993,
were important mile stones in the abolition of national barriers. But
European Integration involves more than the formal abolition of border
controls. Over recent decades the EU has become more actively involved
in stimulating cross-border relations and the reduction of development
differences within Europe. Territorial cohesion is now one of the key policy
goals of the EU. Stimulating cross-border cooperation by subsidizing
cross-border cooperation in regions along the national borders in the EU is
one of the policy instruments the European Commission uses, promoting
territorial cohesion by “the development of cross-border economic, social
and environmental activities through joint strategies for sustainable
territorial development” (EC 2006a). This territorial focus is made even
clearer in the rules laid down by the EC to manage the distribution of EU
funds. The EU subsidises projects in cross-border regions in which NUTS
level 3 regions at or close to the national border durably cooperate to
strengthen the development of the entire cross-border region. These
cross-border regions are much larger than the areas most strongly
disadvantaged by the border. The distribution of EU funds within these
cross-border regions is based upon the population size of the participating
regions (EC 2006b; McNeil, 2004; CoR 2006; Scott & van Houtum 2009;
Donaldson 2006; Perkmann, 2007a; Blatter, 2003, 2004; Bache & George
2006; Deas & Lord, 2006). The creation of new cross-border territories in
order to alleviate the problems of the division of Europe into national
territories shows the persistence of territorial conceptualisations. This is
an example of the general tendency that territories display to generate
new territories through subdivision and combination (Sack 1986, p. 34).
The proliferation of cross-border regions in Europe has generated an
abundance of academic studies. The border is conceptualised as a barrier
which has to be overcome for the creation of a united Europe. The
diminishing importance of the national border as a barrier to interaction is
linked to the increasing cooperation of local and regional authorities
across the border generating new cross-border territories. Numerous case
studies investigating the planning practice of the creation and further
institutional development of cross-border regions have been conducted
over the last two decades. They focus on overcoming the difficulties
hindering cross-border cooperation. Many of these studies investigate why
some initiatives for cross-border cooperation hardly move beyond the
planning phase, while others successfully implement a number of projects.
Many studies stress the limited importance of these new cross-border
territories. Their strength is not only quite limited compared to the nation
state, but more importantly they are part of new forms of governance
where horizontal cross-border linkages are closely connected with vertical
linkages between different administrative levels ranging from the local to
the European (Newman, 2006; Anderson & O’Dowd, 1999; Perkmann,
1999, 2003, 2007a; Blatter, 2003, 2004: Deas & Lord 2006; Brenner,
2004; Keating, 2008; Jessop et al 2008; Jones & MacLeod 2004).
Other types of border studies focus on how the daily life of humans
is structured by the border. In this ‘people approach’ the border is a social
construction influencing the perception and behaviour of people across the
border (Van Houtum 2000). Instead of analysing the border as a barrier
which hinders the development of border regions and which will gradually
be demolished as part of the evolution towards a united European
territory, they focus on individual behaviour and perceptions in relation to
the border. “Borders should be studied not only from a top-down
perspective, but also from the bottom up, with a focus on the individual
border narratives and experiences, reflecting the ways in which borders
impact upon the daily life practices of people living in and around the
borderland and transboundary transition zones.” (Newman 2006, p. 143).
Not all inhabitants of the border region profit to the same degree from
new possibilities on the other side of the national border. The classical
division between the populations at both sides of the national border does
not just fade away, but is replaced by new divisions based on the different
role of borders in people’s daily lives (Newman, 2006; Newman & Paasi,
1998; Paasi, 2005). The focus in border studies is shifting from border
territories to border behaviour.
INSTITUTIONAL BORDER AND BORDER SURFERS
European Integration has largely eliminated the national borders within
the EU as a physical barrier for travelling EU citizens. Although national
borders are easy to cross, they delimit different national social systems.
These institutional borders are still important for cross-border behaviour.
The interference between the EU rules safeguarding the freedom of
movement and the national regulated access to and payment for social
services, transforms borders from static barriers to dynamic gateways.
Social policies and taxation are, however, still decided by individual
member states. These policies are the key topics on which national
elections are contested (Flint & Taylor 2007). These national political
debates are based on the assumption that social life takes place within the
borders of the nation state. If the European dimension is considered, the
focus is on the direct influence of European regulations on national
policies. There is hardly any attention paid to the effects of these policies
on cross-border relations (Österle 2007, p. 113). Although the EU hardly
influences the formulation of national social policies, the EU legal
framework, which enshrines the general right of free movement of people,
and the creation of a European common market have a strong influence
on the implementation of these national regulations for other EU citizens.
The mobility of EU citizens within EU territory cannot be hindered by
national regulations which discriminate between citizens of different
member states. A large number of EU rules and rulings of the European
Court of Justice safeguards access for all traveling EU citizens to the
various national social systems. The EU ensures, for instance, direct
access for all insured European citizens to health care in all member states
(Héritier et al. 2001; Österle 2007; Busse et al. 2002; Greer 2006;
Anderson & O’Dowd 1999). This interference between European
regulations safeguarding free movement of European citizens and the
different national policies on social rights and taxation creates
opportunities for cross-border behaviour. Price differentials in particular
pull many individuals across the border, but people react differently to
institutional and regulatory cross-border differences. Some are attracted
by the opportunities of crossing the border, while others feel more
constrained by legal uncertainties and other unfamiliarities (Spierings &
van der Velde 2008).
Traditionally social sciences and geography focus on the inhabitants
of a territory and the places where people live. The importance of mobility
and its embodiment is now widely accepted. Some commentators even
talk of a ‘mobility turn’ and regard movement (the dromological) as at
least as important as spatial properties (the topological) and their location
(the topographical). This has generated special attention for groups like
vagabonds, hobos, tramps and globetrotters, who are based on mobility.
The mobility of these groups is regulated in different ways. The focus of
these constellations of mobility has shifted over time from local concerns
with vagabonds in feudalism, to national regulations of resident citizens.
Now the scale of regulation is shifting from the national to the global level
(Cresswell 2010, pp. 26-28; 1999; 2006). Especially the transnationalism
of migrants with strong relations with their place of origin through the use
of modern means of communication, has received a lot of attention. The
embodiment of this mobility in the experiences of transnationals in specific
localities is now an important research topic (Dunn 2010). This research
focuses on urban transnationals like globetrotting elites, backpackers and
migrant workers. How these transnationals are linked to other groups in
their destination locality and the different ways in which they
communicate with their place of origin is most often the focus of study.
However, the embodied mobility of moving physically between these
places is hardly studied. There is some attention paid to ‘astronaut
families’, where one adult family member travels between different
locations and the family only live together for a few months of the year
(Waters 2003). The transnationals living in more rural areas close to
national borders are, however, largely ignored. These very specific groups
of transnationals base their way of life on profiting from the different
opportunities on both sides of the border through regular border-crossing.
Different concepts are used for these types of transnationals. Those
focussing on migrants just across the border who still partially live in their
native country, use labels like ‘transmigration’ (Strüver, 2005) or ‘elastic
migration’ (Houtum & Gielis, 2006). Löfgren (2008) uses ‘regionauts’ to
describe how some inhabitants of border regions navigate between the
different possibilities across the border. While Löfgren limits regionauts to
those identifying with the cross-border region, ‘border surfers’ seems a
more appropriate and more general label for all those borderlanders who
cross the border to profit from different opportunities at both sides of the
border. The daily life of these border surfers takes place at both sides of
the border. They profit from waves of price differentials generated far
away. These waves emerge and frequently also disappear. There are also
dangers involved in border surfing. During border surfing individuals can
be suddenly confronted with previously hidden or new obstacles related to
national regulations. The waves of price differentials can also disappear.
Therefore not all borderlanders become border surfers and few dare to
ride the highest waves.
These border surfers are, however, not a recent phenomenon linked
to the creation of a European common market. The creation of different
territorial states with different political and social institutions had already
created border surfers in a period when borders hardly hindered the traffic
of people and goods. After discussing the historical example of border
surfers between the Netherlands and Germany in early modern times, this
article discusses the different waves of border surfers migrating between
the Netherlands and Germany in recent decades. These different case
studies show the changing character and consequences of border surfing.
The subsequent discussion of the different groups of border surfer
commuters between France and Germany shows the fragmentation
between different groups of border surfers and the mismatch between this
way of life and official EU funded cross-border cooperation.
SEASONAL MIGRATION BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE
NETHERLANDS IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD
The formation of territorial borders in Europe sometimes stimulated
people to cross the border and profit from growing differences between
the two sides of the border. After the political fragmentation of the Middle
Ages territorial states gradually increased their control over other powers
within their territory. The border was primarily an institutional border
between states regulating their societies in different manners (Tilly,
1990). But although territoriality and diverging institutional development
became a defining feature of states in Europe, the borders between these
territories were hardly a barrier for human interaction. Cross-border
interaction was mostly not hindered, but rather sometimes stimulated by
the institutionalisation of different states. For instance, the evolving
differences in state sanctioned labour regulation were crucial for the
development of an agricultural division of labour linking the core area of
Holland with the grain and oxen exporting regions with much lower labour
costs in Germany and further to the East. Increased labour control
regulated by the state and the increased export of grain from the East
European periphery to the Dutch core went hand in hand (Nitz, 1993;
Wallerstein, 1974).
Trade in these and other commodities like textiles were not the only
cross-border interactions which increased from the sixteenth century.
Holland’s economic growth depended not only on low priced commodities
produced by cheap labour in the periphery, but its wealth also attracted
many migrants from Germany. A large proportion of the new inhabitants
of the blossoming Dutch cities in the seventeenth century came from
Germany (Lucassen, 2002). Besides these hundreds of thousands of
German migrants in the seventeenth century, the Netherlands also
attracted tens of thousands of seasonal migrants from across the border
every year during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These mostly
landless proletariats profited from the three times higher wages in Holland
for day labourers. In Germany they lived with their families near the
border in regions with poor sandy soils in mostly small leased dwellings
with tiny subsistence farming plots. In exchange they had to work on the
farm of the land owner. In early spring they ploughed his land and in late
summer and autumn they helped with the harvest. The peak in demand
for labour in the Netherlands was in late spring and early summer for hay
making and peat digging, which fitted in very well with their agricultural
calendar. Between the ploughing in early spring and the harvest in late
summer and autumn most able bodied men could travel to the
Netherlands and earn money. At home, their family took care of their
small family farm. In some cases they also participated in a cottage
industry producing goods for Dutch controlled markets. These crossborder relations provided additional livelihood opportunities sustaining a
much larger rural population in these German regions than their poor
sandy soils could otherwise have supported (Bölker-Schlicht, 1987, 1992;
Lucassen, 1984, 1988, 2002; Knottnerus, 1992).
These Hollandgänger are early examples of border surfers profiting
from price differentials across borders. The institutional differences linked
to state formation did not hinder interaction. On the contrary, these
diverging structures of territorial governance on both sides of the border
stimulated cross-border behaviour. In the nineteenth century, German
unification and industrialisation reversed the price differential. The
German landless proletariat could then earn higher wages in Germany.
Consequently, some workers in the southern Netherlands were also
attracted by the high wages, especially in the coal mines of the Ruhr area
(Bouwens, 2008; Lucassen 1988).
BORDER MIGRATION WAVES BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE
NETHERLANDS
After the decline in cross-border behaviour linked to the two World Wars,
European Integration gradually increased the possibilities for the
inhabitants of border regions to profit again from price differentials. This
was initially focussed on consumer goods, but later more intensive forms
of cross-border behaviour emerged. Two waves of migrants characterise
border migration between the Netherlands and Germany. At the end of
the 20th century some Germans, especially near the south of the
Netherlands around Aachen, migrated to the Dutch side of the border. In
the last decade this wave has died down and has been superseded by a
larger wave of Dutch migrating to the German side of the border.
The booming German economy of the last decades of the previous
millennium forced German real estate prices up. In the Netherlands the
real estate prices, especially in the southern peripheral border region,
were much lower. This was also related to differences in building
regulations making German houses much more expensive. The more lax
Dutch building regulations, with for instance much less stringent norms for
heat insulation, made Dutch houses much cheaper to build than German
houses. Especially near the south of the Netherlands around Aachen
significant numbers of Germans migrated to the Dutch side of the border.
In the mid 1990s 30% of the inhabitants of Vaals and 10% of the
inhabitants of Kerkrade were German (Bouwens, 2008).
This has changed in the last decade. Dutch property prices have
more than doubled, while those in Germany have remained almost the
same. The Dutch market is still driven by a relative shortage due to
planning restrictions and a growing population. In Germany the demand
for housing is declining and planning regulations make it easier to develop
new housing sites than in the Netherlands. In addition, due to EU
harmonisation Dutch building regulations have become stricter, while the
Germans relaxed some of their regulations. As a consequence the price
differential between Dutch and German houses has turned around. A new
tax law was the crucial factor behind the wave of Dutch entering the
German property market. This abolished differences in the way Dutch and
German property was assessed for Dutch taxation. In 2001 the Dutch
changed their income tax regulations, making it possible for Dutch
working in the Netherlands but living in Germany to deduct the mortgage
payments on their German house from their Dutch income taxes. In
addition, the benefits of cheap German car registration, lower local taxes
and much higher child benefits further swell the number of Dutch border
surfers (Strüver, 2005; Dalen et al., 2008; Graef & Mulder, 2003; Houtum
& Gielis, 2006; Huijgen & Reijmer, 2005).
Most border surfers live within 20 kilometres of the border. The rural
German areas close to the Dutch population centres in the border region
near Nijmegen and Twente attract most border surfers. In Kranenburg
near Nijmegen, the Dutch have accounted for about 80% of property sales
since 2001 (Strüver, 2005). In Bad Bentheim with 15,500 inhabitants, the
number of Dutch increased from 350 to more than 1800 between 1998
and 2008. They are concentrated in new housing estates where about
80% of the inhabitants are Dutch (Boersma, 2009, p. 28; Huijgen &
Reijmer, 2005). Despite these similarities the local consequences are not
the same. In Kranenburg the Dutch hardly participate in the local
community (Strüver, 2005). In Bad Bentheim the situation is different, as
Boersma (2009) has observed. Her findings are based on a survey of 42
Dutch families examining the organisation of their everyday lives in
relation to the border. Respondents were especially asked about their use
of shopping, educational, cultural and sporting facilities on both sides of
the border. This was augmented with information from structured
interviews with real estate agents and local officials. As in Kranenburg
almost all border surfers still work in the Netherlands and they migrated
to Germany because of the affordable detached houses. However, in Bad
Bentheim the border surfers live their social life in two countries. These
Dutch migrants shop in both countries. European law gives them the
freedom to choose in which country they use health care facilities.
However, more than two thirds of the Dutch migrants opted for Germany
due to proximity, shorter waiting lists and better quality. Entertainment
facilities are also used in both countries. Dutch theatre and cinema are,
however, preferred because of the language. Two-thirds of those surveyed
are members of a German association. Although the Dutch still have more
social contacts with other Dutch on the other side of the border, they also
have significant social relations with Germans in Bad Bentheim (Boersma,
2009). This contrasts with other border migrants in Kranenburg and those
in France discussed below. In Bad Bentheim almost all Dutch can speak
German. The similarity in the dialect spoken on both sides of the border
also eases social contacts. This area has furthermore a long tradition of
cross-border cooperation which has developed governance structures in
which many different social groups participate. This EUREGIO is well
known and well regarded among the population (Perkmann 2007a). This is
very different from the situation in the border region between Northern
Alsace and Germany discussed below.
FRENCH BORDER COMMUTERS FROM ALSACE TO GERMANY
The large German city of Karlsruhe and its neighbouring towns attract
many French commuters from the Alsatian countryside just across the
border. The everyday life of many French border communities depends on
commuting to Germany. The number of French commuters has doubled in
the 1990s to almost half the labour population in the French border
municipalities (Götschel, 2004, p. 108; REK, 2001). Although only about a
tenth of the Alsatians live in PAMINA, half of all the commuters from
Alsace to Germany (15,020) come from PAMINA (REK 2001). The
Mercedes plants in Wörth and Rastatt, located just a few kilometres from
the border, attract many French workers. Easy access to the French
labour market was even one of the reasons why Mercedes chose these
locations decades ago1.
The higher wages in Germany attract French commuters. Decades
ago, a treaty between France and Germany regulated that people living
and working within 30 kilometres of the national border pay their income
taxes at home. Social security contributions are, however, paid in the
country of employment. As income tax is lower in France and social
security is less expensive in Germany, this bi-national regulation made
cross-border commuting even more profitable. EU regulation subsequently
further improved the rights of cross-border commuters (Nonn, 1999;
Bartels & Ehl, 1999).
Cross-border commuting dominated daily life in the border zone long
before PAMINA, the official EU subsidised cross-border region, was
founded. The long history and extent of cross-border commuting
prompted the establishment of different national institutions to deal with
the practical problems individuals face when commuting across the border
decades ago. For instance governmental agencies, insurance companies,
banks and trade unions have special consulting hours for cross-border
commuters. The INFOBEST information point in the PAMINA office at the
national border however, provides only general information about
regulations for cross-border commuters. For specific questions they refer
to the institutions implementing these regulations (Terlouw, 2008). Other
relevant organisations, like the EURES and the 'comité de défense des
travailleurs frontaliers du haut-rhin´ cover the whole of the Upper Rhine
Valley and have their offices outside PAMINA (EURES, 2008). This border
commuting functions through governance structures operating at different
levels and incorporating different organisations. This takes place without
the involvement of PAMINA, the official EU sanctioned organisation of
cross-border cooperation.
PAMINA unsuccessfully tried in the past to facilitate cross-border
commuting by organising cross-border bus services. These plans failed
partly because the commuters come from many different villages, and
partly because the timetable did not fit with the working hours. However,
every day many coaches packed with commuters cross the border to
Germany. For decades, large companies like Mercedes, Siemens and
Michelin have organised and financed this cross-border transport for their
shift workers. PAMINA could only improve public transport on the way to
the national border, but not across that border (Terlouw, 2008).
Most French living at the border see the other side of the national
border as an integral part of their daily life. Bilingualism, working in
Germany, watching German TV and having German friends are not
regarded as something special, but as normal facts of life. For instance,
when French cross the national border for social reasons, they
predominantly visit Germans, while the Germans who socially cross the
national border predominantly visit Germans. Many even regard it as an
undivided cultural region. However, this is a one-sided regional integration
because for most German villagers in the area the national border remains
a barrier that is hardly ever crossed. Language skills reflect this one-
sidedness. As German proficiency is a prerequisite for entering the
German labour market, all frontaliers are bilingual. This is one of the
reasons why they are quite inconspicuous in Germany and have friendly
relations with their German colleagues (Terlouw, 2008). For both French
and Germans the national border no longer coincides with an economic
border. But in contrast to the French commuters, for Germans the
national border still coincides with strong cultural, linguistic, and social
borders.
The national border dominates the daily life of French villagers on
the border. As they profit from the different possibilities on both sides of
the national border it is a positive element shaping their lives. These
villagers are very open to Germans and Germany. However, very few
have even heard of the official cross-border region PAMINA (Terlouw,
2008).
GERMAN MIGRATION TO ALSATIAN BORDER VILLAGES
The introduction of the common market after 1992 initiated a wave of
German migrants into the border villages in Northern Alsace. EU
regulation extended the previously discussed tax privileges of the
frontaliers to all cross-border commuters. The introduction of the common
market also made it easier to buy a house across the national border and
to migrate. This enabled Germans to take full advantage of lower French
house prices and to profit from the substantial tax privileges for those
commuting within 30 kilometres of the border. Comparable houses in
Germany are several times more expensive, while tax levels are tens of
percent higher (REK, 2001; Bohn, 1997; Bartels & Ehl, 1999). A German
manual worker can live like the middle-classes in France by becoming a
border surfer.
As for the French frontaliers, the role of PAMINA in this type of
cross-border relations is negligible. Employers, insurance companies,
banks, lawyers, schools, municipalities, and real estate agents are all
experienced in helping these German migrants. The volume of this
migration creates a profitable market for suppliers of all kinds of
specialised services (Terlouw, 2008; Bartels & Ehl, 1999).
German and French border surfers are driven by the same forces.
The same asymmetrical regional structure, differences in national
economies, international and EU regulations propel these border surfers.
The low French housing prices, German job opportunities, differences in
national regulation and specific tax benefits for the border zone have
formed both groups. They also live in the same villages, travel the same
routes and do similar work in the same factories. However, although they
share the same economic network and live in the same border villages,
their social networks are largely unconnected. There are several reasons
for this.
German purchases have dominated the housing market in the
French border region since the early 1990s (REK 2001). As new housing
estates especially attracted Germans, those villages which developed large
housing estates in this period attracted the most Germans. As a
consequence, the Germans live in very concentrated areas and have
predominantly German neighbours. Not only have these separate German
neighbourhoods obstructed social contacts with the local population,
coming from different linguistic contexts also hinders social contacts. The
German language skills of the French border villagers give them easy
access to the German labour market and ease communication with
German visitors. However, at home and in their village they speak
Alsatian and French. As most German migrants hardly speak any French,
the language barrier hinders them in developing deeper social relations
with their French fellow villagers. It also hinders them in their contacts
with the French administration. This becomes especially problematic when
their children reach schooling age (Bohn, 1997; Bökenbrink & Vetter,
2001; Terlouw, 2008). The cross-border relations thus become more
complicated when over time territorial regulations of social life become
more important in the daily life of the border surfers. After the steep rise
in German migrants to Alsace in the 1990s their number is now slightly
decreasing.
CROSS-BORDER GOVERNANCE BETWEEN TERRITORIALITY AND
BORDER SURFERS
In the 1980s the European Commission took the initiative to stimulate
cross-border cooperation at the regional level through the INTERREG
programme. This was part of the expansion of European Integration into
the field of regional policy and the strengthening of the territorial cohesion
of the EU (McNeill, 2004, p.15; Donaldson, 2006; Perkmann, 2007, p.
262).
This EU policy stimulates cross-border governance in a similar way
all over Europe. The EU stipulated the type and size of the administrations
eligible for EU funding. This central planning of the institutional and
territorial characteristics of cross-border cooperation transformed many
pre-existing informal arrangements. The earlier forms of cross-border
governance had emerged from local practices of those directly affected by
border problems. Initially, idealistic local politicians committed to the
ideals of European Integration dominated cross-border cooperation. The
horrors of the Second World War motivated them to seek social contacts
across the national border to avoid future wars. This motivated politicians
to promote cross-border cooperation as a goal in itself. Civil servants, like
spatial planners, who were hindered in their work by the border were also
initially important initiators of informal cross-border cooperation based on
their mutual interests, like solving local infrastructural problems across
the border. Connecting roads across the border, building bridges and
sharing sewage facilities are the types of projects these local planning
initiatives focussed on. Sometimes sharing similar economic problems, like
the decline of the textile industry in the EUREGIO area, also motivated
local actors across the border to cooperate (Beck, 1997; Götschel, 2004,
pp. 154-160).
INTERREG funding transformed this kind of informal local crossborder cooperation. It strengthened the organisation of cross-border
cooperation and enabled many cross-border projects. INTERREG not only
generated quantitative, but also qualitative changes. Local administrations
mostly lack adequate personnel to be successful in the complicated and
laborious procedures for getting INTERREG funding. The focus of crossborder cooperation has therefore shifted from the municipalities at the
national border to regional administrative centres further away from the
border (Beck 1997, p. 257).
The dominance of the regional level also changed the logic behind
cross-border cooperation (Götschel, 2004, p. 160). The building blocks of
the INTERREG funded cross-border regions are NUTS level 3 regions. The
highest regional administrative level participating in cross-border
cooperation tends to dominate cross-border cooperation. Their relations
with neighbouring administrations tend to be more competitive than the
relations between local actors who are focussed on reducing the impact of
the border on their relations with their direct neighbours just across the
border. Regional administrations operate more according to a distributive
territorial logic. They want to maximise benefits for the whole of the
population within their territory. They compete with neighbouring
administrations for the same resources. In contrast, those local actors
who initiated cross-border cooperation are all affected by the border which
hinders their relations. Their cooperation is more based on being part of a
network hindered by the border, than on competing territories.
To reduce the dominance of the German side, the French territory
covered by PAMINA near Karlsruhe was expanded in 1995 by including the
administrative district of the Saverne. Located far away from the national
border and having few cross-border relations, its population size made the
distribution of EU funding more equal between France and Germany
(Beck, 1997, p. 302). The equal distribution of projects based on
population size favours the regional population centres away from the
border and neglects the sparsely populated border zone, where daily life
depends on cross-border relations. PAMINA’s focus thus shifted away from
cross-border relations to its territory as a whole. PAMINA’s difficulties in
developing cross-border cooperation gave its institutionalisation an inward
focus and institutionalised interests in status quo (Götschel, 2004, pp.
161, 206). The limited number of state actors involved in PAMINA creates
a closed network that further hindered the development of cross-border
governance (Beck, 1997, pp. 296-300).
The shift from solving common border problems to the equal
territorial distribution of funds made decision making in PAMINA more
contentious. Cooperation in PAMINA shifted from functional governance to
territorial governance, where issues of identity and hierarchical scale
relations hinder closer cooperation (Blatter, 2004, p. 534). The EU induced
focus on the different administrative territories embedded in different
nation states increases the role of national sensitivities and differences in
national identities. At the border the specific and shared problems related
to crossing the border generated a limited and very specific but shared
‘thin’ regional identity (Terlouw, 2009). To avoid these conflicts PAMINA
generated, for instance, many feasibility studies (Beck, 1997, p. 258;
Fuchs & Beck, 2003, p. 71).
Horizontal cross-border cooperation in PAMINA has lost out to
vertical interaction between levels of government. EU policies have
strengthened the vertical integration of policy implementation from
Brussels to local government in favour of cross-border co-operation
(Perkmann, 1999, pp. 661-665). This was not just a top-down process.
The regional level of government used the opportunities of cross-border
cooperation in PAMINA to improve their position compared to other levels
of government. For instance, the French Département du Bas-Rhine used
PAMINA to regain some of the planning powers it had lost to the Region
d’Alsace, while the Süd-Pfalz used it to improve its peripheral position not
only in Rheinland-Pfalz, but also in the Oberrheinkonferenz (Beck, 1997,
p. 310). The region Baden and the city of Karlsruhe use PAMINA to escape
from the focus on Stuttgart in Baden-Württemberg (Götschel, 2004, p.
177). Regions at the national border use their privileged access to crossborder cooperation to strengthen their positions in relation to their
national administrations (Beck, 1997, pp. 206-207).
CONCLUSION
The example of the development of cross-border cooperation in PAMINA
showed that EU regulations on territorial cross-border cooperation can
become detached from the behaviour of the border surfers. The logic of
strengthening the territorial cohesion in the EU by stimulating territorial
development in the border regions directs the focus of cross-border
governance away from the border. This diverges more and more from the
cross-border behaviour of the border surfers which focus on the border
and the possibilities of profiting from differences in regulation and prices
between national territories. While the border surfers profit from diversity,
cross-border cooperation wants to eliminate differences in development in
the border regions. The informal cooperation between affected officials
focussing on cross-border relations was transformed by the EU into an
administrative cooperation focussing on the wider border region. For these
regional administrations the border is not central, but by definition
peripheral, as it marks the boundary of the territories for which they are
responsible. The relations of territorial administrations are more vertical
and cross scales, rather than being horizontal and crossing borders. It is
therefore very difficult to develop cross-border governance at the scale of
the Euroregions, to which the EU delegates the implementation of much of
its cross-border cooperation. Governance could more easily develop at
lower or higher scales. The higher national and international scale has
some possibilities, because it is at this level that decisions are made about
the regulations on which cross-border behaviour is based. At a lower
scale, the border surfers form a potentially powerful interest group which
could participate in cross-border governance, although the examples of
the Dutch, German and French border surfers show that they are very
fluid, fragmented and unorganised.
The different ways in which states regulate their territories create
opportunities for border surfers. This was already the case in the earlymodern period, as our discussion of seasonal migration between Germany
and the Netherlands showed. At that time border surfers could profit from
the different opportunities at both sides of the border while the territorial
states hardly controlled the movement of people across their borders. This
early form of border surfing also endured because people profited from it
on both sides of the border. It increased the subsistence possibilities of
the poor German peasants and provided the wealthy Dutch farmers with
cheap labour at crucial moments. These conditions changed only
gradually. The expansion of the influence of the territorial states during
the 19th century reduced the possibilities for border surfing. The new EU
regulations on the freedom of movement within the EU created new
opportunities for border surfing. Now all inhabitants of EU countries have
become to some extent citizens of the EU. This gives them not only the
right to freedom of movement, but also grants them an increasing number
of economic and social rights within other member states. By living on
both sides of the border, border surfers use not only their EU citizenship,
but are also partially citizens of two different countries. The border surfers
can profit from their complex and sometimes contradictory legal position,
but the uncertainty and the changeability of these regulations makes
these contemporary border surfers quite unstable. When the price
differences between houses in Germany and the Netherlands changed in
the late 1990s, the border migration also changed direction between the
two countries. Border surfers constantly adapt their cross-border
behaviour. They maximise their profit by performing different aspects of
their daily lives on different sides of the border. Border surfers create
cross-border relations and networks based on a strong territorial division.
They are a fluid collective as their daily lives take place in several places
divided by the border. They are also an unstable collective as the costs
and the benefits of border surfing are changeable. Not only do national
regulations change, but for many border surfers the balance between
costs and benefits also changes over time, for instance when their children
reach school age or when later in life their health becomes weaker. This
fluidity, however, hinders their participation in cross-border governance.
Border surfers are nonetheless an interesting category of Europeans
embodying many of the contradictions of the European integration
process.
FOOTNOTE:
1
This is partly based on three field trips with Master students of the
Department of Human Geography and Planning of Utrecht University. The
results of these field trips were also used in a more general publication on
the development of cross-border cooperation (Terlouw, 2008). The field
trips used a quick scan method. After studying general literature on the
border region and specific material on their topic beforehand, our students
spent most of the time in the field interviewing key actors and the local
population. The students did this in dozens of project groups in which they
worked for three weeks, half of which was on location.
The first field trip in 2000 focussed on the cross-border projects
operating in the PAMINA framework. These were the INTERREG co-funded
programmes on municipal cooperation, planning, education, tourism,
cycling, and the museums along the Rhine. Our students explored the
cross-border regional processes that were addressed by these projects.
Their perspective was much broader than the official project evaluation
that focuses on achieving the specific goals stipulated in the INTERREG
subsidy application. Other important border related topics like identity and
cross-border commuting were also studied. The second field trip in 2002
further elaborated different cross-border topics like migration, transport
and cross-border experiences of the population. The role of PAMINA and
the border for other administrative regions within PAMINA like the
arrondissement Saverne and municipal cooperation like the Technology
Region Karlsruhe were also studied. The third field trip in 2004 focussed
on the role of the border for businesses, citizens and the local
administration in villages and towns on opposite sides of the border,
covering most of the border in the PAMINA area.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank three anonymous referees for their
constructive comments.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. & L. O'Dowd (1999) Borders, border regions and
territoriality: contradictory meanings, changing significance, Regional
Studies, 33, 593-604
Bache, I. & S. George (2006) Politics in the European Union, second
edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
Bartels, D., T. Ehl (1999) Elsaß für Neubürger: Ein Leitfaden für
angehende Franzosen, 2. Auflage (Karlsruhe, Info Verlag)
Beck, J. (1997) Netzwerke in der transnationalen Regionalpolitik:
Rhamenbedingungen, Funktionsweise, Folgen (Baden-Baden, Nomos)
Blatter, J. (2003) Beyond hierarchies and networks: institutional logics
and change in transboundary spaces. Governance, 16, 503-526.
Blatter, J. (2004) ‘From spaces of place’ to ‘spaces of flows’? Territorial
and functional governance in cross-border regions in Europe and North
America. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28, 530548.
Boersma, M. (2009), Elastische migratie onder Nederlanders in het DuitsNederlandse grensgebeid (Utrecht: SGPL) (Bachelorthesis)
Bohn, T. (1997) Le mode de vie des menages Allemands de la Bande
Rhenane Nord (Strasbourg : Institut d’Etudes Politiques)
Bökenbrink, C. & S. Vetter (2001) Die grenzüberschreitenden
Wohnsitzverlagerungen innerhalb des Paminaraumes (In Pamina,
Europäische Region mit Zukunft. Speyer: Verlag der Pfälzische
Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften)
Bölsker-Schlicht, F. (1987) Die Hollandgängerei im Osnabrücker Land und
in Emsland: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Arbeiterwanderung vom 17. bis
zum 19. Jahrhundert (Sögel, Emsländischen Landschaft)
Bölsker-Schlicht, F. (1992), Emsländische Arbeitswanderer an den Küsten
der Niederlande und Ostfrieslands. (In: O.S. Knottnerus et al. (ed.),
Rondom Eems en Dollard: Historische verkenningen in het grensgebied
van Noordoost-Nederland en Noordwest-Duitsland. Groningen/Leer:
Schuster Verlag, pp. 361-369)
Bouwens, Sophie (2008), Over de streep: grensarbeid vanuit ZuidLimburg naar Duitsland, 1958-2001. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren
Brenner, N. (2004) New state spaces: urban governance and the rescaling
of statehood (Oxford, University press)
Busse, R., Wismar, M. & Berman, P. C. (2002) The European Union and
Health Services: The Impact of the Single European Market on Member
States (Amsterdam, IOS Press).
CoR (2006) Communicating Europe in cities and regions (Brussels,
Committee of the Regions)
Cresswell, T. (1999) Embodiment, power and the politics of mobility: the
case of female tramps and hobos. Transactions IBG 24, pp. 175-192.
Cresswell, T. (2006) The right to mobility: the production of mobility in
the courtroom. Antipode 38, pp. 735-754.
Cresswell, T. (2010) Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and
Planning D 28, pp. 17-31.
Dalen, H. van, K. Henkens, H. Nicolaas (2008) Emigratie: de spiegel van
Hollands ongenoegen (Den Haag, CBS)
Deas, I. & A. Lord (2006) From a new regionalism to an unusual
regionalism? The emergence of non-standard regional spaces and lessons
for the territorial reorganisation of the state. Urban Studies, 43, 18471877.
Donaldson, A. (2006) Performing regions: territorial development and
cultural politics in a Europe of the Regions. Environment and Planning A,
38, 2075-2092.
Dunn, K. (2010) Embodied transnationalism: bodies in transnational
spaces. Population, Space and Place, 16, 1-9.
EC (2006a) Council regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
EC (2006b) Council regulation (EC) No 1083/2006
EURES (2008). www.eures-t-oberrhein.eu.
Flint, C. & P. Taylor (2007) Political geography: world-economy, nationstate and locality, fifth edition (Harlow, Pearson)
Fuchs, E. & J. Beck (2003) Evaluation intermédiaire du programme
INTERREG III-A PAMINA (Issy-les-Moulineaux, Prognos)
Götschel, U. (2004) Europa – Region – Kommune: Optimierung
europäischer Mehrebenenpolitik durch die Euregio PAMINA? (BadenBaden, Nomos)
Graef, P. & J. Mulder (2003) Wonen over de grens: een onderzoek naar
woonmigratie van Nederlanders naar Duitsland (Enschede, I&O Research).
Greer, S. L. (2006) Uninvited Europeanization: neofunctionalism and the
EU in health policy Journal of European Public Policy, 13, pp. 134-152.
Hérotier, A., Kerwer, D., Knill, C., Lehmkuhl, D., Teutsch, M. & Douillet,
A.C. (2001) Differential Europe: The European Union Impact on National
Policymaking (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield).
Houtum, H. van (2000) An overview of European geographical research on
borders and border regions Journal of Borderlands Studies 15, 1, pp. 5783.
Houtum, H. van & R. Gielis (2006) Elastic migration: the case of Dutch
short-distance transmigrants in Belgian and German borderlands TESG,
97, 2, pp. 195-202.
Huijgen G. & I. Reijmer (2005) Wonen in Duitsland: een kwalitatieve
verkening van actuele ontwikkelingen (Enschede, I&O Research)
Jessop, B, N. Brenner & M. Jones (2008) Theorizing sociospatial relations.
Environment and Planning: D, 26, 389-401.
Jones, M. & G. MacLeod (2004) Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism:
Territory, insurgent politics and the English question, Transactions IBG,
29, 433–452
Keating, M. (2008) Thirty years of territorial politics, West European
Politics, 31, 60-81.
Knottnerus, O.S. (1992) Räume und Raumbeziehungen im Ems Dollart
Gebiet. (In: O.S. Knottnerus et al. (ed.), Rondom Eems en Dollard:
Historische verkenningen in het grensgebied van Noordoost-Nederland en
Noordwest-Duitsland. Groningen/Leer: Schuster Verlag, pp. 11-42)
Löfgren, O. (2008) Regionauts: the transformation of cross-border regions
in Scandinavia European Urban and Regional Studies, 15, 3, pp. 195-209.
Lucassen, J. (1984) Naar de kusten van de Noordzee : trekarbeid in
Europees perspektief, 1600-1900 (Gouda).
Lucassen, J. (1988) Quellen zur Geschischte der Wanderungen, vor allem
der Wanderarbeit, zwischen Deutschland und den Niederlanden vom 17.
Bis zum 19. Jahrhundertb (In: E. Hinrichs, H. van Zon (Hg.):
Bevölkerungsgeschichte im Vergleich: Studien zu den Niederlanden und
Nordwestdeutschland, Aurich, pp. 75- 89.
Lucassen, J. (2002) Immigranten in Holland 1600-1800: een
kwantitatieve benadering (Amsterdam: Centrum voor de Geschiedenis van
Migranten).
MacLeod, G. & M. Jones (2007) Territorial, Scalar, Networked,
Connected: In What Sense a ‘Regional World’? Regional Studies 41, 9, pp.
1177-1191.
McNeill, D. (2004) New Europe: Imagined spaces (London: Arnold).
Newman D. (2006) The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our
‘borderless’ world Progress in Human Geography 30, pp. 143–161.
Newman, D. & A. Paasi (1998) Fences and neighbours in the postmodern
World: boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human
Geography, 22, pp. 186-207.
Nitz, H.J. (1993) The European world-system: a von Thünen interpretation
of its eastern continental sector (In: H.J. Nitz (ed.): The early-modern
world-system in geographical perspective, Stuttgart, pp. 62-83).
Österle, A. (2007) Health care across borders: Austria and its new EU
heighbours. Journal of European Social Policy, 17, pp. 112-124.
Paasi A. (2005) Generations and the development of border studies.
Geopolitics 10, pp. 663–671.
Nonn, H. (1999) Villes et aménagement régional en Alsace (Paris,
Documentation Française).
Perkmann, M (1999) Building governance institutions across European
borders Regional Studies 33, pp. 657-667.
Perkmann, M. (2003) Crossborder regions in Europe, significance and
drivers of regional cross-border co-operation European Urban and regional
studies, 10, pp. 153–171.
Perkmann, M. (2007) Construction of new territorial scales: a framework
and case study of the EUREGIO cross-border region Regional Studies 41,
pp. 253-266.
Perkmann, M. (2007a) Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance:
a comparative study of European cross-border regions Environment and
Planning C, 25, 861-879.
REK (2001) Raumentwicklungskonzept / schema d'amenagement de
l'espace PAMINA (Lauterbourg: PAMINA).
Sack, R. (1986) Human territoriality: its theory and history (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Scott, J. & Houtum H. van, (2009) Reflections on EU territoriality and the
‘bordering’ of Europe Political Geography, 28, 5, 271-273.
Spierings, B. & Velde, M. van der (2008) Shopping, border and
unfamiliarity: Consumer mobility in Europe. Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie 99, 4, 497–505.
Strüver, A. (2005) Spheres of transnationalism within the European
Union: on open doors, thresholds and drawbridges along the DutchGerman border Journal of Ethic and Migration Studies, 31, 2, pp. 323-343.
Terlouw, K. (2008) The discrepancy in PAMINA between the European
image of a cross-border region and cross-border behaviour GeoJournal 73,
pp. 103-116.
Terlouw, K. (2009) Rescaling Regional Identities: Communicating Thick
and Thin Regional Identities Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 9, pp.
452-464.
Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, Capital, and European States AD 990-1990
(Cambridge, Blackwell).
Wallerstein, I. (1974) The modern world-system: capitalist agriculture and
the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century (New
York, Academic press).
Waters, J. (2003) Flexible citizens? Transnationalism and citizenship
amongst economic immigrants in Vancouver, Canadian Geographer 47,
pp. 219 -234.