HERRSCHEL: REGIONALIZATION IN THE NEW LÄNDER
REGIONS AND REGIONALIZATION IN
THE FIVE NEW LÄNDER OF EASTERN
GERMANY
Tassilo Herrschel
University of Westminster, UK
Towards new regionalization?
Eastern Germany’s transformation process after
unification has been unique among the former socialist eastern European countries, because of the
degree to which ‘western’ (Germany’s) institutional,
societal and economic structures, and related values
and policy goals, were literally extended into the
new eastern Länder. This reflected the accession of
the former GDR to West Germany. There has been
much uncertainty and insecurity within the new system of governance in eastern Germany, because
most actors had little or no prior experience of
democratic principles of local and regional government, and with managing market forces and business
interests. The unprecedented extent of economic
change challenged a regulatory system tailored to,
and honed by, gradual, ‘orderly’ processes of economic development. This had permitted a conventional system of hierarchically organized economic
regulation with fixed territories and a strong emphasis on spatial planning. The reconfiguring space
economy challenged this conventional relationship
between fixed territories of jurisdiction and economic activity, and not only in eastern Germany (see
Barnes and Ledebur, 1998). There are signs that
government institutions, federal to local, are beginning to respond to these challenges by discussing
possible flexibilization (ARL, 1996) in the boundedness (Bennett, 1997) of policy-making spaces, so as
to allow their adjustment to increasingly more variable economic territories. Only then can a sufficiently ‘close match’ and thus policy effectiveness be
achieved (Barnes and Ledebur, 1998). This eurocommentary will discuss the process of establishing
new ‘western-style’ formalized regions in eastern
Germany immediately after unification, and evidence
of differential re-interpretations in favour of more
flexible forms of regionalization, through inter-urban
collaboration (Aigner and Miosga, 1994).
European Urban and Regional Studies 7(1): 63–68
0969-7764[200001]7:1;63–68;011021
General institutional provision for formal
regions
Traditionally, regions have played an important part
in Germany’s system of governance, institutionalized
in the form of the Länder (federal states) and, at a
smaller scale, as planning regions within the hierarchical system of spatial planning. While the former
exercise considerable governmental power, the latter are mere administrative entities, defined by the
Land governments, which do not possess executive
powers themselves. They are now subject to discussions on regionalization between local and Land
levels, much facilitated by developments in post-unification eastern Germany over the last decade. These
include emerging trends towards a more flexible, less
territorially fixed and locally led approach to regionalization with a greater role for strategies rather than
planning (Danielzyk, 1995).
Formal regionalization has been established as an
integral part of the spatial planning system by federal law (1964 Planning and Development Act,
Bundesraumordnungsgesetz, BROG), and includes
three main tiers which correspond to the governmental hierarchy in federal Germany:
1. the national (federal) level with its nationwide responsibility for strategic development planning as
laid down in the Federal Spatial Development
Programme (Bundesraumordnungsprogramm);
2. the Länder (federal states) as the main regional
level of government, responsible for two types of
‘regions’ and their planning:
2. (a) development plans for complete Land territories (Landesplan) as strategic frameworks for
local development planning, and
2. (b) Regional Plans (Regionalpläne) for the Planning
Regions within each Land as defined according
to policy objectives and planning ideals.
Planning regions are not part of the official
hierarchy of territorial governance and serve
solely administrative (planning) purposes;
3. local government with its exclusive responsibility
for local development planning and control (see
Kistenmacher et al., 1994: 44ff.) as part of constitutionally guaranteed local self-government
(Petzold, 1994).
Cooperation between these rather autonomous
local policy-making entities at the regional dimension
is the main focus of discussions on more flexible,
Copyright © 2000 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
63
64
Table 1
Statutory provisions for formal regionalization in the five new Länder
Provisions and
regulations
MecklenburgVorpommern
Saxony
Saxony-Anhalt
Thuringia
Statutory provisions 1992 Land Planning Act
1993 Land Planning Act
1992 Land Planning Act
1992 Land Planning Act
1991 Land Planning Act
Regionalization
institutionalized
through:
RPAsa
consisting of larger
cities (kreisfreie Städte) and
groups of smaller
authorities (Kreise)
RPAs (for regional plans)
and Regional Conferences
(as collaborative fora)
RPAs for five Planning
Regions, close links with
Land Regional Offices
(Regierungsbezirke)
Land Regional Offices
(Regierungsbezirke) as basis
of 3 Planning Regions until
1998, now 5 locally based
regions
RPAs, largely based
around the main cities
Definition of
‘region’
• functional hinterlands of
main cities (even if in
neighbouring Land)
• ‘functionally interdependent social and economic
sectors’
• areas of inter-local
functional networks
• locally supported
regionalization
• cultural-historic regional
entities
• sectors around Berlin,
each including localities
with strong and weak
development prospects
• locally based, selfdetermined regional groupings
• based on social and
economic ‘relative
homo-geneity’, i.e.
functional (and thus policy)
similarities
• areas largely based on
functional catchment areas
of the main cities, similar
to ex-GDR administrative
regions (Bezirke)
• regions as territories of
Keynesian Land policies
• define aims of regional
development
• facilitate indigenous
development potential
• detail Land development
aims of ‘decentralized
concentration’
• utilize indigenous
potential
• reduce intra-regional
disparities
• former Bezirke modified
to show ‘break with past’
• inter-local cooperation
encouraged through new
regionalization
• provide scope for
achieving equal quality of
life
• facilitate ‘balanced’
development in regions
• facilitate Land–local
authority cooperation
• achieve equal quality of
life
• design ‘regional
development concepts’
based on regional economic
audit
• utilization of indigenous
regional development
potential
• ensure environmental
protection
Note: a RPA Regional Planning Association (Regionale Planungsgemeinschaft/Regionaler Planungsverband).
Source: Information collated from Land Planning Acts.
• tackling effects of
economic restructuring
7(1)
Main aims/
objectives
• 2 Land-defined regions to
create economically viable
units
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Brandenburg
HERRSCHEL: REGIONALIZATION IN THE NEW LÄNDER
locally based and essentially modular regionalization.
On this basis, planning regions would no longer be
territorially fixed as the basis of medium to longterm spatial planning, but exist as (temporary) groupings of local governments with common regional
interests. The result may be ‘regional development
strategies’ (Danielzyk, 1995) or Regional Development Concepts as outlined in the last review of the
BROG in 1997.
The statutory provisions for formalized regional
governance have resulted in various interpretations
of the respective roles of Land and local governments and their underlying aims (Schmitz, 1995); between Land-directed, top-down forms of regionalization and a more locally driven, ‘bottom-up’ style of
regional initiative. The former operates ‘regions’ in
the sense of regionalized Land development plans
and strategies, while the latter views ‘regions’ as the
result of voluntary collaboration between local governments. The effectiveness of such ‘bottom-up’
pressure will depend on local institutional capacities,
and the ability to utilize existing powers. Both were
rare among the newly empowered eastern German
local authorities used to an autocratic socialist system (see also Biskup, 1994). This encouraged, at least
initially, a Land-led approach towards establishing ‘regions’ as part of the West German-style government
structure.
Land-specific ‘pathways’ of ‘regionalization’
In all five Länder, relevant legislation for defining and
governing regions was passed between 1991 and
1993 (Müller, 1996), that is at varying stages of the
economic restructuring and re-territorialization
process. Table 1 summarizes some of the key provisions for formal regionalization in the five Länder
through the respective Land Planning Acts. Federal
legislation has provided some commonality, such as a
general provision for establishing ‘regions’. Based on
geographic size, between four and five planning
regions have been established in each Land by the
respective Land governments. These units have no
executive powers, but act as strategic planning
bureaux for the participating local authorities comprising unitary cities and higher tiers of non-metropolitan government (Kreise). The absence of reliable
and sufficiently detailed data on social and economic
parameters as the conventional basis of defining
structure-based planning regions required ‘good
guesses’ to be made instead, based on past West
German experience and the economic situation in
eastern Germany at the beginning of the 1990s.
Overall, regional policy-making frameworks in the
new Länder emerged incidentally, strongly influenced by the professional background of key
‘western’ personnel in the Land governments and
their approach to regionalization, rather than on the
basis of structural economic similarities which became increasingly difficult to assess as a result of the
speed at which changes took place. Administrative
organization and practices in regionalization were
thus transferred directly from western to eastern
Länder (see also Biskup, 1994). For instance,
Brandenburg adopted the managerialist North-Rhine
Westphalian model, despite their very different
economic and geographic structures. MecklenburgVorpommern ended up with a south German planning system, based on very different economic
characteristics. Such institutional transfer did not
allow the use of experiences gained from developments in other, more similar western Länder. In addition, the practical professional expertise of the
‘western’ advisers often dated back to the late
1970s and early 1980s, prior to major restructuring
processes and the subsequent review of Keynesianstyle centrally directed regionalization. Brandenburg
thus embarked on traditional Keynesian-style regional growth management policies by combining
areas of higher and lower growth potential into five
regions around Berlin (Figure 1) as the growth
centre. From there, the regions extend outward to
the thinly populated, economically weaker, peripheral parts of the Land, seeking to direct growth from
the core to the periphery. So far, this concept has
proved difficult to realize, but the Land government
seems convinced of its strengths and shows little
interest in modification. This has resulted in several
local authorities seeking to establish smaller informal
regions, based on common development problems
and related policy agendas. These groupings reflect
the underlying constraints in economic prospects
between the inner parts of these planning regions,
and the more peripheral, outer ones. In the planning
region Prignitz-Oberhavel, for instance, a sense of
‘shared grief ’ among the local authorities of the
outer area has encouraged informal arrangements
within ‘their’ region: the Städtenetz Prignitz (city
European Urban and Regional Studies 2000 7 (1)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
65
66
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES
Figure 1
7(1)
The Länder of eastern Germany
network Prignitz) is a joint effort to market a ‘cultural-historic’ region to the outside world, in the
hope of attracting inward investment (RPP-O, c.
1997).
The remaining three eastern Länder used largely
administrative units for defining formal planning regions. In Thuringia, political factors and sensitivities
were important factors, seeking to obscure the
old GDR administrative regions which were anchored in the three largest cities. Regionalization
based on economic considerations would have
suggested maintaining these regions in principle.
Animosities between rural authorities and the ‘dominant’ larger cities resurfaced from the socialist days,
when major cities acted as ‘distributors’ of orders
from East Berlin. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable
that urban authorities will contrive to lead de facto
the processes of economic development-based regionalization. In Saxony, planning regions sought to
combine economically weaker and stronger local
authorities, in an attempt at strategic economic management. With greater local policy-making expertise
in place, and a clearer picture of a post-socialist space
economy emerging, discussions are now under way
in Saxony and Thuringia about making regional
planning and development much more a local
government matter. Saxony-Anhalt simply designated the areas of its three regional offices
(Regierungsbezirke) as the new Planning Regions (see
Figure 1 and Müller, 1996). They were thus entirely
an administrative construct, and the limitations of
this were soon brought to light by economic changes
and spatially differentiated policy needs. However,
Saxony-Anhalt has begun fundamentally to review
the boundedness of its regions in the light of new
economic realities, having received the results of a
study into the feasibility of regionalizing economic
policy and the respective roles of local and Land government (Benz, 1997). The new emphasis is on more
informal ways of regionalization, such as Regional
Conferences and Regional Fora as network-based
collaborations between groups of local authorities
which have identified common interests. SaxonyAnhalt’s government has gone a step further and is
now replacing the three administration-based regions with five smaller regions derived from economic areas and perceived common policy-making
requirements. Thus it is hoped to encourage policies
and strategies that are more strongly tailored to
regional economic specificities. The considerable
differences in development potentials between the
main urban centres, especially the Halle–Leipzig
European Urban and Regional Studies 2000 7 (1)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
HERRSCHEL: REGIONALIZATION IN THE NEW LÄNDER
region, and the more peripheral, rural areas in the
north of the Land, have been acknowledged, including the emergence of ‘groups of shared grief ’.
Thuringia, too, has received the results of a similar
study (Winkel et al., 1997), but this has not yet led
to changes to regional boundaries.
In principle, three main difficulties in the way of informal, stronger locally based regions have been
identified by Land planners. First, there is a lack of
clear institutional provisions for regions at sub-Land
level within the government hierarchy as a separate,
‘owned’ tier of regional government. Second, the
limited institutional capacity of the many small local
authorities restricts their ambition and ability to engage in regional matters. Third, changes to boundaries are likely to be perceived as undermining the
identity of, and identification with, territories.
Locally based regions as groups of ‘accepted’ local
authority areas could provide a necessary sense of
continuity of territorial identity, and as such provide
credibility and perceived legitimacy for the regions,
something often missing from ‘desk-bound regionalization’. Regions as extensions of local interests into
the regional scale are also likely to attract wider support among local authorities. Further study into the
acceptance of regional territories as policy-making
entities, and the relevance of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ definitions, seems necessary.
Conclusions: post-socialist challenges to
regions
After unification, the transfer of ‘proven’ western
models and practices has increasingly been challenged by the unprecedented force of structural
change in the space economy in eastern Germany.
Uncertainty and the need to act quickly after unification meant that the new administrative structures
were largely imposed ‘top down’, based on existing
structures in the five new Länder. The intense volatility of economic development has challenged those
regulative structures and increasingly encouraged adjustments during subsequent years. The examples of
Brandenburg and Saxony-Anhalt, respectively, illustrate two different paths of regionalization: locally
based, informal regionalization within a rigid, Landimposed territorial-administrative framework, and
Land-facilitated re-territorialization of administra-
tively defined regions into formal ‘regions of common purpose’.
It remains to be seen how the two approaches fare
vis-a-vis the challenges of encouraging economic development. Despite these fundamental differences in
the route towards regionalization, there is now evidence of a review of existing regional regulative
mechanisms across Germany. The ‘Region of the
Future’ campaign by the federal government (BFLR,
1997) illustrates the growing importance attributed
to a new, less institutionally and territorially rigid approach to the ‘region’. These include locally devolved
responsibility for regional development, with local
government areas operating as modular entities of
policy-making regions. This may also encourage the
development of (new) regional identities, supported
by common purpose in policy-making. Nevertheless,
given the inherent differences in local institutional capacity, and genuine economic potential, a varying
degree of central involvement may well be necessary
to provide a general framework of policy design and
implementation.
References
Aigner, B. and Miosga, M. (1994) ‘Stadtregionale
Kooperationsstrategien’, Münchner Geographische
Hefte, No 71. Kallmünz/Regensburg: Michael Laßleben.
ARL (Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung)
(ed.) (1996) Zukunftsaufgabe Regionalplanung.
Wissenschaftliche Plenarsitzung 1995 in Chemnitz.
Hannover: ARL.
Barnes, W. and Ledebur, L. (1998) The New Regional
Economies. London: Sage.
Bennett, R. (1997) ‘Administrative Systems and Economic
Spaces’, Regional Studies 31 (3): 323–31.
Benz, A. (1997) ‘Regionalisierung der Strukturpolitik in
Sachsen Anhalt. Zusammenfassende Ergebnisse der
Wissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung’, unpublished
Annual Report. Halle: Institut für Strukturpolitik und
Wirtschaftsförderung Halle-Leipzig e.V.
BFLR (ed.) (c.1997) ‘Regionen der Zukunft. Regionale
Agenden für eine nachhaltige Raum-und
Siedlungsentwicklung’, Bonn: unpublished.
Biskup, M. (1994) ‘Aktuelle Aspekte der Regional- und
Landesplanung in den Neuen Bundesländern’, in J.
Domhardt and C. Jacoby (eds) Raum- und
Umweltplanung im Wandel. Festschrift für Hans
Kistenmacher, pp. 179–91. Kaiserlautern: Selbstverlag
Universität Kaiserlautern.
European Urban and Regional Studies 2000 7 (1)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
67
68
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES
Danielzyk, R. (1995) ‘Regionalisierte
Entwicklungsstrategien – “modisches” Phenomen oder
neuer Politikansatz?’ in A. Momm et al. (eds)
Regionalisierte Entwicklungsstrategien. Beispiele und
Perspektiven integrierer Regionalentwicklung in Ost- und
Westdeutschland, pp. 9–17. Bonn: Verlag Irene Kuron.
Kistenmacher, H., Geyer, T. and Hartmann, P. (1994)
Regionalisierung in der kommunalen Wirtschaftsförderung.
Cologne: Deutscher Gemeindeverlag/Kohlhammer.
Müller, B. (1996) ‘Impulse aus dem Osten? – Erfahrungen
und Perspektiven der Regionalplanung in den
ostdeutschen Ländern’, in ARL (ed.) Zukunftsaufgabe
Regionalplanung. Wissenschaftliche Plenarsitzung 1995 in
Chemnitz, pp. 31–52. Hannover: ARL.
Petzold, S. (1994) ‘Zur Entwicklung und Funktion der
kommunalen Selbstverwaltung in den neuen
Bundesländern’, in R. Roth and H. Wollmann (eds)
Kommunalpolitik, pp. 34–52. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
RPP-O (Regionale Planungsgemeinschaft Prignitz-
7(1)
Oberhavel, Initiativkreis Nordwest Brandenburg and
Städtenetz Prignitz) (c.1997) ‘Regionale Kooperation im
Spannungsfeld zwischen Metropole und äußerem
Entwicklungsraum. Nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung im
Raum Berlin-Brandenburg’, unpublished submission to
the federal competition ‘Regionen der Zukunft’.
Schmitz, G. (1995) ‘Regionalplanung’, in Handwörterbuch
der Raumordnung, pp. 823–30. Hannover: ARL.
Winkel, R. et al. (1997) ‘Studie zur Umsetzung Regionaler
Entwicklungskonzeptionen im Freistaat Thüringen durch
Interkommunale Kooperation’, Dresden: unpublished.
Correspondence to:
Tassilo Herrschel, School of Social and Behavioural
Sciences, University of Westminster, Regent
Campus, 309 Regent Street, London W1R 8AL, UK.
[email: [email protected]]
REGIONAL ASPECTS OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKET ECONOMY
AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN BELARUS
Vladimir S. Fateyev
National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
Processes of economic transformation and democratization have now been underway in Central and
Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) for over a decade. In this
Euro-commentary, these processes are considered
with particular reference to Belarus.
Gains and losses of economies in
transition
Summarizing the current economic condition of
Belarus, or any other post-socialist European state, is
a complex task. On the one hand, all countries in
transition have travelled a relatively long way in implementing a wide spectrum of reforms and laid a
certain basis for a market economy. On the other
hand, it is obvious that not all of them have achieved
the same results (EBRD, 1997). The political and
economic situation in the CEE and CIS countries is
European Urban and Regional Studies 7(1): 68–84
0969-7764[200001]7:1;68–84;011174
changing very quickly. Reforms are being implemented in many directions, possess a systemic character, have a complex structure and, sometimes,
contradict each other. Since the removal of economic and political barriers, state borders have become more open, so that the situation in the countries in transition is greatly influenced by processes
taking place in other parts of the world. Recent economic shocks in Bulgaria and the current financial and
political crisis in Russia spreading over Belarus,
Ukraine and other countries are illustrations of this.
While yesterday a group of countries could be more
or less definitely defined as leaders in market reforms, today its composition requires review.
Therefore, one may agree with the opinion expressed in an annual economic survey of the UN
Economic Commission for Europe that capitalism in
the transition countries is still in its infancy: it is
growing fast but has not reached maturity and is still
unsettled (UN/ECE, 1995: 18).
What is the place of Belarus in this ‘economic
marathon race’ of the 1990s? If one judges by production output indices it is high. The data in Table 1 testify to the fact that in 1997 GDP grew by over 10 percent, while industrial output was over 17 percent
higher than in the previous year. With regard to the
above data, in 1997 Belarus occupied second or third
place among the CIS countries. It seems that one
should be happy with such results. However, many
Copyright © 2000 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016