If finally accepted, the new concept of territorial cohesion could mean a formal planning role for the European Union. The paper traces the French roots of this concept. As other concepts in European integration, it is subject to multiple interpretations. The initial focus has been on regional economic development as such. At present, territorial cohesion is also held to mean (for example, in the White Paper on European Governance) the co-ordination of policies with an impact on one and the same territory. Originally adhering to a more interventionist approach to spatial planning, the French have learned to factor balanced and sustainable development, concerns of the so-called comprehensive integrated approach, into the equation. Germans, in turn, are seeing sense in the new French focus on 'services of general economic interest'. Experts from both countries agree on the need for a spatial framework for Community policies. Such a framework would look somewhat like the European Spatial Development Perspective, but as part of territorial cohesion policy as a shared responsibility of the Union and its member-states. This would vindicate ideas of the French pioneers of European spatial planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aer (Assembly Of European Regions, Commi-Sion V, Infrastructure And Regional Development) (n.d.) [1995] Regions and Territories in Europe: The Regions' View of European Policies. Strasbourg: AER.
2.
Alvergne, C. and Musso, P.F. (2000) Amenagement du territoire et prospective: Chroniques d'un devenir en construction, Territoires 2020:Revue d'études et de prospective, 1, pp. 47-55.
3.
Arl (Akademie Fur Raumforschung Und Lan-Desplanung) (1996) Europaische Raumentwicklungspolitik: Rechliche Verankerung im Vertrag über die Europaische Union, Arbeitsmaterial No. 233. Hanover: Verlag der ARL.
4.
Bailly, A. (2001) Conclusions: Europe, today, tomorrow, in: A. Bailly and A. Fremont (Eds) Europe and Its States: A Geography, pp. 195-197. Paris : La Documentation Française.
5.
Bailly, A. and Fremont, A. (Eds) (2001) Europe and Its States: A Geography . Paris: La documentation Française .
6.
Balme, R. and Jouve, B. (1996) Building the regional state: Europe and territorial organization in France, in: L. Hooghe (Ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Goverance, pp. 219-255. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Barnier, M. (2002) Postface, in: C. HussoN L'Europe sans territoire: Essay sur le concept de cohésion territoriale, pp. 201-203. Paris : DATAR/editions de l'aube.
8.
Benz, A. (2002) How to reduce the burden of coordination in European spatial planning, in: A. Faludi (Ed.) European Spatial Planning, pp. 149-155. Cambridge, MA : Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
9.
Bmvbw (Bundesministerium Für Verkehr, Bauwesen Und Stadtebau) (n.d.) [2002] Empfehlungen des Beirats für Raumordnung, 14. Legislaturperiode des Deutschen Bundestages. Berlin: BMVBW.
10.
Böhme, K. (2002) Nordic echoes of European spatial planning: discursive integration in practice . Nordregio R2002:8, Nordregio , Stockholm.
11.
Brbs (Bundesministerium Für Raumordnung, Bauwesen Und Stadtebau) (1995) Principles for a European Spatial Development Policy . Bonn: BRBS.
12.
Brunet, R. (1989) Les Villes europeennes: Rapport pour la DATAR, Délégation a l'Aménagement du Territoire et à l'Action Régionale, under the supervision of Roger Brunet, with the collaboration of Jean-Claude Boyer et al., Groupement d'Interet Public RECLUS. Paris: La Documentation Française.
13.
Burnham, J. (1999) Contrasts and contradictions in French regional policy: from de Gaulle to Chirac, from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Amsterdam, from central direction to local cooperation, in: M. Allison and O. Heathcote (Eds) Forty Years of the Fifth French Republic: Actions, Dialogues and Discourses, pp. 77-94. Bern: Peter Land AG, European Academic Publishers.
14.
Camagni, R. (2002) On the concept of territorial competitiveness: sound or misleading?, UrbanStudies, 39(13), pp. 2395-2411.
15.
Cec (Commission Of The European Communities) ( 1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the Community's Territory. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
16.
CEC (1997) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Regional Development Studies28. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
17.
CEC (1999a) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
18.
CEC (1999b) The Structural Funds and their Coordination with the Cohesion Fund. Guidelines for Programmes in the Period 2000-2006. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
19.
CEC (2000) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies: France. Regional development studies 28E. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
20.
CEC (2001a) European Governance: A White Paper. Communication from the Commission, COM (2001) 428. Brussels: CEC.
21.
CEC (2001b) Unity, Solidarity, Diversity for Europe, its People and its Territory, Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Preliminary edition. Brussels: CEC.
22.
CEC (2001c) Communication from the Commission: A Sustainable Europe for a Better World—A European Strategy for Sustainable Development. COM (2001) 264 final. Brussels : CEC.
23.
CEC (2003) Structural Policies and European Territories: Competitiveness, Sustainable Development and Cohesion in Europe-From Lisbon to Gothenburg. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
24.
Chicoye, C. (1992) Regional impact of the Single European Market in France, Regional Studies, 26(4), pp. 407-411.
25.
Cole, A. (1998) French Politics and Society. New York: Prentice Hall.
26.
Commission Services (1999) Report on Community Policies and Spatial Planning. Working document of the Commission services, presented at the ESDP Forum of 2/3 February , Brussels.
27.
Datar (2002) European regional policy after 2006: initial thoughts. Non-paper, presented to the meeting of the Spatial and Urban Development Group of the Committee on the Development and Coversion of Regions on 25 June, Brussels.
28.
Dupuy, G. (2000) L' amenagement du territoire vu par un amenageur , Territoires 2020: Revue d'études et de prospective , 1, pp. 11-13.
29.
Eising, R. and Kohler-Koch, B. (1999) Governance in the European Union: a comparative assessment, in: B. Kohler-Koch And R. Eising (Eds) The Transformation of Governance in the European Union (ECPR Studies in European Policy Science 12), pp. 267-285. London: Routledge.
30.
European Convention (2003) Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Draft, CONV 797/1/03, 2 vols, Brussels, 13 June (http://european-convention.eu.int/ ).
31.
Faludi, A. (1997) European spatial development policy in 'Maastricht II', European Planning Studies, 5(4), pp. 535-543.
32.
Faludi, A. (2003) Unfinished business: European spatial planning in the 2000s, Town Planning Review, 78(1), pp. 121-140.
33.
Faludi, A. and Peyrony, J. (2001) The French pioneering role, Built Environment, 27, pp. 253-262.
34.
Faludi, A. and Waterhout, B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan. London: Routledge.
35.
Federal Ministry For Regional Planning, Building And Urban Development (1993) Guidelines for Regional Planning: General Principles for Spatial Development in the Federal Republic of Germany . Bonn.
36.
Frémont, A. (2001) France, in: A. Bailly and A. Frémont (Eds) Europe and Its States: A Geography, pp. 81-95. Paris: La Documentation Française.
37.
Gatawis, S. (2000) Grundfragen eines europdischen Raumordnungsrechts. Beitrage zur Raumplanung und zum Siedlungs- und Wohnungswesen, Bd. 196. Münster: Selbstverlag des Zentralinstituts fur Raumplanung und des Instituts fur Siedlungs- und Wohungswesen der Universitat Münster .
38.
Graute, U. (2002) Kooperation in der Europäischen Raumentwicklungspolitik: Mehrebenenkooperation in komlexen Politikprozessen alanysiert am Beispiel der Formulierung und Implementierung einer Politik zur integrierten Entwicklung des europäischen Raumes. (IOR-Schriften Band 37). Dresden : Institut fur okologische Raumentwicklung e.V.
39.
Gravier, J.F. (1947) Paris et le desert français. Paris: Flammarion.
40.
Guigou, J.L. (1995) Une ambition pour le territoire: aménager l'espace et le temps. Paris: editions de l'aube.
41.
Guigou, J.-L. (Ed.) (2000) Aménager la France de 2020: Mettre les territories en mouvement. DATARParis: La documentation Française.
42.
Guigou, J.-L. (2001) Europe and territorial planning, in: A. Bailly and A. Frémont , (Eds) Europe and Its States: A Geography, pp. 3-4. Paris : La Documentation Française.
43.
Guyomarch, A., Machin, H. and Ritchie, E. (1998) France in the European Union. Hound-mills: Macmillan Press Ltd.
44.
Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
46.
Husson, C. (1999) La cohesion territoriale: genese d'une revendication , in: H. Pauliat (Ed.) Le cohésion territoriale et les services public en Europe: Interprétation et portée de l'article 7 D du traité d'Amsterdam, pp. 45-66. Universite de Limoges, Faculte de Droit et des Science economiques de Limoges, Pulim , Limoges.
47.
Husson, C. (2002) L'Europe sans territoire: essay sur le concept de cohésion territoriale. Paris: DATAR/editions de l'aube.
48.
Knieling, J., Fürst, D. and Danielzyk, R. (2001) Kann Regionalplanung durch kooperative Ansatze eine Aufwertung erlangen?, Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 59(2-3), pp. 184-191.
49.
Levy, J. (1997) L'Europe, une géographie. Paris : Hachette.
50.
Liepitz, A. (1995) Avoiding megapolization: the battle of Île de France , European Planning Studies, 3(2), pp. 143-154.
51.
Pauliat, H. (Ed.) (1999) Le cohésion territoriale et les services public en Europe: interpretation et portée de l'articLe 7 D du traité d'Amsterdam. Universite de Limoges, Faculte de Droit et des Science economiques de Limoges, Pulim, Limoges.
52.
Peyrony, J. (2002) Le schéma de développement de l'espace communautaire . Paris: La Documentation Française DATAR.
53.
Ritter, E.-H., Benz, A., David, C.-H. ET AL. (2003) Raumentwicklungspolitik im Europdischen Verfassungsvertrag: Positionspapier aus der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung. Studies in Spatial Development3. Hanover: Verlag der ARL.
54.
Robert, J., Stumm, T., Vet, J.M. ET AL. (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and the Costs of Non-coordination. Brussels: European Commission.
55.
Siedentop, L. (2000) Democracy in Europe. London : Allen Lane.
56.
Tetsch, F. (2002) Zum Verhaltnis zwischen EU-Regionalpolitik und nationaler Regionalforderung im Rahmen der Bud-Lander-Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur" (GA)Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 60(3-4), pp. 195-208.
57.
Wilks-Heeg, A., Perry, B. and Harding, A. (2003) Metropolitan regions in the face of the European dimension: regimes, re-scaling or repositioning?, in: A. Kreukels, W. Salet and A. Thornley. (Eds) Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning, pp. 20-38. London: Routledge.
58.
Williams, R.H. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning. London: Chapman Publishing.
59.
Working Group (2001) Multi-level governance: linking and networking the various regional and local levels (Group 4c) ( http://europa.eu.int/governance/arreas/group10/index_en.htm).
