This article examines soft spaces, soft outcomes and soft infrastructure, trying
to make some connections between them. We argue that soft spaces of governance
constitute one of the most important but little understood components of
contemporary sub-national economic development policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allmendinger, P. & Haughton, G.
(forthcoming) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and metagovernance: The new spatial
planning in the Thames Gateway, Environment and Planning
A.
2.
AminA. (2002) Spatialities of
globalisation, Environment and Planning A,
34(3), pp.
385–399.
3.
Audit Commission (1989)
Urban Regeneration and Economic Development: The Local
Government Dimension (London:
HMSO).
4.
Audit Commission (1999)
A Life's Work: Local Authorities, Economic Development and
Urban Regeneration (Abingdon:
Audit Commission).
GoodwinM.JonesM.JonesR. (2005) Devolution, constitutional
change and economic development: understanding the shifting economic and
political geographies of the British state, Regional
Studies, 39, pp.
421–436.
HaughtonG.AllmendingerP. (2007a) Growth and social
infrastructure in spatial planning, Town and Country
Planning, 76(Nov.), pp.
388–391.
10.
HaughtonG.AllmendingerP. (2007b) ‘Soft
spaces’ in planning, Town and Country
Planning, 76(Sept.), pp.
306–308.
11.
HM Treasury (2007)
Review of Sub-National Economic Development and
Regeneration (London:
HMSO).
12.
JessopB. (2000) The crisis of the national
spatio-temporal fix and the ecological dominance of
globalizing, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 24(2), pp.
323–360.
13.
JessopB. (2004) Multi-level governance and
multi-level metagovernance changes in the European Union as integral moments
in the transformation and reorientation of contemporary
statehood, in: BacheI.FlindersM. (Eds) Multi-Level Governance, pp.
49–74
(Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
14.
LyonsM. (2007) The Lyon's Inquiry into Local
Government. Executive Summary
(London:
HMSO).
