Regional cooperation involves cooperative networks of local and regional public, private, and nonprofit bodies, working with higher levels of government, that focus their economic development efforts for the benefit of their region or group of regions as a whole. The assumption is that regional cooperation is “good” and may be able to address some of the shortcomings of competition for private investment among individual localities. This article seeks to evaluate that assumption by critically examining the opportunities and challenges for government involvement in regional cooperation through a comparative review of the urban economic development literature for the United States and Western Europe.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADE& Enterprise plc. 1999. Evaluation of research, technological development and innovation related actions under structural funds in objective 2 regions. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1981. Regional growth: Interstate tax competition. Washington, DC: U.S.Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
3.
Amin, A., and N. Thrift, eds. 1994. Globalization, institutions, and regional development in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
Arndt, O., and R. Sternberg. 2000. Do manufacturing firms profit from intraregional innovation linkages? An empirical based answer. European Planning Studies8: 465-485.
5.
Ashcroft, B. 1982. The measurement of the impact of regional policies in Europe: A survey and critique. Regional Studies16 (4): 287-305.
6.
Bachtler, J., and R. Michie. 1995. A new era in EU regional policy evaluation? The appraisal of the structural funds. Regional Studies29 (8): 745-751.
7.
Baldassare, M. 1989. Citizen support for regional government in the new suburbia. Urban Affairs Quarterly24: 460-469.
8.
Bartik, T. 1991. Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
9.
Blair, J., and R. Premus. 1987. Major factors in industrial location: A review. Economic Development Quarterly1: 72-85.
10.
Brenner, N. 2002. Decoding the newest “metropolitan regionalism” in the USA: A critical overview. Cities19 (1): 3-21.
11.
Brüderl, J., and P. Preisendörfer. 1998. Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Business Economics10: 213-225.
12.
Burstein, M., and A. Rolnick. 1995. Congress should end the economic war among the states. The Region9: 3-20.
13.
Camhis, M., and S. Fox. 1992. The European Community as a catalyst for European urban networks. Ekistics59: 4-6.
14.
Cheshire, P., and I. Gordon. 1995. European integration: The logic of territorial competition and Europe’s urban system. In Cities in competition, edited by J. Brotchie, M. Batty, E. Blakely, P. Hall, and P. Newton. Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
15.
Church, A., and P. Reid. 1995. Transfrontier co-operation, spatial development strategies and the emergence of a new scale of regulation: The Anglo-French border. Regional Studies29 (3): 297-316.
16.
Church, A., and P. Reid. 1999. Cross-border co-operation, institutionalization and political space across the English Channel. Regional Studies33 (7): 643-655.
17.
Cisneros, H. G. 1995. Urban entrepreneurialism and national economic growth. Washington, DC: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18.
Commission of the European Communities. 1992. A practical guide to cross-border cooperation. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
19.
Commission of the European Communities. 1993. Community initiatives, an initial assessment: Substantial value-added.Brussels, Belgium: DG Regional Policies.
20.
Commission of the European Communities. 1994. Interregional and cross-border cooperation in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
21.
Commission of the European Communities. 1999. Article 10 ERDF innovation actions: Information society. Brussels, Belgium: DG Regional Policy.
22.
Commission of the European Communities. 2001a. Mid-term state of play of the management plan for DG Regional Policy. Brussels, Belgium: DG Regional Policy.
23.
Commission of the European Communities. 2001b. Twelfth annual report on the structural funds (2000).Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.
24.
Commission of the European Communities. n.d. European cooperation networks. Brussels, Belgium: DG Regional Policies.
25.
Cooke, P. 1996. The new wave of regional innovation networks: Analysis, characteristics and strategy. Small Business Economics8 (2): 159-171.
26.
Cox, K., and A. Mair. 1988. Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers78: 307-325.
27.
Dang-Nguyen, G., V. Schneider, and R. Werle. 1993. Networks in European policy-making: Europeification of telecommunications policy. In Making policy in Europe: The Europeification of national policy-making,edited by S. S. Andersen and K. A. Eliassen. London: Sage.
28.
Dodge, W. R. 1996. Regional excellence: Governing together to compete globally and flourish locally. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
29.
Dodge, W. R., and K. Montgomery. 1996. Shaping a region’s future: A guide to strategic decision making for regions. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
30.
Dommergues, P. 1992. The strategies for international and interregional cooperation. Ekistics59 (352-53): 7-12.
31.
Ernst and Young. 1997. Ex-post evaluation of the 1989-1993 objective 2 programmes: Synthesis report. Final report to the Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, Belgium: DGRegional Policies.
32.
European Parliament. 1996. Cross-border and inter-regional cooperation in the European Union. Luxembourg: DG Research.
33.
Goetz, E., and T. Kayser. 1993. Competition and cooperation in economic development: A study of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Economic Development Quarterly7: 63-78.
34.
Gollub, J. O. 1997. Cluster-based economic development: A key to regional competitiveness. Washington, DC: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
35.
Hall, T., and P. Hubbard, eds. 1998. The entrepreneurial city: Geographies of politics, regime and representation. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
36.
Hamilton, D. 2000. Organizing government structure and governance functions in metropolitan areas in response to change: A critical overview. Journal of Urban Affairs22: 65-84.
37.
Harding, A. 1991. The rise of urban growth coalitions, UK-style? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy9: 295-317.
38.
Hudson, R. 1994. Institutional change, cultural transformation, and economic regeneration: Myths and realities from Europe’s old industrial areas. In Globalization, institutions, and regional development in Europe, edited by A. Amin and N. Thrift. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
Hurrell, A. 1995. Regionalism in theoretical perspective. In Regionalism in world politics: Regional organization and international order, edited by L. Fawcett and A. Hurrell. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
Jessop, R. 1995. Regional economic blocs, cross-border cooperation and local economic strategies: Politics, policies and prospects. American Behavioral Scientist38 (5): S674-s715.
41.
Jonas, A. E. G. 1997. Regulating suburban politics: “ Suburbandefense transition,” institutional capacities, and territorial reorganization in Southern California. In Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy, edited by M. Lauria. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Kelleher, J., et al. 1999. The thematic evaluation of the partnership principle: Final synthesis report. Brussels, Belgium: DG Regional Policy.
43.
Knight, R. V. 1995. Knowledge-based development: Policy and planning implications for cities. Urban Studies32 (2): 225-260.
44.
Leitner, H., and E. Sheppard. 1999. Transcending interurban competition: Conceptual issues and policy alternatives in the European Union. In The growth machine twenty years after, edited by A. Jonas and D. Wilson. New York: State University of New York Press.
45.
Levy, J. 1992. The US experience with local economic development. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy10: 51-60.
46.
Lovering, J. 1999. Theory led by policy: The inadequacies of the “new regionalism.”; International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23: 379-395.
47.
MacKinnon, D., A. Cumbers, and K. Chapman. 2002. Learning, innovation and regional development: A critical appraisal of recent debates. Progress in Human Geography36 (3): 293-311.
48.
MacLeod, G. 2001. New regionalism reconsidered: Globalization and the remaking of political economic space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25: 804-829.
49.
Markusen, A. 1999. Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies33: 859-884.
50.
Marlow, D. 1992. Eurocities: From urban networks to a European urban policy. Ekistics59: 28-32.
51.
Martin, R., and P. Sunley. 2001. Rethinking the “economic” in economic geography: Broadening our vision or losing our focus? Antipode33: 148-161.
52.
Martinos, H., and E. Humphreys. 1992. Transnational networks: Evolution and future issues. Ekistics59: 13-20.
53.
McEldowney, J. J. 1991. Evaluation and European regional policy. Regional Studies25: 261-265.
54.
Murray, R. 1991. Local space: Europe and the new regionalism: Economic practice and policies for the 1990s. Manchester, UK: Centre for Local Economic Strategies.
55.
Nicol, W. R. 1982. Estimating the effects of regional policy: A critique of the European experience. Regional Studies16 (3): 199-210.
56.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1993. Territorial development and structural change: A new perspective on adjustment and reform. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
57.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Peirce, N. R. 1993. Citistates: How urban America can prosper in a competitive world. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press.
59.
Peters, A. H., and P. S. Fisher. 1997. Do high-unemployment states offer the biggest business incentives? Results for eight states using the “hypothetical firm” method. Economic Development Quarterly11 (2): 107-122.
60.
Porter, M. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
61.
Porter, M. 1995. The competitive advantage of the inner city. Harvard Business ReviewMay–June: 55-71.
62.
Putnam, R. 1993. The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect13: 35-42.
63.
Rees, N. 1997. Inter-regional cooperation in the EU and beyond. European Planning Studies5 (3): 385-406.
64.
Rubin, I., and H. Rubin. 1987. Economic development incentives: The poor (cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Quarterly23: 37-62.
65.
Sabel, C. 1994. Flexible specialisation and the re-emergence of regional economies. In Post-Fordism: A reader, edited by A. Amin. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
66.
Scott, A. J. 1998. Regions and the world economy: The coming shape of global production, competition, and political order. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
Scott, J. W. 1999a. European and North American contexts for cross-border regionalism. Regional Studies33: 605-617.
68.
Scott, J. W. 1999b. Evolving regimes for local transboundary cooperation: The German-Polish experience. In Curtains of iron and gold: Reconstructing borders and scales of interaction, edited by H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen, and J. Oska. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
69.
Sternberg, R. 1999. Innovative linkages and proximity: Empirical results from recent surveys of small and medium sized firms in German regions. Regional Studies33: 529-540.
70.
Storper, M. 1995. The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies2 (3): 191-221.
71.
Thierstein, A., and U. K. Egger. 1998. Integrated regional policy: Lessons from Switzerland. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy16: 155-172.
72.
van den Berg, L., L. H. Klaassen, and J. van der Meer. 1990. Marketing metropolitan regions. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University.
73.
Whitelegg, D. 2002. A battle on two fronts: Competitive urges “inside” Atlanta. Area34 (2): 128-138.
74.
Wolman, H. 1996. The politics of local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly10: 115-150.
