http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6775-0664
![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Focusing on three of the Central and Eastern European countries – Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary – the paper investigates the evolution of spatial planning systems and the introduction of strategic planning practices from the beginning of the post-communist transition in the early 1990s to the present. It sheds new light on this issue by applying the conceptual lens of historical institutionalism to explain this process and elucidate the role of the accession to the European Union (EU) as a catalyst for change. In particular, the paper identifies and analyses the critical junctures at which path dependencies emerged and later constrained the capacity of the regional and local actors to adjust to the EU Cohesion Policy framework and engage in strategic planning as part of it.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to André Sorensen for his inspiration and very helpful feedback. Also many thanks to Michael Hebbert and John Gold for their constructive comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Marcin Dąbrowski is an Assistant Professor at the Chair of Spatial Planning and Strategy in the Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology. In the past, he worked at the University of Vienna and at the European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, conducting research on (EU) regional and urban policies in European countries, with a focus on governance issues. He published widely on EU Cohesion Policy, including its impacts on spatial planning practices in Central and Eastern Europe. His research interests, however, span across many topics related to urban and regional governance, from regional strategies for circular economy or energy transition, to climate change adaptation in cities.
Katarzyna Piskorek is a PhD Candidate at Wroclaw University of Technology and a Visiting Researcher at Delft University of Technology. In her core research work, she uses linguistic and communication theory as an explanation for social mechanisms and public participation phenomena in spatial planning. Her work focuses on communication issues between local authorities and citizens, not only in theory but also in practice, as well as on spatial planning systems in Europe.
ORCID
Marcin Dąbrowski http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6775-0664
Notes
1 Committee on Spatial Development. ESDP.
2 Faludi and Waterhout, The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective.
3 Faludi, “From European Spatial Development to Territorial Cohesion Policy”; and Polverari and Bachtler, “The Contribution of European Structural Funds to Territorial Cohesion.”
4 Dühr, Colomb, and Nadin, European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation.
5 Faludi, “Centenary Paper: European Spatial Planning,” 1.
6 Bache, Europeanization and Multi-Level Governance.
7 Bachtler, Mendez, and Oraže, “From Conditionality to Europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe”; andDąbrowski, “Shallow or Deep Europeanisation?”
8 Manzella and Mendez, “The Turning Points of EU Cohesion Policy.”
9 OECD, How Regions Grow.
10 Bachtler, Mendez, and Oraže, “From Conditionality to Europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe”; and Dąbrowski, “EU Cohesion Policy, Horizontal Partnership and the Patterns.”
11 Stead and Cotella, “Differential Europe”; Stead and Nadin, “Shifts in Territorial Governance”; Cotella, “Spatial Planning in Poland”; Scherpereel, “EU Cohesion Policy and the Europeanization of Central and East European Regions”; Ferry and McMaster, “Implementing Structural Funds in Polish and Czech Regions”; Brusis, “Between EU Requirements, Competitive Politics, and National Traditions”; Hughes, Sasse, and Gordon, “Conditionality and Compliance in the EU’s Eastward Enlargement”; and Ferry and McMaster, “Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy.”
12 Hall and Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”; Pierson and Skocpol, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science”; Sorensen, “Taking Path Dependence Seriously”; and Mahoney and Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change.
13 Sorensen, “Taking Path Dependence Seriously.”
14 Ferry and McMaster, “Implementing Structural Funds in Polish and Czech Regions”; Bachtler and McMaster, “EU Cohesion Policy and the Role of the Regions”; Dąbrowski, “EU Cohesion Policy, Horizontal Partnership and the Patterns”; and Adams, Cotella, and Nunes, Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning.
15 Böhme and Waterhout, “The Europeanization of Planning,” 227.
16 Dühr, Colomb, and Nadin, European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation, 301.
17 See: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/sum_en.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2014.
18 Dühr, Colomb, and Nadin, European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation.
19 Nedović-Budić, “Adjustment of planning practice.”
20 Stead and Nadin, “Shifts in Territorial Governance.”
21 Maier, “11 The Pursuit of Balanced Territorial Development”; and Finka, “5 Evolving Frameworks for Regional Development.”
22 Faludi, “Centenary Paper: European Spatial Planning”; and Stead and Nadin, “Shifts in Territorial Governance.”
23 Dühr, Colomb, and Nadin, European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation.
24 Adams, Cotella, and Nunes, Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning.
25 Reimer, Getimis, and Blotevogel, “Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe,” 10.
26 Malý and Ondřej, “European Territorial Cohesion Policies.”
27 Ferry and McMaster, “Implementing Structural Funds in Polish and Czech Regions.”
28 Cotella, “Spatial Planning in Poland.” Maier, “Changing Planning in the Czech Republic.”
29 Pallagst and Mercier, “Urban and Regional Planning in Central and Eastern European Countries.”
30 Hall and Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.”
31 Sorensen, “Taking Path Dependence Seriously.”
32 Mahoney, “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology,” 507.
33 Sorensen, “Taking Path Dependence Seriously,” 21.
34 Hall and Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” 942.
35 Cotella and Rivolin, A Conceptual Device for Spreading (Good); Maier, “Changing Planning in the Czech Republic.”
36 Hladík and Kopecký. “Public Administration Reform in the Czech Republic.”
37 Cotella, “Spatial Planning in Poland.”
38 Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, “Governance by Conditionality.”
39 Bafoil et al., “Jumelages Institutionnels.”
40 Law on introduction of the three-tier basic territorial division of the state (Dz.U. 1998.96.603); Law on regional self-government (Dz.U. 1998.91.576 ze zm).
41 Regulski, Local Government Reform in Poland.
42 Law from 27 March 2003 on spatial planning and arrangement (Dz.U. 2003 nr 80 poz. 717).
43 Law from 6 December 2006 on the principles of implementation of development policy (Dz.U. 2006 nr 227 poz. 1658).
44 Ferry and Mcmaster, “Implementing Structural Funds in Polish and Czech Regions.”
45 Building Act, 183/2006.
46 WBU, Studium Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Pogranicza Polsko–Czeskiego.
47 Regional Support Act from June 2000.
48 Brusis, “Between EU Requirements, Competitive Politics, and National Traditions.”
49 Buzogány and Korkut, “Administrative Reform and Regional Development Discourses in Hungary”; and Varró and Faragó, “The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary.”
50 Brusis, “Between EU Requirements, Competitive Politics, and National Traditions.”
51 Varró and Faragó, “The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary.”
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 Sedelmeier, “Is Europeanisation through Conditionality Sustainable?”
55 Hughes, Sasse, and Gordon, “Conditionality and Compliance in the EU’s Eastward Enlargement.”
56 OECD, Territorial Reviews: Poland 2008, 211.
57 Cotella, “Spatial Planning in Poland.”
58 Maier, “Changing Planning in the Czech Republic.”
59 Polverari et al., “Strategic Planning for Structural Funds in 2007–2013.”
60 Buzogány and Korkut, “Administrative Reform and Regional Development Discourses in Hungary,” 1573.
61 Varró and Faragó, “The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary.”
62 Dąbrowski, “EU Cohesion Policy, Horizontal Partnership and the Patterns.”
63 If one considers the pre-accession funding as part of PHARE as a ‘warm up’ in which only a few municipalities took part.
64 See summary Partnership Agreement EU–Poland for 2014–2020: http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/pa/partnership-agreement-poland-summary_en.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2016.
65 See summary of the Partnership Agreement EU–Czech Republic for 2014–2020: http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/pa/partnership-agreement-czech-summary_en.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2016.
66 See Summary of the Partnership Agreement EU–Hungary for 2014–2020: http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/pa/partnership-agreement-hungary-summary_en.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2016.