The Rise of Territorial Governance in European Policy

Abstract

The notion of territorial governance has relatively recently emerged onto the European policy agenda, and often used in relation to the concept of territorial cohesion. To date, the notion has been understood and conceptualized in various ways and has been defined rather loosely when invoked. This paper examines how the notion is used and understood in European policy debates. It questions whether the notion is different to general concepts of governance and multi-level governance. Three specific characteristics are suggested that might distinguish territorial governance from other types of governance: (i) managing territorial dynamics, (ii) assessing territorial impacts and (iii) delineating policy boundaries.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on research carried out as part of the ESPON TANGO project (Territorial Approaches for New Governance). Opinions expressed in this paper are the author's own and do not represent the views of the ESPON Coordination Unit or the project consortium as a whole. The author is grateful to the other members of the project team (from Nordregio—the Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, Delft University of Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Newcastle University, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Regional Studies and the University of Ljubljana) for comments and discussions that have helped to shape the manuscript. The author would also like to thank two anonymous referees for their kind reviews of the manuscript.

Notes

1. This view relates primarily to the governance of public policy. Other sorts of governance (e.g. corporate governance) may be more concerned with reaching decisions in the private (or public–private) sphere.

2. It is recognized that there are some types of governance (e.g. institutional or corporate governance) that may not be concerned with a specific territory.

3. In common with the concept of territorial governance, a diversity of interpretations of territorial cohesion can be found (see, for example, Faludi, 2007; Servillo, 2010; Evers, 2011).

4. See the previous section for the OECD's definition of territorial governance.

5. CEMAT is the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning.

6. Further elaboration of the notion of territorial governance can be found in 2011 update of the territorial state and perspectives of the European Union (see below).

7. The importance and significance of place and territory are not always clear in Barca's report. Sometimes he refers to functional territories but mainly refers to administrative territories.

8. The white paper on multi-level governance actually says very little about the notion of territorial governance.

9. I do however dispute Davoudi et al.'s view that territorial governance relates to four key issues ((i) vertical coordination, (ii) horizontal coordination, (iii) the participation and involvement of civil society and organized interests and (iv) territorialized actions). Their conceptualization of territorial governance, in my view, represents substantial conflation by including several dimensions of ‘plain’ governance (such as vertical and horizontal coordination, and the participation and involvement of civil society).