![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
The paper provides a theoretical account of the terms peripheralization and polarization, which are used as conceptual contexts. The authors examine whether spatial development in Central and Eastern Europe can be described as a process of polarization and whether this can be seen as the result of current regional and national spatial policies. Empirically, the paper explores ongoing research projects in Ljubljana, Slovenia and Poznań, Poland in relation to the less dynamic parts of these countries in order to identify further research needs. Viewing spatial development in Slovenia and in the Poznań region from the viewpoint of polarization and peripheralization has opened alternative viewpoints on spatial development. A process-based and dynamic approach to investigating disparities should reflect views on the periphery and the center and their specific interrelationships. The perspective of seeing the processes of centralization and peripheralization as related and the combination of structural and socio-political aspects in the constitution of peripheral and central spaces will advance the current state-of-the-art research on spatial development issues in Central and Eastern Europe.
Notes
Parts of previous theoretical texts that have been used as a starting point for this paper are based on joint discussions as well as text contributions of partners in the iCope consortium in elaborating a FP7 proposal in 2010 and 2011. In particular, we want to thank Tomas Hanell, Irma Potoc̆nik Slavic̆ and Tadeusz Stryjakiewicz for their contributions and valuable comments to this paper. Further, we acknowledge the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers.
For example, in terms of global integration, some bigger conurbations and metropolitan regions must be seen as peripheral, too – despite their urbanity and good accessibility.
Looking, for example, at the current process of spatial “categorization” (Raumtypen) in the 2010 spatial monitoring of the German Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadtund Raumforschung, specific, normatively defined thresholds have led to a particular categorization of central and peripheral spaces (BBR Citation2009). Spatial monitoring in Germany will be organized around these attributions for the next couple of years. Further, it is striking that this is based on a purely national analysis without recognizing the impact of metropolitan areas on the other sides of the border, such as Szczecin on the north-eastern part of Germany.
Consisting of the city of Poznań and 17 surrounding municipalities of the Poznań district.
In addition, the average income per capita (2009) in Pilski sub-region amounted to 2,749 zł, which was also considerably lower than the average of the voivodship (2,976 zł) and of Poznań (3,668 zł) as well (www.stat.gov.pl).
Conducted as part of a PhD project at the IfL.
More than 60% of the Slovenian banks and insurance companies are based in Ljubljana, as well as major parts of the public administration (Hamilton 2005: 326).
The reasons for residential suburbanization development especially during the 1980s were a shortage of affordable building land (Schrenk 2010: 817f.), a traditional affinity to rural life and home-ownership (Cerar Citation2006: 23), revitalization of inner urban areas that led to a decrease of residential use, displacement and increase of traffic problems (Stanilov 2007: 436f.) as well as a consequence of neo-liberal policies that were implemented after independence.
The population of Ljubljana dropped between 1991 and 1994 from 276,100 to 270,000, a development that took place in all Slovenian cities with a population greater than 20,000.
Population numbers for 31 December 2007, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia 2009, www.stat.si/doc/pub/Obcine2009/84-103.pdf, last visited: 5. 5. 2011.
It has to be noted that the administrative borders do not match the functional region of Ljubljana, which amounts to 350–400,000 inhabitants in the daily catchment area.
Population numbers for 1. 1. 2011, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=3876 and http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp, last visited: 5.10.2011.
Ljubljana participates in EU projects such as Creative Cities and Second Chance, which are concerned with the promotion of creative industries and the revitalization of abandoned industrial areas with the help of art and culture.
Since 2003, all Slovenian municipalities have to adopt new development strategies or apply existing ones (Schrenk 2010: 822).
Ljubljana Urban Region (LUR) comprises 26 municipalities. It is the most densely populated region in Slovenia and has around 509,000 inhabitants (31. 12. 2007), www.rralur.si/en/region/statistical-data/. last visited: 10.24.2011.
See www.rralur.si/en/, last visited: 07. 27. 2010.
The Spatial Plan of Ljubljana 2002 still designates agricultural areas in Ljubljana (Cerar Citation2006: 22).
The Slovene Public Opinion Research (2002) revealed that 31.3% of the Slovenian population prefer to live in rural areas (Ozaki 2005: 10).
Ljubljana belongs to the statistical region Osrednjeslovenska (Central Slovenia), which is characterized by the highest GDP per capita and population density.
“Ljubljana provides political, administrative, transport, cultural, and other services to all inhabitants of Slovenia, and it is developing to become an internationally competitive capital.” Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia (2004): 23.
The Spatial Plan of Ljubljana (2002) shows that the added value of a resident of Ljubljana is around 157 per cent higher than the added value of the rest of the Slovenian population (Cerar Citation2006: 61).
Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia (2010): 22–26.