Disclosing the logics of non-statutory regional planning: the case of Sweden

Figures & data

Figure 1. NUTS 3 regions and LAU 2 entities (municipalities) in Sweden in 2016. Source: Nordregio.

Table 1. Analytical elements for exploring the logics of non-statutory regional planning.

Understanding of overarching mandate	targeted projects/policy areas, role of non-statutory regional planning in relation to regional development work and municipal planning
Understanding of tasks and modes of working	scope and character of assignments, strategies, ways of doing, routines
Understanding of challenges/prospects	challenges of and prospects for practising non-statutory regional planning

Figure 2. Three Swedish case regions for analysing non-statutory regional planning. Source: Creative Commons (2023, amended by the authors), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

Table 2. Three distinct logics of non-statutory regional planning.

	Negotiation logic Blekinge region	Supportive logic Östergötland region	Distant logic Västra Götaland region
Understanding of overarching mandate	■ Region as informal partner ■ Region as arena for network ■ Region as coordinator	■ Region as supportive to municipal planning ■ Region as knowledge producer ■ Blurring of municipal borders	■ Low willingness to work beyond mandatory tasks ■ Sub-regional municipal associations rather work with non-statutory regional planning
Understanding of tasks and modes of working	■ Informal networks ■ Educational actions ■ Strategic image ■ Uniting regional development and planning	■ Uniting regional development and regional planning ■ Balancing unevenly distributed assets ■ Informal networks ■ Explorative and pragmatic	■ Mainly focussing on regional development and public transport planning
Understanding of challenges/prospects	■ Resource allocation ■ Risk of conflict with municipal planning monopoly ■ Expansion of non-statutory role	■ Uneven level of ambition and interest ■ Resource allocation ■ Risk of conflict with municipal planning monopoly ■ Need for better support and guidance from national government and national agencies	■ Political disinterest ■ Disposing informal planning mandate to sub-regional units ■ No common denominator for working with spatial planning at the regional scale