Social Learning in Transnational Spatial Planning Processes: An Analysis of the ‘V4+2’ Cooperation on Spatial Development

ABSTRACT

Social learning can offer a useful lens to analyse multi-actor cooperation processes and their outcomes. In this paper, a conceptual framework based on learning theories is applied to a recent transnational spatial planning process in Central Europe to analyse how the cooperation agenda was shaped, a joint strategy developed, and to understand the possible policy effects of this process. The findings allow a reflection on the potentials of, and challenges for, multi-actor cooperation on spatial planning in large regions covering several countries.

KEYWORDS:

• collaborative spatial strategy-making
• Visegrad Group
• social learning
• Central Europe
• transnational territorial cooperation

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the V4+2 Working Group for participating in interviews and for being generous with information about the transnational planning process. All errors in representation or interpretation are the authors’ own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Internal working papers cited

[1] Information on the project: common spatial development document of the V4 countries – internal working document of Polish Ministry of Infrastructure, 4th of August 2008 (in Polish).

[2] Information on the common spatial development document of the V4 countries – internal working document of Polish Ministry of Infrastructure, 14th of April 2008 (in Polish).

[3] Report on the Steering Group meeting on the 1^st of October 2008 in Budapest - internal material of Polish Ministry of Infrastructure (in Polish).

[4] Report on the Steering Group meeting on the common spatial development of the V4+2 countries on 13th of November 2013 in Prague (in Polish).

[5] Minutes from the meeting of the working group on the common spatial development document of V4+2 countries on the 22^nd of July 2009, Brno.

[6] Draft information on the common spatial development document of V4+2 countries, 2^nd of December 2009, MMR, Prague.

[7] Report on the Working Group meeting on the 14^th of October 2008 in Brno - internal material of Polish Ministry of Infrastructure (in Polish).

[8] Internal Working Group email correspondence from the 2^nd of February 2009.

[9] Commentary on the methodology for the elaboration of the development areas and development axes and transport corridors in the common spatial development document of V4+2 countries, 21^st of July 2009, UUR, Brno.

[10] Report on the Steering Group meeting in Bratislava on the 17^th of October 2012 - internal material of Polish Ministry of Regional Development (in Polish).

[11] Minutes from the Steering Group meeting of the V4+2 countries on the 28^th of October 2010, Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, Bucharest, Romania.

[12] Internal Working Group material: V4+2 summary table of comments, 3^rd of October 2012.

[13] Various internal Working Group email correspondence from late 2017 and early 2018.

[14] Report on the Working Group meeting on the 19^th of July 2011 in Brno - internal material of Polish Ministry of Regional Development (in Polish).

[15] Report on the Steering Group meeting of the project ‘Common Spatial Development Perspective of the Visegrad Group Countries +2’ on 10th of February 2009 in Budapest (in Polish).

[16] Presentation at the meeting of the Steering Group of the project ‘Common Spatial Development Document of the V4+2 countries’ on the12^th of April 2011 in Sofia.

[17] Minutes from the meeting of the Steering Group of the ‘Common Strategy of Spatial Development of the V4+2 countries’ on the 17^th of October 2012 in Bratislava.

Notes

1. Numbers in square brackets refer to the internal documents analysed, listed at the end of this paper.

2. Interviews with Working Group members.

3. Interviews with Working Group Members.

4. For example, some members of the Working Group had been involved in the preparation of transnational spatial visions, such as for the Baltic Sea Region (VASAB 2010, 1994, 1996, 2001) or the CADSES-INTERREG region (BBR, 2000).

5. Interviews with Working Group Members.

6. The differences are to a certain extent reflected in the names of the national ministries ‘responsible for spatial planning’ and directly involved in the V4 + 2 process, which included: Ministry for Regional Development, Czech Republic; Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, Bulgaria; Ministry for National Development and Economy, Hungary; Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, Romania; Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, Slovakia; Ministry of Infrastructure, Poland.

7. Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania had no comparable national spatial planning agencies to the Czech Republic and Hungary, and therefore commissioned external experts to assist the civil servants of the respective national ministries in their tasks during the second phase. In preparing the ‘Common Strategy’, Slovakia was responsible for analysis and representation of environmental issues; Bulgaria and Czech Republic authored the chapter on technical infrastructure; Hungary coordinated the socio-economic analysis; the Czech Republic coordinated the work on spatial development barriers; and Hungary led on the chapter on the spatial development strategy [12,13].

8. Interviews with Working Group Members.

9. The internal documents from meetings and correspondence exchanged between July and October 2009 reflect considerable debate on definitions and classifications. Different levels of detail in the hierarchy of transport networks (ranging from one to more than three categories) were used in the different countries, with a range of names and definitions applied to, for example, primary roads (labelled variably as motorways, highways, express roads, or speed roads). The compromise was to apply EU-wide classifications for transport connections.

10. In the end, the only common denominator on nature protection areas appeared to be the Natura 2000 classification [17].

11. Interviews with Working Group Members.

12. E.g. the ESPON conference: ‘Territorial Development Opportunities in the Global Economic Recession’, 2 June 2009, Prague.