![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Knowledge has long been a motor for societal development. However, the way knowledge is produced, distributed and applied has changed considerably and is regionally differentiated. In this paper, it is argued that different types of spatial profiles are discernable at the broader, national level: (i) Prominent hubs emerge, influenced by the knowledge society. (ii) The knowledge society expands to rural areas, being located between metropolitan regions, forming corridors of development. (iii) Regions with a knowledge society deficit, which might be perceived as a sort of “novel periphery”, remain. Drawing on examples from Germany, this paper examines rural regions which can be seen to fit with these profiles, revealing how planning paradigms change in the knowledge society and how spatially sensitive stakeholders can and do use knowledge as a strategic resource.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful in particular to Hans Joachim Kujath and also to Gabriela Christmann, Heidi Fichter-Wolf, Kai Pflanz and Sabine Zillmer for the fruitful collaboration in the two studies underlying this paper, and to two anonymous referees and Ross Beveridge for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The financial support of the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, the German Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, and the Development Agency Rhineland-Palatinate for the two studies underlying this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
Notes
1. Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Dusseldorf, Stuttgart.
2. But there is some evidence, for instance, from the Rhine-Neckar region (cities of Mannheim, Ludwigshafen and Heidelberg plus hinterland) that a policy which provides territorially effective institutional settings to foster cooperation through linkages within and beyond the administrative boundaries can help make use of economic territorial potential.
3. Berlin, Bremen and Dresden (metropolitan region “Mitteldeutschland”).
4. For example, Brunswick, Essen (metropolitan region “Rhine-Ruhr”), Mainz (metropolitan region “Rhine-Main”) and Augsburg (metropolitan region “Munich”).
5. For example, Kiel (north of Hamburg on the Baltic Sea), Bielefeld (between Hanover and Rhine-Ruhr), Würzburg (between Rhine-Main and Nuremberg) and Freiburg (between Stuttgart resp. Rhine-Neckar and Switzerland).
14. Usually, arguments like this make a brief reference to Richard Florida's work on the creative class. However, the deficiencies of such a shortcut (Storper & Scott, Citation2009, p. 163) should not be ignored. This is particularly true for the urban and regional divide in economic and social terms, which has been addressed in the previous section (“barriers of social kind”).