Mapping the cross-border cooperation ‘galaxy’: an exploration of scalar arrangements in Europe

ABSTRACT

The development of cross-border regionalism in Europe has given rise to a multitude of academic works focussing on the pattern, signification and evolution of cross-border cooperation. Most previous studies have, however, focused on individual cross-border cooperation initiatives as units of analysis and neglected their spatial relation to other initiatives. By mapping the perimeter, activity, geographical type, scale and spatial relations of 209 initiatives, the current paper provides an updated and more nuanced overview of the geography of cross-border cooperation in Europe. The cartographic exploration from a rescaling perspective reveals the varying accumulation, scalar focus and activity of cross-border cooperation across Europe and leads to the identification of different forms and evolutions of scalar arrangements constituted by their overlapping perimeters of action. The distinction between nested, overlapping and complex arrangements suggests that different scalar processes are involved in the ongoing structuration of cross-border cooperation, and calls for better consideration of these multi-scalar dynamics in future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Cross-border cooperation
• cross-border region
• territorial scale
• scalar arrangement
• Europe

Introduction

The development of cross-border regionalism in Europe since the late 1950s – in conjunction with geopolitical events and the enlargement of the European Union – has led to the multiplication of varied initiatives as well as their progressive diffusion across the continent (Dominguez and Pires 2014; Kramsch and Hooper 2004; Perkmann 2003). The result is an entanglement of cooperation perimeters operating at different scales (see notably AEBR 2011; Wassenberg and Reitel 2015). The aim of the current research is therefore to offer an analysis of cross-border cooperation (CBC) that takes into consideration the structure formed by the different initiatives within arrangements, rather than the initiatives themselves, as if they were independent from one another. Conceptually, we distinguish between nested, overlapping and complex arrangements as three forms of spatially connected CBC initiatives with different scalar structuration. Empirically, the spatial organization of these scalar arrangements and the way they evolve over time in terms of cooperation activity constitute the focus of the paper and are discussed at a European scale. Based on a set of examples we discuss relationships of initiatives within arrangements and possible reasons for their scalar layering and historical evolution. This discussion opens up a more nuanced perspective on CBC and highlights the possible interdependencies between different cooperation scales and the co-evolution of cooperation initiatives.

Examining the scalar layering of governance arrangements within European borderlands is of course not new (see notably Deas and Lord 2006; Jessop 2003). A number of case studies focusing on particular border regions have also drawn attention to the implications of this articulation of CBC scales (ESPON 2010; Fricke 2015; Pupier 2020; Sohn and Reitel 2016). That said, of the few initiatives studying the phenomenon of CBC at the European level (see Dura Guimerà et al. 2018; Wassenberg and Reitel 2015), none have addressed this issue in a systematic and comparative way. Yet it is only from this perspective that the historically and geographically specific structures, the regional disparities and the evolutions that take shape can be fully grasped. Such an analysis opens up an evolutionary perspective on cross-border regionalism and shows certain spatial structuration dynamics that point to issues of governance within scalar arrangements of CBC. We believe that any future assessment of the functioning and added value of CBC should pay attention to these scalar structures and dynamics.

In order to delve into what we term the European CBC ‘galaxy’, the current research mobilizes the ‘map’s power to explore, analyse and visualize spatial datasets to understand patterns better’ (Crampton 2001, 235). Using a map as a tool for exploration implies that it is as much its construction (i.e. the map-making process) as the finalized cartographic representation that matters. Constructing a map of course requires clear definitions and relevant choices concerning its objectives. Given the great diversity of forms of CBC (geographical, institutional, legal and political) and the evolution of their activity and cooperation frameworks over time, the definition of what is meant by CBC initiatives is therefore an essential prerequisite for their identification and cartographic representation. Due to our interest in the spatial organization and scalar arrangements of CBC initiatives, we only considered those that have an ‘institutional-territorial dimension’ and strive towards the creation of some kind of bounded and continuous cross-border space. These choices, as well as others that we discuss in detail in the paper, have implications for the way we perceive the CBC phenomenon and the interpretations we derive from it. Lastly, the creation of a map also requires the use of reliable and, if possible, exhaustive data. Although existing inventories were of great help to us, some shortcomings led us to collect our own data. The result is the creation of an unprecedented database that brings together 209 CBC initiatives launched since the 1950s, and their categorization along different variables such as scale, level of activity and spatial pattern.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 offers a critical examination of existing scholarship on cross-border regionalism in Europe in order to highlight the advances and gaps in the analysis of the phenomenon. In Section 3, we present the concepts and categorizations used in the paper, and explain their operationalization. In our methodological framework to explore the CBC ‘galaxy’, we adopt concepts from literature on rescaling and regionalism to define CBC initiatives as its basic components. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of a ‘scalar arrangement’ of CBC initiatives, differentiated into three types. Section 4 shows the sources of data mobilized, as well as the method used to map the CBC structures. In Section 5, we present the main results regarding the state and evolution of CBC in nested, overlapping or complex arrangements. Section 6 concludes and suggests avenues for future research.

Research background

The boom in CBC and regionalism in Europe has given rise to numerous conceptual works aimed at characterizing the phenomenon. In one of the first attempts to define CBC, Perkmann (2003, 156) calls it ‘a more or less institutionalized collaboration between contiguous subnational authorities across national borders’. Subsequent scholarly discussion has applied different conceptual lenses to the analysis of cross-border regionalism. Geographical accounts have focused on the territorial (e.g. Chilla, Evrard, and Schulz 2012), (multi)scalar (e.g. Perkmann 2007) and relationally networked aspects of CBC (e.g. Sohn and Giffinger 2015; Svensson 2015), or have attempted to consider them altogether (Varró 2014). Others have examined the institutional and governance aspects of CBC (e.g. Blatter 2004; Knippschild 2011).

Specifically, the role and the capacity of CBC organizations to engender processes of rescaling and reterritorialization have been widely discussed (Johnson 2009). Jessop (2003) describes different strategies of rescaling and the associated ways in which cross-border regions (CBRs) have emerged. Other scholars have examined the implications of rescaling with regard to new forms of institutional organization and coordination in the context of multi-level governance (Deas and Lord 2006). Scholarship on European spatial planning and multi-level governance has generally raised the issue of overlapping jurisdictions and spatial configurations, and the complex interactions between different levels of government and governance (Faludi 2016; Hooghe and Marks 2003).

The perimeters or ‘territories’ of CBC initiatives play an important role as spatial representations of rescaling and multi-level governance. However, in a traditional, state-centred sense, the ‘territorial’ nature of CBC organizations can be debated, as they exert no sovereignty of their own and their existence is based on voluntary participation. In addition, their political legitimacy and policy-making capacity is usually weak (Beck 2021; Löfgren 2008). Nevertheless, in the context of European integration, ‘formal’ territoriality can be accompanied by ‘soft spaces’ (Allmendinger and Haughton 2009), which ‘may be seen as one element of a complex governance landscape, where territorial and relational, hard and soft forms of space interact in the socio-political construction of the cross-border region at multiple scales’ (Walsh, Jacuniak-Suda, and Knieling 2015, 151). The politically negotiated, fluid and fuzzy nature of cross-border territories as ‘soft spaces’ can be observed in the (re-)definition and adaptation of the membership and geographical boundaries of CBC initiatives over time (Telle 2018). Therefore, the existence of a ‘multi-level territoriality system’ can be postulated, in which processes of rescaling lead to emerging new policy scales – cross-border territories being one example of several existing forms – that add a secondary, pooled territoriality to domestic, state-centric territorialities (Chilla, Evrard, and Schulz 2012).

Empirically, several studies have tried to characterize the phenomenon of CBC in Europe. One of the difficulties encountered lies in the definition of CBC and the great diversity of forms of initiatives, in terms of territoriality, legal status, organization or type of activity. Based on 73 cases, Perkmann (2003) elaborates a typology of differently scaled CBRs, looking at three dimensions: geographic scope, the intensity of cooperation and the type of actors involved. Several studies have subsequently produced refined typologies, considering a growing number of CBC initiatives and integrating additional parameters such as their different legal forms, the sectors of activity concerned or their territorial profile (e.g. Dura Guimerà et al. 2018; Noferini et al. 2020; Wassenberg and Reitel 2015). Wassenberg and Reitel (2015) map 226 CBC initiatives, highlighting their scale and the differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan cooperation. Using the database provided by Dura Guimerà et al. (2018), Noferini et al. (2020) introduce an important distinction between active and inactive initiatives, and examine the diverse administrative composition and policy capacity of 61 ‘especially active’ Euroregions. Scholars have also analysed the drivers of CBC within large-sample comparative studies, with varying results depending on the type of CBC initiatives involved and thematic areas of cooperation (Basboga 2020; Harguindéguy and Sánchez 2017). This short overview shows that the samples identified and the results produced vary greatly from study to study, depending on the definition of CBC initiatives applied.

The empirical accounts discussed so far focus on individual CBC initiatives, CBRs or INTERREG programme regions as units of analysis. A comprehensive scalar perspective on CBC that takes into consideration interrelationships among different scales has rarely been adopted. Yet the multiplication of CBC initiatives over recent decades has created an entanglement of cooperation perimeters in certain CBRs; the Upper Rhine region being a case in point (ESPON 2010). Deas and Lord (2006) have observed parallel and competing regionalization processes and a scalar layering of governance arrangements with overlapping spheres of influence within European borderlands. Further, a number of case studies focusing on particular border regions have drawn attention to the implications of this articulation of CBC scales. Fricke (2015) adopts an analytical framework distinguishing types of governance to analyse the relationship between spatial perimeters and institutional design in Basel and Lille. In her analysis, she differentiates three spatial structuring principles: ‘concentric circles/babushka’, ‘overlapping’ and ‘continuous/complementary’. Another interesting contribution to a better understanding of the scalar relationships between different CBC initiatives is the analysis of two cross-border regions by Pupier (2020). She distinguishes ‘layering’ processes (the overlapping of several CBC initiatives in the same cross-border region), ‘scaling’ processes (the embedding of differently sized CBC initiatives) and ‘juxtaposition’ processes (adjoining CBC initiatives). In both the aforementioned studies, the analysis focuses on two case studies located in Western Europe where most of the well-established CBC initiatives are concentrated.

The existing studies provide valuable insights into the institutional structures and mechanisms of particular CBC initiatives and their evolution, as well as offering a specific vocabulary to describe the emerging scalar arrangements. However, the lack of studies that take into account geographic diversity and different social and political contexts highlights the need to develop more systematic and comparative analyses. While focusing on the scalar arrangements of cooperation initiatives, the analysis must also pay attention to the fact that CBC is a dynamic process made up of initiatives that evolve with circumstances. They are therefore by no means fixed structures, in the way that local or regional authorities can be. Accordingly, in the current study, the status quo and historical evolution of different arrangements of CBC initiatives in Europe are analysed. This leads to a better understanding of the historically and geographically specific spatial arrangements of CBC, the regional disparities and the evolutions that take place.

Concepts and methods

CBC initiatives: the basic elements of scalar arrangements

We identify and characterize CBC initiatives based on four dimensions. First, our interest in the spatial organization and scalar arrangements of CBC initiatives leads us to focus on those that have an ‘institutional-territorial dimension’ and strive for the creation of some form of bounded and continuous perimeter of cooperation. This specific form of CBC is mainly driven by political agreements and associations of neighbouring political institutions and public authorities at different subnational scales and to a certain degree follows a perspective of cross-border organization-building and institutional integration (Perkmann 2003). Therefore, cooperation networks (such as city or island networks) and territorially non-contiguous or fuzzy cooperation structures (such as some very large working communities) are excluded from the current study. Also, the extensive spatial perimeters of the ‘top-down’ cooperation structures of INTERREG – which follow mainly a perspective of problem-solving through funded projects and are not as much concerned with the integrated spatial development of the cross-border territory (see Varró 2014) – are not considered in the identification of scalar arrangements. Notwithstanding, INTERREG has fuelled the creation of many sub-national cooperation initiatives in the 1990s and early 2000s and it has been a longstanding source of funding for most CBC initiatives (Perkmann 1999).

Cross-border perimeters of cooperation appear as flexible territorial constructions that exist in parallel to the logics of nation-state territoriality (Chilla, Evrard, and Schulz 2012). Given their ‘soft’ nature, we distinguish the perimeter of action (which refers to the area in which cross-border cooperation activities are carried out) from the institutional perimeter (which is constituted by the territorial jurisdictions of the authorities participating in a CBC initiative). In many cases, such as typical ‘Euroregions’ or ‘Eurodistricts’, the perimeter of action is identical to the institutional perimeter of the members (e.g. Euregio, and the Eurodistrict PAMINA). There are also cases where the perimeter of action exceeds the perimeter of membership (e.g. Regio Basiliensis, or Pannon EGTC) or where it is smaller and concerns only part of the institutional space (e.g. the Greater Region).

Second, CBC initiatives that have an ‘institutional-territorial dimension’ operate at different scales. Rooting our research in the context of debates on the rescaling of government and governance, the concept of ‘scale’ in the current paper refers to horizontally bounded institutional and policy spaces that are vertically, hierarchically or relationally ordered within certain territories and embedded in relations to other scales (see notably Brenner 2001). Scalar terminology therefore provides a powerful combination of horizontal and vertical dimensions relevant to the spatial categorization of CBC initiatives. We conceptualize emerging cross-border scales as ‘materially real frames of social action’ (Smith 2003), which are historically changeable but also path dependent (Brenner 2001). As manifestations of these ‘spatiotemporal fixes’ (Jessop 2019) one can observe – for a certain amount of time – both, material and discursive structures (e.g. Euroregions with a certain spatial, institutional and socio-political form and related modes of representation), processes (e.g. cross-border activities or agenda setting) as well as relations to other contingent scales (e.g. strategic alliances with other CBC initiatives, exchanges with national administrative structures or flows of EU funds). From a slightly different perspective, the multi-level governance approach stresses the interdependency of actors in policy networks across territorially defined administrative or political tiers of jurisdictions termed as ‘levels’ (Hooghe and Marks 2003). Due to the exploratory nature of the work and the amount of cases considered, we focus on the socio-spatial manifestation of scale and proxy the institutional dimension by considering the territorial administrative division in terms of NUTS¹-levels involved (for a more explicit consideration of different forms of governance or actor constellations in a multi-level governance approach applied to nine cases see Fricke 2015).

Based on these conceptual considerations and in line with Wassenberg and Reitel (2015), we identify three scales of CBC initiatives based on the geographical extent of the perimeter of action and the institutional level of the members included. The thresholds of each scale category were defined empirically by considering the distribution of areas and administrative units across all the cases identified. The local scale refers to perimeters of action that do not exceed 3000 km² and comprise fewer than 50 municipalities (or LAU2 units). According to Wassenberg and Reitel (2015, 18), these local CBC initiatives have ‘an extremely small territory and very close proximity between stakeholders’. The regional scale corresponds to perimeters of action that have an area between 1000 and 100,000 km² and where more than 30 municipalities or several NUTS 3 regions are involved. Lastly, the supra-regional scale refers to perimeters of action that exceed 50,000 km² and where a significant number of NUTS 2 or NUTS 1 regions are involved in the CBC. This scale is also characterized by ‘greater complexity shown by the existence of a polycentric network of towns and cities and a mixture of stakeholders acting at different levels’ (Wassenberg and Reitel 2015, 19). Therefore, as an additional criterion, smaller initiatives are termed supra-regional when they cover one or several regional initiatives; for example the Pannon EGTC or the Upper Rhine Conference. Due to the great heterogeneity of territorial-administrative structures across Europe (the average area of municipalities or NUTS3 regions may vary substantially from one country to another), we adopt overlapping area intervals for the perimeters of action that distinguish the three scales. The combination of the two dimensions (the area of the perimeter of action and the composition of membership) then allows for a univocal categorization of CBC initiatives.

Third, the issues for and character of CBC can be very different depending on the geographical and demographic characteristics of the area concerned. Based on the definition given by Wassenberg and Reitel (2015), we differentiate between densely populated urban cross-border territories featuring one or more cities (e.g. Charlemagne Grenzregion) and more sparsely inhabited rural ones (e.g. Pirineus–Cerdanya) with small villages and towns on the local scale. At the regional and supra-regional scale, we differentiate between metropolitan and non-metropolitan initiatives. Metropolitan initiatives are related to a territory with a monocentric or polycentric metropolitan structure, as is the case for example in the Basel Trinational Eurodistrict or Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai Eurometropolis at the regional scale, and the Greater Region or Upper Rhine at the supra-regional scale. Non-metropolitan initiatives refer to territories without a metropolitan structure, for example Euregio at the regional, and the Alps–Mediterranean Euroregion at the supra-regional scale (Wassenberg and Reitel 2015, 19).

Lastly, CBC initiatives follow a certain temporal trajectory or ‘life cycle’ as they are created and become active, potentially evolve and transform, or become inactive and disappear. To determine their date of creation can be challenging, due to the processual and sometimes informal nature of the activities involved. In fact, many CBC initiatives emerge according to some form of pathway, through which informal contacts and relationships gradually evolve towards more-formal and institutionalized forms of cooperation. For the sake of simplicity and in order to guarantee cross-case comparability, we chose to define the date of creation of a CBC initiative as corresponding to the date of signing a formal cooperation agreement (or any event presented by the stakeholders as the ‘official’ start date). Initiatives in the process of gestation are therefore not included in this research (e.g. Eurocity Almeida–Fuentes de Oñoro–Ciudad Rodrigo at the Portuguese–Spanish border, see Jurado-Almonte, Pazos-García, and Castanho 2020). In line with the work done by Dura Guimerà et al. (2018), we treated a CBC initiative as being active if we were able to find recent news, activity updates or other communications on official websites or in the various available documents. The period of activity is therefore defined as the time interval between the date of creation and the date the initiative became inactive (or the current date if the initiative is still active). A cross-border cooperation initiative is considered as being inactive if it has been officially dissolved or merged with another one, or there are no longer traces of recent activity. In the latter case, it could be that the CBC initiative is going through some form of ‘hibernation’ and may possibly be ‘reactivated’ one day.

Nested, overlapping and complex arrangements: three scalar structures

Conceptually, we distinguish three structural forms of spatially connected CBC initiatives, based on a set of assumptions concerning their scalar significance: nested, overlapping and complex arrangements (see Figure 1). We achieve the identification of these three types of scalar configurations by combining a ‘horizontal dimension’ (bounded perimeters of action and their overlaps) with a ‘vertical dimension’ (ordering of policy spaces and their assumed interrelations) of intersecting CBC initiatives. In contrast to Fricke (2015) and Pupier (2020), we do not consider contiguous or adjoining CBC initiatives as scalar arrangements, because there are no overlaps between their perimeters of action.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the types of scalar arrangements of CBC. Source: Authors, 2020.

Within nested arrangements, differently scaled CBC initiatives are territorially and hierarchically embedded within one another (in the manner of ‘matryoshka’ dolls). In this configuration, we assume a scalar embedding of actors from different institutional levels, pursuing different tasks within their respective perimeters of action. In these arrangements, actors sometimes coexist or even cooperate in a common governance framework, which can lead to the constitution of a common CBR (e.g. Upper Rhine, see Beck 2021). Within overlapping arrangements, CBC initiatives of the same scale, partly – or in exceptional cases, entirely – share the same perimeter of action (e.g. two ‘Euroregions’). Therefore, this type of arrangement involves actors from similar institutional levels, making these overlapping perimeters of action interesting to study in terms of relationships of competition, complementarity, and so on (see e.g. Terlouw 2012). We do not examine partial overlaps between CBC initiatives of different scales, because arguably in many cases this type of overlap only marginally affects the authorities concerned (i.e. municipalities, regions or provinces) in terms of their respective cross-border activities. As a third type, we identify complex arrangements that encompass a combination of multiple, nested and overlapping arrangements at different scales within the boundaries of a larger-scale CBC area. Within complex arrangements, not all the initiatives necessarily overlap or nest with all the others, but all of them are contained within one CBR. Therefore, this type offers an interesting study object in terms of the relationships and coordination between multiple differently institutionalized and spatially overlapping CBC activities and actors (e.g. at the Portuguese–Spanish border, see Podadera Rivera and Calderón Vázquez 2018).

Empirically, we identify scalar arrangements in a two-step procedure. First, we differentiate nested or overlapping arrangements through a ‘bottom-up’ approach, based on the amount of overlap between the perimeters of CBC initiatives and the different scales involved. The precise identification of the extent of overlap is achieved with the use of a geographic information system (GIS), by superimposing the different cooperation perimeters and calculating the superposition rates. Taking into consideration the significance of these intersections as discussed above, we identify initiatives of the same scale as being overlapping if the perimeter of action of one initiative is covered more than 15 per cent by the perimeter of the other initiative. Conversely, we identify one initiative as being nested within another initiative of higher scale if more than 85 per cent of its perimeter of action is covered by the perimeter of the other initiative (e.g. a local ‘Eurocity’ nested within a regional ‘Euroregion’, which is nested within a supra-regional ‘Working Community’). The visualization of the different dyadic intersections between perimeters of CBC initiatives allows the identification of spatially connected clusters, and thus the delineation of nested or overlapping arrangements.

Second, we identify complex arrangements in a ‘top-down’ approach by aggregating nested and overlapping arrangements that are connected to the same ‘central’ initiative. The boundaries of complex arrangements are therefore identified by defining the area in which several overlapping and nesting initiatives converge, which is mostly constituted by the perimeters of supra-regional or larger regional initiatives. ‘Peripheral’ initiatives, which only overlap or nest with one of the other initiatives, constitute a separate arrangement.

Given that the arrangements result from the overlaps between individual initiatives and their activity, they follow an evolutionary dynamic. Therefore, arrangements can remain stable over a certain time period, or can exhibit shifts in activity between different scales. Further, arrangements can become denser or can diminish, depending on the accumulation or decline of active initiatives within them. They disappear if the number of active CBC initiatives drops below two.

Data and mapping

The challenges of data collection

Comprehensive data collection on cross-border regionalism in Europe is a complex endeavour. There have been several attempts to list or map CBC initiatives and their perimeters in Europe that have been published in academic journals (Deas and Lord 2006; Perkmann 2003), research reports (Dura Guimerà et al. 2018; Wassenberg and Reitel 2015) or other grey literature (AEBR 2011; MOT 2017). Some of these lists are clearly outdated. Others do not fit with our research criteria, notably with regard to the type of CBC initiatives. More importantly, a distinction between active and inactive initiatives is often missing, although this distinction appears crucial for the interpretation of the phenomenon. For all these reasons, we created our own database using the maps produced by Wassenberg and Reitel (2015) as a starting point. This initial database was counterchecked with the other existing lists and complemented by web searches to finally arrive at a list of 209 CBC initiatives.

Using the Internet as a source of information appears practical and possibly even inevitable given the dispersion and diversity of cases across Europe. It nevertheless causes some issues that may have significant consequences for some of the results. First, there are difficulties in detecting and identifying certain initiatives, especially if they are recent or dimly institutionalized and thus give weak ‘signals’. Second, there are also sometimes doubts about the reliability of the information disseminated. As an object of communications likely to be involved in strategies of territorial promotion or place branding, CBC initiatives have a discursive existence that is not necessarily aligned with their material existence (see also Harguindéguy and Sánchez 2017).

Further, in a similar way to stars that ceased to exist thousands of years ago but continue to be visible in the sky, certain CBC initiatives are subject to the phenomenon of remanence: they remain ‘visible’ (in websites or reports, etc.), while in reality they have ceased to exist or have been inactive for sometimes several years. One of the reasons relates to a bias in the communications between the statements of intent and the development phases of CBC initiatives. These are emphasized compared with the cessation of activities, which are only rarely communicated. In other cases, there are forthcoming CBC initiatives that have been announced but have not (or not yet) materialized. Some initiatives in the process of gestation are already substantially promoted in news reports or project descriptions (e.g. the Portuguese–Spanish Eurocities). Others are in fact stillborn, but nevertheless end up acquiring a semblance of existence (even if only discursive) insofar as they are mentioned in certain sources, then taken up and commented on by others. Faced with these constraints, we have done our best to identify all cases of CBC relevant for our analysis; however, we cannot exclude the possibility of limited selection errors.

An unprecedented cartographic representation

The temporally and spatially flexible nature of CBC initiatives needs to be carefully considered in the static representation and analysis of the phenomenon through maps. To stress the arbitrariness of boundaries of CBR, some authors applied diagrammatic representations of their perimeters in form of ellipses or rectangles (see for example Deas and Lord 2006). However, most of the previous representations resulted in maps that failed to communicate the dynamic nature of cooperation spaces and were arguably difficult to read. By contrast, we therefore chose to use point symbols for the individual initiatives, linear symbols for their scalar arrangements and indicate the persistence and change of arrangements over time. Although this approach may seem counterintuitive, in reality, it presents a clear advantage for our objective, as well as some singularities.

The main advantage of using point symbols is that it is possible to represent all the CBC initiatives distinctively and reduce the complexity of visualization, even for border regions where the phenomenon appears chaotic. In a way, this mode of representation is reminiscent of celestial maps, which is why we metaphorically invoke the European CBC ‘galaxy’. We are thus able to show the distribution of different types of CBC initiatives across space, as well as their scalar layering. Specifically, different sizes of symbols refer to the various scales, and different shapes and colours correspond to various geographic settings and activity status. The cartographic representation is clearly a ‘snapshot’ of the status-quo, which is justified by the persistence of the structures for some amount of time, and owes to reduction of complexity in the visualization (for a more detailed account of the different lifespans of CBC initiatives and arrangements, see supplemental data). The map visualizes the dynamic and evolutionary character of the scalar arrangements of CBC initiatives by indicating the activity status of initiatives in 2020 and the overall stability, shift, densification, depletion or disappearance of arrangements for the time period 2007–2020 (calculated as the proportion of initiatives created/active and ceased/inactive within the period; see supplemental data for more details). For both the initiatives and the arrangements, the map represents a generalized symbolization of their extent and spatial form, as well as their evolution. Hence, it directs the analytical focus towards the scalar structures and processes that exist between the initiatives in addition to those taking place within the boundaries of the initiatives.

The choices relating to the cartographic representation come with some specificities. First, the map does not show the geographic extent of the perimeters of cooperation. Spatial disparities between CBC initiatives within a scale category or between different border regions in Europe are therefore hidden. Our scale codification also prioritizes small-scale CBC initiatives at the expense of large-scale ones (given the relative size of their symbols). The visualization of all the initiatives and the overall readability of the map governed these choices. Second, the location of CBC initiatives is approximate and sometimes somewhat arbitrary. We have given prominence to the location of the headquarters of organizations in charge of cooperation. Where several organizations are involved, we placed the symbols for the CBC initiatives at the geographic centre of their perimeters of cooperation. Ultimately, the map we have produced is not a fully accurate representation of the CBC phenomenon in Europe (which would be an impossible objective), but a codified representation highlighting its multi-scalar features.

Results

Diversity of CBC initiatives

In total, we identify 209 CBC initiatives with an institutional-territorial dimension. These have been initiated successively since the end of the 1950s. Of them, 152 were still active in 2020 and 57 considered as inactive (Table 1). With more than a fourth of inactive cases, any analysis of the CBC phenomenon clearly cannot proceed without making this distinction. However, this is an aspect relatively neglected until recently in studies devoted to the subject, with the result of possibly biased interpretations.

Table 1. CBC initiatives in Europe by scale, geographic context and activity in 2020.

		All initiatives		Active initiatives		Inactive initiatives
Scales	Geographic context	(N)	%	(N)	%	(N)	%
Local	Rural	31	15	18	12	13	23
	Urban	28	13	23	15	5	9
Regional	Non-metropolitan	108	52	73	48	35	61
	Metropolitan	13	6	11	7	2	4
Supra-regional	Non-metropolitan	24	11	23	15	1	2
	Metropolitan	5	2	4	3	1	2
Total		209	100	152	100	57	100

Source: Authors, 2020.

The majority of active CBC initiatives operate at the regional scale and have a non-metropolitan geographic profile. They refer to the traditional model of the Euroregion, under its different names and configurations. There are also some Eurodistricts, mostly with a metropolitan profile, such as the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel. The group of local CBC initiatives is equally distributed across rural and urban areas. Local rural CBC initiatives typically refer to small-scale cooperation between rural municipalities. The urban cases correspond to cross-border agglomerations and twin cities (typically Eurocities, as well as small-scale Eurodistricts). Lastly, the supra-regional CBC initiatives correspond to large Euroregions and working communities. Supra-regional metropolitan-type structures only involve four cases, the two Upper Rhine cooperation bodies ‘Trinational Metropolitan Region Upper Rhine’ and ‘Upper Rhine Conference’, the Greater Region and Centrope.

The distinction between active and inactive cases in 2020 makes it possible to shed light on the survival of the various CBC initiatives. Regional CBC initiatives form the largest proportion of inactive cases. However, the inactive CBC initiatives are almost exclusively non-metropolitan cases, which have a survival rate of 68 per cent. By contrast, almost all the metropolitan regional CBC initiatives that were launched have remained active. Among the local CBC initiatives, the inactive cases are predominantly rural. Their survival rate is the lowest (58 per cent) of all categories. Local urban examples have a survival rate of 82 per cent. Being located in rural and non-metropolitan border regions therefore seems to constitute a disadvantage for the survival of cooperation initiatives. The political and economic marginalization of many of these borderlands is likely to be part of the explanation. Border cities and urbanized regions seem by comparison to fare better, probably due to their capacity to mobilize borders as resources for their cross-border integration (Sohn 2018). Lastly, the supra-regional CBC initiatives have barely been affected by the cessation of activity and their survival rates are high (above 80 per cent). When we take into account the periods of creation and extinction of the CBC initiatives that have ceased to function, we can see that the vast majority of now inactive cases were launched in the 1990s and 2000s and appear therefore as short-lived initiatives. Conversely, initiatives established before 1990 show a lower tendency to become inactive.

Lastly, the cartographic representation of the CBC initiatives allows us to comment on their geography (see Figure 2). In line with previous analyses, there are two areas with a high density of CBC initiatives within Europe: Rhineland Europe as the historical cradle of cross-border Euroregionalism, and Central Europe, where Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland stand out. Secondary clusters appear along the Spanish–Portuguese border and in the Scandinavian countries. When considering the various types of CBC initiatives, regional and supra-regional metropolitan CBC initiatives show a high spatial concentration in Rhineland Europe, plus one case in Central Europe (Centrope) and one in Northern Europe (Greater Copenhagen). This geographic pattern is indeed linked to the localization of major metropolises in Europe.

Figure 2. Cross-border cooperation initiatives and their scalar arrangements in Europe.

One salient fact highlighted by the map, however, concerns the spatial distribution of inactive cases. In fact, the fading of CBC initiatives over time appears to be highly spatially clustered. Romania, Bulgaria and the ex-Yugoslavian countries concentrate the highest proportion of currently inactive cases. There are a few other regions showing a similar situation. These are Hungary and the Baltic States, the Belgium–Netherlands border and the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (although in the last case, the limited number of CBC initiatives limits the interpretation of this result). Most of the inactive CBC initiatives in the borderlands of countries that are not yet EU members or that joined relatively late were launched in the 2000s and 2010s. This means that the differences in survival rates of initiatives established in different time periods also have a geographical dimension. The short lifespan of CBC initiatives suggests that institutional and political conditions applying in the respective borderlands prevented them from developing and consolidating. One explanation could be the dependence on external financial resources and the lack of sustainable administrative structures (e.g. Slaná–Rimava EGTC, see Törzsök and Majoros 2015).

Geography of scalar arrangements

Taking a closer look at the more or less dense groupings of CBC initiatives along national borders in Europe, we can identify certain scalar arrangements. As discussed in Section 3, these arrangements are defined by a nested, overlapping or complex relationship between the perimeters of CBC initiatives, depending on the degree of overlap and scales involved. Lastly, ‘standalone’ initiatives are not part of any arrangement (Table 2).

Table 2. Types of scalar arrangements of CBC in 2020.

		Nested		Overlapping		Complex		Standalone
	N ^(arrangements)	19		20		9		-	-
Scales	Activity	N ^(initiatives)	%	N ^(initiatives)	%	N ^(initiatives)	%	N ^(initiatives)	%
Local	Active	16	30	0	0	19	25	6	16
	Inactive	3	6	0	0	8	10	4	11
Regional	Active	22	42	37	79	24	31	16	42
	Inactive	1	2	2	4	10	13	9	24
Supra-regional	Active	10	19	8	17	16	21	3	8
	Inactive	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	Active	48	100	45	100	59	100	25	100
	Inactive	5		2		18		13

Source: Authors, 2020.

For 2020, we identify 19 nested arrangements involving a total of 48 individual CBC initiatives within the European borderlands. One of the most common configurations comprises a local urban CBC initiative (a Eurocity) spatially embedded in a regional non-metropolitan CBC initiative (a Euroregion). Such paired arrangements can be found along the German–Polish border (e.g. Frankfurt (Oder)–Słubice and Euroregion Pro Europa Viadrina) or in the Baltic region (e.g. Valka–Valga and Euregio Pskov Livonia). There are also regional-supra-regional nested arrangements (e.g. Novum EGTC and Euroregion Glaciensis).

The second form of scalar articulation of CBC initiatives that interests us is characterized by overlapping arrangements between initiatives. There were 20 such configurations active in 2020, involving 45 CBC initiatives. The basic and most common overlapping structures are composed of regional non-metropolitan CBC initiatives (typically Euroregions). There is a concentration of such scalar structures along the Austrian–German border, with seven partly overlapping ‘Euregios’. Other overlapping arrangements can be found in the Scandinavian countries (e.g. MittSkandia and Kvarken Council) or in the Iberian Peninsula (e.g. EGTC Espacio Portalet and Huesca Pireneos–Hautes Pyrénées). There are also supra-regional CBC initiatives that overlap, such as the large scale Euroregions at the Portuguese–Spanish border.

Lastly, some configurations appear complex, because the nested structure intersects with an overlapping arrangement. In most cases, these encompass a relatively large number of initiatives. For 2020, we can identify nine complex arrangements involving a total of 59 individual CBC initiatives within the European borderlands. Some complex arrangements are characterized by a large number of nested relationships among the different scales within a large-scale initiative (e.g. Carpathian Euroregion, Greater Region and Upper Rhine). Other arrangements appear complex due to several overlapping relationships at higher scales, which contain nested lower-scale initiatives (e.g. Castilla y Leon–North of Portugal Working Community).

Dynamics and evolutionary trends

The overlapping and nesting of CBC initiatives is a relatively recent phenomenon. Such scalar configurations were exceptional before the 1990s, although there were a few cases along the Belgium–Netherlands border, in the Upper Rhine and in Scandinavia. Nested arrangements have increased since the 1990s, and especially during the 2000s. Local urban CBC initiatives have frequently come to fit into pre-existing regional or supra-regional initiatives, thus creating nested configurations (e.g. the German–Polish twin cities Görlitz–Zgorzelec and Frankfurt (Oder)–Słubice). In other instances, a large-scale CBC has come to complement smaller existing CBC initiatives (e.g. Europaregion Danube–Moldau or EGTC TRITIA). In the case of Europaregion Danube–Moldau, the supra-regional body was created to better serve the higher-level objectives of the regions involved and to provide a more strategic CBC at the inter-regional level (Chilla et al. 2018).

Complex arrangements also show varied trajectories of evolution. The Upper Rhine arrangement for example first appeared in the mid-1970s when the supra-regional Upper Rhine Conference complemented the pre-existing regional initiatives of Regio Basiliensis and Regio du Haut-Rhin. With the successive addition of multiple regional and local initiatives after the 1980s, it evolved into a complex arrangement, which in recent times (2007–2020) is relatively stable in terms of initiatives involved – with some shifts in activity between scales. In a similar fashion, a complex arrangement developed within the reach of the Carpathian Euroregion, which was established in 1993 and acted as the pioneering CBC in the area. In the Lake Geneva area, the regional ‘Greater Geneva’ initiative was added in 2004 to the overlapping arrangement of the supra-regional Franco–Genevan Regional Committee (CRFG) and Lake Geneva Council, which were created respectively in 1973 and 1987.

From 2007 onwards, we can observe the ‘depletion’ (i.e. a reduction in the number of initiatives involved in the configuration) of some arrangements, connected to the cessation of individual CBC initiatives, notably in Eastern Europe. Within complex arrangements, this trajectory is coupled with tendencies to concentrate cooperation activities on certain scales or core areas. For example, within the reach of the supra-regional Carpathian Euroregion, the cessation of seven regional initiatives active in the early 2000s was followed by the introduction of seven new EGTC-type initiatives at the local scale since 2007. However, some of these local initiatives (Karst–Bodva, Svinka, and Torysa) had a very short lifespan, as they have already stopped their activities. A similar process of concentration can be observed in the context of the supra-regional Kent–Nord Pas de Calais Euroregion, which was dissolved in 2004. Here, the scalar focus of CBC activities shifted towards the regional initiatives of EGTC West–Vlaanderen/Flandre–Dunkerque–Côte d´Opale and Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai at the Belgian-French, and Euregio Scheldemond at the Belgian-Dutch border. In other cases, entire arrangements have reduced or ‘disappeared’ altogether, with a significant number of CBC initiatives becoming inactive. We therefore observe three nested and twelve overlapping arrangements that became inactive and ‘disappeared’ in the period 2007–2020. The ‘depletion’ process for overlapping arrangements and ultimately the ‘disappearance’ of some appears to be even stronger than for nested arrangements. The most notable examples of this process are Middle Danube, Rodopi and Eurobalkans, which for a few years constituted scalar arrangements. At the same time, six arrangements – one nested and five complex – have been densening since 2007, notably in Central Europe and at the Portuguese–Spanish border (e.g. the complex arrangements around Centrope Region or Castilla y León-North of Portugal Working Community). Some arrangements show partial shifts of activity from recently ceased to newly created cooperation scales (e.g. the arrangement around Euregio Meuse-Rhine or the arrangement involving Banat-Triplex Confinium). Lastly, more than thirty arrangements – and therefore the majority of nested and overlapping arrangements – remained relatively stable in the same period, with no changes in composition.

Discussion about the significance of scalar arrangements

We can observe a general trend towards more nested and overlapping arrangements throughout the history of CBC in Europe. Only 31 initiatives have never been part of such an arrangement during the period of their activity. This either indicates their peripheral location (e.g. North West Region Cross Border Group, Ireland/UK), sometimes combined with a small size of perimeter (e.g. Imatra–Svetogorsk, Finland/Russia), or is due to different lifetimes of initiatives with overlapping perimeters. In 2020, some 127 CBC initiatives were territorially overlapping with at least one other initiative, while only 25 can be termed ‘standalone’ due to perimeters of action perfectly contiguous with those of their neighbouring initiatives.

Looking more closely at the structure of cases and the ways in which the scalar arrangements evolved over time, allows us to make some assumptions about the relationships of initiatives and the reasons for their scalar layering. In some instances, nested initiatives are ‘co-functioning’ through the existence of institutional relationships and/or common memberships. This is notably the case in the CBC network of Euroregion Spree–Neisse–Bober, within which the Eurocity Gubin–Guben has a considerable brokerage role (Frątczak-Müller and Mielczarek-Żejmo 2020). One example of a highly integrated CBC arrangement is the Upper Rhine. In this complex arrangement, the nested CBC initiatives regroup multiple different actors within a common multi-scalar governance framework. There is also a functional division of labour between the different scales and a common vision for the whole ‘trinational metropolitan region’ (TMO 2010).

A significant number of CBC initiatives have not been able to stabilize and have ended up becoming inactive, or have even disappeared. This points to some form of consolidation or rationalization process within arrangements that can be induced by competition or by design. One example of such a consolidation process is the evolution of a nested arrangement constituted by Euroregion Sajó–Rima, which was established in the early 2000s and Slaná–Rimava EGTC, which was established 2013. The former is inactive today, but can be seen as the institutional ancestor of the latter, although this covers a significantly smaller geographical area (Törzsök and Majoros 2015). In other cases, newly created lower-scale initiatives have ended up being ‘outlived’ by pre-existing higher-scale structures. An example of this is the cessation of the two local EGTCs Karst–Bodva and Svinka, which were nested within the regional Via Carpatia and supra-regional Carpathian Euroregion.

With regard to overlapping arrangements, we can assume various reasons for these configurations. In some instances, the overlapping is simply the unintended outcome of neighbouring CBC initiatives that include (partly) the same authorities – and is therefore driven by an ‘institutional overlap’. When cooperation initiatives pursue complementary activities, or coordinate them, the partial recovery of their area of intervention does not seem to pose any problem (e.g. MittSkandia and Kvarken Council, which are both cooperation bodies related to the Nordic Council of Ministers). In other instances, spatially distinct institutional perimeters of adjoining CBC initiatives are accompanied by flexible perimeters of action, which to some degree follow functional logics and can therefore partially overlap. Examples for this are the neighbouring ‘Euregios’ along the Austrian–German border, which for specific activities surpass the administrative boundaries of their members and constitute overlapping scalar arrangements – therefore driven by a ‘strategic’ and/or ‘functional overlap’. The weak institutionalization of the ‘Euregios’ and their assignment as bottom-up funding brokers within the INTERREG programme for Austria–Germany/Bavaria – related to a certain emancipation from obligations to serve only inter-regional interests of the administrative members – are seen as factors promoting their ‘variable geometries’ and scalar arrangement (Fohim, Scherer, and Zumbusch 2018).

In other cases, overlaps may reflect competitive relationships between neighbouring initiatives, in particular when these are led by different border cities seeking to consolidate their regional leadership (e.g. the Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai, Lille Metropolitan Area and West Vlaanderen/Flandre–Dunkerque–Côte d’Opale at the Belgian–French border). At the supra-regional scale, the cases of the Franco-Genevan Regional Committee and the Lake Geneva Council also illustrate the existence of competing spatial imaginaries that reflect different visions of the challenges and identities of the Lake Geneva region (Leresche, Joye, and Bassand 1993). A special case is constituted by newly created initiatives that have superseded pre-existing ones while retaining the same perimeter of action. Along the Hungarian–Slovak border for example, Euroregion Kosice–Miskolc (established in 2000) faded away, while EGTC Via Carpatia (established in 2012) consolidated its activities within the same perimeter. The nested local initiative Ung–Tisza–Túr–Sajó EGTC (established in 2007) is currently in dissolution. In a similar way as for nested structures, there are also cases of overlapping initiatives that merge and form a unique structure (e.g. EGTC Espacio Portalet and Huesca Pirineos–Hautes Pyrénées). This could be for different reasons, for example rationalization of the CBC, or a search for economies of scale or enhanced visibility.

Conclusions

Based on the observation of an increasingly complex entanglement of cooperation perimeters in Europe, this paper proposes a research approach focusing on the scalar arrangements of CBC initiatives. We argue that although the scholarly discussion to date has in fact highlighted the multi-scalar character of cross-border regionalism, research has mostly focused on individual CBC initiatives as units of analysis. Therefore, the methodologies applied have not sufficiently considered the scalar structure constituted by various intersecting initiatives, and the empirical results produced only show parts of the picture in European borderlands. Accordingly, in the current paper we apply a systematic analysis of the scalar arrangements of European CBC initiatives. Through a cartographic exploration of the European cross-border cooperation ‘galaxy’, we examine the various forms and evolutions of such configurations and show their spatial distribution.

While navigating through this uncharted ‘territory’, an analytical distinction between nested, overlapping, and complex arrangements emerged as relevant, due to their different implications. Within nested arrangements, differently scaled CBC initiatives – with their respective actors from different institutional levels – are territorially and hierarchically embedded within one another. Within overlapping arrangements, CBC initiatives of the same scale partly overlap, presumably bringing together actors from similar institutional levels. Within complex arrangements, a combination of nested and overlapping arrangements with multiple actors, interests and strategies operating at different scales is found in one cross-border area. Through the systematic exploration of this typology at the European scale and by using selected examples, we are able to emphasize the diffusion of scalar arrangements and highlight their variations. A limitation of our analysis concerns the selective account of multi-scalar arrangements involving exclusively ‘territorialized’ CBC initiatives. The existing overlaps with other regional forms, nationally organized institutional levels and spaces, networks, or transnational and other types of ‘soft’ cooperation, are beyond the scope of this study.

By considering the ‘life cycle’ and activity status of CBC initiatives, the paper also sheds light on the temporal dimension and evolutionary character of the identified structures. Stable arrangements exhibit a relatively consistent scalar structure for a certain period of time. Densening arrangements show an accumulation of active initiatives over time, with certain scales as pioneers of CBC and others ‘filling in’ at a later stage. Depleting arrangements are characterized by the decline of active initiatives, sometimes leading to a concentration of cooperation activities in certain geographical areas or at specific scales. Parallel densification and depletion processes in a certain period of time define ‘shifting’ arrangements, within which the overall number of involved initiatives remains the same but activity is shifted between individual CBC initiatives operating at different scales. With the inactivation of a significant number of CBC initiatives in recent decades, we can observe consolidation processes or the disappearance of arrangements, as well as some ‘historic’ structures, which disappeared a long time ago.

The different structural patterns and evolutionary aspects of the scalar arrangements of CBC identified in this study also highlight their relevance for research into cross-border regionalism. In the contemporary CBC ‘galaxy’, only a minority of CBC initiatives are standalone. The spatial clustering and superposition of CBC initiatives, and their character as ‘soft spaces’, generally raise the question of the relationships between them. The accumulation of CBC initiatives in certain scalar arrangements and the depletion of others suggest the existence of scalar processes that emerge in different trajectories. On the one hand, the consideration of scalar arrangements opens up a new perspective on the scalar politics involved in the construction of cooperation perimeters. How do actors position themselves in relation to other initiatives within or outside the arrangement? On the other hand, questions arise regarding policy efficiency and coherence, as well as possible forms of ‘meta-governance’ in this complex landscape of institutional structures. A serious evaluation of CBC activities needs to consider both horizontal and vertical aspects, and investigate how the activities of individual CBC initiatives influence the cross-border area they are situated in, as well as the impact on other cooperation scales and vice versa. In this regard, future studies could investigate the ‘systemic’ character of arrangements, which would depend on different forms of relationships between the organizational structures and the actors within an arrangement. Concrete questions concern identifying the different cooperation logics at work, the ‘compatibility’ of these within specific arrangements and the assessment of the policy output of an arrangement. Is there some kind of regulation or coordination at work within CBC arrangements, or instead uncoordinated competition? Are there asymmetries of the actor groups involved, and what is the relationship with other policy scales?

Questions regarding the reasons for the longevity of individual CBC initiatives and the stability of arrangements have not yet been adequately answered. Related to this, the life cycle of CBC organizations has to be more closely investigated empirically, and its different stages more concretely defined. In analogy to the terminology used for enterprises, studies could observe the ‘birth’, ‘death’ and ‘survival’ of CBC initiatives. If this clarification was achieved, future research could focus on the factors that are relevant for the success of individual CBC initiatives and distinguish them from those factors concerning the relationships between CBC initiatives and their embeddedness in scalar structures. We have observed a large number of inactive initiatives, highly spatially clustered, and this is a matter that should be empirically investigated in more detail. Related to the survival or cessation of CBC organizations, the role of certain initiatives acting as catalysts or inhibitors for other CBC initiatives to flourish within an arrangement could also be an interesting topic for future research. In addition, the question of whether some initiatives are dissolved because of an overlap with other initiatives (e.g. because they were incorporated or fell to the competition) would be one for future research to answer. Generally, it appears that we are dealing with an evolutionary process that would require further investigation at the level of specific case studies to be fully understood.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics.