Place-based development and spatial justice

ABSTRACT

Within EU cohesion policy, a place-based approach is expected to promote a strategic shift towards more place-sensitive, cross-sectoral and socially inclusive development. These expectations are underlined in the new Territorial Agenda 2030, which highlights that a place-based approach is key to territorial cohesion and to overall efforts towards a just Europe. Drawing on findings from the Horizon 2020 project RELOCAL – Resituating the local in cohesion and territorial development – this special issue explores the relations between place-based development and spatial justice. It addresses the complex challenges of place-based interventions, such as the critical role of the national policy environment in explaining variegated outcomes, enabling place-based agency in peripheralised regions, and assessing impacts. In this editorial, we provide an introductory discussion of the relations between place-based development and spatial justice, as well as brief introductions to the nine papers. We argue that there are a number of distinctive locally and nationally anchored mechanisms and inhibitors at play, which academics, and particularly planning professionals and policy-makers, need to be aware of in working towards a just Europe. Hence, place-based interventions are a valuable contribution to the territorial cohesion approach of the EU, but in the quest for spatial justice they cannot replace a redistributive territorial cohesion policy.

KEYWORDS:

• Place-based approach
• spatial justice
• territorial cohesion
• EU cohesion policy
• local development
• just Europe

Introduction

A ‘Just Europe that offers future perspectives for all places and people’ is one of the overarching objectives of the new Territorial Agenda, adopted in December 2020. It has been noted that

[t]he priorities for a Just Europe underline the territorial dimension and spatial planning contributions to overarching policy priorities. These priorities include economic, social and territorial cohesion, the European Pillar of Social Rights, a Europe closer to citizens, a more inclusive, sustainable and integrated development of places, Just Transition and territorial integration in Europe. (Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion 2020, 13)

In the new Territorial Agenda 2030, and similarly in the New Leipzig Charter (Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion 2020, 4; Ministers responsible on Urban Matters 2020, 7), a place-based approach is highlighted as the key to transposing these priorities for a ‘Just Europe’ into practice. In previous and current regional development and cohesion policy frameworks (2014–2020, resp. 2021–2027), place-based approaches have involved reforming the EU territorial cohesion policy, and introducing a new development strategy which is considered to take better account of place-specific conditions and problems by drawing on local assets and capacities (Barca 2009; Barca, McCann, and Rodríguez-Pose 2012).

This special issue aims to open up a debate on the relationship between place-based development and spatial justice. It is framed by two key notions: a ‘Just Europe’ and ‘place-based development’, and all contributions relate to these concepts. The papers investigate whether, and how far, the place-based approaches which currently prevail in European territorial cohesion policy contribute to reducing inter- and intra-regional disparities, and promote a ‘Just Europe’. Given the broadening inter- and intra-regional disparities highlighted in a range of recent reports on the state of territorial cohesion (Iammarino, Rodriguez-Pose, and Storper 2019; Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development and ESPON 2020), this is a timely question and more relevant than ever.

The remainder of this introductory paper to the special issue reflects first on territorial cohesion policy as a central scheme for approaching spatial justice across the EU. It further introduces the place-based approach as a central pillar in linking localities, actors and local-development actions, and discusses some critical perspectives. We then briefly present the nine papers in this special issue grouped by theme, and offer some reflections on the relations between place-based development and spatial justice.

Spatial justice and territorial cohesion

Spatial justice has its origins in long-standing academic debates about the ‘social justice of distributions in space’ (Pirie 1983, 470), and has taken very diverse theoretical, political and normative directions (Davoudi and Brooks 2014; Israel and Frenkel 2017; Uitermark and Nicholls 2017). As a minimum definition, the concept ‘refers to an intentional and focused emphasis on the spatial or geographical aspects of justice and injustice’ (Soja 2009, 4). Spatial justice thus focuses analytical and political attention on the way resources are allocated across space, and how spatial patterns of living influence, enhance or confine people in their opportunities (Pirie 1983; Soja 2009). This includes the political and socio-economic organisation of space (residential segregation, delineation of school or electoral districts, core-periphery structures, etc.), and how race and class are interlinked in the production of just or unjust geographies (Soja 2009, 3, 5). Existing scholarship thus rightly points to a focus on decision-making processes and power mechanisms, and how the distribution of resources and opportunities (distributive justice) is linked to fair and transparent decision-making in terms of resources (procedural justice) (Pirie 1983; Reynolds and Shelley 1985; Davoudi and Brooks 2014; Israel and Frenkel 2017; see also Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Brooks 2021 in this issue).

Thus, spatial justice is often associated with the distribution of resources across space and securing the opportunities to use them. Traditionally, the EU cohesion policy, also known as ‘regional policy’ (see Dühr, Colomb, and Nadin 2010), is the key policy programme intended to work towards reducing disparities between regions and fostering balanced development across the continent. The need ‘to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions’ (European Economic Community 1957, 13) was articulated as early as the preamble to the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Around one third of the EU's budget has been earmarked for cohesion policy during the most recent programme periods, and more or less the same share is reserved in its imminent successor (2021–2027). Today, cohesion policy is specifically stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon on the Functioning of the EU, which was signed in 2007. Article 174 states that ‘[i]n order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion’ (Official Journal of the European Union 2012, 127). The latter perspective on cohesion is specifically expressed in the different Territorial Agendas for 2007, 2011 and 2020, follow-up documents to the European Spatial Development Perspective from 1999, which articulate the importance of territorial cohesion as a central policy norm. However, although the overarching objective of balanced regional development persists, many observers have noted that a strategic shift is taking place whereby more weight is given to fostering competitiveness as a pathway for economic development for all regions (Mendez 2011; Dabinett 2017). This has been particularly noticeable since the EU enlargement, which revealed wide variations across the EU regions, and since the financial crisis of 2007/8. It applies to regions performing rather well compared to the EU average, but also to regions that are lagging behind (e.g. in terms of GDP per capita, their accessibility by different modes of transport and their innovative and technological capacity). Some critics argue that the ‘territorial’ dimension of cohesion policy is traditionally weak, since cohesion policy as such is rather ‘spatially blind’ or ‘place-neutral’. In fact, cross-sectoral policy integration, which takes into account place-specific conditions and problems, forms only a small part of this huge policy programme (Zaucha et al. 2014; Nosek 2017). In addition, the concept of territorial cohesion is rather fuzzy in terms of what it really means (e.g. Davoudi 2005; Van Well 2012), and poorly defined about what it should do in a normative sense (Faludi 2007; Abrahams 2014). On the other hand, it is thought to open up opportunities to revitalize notions of balanced territorial development, spatial solidarity and justice, and place them more prominently within EU cohesion policy in general (e.g. Medeiros 2017; Lüer and Böhme 2020). This is the debate where a place-based approach is expected to make a contribution, promoting a strategic shift in making EU cohesion policy more place-sensitive, cross-sectoral and socially inclusive.

The place-based approach in EU cohesion policy

Reform of the EU cohesion policy has been on the agenda of the EU policy makers for more than a decade now, primarily moving towards localism, regionalism and place-based strategies (European Commission 2008). As an overall approach, localism emphasizes place, community, locality and region as the appropriate focus for policy and practice (DCLG 2011; Hadjimichalis and Hudson 2014; Stead 2014; RTPI 2021). The methods it advocates include place-making, place-based regeneration, community-based planning and development, and neighbourhood planning (DCLG 2011; Turok 2013; Hildreth and Bailey 2014; Gleye 2015; Hambleton 2015; RTPI 2021). In the 1990s, localism was promoted as an appropriate basis for reforming social policy at national level, developing policies to combat social exclusion which strategically differentiated localities on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses (Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Talbot 2015). This principle has now been advocated for reforming the EU cohesion policy (Everingham 2009; Mendez 2013; Browski 2014; Keating and Wilson 2014). The reform of territorial cohesion and place-based strategies has been thought to offer progressive alternatives to the former approach (Pazos-Vidal 2016).

The place-based approach was advocated by an influential advisory report directed to the Commissioner of the Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy in 2009, and has since permeated EU cohesion policy (Barca 2009). According to this report, a place-based policy is ‘a long-term strategy aimed at tackling persistent underutilisation of potential and reducing persistent social exclusion in specific places through external interventions and multilevel governance’ (Barca 2009, vii). This includes utilizing place-specific endogenous territorial capital and fostering institutional reforms, in order ‘to pursue more similar standards of living for all individuals “in each region” (equity)’ (Barca 2009, 14). A number of strands within cohesion policy have been aligned to some of the main arguments advocated by this advisory report. Most notable is the EU policy instrument called Community-led Local Development (CLLD), which builds on the former LEADER programme (see also Hämäläinen and Nemeth 2021, in this issue). The latter describes a local-development method for engaging local actors in the design and delivery of strategies, decision-making and resource allocation for development in specifically rural areas. To establish CLLDs, for instance, a strategy needs to be defined for a functional space tailored to specific local socio-economic characteristics. This includes the complete involvement of local actors in the decision-making process, supported by partnerships with local enterprises, public authorities and community representatives (Servillo 2019, 679). It is echoed normatively in the Territorial Agenda 2030, in which the Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion of the EU-27 argue that:

[t]he place-based approach to policy making contributes to territorial cohesion. It is based on horizontal and vertical coordination, evidence-informed policy making and integrated territorial development. It addresses different levels of governance (multi-level governance approach) contributing to subsidiarity. It ensures cooperation and coordination involving citizens, civil society, businesses, research and scientific institutions and knowledge centres. It ultimately aims to unleash unique territorial potential related to place-based territorial capital, knowledge and assets, while recognising the need for tailored solutions in different types of territories. The development and implementation of European, national, regional and local strategies with a place-based approach will contribute to long-term development and competitiveness for places. (Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion 2020, 4)

In this way, the notion of place-based development involves a policy approach which is anchored in a locality, enabling this locality to develop its strategic capacity by utilizing its territorial capital as well as local and place-based knowledge (see Borén and Schmitt 2021; Hämäläinen and Nemeth 2021; Keller and Virág 2021, all in this issue). It is also argued that, by drawing on local assets and capacities, this type of strategy can stimulate economic development through smart specialization (McCann 2015).

This shift, however, has been controversial, as many commentators, and even governments, have raised their concerns about the fairness of this new approach (Lampropoulos 2018; Rodrigues, Fonesca, and Ranhola 2020). As Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Talbot (2017) noted, it focuses on social inclusion and balanced development within regions, rather than equity across regions. The place-based approach overlaps with localism and regionalism, which have been the subject of much debate in the planning literature (Lowndes and Pratchett 2012; Tait and Inch 2016). The positive image of localism and regionalism relies on a continued emphasis on place, locality, community and region, in which the local population are in charge of their locality's future, with far-reaching implications for democracy, self-determination, ecological sustainability and cultural authenticity (Featherstone et al. 2012; Williams, Goodwin, and Cloke 2014; Davoudi and Madanipour 2015; RTPI 2020). At the same time, the language of competitiveness and self-reliance, and a shift of focus from addressing inter-regional inequality to intra-regional development, demonstrate an emphasis on an agenda driven by economic concerns and market operations, rather than social development and spatial justice. While stronger metropolitan regions can draw on their strengths and benefit from economies of agglomeration, weaker and peripheral regions, which are losing population and resources, cannot be expected to stand on their own as some current place-based strategies suggest, or to compete for resources without the support of others (Blondel and Evrard 2019).

In fact, the shift towards place-based approaches runs the risk of undermining the redistributive top-down logic of policy interventions intended to enhance spatial justice. At the same time, there is often a need for critical scrutiny of the way local capacities are identified and strategic priorities for localities are set, as some of the case studies discussed in this special issue have shown (see Hämäläinen and Nemeth 2021; Keller and Virág 2021; Petrakos et al. 2021, all in this issue; see also Shucksmith, Brooks, and Madanipour 2021). Contributions in this special issue provide evidence of some of the dilemmas and potential of place-based approaches, and help to understand their role in promoting territorial cohesion and spatial justice.

The papers in this special issue

The papers in this special issue build on a coherent conceptual and rich empirical foundation for new perspectives on place-based development and spatial justice, and the relationship between them. Research stems from the European H2020 Project RELOCAL (Resituating the local in cohesion and territorial development, 2016–2021), in which 13 European partners investigated the question of whether spatial justice can be achieved through place-based approaches. Based on a common conceptual framework (Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Talbot 2017) which elaborated on the project's understanding of locality, place-based interventions and spatial justice, 33 in-depth case studies across the EU investigated the inter-relations between these conceptual issues. Data collection and analysis followed a common research design (Weck and Kamuf 2020). The selected cases illustrated place-based approaches to promoting spatial justice by means of a policy, a project or other initiatives in a specific locality. Research in the 33 case studies paid attention to both the procedural and the distributive dimension of (in)justice, and the inter-linkages between them (Pirie 1983; Reynolds and Shelley 1985; Davoudi and Brooks 2014; Israel and Frenkel 2017; Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Talbot 2017). In addition, empirical work focused on the perceptions and assessments of local stakeholders in terms of spatial (in)justice in the locality, as well as the process and the outcomes of the place-based approaches.

Grasping the complex challenges of place-based interventions

A first set of contributions offers conceptual insights into the links and tensions between territorial cohesion and spatial justice in Europe (Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Brooks 2021, in this issue). They emphasize aspects relevant to the coherence, robustness and transformative power of place-based interventions, aspects which are under-conceptualized and which have not so far been studied extensively. They include an informed understanding of the two distinctive concepts of local knowledge and place-based knowledge, and the role of knowledge and learning processes in place-based development (Borén and Schmitt 2021, in this issue). In European border regions, insights into legal and administrative obstacles which impede smooth cross-border interactions help understand spatial (in)justice in borderlands and the role of the law. Adjusting law to the specific spatiality of borderlands helps empower border areas and helps them to tackle their specific challenges (Evrard 2021, in this issue).

As noted above, place-based development interventions mark a shift towards self-reliance and intra-regional development in territorial cohesion policy. Ali Madanipour, Mark Shucksmith and Elizabeth Brooks (2021, in this issue) argue that, compared to earlier phases, this limits the contribution of recent territorial cohesion policy to spatial justice. Their paper ‘The concept of spatial justice and the European Union's territorial cohesion’ analyses the territorial cohesion approach through the lens of spatial justice. The authors first develop a concept of spatial justice by identifying three key dimensions which distinguish it from social justice: spatiality, which draws attention to the spatial aspects of justice; integration of distributive and procedural justice, which goes beyond this controversial dichotomy in social justice; and inclusion, which goes beyond the administrative boundaries and addresses both inter-regional and intra-regional inequality. This concept of spatial justice is then used to analyse the EU territorial cohesion approach, which marked a turning point in its cohesion policy, characterized by a focus on spatial imbalances in an enlarged EU. An analysis of the seven EU treaties since 1951 and seven cohesion reports since 1996 shows that this spatial emphasis has been added to the concept of social and economic cohesion, rather than integrated with it. The emphasis has moved away from inter-regional redistribution for reducing regional inequalities, which characterized earlier approaches, to intra-regional development and self-reliance in the later phases, and there has been a shift from distributive to procedural concerns. Rather than integrating society and space, distributive and procedural justice, and inter-regional and intra-regional cohesion, territorial cohesion policy moves from one pole to the other. On the basis of their definition, the authors conclude that the contribution of a territorial cohesion approach to spatial justice has been limited, providing necessary but insufficient responses to spatial imbalances and social inequalities.

The following contribution then sheds light on the relationship between place-based development and knowledge, and shows how place-based actions can trigger continuous learning processes for the actors involved. By revisiting the work of Barca (2009) and his claim that localities are expected to utilize their endogenous potential, Thomas Borén and Peter Schmitt (2021, in this issue) investigate how, and the extent to which, local knowledge and place-based knowledge are mobilized and can inform local-development actions. Their paper on ‘Knowledge and place-based development – towards networks of deep learning’ analyses and compares 20 case studies from 11 countries, conducted within the RELOCAL project. Whereas local knowledge is conceptualized as the knowledge a local population acquires through working and living in a place, place-based knowledge involves professional experiences and expertise. In their analyses, Borén and Schmitt focus on identifying evolving mechanisms and on how learning loops are triggered among actors. They reveal how knowledge is mobilized, how opportunities for interaction emerge, how actors and their knowledge are included (or not), and the extent to which knowledge eventually informs the local-development action in question. Borén and Schmitt argue that the challenge is not only to mobilize local and place-based knowledge, but also to form a basis for continuous learning and thus to trigger forms of learning loop. The two authors conclude by introducing the concept of ‘networks of deep learning’. These constitute a knowledge-management principle for key actors in local-development actions, and may help them improve the way they mobilize and utilize local and place-based knowledge and promote learning loops in local-development actions.

The article ‘Reading EUropean borderlands under the perspective of legal geography and spatial justice’ by Estelle Evrard (2021, in this issue) brings spatial justice into conversation with legal geography to explore how the border contributes to producing disparities in cross-border areas. The Cross-border Review demonstrates that legal and administrative obstacles hinder citizens and businesses in their capacity to ‘fully harness[ing] the potential of their place of residence or work’ (European Commission 2017, 10). By interrogating how the legal norm impedes cross-border practice, this paper discusses unequal access to law and to opportunities. Drawing on the work of Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2010), the author examines three examples where policy representatives from affected communities have fought to adapt legal provisions to EU borderland spatiality. The paper discusses the proposal for a ‘European Cross-Border Mechanism’ that would allow the use of a single law to manage a common cross-border project or infrastructure, and thus overcome legal and administrative barriers. The author further investigates a situation in borderlands with intensive cross-border mobilities and interdependencies, such as the Lorraine-Luxembourg region, where political attempts to distribute resources (e.g. taxes) more fairly in border regions have so far been unsuccessful. Finally, the legal mechanism of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, a legal instrument established by the EU to facilitate and promote cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation, provides a significant example of a case where the law has been adapted to suit the spatiality of cross-border areas. The cases show how a deeper understanding of legal geography, and analyzing how law and space co-construct cross-border areas (instead of being regarded simply as contextual factors), help understand spatial injustices in the EUropean borderlands.

Examining the critical role of the national policy environment in explaining variegated outcomes of place-based approaches

A further set of empirically informed contributions based on comparative research enhances understanding of the central role of domestic policies in defining the character and nature of place-based interventions. In their transnational analysis, Keller and Virág (2021, in this issue) point to the very diverse effects of a place-based approach on delivering spatial justice in Europe, depending on the specific interplay between local agency, place-specific institutional arrangements and the domestic institutional environment. Two further contributions support the argument made previously by Keller and Virág (2021, in this issue), and investigate how place-based strategies are shaped in their outcomes by national contexts and politics. In the case of Finland, Hämäläinen and Nemeth (2021, in this issue) analyse how place-based approaches which were potentially inter-sectoral became a more narrowly-focused concept when they were implemented. In the Greek context, Petrakos et al. (2021, in this issue) shed light on the conflicting interests and lack of vertical integration in the design and implementation of place-based strategies.

In their article ‘A drop in the sea or catalyst for change: diverse effects of the place-based approach in Europe’, Judit Keller and Tünde Virág (2021, in this issue) argue that the domestic institutional environment is often overlooked, along with its critical role in enabling and encouraging the delivery of place-based policies. The authors point to the very diverse effects of a place-based approach on delivering spatial justice in Europe, depending on the interplay between local agency, place-specific institutional arrangements and the domestic institutional environment. Using a comparative approach, the authors focus on the institutional processes of three place-based interventions which aim to tackle urban marginality in the Netherlands, Romania and Hungary. In all three cases, municipalities have outsourced policy delivery of the place-based projects to network organizations or non-state actors. The authors find the differential commitment and support of national and local authorities to be the decisive factor in explaining the effectiveness of place-based interventions combatting instances of spatial injustice, and they highlight a range of lessons from their comparative insights. Place-based interventions are highly vulnerable to political variability, as they depend on political will and the commitment of the domestic institutional environment. Without appropriate financial and institutional resources provided by the domestic institutional environment, they may amount to no more than ephemeral interventions with no sustainable or long-term effects. Finally, if the EU cohesion policy does not pay more attention to embedding place-based approaches into the domestic environment, these approaches could have little transformative impact on local and supra-local policy priorities and structures. They could even be ‘hijacked’ by national governments to deliver their policy objectives, without any positive long-term effects for marginalized communities.

In their article ‘The Finnish way of CLLD: place-based or half-hearted implementation?’, Patrik Hämäläinen and Sarolta Nemeth (2021, in this issue) reflect critically on how EU policies promoting place-based interventions are implemented and shaped by domestic policy regimes. Using the example of CLLD implementation in Finland, they show how the ‘EU ideal of CLLD’, which offers potential for integrative use of European Structural and Investment Funds and for inter-sectoral approaches, becomes a more narrowly-focused and mono-funded concept as soon as it is implemented. In the system of subsidiarity, there is quite some scope for the national level to define the character and nature of place-based interventions, and the authors see the Finnish method of implementation as a missed opportunity for a multi-funded, more integrative approach. Despite limitations in terms of a truly integrated local-development approach (for example, allowing for urban-rural cooperation projects), the authors nevertheless see the benefits of CLLD's multi-scalar structure, as it encourages the interplay of actors from the very local and intermediary-regional up to the national level, and the transfer of experiences across different scales. Local third-sector associations that work directly with marginalized populations have also been invigorated. In this respect, the analysis shows what is gained and what is lost in the Finnish method of implementing CLLD, and what can be learned from this experience in terms of implementation in the programming period 2021–2027.

Similarly, George Petrakos, Lefteris Topaloglou, Ageliki Anagnostou and Victor Cupcea (2021, in this issue) point to the role of the domestic policy environment in explaining variegated, but overall modest, outcomes of place-based approaches. In their paper entitled ‘Geographies of (in)justice and the (in)effectiveness of place-based policies in Greece’, the authors examine four case studies on local-development actions in terms of their capacity to utilize territorial capital and to promote balanced growth (distributive justice), with more active participation in designing and implementing policies (procedural justice). The authors reveal that the local-development actions and bottom-up initiatives have had a rather modest impact on improving spatial justice, and they disclose, to a varying extent across the four case studies, the lack of a functioning multi-level governance environment and wise leadership. This limits the coordination of local decision-making processes and of financial means, due to excessive control on local policy making by central government. Other shortcomings include the non-existence of long-term plans and broad participation, and local actors’ lack of ability to implement plans and deliver appropriate results which correspond to prevailing local challenges. In conclusion, they argue that the endogenous potential underpinning the place-based approach to local development is restricted by the ineffective prevailing ‘dependence culture’ in Greece, which has existed in local administrations for decades, and because of local key actors’ lack of ability to utilize the ‘territorial capital’ in different places, cities or regions.

Enabling place-based agencies in peripheralised regions

The following two contributions explore place-based development strategies which address local concerns in sparsely populated rural areas, or transformation regions. They first use the example of place-based digitalization projects to illustrate the potential of place-based approaches in overcoming perceived spatial injustice in rural regions facing depopulation (Löfving et al. 2021, in this issue). They then illustrate this potential in structural-transformation regions, focusing on youth engagement in urban development in a middle-sized town in Eastern Germany (Kamuf and Weck 2021, in this issue).

Through an analysis of two place-based digitalization projects in Sweden and Germany, Linnea Löfving, Viktoria Kamuf, Timothy Heleniak, Sabine Weck and Gustaf Norlén (2021, in this issue) discuss the role of digitalization in socio-economic development in rural contexts. The background in both countries involves rural depopulation, as well as territorial inequalities between urban-metropolitan and more peripheral areas, and rural policy has attracted more national attention in recent years. The authors pose the question ‘Can digitalization be a tool to overcome spatial injustice in sparsely populated regions?’. In rural communities, people understand that services and opportunities cannot be the same as in urban areas, but there is a general feeling that the neglect (in terms of similar services and opportunities) has gone too far. Digitalization policies play a prominent role here in reducing rural disadvantage. The studies of two digitalization projects in Sweden and Germany show that both projects encouraged a sense of self-efficacy and self-agency in the respective localities. In this respect, the authors confirm that a place-based approach can help overcome feelings of peripheralisation or being left behind. The two projects complement each other in terms of highlighting specific strengths. The strength of the Swedish case, ‘Digital Västerbotten’, involved mainstreaming digital solutions into administrative routines, while the German case, ‘Smart Country Side Project’, focused on involving civic actors in developing digital services according to local needs. The need for more inclusive, long-term, vertically integrated policies in order to make full use of digitalization in improving living conditions in rural areas is identified.

In a case study of the middle-sized town of Görlitz in Eastern Germany, Viktoria Kamuf and Sabine Weck (2021, in this issue) analyse how local youth began to organize themselves in a ‘bottom-up’ way to take an active role in urban development. Görlitz is particularly interesting in terms of a case study, as it has undergone extensive socio-economic and political transformation over the last decades in the aftermath of German reunification. There have been growing feelings of frustration and distrust in established political institutions among significant parts of the population. In this context, the paper ‘Having a voice and a place: local youth driving urban development in an East German town under transformation’ analyses the factors influencing the role and work of the youth initiative Rabryka in Görlitz, and explores the potential of the initiative to redress spatial injustices in the locality. In transformation localities, injustice is not only perceived in terms of a lack of resources, but also in terms of an inability of informal or marginalized communities to engage in decision-making processes about resources. The authors argue that the youth initiative is playing an important role as a game changer in the locality. As a facilitator, the Rabryka initiative encourages young people to voice their interests and become engaged in their locality. Their engagement establishes a public alternative to worrying trends, such as young people's distrust in established political institutions or the rise of far-right parties, and provides young people with a place in their locality, as they might otherwise have moved away. The authors argue that initiatives like Rabryka, which encourage young people to participate (on their own terms) in local decision-making processes and to shape their locality, need to be encouraged in transformation localities.

Assessing the impact of place-based interventions

Finally, the question remains of how to promote change and how to assess the impact of place-based actions in a longer-term perspective. A collaborating team of researchers from Scotland, Poland and Finland, Simone Piras, Paulina Tobiasz-Lis, Margaret Currie, Karolina Dmochowska-Dudek, Dominic Duckett and Andrew Copus (2021, in this issue), proposes a hybrid methodology for assessing place-based interventions. In their paper entitled ‘Spatial justice on the horizon? A combined Theory of Change scenario tool to assess place-based interventions’, the authors combine approaches from longitudinal scenario planning and cross-sectional Theory of Change and mechanism mapping. The merger results in a methodology for assessing the internal and external coherence, and future robustness, of place-based interventions which address spatial (in)justice. The methodology was used in the RELOCAL project to analyse a range of European interventions, including public policies and bottom-up initiatives, highlighting how spatial injustice has been addressed on different scales. In the first phase, a Theory of Change mechanism map is used to illustrate the underpinning logic of the intervention, including its internal baseline assumptions and external contextual conditions. In the second phase, global and local macro-trends are used to develop scenarios for the locality, which help elaborate trajectories of spatial justice and update the Theory of Change mechanism map. The case study of a territorially disadvantaged area, namely the Isle of Lewis in Scotland, is used to illustrate the methodology. The authors present the methodology as a flexible tool which enables the detection of more general stylized facts, as well as spatial comparisons between a broad range of interventions. The paper is accompanied by two supplementary documents. The first provides a step-by-step overview of the methodological protocol targeted at planning professionals interested in applying it, and the second demonstrates the flexibility of this methodology by showing how it has been applied to interventions addressing different types of spatial injustice.

Reflecting on the relations between place-based development and spatial justice

In short, what forms the relationship between place-based development and spatial justice? In other words, how and to what extent can a place-based approach actually contribute to ‘fair’ processes and the ‘fair’ distribution of resources within and across localities? Evidence from the contributions in this special issue point to the following aspects for further attention in academic research and policy making.

They specifically direct attention to the supra-local, domestic institutional environment, and to the level to which place-based actions are embedded as crucial factors which can limit or enhance the impact of local or regional development actions. Following the principle of subsidiarity in the EU, national, regional and local agendas shape the nature and character of place-based interventions across Europe. The papers in this issue show that a stable, state-level commitment to balanced territorial development and spatial solidarity is required, as well as a commitment to shaping supportive institutional environments which enable local place-based agencies. Otherwise there is a danger of parochialism, as several authors emphasize in this issue (Madanipour, Shucksmith, and Brooks 2021, in this issue), or the danger of national governments ‘hijacking’ local initiatives or withdrawing institutional support for them (Keller and Virág 2021, in this issue). The central role of domestic policies in defining the character and nature of place-based interventions becomes clear (Hämäläinen and Nemeth 2021; Petrakos et al. 2021, all in this issue). The contributions thus point to the relevance of multi-level institutional frameworks and arrangements which hamper or enhance the impact of local/regional place-based approaches in terms of releasing their potential, and which have received insufficient attention so far in academic discourse. The contributions also indicate the relevance of design, monitoring and planning for succession in terms of territorial cohesion policies.

A level of transformative potential can be identified in place-based interventions if a truly multi-scalar approach is taken at the design stage, taking the local perspective as the starting point, i.e. the perceptions and assessments of local stakeholders. The understanding of imbalanced power relationships (for instance, across borders, see Evrard 2021, in this issue), or the perceived limits of communities to steer their own development, helps to understand what is required to achieve greater spatial justice. Place-based interventions, if designed well, can indeed increase the perception of ‘being heard’ in peripheralised localities, and improve feelings of belonging or place-identity, as evidence from different contributions suggests (Kamuf and Weck 2021; Löfving et al. 2021; Piras et al. 2021; all in this issue). These findings speak for the value of place-based approaches. Place-based interventions have the potential to trigger change, and transform formal and informal planning and governance practices over time, beyond a single place. However, a better understanding is needed of the micro-mechanisms triggered by these interventions (Keller and Virág 2021; Petrakos et al. 2021; Piras et al. 2021, all in this issue). The effectiveness of these interventions is also dependent on incorporating the multiple governance levels within which localities are embedded, as well as the knowledge capacities for enabling systematic and continuous learning processes across scales and actors (Borén and Schmitt 2021, in this issue). There is a need to encourage these learning processes more vigorously, not only in the local and national context, but also in terms of transnational learning and analysis in the current regional development and cohesion policy framework (2021–2027).

The contributions in this special issue thus shed light on the potential, and also the limits of place-based approaches. From the point of view of distributive justice, place-based interventions in their current form cannot resolve fundamental inter-regional disparities across space and time. The universal aim to ‘unleash unique territorial potential related to place-based territorial capital, knowledge and assets’ (Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion 2020, 4) meets with very different local, regional and national environments and settings, as the contributions in this special issue show. Particularly in marginalized, disadvantaged regions with no stable commitments to inter-regional spatial solidarity and institutional reforms, place-based approaches may accentuate rather than mitigate disadvantages and inter-regional disparities across Europe. Place-based approaches and spatial justice are thus not necessarily similar, or even two sides of the same coin. As the papers in this special issue reveal, these two concepts have different origins and are underpinned by different normative situations. Nor should place-based development be conflated with a pragmatic blueprint that inevitably includes institutional reforms, inter-regional redistribution and solidarity. The research presented in this special issue indicates that there are a number of distinctive locally and nationally anchored mechanisms and inhibitors at play, which academics, and in particular planning professionals and policy-makers, need to be aware of in striving for a just Europe. In this respect, place-based interventions are a valuable contribution to the territorial-cohesion approach of the EU, but in the quest for spatial justice they cannot replace redistributive territorial cohesion policy.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

The special issue is supported by the 'Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme', under grant agreement No. 727097, project RELOCAL (Resituating the local in cohesion and territorial development), 2016–2021.