Europeanization mechanisms in context: metropolitan development through integrated territorial investments in Central and Eastern Europe

REFERENCES

• Bache, I., Andreou, G., Atanasova, G., & Tomsic, D. (2011). Europeanization and multi-level governance in South-East Europe: The domestic impact of EU Cohesion Policy and pre-accession aid. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.520884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00505.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(3), 250–267. 10.1093/pan/mpj02
   Google Scholar
• Birch, K., & Mykhnenko, V. (2009). Varieties of neoliberalism? Restructuring in large industrially dependent regions across Western and Eastern Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(3), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brad, A. (2021). Transferring the territorial cohesion ideal of integrated polycentric development in the light of peripheralisation – Insights from Romania. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 162, 123–154. https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg162s123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brummel, F., Nelson, C., Souter, G., Jakes, J., & Williams, R. (2010). Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: Community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(6), 681–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.488090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulmer, S., & Padgett, S. (2005). Policy transfer in the European Union: An institutionalist perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J., & Jones, A. (2008). The spatialities of Europeanisation: Territory, government and power in Europe. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(3), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00309.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J., & Jones, A. (2011). The spatialising politics of European political practice: Transacting ‘eastness’ in the European Union. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1068/d4609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coblence, A., & Sýkora, L. (2021). The performativity of metropolization: How material-discursive practices institutionalize the Prague metropolitan region. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.13061
   Google Scholar
• Colomb, C. (2007). The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating learning and policy change. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701666712
   Google Scholar
• Cotella, G., Purkarthofer, E., & Faludi, A. (2020). The poverty of territorialism and the future of European spatial integration. Regional Studies, 54(7), 999–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1733252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dąbrowski, M. (2014). EU Cohesion Policy, horizontal partnership and the patterns of sub-national governance: Insights from Central and Eastern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(4), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413481983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dąbrowski, M., & Piskorek, K. (2018). The development of strategic spatial planning in Central and Eastern Europe: Between path dependence, European influence, and domestic politics. Planning Perspectives, 33(4), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1513373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djelic, M. L., & Quack, S. (2007). Overcoming path dependency: Path generation in open systems. Theory and Society, 36(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9026-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S., & Belof, M. (2020). Social learning in transnational spatial planning processes: An analysis of the ‘V4+2’cooperation on spatial development. Planning Practice & Research, 35(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1726133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop, C. A. (2017). Pathologies of policy learning: What are they and how do they contribute to policy failure? Policy & Politics, 45(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14780920269183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical realism and semiosis. Alethia, 5(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1558/aleth.v5i1.2
   Google Scholar
• Falleti, T. G., & Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1143–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009331724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2014). Europeanisation or Europeanisation of spatial planning? Planning Theory & Practice, 15(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.902095
   Google Scholar
• Ferenčuhová, S. (2006). ‘Spolu a spokojene’. Obrazy integrovanej spoločnosti v mestskom plánovaní. Sociální Studia, 3(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2006-2-133
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricke, C. (2021). The Europeanization of metropolitan regions from below: Comparing the European engagement of two archetypical metropolises. European Urban and Regional Studies, 28(3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764211002880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, G., Dobbin, F., & Simmons, B. A. (2008). Conclusion. In B. A. Simmons, F. Dobbin, & G. Garrett (Eds.), The global diffusion of markets and democracy (pp. 344–360). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gomide, A. A., Pereira, A. K., & Machado, R. (2018). The concept of state capacity and its operationalization in empirical research. In Proceedings of International Workshops on Public Policy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA, 26–28 June 2018, pp. 2–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gong, H., & Hassink, R. (2020). Context sensitivity and economic-geographic (re)theorising. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaa021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. R. C. (2013). Planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. DSpace MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/81739
   Google Scholar
• Gorton, M., Hubbard, C., & Hubbard, L. (2009). The folly of European union policy transfer: Why the common agricultural policy (CAP) does not fit Central and Eastern Europe. Regional Studies, 43(10), 1305–1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802508802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havlík, V. (2018). Competing discourses of territorial development: Tensions between cities and regions as a result of the new regionalism. European Planning Studies, 26(10), 1999–2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1504894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havlík, V. (2020). Europeanization as the reterritorialization of the state: Towards conceptual clarification. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 58(5), 1288–1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horga, I., & Ghimis, A. M. C. (2015). The regional policy in the EUMS from central and Eastern Europe between decentralisation and recentralisation. Debater a Europa, 12(12), 103–134. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-6336_12_7
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00250
   Google Scholar
• Kamrowska-Załuska, D., & Obracht-Prondzyńska, H. (2020). Urban regeneration in urban functional areas in Poland as an instrument of implementation of the EU cohesion policy. Growth and Change, 51(1), 278–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantor, P., & Savitch, H. V. (2005). How to study comparative urban development politics: A research note. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00575.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern, K., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00806.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, T., & Török, I. (2017). Metropolitan region policies in the European Union: Following national, European or neoliberal agendas? International Planning Studies, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2017.1310652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewen, B. (2018). Cohesion Policy and institutional change in Hungary and Estonia. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 5(1), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2018.1487804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007113830879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, K. (2012). Europeanization and changing planning in East–Central Europe: An Easterner’s view. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661596
   Google Scholar
• Markusen, A. (2003). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, A. (2005). Europeanization at the urban level: Local actors, institutions and the dynamics of multi-level interaction. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(4), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500160292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012). Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘studying through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendez, C., Van Der Zwet, A., & Borkowska-Waszak, S. (2021). Rescaling urban development policy in the EU: The impact of integrated place-based approaches in Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 55(6), 1154–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1891215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moisio, S., Bachmann, V., Bialasiewicz, L., Dell’Agnese, E., Dittmer, J., & Mamadouh, V. (2013). Mapping the political geographies of Europeanization: National discourses, external perceptions and the question of popular culture. Progress in Human Geography, 37(6), 737–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512472093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MRD. (2016, April). Dohoda o partnerství pro programové období 2014–2020. Technická revize schválená Evropskou komisí.
   Google Scholar
• MRD. (2018, September). Metodický pokyn pro využití integrovaných nástrojů v programovém období 2014–2020. Dotace EU. https://www.dotaceeu.cz/cs/fondy-eu/2014-2020/metodicke-pokyny/metodika-rizeni-programu/metodika-vyuziti-integrovanych-nastroju
   Google Scholar
• Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP – The Planning Review, 44(172), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., Stead, D., Dąbrowski, M., & Fernandez-Maldonado, A. M. (2021). Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe. Regional Studies, 55(5), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05554-180233
   Google Scholar
• Peck, J. (2011). Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 773–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510394010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2015). Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Europeanisation: Solution or problem? European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 8(16), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D. (2014). When ideas trump interests: Preferences, worldviews, and policy innovations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.1.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics, 27(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000214874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Servillo, L. A., & Van Den Broeck, P. (2012). The social construction of planning systems: A strategic–relational institutionalist approach. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661179
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, B. A., Garrett, G., & Dobbin, F. (2008). Introduction. In B. A. Simmons, F. Dobbin, & G. Garrett (Eds.), The global diffusion of markets and democracy (pp. 1–63). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slach, O., & Ježek, J. (2015). Czechia. disP – The Planning Review, 51(1), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2015.1038050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surubaru, N. C. (2017). Administrative capacity or quality of political governance?: EU Cohesion Policy in the new Europe, 2007–13. Regional Studies, 51(6), 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1246798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sýkora, L. (2009). Post-Socialist cities. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 387–395). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Tiernan, A. (2015). The dilemmas of organisational capacity. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosics, I. (2017). Integrated territorial investment: A missed opportunity? In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska (Eds.), EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and direction (pp. 286–296). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vejchodská, E., & Hendricks, A. (2021). Munich’s developer obligations as a legal transplant to the Czech institutional context. Town Planning Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2021.28
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B., Mourato, J. M., & Böhme, K. (2009). The impact of Europeanisation on planning cultures. In F. Othengrafen, & J. Knieling (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 239–259). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung, H. W. C. (2019). Rethinking mechanism and process in the geographical analysis of uneven development. Dialogues in Human Geography, 9(3), 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820619861861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar