EU Cohesion Policy and spatial economic growth: trajectories in economic thought

References

• Adams, N., Cotella, G., & Nunes, R. (2011). Territorial development, Cohesion and spatial planning: Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• AER. (2012). Common strategic framework 2012–2020. Brussels: Assembly of European Regions.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP – The Planning Review, 49(3), 16–27. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2013.859001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113–129. doi: 10.1080/01944360308976301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. doi: 10.2307/2295952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. (2015). The urban dimension in cohesion policy: Past developments and future prospects. European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, 3(1), 21–31.
   Google Scholar
• Avdikos, V., & Chardas, A. (2016). European Union Cohesion policy post 2014: More (place-based and conditional) growth – Less redistribution and Cohesion. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), 97–117. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2014.992460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backhouse, R. (1991). A history of modern economic analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bairoch, P. (1988). Cities and economic development: From the dawn to present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, S., Egger, P., & Maximilian von Ehrlich, M. (2018). Effects of EU regional policy: 1989–2013. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 69, 143–152. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2017.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedek, J. (2016). The role of urban growth Poles in regional policy: The Romanian case. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 285–290. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.368
   Google Scholar
• Bere, R., Precup, I., & Silvestru, C. (2015). On growth Poles from EU countries in the framework of Europe 2020. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 920–925. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00519-5
   Google Scholar
• Bere, R., & Silvestru, C. (2015). Aspects related to urban development of growth Poles in the context of Cohesion policy and Europe 2020 strategy paper. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, 5(5), 542–550.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, M. (1994). The methodology of economists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, M. (1997). Economic theory in retrospect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Böhme, K., & Toptsidou, M. (2017). The future of Europe and its territories? A response to the EC white paper on the future of Europe. Spatial Foresight Brief 2017:7.
   Google Scholar
• Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2015a). Second-rank city dynamics: Theoretical interpretations behind their growth potentials. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1041–1053. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.904994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2015b). Rationale and design of EU cohesion policies in a period of crisis. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 7(1), 25–47. doi: 10.1111/rsp3.12047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capello, R., Caragliu, A., & Fratesi, U. (2015). Spatial heterogeneity in the costs of the economic crisis in Europe: Are cities sources of regional resilience? Journal of Economic Geography, 15(5), 951–972. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbu053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capello, R., & Kroll, H. (2016). From theory to practice in smart specialization strategy: Emerging limits and possible future trajectories. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1393–1406. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1156058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso, R., & Meijers, E. (2016). Contrasts between first-tier and second-tier cities in Europe: A functional perspective. European Planning Studies, 24(4), 996–1015. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1120708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Volume I: The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1999). European spatial development perspective. Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Agreed at the informal council of ministers responsible for Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2008). Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion Turning territorial diversity into strength. COM(2008) 616 final.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2010). EUROPE 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2017a). My region, My Europe, our future. Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2017b). White Paper on the Future of Europe. COM(2017)2025.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2018). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument. COM(2018) 375 final.
   Google Scholar
• Cerqua, A., & Pellegrini, G. (2018). Are we spending too much to grow? The case of structural funds. Journal of Regional Science, 58(3), 535–563. doi: 10.1111/jors.12365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilla, T. (2012). L'Union Européenne a-t-elle une politique de développement des métropoles? [ Does the European Union have a policy of metropolitan development?]. Bulletin de l'Association de géographes français, 89(4), 558–569. doi: 10.3406/bagf.2012.8294
   Google Scholar
• Christofakis, M., & Papadaskalopoulos, A. (2011). The growth Poles strategy in regional planning: The recent experience of Greece. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 6(2), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). Infrastructure and regional growth in the European Union. Papers in Regional Science, 91(3), 487–513. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00439.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabrowski, M. (2015). ‘Doing more with less’ or ‘doing less with less’? Assessing EU cohesion policy’s financial instruments for urban development. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 73–96. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2014.999107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwent, D. (1969). Growth Poles and growth centers in regional planning – a review. Environment and Planning A, 1(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1068/a010005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2019). The geography of EU discontent. Regional Studies. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1654603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dukes, T. (2008). The URBAN programme and the European urban policy discourse: Successful instruments to Europeanize the urban level? GeoJournal, 72, 105–119. doi: 10.1007/s10708-008-9168-2
   Google Scholar
• Ederveen, S., de Groot, H., & Nahuis, R. (2006). Fertile soil for structural funds? A panel data analysis of the conditional effectiveness of European Cohesion policy. Kyklos, 59(1), 17–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2006.00318.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelen, E., Froud, J., Johal, S., Salento, A., & Williams, K. (2017). The grounded city: From competitivity to the foundational economy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10, 407–423. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2010). Future orientations for cities. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2012). Second tier cities and territorial development in Europe: Performance, policies and prospects. Final Report. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2014). Growth Poles in South-East Europe. Final Report. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2018). ESPON COMPASS – Comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe. Final Report. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• Essletzbichler, J., Disslbacher, F., & Moser, M. (2018). The victims of neoliberal globalisation and the rise of the populist vote: A comparative analysis of three recent electoral decisions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 73–94. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Union. (2007). Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Agreed on the occasion of the Informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial Cohesion on 24–25 May 2007 in Leipzig, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2011). Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for spatial planning and territorial development on 19th May 2011 in gödöllő, Hungary.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2016). Urban agenda for the European Union. Agreed at the Informal Meeting of EU ministers responsible for urban matters on 30 May 2016 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2018a). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument. COM(2018)375.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2018b). Regional development and cohesion beyond 2020: the new framework at a glance. doi: 10.2776/8275
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2018). A historical institutionalist account of European spatial planning. Planning Perspectives, 33(4), 507–522. doi: 10.1080/02665433.2018.1437554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A., Stead, D., & Humer, A. (2015). Services of general interest, territorial Cohesion and competitiveness in Europe. In H. Fassmann, D. Rauhut, E. Marques da Costa, & A. Humer (Eds.), Services of general interest and territorial Cohesion: European perspectives and national insights (pp. 259–267). Göttingen: V&R Univie Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farago, L., & Varro, K. (2016). Shifts in EU Cohesion policy and processes of peripheralization: A view from central Eastern Europe. European Spatial Research and Policy, 23(1), 5–19. doi: 10.1515/esrp-2016-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farole, T., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2011). Cohesion policy in the European Union: Growth, geography, institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 1089–1111. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02161.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiaschi, D., Lavezzi, A., & Parenti, A. (2017). Does EU cohesion policy work? Theory and evidence. Journal of Regional Science, 58(2), 386–423. doi: 10.1111/jors.12364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frick, S., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). Change in urban concentration and economic growth. World Development, 105(5), 156–170. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.034
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (1972). A general theory of Polarized development. In N. Hansen (Ed.), Growth centers in regional economic development (pp. 82–107). New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gagliardi, L., & Perocco, M. (2017). The impact of European Cohesion policy in urban and rural regions. Regional Studies, 51(6), 857–868. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1179384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. (2013). Thinking about economic growth: Cities, networks, creativity and supply chains for ideas. Annals of Regional Science, 50, 667–684. doi: 10.1007/s00168-012-0518-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadjimichalis, C. (2011). Uneven geographical development and socio–spatial justice and solidarity: European regions after the 2009 financial crisis. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(3), 254–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschman, A. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Isola, F., Leone, F., & Pira, C. (2017). Towards a regional urban agenda: Approaches and tools. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 4(1), 181–188. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2017.1356238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (1984). Cities and the wealth of nations. Principles of economic life. New York: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Komarovskiy, V., & Bondaruk, V. (2013). The role of the Concept of ‘growth Poles’ for regional development. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 4(4), 31–42.
   Google Scholar
• Krugman, P. (1991a). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499. doi: 10.1086/261763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krugman, P. (1991b). Geography and trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krugman, P. (1993). First nature, second nature and the metropolitan location. Journal of Regional Science, 33(2), 129–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1993.tb00217.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühn, M. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 367–378. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.862518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, G. (2012). The Origin of EU Regional Policy in a Theoretical Perspective. Working paper on European Studies Vol. 6 No. 5, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–4. doi: 10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. (2013). Coping with the paradox of strategic spatial planning. disP – The Planning Review, 49(3), 51–52. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2013.859009
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, A. (1890). The principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P. (2016). The UK regional–national economic problem. Geography, globalisation and governance. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union Cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCluskey, D. (1985). The rhetorics of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKee, D. (2008). Services, growth Poles and advanced economies. Service Business, 2(2), 99–107. doi: 10.1007/s11628-007-0026-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E. (2013). Assessing territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion policy: The Portuguese case. European Planning Studies, 22(9), 1960–1988. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.813910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E., & Rauhut, D. (2018). Territorial Cohesion cities: A policy recipe for achieving territorial Cohesion? Regional Studies, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1548764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., & Burger, M. (2017). Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’. Urban Studies, 54(1), 269–291. doi: 10.1177/0042098015597642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Cardoso, R. (2018). Beyond polycentricity: Does stronger integration between cities in polycentric urban regions improve performance? Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 109(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mykhnenko, V., & Wolff, M. (2019). State rescaling and economic convergence. Regional Studies, 53(4), 462–477. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1476754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. London: Duckworth.
   Google Scholar
• Nagy, J., & Benedek, J. (2018). Fighting peripheralization – The way towards balanced metropolitan governance. A paper prepared for the regional studies Association’s annual conference 3–6 June 2018, Lugano, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, S. (2017). Territorial cohesion storylines in 2014–2020 Cohesion policy. European Planning Studies, 25(12), 2157–2174. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1349079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parr, J. (2015). Neglected aspects of regional policy: A retrospective view. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(2), 376–392. doi: 10.1068/c1371r
   Google Scholar
• Perroux, F. (1950). Economic space: Theory and application. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(1), 89–104. doi: 10.2307/1881960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perroux, F. (1970). A note on the concept of growth Poles. In D. McKee, R. Dean, & W. Leahy (Eds.), Regional economics: Theory and practice (pp. 93–103). New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Purkarthofer, E. (2019). Investigating the partnership approach in the EU urban Agenda from the perspective of soft planning. European Planning Studies, 27(1), 86–105. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1527294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quigley, J. (1998). Urban diversity and economic growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 127–138. doi: 10.1257/jep.12.2.127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauhut, D. (2017). Polycentricity – one concept, or many? European Planning Studies, 25(2), 332–348. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1276157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauhut, D., & Hatti, N. (2017). Cities and economic growth: A review. Social Science Spectrum, 3(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Garcilazo, E. (2015). Quality of government and the returns of investment: Examining the impact of Cohesion Expenditure in European regions. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1274–1290. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2015.1007933
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roll, E. (1992). A history of economic thought. London: Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Romanian Regional Development Program. (2013). Growth Poles – the next phase. Bucharest: Romanian Regional Development Program.
   Google Scholar
• Romer, P. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22. doi: 10.1257/jep.8.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostow, W. (1992). Theories of economic growth from David Hume to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. (1994). History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Servillo, L. (2019). Tailored polities in the shadow of the state’s hierarchy. The CLLD implementation and a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 1–21. Published online 21 January 2019. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1569595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bergeijk, P. (2018). On the brink of deglobalisation … again. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 59–72. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg, L., Braun, E., van der Meer, J., & Mingardo, G. (2007). The urban dimension in European policy: History, actors and programmes. In L. van den Berg, E. Braun, & J. van der Meer (Eds.), National policy responses to urban challenges in Europe (pp. 39–61). London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van Oort, F., de Geus, S., & Dogaru, T. (2015). Related variety and regional economic growth in a cross-section of European urban regions. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1110–1127. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.905003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2008). The institutionalisation of European spatial planning. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, S. (1963). French planning: Retrospect and prospect. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 45(4), 335–347. doi: 10.2307/1927918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaucha, J., Komornicki, T., Böhme, K., Swiatek, D., & Zuber, P. (2014). Territorial keys for bringing closer the territorial agenda of the EU and Europe 2020. European Planning Studies, 22(2), 246–267. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar