Conceptualisations of Territorial Cohesion in Central European border regions

References

• Abrahams, G. (2014). What ‘Is’ Territorial Cohesion? What does it ‘Do’? Essentialist versus pragmatic approaches to using concepts. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2134–2155. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.819838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Austrian Association of Cities and Towns. (2009). Stellungnahme – Grünbuch zum territorialen Zusammenhalt – Vielfalt als Stärke. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Bachtrögler, J., Fratesi, U., & Perucca, G. (2019). The influence of the local context on the implementation and impact of EU Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 29, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Barca, F. (2009). AN agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations – Barca Report.
   Google Scholar
• Begg, I. (2010). Cohesion or confusion: A policy searching for objectives. Journal of European Integration, 32(1), 77–96. doi: 10.1080/07036330903375115
   Google Scholar
• Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development/Richard E. Boyatzis. Thousand Oaks, CA, London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• BUMB. (2007). Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions, Agreed on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig on 24/25 May 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 196–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEC. (1991). Europe 2000 Outlook for the development of the Community’s territory: A preliminary overview.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1992). Treaty on European Union: Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1994). European social policy: a way forward for the Union: A white paper.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1995). Europe 2000+. Cooperation for European territorial development.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam: Amending the Treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European communities and certain related Acts. Luxembourg, Lanham, MD: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Bernan Associates [distributor].
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1999). ESDP – European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2008). Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion - Turning Territorial diversity into strength.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2010). EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2017a). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2017b). Seventh Report on economic, social and Territorial Cohesion: My Region, My Europe, Our Future.
   Google Scholar
• CoE. (1983). European regional/spatial planning Charter: Torremolinos Charter.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: Deconstructing development discourse. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 471–484. doi: 10.1080/09614520701469302
   Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R., Di Cataldo, M., & Giua, M. (2019). It’s not about the money! EU Funds, local opportunities, and the Brexit vote. LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion paper series (LEQS)(149/2019).
   Google Scholar
• Dao, H., Plagnat Cantoreggi, P., & Rousseaux, V. (2017). Operationalizing a contested concept: Indicators of Territorial Cohesion. European Planning Studies, 25(4), 638–660. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1281230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S., Stead, D., & Zonneveld, W. (2007). The Europeanization of spatial planning through Territorial cooperation. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), 291–307. doi: 10.1080/02697450701688245
   Google Scholar
• EC. (2019). Interreg European Territorial Co-operation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/de/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/
   Google Scholar
• ECOVAST. (2009). Vélemény és javaslatok a területi kohézióról készült Zöld Könyvhöz. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2017). PROFECY – Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe: Inner Peripheries: National territories facing challenges of access to basic services of general interest.
   Google Scholar
• Evers, D. (2012). A solution in search of a problem: A ‘garbage can’ approach to the politics of Territorial Cohesion. European Journal of Spatial Development February, 2012(45), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2001). The application of the European spatial development perspective: Evidence from the North-West metropolitan area. European Planning Studies, 9(5), 663–675. doi: 10.1080/09654310120057368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2006). From European spatial development to Territorial Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 40(6), 667–678. doi: 10.1080/00343400600868937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2007). Territorial Cohesion policy and the European model of society1. European Planning Studies, 15(4), 567–583. doi: 10.1080/09654310701232079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2016). EU Territorial Cohesion, a contradiction in terms. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(2), 302–313. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2016.1154657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Governments of Lower Austria, Carinthia, Vorarlberg, Vienna. (2009). Grünbuch zum territorialen Zusammenhalt – Territoriale Vielfalt als Stärke Stellungnahme der österreichischen Länder Niederösterreich, Kärnten, Vorarlberg und Wien. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Fratesi, U., & Wishlade, F. (2017). The impact of European Cohesion Policy in different contexts. Regional Studies, 51(6), 817–821. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1326673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friends of the Earth Hungary. (2009). Comments on the ‘Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion’. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Gagliardi, L., & Percoco, 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
• Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge, UK, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inforegio. (2008). Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, the way ahead. Inforegio panorama December 2008(28).
   Google Scholar
• Inforegio. (2011). Contributions to the consultation: Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion – Turning Territorial diversity into strength. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R., Goodwin-Hawkins, B., & Woods, M. (In press). From Territorial Cohesion to regional spatial justice: The well-being of future Generations Act in Wales. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, R., Moisio, S., Weckroth, M., et al. (2019). Re-conceptualising Territorial Cohesion through the Prism of spatial justice: Critical perspectives on academic and policy discourses. In T. Lang, & F. Görmar (Eds.), Regional and local development in times of polarisation Re-thinking spatial policies in Europe (pp. 97–119). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mairate, A. (2006). The ‘added value’ of European Union Cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 40(2), 167–177. doi: 10.1080/00343400600600496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J., & Olsen, J. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political Orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969. doi: 10.1162/002081898550699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markusen, A. (1999). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for Rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 33(9), 869–884. doi: 10.1080/00343409950075506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial Cohesion: An EU concept. European Journal of Spatial Development, 60, 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E. (2017). European Union Cohesion policy and Spain: A Territorial impact assessment. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1259–1269. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1187719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E. (2014). Assessing Territorial impacts of the EU cohesion policy at the regional level: The case of Algarve. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(3), 198–212. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.915134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirwaldt, K., McMaster, I., & Bachtler, J. (2008). Reconsidering Cohesion Policy: The Contested Debate on Territorial Cohesion. EoRPA Paper 08/5(5).
   Google Scholar
• National Position of Austria. (2009). Austrian Position: Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion – Turning Diversity into Strangth. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Position of Hungary. (2009). Hungarian contribution to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Position of the Czech Republic. (2009). Position of the Czech Republic to the Territorial Cohesion. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Position of the Slovak Republic. (2009). Preliminary position of the Slovak Republic to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-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
• Schoene, M. (2019). European disintegration? Euroscepticism and Europe’s rural/urban divide. European Politics and Society, 20(3), 348–364. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1542768
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction/David Silverman. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• van Houtum, H., & van Naerssen, T. (2002). Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 93(2), 125–136. doi: 10.1111/1467-9663.00189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Well, L. (2012). Conceptualizing the logics of Territorial Cohesion. European Planning Studies, 20(9), 1549–1567. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.708021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vysočina Region. (2009). Otázky k diskusi v rámci zelené knihy o územní soudržnosi. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/contrib_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (ed.). (2002). Polycentric development: What is behind it? Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Zaucha, J., & Böhme, K. (2019). Measuring Territorial cohesion is not a mission impossible. European Planning Studies, 60(2), 1–23. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1607827
   Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, W., & Waterhout, B. (eds.). (2005). Visions on Territorial Cohesion. Special Issue on European Territorial Cohesion. The Town Planning Review, 76(1), 15–27.
   Google Scholar