Evaluating regional spatial imaginaries: the Oxford–Cambridge Arc

REFERENCES

• 50 Shades of Planning. (2020). The CaMKOx Arc – Behind the curve? Podcast. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://pod.co/50-shades-of-planning/the-cambridge-milton-keynes-oxford-arc-behind-the-curve
   Google Scholar
• 5th Studio–SQW. (2018). Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford Future Planning Options Project: Final Report. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/171122-NIC-Final-Report-5th-Studio-optimised.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Alagic, A. A., Boelens, L., & Glaudemans, M. (2017). Emergence of a region. Exploring the role of spatial planning in the emergence of high-tech region ELAt using assemblage and actor–network theory. European Planning Studies, 25(7), 1217–1236. doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1317720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1161–1175. doi:10.1080/00343400701543348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2010). Assemblages of state power: Topological shifts in the organization of government and politics. Antipode, 42(5), 1071–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00794.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (eds.). (2015). Soft spaces in Europe: Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boudreau, J. A. (2007). Making new political spaces: Mobilizing spatial imaginaries, instrumentalizing spatial practices, and strategically using spatial tools. Environment and Planning A, 39(11), 2593–2611. doi:10.1068/a39228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CAG Consultants. (2006). In-depth review of sustainable communities policy: Report on the Area Based Assessment of Cambridgeshire. CAG Consultants. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/BHCC-Paper4-Cambridgeshire.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge Econometrics–SQW. (2016). Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Northampton Growth Corridor. National Infrastructure Commission. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/economic-analysis-growth-corridor-report-nic/
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A. (2012). Making up a region: The rise and fall of the ‘south East of England’ as a political territory. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(1), 95–108. doi:10.1068/c1149r
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, K. R., & Jonas, A. E. (1993). Urban development, collective consumption and the politics of metropolitan fragmentation. Political Geography, 12(1), 8–37. doi:10.1016/0962-6298(93)90022-Y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., Raynor, R., Reid, B., Sykes, O., & Shaw, D. (2018). Policy and practice spatial imaginaries: Tyrannies or transformations? Town Planning Review, 89(2), 97–124. doi:10.3828/tpr.2018.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dembski, S. (2015). Structure and imagination of changing cities: Manchester, Liverpool and the spatial in-between. Urban Studies, 52(9), 1647–1664. doi:10.1177/0042098014539021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Transport. (2015). Road Investment Strategy for the 2015/16–2019/20 Road Period. HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, F. (2005). Imaginative geographies. In P. Cloke, P. Crang, & M. A. Goodwin, (Eds.), Introducing human geographies (2nd ed, 144–155). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• EEH. (2019, July). Outline transport strategy: Framework for engagement. England’s Economic Heartland.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, A. (2014). Alternative forms of the high-technology district: Corridors, clumps, cores, campuses, subdivisions, and sites. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 809–823. doi:10.1068/c1267r
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galland, D., & Harrison, J. (2020). Conceptualising metropolitan regions: How institutions, policies, spatial imaginaries and planning are influencing metropolitan development. In Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 1–21). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25632-6_1
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. (2013). Regions, territories and relationality: Exploring the regional dimensions of political practice. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1181–1190. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.697138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government Offices for the South East, East Midlands, and East of England. (2005). Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from https://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/environment-and-planning/planning/planning-policy/strategic-land-use-planning/documents/PDF%20Documents/MKSM%20Sub%20Regional%20Strategy.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195. doi:10.1023/A:1024834510939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2020). Imagining the urban. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1–4. doi:10.1080/21622671.2020.1799850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (2005). Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration & Society, 36(6), 624–647. doi:10.1177/0095399704270586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–76). Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, J., Galland, D., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2020). Regional planning is dead: Long live planning regional futures. Regional Studies, 1–13. doi:10.1080/00343404.2020.1750580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, J., & Gu, H. (2019). Planning megaregional futures: Spatial imaginaries and megaregion formation in China. Regional Studies, 1–13. doi:10.1080/00343404.2019.1679362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., & Oosterlynck, S. (2013). Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 217–234. doi:10.1068/a45121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., Deas, I., Hincks, S., & Ward, K. (2016). Mythic Manchester: Devo Manc, the northern powerhouse and rebalancing the English economy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 9(2), 355–370. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsw004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 439–457. doi:10.1080/14649350903417191
   Google Scholar
• Highways England. (2016, November). Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study Stage 3 Report. Highways England.
   Google Scholar
• Jessop, B. (2016). The state: Past, present, and future. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorising sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D, Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401 doi:10.1068/d9107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, A. E. (2012). Region and place: Regionalism in question. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 263–272. doi:10.1177/0309132510394118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, A. E., & Moisio, S. (2018). City regionalism as geopolitical processes: A new framework for analysis. Progress in Human Geography, 42(3), 350–370. doi:10.1177/0309132516679897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, A. E., & Ward, K. (2007). Introduction to a debate on city-regions: New geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), 169–178. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00711.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, A. E., While, A. H., & Gibbs, D. C. (2010). Managing infrastructural and service demands in new economic spaces: The new territorial politics of collective provision. Regional Studies, 44(2), 183–200. doi:10.1080/00343400802662666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. (2009). Phase space: Geography, relational thinking, and beyond. Progress in Human Geography, 33(4), 487–506. doi:10.1177/0309132508101599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, N. (2017). Powerhouse of cards? Understanding the ‘Northern Powerhouse’. Regional Studies, 51(3), 478–489. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1196289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackinnon, D. (2020). Governing uneven development: The Northern Powerhouse as a ‘state spatial strategy’. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1–23. doi:10.1080/21622671.2020.1743202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, T. (2014). Infrastructure futures and spatial planning: Lessons from France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Progress in Planning, 89, 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2013.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Olesen, K., & Granqvist, K. (2019). ‘Artefactual anchoring’ of strategic spatial planning as persuasive storytelling. Planning Theory, 1473095219893002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MHCLG. (2018). Government response to the planning for the right homes in the right places consultation – A summary of consultation responses and the Government’s view on the way forward. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, March 2018.
   Google Scholar
• MHCLG. (2019, March). Oxford-Cambridge Arc: Government Ambition and Joint Declaration between Government and Local Partners. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, N. J. O. (2008). The Oxford to Cambridge Arc: Struggles in Partnership! (A short play in three Acts) OECD workshop on partnerships for development and diffusion on innovation Trento, Italy 30.01.08–01.02.08.
   Google Scholar
• Milton Keynes Council. (2019). Plan:MK 2016–2031. Milton Keynes. MKC. Retrieved December 20, 2019, from file:///C:/Users/p0075187/Downloads/PlanMK%20Adoption%20Version%20(March%202019).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Moisio, S., & Jonas, A. E. G. (2018). City-regions and city-regionalism. In J. Harrison, M. Jones, & G. MacLeod (Eds.), Handbook of regions and Territories (pp. 285–297). Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Nabers, D. (2008). Leadership and discursive hegemony in international politics. Paper at Regional Powers Network (RPN) conference, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg, Germany, 15–16 September.
   Google Scholar
• National Infrastructure Commission. (2016a). Interim report: Cambridge–Milton Keynes–Oxford corridor. NIC. Retrieved September 5, 2019, from https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cambridge-Milton-Keynes-Oxford-interim-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Infrastructure Commission. (2016b). Cambridge–Milton Keynes–Oxford: ‘growth corridor’ call for evidence. NIC. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/cambridge-milton-keynes-oxford-growth-corridor-call-for-evidence
   Google Scholar
• National Infrastructure Commission. (2017). Partnering for prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge–Milton Keynes–Oxford Arc. NIC. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/partnering-prosperity-new-deal-cambridge-milton-keynes-oxford-arc/
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, M. (1996). Images as institution builders: Metropolitan planning in Madrid. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 293–312. doi:10.1080/09654319608720347
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, M. (2012). The image of the institution. The Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 139–156. doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.619464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, P. (2019). Spatial imaginaries and institutional change in planning: The case of the Mersey belt in north-west England. European Planning Studies, 27(8), 1503–1522. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1588859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterlynck, S. (2010). Regulating regional uneven development and the politics of reconfiguring Belgian state space. Antipode, 42(5), 1151–1179. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00797.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, G. (2016). Letter to Rt Hon. The Lord Adonis, Chair, National Infrastructure Commission 01.03.16.
   Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. (2002). Place and region: Regional worlds and words. Progress in Human Geography, 26(6), 802–811. doi:10.1191/0309132502ph404pr
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. (2009). The resurgence of the ‘region’ and ‘regional identity’: Theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe. Review of International Studies, 121–146. doi:10.1017/S0260210509008456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. (2010). Regions are social constructs, but who or what ‘constructs’ them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning A, 42(10), 2296–2301. doi:10.1068/a42232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Painter, J. (2010). Rethinking territory. Antipode, 42(5), 1090–1118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00795.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parr, J. (2005). Perspectives on the city-region. Regional Studies, 39(5), 555–566. doi:10.1080/00343400500151798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A. (2017). Interplaces: An economic geography of the inter-urban and international economies. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Silva, C. (2018). Mind the gaps! A research agenda for urban interstices. Urban Studies, 55(6), 1203–1222. doi:10.1177/0042098017732714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Valler, D. (2018). Urban development and the politics of dissonance. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6(1), 81–103. doi:10.1080/21622671.2016.1231629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, P. (2005). Oxford & Cambridge: An uncommon history. Thames & Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. J. (2001). Globalization and the rise of city-regions. European Planning Studies, 9(7), 813–826. doi:10.1080/09654310120079788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEERA. (2009). The South East Plan. South East of England Regional Assembly. Guildford.
   Google Scholar
• Smart Growth UK. (2019). The Overheated Arc: A Critical Analysis of the Cambridge–Milton Keynes–Oxford–Newbury Growth Corridor. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from http://www.smartgrowthuk.org/resources/downloads/Arc_Report_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape development. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tomaney, J. (2002). The evolution of regionalism in England. Regional Studies, 36(7), 721–731. doi:10.1080/0034340022000006042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Town and Country Planning Association. (2020). Planning 2020 ‘one year on’ – 20th century slums? Raynsford review of planning in England London. TCPA.
   Google Scholar
• Valler, D., & Phelps, N. A. (2018). Framing the future: On local planning cultures and legacies. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(5), 698–716. doi:10.1080/14649357.2018.1537448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valler, D., Phelps, N. A., & Radford, J. (2014). Soft space, hard bargaining: Planning for high-tech growth in ‘Science Vale UK’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 824–842. doi:10.1068/c1268r
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, R. K., Savitch, H. V., Xu, J., Yeh, A. G., Wu, W., Sancton, A., Kantor, P., Newman, P., Tsukamoto, T., Cheung, P. T. Y., Shen, J., Wu, F., & Zhang, F. (2010). Governing global city regions in China and the West. Progress in Planning, 73(1), 1–75. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2009.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachsmuth, D. (2017). Competitive multi-city regionalism: Growth politics beyond the growth machine. Regional Studies, 51(4), 643–653. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1223840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, J. (2015). Spatial imaginaries research in geography: Synergies, tensions, and new directions. Geography Compass, 9(9), 508–522. doi:10.1111/gec3.12228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• While, A., Jonas, A. E., & Gibbs, D. C. (2004). Unblocking the city? Growth pressures, collective provision, and the search for new spaces of governance in Greater Cambridge, England. Environment and Planning A, 36(2), 279–304. doi:10.1068/a3615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiig, A., & Silver, J. (2019). Turbulent presents, precarious futures: Urbanization and the deployment of global infrastructure. Regional Studies, 53(6), 912–923. doi:10.1080/00343404.2019.1566703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar