Let’s Play Doctors of Space:Strategic Spatial Planning as Spatial Play

First draft

Regional Growth Agenda (RSA)28-31th May 2005, Aalborg, Denmark

Richard Ek

The Department of Service ManagementLund University, Campus Helsingborg

Box 882S-251 08 Helsingborg

SwedenRichard.Ek@msm.lu.se

1

Abstract

The ‘comeback’ of strategic spatial planning in Europe and elsewhere makes it urgent to deconstruct and analyse how spatial planners and policy makers do strategic spatial planning (strategic spatial planning as a verb, as performance), using specific spatial knowledge/power resources. In this paper, the first step towards a conceptual framework for the study of doing strategic spatial planning as spatial play is presented. The conceptual framework is built on the following theoretical sources: The IMAGES framework, the cultural sociology of space framework, different disciplinary perspectives on play, Louis Marin’s account on utopia as spatial play and, tentatively Jean Hillier’s recent work on planning fantasies. Special focus will be on what seems to be a crucial element in doing strategic spatial planning: the spatialisation of ideas..

2

Introduction1

Cross-border regions (CBR) are currently very much on the agenda because, in different policy and planning discourses, they are regarded as laboratories for European integration.2 Although not a new phenomenon, CBR are today an explicit strategic objective pursued by different social forces on different spatial scales and in circulation in different policy and planning networks.3 As political projects, CBR are often technocratic in character,4 forums for limited forms of participatory democracy5 and governed by a network of opaque organizations that together constitute a cross-border regional elite.6

Partly due to the political relevance7 and ideological character8 of CBR, a critical, social constructivist body of literature on the 1 I would like to thank Øforsk and The Centre for European Studies, Lund University, for financing the research projects ’Two Nation for the Price of One?’ and ’European Mega-corridors’ respectively, out of which this paper arises.2 Perkmann 2002: 122, see also Henderson 2000, Knippenberg 2004.3 Perkmann & Sum 2002: 3.4 Perkmann 2002: 108.5 O’Dowd 2002a: 124.6 O’Dowd 2001: 104, Jensen & Richardson 2004: 209.7 CBR usually control notably few resources. The financial management of EU-sponsored cross-border cooperation, mainly through INTERREG, are channeled through national governments (O’Dowd 2002a: 123-124) and, as the main source of funding, INTERREG forces CBR to comply with the modalities set out in the EU regulations (Perkmann 2002: 105). The political relevance of CBR is therefore of a more discursive nature than ‘absolute-material’.

3

political geography of CBR has crystallized.9 Issues that have received attention include the social (sometimes neo-colonial) significance of borders,10 cultural and institutional hindrances for cross-border cooperation,11 CBR as glocal arenas for neo-liberal political strategies,12 CBR and cross-border networking as competitive (geopolitical) strategies,13 CBR as a new (visionary) scale of political space and governance building,14 narratives and representations of CBR building,15 and CBR political elitist tendencies.16

This paper is intended as a contribution to that field, and focuses on the possible institutionalization of a new spatial scale, namely the extra large cross-border region (here shortened to CBR XL).17 As a discursive phenomenon within the contemporary European spatial policy and planning field, the

8 CBR are primarily neo-liberal policy spaces (Amin & Tomaney 1995, Brenner 2000) that are not homogeneous but constantly shifting regional-urban landscapes of restructuring and re-regulation (Peck & Tickell 2002: 48).9 This literature could be seen as a continuation of the ‘new regional geography’ (see especially Paasi 1986 & 1991) rather than traditional political geography concerned with borders, boundaries, borderlands and regions (Prescott 1987, Taylor 1993: 163-165).10 O’Dowd 2002b, Sidaway 2002, Sparke 2002a, Hooper 2004.11 Krätke 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, Karrpi 2001, Koschatzky 2000, Scott 1998a, 1998b, 2002a, Scott & Collins 1997, Häkli 2004, Sidaway 2004.12 Sparke 1998 & 2002b, Perkmann 2002, Strüver 2002, Sparke & Lawson 2003.13 Church & Reid 1996, Scott 2002b, Kramsch 2004, Perkmann 2003, Scott 2004.14 Church & Reid 1995 & 1999, Perkmann 1999, Scott 1999, Sparke 2000, Jessop 2002, Blatter 2004, Markusse 2004.15 Sidaway 2001, Kramsch 2002 & 2003, Strüver 2003 & 2004a.16 Kramsch 2001, Strüver 2004b.

4

CBR XL cannot be separated from the ambitions and attempts to create a Europe of flows through the trans-European transport network and other infrastructure investments in transport and communication.18 Recently, the notion of mega-corridors or Euro corridors - massive infrastructure corridors connecting at least two urban agglomerations - has been launched.19 However, in the spatial policy and planning field, these Euro Corridors are regarded and represented as more than infrastructure projects. They are European developmental corridors in a wider sense; extra large cross-border regions in the making. The CBR XL is a discursive interface between cross-border regional regimes (and their attempt to enhance ‘their’ CBR economic competitiveness through infrastructure investments) and transport and communication planners and policymakers (and their attempt to create the pre-conditions for a European monotopia20). ‘Region thinking’ and ‘infrastructure thinking’ are becoming interwoven to a greater extent than ever before in the field of European spatial policy and planning.

Further, the CBR XL phenomenon is being studied in accordance with the analytical and methodological framework labeled IMAGES (Integrated Multi-level Analysis of the Governance of European Space).21 A call for a critical, integrated and value-based research agenda on the production of EUropean space, the IMAGES framework stresses the

17 The number of scales that can be distinguished is immense but all will not be institutionalized (Jessop 2002: 28). Whatever the CBR XL will be established or not is not of interest here, but the tendencies per se.18 Hajer 2000, Scott 2002c, references here please.19 References here please20 Jensen & Richardson 2004.21 Böhme et al 2004.

5

importance of ‘the spatialization of ideas’, i.e. “how spatialities, or framings of space and spatial relations, are ‘constructed’ in spatial policy discourses”.22 In connection with this approach, I argue that the construction of spatialities, framings of space and spatial relations is based on a specific geographical imagination colored by an organic world-view and expressed through, for instance, organic metaphors. More particularly, I argue that a ‘sticky’ heritage of Malthusian, Social-Darwinist and Neo-Lamarckian thinking is clearly present in the European spatial policy and planning field, especially when it comes to how CBR are strategically represented as geo-economic ‘entities’ whose function is to secure economic lebensraum in contemporary Europe.

The thesis that the European spatial policy and planning field is characterized by an organic geographical imagination is illustrated by a case study of a CBR XL in the making: ‘The European Corridor’, a planned infrastructure corridor from Stockholm to Berlin that overlaps other CBR such as the Øresund Region and the cross-border cooperation project between the Øresund Region, Southern Denmark and Northern Germany known as STRING (Southwestern Baltic Sea Trans-Regional Area Implementing New Geography). This paper is therefore preliminary, as in order to do the IMAGES framework justice, more research needs to be conducted.

A theoretical framework is presented in the next section, in the form of a discussion as to how investment in communication and transport infrastructure slowly pushes European space towards something monotopic -, a concept that has been

22 Böhme et al 2004: 1180.

6

developed by Jensen and Richardson.23 As infrastructure is prioritized, the urban landscape increasingly takes the shape of a ‘splintered urbanism’,24 within the wider creation of new state spaces and the rescaling of urban governance into competition-oriented networks of city-regions.25 As a specific state spatial strategy, the ambition to implement CBR XL or Euro corridors is then presented and followed by comments as to how the CBR XL increases the relativization of scale.26

In the third section, the methodological framework of IMAGES is discussed in more detail, in combination with Richardson and Jensen’s call for a cultural sociology of space, i.e. an explicit sensitiveness towards space and spatiality that emphasizes the material dimensions of human agency, the significance of power, how meaning is attached to the spatiality of social life and how representations of space and spatial practices are created and enacted on particular spatial scales. At the end of this section, a sketch model is presented which analyzes the ‘spatialization of ideas’ and uses the concept of ‘spatial play’ as the main ingredient.

In the fourth section, the presence of Malthusian, Social-Darwinist and Neo-Lamarckian thinking in the European spatial policy and planning field is argued for. In section five, the European Corridor case study mentioned above is introduced and schematically analyzed in accordance with the IMAGES framework. Finally, the concluding argument is presented, namely that the CBR XL not only indicates a trajectory towards 23 Jensen & Richardson 2004.24 Graham & Marvin 2001.25 Brenner 2004.26 Jessop 2002.

7

a monotopic splintered urbanism, but also a dromotopic splintered inter-regionalist condition in Europe today.

Monotopia, Splintered Urbanism and the Relativization of Scale

Within the contemporary European spatial policy and planning field, the notion of organizing the territory of the EU into a space of monotopia has increased in influence. Monotopia is a conceptualization of Europe as a transnational territory arranged in order to obtain a frictionless physical and non-physical mobility and make the highest possible speed in transport and communication possible.27 Only a zero-friction European society based on an increasing harmonization of physical and non-physical mobility within the space of flows28 will be able to successfully compete with other economic macro-regions like NAFTA - at least according to one of the discourses justifying monotopia’s story-lines.29 An efficient and all-encompassing infrastructure is a specific requirement and therefore has great significance in the European spatial policy and planning field, as well as in other political-economic discourses of European integration in general. There are several reasons for this. One is that theories of European integration are based on different economic micro- and macro models that are essentially aspatial.30 In order to create the conditions the models demand, the distance variable has either 27 Jensen & Richardson 2004: 3.28 Castells 1996, Flyvbjerg et al 2003: 2-3.29 The concept of story-line as developed by Maarten Hajer (1995) has been elaborated upon in the methodological section of this paper.30 The Cecchini Report (1988) is an example.

8

to be eliminated or reduced as much as possible. Another reason is that the notion of the economic usefulness of infrastructure in general, and transnational infrastructure networks in particular, has become an established and taken-for-granted part of European policy. As a consequence, the central importance of a strengthened infrastructure permeates, and even constitutes, strategic treaties, programs and policy documents such as INTERREG, ESDP and TEN-T; all important discursive cornerstones in the discourse of monotopia.31

The importance of infrastructure, sometimes per se, is not only manifested on the EU scale, but also at cross-border region level. CBR embody the European vision and ambition towards economic integration in that their political boundaries do not function as institutional barriers that prevent flows or transactions of any kind. ‘Peripheral’ areas have been encouraged by the EU to create cross-border cooperation in order to stimulate growth and increase competitiveness.32 At the same time, ‘central’ regions, i.e. large city-regions, have initiated cross-border co-operation by following slightly different policy rationalities. For Brenner, in his investigation into the major role that urban regions have played as key sites of contemporary state institutional and spatial restructuring, metropolitan governance has intentionally been functionally re-scaled to something regional, in order to maintain or improve the position of big cities in the European urban hierarchy.33 As a key focal point and target for territorial competitiveness strategies the regional scale has been consolidated and local

31 Jensen & Richardson 2004: 20-21.32 Dunford 1994, Hudson et al 1997, Kantor 2000.33 Brenner 2004: 279-281, see also Lefèvre 1998: 22.

9

economies have been amalgamated into regionally configured territorial units.34 For instance, through an elevated collaboration with Scania in the South of Sweden, an area conceptualized as the Øresund Region, Copenhagen has attempted to enlarge its economic hinterland and become the main urban center in Northern Europe, in competition with Stockholm and Berlin.35

Brenner also mentions the expansion of cooperative relationships among geographically non-contiguous cities and regions. These inter-urban and inter-regional networks have emerged in three main forms: sectoral networks (e.g. localities that have specialized in similar industries), spatial networks (e.g. geographically similar cities and regions as CBR) and thematic networks (partly overlapping the aforementioned forms) with reference to specific policy issues such as urban decay or the promotion of small business infrastructures.36 These initiatives introduce a new and more complex spatial referent: a multi-nodal network rather than a continuous region, and competition among individual geographical units that has become paralleled by these interurban and interregional networks37 and that tries to ‘span space’ among spatially dispersed nodes in order to create selective ‘leapfrog’ geographies.38 For Brenner this indicates that:

34 Brenner 2004: 283-284.35 Ek 2003.36 Brenner 2004: 286-287, see also Benington & Harvey 1998.37 Brenner 2004: 290-291. See also Leitner & Sheppard 1999 and Phelps et al 2002.38 Leitner et al 2002: 297, Leitner 2004: 248.

10

In effect, interurban networks have opened up an additional parameter of state space – defined by nodal connectivity rather than by territorial enclosure or interscalar articulation – within which state spatial projects and state spatial strategies39 may be articulated. Contrary to some scholarly predictions (e.g. Castells 2004), networked forms of governance appear unlikely, at the present time, to supersede the territorialized institutional architecture of modern statehood. Nonetheless, governance networks are arguably being embedded within territorialized political spaces, and intermeshed with ongoing rescaling processes, in increasingly complex, conflictual, and contradictory ways.40

This tendency indicates an increased relativization of scale as the basis for organizing economic and political relations as the competition among different geographical units to become the new anchorage point of capital accumulation increases. New places, spaces and scales are crystallized, although few are explicitly institutionalized.41 However, for Jessop:

39 In his ‘spatialization’ of Jessop’s (1990) strategic-relational approach to state theory, and Jones’ (1999) reworking of Jessop’s arguments, Brenner (2004: 92] defines state spatial projects as initiatives by the state to: ‘…differentiate state activities among different levels of territorial administration and coordinate state polices among diverse locations and scales…into a partitioned, functionally coordinated, and organizationally coherent regulatory geography.’ State spatial strategies, on the other hand, are initiatives intended to intervene into socioeconomic life within the national territory in order to create or secure a ‘structured coherence’ (Harvey 1989) for capitalist growth (Brenner 2004: 93).40 Brenner 2004: 293. See also Ansell 2000 and Leitner & Sheppard 2002.41 CBR XL are such (a connection of) places, spaces and scales, but even if their future relevance is uncertain they nevertheless need to be studied further.

11

…as new scales emerge and/or existing scales gain in institutional thickness, social forces also tend to develop new mechanisms to link or coordinate them. This generates increasing complexity of vertical, horizontal, diagonal, centripetal, centrifugal and vertical ways…we now see a proliferation of discursively constituted and institutionally materialized and embedded spatial scales (whether terrestrial, territorial or telematic) that are related in increasingly complex tangled hierarchies rather than being simply nested one within the other, with different temporalities as well as spatialities.42

Even if CBR XL do not become a new ‘anchorage point’ in the political and economic landscapes of Europe, they make up, according to Jessop, a spatial scale level that is part of the intertwined geographical hierarchy of European space, relationally constituting and constituted by other places, space and scales. The institutional and material ‘impact’ of CBR XL may well be considerable, since they are so closely tied to the issue of infrastructure and communication and transportation networks, or more precisely, the increased ambition to implement mega- or Euro corridors.

The corridor concept is an old planning concept that has been transformed into something multi-faceted in the European spatial policy and planning field. As early as 1882, the Spanish urbanist, Soria y Mata, designed an urban model based on the conviction that urban extensions had to be adjusted in a specific way in order to make efficient transport possible.43 Today, the

42 Jessop 2002: 29.43 Priemeus & Zonneveld 2003: 168.

12

Euro corridors is defined as a combination of one or several main infrastructure axes that connects major urban areas with large flows of (usually) cross-border transportation and communication. The ambition is that these corridors will secure unhampered passage through institutionally and technically fragmented European territory and eventually contribute to the implementation of a monotopic Europe of flows. The Euro corridor is, however, regarded and represented as more than a bundle of infrastructures. The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) stated in the ESDP that they are developmental corridors in a wider sense:

These corridors can strengthen the spatial cohesion of the EU and they are an essential instrument of spatial development for the co-operation between cities. The spatial concept of Euro corridors can establish connections between the sectorial policies, such as transport, infrastructure, economic development, urbanization and environment. In the development perspective for Euro corridors, it should be clearly indicated in which areas the growth of activities can be clustered and which areas have to be protected as open space. There are a great number of potential corridors in the EU. Some corridors are already well-developed. In other regions such corridors have to be developed and connected with existing ones. Important missing links and secondary networks should be established.44

The corridor is further functionally defined as an infrastructure axis (in terms of traffic engineering), an economic development axis and an urbanization axis (the basis for the direction of

44 CEC 1999: 36.

13

future urbanization). Infrastructure and traffic are not only regarded as being derived from social and economic processes generally, but also considered to have a significant influence on these processes, and in the continuation of spatial development and spatial pattern in general.45 Since corridors are as much about economic development and urban growth as about infrastructure, every city and region tries - through strategic planning and policy making - be part of at least one major Euro corridor, and preferably several.46

In this strategic planning and policy making, ‘corridor thinking’ and ‘region thinking’ blend. As much of Europe has already been covered by variously desk-produced ‘super regions’ of different kinds and themes mainly based on urban clusters and distinctive geographical features,47 the CBR XL indicates a new thematic ‘super-region’ based on (the vision of the) transnational premium networks.48 However, in this ‘corridor’ thinking, as in the Western world in general, infrastructures are assumed to be integrators of space that bind cities, regions and nations into cohesive territories.49 This assumption is problematic, according to Stephen Graham, who argues that there is an uneven emergence of ‘premium networked spaces’, that is ‘…new or retrofitted transport, telecommunications, power or water infrastructures that are customized precisely to the needs of powerful users and spaces…’50 For Brenner, the constructions of these premium-networked spaces are state

45 Priemeus & Zonneveld 2003: 173.46 Chapman et al 2003.47 Herrschel & Newman 2002: 110.48 Graham 2000.49 Graham & Marvin 2001: 8.50 Graham 2000: 185.

14

(spatial) strategies that promote a concentration of socio-economic activities and investments in order to agglomerate socio-economic assets and resources in particular locations.51 The result is a ‘splintered urbanism’ or set of processes within which infrastructure networks are ‘unbundled’ in ways that fragment the social and material fabric of cities.52

To conclude this section, a step towards the realization of a European monotopia has been taken as current and future infrastructures have been conceptualized as societal developmental corridors and extra large cross-border regions, i.e. competition oriented networks of at least two city-regions.53 The CBR XL, do, however, connect and integrate discontinuous city-regions in a selective way, as the infrastructure that fabricates the new ‘super region’ also splinters the transnational space it is supposed to make territorially cohesive.

Studying CBR XL – Towards a Methodological Framework

Böhme et al argue that since new forms of governance based on explicit spatial ideas are perpetually initiated across the EU, the conceptual, semantic and discursive dimensions of the emerging field of European spatial policy need to be addressed. 51 Brenner 2004: 97, 244.52 Graham & Marvin 2001: 33.53 For Jensen and Richardson (2004: 9) it is the framework of the EU mega-regions like the North Sea Region, where European spatial planning as a transnational practice is realized more quickly than anywhere else.

15

This is certainly not an easy task. Such an approach has to be taken within a critical, integrated and value based research agenda (IMAGES) – focusing on the deconstruction of the new rationality for organizing European space – since there is a lack of an analytical framework that probes the ways that the construction of new spatial agendas are taking place, and reveal if and how they reproduce and even increase inequalities and injustices. 54 In other words, there is a: ‘…need to focus on the spatial ideas that have become dominant in EU spatial policy, and…how these ideas are institutionalized in multi-level policy-making systems’ in Europe today.55

Six perspectives on European spatial policy constitute the analytical framework: the spatialization of ideas and the spatial ideas per se; creation of policy agendas and agenda-setting; the construction of new forms of policy knowledge intended to legitimate the spatial ideas; relations between scales and sectors in multi-level governance settings; the democratic and consensual nature of policy-making; and finally, the consequences of Europeanization on national, regional and local scales (investigations into the degree of homogenization and diversity through aerial comparison).

As an analytical category, spatial ideas have a central position in the IMAGES framework. Policy networks that produce spatial ideas with the aim of establishing hegemonic images, new ways of thinking, etc., shape the EU policy agenda.56 Specific forms of policy knowledge are produced depending on the spatial 54 Böhme et al 2004: 1176, 1179.55 Böhme et al 2004: 1180.56 Böhme et al 2004: 1181, see also Faludi 1996, Khakee 1997, DiGaetano & Lawless 1999, Stone 2000.

16

ideas that have to be legitimized.57 Furthermore: ‘…an understanding of how ideas are variably constructed within…multi-level, multimodal and multinational sphere[s] of governance are crucial in exploring the networks and interdependencies within…’ constellations of multi-level governance58 and the construction of democratic practices and meanings through multi-level governance (as other practices across the European spatial policy and planning field) strongly determine the ‘scope of play over [spatial] ideas and outcomes’.59 Finally, an analysis of the shaping of ideas within different policy environments needs to be informed by research that takes diversity seriously, i.e. research that admits that spatial ideas are contextually produced even though the Europeanization of spatial policy has, to some degree, been successful.60

Even if spatial ideas are a central category, they have to be contrasted, juxtaposed and combined with the other five perspectives in the IMAGES framework. Here, however, I would particularly like to stress the spatial ideas category, since it offers an entrance into an exploration of how 57 Böhme et al 2004: 1182, see also Häkli 1998, Scott 2002c, Jensen & Richardson 2003, Dühr 2004. The relation between spatial ideas and knowledge production is of course dialectical, as the available knowledge also influences the production of ideas. Here, I want to stress the explicit production and visualization (in maps, statistics, etc.) of knowledge in order to legitimate certain spatial ideas.58 Böhme et al 2004: 1182, see also Bache 2004, Blatter 2004, Gualini 2004.59 Böhme et al 2004: 1183, see also Abram et al 1996, Amin & Thrift 1999, Shore 2000, Atkinson 2002, O’Dowd 2002a, Rumford 2003, Peters & Pierre 2004.60 Böhme et al 2004: 1184, 1177, see also Herrschel & Newman 2002.

17

spatialities are constructed in spatial policy discourses such as that of CBR XL. Richardson and Jensen have elaborated upon a theoretical and analytical framework for the discourse analysis of socio-spatial relations in general, and with regard to the field of European spatial policy in particular - or at least as an especially illuminating example of a certain kind of socio-spatial relations.61

The cultural sociology of space framework contains three dialectic analytical dimensions: spatial practices (emphasizing the material consequences as well as the significance of power of socio-spatial practices); symbolic meanings (how representations, symbols and discourses frame the cultural meaning of socio-spatiality); and the politics of scale (the manifestation of spatial practices and symbolic meaning on a certain scale, or set of interconnected scales).62 The overall intention of the cultural sociology of space framework is to carry through a discourse analysis where the cultural and material dimensions of space are highlighted. In other words, that space is produced and should not be taken for granted as a container of social life.

Analyzing spatial policy discourse includes the exploration of how actions, practices, relations, etc., are represented in the language of policy documents, the spatial practices intended to reproduce the spatial policy discourse and the deconstruction of the nested power rationalities: ‘with their distinctive horizons of values and norms that guide social actions…’.63 This

61 Richardson & Jensen 2003.62 Richardson & Jensen 2003, 10-13.63 Richardson & Jensen 2003: 19.

18

discourse analytical framework developed by Richardson and Jensen harmonizes well with Maarten Hajer’s approach towards different planning and policy discourses, based on the crystallization of story-lines.64 For Hajer, story-lines are a kind of generative narrative that make it possible for social agents and actors to use different discursive categories in order to give meaning to physical and/or social phenomena. Story-line offers an understanding of a set of confusing discursive components, and at the same time (seemingly) reduces the discursive complexity:

Story-lines are narratives on social reality through which elements from many different domains are combined and that provide actors with a set of symbolic references that suggest a common understanding. Story-lines are essential political devices that allow the overcoming of fragmentation and the achievement of discursive closure.65

Story-lines can therefore be regarded as narratives66 that organize, simplify and dramatize the process of world-making67 within a particular discourse. If successful, the story-lines become institutionalized as myths within organizational fields, ‘telling’ how actors in the field should act and behave towards

64 Hajer 1995.65 Hajer 1995: 62.66 Hajer’s approach has not, however, been regarded as part of the narrative approach within social science research. He is, for example, not mentioned in Barbara Czarniawska’s (2004) ‘Narratives in Social Science Research’ (nor i Czarniawska & Gagliardi 2003 or Currie 1998).67 Fischler 1995.

19

different social phenomena and the socio-spatial environment in general.68

It has perhaps now become evident that both the cultural sociology of space framework and the IMAGES framework firmly place the importance of social agency in the foreground. In the particular example used, it is clear that organizations in the spatial policy and planning field construct a worldview and act according to the parameters of that worldview. But the relationship is dialectical, and the worldview is not only shaped by ‘intellect alone’ but also by actions that are taken and embedded in specific institutional settings. However, in attempting a sketch of the analysis of the ‘spatialization of ideas’, an analytical entrance has to be chosen. I would like to use the concept of ‘geographical imagination’ as such an entrance.

There are several definitions of geographical imaginations.69 Here, geographical imaginations are hypotheses or presumptions of how space and relations in space start and shape different societal processes, tendencies and changes, and what shape these processes, tendencies and changes are expected to take. These geographical imaginations are 68 Meyer & Rowan 1977, DiMaggio & Powell 1983, Scott 1995.69 H. C. Prince (1962) portrayed geographical imaginations as a universal creative and aesthetic instinct of humankind to generate insight and understanding of the commingling of ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ in the conduct of life. David Harvey (1973) contrasted and connected the concept of geographical imaginations to C. Wright Mills (1959) ‘sociological imagination’ and defined it as a capacity in humans to recognize how transactions between individuals and organizations are affected by space (arguing for the humanization of human geography, i.e. a cultural turn) and later (Harvey 1984) a spatial turn within the social sciences in general.

20

abstractions based on available but subjectively chosen expert knowledge, normative ideas, ideological convictions and taken-for-granted basic knowledge articulated and canalized through discourses.70

Geographical imaginations are, in the future-oriented spatial policy and planning field, formalized into spatial visions:71 collections of images of the future about a specific area that are structured into spatial wholes. They express different arrangements of social activities - both functionally and spatially - and use absolute, relative and relational conceptions of space72 in order to emphasize different aspects of the vision. The vision usually includes aspects such as infrastructure, relationships to surrounding places and spaces and societal spheres such a business, planning systems, education, political governance and institutions.

In this context, the production of spatial visions is equal to the spatialization of ideas. Even if not all the work within the spatial policy and planning field results in visionary documents, strategic plans, etc., it is work that is intended to change the societal future and make and organize space according to intentions based on a more or less common geographical 70 Gregory 1994.71 Ek 2003: 104. See also Zonneveld 2005.72 Absolute space is the traditional notion of space as equal to distance, and as a unmovable and indestructible container of all matter while relative space is a dimension or a measure of absolute space that makes it possible to measure movement (Harvey 1969: 195-196, Tonboe 1993: 76-78, Curry 1996a: 5 & 1996b: 92). The concept of relational space stress that space is produced through relations between humans, artifacts, phenomenon etc., and therefore changeable (as relations change) (Werlen 1993: 1, Harvey 1996: 250-251)

21

imagination among different policy and planning organizations. In other words, ideas (based on a geographical imagination) are spatialized (concretized, materialized, visualized, etc.) into spatial visions. Since this is very much about social agency, the spatialization is an act embedded in a specific societal context (institutional setting).

As an act, the spatialization of ideas can be regarded, in the context of the European spatial and policy field, as an attempt to ‘play’73 with European space - a kind of ‘spatial play’ as developed by the French structuralist and semiotic, Louis Marin.74 Marin discusses Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ as a ‘spatial play’; a future-oriented modeling of space and a simultaneous identity-forming act of performance and behavior. For More, Utopia is ‘…a category of social idealization dependent upon detailed organizational, legislative, administrative and educational imagination’.75 Utopist visions present, at least implicitly, a general picture of the future and of society as a whole.

Utopia’s etymological roots are found in the Greek ou-topia and eu-topia (‘no place’ and ‘a good place’, respectively).76 A discursive space unfolds between these two meanings, developed from the tension or deferral of meaning within the concept of Utopia.77 This discursive space is inhabited by the Neutral, an underdetermined ‘blank element’ that allows for

73 For an overview of how ‘play’ has been defined in a number of disciplines, see Gyimóthy & Mykletun 2004: 858-861.74 Marin 1984 & 1993.75 Davis 1984: 10.76 Marin 1984: xv, see also Jensen & Richardson 2004: 3, where monotopia is conceptually juxtaposed with utopia and dystopia.

22

the possibility of both stasis and change.78 Examples of blank figures include the Joker in a game of cards, the number 0 in mathematics and the “/” in dualistic accounts in social theory. Due to its ambiguous nature, the blank figure allows a ‘switching’ between stasis and change, order and disorder and presence and absence.

In the spatial play of the future of territorial Europe, Neutral expresses a discursive space of possible change within the traditional order – a spatial condition where the logic of the space of places has an advantage in its relation towards the logic of the space of flows.79 In this discursive space, the visions of a Europe organized according to another spatial condition where the logic of the space of flows has an advantage towards the logic of the space of places, as eu-topia (a ‘good place’ according to the advocates of monotopia) are visualized in policy plans, strategic planning documents, White Papers, etc., as ou-topia (as physically non-existent mental projections), i.e. as a ‘no place’.80 Situated between eu-topia and ou-topia, Neutral is a state of passage; a discursive space of a possible other order that has not yet been decided or institutionalized. In this ‘European Neutral’, intense competition takes place 77 The desire for a better world, or utopia (eu-topia), is a challenge to the present order of the world, but a challenge that only exists as ou-topia, an imaginary non-place (Hetherington, 1998: 133).78 Hetherington & Lee 2000.79 Castells 1996: 412, 423.80 And also as abstract representations of space, produced and represented by ‘doctors of space’ (architects, urbanists and planners and other professions with the self-claimed competence to diagnose a territory’s ‘problems’ and through visions, plans, etc., ‘cure them’ of different ‘diseases’ (social unrest, sanitation problems, housing deficiencies, unemployment, etc.).

23

concerning the spatial scale that should predominate.81 The Neutral, or discursive space, is always situated in time and space, and in the case of Thomas More, in the period of transition between Feudalism and modern Capitalism. The ‘European Neutral’ occurs in the period of transition between high industrial modernity and post-industrial hypermodernity.82 The vision of Europe as monotopia is an ideological critique of the current political place-based territorial order, itself ideologically linked to points of spatial and social change83 and driven forward by different actors organized as (Neo-liberal) Rescaled Competition State Regimes (RCSR)84.

The use of the concept of ‘play’85 and the spatialization of ideas and production of space as spatial play86 are here in a very exploratory experimental stage, as is the concept- based model as a whole as elaborated upon in this section. Since the spatial play and the spatialization of ideas are acts, verbs (such as

81 Jessop 2002, Brenner 2004.82 Pred 1995.83 Hetherington 1997: 66.84 Brenner 2004: 260-261.85 At a social level, play could be regarded as the creation of idea-systems, materials and technologies which although may not be of immediate use might: ‘allow the society to adapt quickly and successfully to threats which would otherwise face them with extinction’ (Apter & Kerr 1991: 173).86 Caillois’ (2001) differentiation among four different types of play: agôn (competition), alea (change), mimicry (simulation) and ilinx (ecstasy) could possibly be applied to different place marketing and urban branding practices, as different sorts of spatial deep play (Bentham 1931) where the stakes are so high that it is really irrational to engage in at all, since the marginal utility of what one stands to gain outweighs the disutility that one stands to lose (Gyimóthy & Mykletun 2004: 859, see also Leitner & Sheppard 1998).

24

space itself87), the ‘players’ or the doctors of space and their ‘play’ should preferably be studied through ethnographic fieldwork and participant observation.88 Besides being an ethnographic component in the discourse analysis of the production of CBR XL (through the ‘concept-chain’ geographical imaginations – spatial visions – spatialization of ideas – spatial play, inspired by and developed from the IMAGES and the cultural sociology of space frameworks), the study of ‘playing space’ could possibly be connected to planning theory research concerning the darker side of planning and planning fantasies.89

If we go back to the methodological entrance of the CBR XL concept model, however, the first step is to focus on the geographical imaginations mentioned above. In the next section, I argue that in the spatial policy and planning field in contemporary Europe, the dominant geographical imaginations are characterized by an organic thinking and world-making; something that consequently marks the spatial visions, the spatialization of ideas and spatial play as space-producing acts within the European spatial policy and planning field.

Malthus, Spencer and de Lamarck – The Regional Organism’s Evolution

The ‘sticky’ presence of organic thinking that is possible to derive back to Malthus, Spencer and de Lamarck, may be

87 Rose 1999, Doel 2000.88 In the same vein as Charniawska 2002.89 Hillier & Gunder 2003, Allmendinger & Gunder 2005.

25

especially evident in the ‘Europe of the regions’ discourse established in the beginning of the 1980s that, despite being quite different to what it was 20-25 years ago, is still alive and kicking today .

Firstly, the geographical imagination of the ‘region discourse’ can be derived back to Thomas Robert Malthus’ ‘Essay on the Principle of Population’ of 1789 (and also Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ of 1776). According to Malthus, competition for the world’s supply of food is drastically magnified when the population increases exponentially and the food supply increases in a linear way.90 In parallel, it is argued by advocates of the (cross-border) region and the regional discourse that ‘regional competition’ increased exponentially when the world-economy became ‘global’ during the last decades. At the same time, the demand for services and goods that are estimated to create wealth (often highly technological or in some way deemed ‘sophisticated’) has only increased along a linear trajectory. The conclusion is that the competition is as ‘sharp as a knife’; an argument that has justified a plethora of changed directions in the practices of planning, governance, politics, etc. The ‘Malthus-conclusion’ has also justified the idea that it is necessary to regenerate, market and brand cities and regions even though that has resulted in a ‘place war’91, in which the logic of competition turns the places (regions, cities) - even the apparently successful ones - into long-term losers:

In selling themselves, cities are…actively facilitating and subsidizing the very geographic mobility that first rendered them vulnerable, while also validating and reproducing the

90 Claeys 2000: 233-234.91 Robins 1997.

26

extralocal rule systems to which they are (increasingly) subjected (Cochrane, Peck and Tickell 1996). The logic of interurban competition, then, turns cities into accomplices in their own subordination, a process driven – and legitimated – by tales of municipal turnaround and urban renaissance, by little victories and fleeting accomplishments, and ultimately also by the apparent paucity of “realistic” local alternatives.92

Social Darwinism is a generic term for social theories dating from the second half of the 19th Century and a general use of terminology originating from biological theories of evolution. According to Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism makes the following presumptions:

…(i) that biological laws apply to the whole of organic nature, including human beings; (ii) that the pressure of population growth on resources generates a struggle for existence…(iii) that biological traits conferring an advantage on their possessors in this struggle could, through cumulative selection and inheritance by their descendants, spread throughout the population; (iv) that this process, over time, accounts for the emergence of new species and the elimination of some existing life forms. These are the key assumptions of Darwinism. Social Darwinists add a fifth, namely that these processes could account for the evolution of human psychological and sociological phenomena, including language, reason, morality and religion, and the development of various types of social organisation and cultural forms.93

92 Peck & Tickell 2002: 46.93 Hawkins 1996: 19-20, the emphasis is mine.

27

Social Darwinism is not directly connected to Darwin himself, but rather with the British philosopher, Herbert Spencer, (who coined the expression ‘survival of the fittest’) and the anthropologist, William Graham.94 Here the European spatial policy and planning field can be regarded as an arena for geo-economic warfare.95 Geo-economics, for Matthew Sparke, are those practices and processes that, in different ways, challenge the supremacy of the territorial state. That has been especially influential in different cross-border co-operation projects.96 Like ‘organisms’ on different spatial scale levels, territorial units are believed to not only compete for territory per se, or territorial lebensraum (as larger cities ‘colonize’ their hinterland ‘peacefully’ through the institutionalization of cross-border regions97) but also economic lebensraum. The EU ‘stands against’ other macro-regional economies like NAFTA, and within Europe, new borders, shatter-belts, frontlines and bridgeheads are outlined on maps and through other kinds of cartographic practices: ‘…akin to the kinds of military

94 Ruse 1982.95 Ek 2005.96 Sparke 1998 & 2002b, Sparke & Lawson 2003. The term ‘geo-economics’ originates from the U.S. defense intellectual, Edward Luttwak (1990).97 In the discourse of the Øresund region, the organizations on the Danish side did not try to hide that they saw regional integration as a way of ‘colonizing’ the Southern part of Sweden on behalf of Stockholm’s economic influence in the south. The Swedish actors in the south did not object to that, since the region - at least in some senses - gave them the possibility of distancing themselves from Stockholm’s influence. Today, however, there is a lot of frustration among the region-building organizations in Scania because they think that ‘the Danes always try to push them around’ and arrange concrete cross-border co-operation in a way that Copenhagen benefits one-sidedly.

28

cartography that once filled European war rooms’98 and akin to the cartographic practice used in the ‘scramble for Africa’, but this time a sort of imperial endo-colonization.99

Finally, Neo-Lamarckism leaves traces in the spatial policy and planning field and the regional discourse in particular. Neo-Lamarckism can be described as a selective reuse of the French naturalist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck’s evolution theory.100 Two basic presumptions form the basis of Neo-Lamarckism. The first is that the qualities and properties that an organism manages to assimilate in its interaction with the environment are inherited by future generations. The second presumption is that variations among organisms depend on will, habits and the environment.101 Therefore, according to Neo-Lamarckism, living organisms can change according to their own force and adapt

98 Sparke 1998: 76. A typical geo-economic war room of today is Øresund House (Gammel Kongevej 1) in central Copenhagen, which accommodate the following organisations: The Öresund Committee, Øresund Identity Network, Medicon Valley Academy, Øresund Science Region, Øresund Environment Academy, Øresund Food Network and Øresund IT Academy. These ‘CBR war rooms’ operate rather like camera obscura. Through the use of cartographic vision machines, they constantly scan the region in order to represent it via visionary documents, branding campaigns, etc. At the same time it is very difficult to take a look inside, because neither the organizations nor the initiated cross-border co-operations projects are especially transparent .Information is often made available (but not always) through tailor-made discreet propaganda and ‘information management’ that appears as news and information rather than dogmatic promotion (regarding ‘news management’ in the Øresund Region, see Falkheimer 2004).99 Virilio reference here please.100 Campbell & Livingstone 1983: 267.101 Campbell & Livingstone 1983: 268, Livingstone 1992: 187.

29

to changes in the environment.102 In the same vein, in the European planning and policy field regions are regarded as ‘specimens’ of a new, or a blend of new and old (neo-medieval) ‘species’, whose chances of ‘survival’ depend on how well each one can mobilize endogenous developmental resources and ‘navigate’ the acclaimed border-less or borderless world economy. Here, in the construction of specific knowledge needed to legitimate these typical organism-oriented geographical imaginations, some sections of economic geography have - whether accidentally or not - become very useable (e.g. theories about institutional thickness, the learning region, cluster, industrial districts, agglomeration, proximity, creativity) in the discourse of the region and ‘new localism’.103

That such organic thinking is so prevalent in the geographical imagination of European spatial policy and planning field should not, however, come as any surprise. In her inquiry into ‘geography and the human spirit’, Anne Buttimer, following Stephen Pepper, discusses Human Geography’s four root metaphors: the mosaic, mechanism, organism and the arena.104 Root metaphors are so deeply embedded in our way of thinking that they can be found ‘behind’ whole discourses105 and lay the foundations for different world-hypotheses: formism, mechanism, organicism and contextualism.106 Every root metaphor and world-hypothesis then constitutes sets of models, theories and even paradigms that are not ontologically and

102 Murphy 1999: 577-578.103 Lovering 1995 and 1999.104 Buttimer 1993, see also 1982, Pepper 1942.105 Alvesson & Sköldberg 2000. See also Brown 1977.106 Pepper 1942: 96.

30

epistemologically compatible.107 Even if the mosaic is the most frequent root metaphor in geographical or spatial thinking, in the traditional map for instance,108 the organism as root metaphor has a special rhetorical attraction as it somehow appeals to people’s biological understanding of life, or as some would say, the ‘worst in us’ (as the cultural essentialism present in Huntington’s ‘clash of the civilizations’ thesis109). Biological metaphors have therefore been present in many different ideological contexts and used by conservatives as well as revolutionaries, humanistic artists as well as technocratic ‘doctors of space’.110 In the spatial planning and policy discourse, biological metaphors are frequent, as in ‘integration’ and ‘growth’, which makes this field of study an important one.

An CBR XL Example: The European Corridor

An apparent example of the ‘Europeanization of spatial planning and policy’, involves organizations trying to turn the ‘potential corridors in the EU’ into established ones, usually by connecting them to ‘existing ones’. Euro corridors that have already ‘emerged’ are ‘Transmanche – London – Glasgow’, ‘Amsterdam – Brussels – Paris’, ‘Brussels – Cologne – Hanover – Berlin – Poznan – Warzaw’ and ‘Rotterdam – Ruhr – Rhine – Main – Stuttgart – Munich’. Those that are close to being ‘realized’ and are linked to existing ones include ‘Dublin –

107 Pepper 1942: 109, Buttimer 1993: 21-22. However, if the world-hypotheses may not compatible analytically, they are nevertheless often, if not always, co-existing in the same discourse (Ek 2003: 300). 108 Alvesson 1993: 22.109 See O’Tuathail’s (1996: 243244) critique of Huntington 1993.110 Buttimer 1993: 23.

31

Manchester – London – Transmanche’ and ‘Rotterdam – Hanover – Berlin’.111 Set out on a map, these Euro corridors overlap other ‘desk-produced’ territorial units and transport network projects in complex ways. The fourteen priority projects of the TEN-T112 and the ‘super-regions’ of INTERREG IIC transnational cooperation programmes like the North Sea Region and the Baltic Sea Region113 all help to create a European map of intense accessibility and connectivity that precedes the territory.

The European Corridor that stretches from Stockholm to Berlin is a case in point. Territorially it overlaps at least two of the fourteen prioritized TEN-T projects, the Øresund Fixed rail/road Link Denmark - Sweden (no. 11) and the Nordic Triangle Multimodal Corridor (no. 12), and the INTERREG IIC TCP’s the Baltic Sea Region and CADSES (Central European, Adriatic, Danubian, and South-Eastern European Spaces). Besides that, on the map the European Corridor connects to the TEN-T project High-Speed Train/Combined Transport North-South between Berlin and Nurnberg and the INTERREG IIC TCP to the North Sea Region. In addition, the Øresund Region finds ‘itself’ situated in the European Corridor, as a ‘used to be – missing link’. The recently built fixed link over Øresund is not sufficient from a European Corridor perspective, however, since another link is still missing; a fixed connection over the Fehmarn Belt. Finally, the European Corridor is an example of an interregional network that ‘spans space’ and connects the three competing cities of Stockholm, Copenhagen and Berlin -

111 Priemus & Zonneveld 2003: 170.112 CEC 1999: 15.113 CEC 1999: 41.

32

at least in the very competition-directed ‘regional rhetoric’ (Gothenburg has also recently been included in the European Corridor114).

Even though this three-pronged urban agglomeration stands out as a nodal point in the Corridor, the organizational co-operation was actually initiated by smaller municipalities in the south of Sweden: Helsingborg, Ljungby and Jönköping.115 Formally organized as a non-profit-making association, Europakorridoren AB, and consisting of 34 municipalities and cities, it acts as a lobby group in an attempt to realize high-speed trains and other improvements in the Corridor’s infrastructural base. The representation of the Corridor is not only demarcated in space, but also in a traveling time of exactly 120 minutes (1 hour each way in a western and eastern direction).116 According to this way of counting, the European Corridor, as a CBR XL, has a population of 20 million people (5.5 million in Sweden alone) ‘making’ it one of the largest regions in Northern Europe.117 But the European Corridor is usually regarded and represented in time or time-space rather than in traditional territorial dimensions. It is a ‘traffic concept’ for Southern Sweden, Denmark and Northern Germany; the ‘traffic-aorta’ of Sweden and a ‘broadband’ for physical transport.118 But the European Corridor is not only a corridor:

114 Europakorridoren 2004: not numbered.115 http://www.linkoping.se [2005-05-08]116 Europakorridoren 2000: 18117 Europakorridoren 2000: 18-19.118 Europakorridoren 2000: 22, Europakorridoren Nyhetsbrev 2000: 1, Brobyggarna Nyheter 1999: 1.

33

The European Corridor is not a railway project, or just about getting from A to B as quickly as possible. The Corridor is a region whose development and growth has great importance for Sweden and the Nordic countries – as well as for Europe as a whole.119

and:

Distance should be measured in time rather than in kilometres. It is not the actual distance that decides whether the journey is possible but the travelling time… Speed means proximity. When the range increases, it means that opportunities for contacts, businesses, studies, service, etc. also increase. That we call the home region or home market becomes larger… High-speed trains create bigger regions…120

Much more can be said about the European Corridor - and will be. But I would like to conclude this section by outlining how such an investigation should be carried out following the IMAGES analytical framework and the model studying CBR XL. First of all, the six perspectives of European spatial policy and planning that constitute the IMAGES framework have to be considered:

1. Which spatial ideas are present in the discussion of the European Corridor and how are they actually spatialized (the CBR XL concept analytical model, see below)?

2. Which policy agendas lie ‘behind’ the corridor project, and how is agenda-setting implemented?

119 Europakorridoren 2000: 13, the translation is mine.120 Europakorridoren 2004: not numbered.

34

3. What kind of policy knowledge has to be produced in order to legitimize the project?

4. Does the European Corridor co-operation fit into a multi-level governance framework, and if so (it actually is so), what characterizes this particular set of multi-lever governance?

5. What is the democratic and consensual nature of the project? In what sense do the people inhabiting the ‘home region’ participate in policy-making, etc.?

6. To what degree is the European Corridor influenced by ‘guidelines’ at the EU spatial policy and planning level, and which elements of the project are ‘local’ or, to express it more acurately, ‘glocalized’?

And, following the model of analyzing the ‘spatialization of the idea of a CBR XL’, including the cultural sociology of space framework:

1. What are the geographical imaginations that lie behind the European Corridor, i.e. how do the (people in the) active organizations imagine how space shapes societal phenomena, processes, development, etc. and how do societal changes shape spaces and places?

2. What are the spatial visions for the European Corridor, what characterizes them and how are they produced (how are the ‘corridor ideas’ spatialized?

3. How do the organizations engaged in the European Corridor co-operation play with space, i.e. how is the discursive space between stasis and change ‘filled up’ in this particular case?

35

To conclude, it must be stressed that the eclectic framework of a ‘model towards the study of CBR XL’ is preliminary and exploratory. Great care must be taken in order to do justice to the IMAGES and the cultural sociology of space frameworks. One important aspect that has not yet been taken into consideration is the need for a value driven perspective of spatial justice; something that is attended to in the next and concluding section.

Conclusion – Dromotopic Splintered Inter-Regionalism

A value driven perspective on spatial justice could be provided by scrutinizing how the ideas and practices in the spatial policy and planning field address, frame or exclude concerns about social exclusion, uneven development, environmental degradation and so on. Questions have to be asked, such as ‘which societal groups and places stand to win as a result of a certain EU spatial policy outcome’ and ‘if, and in that case, how do the dominant ideas of spatial relations reproduce societal injustice’?121

Jensen and Richardson ask those questions in their treatise on the making of European monotopia.122 They conclude - and I agree with their conclusion - that the infra-national character of governance123 (in an informal style in committees, commissions, directorates, etc.) in the European spatial policy and planning

121 Böhme et al 2004: 1179. See also Smith 1994 and Harvey 1996.122 Jensen & Richardson 2004.123 Weiler 1999: 284-285.

36

field seems to transfer the making of European space to ‘obscure policy spaces, away from the public gaze,124 and that:

…the Europeanisation of spatial planning as we find it in the new transnational spatial policy spaces so far seem to be devoid of the participation of civil society representations, NGOs and other voices that (potentially at least) could contest the democratic legitimacy of those new spatial practices.125

The next question to ask is whether this exclusive character of spatial policy and planning making in Europe today implies that some societal groups and interests are structurally favoured (planning’s dark side126)? Here we could go back to Graham and Marvin’s study of the dangers of splintered urbanism.127 For them, the development towards a more and more splintered urbanism threatens to include socio-economically affluent and corporate users and exclude other less affluent users, thus creating cities of premium and secondary networks.128

When it comes to transportation and communication, there is little to indicate that the process towards increased splintered urbanism will come to a standstill. On the contrary, it appears that the European power-rationalities of space and mobility will either create new or enhance old patterns of socio-economic exclusion, although those are barely touched upon in the policy

124 Jensen & Richardson 2004: 5).125 Jensen & Richardson 2004: 209.126 Allmendinger & Gunder 2005.127 Graham & Marvin 2001: 383-384.128 Graham & Marvin 2001: 383.

37

and planning debates.129, If this trajectory continues to be unaffected, and the institutionalization of CBR XL implemented, the result may not only be a monotopic Europe of splintered urbanism, but even a (premium networked) dromotopic Europe of splintered inter-regionalism. It will not only be monotopic (zero-friction, frictionless mobility) but also dromotopic because zero-friction mobility is not enough. The highest possible speed - through premium network - is also deemed a necessity.130 Not only will the result be splintered urbanism (cities divided into premium and secondary [class-based] networks), but also splintered inter-regionalism (extra large cross-border regions constituted and divided by complex power-geometric patterns of premium and secondary [and even tertiary] interregional networks). Which premium networks constitute the (realized) European Corridor? Who is going to travel - frequently - between Stockholm and Hamburg at 350 km per hour for 280 minutes? Who will be able to afford to travel frequently between Stockholm and Hamburg at 350 km per hour? Will the future European infrastructure network once again (as in the 19th Century) establish societal speed classes,131 or rather enhance the existing dividing lines between different speed classes?

129 Jensen & Richardson 2004: 220.130 The necessity of the highest possible speed is of course also included in Jensen and Richardson’s ‘monotopia’. Here I just want to stress the speed dimension even more through the concept of ‘dromo’.131 Virilio 1995: 79.

38

References:

Abram, S; Murdoch, J & Marsden, T (1996): The social construction of 'Middle England': The politics of participation in forward planning. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 353-364.

Allmendinger, P & Gunder, M (2005): Applying Lacanian insight and a dash of Derridean deconstruction to planning’s ‘dark side’. Planning Theory 4, 87-112.

Alvesson, M & Sköldberg, K (2000): Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

39

Amin, Ash & Tomaney, John (1995): The regional dilemma in a neo-liberal Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2, 171-188.

Amin, A & Thrift, N (1999): Institutional issues for the European regions. From markets and plants to socioeconomics and powers of association. The New Industrial Geography. Regions, Regulation and Institutions. Barnes, T. J & Gertler, M. S (eds.). Routledge, London, 292-314.

Ansell, C (2000): The networked policy: Regional development in Western Europe. Governance 13, 303-333.

Apter, M. J & Kerr, J. H (1991): The nature, function and value of play. Adult Play. A Reversal Theory Approach. Kerr, J. H & Apter, M. J (eds.). Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 163-176.

Atkinson, R (2002): The White Paper on European governance: Implications for urban policy. European Planning Studies 10, 781-792.

Bache, I (2004): Multi-level governance and European Union regional policy. Multi-level governance. Bache, I & Flinders, M (eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 165-178.

Benington, J & Harvey, J (1998): Transnational local authority networking within the European Union. Comparing Policy Networks. Marsch, D (ed.). Open University Press, Philadelphia, 149-166.

Bentham, J (1931): The Theory of Legislation. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, London.

Blatter, J (2004): ‘From spaces of place’ to ‘spaces of flows’? Territorial and functional governance in cross-border regions in Europe and North America. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28, 530-548.

Brenner, Neil (2000): Building 'Euro-regions': Locational politics and the political geography of neoliberalism in post-unification Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, 7, 319-345.

Brenner, Neil (2004): New State Spaces. Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Brobyggarna Nyheter (1999): Marketing material.

Brown, R. H (1977): A Poetic For Sociology. Toward a Logic of Discovery For The Human Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Buttimer, A (1982): Musing on Helicon: Root Metaphors and

40

Geography. Geografiska Annaler 64B, 89-96.

Buttimer, A (1993): Geography and the Human Spirit. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Böhme, K; Richardson, T; Dabinett, G & Jensen, O. B (1994): Values in a vacuum? Towards an integrated multi-level analysis of the governance of European space. European Planning Studies 12, 1175-1188.

Caillois, R (2001): Man, Play and Games. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Campbell, J. A & Livingstone, D. N (1983): Neo-Lamarckism and the development of geography in the United States and Greater Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 8, 267-294.

Castells, M (1996): The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell, Oxford.

Castells, M (2004): The Power of Identity. 2nd Edition. Blackwell, Oxford.

Cecchini, P (1988): The Benefits of a Single Market. Wildwood House, Aldershot.

CEC, Commission of the European Communities (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. Office for Official Publications of the European Community, Luxembourg.

Chapman, D; Pratt, D; Larkham, P & Dickins, I (2003): Concepts and Definitions of Corridors: Evidence from England’s Midlands. Journal of Transport Geography 11, 179-191.

Church, A & Reid, P (1995): Transfrontier co-operation, spatial development strategies and the emergence of a new scale of regulation: The Anglo-French border. Regional Studies 29, 297-316.

Church, A & Reid, P (1996): Urban power, international networks and competition: The example of cross-border cooperation. Urban Studies 33, 1297-1318.

Church, A & Reid, P (1999): Cross-border co-operation, institutionalization and political space across the English Channel. Regional Studies 33, 643-655

41

Claeys, G (2000): The ”Survival of the Fittest” and the Origins of Social Darwinism. Journal of the History of Ideas 61, 223-240.

Cochrane, A; Peck, J & Tickell, A (1996): Manchester plays games: Exploring the local politics of globalization. Urban Studies 33, 1319-1336.

Currie, M (1998): Postmodern Narrative Theory. Macmillan, London.

Curry, M. R (1996a): On space and spatial practice in contemporary geography. Concepts in Human Geography. Earle, C; Mathewson, K & Kenzer, M. S (eds.). Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 3-32.

Curry, M. R (1996b): The Work in the World. Geographical Practice and the Written Word. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Czarniawska, B (2002): A Tale of Three Cities. Or the Glocalization of City Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Czarniawska, B & Gagliardi, P (2003): Narratives We Organize By. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Czarniawska, B (2004): Narratives in Social Science Research. Sage, London.

Davis, J. C (1984): The history of Utopia: The cronology of nowhere. Utopics. Alexander, P & Gill, R (eds.). Duckworth, London, 1-18.

DiGaetano, A & Lawless, P (1999): Urban governance and industrial decline. Governing structures and policy agendas in Birmingham and Sheffield, England, and Detroit, Michigan, 1980-1997. Urban Affairs Review 34, 546-577.

DiMaggio, P. J & Powell, W. W (1983): The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147-160.

Doel, M (2000): Un-glunking geography. Spatial science after Dr Seuss and Gilles Deleuze. Thinking Space. Crang, M & Thrift, N (eds). Routledge, London, 117-135.

Dühr, S (2004): The form, style, and use of cartographic visualisations in European spatial planning: Examples from England and Germany. Environment and Planning A 36, 1961-1989.

Dunford, M (1994): Winners and losers: The new map of economic inequality in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies 1, 95-114.

42

Ek, R (2003): Öresundsregion –bli till! De geografiska visionernas diskursiva rytm. PhD-thesis in Swedish. Dept of Social and Economic Geography, Lund University.

Ek, R (2005): Regional experiencescapes as geo-economic ammunition. Experiencescapes. O’Dell, T (ed.). Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, XX-XX. In press.

Europakorridoren (2000): Sveriges kommunikationer. Lägesrapport från Europakorridoren, hösten 2000 (in Swedish).

Europakorridoren Nyhetsbrev (2000): Marketing material.

Europakorridoren (2004): Fakta om hastighet (in Swedish).

Falkheimer, J (2004): Att gestalta en region. Källornas strategier och mediernas föreställning om Öresund. Makadam Förlag, Göteborg.

Faludi, A (1996): Framing with images. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23, 93-108.

Flyvbjerg, B; Bruzelius, N & Rothengatter, W (2003): Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Graham, S (2000): Constructing premium network spaces: Reflections on infrastructure networks and contemporary urban development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24, 183-200.

Graham, S & Marvin, S (2001): Splintering Urbanism. Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Routledge, London.

Gregory, D (1994): Geographical Imaginations. Blackwell, Oxford.

Gualini, E (2004): Multi-level Governance and Institutional Change. The Europeanization of Regional Policy in Italy. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Gyimóthy, S & Mykletun, R. J (2004): Play in adventure tourism. The case of arctic trekking. Annals of Tourism Research 31, 855-878.

Hajer, M (1995): The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon, Oxford.

Hajer, M (2000): Transnational Networks as Transnational Policy Discourse: Some Observations on the Politics of Spatial Development in Europe. The Revival of Strategic Planning. Faludi, A & Salet, W (eds). Kluwer, Dordrecht, 135-142.

43

Harvey, D (1969): Explanation in Geography. Edward Arnold, London.

Harvey, D (1973): Social Justice and the City. Edward Arnold, London.

Harvey, D (1984): On the history and present condition of geography: An historical materialist manifesto. Professional Geographer 36, 1-11.

Harvey, D (1989): The Urban Experience. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Harvey, D (1996): Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell, Oxford.

Hawkins, M (1996): Durkheim, the division of labour, and Social Darwinism. History of European Ideas 22, 19-31.

Henderson, D (2000): EU regional innovation strategies. Regional experimentalism in practice? European Urban and Regional Studies 7, 347-358.

Herrschel, T & Newman, P (2002): Governance of Europe’s City Regions. Planning, Policy and Politics. Routledge, London.

Hetherington, K (1997): The Badlands of Modernity. Heterotopia and Social Ordering. Routledge, London.

Hetherington, K (1998): Expressions of Identity. Space, Performance, Politics. Sage, London.

Hetherington, K & Lee, N (2000): Social order and the bland figure. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18, 169-184.

Hillier, J & Gunder, M (2003): Planning fantasies? An exploration of a potential Lacanian framework for understanding development assessment planning. Planning Theory 2, 225-248.

Hooper, B (2004): Onotologizing the borders of Europe. Cross-Border Governance in the European Union. Hooper, B & Kramsch, O (eds.). Routledge, London, 209-229.

Hudson, R; Dunford, M; Hamilton, D & Kotter, R (1997): Developing regional strategies for economic success: Lessons from Europe's economically successful regions? European Urban and Regional Studies 4, 365-373.

Huntington, S. P (1993): The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs 72, 22-49.

44

Häkli, J (1998): Discourse in the production of political space: Decolonizing the symbolism of provinces in Finland. Political Geography 17, 331-363.

Häkli, J (2002): Cross-border regionalisation in the ’New Europe’ – Theoretical reflection with two illustrative examples. Geopolitics and International Boundaries 3, 83-103.

Häkli, J. (2004): Governing the mountains. Cross-border regionalization in Catalonia. Cross-Border Governance in the European Union. Hooper, B & Kramsch, O (eds.). Routledge, London, 56-69.

Jensen, O. B & Richardson, T (2003): Being on the map: The new iconographies of power over European space. International Planning Studies 8, 9-34.

Jensen, O. B & Richardson, T (2004): Making European Space. Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity. Routledge, London.

Jessop, B (1990): State Theory. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

Jessop, B (2002): The political economy of scale, Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions. Perkmann, Markus & Sum, Ngai-Ling (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 25-49.

Jones, M (1999): New Institutional Spaces. Jessica Kingsley, London.

Kantor, P (2000): Can regionalism save poor cities? Politics, institutions, and interests in Glasgow. Urban Affairs Review 35, 794-820.

Khakee, A (1997): Agenda-setting in European spatial planning. Making Strategic Spatial Plans. Innovation in Europe. Healey, P; Khakee, A; Motte, A & Needham, B (eds.). UCL Press, London, 255-268.

Karppi, K (2001): Questions of symmetry: Programme experiences featuring northern borderland development. Geografiska Annaler B: Human Geography 83, 153-160.

Knippenberg, H (2004): The Maas-Rhine Euroregion: A laboratory for European integration? Geopolitics 9, 608-626.

Koschatzky, K (2000): A river is a river: Cross-border networking between Baden and Alsace, European Planning Studies 8, 429-449.

45

Kramsch, O (2001): Navigating the spaces of Kantian reason: Notes on cosmopolitical governance within the cross-border Euregios of the European Union. Geopolitics 6, 27-50.

Kramsch, O (2002): Reimagining the scalar topologies of cross-border governance: Eu(ro)regions in the post-colonial present. Space and Polity 6, 169-196.

Kramsch, O (2003): Re-imagining the ‘scalar fix’ of transborder governance: The case of the Maas-Rhein Euregio. Routing Borders Between Territories, Discourses and Practices. Berg, E & Houtum, H van (eds.). Ashgate, Aldershot, 211-235.

Kramsch, O (2004): Towards a Mediterranean scale of governance. Twenty-first-century urban networks across the ’Inner Sea’. Cross-Border Governance in the European Union. Hooper, B & Kramsch, O (eds.). Routledge, London, 191-208.

Krätke, S (1996): Where East meets West: The German-Polish border region in transformation. European Planning Studies 4, 647-669.

Krätke, S (1998): Problems of cross-border regional integration: The case of the German-Polish border area. European Urban and Regional Studies 5, 248-262.

Krätke, S (1999): Regional integration or fragmentation? The German-Polish border region in a new Europe. Regional Studies 33, 631-641.

Krätke, S (2002): Cross-border cooperation and regional development in the German-Polish border area. Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions. Perkmann, Markus & Sum, Ngai-Ling (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 125-147.

Lefèvre, C (1998): Metropolitan government and governance in Western countries: A critical overview. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22, 9-25.

Leitner, H (2004): The politics of scale and networks of spatial connectivity: Trans-national interurban networks and the rescaling of political governance in Europe. Scale and Geographical Inquiry. Sheppard, E & McMaster, R (eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, 236-255.

Leitner, H; Pavlik, C & Sheppard, E (2002): Networks, governance and the politics of scale: Inter-urban networks and the European Union. Geographies of Power: Placing Scale. Herod, A & Wright, M (eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, 274-303.

Leitner, H & Sheppard, E (1998): Economic uncertainty, inter-urban competition and the efficacy of entrepreneurialism. The

46

Entrepreneurial City. Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. Hall, T & Hubbard, P (eds). John Wiley, Chichester, 285-307.

Leitner, H & Sheppard, E (1999): Transcending interurban competition: Conceptual issues and policy alternatives in the European Union. The Urban Growth Machine. Critical Perspectives, Two Decades Later. Jonas, A. E. G & Wilson, D (eds.). State University of New York Press, Albany, 227-246.

Leitner, H & Sheppard, E (2002): ‘The city is dead, long live the net’: Harnessing European interurban networks for a neoliberal agenda. Spaces of Neoliberalism. Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Brenner, N & Theodore, N (eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, 148-171.

Livingstone, D. N (1992): The Geographical Tradition. Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Blackwell, Oxford.

Lovering, J (1995): Creating discourses rather than jobs: The crisis in the cities and the transition fantasies of intellectuals and policy makers. Managing Cities. The New Urban Context. Healey, P; Cameron, S; Davoudi, S; Graham, S & Madani-Pour, A (eds.). John Wiley, Chichester, 109-126.

Lovering, J (1999): Theory led by policy: The inadequacies of the 'new regionalism' (illustrated from the case of Wales). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23, 379-395.

Luttwak, E. N (1990): From geopolitics to geo-economics: Logics of conflict, grammar of commerce. The National Interest 20, 17-23.

Marin, L (1984): Utopics: Spatial Play. Humanities Press, New Jersey.

Marin, L (1993): The frontiers of Utopia. Utopias and the Millennium. Kumar, K & Bann, S (eds.). Reaktion Books, London, 7-16.

Markusse, J (2004): Transborder regional alliances in Europe; Chances for ethnic Euroregions? Geopolitics 9, 649-673.

Meyer, J & Rowan, B (1977): Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340-363.

Mills, C. W (1959): The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Murphy, N (1999): Darwin, social theory, and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Zygon 34, 573-600.

47

O’Dowd, Liam (2001): State Borders, Border Regions and the Construction of European Identity. Will Europe Work? Integration, Employment and the Social Order. Kohli, M & Novak, M (eds.). Routledge, London, 95-110.

O’Dowd, Liam (2002a): Transnational Integration and Cross-Border Regions in the European Union. Transnational Democracy. Political Spaces and Border Crossings. Anderson, James (ed). Routledge, London, 111-128.

O’Dowd, Liam (2002b): The changing significance of European borders. Regional and Federal Studies 12:4, 13-36.

Ó Tuathail, G (1996): Critical Geopolitics. The Politics of Writing Global Space. Routledge, London.

Paasi, Anssi (1986): The institutionalization of regions: A theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity. Fennia 164, 105-146.

Paasi, Anssi (1991): Deconstructing regions: Notes on the scales of spatial life. Environment and Planning A 23, 239-256.

Peck, Jamie & Tickell, Adam (2002): Neoliberalizing space. Spaces of Neoliberalism. Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Brenner, Neil & Theodore, Nik (eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, 33-57.

Pepper, S. C (1942): World Hypotheses. A Study in Evidence. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Peters, G. B & Pierre, J (2004): Multi-level governance and democracy: A Faustian bargain? Multi-level governance. Bache, I & Flinders, M (eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 75-89.

Phelps, N, McNeill, D & Parsons, N (2002): In search of a European edge urban identity: Trans-European networking among edge urban municipalities. European Urban and Regional Studies 9, 211-224.

Pred, A (1995): recognizing European modernities. A montage of the present. Routledge, London.

Prescott, J. R. V (1978): Boundaries and Frontiers. Croom Helm, London.

Prince, H. C (1962): The geographical imagination. Landscape 11, 22-25.

48

Perkmann, M (1999): Building governance institutions across European borders. Regional Studies 33, 657-667.

Perkmann, Markus (2002): Euroregions: Institutional Entrepreneurship in the European Union. Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions. Perkmann, Markus & Sum, Ngai-Ling (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 103-124.

Perkmann, M (2003): Cross-border regions in Europe. Significance and drivers of regional cross-border co-operation. European Urban and Regional Studies 10, 153-171.

Perkmann, Markus & Sum, Ngai-Ling (2002): Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions: Scales, Discourses and Governance. Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions. Perkmann, Markus & Sum, Ngai-Ling (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 3-21.

Priemus, H & Zonneveld, W (2003): What are corridors and what are the issues? Introduction to special issue: The Governance of corridors. Journal of Transport Geography 11, 176-177.

Richardson, T & Jensen, O. B (2003): Linking discourse and space: towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies 40, 7-22.

Robins, K (1997): What in the world’s going on? Production of Culture/Cultures of Production. Du Gay, P (ed.). Sage, London, XXX-XXX.

Rose, G (1999): Performing space. Human Geography Today. Massey, D; Allen, J & Sarre, P (eds.). Polity Press, Cambridge, 247-259.

Rumford, C (2003): European civil society or transnational social space? Conceptions of society in discourse of EU citizenship, governance and the democratic deficit: An emerging agenda. European Journal of Social Theory 6, 25-43.

Ruse, M (1982): Darwinism Defended. Addison-Wesley, London.

Scott, James Wesley (1998a): Evolving regimes for local cross-border co-operation: The German-Polish experience. Curtains of Iron and Gold: Reconstructing Borders and Scales of Interaction. Eskelinen, H; Liikanen, I & Oksa, J (eds.). Ashgate, Aldershot, 179-193.

Scott, James Wesley (1998b): Planning co-operation and transboundary regionalism – implementing European border region policies in the German-Polish context. Environment and Planning C 16, 605-624.

49

Scott, J. W (1999): European and North American contexts for cross-border regionalism. Regional Studies 33, 605-617.

Scott, James Wesley (2002a): Cross-border governance in the Baltic Sea Region. Regional and Federal Studies 12, 135-153.

Scott, James Wesley (2002b): Baltic Sea regionalism, EU geopolitics and symbolic geographies of cooperation. Journal of Baltic Studies 32, 137-155.

Scott, James W (2002c): A networked space of meaning? Spatial politics as geostrategies of European integration. Space and Polity 6, 147-167.

Scott, James Wesley (2004): The northern dimension. ’Multiscalar’ regionalism in an enlarging European Union. Cross-Border Governance in the European Union. Hooper, B & Kramsch, O (eds.). Routledge, London, 135-156.

Scott, James Wesley & Collins K. (1997): Inducing cross-border regionalism in asymmetric situations: The case of the German-Polish border. Journal of Borderland Studies 12, 97-121.

Scott, W. R (1995): Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Sidaway, J. D (2001): Rebuilding bridges: A critical geopolitics of Iberian transfrontier cooperation in a European context. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19, 743-778.

Sidaway, J. D (2002): Signifying boundaries: Detours around the Portuguese-Spanish (Algarve/Alentejo-Andalucía) borderlands. Geopolitics 7, 139-164.

Sidaway, J. D (2004): The choreographies of European integration. Negotiating trans-frontier cooperation in Iberia. Cross-Border Governance in the European Union. Hooper, B & Kramsch, O (eds.). Routledge, London, 173-190.

Shore, C (2000): Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration. Routledge, London.

Smith, D. M (1994): Geography and Social Justice. Blackwell, Oxford.

Sparke, M (1998): From geopolitics to geoeconomics: Transnational state effects in the borderlands. Geopolitics 3, 62-98.

50

Sparke, M (2000): ’Chunnel visions’: Unpacking the anticipatory geographies of an anglo-European borderland. Journal of Borderland Studies 15 187-219.

Sparke, M (2002a): Between post-colonialism and cross-border regionalism. Space and Polity 6, 203-213.

Sparke, M (2002b): Not a state, but more than a state of mind: Cascading Cascadias and the geoeconomics of cross-border regionalism. Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions. Perkmann, Markus & Sum, Ngai-Ling (eds). Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 212-238.

Sparke, M & Lawson, V (2003): Entrepreneurial geographies of global-local governance. A Companion to Political Geography. Agnew, J; Mitchell, K & Toal, G (eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, 315-334.

Stone, C. N (2000): The Atlanta experience re-examined: The link between agenda and regime change. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25, 20-34.

Strüver, A (2002): Significant insignificance: Boundaries in a borderless European Union – deconstructing the Dutch-German transnational labour market. Journal of Borderland Studies 17, 21-36.

Strüver, A (2003): Presenting representations: On the analysis of narratives and images along the Dutch-German border. Routing Borders Between Territories, Discourses and Practices. Berg, E & Houtum, H van (eds.). Ashgate, Aldershot, 161-176.

Strüver, A (2004a): ’Everyone creates one’s own borders’: The Dutch-German borderland as representation. Geopolitics 9, 627-648.

Strüver, A (2004b): ’We are only allowed to re-act, not to act’. Eurocrats’ strategies and borderlanders’ tactics in a Dutch-German cross-border region. Cross-Border Governance in the European Union. Hooper, B & Kramsch, O (eds.). Routledge, London, 25-40.

Taylor, Peter J (1993): Political Geography. World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality. 3rd Edition, Longman, Harlow.

Tonboe, J (1993): Rummets sociologi. Kritik af teoretiseringen af den materielle omverdens betydning i den sociologiske og den kulturgeografiske tradition. Akademisk Forlag, København.

Virilio (1995): The Art of the Motor. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

51

Weiler, J. H. H (1999): The Constitution of Europe: ’Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?’ and Other Essays on European Integration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Werlen, B (1993): Society, Action and Space. An Alternative Human Geography. Routledge, London.

Zonneveld, W (2005): Expansive spatial planning: The new European transnational spatial visions. European Planning Studies 13, 137-155.

52