parallel realities? some reflections on the conceptual context for urban rural partnerships parallel...
TRANSCRIPT
Parallel Realities?Parallel Realities?
Some reflections on the conceptual Some reflections on the conceptual context for Urban Rural Partnershipscontext for Urban Rural Partnerships
Andrew Copus
Sustainable Urban-Rural PartnershipsEuropean Seminar Metz November 16 2012
First Thematic Panel
Urban-Rural Partnership:A new governance innovation tool?
Two competing views of Economic Space…
Geography still matters…
• Agglomeration• Clusters• Local embeddedness• Re-localisation• Functional regions,
city regions.• Place-based policy?• Local capacity,
territorial assets?
..but “organised proximity” is increasingly important...
• Social proximity independent of geographical distance…
• “spaces of flows”• virtual networks• institutional proximity• “translocal
globalisation”• etc
For more detail see:http://www.mrr.gov.pl/english/Regional_Development/Regional_Policy/NSRD/doc_str/Documents/Copus_Urban_Rural_Linkages.pdf
Implications for Urban-Rural Partnerships?
• Parallel worlds? Alternative perceptions? “Pallimpsest”?
• A geography of transition – complex mix of socio-econ processes, some sensitive to spatial proximity, others “liberated” by transport and IT improvements, - now driven by “organised proximity”.
• Different parts of Europe at different stages…• U-R partnerships need to be adapted to this
environment.
Making sense of the complexity…
Type of Interaction
Sub-type
Modes of intervention(i)
Thematic U-R Coop.
(ii) Generic U-R Coop
(iii) Fostering Organised Proximity
1. Demographic Linkages
(a) Urbanisation. (b) Commuting and Counter-urbanisation.
2. Economic transactions and innovation activity
(a) ‘Central place’ consumer relationships. ?(b) U-R exchanges of goods and services. ? (c) U-R Diffusion of knowledge and innovation.
3. Delivery of public services
(a) Delivery of SGI. ?(b) Public transport.
4. Exchanges in amenities and environmental goods
(a) Leisure and recreation. ?(b) Resources and waste disposal.
(c) Renewable energy. ?
Potential Risks and Benefits…
+ U-R cooperation may accommodate equity/inclusion and environmental objectives (not just competitiveness/growth…)
+ Strengthening local identity/accountability…+ Ideally suited to community-led local development…+ Theoretical guidance for “rationalisation” of territorial
governance driven by austerity…?
? Avoid stereotypes, be aware of the changing realities…? Avoid confusing “means” and “ends”…? To what extent should interventions “go with the flow”?? One size fits all…? All three “intervention modes” need to be employed in
appropriate balance, flexibly and “coherently”.
Some priority issues…
• Basic evidence gathering – understanding/monitoring of the changing role of geographic and organised proximity – networks and different kinds of U-R linkages etc.
• Recognition of the distinct roles of the three modes of intervention.
• Clear/tight thematic focus in UR Partnership objectives.
• Monitoring/evaluation of outcomes (not inputs or means).
