•  
  •  
 
European Spatial Research and Policy

Abstract

An innovation-driven agenda in regional development policy has emerged in the European Union against the backdrop of peripheralisation, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Using a discursive analytical framework, the article investigates the ways in which peripheralisation is manifested through language, practices and power-rationalities in Estonian innovation policy discourse. The analysis is footed on key strategic policy documents and semistructured expert interviews. Findings suggest that Estonian innovation policy’s main narrative of the ‘knowledge-based economy’ accepts growing disparities on sub-national level in order to overcome peripherality at European scale and narrows the range of policy solutions perceived as suitable.

Keywords

discourse, innovation policy, Estonia, peripheralisation

Language

eng

References

APPLICA, ISMERI and WIIW (2006), ‘Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000–2006’ financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 Regions, Working package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis, Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States: Estonia, Applica, Ismeri Europa and wiiw Consortium.

BACHTLER, J., YUILL, D. and DAVIES, S. (2005), ‘Regional policy and innovation’, EoRPA Paper, 5.

BACHTLER, J. and McMASTER, I. (2007), ‘EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions: investigating the influence of structural funds in the new member states’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26 (2), pp. 398–427.

BARCA, F. (2009), ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’, [in:] HÜBNER D., Independent Report, Prepared at the Request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Brussels, European Commission.

BEETZ, S. (2008), ‘Peripherisierung als räumliche Organisation sozialer Ungleichheit’, [in:] BARLÖSIUS, E. and NEU, C. (eds.), Peripherisierung – eine neue Form sozialer Ungleichheit? Materialien Nr 21, Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

BOHLE, D. and GRESKOVITS, B. (2007), ‘Neoliberalism, embedded neoliberalism and neocorporatism: Towards transnational capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe’, West European Politics, 30 (3), pp. 443–466.

BRENNER, N. (2009), ‘Open questions on state rescaling’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2, pp. 123–139.

BRISTOW, G. (2010), Critical reflections on regional competitiveness. Theory, policy, practice, New York: Routledge.

CARTER, H. (2015), ‘Peripheralization through planning: The case of a golf resort proposal in Northern Ireland’, [in:] LANG, T., HENN, S., EHRLICH, K. and SGIBNEV, W. (eds.), Understanding New Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rapidly Changing Region, London: Palgrave, pp. 98–111.

DE BRUIJN, P. and LAGENDIJK, A. (2005), ‘Regional innovation systems in the Lisbon strategy’, European Planning Studies, 13 (8), pp. 1153–1172.

EHRLICH, K., KRISZAN, A. and LANG, T. (2012), ‘Urban Development in Central and Eastern Europe – Between Peripheralization and Centralization?’, disP – The Planning Review, 48 (2), pp. 77–92.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2007), Cohesion Policy – 2007–2013 – Commentaries and official texts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2015), European Structural and Investments Funds 2014–2020: Official texts and commentaries, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2016), WP1 Synthesis report ‒ Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007‒2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), Task 3 Country Report Estonia, September 2016.

FISCHER, F. (2003), Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

FISCHER-TAHIR, A. and NAUMANN, M. (eds.) (2013), Peripheralization – The Making of Spatial Dependencies and Social Injustice, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

HADJIMICHALIS, C. (2011), ‘Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial justice and solidarity: Europeans regions after the 2009 financial crisis’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (3), pp. 254–274.

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

HANSEN, T. and WINTHER, L. (2011), ‘Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (3), pp. 321–339.

INZELT, A. (2006), ‘Country Profile: Estonia’, [in:] Private Sector Interaction in the Decision Making Processes of Public Research Policies. Study for the European Commission Research Directorate General Directorate M – Investment in Research and links with other policies Open coordination of research policies, Bad Camberg: Proneos.

KATTEL, R. and PRIMI, A. (2010), ‘The periphery paradox in innovation policy: Latin America and Eastern Europe compared. Some reflections on why it is not enough to say that innovation matters for development’, Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics, 29.

KÜHN, M. (2014), ‘Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities’, European Planning Studies, 23 (2), pp. 367–378.

LANG, T., HENN, S., EHRLICH, K. and SGIBNEV, W. (eds.) (2015), Understanding new Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rapidly Changing Region, London: Palgrave.

LEFEBVRE, H. (1991), The production of space, Oxford‒Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA (2014), Partnership Agreement for the Use of European Structural and Investment Funds 2014–2020, Tallinn.

NIINIKOSKI, M.L. and KUHLMANN, S. (2015), ‘In discursive negotiation: Knowledge and the formation of Finnish innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 42, pp. 86–106.

OECD (2016), OECD Regional Outlook 2016 – Productive Regions for Inclusive Societies. Country profile Estonia.

REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA (2007), Estonian National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–2013, Tallinn.

RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. (2003), ‘Linking discourse and space: towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses’, Urban Studies, 40 (1), pp. 7–22.

RUTTAS-KÜTTIM, R. and STAMENOV, B. (2016), RIO Country Report 2015: Estonia, Science for Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

SECRETARIAT OF THE ESTONIAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (2002), Estonian Research and Development Strategy ‘Knowledge-based Estonia 2002–2006’, Riigi Teataja, Part 1, No.97, December 18, 2001, Tallinn.

SUURNA, M. and KATTEL, R. (2010), ‘Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Science and Public Policy, 37 (9), pp. 646–664.

SWYNGEDOUW, E., MOULAERT, F. and RODRIGUEZ, A. (2002), ‘Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy’, Antipode, 34 (3), pp. 542–577.

VANOLO, A. (2010), ‘European Spatial Planning between Competitiveness and Territorial Cohesion: Shadows of Neo-liberalism’, European Planning Studies, 18 (8), pp. 1301–1315.

VARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), ‘The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary: The Interplay between European and National Discourses of Space’, European Planning Studies, 24 (1), pp. 39–60.

WEICHHART, P. (2008), ‘Neoliberalism meets Political Economy – Politikversagen, Entdemokratisierung und die vergebliche Hoffnung auf Governance in der Zweiten Moderne’, [in:] BRUCKMEIER, K. and SERBSER, J. (eds.), Ethik und Umweltpolitik – Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven,. München: Pekom, pp. 213–236.

ŽENKA, J., NOVOTNÝ, J. and CSANK, P (2014), ‘Regional Competitiveness in Central European Countries. Search of a Useful Conceptual Framework’, European Planning Studies, 22 (1), pp. 163–184.

First Page

77

Last Page

91

Language

eng

Share

COinS