National borders constitute barriers to social, economic and political processes and, thus, tend to contribute to the peripheralisation of border regions. The paper compares the evolution of two euroregions in peripheral central European border regions, whose objective is to overcome such negative border effects by promoting cross-border cooperation at the regional level. On a theoretical level, the paper argues for an understanding of euroregions as soft spaces. Rather than viewing them primarily as instances of state rescaling, the paper emphasizes their role as adaptive service providers for local constituencies. It is suggested that their long-term stability depends on their relation to, and the internal dynamics of, politico-administrative hard spaces at the regional, national, and supranational level. While hard spaces are associated with the notion of the Weberian bureaucratic state, soft spaces combine many of the ideas of the New Public Management literature. Building on an organizational ecology perspective, the paper forwards the argument that stable, resourceful, and accessible hard spaces constitute a predictable and engaging environment within which softer arrangements may compete for the delivery of services. However, the interplay between soft and hard spaces tends to have an impact on the euroregions’ agendas. While EU cohesion policy provides incentives to strengthen horizontal cross-border coordination, the organizational integration of the two euroregions remained rather loose, testifying to the continued importance of domestic prerogatives.
cohesion policy, soft spaces, cross-border cooperation, governance, territory
ABBOTT, K.W., GREEN, J.F. and KEOHANE, R.O. (2013), ‘Organizational Ecology in World Politics: Institutional Density and Organizational Strategies’, Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, pp. 1–37.
BAYERISCHES STAATSMINISTERIUM FÜR WIRTSCHAFT UND MEDIEN, ENERGIE UND TECHNOLOGIE (2014), ‘Kooperationsprogramm. Programm Zur Grenzübergreifenden Zusammenarbeit Freistaat Bayern ‒ Tschechische Republik’, Ziel ETZ 2014‒2020.
BRENNER, N. (2004), New State Spaces. Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, Oxford‒New York: Oxford University Press.
DE BURCA, G., KEOHANE, R.O. and SABEL, C.F. (2014), ‘Global Experimentalist Governance’, British Journal of Political Science, 44 (3), pp. 1–19.
DRECHSLER, W. (2005), ‘The Rise and Demise of the New Public Management’, Post-Autistic Economics, 33, pp. 1–9.
DRECHSLER, W. (2009), ‘The Rise and Demise of the New Public Management: Lessons and Opportunities for South East Europe’, Uprava-Administration, 7 (3).
GÄNZLE, S. and KERN, K. (2016), ‘A ‘Macro-Regional’ Europe in the Making’, [in:]. GÄNZLE, S. and KERN, K. (eds.), Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
HAUGHTON, G., ALLMENDINGER, P., COUNSELL, D. and VIGAR, G. (2010), The New Spatial Planning. Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries, Abingdon‒ New York: Routledge.
HAUGHTON, G., ALLMENDINGER, P. and OOSTERLYNCK, S. (2013), ‘Spaces of Neoliberal Experimentation: Soft Spaces, Postpolitics, and Neoliberal Governmentality’, Environment and Planning A, 45, pp. 217–234.
HERITIER, A. and RHODES, M. (2011), New Modes of Governance. Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy, Basingstoke‒New York: Palgrave.
HIRSCHMAN, A. O. (1978), ‘Exit, Voice, and the State’, World Politics, 31 (1), pp. 90–107.
JESSOP, B. (2002), The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge‒Malden: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing.
KEOHANE, R.O. (1984), After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
KÜHN, M. (2015), ‘Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities’, European Planning Studies, 23 (2), pp. 367‒378.
LACE-PHARE CBC ASSESSMENT REPORT (2001), LACE-Phare CBC Assessment Report: Slovakia – Austria.
LAND OBERÖSTERREICH (2014), Interreg V-A Österreich – Deutschland/Bayern 2014‒2020.
LANG, T. (2011), ‘Regional Development Issues in Central and Eastern Europe: Shifting Research Agendas from a Focus on Peripheries to Peripheralisation?’, [in:] ERÖSS, A. and KARACSONYI, D. (eds.), Geography in Visegrad and Neighbour Countries, Budapest: GRI HAS, pp. 57–64.
MARTINOS, H. and MAHNKOPF, K. (1999), Institutional Aspects of Cross-Border Cooperation, Report of Association of European Border Regions, part of the LACE-TAP Project.
METZGER, J., ALLMENDINGER, P. and OOSTERLYNCK, S. (2015), ‘The Contested Terrain of European Territorial Governance. New Perspectives on Democratic Deficits and Political Displacements’, [in:] METZGER, J., ALLMENDINGER, P. and OOSTERLYNCK, S. (eds.), Planning Against the Political. Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance, New York‒Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 2–27.
METZGER, J. and SCHMITT, P. (2012), ‘When Soft Spaces Harden: The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region’, Environment and Planning A, 44 (2), pp. 263–280.
MEYER, R.E. and HAMMERSCHMID, G. (2010), ‘The Degree of Decentralization and Individual Decision Making in Central Government Human Resource Management: A European Comparative Perspective’, Public Administration, 88 (2), pp. 455–478.
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC (2015a), Interreg V-A Slovakia ‒ Austria.
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC (2015b), Interreg V-A Slovenská Republika ‒ Česká Republika.
NORTH, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge‒ New York: Cambridge University Press.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF LOWER AUSTRIA, ABTEILUNG RAUMORDNUNG UND REGIONALPOLITIK (2015), Cooperation Programme AT-CZ 2014–2020 Final Version.
PERKMANN, M. (2003), ‘Cross-Border Regions in Europe. Significance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border Co-Operation’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 10 (2), pp. 153–171.
PERKMANN, M. (2005), ‘The Construction of New Scales: A Framework and Case Study of the EUREGIO Cross-Border Region’, Regional Studies, 41, pp. 253–266.
PERKMANN, M. (2007), ‘Policy Entrepreneurship and Multilevel Governance: A Comparative Study of European Cross-Border Regions’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25 (6), pp. 861–879.
PERKMANN, M. and SUM, N.-L. (eds.) (2001), Globalization, Regionalization, and Cross-Border Regions, Basingstoke‒New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
POPESCU, G. (2008), ‘The Conflicting Logics of Cross-Border Reterritorialization: Geopolitics of Euroregions in Eastern Europe’, Political Geography, 27 (4), pp. 418–438.
ROKKAN, S. (1999), ‘State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe’, [in:] FLORA, P., KUHNLE, S. and URWIN, D. (eds.), The Theory of Stein Rokkan, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SABEL, Ch.F. and ZEITLIN, J. (2010), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union. Towards a New Architecture, Oxford‒New York: Oxford University Press.
SASSEN, S. (2008), Territory, Authority, Rights. From Medieval to Global Assemblages, Princeton‒Oxford: Princeton University Press.
STEAD, D., SIELKER, F. and CHILLA, T. (2016), ‘Macro-Regional Strategies: Agents of Europeanization and Rescaling’, [in:] GÄNZLE, S. and KERN, K. (eds.), ‘Macro-Regional’ Europe in the Making. Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence, Basingstoke‒New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 99–120.
SVENSSON, S. (2013), Social Capital and Governance in European Borderlands: A Comparative Study in Euroregions as Policy Actors, Budapest: PhD Thesis, Central European University.
VRIES, M.D., NEMEC, J. (2013), ‘Public Sector Reform: An Overview of Recent Literature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26 (1), pp. 4–16.
ZIELONKA, J. (2006), Europe as Empire. The Nature of the Enlarged European Union, Oxford‒ New York: Oxford University Press.