Broad Theoretical Perspectives: Regions, Networks & Borders amid Geography and Political Science

The definition of a Euroregion can be essentially grasped through its geographical (territorial) and political (organizational) dimensions. In its simplest conceptualization, it can be described as a bounded territorial unit formed by (at least) two contiguous sub-national units belonging to two separate states (Perkmann, 2002). However, there is a strong association between the geographical area involved and the subnational governments administering the territories. This is especially the case in relation to their joint institutionalisation in the pursuit of common socio-economic development (Carming et al., 2003).

On a theoretical level, the Euroregional territorial dimension locates the roots of this Dissertation at the crossroad between Regional and Political Geography as direct branches of Human Geography. At the same time, the organizational dimension provides justification to theoretical connections from Political Science and European integration. In addition, the cross-border perspective reclaims some reference to the multidisciplinary approaches of Border Studies. In the following text, I proceed with an exposition of all relevant theories.

4 As it is usually the case in a PhD Compendium, the overall majority of theories from this chapter proceed from individual research developed in Section II. Therefore, I deliberately choose to present a re-elaborated and enriched version of the theoretical backgrounds employed in the Publications. Indeed, the content of the chapter is also reinterpreted as to show the coherence of the main research proposal.

Beyond a long history of Regional Geography understood as Chorography (description and mapping) of countries or areas of the world, it is only in the late XIX century that the discipline acquires its modern traits.

New theoretical perspectives allow to define the existence of bounded territorial spaces (and their specific features) which can be interpreted through a series of factors. The first approach to this kind of identification is found in the ecological perspective of the “natural region”, attributing the evolution of societies to determinants from the physical background inhabited (Ratzel). However, due to critiques related to environmental determinism, Regional Studies would soon follow multiple paths towards different geographical complexes, their intrinsic features and the corresponding evolutionary processes. For example, the French school (Vidal de la Blache, Febvre) pursued a stronger empirical approach to regions and the study of county areas (the French “pays” or the Spanish “comarca”); on the other side of the planet, the North American school of geographers from Berkeley (Sauer, Hartshorne) proposedthe vision of a “cultural region” whose features and landscape could help defining population cultures. These visions, however, did not prevent Regional Studies to undergo a new period of crisis in the post-WWII age. Complaints were due to the over-synthetizing role of geography, the production of numerous monographies with no clear thematic connection and the lack of global theories and laws (what Schaefer would come to consider as “theCritique of Geography’s Exceptionalism”). Nonetheless, other contributions from the field of Economy around the same period also acquired an interest into the role of the regional unit. In their studies, new authors (Isard, Juillard, Kayser, von Bertalanffy) began to elaborate theories on “functional” and “systemic” regions much more focused around social relations and material flows. It corresponds to a moment in which Regional Geography detaches from physical and landscape-based perceptions to include larger complementarities and functional relations into its framework.

In modern academic terminology, all previous arguments are acknowledged under the broad category of (Old) Regionalism. The term is employed nowadays as to provide stark contrast with the renewed focus on regions in the New Regionalism strand of Regional Geography. It officially begins around the 1980s by the hands of Anglo-Saxon geographers, as in the case of Doreen Massey’s re-elaboration of the concept of place (a combination of identity, local institutions and global connections). However, even in more recent times, proponents of the theory kept reinforcing the neo-regionalist debate through exploring the fundamental relationships between the territory and their social processes. For example, in the case of fundamental authors such as Michael Keating (i.e. Barry & Keating, 1995; Keating, 2013) and Anssi Paasi (i.e. Paasi 1986, 2006, 2009, 2012;), the study of regions was associated to their features both in institutional and cultural identity terms.

Most importantly, the new approach saw an opportunity for a neo-regionalist focus based upon the context of European Integration and the rising economic internationalization paving the way for globalization. The real issue at stake for regions became their challenge to traditional state sovereignty, interpreted by scholars as a

“relativization of scales” phenomenon. To its proponents, the world was witnessing the appearance of new economic and political spaces at sub-state level seeking to gain renovated primacy in their domestic processes (i.e. Collinge, 1996; Jessop 2003). Along the same lines, Brenner (1999) speaks of deep

geopolitical and geo-economic changes developing after the end of the Cold War and pushing nation-states into a “re-scaling process”.Due to the pressures of contemporary times, countries were being compelled to reorganize and redistribute power both at sub-national level⁵(regional and local authorities) as well as supra-national level (international organizations). Indeed, Söderbaum (2003) pushed the theoretical definition of New Regionalism as far as defining it as a new set of triangular relations; one where decisions are not exclusively taken at state-level but also influenced by non-state actors, particularly at subnational level.

The argument is strictly connected to the so-called process of “reterritorialization”, understood as the reorganization of social, economic and political activities at the subnational scale. The concept, drawing upon Deleuze and Guattari’s work (1986, 1988), has been widely applied since the late 1980s as a way of reinterpreting the production of space through a postmodern geopolitical approach (Elden, 2005). It is a new perspective which ‘questions the meaning and purpose of nation-states, fixed territoriality, common governance and scientific-technological progress within a stable international order’ (Luke, 2006, p. 221).

Crossing all the arguments, Perrin (2017) attempted to provide a synthesis of neo-regionalist tendencies while understanding the role of regional spaces in the modern EU political system. His analysis brought forward the idea of regions as a meso-level configuration in the state; one that would help it in better organizing society rather than being instruments of contention against national sovereignty. Furthermore, he effectively analyzed the existing literature and highlighted the new implications derived from the contemporary neo-regionalist scenario: a. a renovated focus on the role of networks, partners and collective action in the regional field; b. the importance of economic regional entrepreneurialism; c. the renovated regional capacity in external action inside an EU framework; and d. the chance for regional peripheries at national level to pursue alternative development strategies (among which it is also possible to consider cross-border agreements) (Perrin, 2017, p. 9-11).

Indeed, both the neo-regionalist perspective and the consolidation of re-scaling and reterritorialization proposals could not have been possible without the Multilevel Governance framework provided by European Integration. In its essence, it refers to the EU’s tendency in a context of globalization, Europeanization (Featherstone and Radaelli, 2003) and decentralization to shift policymaking towards an increasingly plural, open and less hierarchical decision-making from supranational to local level (i.e. Hooghe & Keating, 1994;

Hooghe & Marks 1996, 2001; Hooper & Kramsch, 2004; Gualini, 2003; Jeffery, 2007; Keating, 1998;

Morata, 2004; Piattoni, 2010). Whilst nation-states might have been very dominant until the early 1980s, in the 1990s the neo-functionalist discourse of Multilevel Governance began shifting towards the novelty that,

5Although largely employed in the Dissertation, it should be reminded that the definition of ‘subnational authority’ is often contested. In Belgium, for example, since the federal level and federated entities are on an equal standing, it is inappropriate to refer to regions and communities as “subnational levels” of government. Below the central level, subnational governments are decentralized or deconcentrated public authorities that own (some) responsibilities and (some) degree of autonomy in the provision of (some) public good to a population within a certain territory (OECD, 2010).

in some areas of EU policymaking, decisions may depend on network relations between different levels of government and on the participation of a new array of actors from civil society. The presence of these would contribute to a qualitative shift in EU policymaking and politics, which some viewed as becoming increasingly plural, open and less hierarchical (Piattoni, 2010). In technical terminology, multilevel plurality is usually indicated by two different levels of participation: at the vertical level (including authorities from supranational to local status) but also at the horizontal one (in terms of widespread participation across society or even across administrations from different countries) (Hooghe & Marks, 1996, 2001). On its account, the multilevel argument also provides conceptual justification to multilevel cooperation initiatives across European borderlands.

Leading into the matter of borders, a Dissertation dedicated to the design and replicability of Euroregions necessarily needs to refer to Border Studies. However, it is also necessary to situate the research inside this highly interdisciplinary set of theories and studies whose common purpose is the knowledge of the borders and their associated dynamics (for comprehensive states of art on the field, check Berzi, 2017; Brunet-Jailly, 2005; Kolossov, 2005; Newmann, 2003; Paasi, 2005; Rumford, 2006, Van Houtum, 2000, 2005). Much like the history of Regionalism, the Border Studies were also marked by a contrast between a classical phase in most of the XX century (mainly devoted to a static and deterministic vision of national borders) and a second innovative phase permeated by neo-regionalist approaches.

According to a classification provided by Van Houtum (2000), it is possible to consider up to the three focuses in the field: a. a flow approach mainly defined by economic studies and dealing with borders as limitations to the circulation of goods, services and people; b. a cross-border cooperation approach centered around institutional relations and territorial integration across borders (i.e. Miörner et al., 2018; Sohn, 2014;

Trippl, 2010); c. a people approach that analyzes society’s relations with borders in matters of culture and identity (i.e. Balibar, 2002; O’Dowd, 2002; Paasi, 1986, 2009). Of course, Euroregional discourses in this Dissertation are easily identifiable in the second strand of Border Studies.

Finally, the connections of the framework with Political Geography are largely demonstrated by the wide interest of relevant authors towards border issues. Indeed, the broad purposes of the discipline (whose main task is to unveil the ways in which political processes are affected by spatial structures) often produce fruitful links with neo-regionalist arguments and cross-border approaches. A fundamental example would be the definition of the “territorial trap” by John Agnew (1994), conceived as an overcoming of nation-state territories as exclusive containers of modern societies. Building upon the neo-regionalist discourse, Zimmerbauer (2014) tries to deliver an integrated framework between territory and networks in processes of cross-border regionalization. To him, the presence of networks redefines and shapes the creation of new scales, territories and visualizations of the border through dynamic socio-spatial relations (Painter, 2010;

Jessop et al., 2008 ctd. in Zimmerbauer, 2014). Similarly, Metzger (2013; Paasi & Metzger, 2016) attempts the design of am integrating model for regional institutionalization. Indeed, arguments from Political

Geography even reach the field of Euroregional studies through the analysis of their cross-border reterritorialization effects across borderlands (i.e. Popescu, 2008; Sanguin, 2013).

Although the arguments discussed above have broad implications for all the stages of the research, their most evident use is provided in Stage 1 of the methodology through the acknowledgement of existing networks of CBC in a given CBR. At the same time, they help providing theoretical background to theorization on

“proto-euroregional” territories. These are considered in the Dissertation as neo-regionalist spaces involved in multilevel governance practices and yet located into an intermediate stage towards cross-border institutionalization.