Introduction
Territorial planning is the planning of the development of territories with the establishment of boundaries for zones of different functionality and the definition of objects in a given territory, but nevertheless, this term in a political context means precisely development. In the European spatial planning field, in the context of Europe, this aspect is the least covered of many other areas of European Union policy. It is worth noting that the European states are not fully included in the specified Union; however, territorial planning is easier to consider in the context of the common interests of most countries of the association.
Europeanization is a process in which an entity adopts a set of European features. This process is critical in understanding territorial planning, as it reflects the main reason for the formation of such planning and determines the main trends in this process. Territorial proximity contributed to exchanging knowledge market relations between countries in Europe, forming a supranational European identity (Faludi, 2014). However, control is still explained by separate national interests. Conversely, interstate understanding has made it easier to adapt to European integration; on the other hand, the lack of common interests undermines the common idea formed by territoriality. This paper conducts a literature review of several articles on the subject, looking for similarities and differences in the arguments presented and their relationship to the territorial planning of Europe.
Europeanization
European spatial planning is constantly analyzed in terms of Europeanization. Several states that determine the policy of the entire European Union have historically practiced mutual learning, and the process of Europeanization took place without an emphasis on itself. Attention to this process, which until a specific time proceeded, as usual, was drawn by the heads of state when there was a need to form European integration (Faludi, 2014). However, the historically running processes do not agree well with the processes of integration, while at the same time, they do not interfere with the exchange of knowledge and trade between states. Integration is a territorial planning process that has stalled despite the desire to put it on the agenda.
Since there is no mention of spatial planning in the formal legislation of countries and EU treaties, moreover, the ministers responsible for the economy, who may be indirectly responsible for various aspects of spatial planning, are, in fact, not part of this process (Faludi, 2014). In addition, planning did not influence regional policy, although it had prerequisites for the development of a programmatic approach to cohesion policy. At the same time, this prospect implies an increase in the conditions for the use of European Union funds, which was the concern of the representatives of the southern regions.
Consequently, the countries’ national interests still come first, preventing any supranational territorial planning in the European Union. Each country is trying to maintain its borders or expand them, which creates a lot of horizontal obstacles from sectors that do not want planners to interfere in their policies (Faludi, 2014). At the same time, there may be vertical barriers to planning institutions that seek to maintain autonomy, but they can be changed by acting on the horizontal barriers of sectors (Faludi, 2014). However, the general tendencies of Europeanization go on as usual, regardless of cardinal point decisions.
However, for spatial planning at the supranational level, the forecast in this article is disappointing. Territorial integration will almost certainly not be carried out according to the forecasts or plans of authorized persons due to the variety of different subject interests. In addition, planning is possible with a stable situation throughout the association; however, economic crises and a pandemic significantly affect the position of the Union, making it necessary to work with priority problems. At the same time, the process of Europeanization is gaining momentum due to the availability of information and its rapid exchange. This process contributed to territorial formation and integration, and, likely, it will also affect spatial planning in the future.
Economic Policy
The concept of territorial cohesion is relatively fresh in the formal context of the European Union. It stands alongside economic and social cohesion, as assured by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 (Colomb & Santinha, 2014). Territorial cohesion is not just a smoothing of ethnic differences, the development of cooperation as a logical consequence of integration, but also the preservation of the identity of each region and the promotion of the potential of each territory (Colomb & Santinha, 2014). A little later, in 2011, the role of the territorial agenda shifted to the area of a stable and typical response to various significant challenges, such as global warming, demography, and the vulnerability of some economies. In fact, as discussed above, the listed activities reflect the process of Europeanization, uniting the terminology under territorial planning.
On the other hand, there was the specific problem of the lack of a clear definition of spatial planning in the context of Europe. The main goals of this activity have been documented, including reducing territorial disparity, eradicating geographic discrimination, equally developing endogenous assets, and improving coherence between regions (Colomb & Santinha, 2014). Already in the goals, there was a particular contradiction, which involved reducing inequality across the territory while maintaining the borders and identity of each state. This territorial planning policy can improve the coherence in the decisions of individual regions but, at the same time, makes it problematic to set any general goals.
It is due, first of all, to the economic development of each country. Firstly, the lack of explicit operational goals is dictated by the concern of the neighborhood of developed fears with developing ones because in the event of a crisis, according to dictated values, the help of a stronger player will be required (Colomb & Santinha, 2014). Secondly, each country’s policy has its economic interests, including in the transnational form of cooperation. Polycentric territorial development at the level of each state is a natural continuation of the signed provisions in the European Union, and these consequences do not contribute to integration but only establish certain relations of cooperation.
Shifting the emphasis to lower levels of interaction between territorial planning and the state, the European Union also gradually limited the possible instruments of state intervention in purchasing land and developing the region. Economic recessions widened the gap between the northern and southern countries of the union. The EU’s policy of action limits interventions in its economy, contrary to the fundamental principles of territorial planning and cohesion. In fact, as problems in the region increase, integration processes become more and more challenging to achieve. Territorial cohesion is being replaced by the notion of practical cooperation for profitable trade or exchange of resources at best. In the same way as in the first reviewed article, from an economic point of view, the interests of each state play a more critical role and not the general vector of Europe’s development.
General Problems
The vector of interests of states has shifted after several significant events that have taken place recently. First, the immigration and refugee crisis in 2015 put on the agenda a common problem for the European Union, which included all issues of territorial cohesion and Europeanization. The national identity of each country was not ready to accept such a flow of refugees, primarily economically, which led to the need for a standard solution to the problem in supranational ways (Makarychev, 2018). Once again, it is proved that finding a place to discuss spatial planning in a crisis is challenging, while a crisis promotes unity to solve common problems. A paradoxical situation arises that, for territorial planning, discussions, albeit indirectly, are carried out mainly under challenging situations for the entire association, although the most qualitative approach presupposes stability.
Social and political differences complement economic differences between countries. Against the backdrop of difficult situations, some representatives of the European Union from good equal economic relations fell into relations dependent on states with more stable economies. Unequal relations are challenging to regulate in favor of common interests since a stronger player dictates these interests. The limitation of spatial inequality is possible under conditions of involvement in the common agenda on equal terms of all participating countries. Such a development of events is possible precisely in crises like the current pandemic, which involves cooperation without binding relations on a geographical or economic basis (Lüer & Böhme, 2020). Both articles mentioned in this section share the same idea that the conceptual goals of planning without practical mechanisms do not find a response in non-crisis periods, while in unstable times, countries are ready to unite and discuss further actions in common. This approach needs to be implemented when planning at a stable time – the implementation of specific mechanisms according to everyday needs.
Current trends in ecology also shape the commonality and aspects of integration within the European Union. At the same time, the interest of each country in common activities under the auspices of the European Union is often directly proportional to the amount of financial support. As a result, a situation of policy disunity arises since the northern countries are more focused on the state’s internal affairs, while the southern ones are more dependent on support and therefore are actively forced to show interest in the European Union. Against the background of such disunity, global environmental issues, refugees, and the pandemic contribute to the possible aspects of territorial planning, even if this is not the wording (Cotella, 2020). Consequently, Cotella concludes that territorial planning is and continues to be carried out by the states of Europe, which is facilitated by the above reasons (2020). If, in general, Europeanization and the economic situation indicate the impossibility in these difficult situations to create a well-developed plan for territorial cohesion, the factors of external and joint problems for each state indicate the opposite.
Conclusion
Spatial planning in Europe is associated with various processes on which it indirectly or explicitly depends. Such processes may include Europeanization and the spread of global environmental problems. A correlation is also noted with the general economic situation in several countries and Europe. Spatial planning is not clearly defined in the laws and documents of the European Union; from different points of view, work in this direction is being carried out, often under different formulations. The values of territorial cohesion are contradictory in many respects but are respected in crises. The planning process is unattainable in conditions of constant instability, in connection with which the European Union is moving towards territorial cohesion along an unplanned path.
References
Colomb, C., & Santinha, G. (2014). European Union competition policy and the European territorial cohesion agenda: An impossible reconciliation? State aid rules and public service liberalization through the European spatial planning lens. European Planning Studies, 22(3), 459-480. Web.
Cotella, G. (2020). How Europe hits home? The impact of European Union policies on territorial governance and spatial planning. Géocarrefour, 94(94/3), Web.
Faludi, A. (2014). Europeanisation or Europeanisation of spatial planning?. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(2), 155-169. Web.
Lüer, C., & Böhme, K. (2020). Reenergizing European Spatial Planning. Planning Practice & Research, 1-15. Web.
Makarychev, A. (2018). Bordering and identity-making in Europe after the 2015 refugee crisis. Geopolitics, 23(4), 747-753. Web.