Policy-making in the European Union is distinctive because of the multi-level government. In particular, the member countries of the Union are under pressure from both national and supranational politicians. With regard to spatial planning, these institutional constraints can represent a significant obstacle to the effective development of territories. However, the example of the city region of Kotka-Hamina shows that regionalism and regional governance can become the basis for more effective decision-making and policy-making in the European Union. In particular, the local government of Kotka-Hamina was able to interpret the institutional constraints to suit the needs of a specific urban area. While the administrative features of the European Union require lengthy and costly negotiations, the local government has been able to create a more flexible structure based on existing national legal institutions. Kotka-Hamina’s experience illustrated that effective spatial planning policies in the European Union could be based on a balance of private and public interest, as well as national institutions and local governance.
City-regional spatial planning has gained popularity in recent years in the European Union and worldwide. However, Granqvist et al. (2021) that despite the active adoption of this approach, “city-regional policies and governance arrangements tend to layer over existing institutions of regional and local economic governance and spatial planning” (p. 844). This aspect largely does not allow using the advantages offered by city-region planning, as it requires the expansion of urban entrepreneurial initiatives and overcoming administrative boundaries. Granqvist et al. (2021) cite Kotka-Hamina as an example of the successful implementation of institutional changes that, under normal conditions, prove to be an obstacle to city-regional spatial planning. In particular, institutional initiatives on the ground have managed to overcome the stratification of different planning levels, ensuring a smoother transition to a new approach and overcoming entrenched planning norms. The researchers also emphasize that politics and governance play a special role in the implementation of institutional changes needed for effective city-regional planning.
The main difference in city-region spatial planning characteristic of Kotka-Hamina was the active participation of the local government in the decision-making process. Granqvist et al. (2021) note that the local government has abandoned city-panning cooperation in favor of local authorities. Additionally, when developing the city region of Kotka-Hamina, the integration of economic functions with land-use planning was prioritized (Granqvist et al., 2021). The city-region planning assumed more attention to the design of business zones with less legal guidance. In particular, “these strengths were translated spatially in terms of ample and versatile business areas with distinctive profiles, enabling the generation of new agglomerations and synergies of industries” (Granqvist et al., 2021, p. 851). The local government relied more on the economic and social needs of the territory for spatial planning than on the national constraints of spatial politics. Although legal restrictions were the basis for spatial planning, they were interpreted by the local government, taking into account the environmental conditions and the needs of the region.
Politics plays a key role in spatial planning, as it involves the achievement of social goals through government and legal instruments. In particular, politics, in relation to spatial planning, performs the decision-making and control functions (BBSR, 2011). Most important in this regard is that “politics is geographically localized by its institutions” (BBSR, 2011, p. 42). Thus, national institutional conditions play a key role in the formation of policies, including those regulating spatial planning. Within individual states, decision-making and the creation of certain policies are influenced by lobby groups, social movements, political parties, non-government organizations, as well as society. Within the European Union, the development and application of policies are also influenced by supranational organizations that are subject to international law. Thus, the countries of the European Union are constrained in their policy-making not only by the national government but also by the supranational one, which makes institutional changes even more complex.
Institutional restrictions that are the basis for the creation and implementation of policies, especially in spatial planning, are the main reason for the inability to overcome bureaucratic barriers. Storper (2014) notes that the governance of urban areas is determined by the performance of the administrative structure as a whole, not by geographical or territorial factors. The outcome of governance depends on the level of collaboration and communication characteristics of groups and communities that participate in spatial planning (Storper, 2014). In the case of Kotka-Hamina, the local government used tools to consolidate the powers of local actors, which made it possible to overcome administrative restrictions (Granqvist et al., 2021). Ultimately, in city-region planning, it is the network of actors, as well as landowners, who shape the urban demand and spatial planning of the territory, which play a special role in governance in the short term.
The modern European Union is an example of multi-governance, which is provided by the interaction of different levels of decision-making. As in the case of Kotka-Hamina and other city-region territories, layered governance is required, which implies much greater responsiveness and flexibility (Granqvist et al., 2021; Storper, 2014). The decision-making model of the European Union assumes an extensive network of institutions and organizations for negotiations, which is not suitable for city-region spatial planning. In particular, the problem is the need to harmonize and coordinate the activities of many actors, both local and supranational. This institutional mechanism is, first of all, extremely slow and is also associated with high costs. Thus, the decision-making and policy-making model characteristic of the European Union hardly meets the requirements of flexibility that could provide effective spatial planning. Storper (2014) emphasizes that governance has to deal with both the dominance of policy-making and the irresponsibility of implementing bodies, which was identified as one of the obstacles that the local government in Kotka-Hamina overcame. The solution to these problems can be multi-level governance and regionalism, which was applied in the Finnish city-region spatial planning.
Effective spatial planning requires an interpretation of existing national and supranational policies with a focus on local needs. This approach has enabled the governance of Kotka-Hamina to successfully overcome the limitations to form the most efficient plan development process. This conclusion is also supported by Albergo and Lefèvre (2018), who argue that spatial planning and policy-making are influenced not only by regional governance but also by national policy features. In particular, the European Union is characterized by non-commercial traditions that make it possible to ensure the primacy of public interests over private interests to a greater extent than in other regions of the world (Albergo & Lefèvre, 2018). Ultimately, urban territory governance allows the city region to guide its development through collective action. Storper (2014) suggests that modern technological tools can greatly facilitate such collaborative efforts to create more transparent planning and policy-making institutions. The expansion of local authority, as well as the integration of social choice, can greatly reduce the cost of spatial planning and policy-making. This is especially relevant in relation to the European Union, where, as noted, multi-governance results in a complex and expensive decision-making network.
In the case of Kotka-Hamina, the local government has been able to adapt national institutional constraints for effective city-region spatial planning. At the same time that urban governance in the form of local government and social choice advocates acts as a factor in greater freedom, national politics is an aspect of administrative constraint. In this respect, both entities are a kind of non-valorizing factor. On the one hand, regionalism provides sufficient flexibility in decision-making, and national policy makes it possible to eliminate “a messy and not-necessarily optimal process of social choice” (Storper, 2014, p. 131). The combination of tight national and supranational policies with local governance provides the balance necessary to create an effective spatial planning framework, as shown in the Kotka-Hamina experience.
The existence of effective spatial planning policies is impossible without relation to national institutional constraints. This is especially relevant in relation to the European Union, where there are also supranational institutions in addition to national institutions. Bassens et al. (2018) argue that the contextualization of city-region governance in space and time is necessary, which means “the preferential attachment of political processes to the urban as a site of innovation and mobilization” (p. 2). In other words, regional governance is built on the administrative and institutional foundations of larger structures, such as national and supranational, which is consistent with the view presented by Granqvist et al. (2021). Additionally, Bassens et al. (2018) argue that polarization that includes the integration of public and private interests is also relevant to Kotka-Hamina. Finally, it is assumed that the city-region of the territory needs to be expanded and globally integrated. This factor means that the principles of city-region spatial planning can be applied in a wider geographical context.
However, the principles of regional governance can also be relevant for policy-making. Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) argue that policy transfer is an effective solution for finding ways to address existing policy issues. Policy transfer assumes that the state adopts the experience of decision-making and policy-making of another country, applying already proven principles for itself. This process is also likely to occur with the regions, which is more relevant in the framework of this study. However, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) emphasize that successful policy transfer does not guarantee effective policy implementation. Thus, the countries and regions of the European Union can effectively adopt the experience of Kotka-Hamina in relation to city-region spatial planning and related policy-making. However, they need an administrative infrastructure to ensure the Finnish approach’s successful implementation.
Thus, the experience of Kotka-Hamina shows that, within modern political structures, the integration of national institutions and local governance can be most effective. Within the framework of the European Union, national and supranational institutions provide a stable policy-making structure, while local actors provide a more flexible system of decision-making and appropriation of existing administrative restrictions. At the heart of this approach to effective spatial planning is the collaboration of public and private interests and the involvement of social choice within the national administrative structure. While the supranational policies of the European Union cannot respond to the needs of the regions, they must allow for the expansion of decision-making power to local governance.
References
Bassens, D., Beeckmans, L., Derudder, B., & Oosterlynck, S. (2018). Urban studies take on the global urban political agency. In S. Oosterlynck, D. Bassens, B. Derudder, B. Segaert, & D. Beeckmans (eds.), The city as a global political actor. Routledge, 1-21.
BBSR. (2011). Metropolitan areas in Europe. BBSR Online Publikation.
D’Albergo, E., & Lefèvre, C. (2018). Constructing metropolitan scales: Economic, political and discursive determinants. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6(2), 147-158.
Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 5-24.
Granqvist, K., Humer, A., & Mäntysalo, R. (2020). Tensions in city-regional spatial planning: The challenge of interpreting layered institutional rules. Regional Studies, 55(5), 844-856.
Storper, M. (2014). Governing the large metropolis. Territory, Politics, Governance, 2(2), 115-134.