European polycentric discourse: a threat for the Northern Periphery?

Up to the 1990s, the main challenge for European integration was thought to be the lack of connections between core and periphery. However, as part of discussions around the ESDP[E2]  , an alternative to this discourse was formulated around the concept of polycentricity.

 The polycentric perspective on territorial development seeks to utilise the potentials of all regions more fully. As it is formalised in the ESDP[E3]  and applied in ESPON[E4] , the implementation of polycentricity however mainly concerns the largest European metropolitan areas and cities. The objective is to create counterweights to the existing European “core area” through networks of metropolitan regions. The Baltic Palette [E5] and the Öresund region [E6] are examples of initiatives which could lead to the emergence of such counterweights. The general idea is that urban and regional entities need to reach a certain size to integrate successfully in the emerging global economy.

 The Northern periphery is however excluded from this type of polycentric discourse, as none of its cities have a sufficient economic or demographic weight. On the contrary, an application of these principles of European polycentricity would imply a concentration of economic activities and public incentives in the capital regions of Northern Periphery countries. European polycentric development could therefore in this perspective lead to increased contrasts [E7] within each of these countries.

 Alternative formulations of the polycentric agenda are however possible. In terms of economic development perspective, the agglomeration of people is only a secondary feature of a “centre”. Its defining feature is that it concentrates public or private power and creativity, i.e. a capacity to take initiatives and to implement strategies. One can find many examples[E8] , not least in the northern periphery, of demographically speaking small cities or towns that are nonetheless significant actors within a given economic branch. One could propose polycentric policy perspectives focusing on an empowerment of as many local centres as possible, allowing them to be the driving forces of their own economic development and prosperity.

 Such a perspective makes polycentricity relevant for all parts of the European territory, including the Northern peripheries. It however poses a number of challenges, as perspectives on local capacities to design and implement growth strategies vary. Some[E9]  consider that the main building blocks of polycentric development are regions large enough to have their own university and research and innovation milieu, as well as critical infrastructures such as hospitals and airports. This is one of the rationales behind the regional debate [E10] in the Nordic countries, whereby existing regions are merged into larger entities; this has given rise to fears of centralising trends within larger regional entities, and of weakened regional identities. In parallel, some national authorities have opposed the emergence of regional entities that could threaten their power and authority.

 At a more narrow scale, it can be debated whether some localities are too small and isolated to be economically sustainable on the long run. Should public efforts to preserve balanced settlement patterns focus on localities above a certain “critical threshold”, letting the others rely solely on their own economic capacity? The specific characteristics of small labour markets in terms of economic development and growth are discussed further under Sparsity.

 In relation to the polycentric spatial development discourse, a certain number of  critical issues emerge from a Northern Periphery perspective:

• The successful integration in the global economy does not presuppose the constitution of “globally significant urban entities”. Polycentric development needs to focus on the emergence of globally competitive economic activities in all regions and at all levels of the urban hierarchy, rather than on changing the structure of the European urban system.
•  Polycentric development is fundamentally a bottom-up process. The central issue from the national and European points of view is to identify the structural obstacles against the emergence of entrepreneurial communities capable of designing, upholding and implementing economic development strategies in each locality or region.
•  There are obvious conflicts between different scales of polycentric development. We have seen that European polycentric development can lead to increased contrasts between core and periphery at the national scale. In the same way, polycentricity between regional capital cities can be detrimental to smaller localities. These conflicts need to be debated and dealt with more openly. It cannot be solved through technical evidence which would define an economically speaking optimal territorial organisation, but must be based on political value judgments on the desired settlement structure.

 [E2]Link to page on ESDP

 [E3]Link to pages on the ESDP

 [E4]Link to page on ESPON

 [E5]Link to website

 [E6]Link to website / Map

 [E7]Link to ESPON 1.1.1 figure comparing “ESDP” polycentricity and its implementation

 [E8]Links to examples!

 [E9]Link Tore Selstad

 [E10]Link page on regional debate / devolution