Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
., —r. *.»‘--_ —. 

" .  ' ‘I: 

_/ _,; E Rt-g| om ‘-§p

 / ‘gs Studies "

»"“f Association ‘ I

"«. nv: _z, ‘t-. ,T 2 v
In Depth

Regions 297 Spring 2015

Regions 297 Spring 2015

Fig 2 Benchmarking Basque and Qresund Cross-Border
Institutional Policy Synergies. 

C")resund Ci...
In Depth

Regions 297 Spring 2015

Fig 3: ‘5-System’ Analytical
Integrated Framework for

. °Y. BE3
Regions 297 Spring 2015

be categorised as ‘Complex Diversity’

In contrast,  since 2000, the Qresund
In Depth

Regions 297 Spring 2015

Fig 5: Benchmarking Basque and Qresund Cross-Border Social Innovation Processes



The question of how to shape regional policies to incubate, 
support,  and sustain e...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Calzada, I. (2015), Benchmarking Cross-Border City-Regions: Basque and Øresund Comparative Territorial Connection, Regions Quarterly Magazine, In Depth, pp. 4-6. Regions no 297. Issue 1. Spring 2015.


Published on

This article compares two contrarily complementary European cross-border city-region case studies from the social innovation multidisciplinary viewpoint. To do this it applies the ‘5-System’ city-region analytical framework presented sequentially at the RSA 2013 Winter
Conference in London (Calzada, 2013) and the RSA 2014 European Conference in Izmir (Calzada, 2014). The Basque Country (OECD, 2013) nationalistic city-region (Calzada, 2011), divided between the Spanish and French nation-states, shows surprisingly low cross-border territorial development strategic synergies.
In contrast, the Øresund non-nationalistic city-region (OECD, 2003) shows a highly cooperative and fluent cross-border dynamic that started in 2000. Analysed purely from the city-regional strategic perspective, Øresund, through its non-nationalistic city-regional promotion, has attained a certain level of cross-border territorial synergy between Malmö and Copenhagen; meanwhile, the Basque Country, also involving two nation-states but driven by a nationalistic political strategy, has failed to connect with and benefit from the cross-border territorial synergies between Spain and France, and even indeed between the two administrative entities in Spain.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Calzada, I. (2015), Benchmarking Cross-Border City-Regions: Basque and Øresund Comparative Territorial Connection, Regions Quarterly Magazine, In Depth, pp. 4-6. Regions no 297. Issue 1. Spring 2015.

  1. 1. ., —r. *.»‘--_ —. " . ' ‘I: _/ _,; E Rt-g| om ‘-§p / ‘gs Studies " »"“f Association ‘ I "«. nv: _z, ‘t-. ,T 2 v , L ' "kt L THE VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP I : §3$1;: n: I=Ll| ::! figs? NO 297, 2o|5 ISSUE I ‘I W‘ QUARTERLY MAGAZINE RETHINKING REGIONAL MANUFACTURING POLICY ° Reshoring and manufacturing renaissance: myth or movement? - Cross—border regions - Reappraisal of place-based policies
  2. 2. In Depth Regions 297 Spring 2015 BENCHMARKING CROSS—BORDER CITY—REGIONS: BASQUE AND QRESUND COMPARATIVE TERRITORIAL CONNECTION Igor Calzada, University of Oxford, UK In the current European regional context, borders 1 count as much as ’ the places them- ‘3 selves. As Agnew If _ ‘ argues (2008, 1), E ' — I ‘borders matter, both because they have real effects and because they trap thinking about and acting in the world in territorial terms’. To complement this, Passi (2012) notes that the term ‘border’ has been a key cat- egory for social scientists since the 19th century, when modern state— and nation- building processes began to intensify in Europe. A border, then, is not a spatial fact with sociological consequences, but a sociological fact that forms itselfspatially. However, ‘bordering’ (Linden—Laursen, 2010) between two nation—states can be a contradictory notion where a city- regional strategy is pursued. This is one of the conclusions reached when we carry out comparative action research between two cross—border city—regions such as Qresund, in both Sweden and Denmark, and the Basque Country, divided between Spain and France. This article highlights a benchmarking study, conducted in the last three years, which has developed into a broader research project entitled ‘Benchmarking Future City—Regions’ kindly funded by the RSA Early Career Grant Scheme. Basque and Qresund Comparative Territorial Connection: Rationale The Basque Country1, portrayed as a city—region (Calzada, 2011a), represents the overall city—regional flows covered by three cross—border administrative entities: the Basque Autonomous Community (OECD, 2012) and the Chartered Community of Navarra, in both Spain and the Northern Basque Country in France. The Basque Autonomous Community is the official and most industrialised region with the highest self—government level in Spain; in matters such as taxa- tion, health, education, security, housing and employment among others. The Chartered Community of Navarra, being the historical centre of ‘basque- ness’ unlike most other autonomous communities of Spain (though similar to the Basque Autonomous Community), bears most responsibility for collecting and administering taxes, but has only minor powers. Due, however, to the re- centralisation of city—regional policy by the Spanish nation—state, there is a lack of cooperation in policies between these two administrative entities. In contrast, since the bridge was built in 2000, the Qresund region, as an ‘artificially’ promoted city—region, mainly between Copenhagen and Malmo city councils, has attracted consider- able attention (remarkably more than the Basque Country) from a range of disciplines and advocates as diverse as scholars, practitioners and policy—makers. Among academics, three contributions are notable: the first, by Collinge and Gibney (2010), reflects on the effects of place—making produced by cross- border dynamics, the second, by Hall (2008), analyses city—regional dynamics from the democratic perspective, and, finally, Hospers (2006) depicts Qresund as a ‘top—down’ city—regional govern- ance ‘in—the—box’ model fuelled by the alliance of public and private corporate Fig 1: Basque and Qresund Comparative Territorial Connection nnsour 2,‘ - . Ibasque Source. ‘ www. rityregionsoig : :m. ur -: uu-4 out-_: u-. :» < _t, .e oresund power. Hence, the Qresund city—region is referred to as the Malmo—Copenhagen city-centristic strategy, mutually reinforc- ing its geostrategic position in influencing other local, regional and even national actors. Benchmarking Cross-Border City—Regions How can we explain the differences between the two cases? We should start by considering the role of borders, not only through understanding mobility, transnational flows, citizenship and national/ regional identity (Passi, 2012), but also by examining borders as spaces for flows that are neither hermetically sealed nor spatially fixed. Is this cross- border collaboration a conscious outcome of a city—regional policy—making process? Or is it simply a consequence of the nation—states’ institutional cross—border policy traditions? Why do some cross- border city—regions collaborate more closely than others? Ultimately, how can we systemically analyse the inner social, economic, political, and cultural differ- ences between them? City—regions (Herschell, 2009) are ‘spaces of flows’, in contrast to the conventional (i. e. merely geographic) perception of territories as contiguous ‘spaces of places’. In addition, they are key to national and international com- petitiveness, and to rebalancing political restructuring processes into nation—states, even changing their dynamics beyond and between them. Nevertheless, a new city—regionalis1n has overlooked how city—regions are constructed politically, particularly beyond nation—state borders. This claim could spark a flurry of research aimed2 at developing an understand- ing of nationalistic or non—nationalistic city—regionalism, to avoid the ecological fallacy that what is true of some city- regions is true of all city—regions. However, what has been achieved of late has been done through an explicit focus on non—nationalistic state—centric— led initiatives, such as those that have occurred in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, among others. So how can we assess and identify these flows in two cross—border city—regions that have such diverse outcomes in terms
  3. 3. Regions 297 Spring 2015 Fig 2 Benchmarking Basque and Qresund Cross-Border Institutional Policy Synergies. C")resund City-Region Basque City-Region Regional Promotion: Institutions Years Cross- Border Synergies Institutions Years Regional Promotion éresund Universitetet 11 Universites 1990-2012 Universities and Science & Technology 2 Universities 1994-2010 Euskarnpus C")resund- skomiteen 36 representatives 18 from each side 1993 Regional political cooperation i. n mobility, transport and logistics 42 municipalities 25 in France and 17 in Spain 1985-2011 Eurocity Cross-Border Agency: Euskadi & Aquitaine éresund Institute Public authorities, corporations, organisations and University Provide socio -econornic analysis issues in the cross- border regional context 2004 Gaindegia (the observatory for social- economic development of the Basque Country) Copenhagen Malmo 2015 Strategic Plan of territorial synergies? As Herrschel suggested (2009, 248), ‘while paysical infrastructure can be modified through investment, thereby altering perceptions of distance, connectivities between politi- cal and economic actors are much more difficult to observe’. Comparing two cross—border regions, then, is not simple. However, what has a benchmarking of institutional city- regional policies may be helpful to depict the flows in the two city—regions com- paratively. Figure 2 shows four examples for each case study in four specific policy fields: universities and science & technol- ogy; regional political cooperation in mobility, transport and logistics; socio- economic analysis; and commerce. From Fig 2, we can argue that the city- regional policies in the Basque Country are weaker than those in Qresund. The Basque city-region so far has failed to reinforce the operational level of cross- border cooperation between the three above—mentioned administrative entities. The whole population of the city—region is 3.1 million, with a diverse socio—eco— nomic configuration which disables any kind of nationalistic strategy to implement Commerce Gipuzkoa and Bihartean Bayone Chambers of Commerce 2010 cross—border synergies. Even though cit- ies such as Bilbao and San Sebastian are increasingly overcoming the barriers to collaboration, the separation in adminis- trative silos makes it difficult to extend the culture of administrative collabora- tion in the public sector. It is noteworthy that the Eurocity Cross-Border Agency has received scant attention, while the dominant political nationalistic discourse has paradoxically made ‘idealistic’ claims for the existence of a politically united reality. Similarly, as long as relevant attempts, such as Euskampus, Gaindegia and Bihartean3, are made in diverse coop- eration fields — as detailed in the fieldwork presented below — it should be concluded that different stakeholders do not perceive any unified city—regional cross—border ter- ritorial strategy, highlighting that while cross—bordering could be beneficial for both parties, it is not ajoint priority. The Qresund city—region, by contrast, has consistently demonstrated an intensive collaboration, at least between its two main cities, Malmo and Copenhagen. Following a long period of lobbying by businesses and regional agencies, in the early 1990s the decision was taken by the In Depth two nation—states’ governments to build a bridge in 2000. However, it should be noted that the place—making process (Collinge et. al, 2008) has deeper roots, as Scania (or Skane) was part of the three lands of the Danish Kingdom from its unification in the ninth century until the seventeenth century, when Scania became part of the Swedish Empire. Nowadays, Copenhagen is the political and adminis- trative centre of the country of Denmark, while Malmo merely has a peripheral position in Sweden. Cost and regulatory, as well as economic, differences between Sweden and Denmark create territorial synergies across the border, with labour surplus in one and labour shortages in the other. Since the 1990’s, the main cross- border institutions, such as Qresund universitetet, ®resundskomiteen‘ and Qresund institute5, have been established due to cross—border networking fuelled specifically by the commercial and scien- tific interests of companies and universities in both areas — a social networking innovative tradition that in the Basque city—region did not happen cross—border, apart from institutional agreements and agencies. To summarise, one of Europe’s most attractive and dynamic city—regions today comprises 3.8 million inhabitants and the (Dresund city—region is regarded as exemplifying regional best practices as regards better infrastructure, communi- cations and transportation which enable greater mobility and interaction. Benchmarking the two cross—border city—regional cases requires most sophisti- cated analytical tools to observe and better understand cross—border connectivities beyond purely physical spatial terms, as recommended by Herrschel (2009). Social innovation’s (Moulaert et al. , 2013) multi- disciplinary approach could assist us in this complex task. In fact, the entire design of the ‘Benchmarking Future City—Regions’ research project is built on multidis- ciplinary action research, by using an analytical systemic framework developed by the author entitled ‘5—Systems’, which compares social innovation processes in city—regions. By following certain key principles (Moulaert et al. , 2013, p. 131), social innovation processes ‘allow going beyond a containerised view of territory, by starting from the social dimension of territories, and by placing and consider- ing innovation and networks in their spatial and historical context without losing sight of the material territoriality’ (Moulaert et al. , 2013, p. 139). Based on
  4. 4. In Depth Regions 297 Spring 2015 Fig 3: ‘5-System’ Analytical Integrated Framework for City-Regions. . °Y. BE3 (iU3%§_- . [ ~_- DE this definition, the aims of the article are to describe each cross—border city—region case systemically and thus suggest a com- parative basis between them. To achieve this, social innovation processes will be identified using the integrated ‘5—System’ framework, which facilitates the diagnosis of each territory within five interrelated systems, as illustrated in Fig 3. Methodology: Social Innovation Analysis and Action Fieldwork Research The ‘5—System’ framework is an analytical outcome and methodology that reviews and merges relevant literature drawn pri- marily from the field of social innovation (Moulaert et al. , 2013) and city—regions (Herrschel, 2009). This outcome derives from a triangulation action research qualitative methodology, identifying social innovation processes in each city- region studied. The triangulation action research method was carried out between 2010 to 2013 in field visits“ to Qresund and the Basque Country. Specifically, the action fieldwork research design consists of three techniques: first, ethnography via interviews and group dynamics; second, state—of—the—art analysis of policy and jour- nal papers; and third, direct participation via a conference7, workshopss and lectures”. The fieldwork research involved 98 inter- viewees in the Basque Country and 44 interviewees in Qresund via ethnography and 1,176 participants in both places via direct participation. In addition, 38 policy papers and 70 journal articles were analysed for both cases. The social innovation approach was selected for three reasons: Firstly, both city—regions” are equally pioneering and invest heavily in the welfare system through which social innovation regional policies are presented as flagships. They do this by networking with cross—border stakeholders and deliberately avoiding the austerity policies of neoclassic economic orthodoxy. Secondly, these policies have encouraged the emergence of cross—sector collaboration with an increasingly rel- evant social capital between stakeholders. Thirdly, it facilitated the mapping of the city—regional context following the field- work techniques. The ‘5—System’ framework functions as a social innovation process identi- fier. In keeping with Moulaertis (2013) suggestion of considering the broader social dimension aspect of territories, the ‘5—System’ framework attempts to identify social innovation processes that occur uniquely in the city—region. Based on an analysis of the policy and academic litera- ture on city—regions (Calzada, 20lla), the author developed the systemic inventory framework to comprise five systems and twelve factors. City—regions may or may not apply diverse policies that enable or inhibit social innovation processes. The framework takes into account the social innovation processes that have direct effects on: — The physical infrastructures established and the resilient distribution of scarce material resources among citizens: the Urban System (URBS). This system is always the focus of city—region analysis and is both technical and physical. It contains three factors: human geography (or sociodemocraphic factors); climate change, energy, sustainability and resil- ience (technical factors); and urban/ rural or hub/ spoke linkages (morphological and mobility factors). — The level of usage of these resources to satisfy the physical, digital and social connectivity demands of the citizens: the Relational System (CYBER). This system focuses on the spaces of flows and places. It contains three factors: physical connectivity (usage of the land/ land—users relationship factors); digital connectivity (interaction enabling factors); and social connectivity (social capital factors). — The active consideration of the diverse and complex civilian fabric and the mechanisms within it to regenerate a tran- sition—based regional political economy: the Socio—Cultural System (CIVITAS). This system considers the citizenship configuration in the given city—region. It contains three factors: inmigration (ethnic diversity and integration factors), entre- preneurship (socio—economic challenged factors) and local communitarian devel- opment (local grassroots and bottom—up factors). — The role of politics, on global and local scales, in terms of stakeholders’ complex participative interaction to reframe the governance model: the Socio—Political System (POLIS). This system analyses power relations and dynamics. It contains three factors: globalisation (threat and opportunity factors), governance (factors enabling dialogue between stakeholders) and participation (precondition, mobilisa- tion and participation process factors). Incorporating the four systems above, the systemic sum as an interdependent and permanent balance in the city- region as a whole: the Democratic System (DEMOS). Benchmarking Cross-Border City—Regions by Applying the 5 System Framework By applying the ‘5-System’ framework we aim to answer three research questions: 1.— How are the cross—border territo- rial synergies formed in the Basque and Qresund city—regions? 2.— Which social innovation pro- cesses can be identifed in the Basque and Qiresund city—regions? 3.— Do nationalistic (Basque) or non- nationalistic (Qiresund) city—regional promotional strategies count? The conclusions reached are presented below: Cross-border Territorial Synergies Analysing Fig 4-, we can conclude that the Qresund case presents higher cross—border territorial synergies than the Basque case. It is worth mentioning, however, that although both city—regions present a simi- lar picture according to the data in URBS data, the CYBER, CIVITAS and POLIS systems have different effects on some indicators. It can therefore be argued that, overall, Qresund is in a better position at present, according to the data analysis. Social Innovation Processes in the ‘5-System’ Framework Despite the Basque city—region supposedly being driven by dominant nationalistic city—regional policies, its URBS system is not well implemented. This is due to an unclear and dispersed territorial strategy between stakeholders (CIVITAS). The CYBER system, thus far laggard, should prioritise networking the cross—border social space by increasing institutional cooperation between the three divided administrative entities (POLIS). To sum up, the city—region could now
  5. 5. Regions 297 Spring 2015 be categorised as ‘Complex Diversity’ (DEMOS). In contrast, since 2000, the Qresund city—region has developed highly dynamic cross—border cooperation via its CYBER system, by setting up a Copenhagen- Malm6—centric spatial hub (URBS) without being driven by any national- istic view. Insofar as the endeavours for cross—border cooperation have been based on physical connectivity, Qresund has achieved an unprecedented status in terms of European bordering. Nevertheless, since his fieldwork, the author has noticed a slowdown in the POLIS system cooper- ation between the two nation—states, due to the administrative hindrances caused by low yield and new territorial inequali- ties. Equally, the project’s interviewees (CIVITAS) were concerned about the normative and rigid bureaucratic system of their institutions. The city—region could thus be categorised as ‘Pragmatic Simplicity’ (DEMOS) Basque and Qresund City—Regions: Contrarily Complementary? The article leaves a number of questions open to further research and discus- sion: Are non—nationalistic cross—border city—regions in a better position than nationalistic ones to reach more fluent cross—border cooperation beyond their respective nation-states? Paradoxically, it is not yet clear how relevant it may be for cross—border cooperation to be fuelled by a nationalistic view. Alternatively, are Qresund and the Basque Country two sides of the same coin? Hence, as a pre- liminary conclusion it may be suggested that the Basque and Qiresund city—regions are ‘contrarily complementary’. In the Basque context, the complex and divided territorial configuration of the city- region, in addition to its diverse political Fig 4: Benchmarking Basque and Qresund Cross-Border Territorial Synergies City-Region Oresund Cross-border Territorial HIGH Synergies In-Between two Nation-States Sweden & Denmark Po ulation (Mill inhabitants) Densi (inhabitants/ km2) Surface (km2) Airports 3.8 179 21,203 5 Cross-border commuters (% b car) Main air a ort trafl”1c assener (Mill) Social Ca ital (trust) Internet user’s population (%) 18,414 (41) 96% live SE — 4% work DK 4.1 22.7 HIGH LOW 66 99 Per caita income (E) Workforce roductivi er em 10 ee) R+D invetsment over GDP (" 0) Life exectanc ( ears) Immiants %) Unem lo ment (%) Universities/ Students Inter—language understanding 26,783 22,614 72,397 68,638 1.9 4.9 CIVITAS 82 79 12.6 2.6 12.7 3.9 5/ 81,701 14/ 150,000 LOW HIGH Identi Institutional d arnism & structure Social Participation (mobilization) Strong Sc Weak & Complex Artificially political entities constructed Weak & seperated Strong & within 3 Light administrative institutions entities Oresund Committee (1993) LOW HIGH Sources: OECD, Qrcxrmd Trends, Eurastat, Eustat and Caindcgia. In Depth strategies, produce a non—action cross- border cooperation that could be applied equally to both Spanish and French sides of the border. Here two questions arise: Is a nationalistic city—regional strategy insufficient to implement cross—border territorial synergies between two sides separated by two nation—states? Also why is there a lack of cooperation so far? Final Remark This article has compared two contrarily complementary European cross—border city—region case studies from the social innovation multidisciplinary viewpoint. To do this it applies the ‘5—System’ city- region analytical framework presented sequentially at the RSA 2013 Winter Conference in London (Calzada, 2013) and the RSA 2014 European Conference in Izmir (Calzada, 2014). The Basque Country (OECD, 2013) nationalistic city- region (Calzada, 2011), divided between the Spanish and French nation—states, shows surprisingly low cross—border ter- ritorial development strategic synergies. In contrast, the (Ziresund non—national- istic city—region (OECD, 2003) shows a highly cooperative and fluent cross—border dynamic that started in 2000. Analysed purely from the city—regional strategic perspective, Qresund, through its non—nationalistic city—regional pro- motion, has attained a certain level of cross—border territorial synergy between Malmo and Copenhagen; meanwhile, the Basque Country, also involving two nation—states but driven by a nationalistic political strategy, has failed to connect with and benefit from the cross—border territorial synergies between Spain and France, and even indeed between the two administrative entities in Spain. Endnotes 1 http: //www. theguardian. com/ the—report/ basque—country 2 This attempts to be the main contri- bution to the above—mentioned broad research project entitled ‘Benchmarking Future City—Regions’. More information: www. cityregions. org 3 http: //www. bihartean. com 4 http : //wWw. oresundskomiteen. org 5 http: //www. oresundsinstituttenorg/ en 6 http: //www. igorcalzada. com/ 2014/ 05/ basque—oresund—connection—-fieldwork- august-2013/ 7 The Basque City—Region 2012 Conference was organised in collaboration with the Basque Regional Government,
  6. 6. In Depth Regions 297 Spring 2015 Fig 5: Benchmarking Basque and Qresund Cross-Border Social Innovation Processes Social Innovation Processes in the Basque (Nationalistic) 8: Qresund (Non-Nationalistie) City-Region eases benchmarked by the 5-System Framework URBS CYBER CIVITAS POLIS DEMOS Polinuclear systems Despite fragmentation, due to agglomeration (Scott et al. , 2001), the territory has created a very stable URBS by applying regional policentrism, thereby achieving appropriate cluster policies due to a revival of business and the economy in the 1990’s Social disconnectivity Once a laggard system, the CYBER now requires continual transversal bridge—buildjng processes. However, peace is on its way to reinforce social capital and fix the moral fabric of this post—violence society. >LAGGARD < Dispersed strategy Unfortunately, the city—region has failed to share its strategy adequately with the relevant stakeholders; therefore, diverse CIVITAS nianagemcnt remains lacking. Peace but three seperated administrative entries: ETA’s permanent ceasefire of 2011 has had a considerable influence on the normalising of the Basque case; however, in terms of POLIS, there have been few attempts to coordinate between its three separate administrative entities. <DRIVER> Complex Diversity Copen. hagen-Malm6- centrism The construction of a bridge linking Skane (Sweden) and Zealand (Denmark) was the primary engine of the Qresund city—region and its URBS. However, city—centrism has meant that hinterlands such as the Helsingor— Helsingborg connection have been forgotten. Bridge as the engi. ne/ icon/ brand: The modern and pragmatic beginning of the (Dresund city—region occurred in 2000 with the construction of the bridge between Malmo and Copenhagen, creating a cross—border city—region comprising 3.8 million people. Qresund, then is a Copenhagen- Malmi3—centric city—region. The bridge has three roles: as engine, icon and brand. Regarding CYBER, this phyical construction has created a path for connectivity to be converted into social connectivity. <DRlVER> Rigid & bureaucratic normative system: The city—region premotes many collaboration activities among universities, industry and civil society in terms of CIVITAS; howeve, there is a lack of flexibility in its public administration. Administrative hinderances: Above the administrative challenges of the POLIS, the city—region has priortised efficiency in building the most connected, shared cross- border territory that may be created artificially. It seems, though, that cross—border collaboration has now reached its limit due to administrative hindrances. >LAGGARD < Pragrnatic Simplicity where participants from Oresund were included in the programme. www. basquecity. org , www. euskalhiria. org and http: //www. igorcalzada. com/2014/05/ basque—oresund—connection—fieldwork— References Agnew, (2008) “Borders on the mind: re—framing border thinking", Ethics 8 Global Politics. Calzada, I. (201121) Towards a Basque City? Comparative Territorial Benchmarking from Social Innovation. Portland & Dublin case studies. Zammlio, Innovation Basque Agency, Innobasquc. Collinge, C. and Gibney, _]. (2010) “Place- making and the limitations ofspatial leadership: reflections on the Oresund", Policy Studies, 31:4, 475-489, Hall, I’. (2008) “Opportunities for Democracy in Cross-border Regions? Lessons from the Qresund Region”, Regional Studies, 42:3, 423-435. Herrschel, T. (2009) “City—regions, policentricity and the construction of the peripheraiities through governance”, Urban Research 8 Practice, 2:3, 240-250. Hospers, G. —_]. (2006). Borders, Bridges and Branding: The Transformation of the Oresund region into an Imagined Space. European Planning Studies, 14(8), august—2013/ 8 This workshop entitled ‘Social Innovation Methodological Workshop: Basque & Oresund Connection’, was organised in San Telmo Museum in 1015-1033. Linde—Laursen, A. (2010) Bordering: Identity Processes between the National and Personal, /lshgute, Surrey. Moulaert, F. , MacCallum, D. , Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (2013) International Hanciboole qfSocial Innovation. Social innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Tmnsdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (UK) Publishing. OECD (2011) OECD Reviews ofRegional Innovation: Basque Country, Spain 2011, OECD Reviews afRegional Innovation, OECD Publishing. http: //dx. doi. org/10.1787/9789264097377—en OECD (2003) OECD Territorial Reviews: Qresunci: Denmark/ Sweden, OECD Publishing. Paasi, A. (2012) “Borders and border- crossings”, in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography, Eds. N Johnson, R Schein, ] Winders (Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford) San Sebastian, Basque Country — Spain: http: //www. igorcalzada. com/2013/04/ social—innovation—methodological—work— shop—basque—oresund—connection—8th— may—2013—2—6pm—santelmomuseum— donostia—st—sebastian 9 Lectures like these on 11 and 12 February 2013, were delivered in 2010 and 2011 as well. http: // www. igorcalzada. com/2013/03/ oresund—malmo—university—sweden— lecturing—11th—12th—february—2013 10 Innobasque, the Basque Innovation Agency (www. innobasque. com) and the Forum for Social Innovation Sweden (http: //socialinnovationse/ en) Dr Igor Calzada MBA is a Research Fellow, Lecturer and Policy Adviser at the Future of Cities—COMPAS, University of Oxford (UK), Ikerbasque (Spain) and Birmingham Aston University (UK). He is an RSA Early Career Grant holder with www. cityregions. org project. igor. cz1lzada@compas. ox. ac. ule
  7. 7. Regions THE VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP The question of how to shape regional policies to incubate, support, and sustain emerging manufacturing technologies and spur job creation in incumbent industries is the subject of extensive debate in the wake of the global recession. This issue of Regions focuses on the grand challenge facing academics and policymakers: how to rethink Regional Manufacturing Policy in and for a 2|st century economy — both as an empirical issue for analysts and a question of policy innovation. The Regional Survey articles showcase scholarship on recent developments in manufacturing policies in advanced industrialized countries including the shift toward comprehensive regional strategies to support advanced manufacturing. These studies underscore the increasingly spatial dimension of manufacturing strategies as policymakers recognize the importance of linking research and design functions to local production networks. This goal places new emphasis on regional institutions as both the implementation framework and as a key factor differentiating regional capacities. This issue also contains short articles on issues for the development of Cross-Border City—Regions, a re-appraisal of place-based thinking in regional development and community responses to the negative consequences of structural change. “S OF flEGlUN4 ‘swacn AND IMp,1L. ' YK figs 2Dl5