POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUROPE: OVERVIEW AND DEBATE

Polycentric Development
Policies in Europe:
Overview and Debate
BAS WATERHOUT, WIL ZONNEVELD and EVERT MEIJERS

The way the novel concept of polycentric development is used across Europe
resembles a general pattern of diffusion of innovation: new ideas emerge at many
different places simultaneously. However there are many different opinions
about precisely what polycentric development is. What will be made clear in
this paper is that the concept of polycentric development brings together two
conflicting perceptions of spatial-economic development, namely cohesion and
competitiveness.

Introduction ‘Europe’ we mean the twenty-nine countries

studied by the ESPON 2006 research
Polycentric development has rapidly become programme of the European Community.
the buzzword amongst spatial planners This research programme therefore gave a
in Europe, both in European policies and unique opportunity for such a large-scale
at the level of European countries. In the comparison of national policies.
introduction to this special issue we pre- This paper, based on the six papers in
liminarily defined a polycentric develop- this special issue and research in a further
ment policy as one that addresses the distri- twenty-three countries, will identify the most
bution of economic and/or economically important commonalities and disparities
relevant functions over the urban system in between national policies aiming at poly-
such a way that a multitude of urban centres centric development. What will be made
gains significance rather than one or two. clear is that the concept of polycentric de-
Giving such a definition makes the concept velopment across territory brings together
of polycentricity look much clearer than, in two conflicting perceptions on spatial-
reality, it is. Polycentric development means economic development. One perception is
different things at different scales (see for coined in terms of cohesion. It addresses
instance Kloosterman and Musterd, 2001; the territorial distribution of income and
Davoudi, 2003; Hague and Kirk, 2003) and, employment and looks specifically at the
being a Euro-English term, it may also have a ‘fairness’ of this distribution. Cohesion is
variety of meanings to policy-makers. In this therefore primarily about equity.
paper we try to find out what it generally The notion of competitiveness on the other
means in Europe at a national scale. The hand focuses on economic performance from
renewed Europe-wide interest in the subject an entirely different viewpoint. The prime
makes one wonder whether the concept of issue is not the distribution of wealth and
polycentric development is actually under- employment but the level of competitiveness
stood in the same way throughout Europe. By of areas at the international and global level.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2 163

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ACROSS EUROPE

Competitiveness is not about socio-economic although reference is not always made to the
weaknesses but about strengths and potent- term ‘polycentric development’ as such.
ials. Spatially it is much more confined and Of the six countries discussed in this
selective and could be almost entirely coined special issue Italy is the only example where
in terms of efficiency. Currently in the polycentric development is a rather sub-
European Union competitiveness is being sidiary aim. Austria, Spain and the UK are
discussed in the context of the so-called other examples where explicit polycentric
Lisbon Agenda, referring to the agreement development policies can be found at the
reached in March 2000 by the EU Heads of regional but not at the national level. In
States and Governments in this capital city these countries, that are either federalized
to make the EU ‘the most competitive and or becoming more regionalized, such
dynamic knowledge-driven economy by as the UK, there are, unlike in Italy, no
2010’. national policies whatsoever that address
As polycentric development is about such polycentric development. Only in Austria
fundamental issues as cohesion and com- is there an informal policy document, The
petitiveness it should not come as a surprise Austrian Spatial Development Concept 2001
that profound discussions are taking place to (ÖROK, 2002), which addresses polycentric
reach a common understanding. What will development at the national level, but only
be shown in this paper is that the making of in an implicit and subsidiary way (see
spatial visions or perspectives is considered Schindegger and Tatzberger, 2002). As in
an important instrument to clarify the con- Italy, not all regions in Austria, Spain or
cept and apply it to concrete areas and terri- the UK have chosen to develop polycentric
tories. development policies. Exceptions include
We start our paper with an overview of the Land Salzburg in Austria, Navarra in Spain
countries pursuing polycentric development. and the West Midlands and North West in
We continue with a section on the objectives the UK. The situation in the UK is complex
of national polycentric policies followed by since major planning competencies have been
a discussion of the various ways polycentric devolved to Wales, Scotland and Northern
development policies are pursued in practice. Ireland so they can each now develop their
We round off with a section discussing some own polycentric development policies (Zon-
principle issues. neveld et al., 2004; see also, Shaw and Sykes,
forthcoming).
Latvia, Romania, the Slovak Republic and
Countries Pursuing Polycentric
Sweden are countries where polycentric
Development
development is only a subsidiary aim at the
In no less than eighteen out of the twenty- national level. No formal national policy has
nine analysed ESPON countries the pursuit made it an explicit aim. In Latvia and Sweden
of polycentric development is seen as a polycentric development is a subsidiary aim
prime policy objective in spatial or spatial- of regional economic policies. It has to be
economic policy (see table 1). In the six mentioned though that in Sweden, as in
countries discussed in this special issue, as Austria, an informal attempt has been made
well as Belgium (i.e. the Flemish and Walloon that takes polycentric development into
Regions), Germany (through an informal account. It concerns The National Vision
spatial planning policy), Switzerland, Den- ‘Sweden 2009’ (Boverket, 1996), which
mark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portu- formulated the generally accepted idea of
gal, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, connecting the twenty-five identified city
Lithuania and Norway, polycentric develop- regions (called ‘pearls’ in the vision) with
ment is an explicit aim in national policies, each other by high-speed railway connections,

164 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUROPE: OVERVIEW AND DEBATE

Table 1. Polycentric development policies in Europe according to priority, status and scale. (Source:
Zonneveld et al., 2004)
Country Polycentric Policy at National Level No Polycentric Policy at
National Level

Formal policy Informal policy (vision by a Polycentric No national,

working group etc.) policy at no regional
regional level polycentric
(some cases) policy
Polycentricity Polycentricity Polycentricity Polycentricity
major aim subsidiary or major aim subsidiary aim
minor aim
Austria X X
Belgium X*
Bulgaria X
Cyprus X
Czech Republic X
Denmark X
Estonia X
Finland X
France X
Germany X X
Greece X
Hungary X
Ireland X
Italy X X
Latvia X
Lithuania X
Luxembourg X
Malta X
Netherlands X
Norway X
Poland X
Portugal X
Romania X
Slovak Republic X
Slovenia X
Spain X
Sweden X X
Switzerland X
United Kingdom X

* Polycentricity could be seen as a major aim at national level in Belgium since the Walloon and Flanders Regions
together cover 99 per cent of the territory and both take the Brussels Region into consideration in their polycentric
policies.

so that they would form a ‘String of Pearls Czech Republic. In sum, however, we can
Network’ and no longer act as ‘islands’. In conclude that polycentric development poli-
Romania and the Slovak Republic national cies at the national level are widespread in
spatial development perspectives are being Europe.
developed in which polycentric development
plays a certain but as yet unclear role.
Objectives of National Polycentric Policies
Finally, there are three countries for which
we did not find any evidence of a polycentric A question that arises when looking at the
development policy: Cyprus, Malta and the eighteen countries that pursue polycentric

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2 165

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ACROSS EUROPE

development as a main objective for territorial The second type of policies within the
development is what do these countries want cohesion cluster aim to reduce the geo-
to achieve with this? It appears that two main graphical imbalance between parts of a
clusters of such overall objectives dominate country. The most notable examples of
polycentric development policies. The first these can be found in Italy, where the north-
relates to cohesion and is the diminishing south division dominates the national spatial-
of urban disparities within national urban economic structure, Germany, rather similarly
systems. The second cluster of objectives is to coping with an east-west division, and to
enhance urban competitiveness and thereby some extent in Poland. In Germany seven
the overall competitiveness of a country. In- so-called European metropolitan areas (Metro-
terestingly, like the ESDP, most polycentric polen und Metropolregionen von europäischer
development policies pursue both objectives Bedeutung) have been identified (BMBau,
at the same time. 1993). Originally the selection was limited
to just one urban region in the new Bundes-
länder: Berlin. When the original spatial
Cohesion: Closing Gaps
vision (BMBau, 1993) was transformed into
Within the cluster of cohesion-orientated an Action Plan (BMBau, 1995) a seventh
polycentric policies two types can be dis- ‘candidate’ had to be added under the in-
tinguished, firstly those policies that focus on fluence of political pressure, the so-called
reducing urban disparities within the urban Saxony Triangle (Sachsendreieck), which is
system and secondly those policies which made up of Dresden, Leipzig and Halle. This
address a major geographical imbalance shows how the concept of polycentricity is
within a country’s territory. In the former being invoked in the struggle to overcome
category a nodal approach is followed, in regional disparities.
the latter a zonal.
An example of a policy belonging to the
Competitiveness: Cities as the Key to Wealth
first category and therefore trying to close
the ‘gap’ between the capital cities and the In countries and regions with a relatively
next category of cities can be found in Greece. polycentric urban system, like Switzerland,
As Angelidis (this issue) describes there is a The Netherlands, Flanders, Germany, Poland
considerable gap between the metropolitan and Slovenia the dominant objective behind
regions of Athens and Thessalonica and polycentric development has become making
all other cities, most of which have only the country as a whole more competitive.
a modest number of inhabitants. An im- A very common elaboration of polycentric
portant objective of the current national policy links the size and importance of cities
spatial development plan is to strengthen to different spatial domains of competition.
the regional and transregional role of certain This then results in a classification of the
urban centres, which have to develop into national urban system based on the principle
‘nodes’ or ‘gates’ within the wider context of hierarchy. This means that different classes
of the eastern Mediterranean and the Balkan of cities are identified, e.g. major centres
and the Black Sea countries. that have to compete internationally, and
Other examples where urban disparities national and regional centres having to
dominate policy are Ireland, France, Portugal, compete nationally or regionally. Often such
the Baltic states, Hungary and nearly all the classifications are based on a desired rather
Nordic countries. A common characteristic of than the present situation, thus indicating
these policies is that they focus on a category the development aspired to. In many cases
of cities that is weakly represented in the appealing metaphors are developed for the
current urban system. centres that have to compete internationally,

166 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUROPE: OVERVIEW AND DEBATE

for instance ‘European Metropolitan Regions’ carry elements of cohesion as well as

(Germany), ‘Europols’ (Poland), ‘gateways’ competitiveness in them. Within these
or ‘gate-cities’ (Greece, Ireland), ‘Centres de approaches the focus has shifted from a
développement et d’attraction’ (Luxembourg), zonal to a nodal approach, from lagging
‘economic core areas’ (Netherlands), ‘anchor regions to the development of the cities or
cities’ (Portugal) and ‘pearls’ (Sweden). urban networks, as ‘motors of the economy’
Increasingly popular with respect to com- within those regions.
petitiveness is the designation of so-called Furthermore, the focus shifted from
‘urban networks’ or ‘city networks’. In many investing in the weakly-developed functions
countries the concept of urban networks is of a city to investing in the already well-
explicitly referred to in policies. Mostly, the performing functions with clear endogenous
reason behind designating urban networks is potential. In countries with large disparities
to create more critical mass by fostering co- within the urban system polycentric de-
operation between two or more cities located velopment strategies aim to create cohesion
relatively close to each other and regarding through encouraging certain parts of the
them as a coherent functional entity. This urban system to become more competitive.
may, for instance, be a means to improve the This is done by facilitating a better use of
international status of such an urban region their endogenous potential and fostering
(see, for example, the Saxony Triangle), but what is often referred to as capacity building
also ‘classic’ urbanization and planning goals or the building up of institutional resources
may apply. (see for instance Healey et al., 1997). It is
striking though that in a few of the countries
mentioned here ‘classic’ dispersal objectives
Combined Objectives
are pursued. In Finland and Ireland policies
As has become clear, most polycentric policies have been put forward to relocate certain
pursue cohesion and competitiveness at the central government offices from the capital
same time. It is increasingly difficult to find to other regions. In the Netherlands, for
polycentric development policies that are instance, such policies were abandoned a few
truly devoted to only one objective. Even decades ago because of their ineffectiveness
countries with a monocentric structure or at influencing private sector investments.
a dominant capital, like Ireland, Greece or Furthermore, under the umbrella of cohesion
in a somewhat different way France (all in many countries, there are policies that
treated in this issue), do not have policies specifically aim to improve weaker parts of
that exclusively focus on the cohesion cities (Van den Berg et al., 2004; Baan et al.,
objective. Generally the spin-off effects of 2004), but do not take the whole urban system
the capital cities are deemed too important of a country into consideration and therefore
for the competitiveness and development of should not be considered polycentric policies,
the country as a whole, and are therefore not although in a way, they of course may
neglected in the policies. contribute to polycentric development.
Traditional regional policies based on
redistribution approaches are replaced in
Embeddedness
many cases by polycentric development
strategies based on ‘potential based ap- The objective of polycentric development is
proaches’ (Davoudi and Wishardt, this nothing new, as is shown by the papers in
issue), ‘positive sum games’ (Baudelle and this special issue on France, Greece, Poland
Peyrony, this issue) or, for instance, ‘a search and Italy. Probably the earliest expression
for winners approach’ (Antikainen and of polycentricity avant la lettre is the French
Vartiainen, this issue). All these strategies concept of métropoles d’équilibre of the early

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2 167

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ACROSS EUROPE

1960s, part of a policy approach which aimed influential in the sense of directing the
to achieve economic équilibre or balance at application of concrete policy instruments.
the national level. As Baudelle and Peyrony What we do see though are remarkable
(this issue) show, this objective has since examples of application in spatial planning
then guided French politics which eagerly documents – spatial visions and perspectives
made use of the concept of polycentricity, – although at the same time implementation
albeit in different interpretations through is often a weak point.
time and without actually using the term as
such. Other examples of early expressions of
Polycentric Development Policies in
polycentricity can be found in, for instance,
Practice
Greece (see Angelidis in this issue), Finland
(see Antikainen and Vartiainen, this issue),
The Quest for Effectiveness
Poland (see Korcelli, this issue) and The
Netherlands (Lambregts and Zonneveld, Although in quite a number of countries
2004). polycentric development is embedded in
Next to these cases where polycentricity national spatial planning policies, little is
(in whatever way ) has played a role for a known of how these policies are being put
longer time, there are some countries where into practice. Where they exist, polycentric
it is a new policy orientation at the national policies are often only in a preliminary
level. Obviously, this is the case in Ireland stage which makes it very difficult to gather
where the ESDP has clearly opened up a information regarding the instruments and
whole new perspective on spatial-economic processes around polycentric development
policy-making (see Davoudi and Wishardt policies. It is, however, possible to paint a
in this issue). Something similar can be general picture.
said of the Walloon Region in Belgium While polycentric development at a
(Walloon Government, 1999). Other first national scale is a strategic objective its
attempts to develop spatial visions in which successful application depends on horizontal
polycentricity plays a role, albeit a subsidiary co-ordination between spending departments,
one, are the already-mentioned ones in on vertical co-ordination between public
Austria and Sweden. Both were inspired actors at different administrative levels
by the ESDP and, in the case of Sweden, and, last but not least, on integrating public
especially also by ‘Visions and Strategies and private objectives. In general it can be
around the Baltic Sea 2010’ or VASAB 2010 concluded that the concept of polycentricity
(CMSPD, 1994). is very weak in terms of its implementation.
All in all we have recorded some cases of This becomes especially apparent in countries
the application of the polycentricity concept such as Ireland and Poland (this issue),
in the past. It is also clear that related where the concept plays a central role in
concepts or policy goals have been pursued non-binding spatial visions and has become
before. In the majority of the countries a topic of internal debate in the planning
analysed, however, the introduction of the domain. Often, such discussions are part of
polycentricity concept in national policies a much broader debate that focuses on the
or in discussions about territorial policies weakness of the spatial planning system
is something that has occurred over the last in general, which seems to be the major
10 years or so. As indicated, the diffusion of cause that hampers the implementation
the polycentricity concept across Europe is of polycentricity in, for instance, Italy and
nevertheless striking. This does not mean that Greece (this issue).
in all cases where the polycentricity concept Of the countries discussed in this issue
has been used the concept has become France and Finland have advanced most in

168 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUROPE: OVERVIEW AND DEBATE

the application of polycentric policies. Their conurbations), which is one indication that
approaches are pretty similar in the sense the term polycentricity has entered the Swiss
that they are both programme-based. In these debate (Bundesrat, 2001). It is interesting to
programmes emphasis is put on bottom-up note that, even though Switzerland is not
initiatives and the state government mainly an EU member, the policy was inspired by
acts as a facilitator. Apart from these countries the ESDP (Wegelin, 2001). The integration of
perhaps the best examples of more or less Swiss cities in the European urban network
mature polycentric development policies in has become a major topic in Switzerland as
Europe can be found in The Netherlands and well as identifying specific needs for these
Switzerland. In both countries spatial policies cities with respect to federal objectives.
and implementation programmes attached to While the Dutch and Swiss policies
these policies can be found which explicitly explicitly focus on stimulating horizontal
address the urban system and indicate cities and vertical co-operation and co-ordination,
and urban networks that need to be further in practice it seems exactly this quest for co-
developed. ordination that forms the bottleneck for most
The National Spatial Strategy of The polycentric policies. Indeed, all the articles
Netherlands (MVROM, 2004) identifies in this special issue suggest that the lack
six so-called national urban networks that, of co-ordination between departments and
amongst others, are eligible to receive also between different levels of government
funding on the basis of jointly developed hampers the application of the polycentric
strategies. Obviously, this incentive-based policies. This would imply that polycentric
approach tries to stimulate co-operation policies depend on the organizing capacity
between actors within an urban network of government at a national or sub-national
and thereby network development at a level. The best an actor at either level
regional level, while at the same time it can do in order to stimulate these types
tries to strengthen the urban system at the of co-ordination seems to be to act as a
national level. Interestingly, the last remains facilitator and to provide a framework for
of cohesion objectives are dropped. It is co-ordination. An improved governance
no longer an official policy goal that there capacity at lower levels of government could
should be a parity of economic development be supported by contracts or covenants with
within the country (MEA, 2004). This is partly central government, as is currently the case
a reflection of changes in the view of the role in countries like France, The Netherlands,
of government in territorial development, Germany and Switzerland and which is
partly a reflection of the fairly egalitarian recommended by the OECD (2001). It is also
level of economic development within the currently a prime objective of EU regional
country. policy.
The Swiss spatial policy, which was
approved by the federal Parliament in
Coordination Frameworks
1997 (Bundesrat, 1996), works in a similar
way to the Dutch policy although, applied Providing frameworks for co-ordination is a
to a federal country, it does not designate widely-used strategy in Europe. In fact, no
co-operation areas and leaves open all less than seventeen out of eighteen countries
opportunities for bottom-up initiatives that have committed to pursuing polycentric
for which it wants to form a framework development as a major objective have
(Flückiger and Koll-Schretzenmayr, 2000). developed a spatial vision. Only Norway,
Current policy speaks in terms of Poly- where a polycentric doctrine underlies
zentrische Stadt- und Agglomerationsentwickl regional policy, does not work with a spatial
ung (polycentric development of cities and vision, but instead, with a four yearly report

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2 169

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ACROSS EUROPE

on regional policy (Böhme, 2002). This the best new spatial planning approaches.
includes an analysis of the regional economic Many urban networks were inspired to build
development of the past years and presents public-private partnerships through this
a strategy for the coming years. Other competition (BBR, 2001). In general it seems
countries, like France, Lithuania, Slovenia that traditional redistribution policies, which
and The Netherlands also use regional have been in practice virtually all over Europe,
economic strategy documents for expressing deliver only limited results and are being
polycentric objectives, but unlike Norway replaced by what Davoudi and Wishardt
always in combination with a spatial vision. (this issue) call potential-based approaches.
Another strategic instrument is planning In most cases, however, these potential-based
guidelines, which offer guidance as to approaches are weakly developed and form
what topics should be taken into account part of the rhetoric that most spatial visions
in planning activities at lower government still express.
levels. Countries where these are used
include Denmark, Finland, Norway, Slovenia Debate
and the UK. As a means of putting forward
polycentric development objectives, however, Polycentricity: A Territorial Contribution to the
they seem less relevant than spatial visions Lisbon Strategy
and regional economic strategies since they The term ‘polycentricity’ serves as a label for
do not address the distribution of economic quite a variety of policy goals. This was to
activities over the national and sub-national be expected since the ESDP, the document
urban system. where the concept was introduced, itself
uses various meanings of polycentricity. The
Mainstream Instruments concept originates from a discourse on the
desirability of the present spatial-economic
Other instruments that may be considered structure of the European continent. It thus
important for polycentric policies are more addresses the issue of Europe having just one
straightforward planning and sectoral very large economic core area as opposed to
instruments. However, their main characteris- the United States, although the writers of the
tic is that they can be used to implement a ESDP also relate the concept to other spatial
polycentric development strategy, but are scales. Interestingly, the more one moves
rarely themselves expressions of polycentric down the spatial scale, the more policy
development objectives. Especially interesting objectives are integrated in the concept. This
for the promotion of polycentric development is why the concept has become a container for
based on endogenous potential are those all sorts of policies, which the makers of the
instruments that stimulate bottom-up ini- ESDP would like to become reality. Although
tiatives. Frequently mentioned are contracts, this is all perfectly understandable, the danger
covenants and agreements, instruments is that polycentricity in the end becomes less
aiming at the creation of partnerships and useful since it could mean anything. So, our
project-based approaches. Interesting prac- first recommendation would be to disentangle
tices can be found in France and Finland the discussion. Hanging over the entire
(this issue) where coalitions of regional discussion on polycentricity is the question
actors can submit projects and programmes of competitiveness versus cohesion.
for financing to the national government. In
Germany an even more competitive approach
Combining Cohesion and Competitiveness
is followed with the so-called ‘Regions of the
future’ programme, where urban networks What clearly transpires from our analysis is a
can ‘win’ extra financing by submitting lack of understanding of how competitiveness,

170 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUROPE: OVERVIEW AND DEBATE

on the one hand, and cohesion, on the other, 100 cities with low or average potential or
relate to each other in practice. Answering ten with high potential makes a difference.
this question and developing successful The question is: how and under what cir-
strategies to pursue their combination cumstances can a policy make a significant
are obviously the most wanted things in contribution or, in other words, cause a sig-
present-day attempts to formulate polycentric nificant change?
development policies throughout Europe. It In contrast to EU Cohesion Policy, that uses
is crucial, especially for policy-makers, to the ‘75 per cent of average GDP’ criterion to
recognize competitiveness and cohesion decide where the largest part of the overall
as two different (but nevertheless related) budget will be allocated, there is no easy
policy goals which spark off different spatial indicator or criterion that can be applied
designations, different portfolios of policy in the case of polycentric development.
instruments and different agents. Apart from So, the decision to allocate the budget to a
the examples of Ireland and Poland this does small selection of cities remains largely a
not seem to have happened. Generally, while political one. Polycentric development poli-
old-style cohesion policy focuses on lagging cies also need firm political commitment
regions and cities, competitiveness policies and persistency after the decision has been
focus on cities that are already performing taken. After all, potential conflicts lurk, es-
quite well. pecially when a large number of cities will
Polycentric development policies that feel neglected.
focus on cohesion try to close some kind Looking at the countries dealing with the
of ‘gap’ within the urban system. So, in concept of polycentricity there are at least
order to alleviate the situation, the focus two routes leading to a fruitful approach in
has to be on a specific type of city. On the dealing with cohesion and competitiveness.
other hand, policies with a competitiveness In countries like France, Germany and
objective do not focus on a certain gap, but Finland national policies are directed to a
on ways to encourage cities to become more better use of the endogenous potential of
competitive. The two main strategies for this cities and urban regions outside the capital
are urban networking and making good use region in various corners of the country.
of endogenous potential. Naturally, because Fostering cohesion and competitiveness is
of location factors, not all cities can engage in thus more or less the same.
urban networking and similarly not all cities Poland and Ireland point to another,
have a clear endogenous potential which can important route to integrate effectively the
be developed. So selectivity is needed in both goals of cohesion and competitiveness. These
polycentric development policies focusing countries apply a phasing strategy. Both
on cohesion as well as those focusing on objectives will be pursued, but at different
competitiveness. times. Firstly, the policies propose, the focus
A review of policies in Europe, however, should be on becoming more competitive as
shows that in only a few cases have explicit a nation as a whole and then, when there is
choices been made regarding the cities or a sound spatial-economic foundation, the
regions that will be stimulated. In many established wealth will be better spread over
countries there is a tendency to elaborate the country. The latter situation is generally
the principle of polycentricity in such a way expected to be a distant, long-term situation.
that all sorts of smaller urban centres and Allowing a certain degree of polarization
regions are seen as playing an important role between the respective regions in terms of
in bringing about polycentric development growth and development in the short-term
of the national territory. Of course this may can therefore be interpreted as a pragmatic
be true, but sharing the budget between choice.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2 171

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ACROSS EUROPE

Making Polycentricism Work: A Case for Spatial of relevant stakeholders are addressed and
Visions participate, a soft instrument like visioning
could have a large impact. Such visioning
In many countries it is from national spatial
– or whatever term seems to be appropriate
planning that polycentricity is advocated.
or opportune – could be built into the future
In terms of authority and power spatial (or
operations of the structure funds in the post-
territorial) planning is often a weak player.
2006 period.
There are many examples though where
spatial planning has proved to be highly
successful in bringing about appropriate
REFERENCES
frames of references for policy decisions.
In addressing a large and varied group of Baan, A., Kempen, R. van, and Vermeulen, M.
stakeholders (see the previous point) soft (2004) Cities in the New EU Countries – Positions,
Problems, Policies. The Hague: Ministry of the
instruments like a policy document can
Interior and Kingdom Affairs.
become powerful instruments. Especially
BBR (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumord-
in those cases where spatial planning is nung) (2001) Spatial Development and Spatial
indeed advocating the policy objective of Planning in Germany. Bonn: BBR.
polycentricity, but this objective is politically Berg, L. van den, Braun, E., and Meer, J. van der
not accepted yet, this policy domain should (2004) National Urban Policies in the European
use its communicative power available to the Union. Rotterdam: Euricur, European Institute
maximum. This means: for Comparative Urban Research, Erasmus
University Rotterdam.
Š Issuing documents with sound narrative BMBau (Bundesministerium für Raumordnung,
qualities; Bauwesen und Städtebau) (1993) Raumordnungs-
politischer Orientierungsrahmen. Bonn: BMBau.
Š Investing in spatial visioning;
BMBau (Bundesministerium für Raumordnung,
Š Investing in research and the dissemination Bauwesen und Städtebau) (1995) Grundlagen
einer Europäischen Raumordnungspolitik – Prin-
of research results;
ciples for a European Spatial Development Policy
Š Starting a political discussion to put the – Principes pour une politique d’améngement
du territoire européen, Selbstverlag der Bundes-
subject on the agenda.
forschungsanstalt für Landeskunde und Raumord-
Looking at the ESPON territory there is, nung. Bonn: BMBau.
as indicated, a remarkably widespread use Böhme, K. (2002) Nordic Echoes of European Spatial
of what is often referred to as spatial visions. Planning: Discursive Integration in Practice.
Nordregio Report 2002:8. Stockholm: Nord-
There is no common definition of what regio.
constitutes a spatial vision. Related to the
Boverket (National Board of Housing, Building
issue of polycentricity we would like to assert and Planning) (1996) Sverige 2009 – förslag till
that a spatial vision is characterized by the vision. Karlskrona: Boverket.
ambition to unravel the territorial structure Bundesrat (1996) Bericht über die Grundzüge der
of a territory and to discuss the territorial Raumordnung Schweiz. Bern: Bundesamt für
position of this area from a geographically Raumplanung.
wider perspective. Ultimately this could Bundesrat (2001) Agglomerationspolitik des Bundes.
lead to an image of what a polycentric Bern: Bundesamt für Raumplanung.
structured area/country could look like. It CMSPD (Conference of Ministers for Spatial
is not so much the vision or document itself Planning and Development) (1994) Visions and
Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010 – Towards a
that is important but the visioning process Framework for Spatial Development in the Baltic
organized around this particular document. Sea Region. Karlskrona: The Baltic Institute.
If such a process is organized in a highly Davoudi, S. (2003) Polycentricity in European
sophisticated way, meaning that large groups Spatial Planning: from an analytical tool to a

172 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2

 POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUROPE: OVERVIEW AND DEBATE

normative agenda. European Planning Studies, Schindegger, F. and Tatzberger, G. (2002) Poly-
11(8), pp. 979–999. zentrismus – ein europäisches Leitbild für die
Flückiger, H., and Koll-Schretzenmyar, M. (2000) räumliche Entwicklung. Vienna: Österreichisches
Das vernetzte Städtesystem Schweiz – Eine Institut für Raumplanung.
schweizerische Strategie, ein europäisches Shaw, D., and Sykes, O. (2004) The concept of
Modell? DISP, 142(3), pp. 4–9. polycentricity in European spatial planning:
Hague, C. and Kirk, K (2003) Polycentricity Scoping reflections on its interpretation and application
Study. London: Office of the Deputy Prime in the practice of spatial planning. International
Minister. Planning Studies, 9(4), pp. 283–306.
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. and Needham, Walloon Government (1999) Regional Spatial De-
B. (1997) Strategic plan-making and building velopment Perspective. Summary Document.
institutional capacity, in Healey, P., Khakee, Namur: Walloon Government.
A., Motte, A. and Needham, B. (eds.) Making Wegelin, F. (2001) Switzerland and the European
Strategic Spatial Plans; Innovations in Europe. Spatial Development Perspective. Built Environ-
London: UCL Press. ment: Special Issue: Regulatory Competition and
Kloosterman, R., and Musterd, S. (2001) The Co-operation in European Spatial Planning, 27(4),
polycentric urban region: towards a research pp. 304–308.
agenda. Urban Studies, 38(4), pp. 623–633. Zonneveld, W., Meijers, E. and Waterhout, B. (2004)
Lambregts, B., and Zonneveld, W. (2004) From The Application of Polycentricity in European
Randstad to Deltametropolis: Changing atti- Countries. Part A: Analysis; Part B: Country
tudes towards the scattered metropolis. Euro- Reports. Published as Annex report B of ‘ESPON
pean Planning Studies, 12(3), pp. 299–322. 1.1.1: Potentials for polycentric development in
Europe; Project report’. Stockholm/Luxembourg:
MEA, Ministry of Economic Affairs (2004) Peaks Nordregio/ESPON Monitoring Committee.
in the Delta; Regional Economic Perspectives. The
Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs.
MVROM (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruim-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
telijke Ordening en Milieubeheer) (Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environ- This paper is largely inspired by the ESPON 1.1.1
ment) (2004) Nota Ruimte (National Spatial project in which the authors were responsible
Strategy). Den Haag: MVROM. for researching the application of the concept of
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation polycentric development in national policies (See:
and Development) (2001) Territorial Outlook Zonneveld et al., 2004).
2001. Paris: OECD Publications.
ÖROK (Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz)
(2002) The Austrian Spatial Development Concept
2001 (abbreviated version) – English summary.
Vienna: ÖROK.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 31 NO 2 173