Presentation on theme: "Parallel Realities? Some reflections on the conceptual context for Urban Rural Partnerships Parallel Realities? Some reflections on the conceptual context."— Presentation transcript:
Parallel Realities? Some reflections on the conceptual context for Urban Rural Partnerships Parallel Realities? Some reflections on the conceptual context for Urban Rural Partnerships Andrew Copus Sustainable Urban-Rural Partnerships European Seminar Metz November 16 2012 First Thematic Panel Urban-Rural Partnership: A new governance innovation tool?
Two competing views of Economic Space… Geography still matters… Agglomeration Clusters Local embeddedness Re-localisation Functional regions, city regions. Place-based policy? Local capacity, territorial assets?..but organised proximity is increasingly important... Social proximity independent of geographical distance… spaces of flows virtual networks institutional proximity translocal globalisation etc For more detail see: http://www.mrr.gov.pl/english/Regional_Development/Regional_Policy/NSRD/doc_str/Documents/Copus_Urban_Rural_Linkages.pdf
Implications for Urban-Rural Partnerships? Parallel worlds? Alternative perceptions? Pallimpsest? A geography of transition – complex mix of socio-econ processes, some sensitive to spatial proximity, others liberated by transport and IT improvements, - now driven by organised proximity. Different parts of Europe at different stages… U-R partnerships need to be adapted to this environment.
Making sense of the complexity… Type of Interaction Sub-type Modes of intervention (i) Thematic U-R Coop. (ii) Generic U-R Coop (iii) Fostering Organised Proximity 1. Demographic Linkages (a) Urbanisation. (b) Commuting and Counter- urbanisation. 2. Economic transactions and innovation activity (a) Central place consumer relationships. ? (b) U-R exchanges of goods and services. ? (c) U-R Diffusion of knowledge and innovation. 3. Delivery of public services (a) Delivery of SGI. ? (b) Public transport. 4. Exchanges in amenities and environmental goods (a) Leisure and recreation. ? (b) Resources and waste disposal. (c) Renewable energy. ?
Potential Risks and Benefits… +U-R cooperation may accommodate equity/inclusion and environmental objectives (not just competitiveness/growth…) +Strengthening local identity/accountability… +Ideally suited to community-led local development… +Theoretical guidance for rationalisation of territorial governance driven by austerity…? ?Avoid stereotypes, be aware of the changing realities… ?Avoid confusing means and ends… ?To what extent should interventions go with the flow? ?One size fits all… ?All three intervention modes need to be employed in appropriate balance, flexibly and coherently.
Some priority issues… Basic evidence gathering – understanding/monitoring of the changing role of geographic and organised proximity – networks and different kinds of U-R linkages etc. Recognition of the distinct roles of the three modes of intervention. Clear/tight thematic focus in UR Partnership objectives. Monitoring/evaluation of outcomes (not inputs or means).
Thank you for your attention… firstname.lastname@example.org