To compensate for these specifc shortcomings MÜHLE has adopted a number of strategies related to widening the frm network. Firstly, comprehensive activities in terms of virtual and (social) media marketing were started (including an online shop, presences on Facebook and Instagram, a dedicated (printed) company magazine). Secondly, as a major piece of its marketing strategy MÜHLE opened a fagship store in Berlin in 2014, constituting in itself a signifcant organisational innovation by which market distance was reduced and the frm network expanded:

With the fagship store in Berlin we can reach people a lot easier and present as well as transport our brand very diferently. (Interview, Hundshübel, 9 February 2017)

Additionally, high levels of mobility and membership in initiatives such as the 'Association of German Manufactories' or the 'German Design Council'—ensure co-presence and exchange with relevant actors, customers and suppliers, as well as the infux of inspiration and ideas from various felds. At the same time, however, MÜHLE's location in the Erzgebirge plays a crucial role for brand identity and authenticity, succinctly expressed by the interviewee:

for me, MÜHLE only works here in the Erzgebirge, separating the two is somewhat unthinkable. (Interview, Hundshübel, 9 February 2017)

#### **5.1.2 Case 2: OSKAR4**

OSKAR, a meat processing company, was established in 1992 in the village of Saarepeedi in Viljandi County. OSKAR has around 100 employees and its sales of approx. 7.3 million EUR are exclusively

**Picture 3** OSKAR premises in Saarepeedi (picture by author)

generated in Estonia. OSKAR is a small player in the highly competitive and de-regulated Estonian meat market which is largely dominated by Finnish companies/brands. Despite its small size, OSKAR is market leader in multiple product categories and has in the past frequently acted as a '*pioneer*', by introducing new products in niches that were eventually adopted by competitors and thereby difused more widely. A recent strategic re-orientation has been a focus on high-priced products, resulting in substantially increased sales, while processed quantities remained stable. According to the interviewees, OSKAR further diferentiates itself from competitors in a number of ways, e.g. by rejecting controversial technologies (such as MSM5) or by manufacturing products with high meat contents.

#### *Development of 'Green Label' Products*

Te term 'green label' refers to a product assortment which does not contain artifcial additives ('E-free'), frst launched in 2009.6 Te development was mainly driven by two intertwined factors: frst, ferce competition in the Estonian meat market, which was facilitated for instance by using MSM technology to achieve lower prices, and, second, by having a public discourse on more healthy and natural nutrition. Within this feld of tension products free of artifcial additives were identifed as a potential niche and considered a 'logical' progression for OSKAR, as the technological pre-requisites for such products closely aligned with OSKAR's manufacturing practices:

As we have never used MSM raw material, our products have anyway a high meat content. Which is what you need to produce E-free products. If you have too much fat, water or starch there is no way to keep the product in one piece. […]. So removing E-numbers from products was a logical next step for us. (Interview, Saarepeedi, 14 January 2016)

Lacking specialised technological knowledge, OSKAR needed to acquire external technological knowledge, in particular natural substitutes for artifcial additives and recipes for their application to kick-start development. Consequently, OSKAR went through an iterative consultancy process with diferent European suppliers, fnally acquiring technology from a leading frm based in Germany. Key to successful product development was combining the technological tools acquired with internal practical knowledge and experiences, in particular of OSKAR's food technologists. Rather than acquiring a ready-to-use technology, substantial adaptations were necessary to meet the desired product specifcations regarding taste, texture and visual appearance:

We had to accommodate components and recipes to our conditions, and sometimes we got diferent results. So we had to fnd ways to get good results. […]. We had to combine their knowledge and our knowledge. […]. We were testing every day to fnd out which compounds work. Te components are not always working as sales representatives say, so you have to test and test all over again, which is time-consuming and expensive. (Interview, Saarepeedi, 14 January 2016)

Tis iterative frm-internal process took about six months, at the end of which the frst product was fnalised. Subsequently, the 'green label' assortment gradually expanded, with each of the individual products requiring specifc iterative circles. Product development was followed by marketing activities, including elaboration of suitable packaging, creation of the indicative 'green label' and, importantly, the process of building trust and authenticity with consumers:

Tere was a certain discussion with our frst product, also from the media. Tey didn't understand the E-free products. […]. It was hard for us to get the customers to trust our product, it maybe took a year until people accepted the concept. (Interview, Saarepeedi, 14 January 2016)

Te launch of a 'green label' product assortment coincided with a gathering of the Estonian meat industry, during which products were presented. According to anecdotal evidence provided by the interviewees, competitors mostly reacted with incomprehension. However, this reaction illustrates the way OSKAR moved away from conventional industry practices, thereby opening a particular market niche. As the interviewees report, by now most competitors have introduced their own E-free product ranges. Figure 3 provides another ego-centred network map.

**Fig. 3** Network map of OSKAR's 'green label' development

#### *Firm-Level Strategies*

Te 'green label' project illustrates the importance of frm-internal, practical expertise for efective assimilation of externally acquired knowledge. Going beyond the development outlined above, the importance of internal expertise is also evident at the wider frm level. In addition to emphasising the importance of specialised food technologists for product development, OSKAR's range of internal capacities also relates, for instance, to the construction of specifc manufacturing equipment by technicians. Tese highlight the comprehensive in-house manufacturing depth available to OSKAR:

We even build our equipment. We have excellent guys in-house who produce equipment for new technologies. Tereby we can test at a small scale and then make larger equipment for producing larger quantities later on. (Interview, Saarepeedi, 14 January 2016)

Being exclusively active in the Estonian market, distance to its primary market Tallinn is described as somewhat problematic and associated with high transaction costs. At the same time, it is crucial to be visible on the Estonian market, despite having only limited resources for marketing. In this respect OSKAR's participation in national trade fairs (food and non-food related) and organising supermarket demos and tastings allows the frm to generate visibility and partially bridge the distances to main markets:

Trade fairs in Estonia are a good place for us to get in touch with endconsumers. Tere are lots of experts but also normal people who are simply interested in what we show. […]. Te main reason for us to go to fairs is to catch the end-consumer. (Interview, Saarepeedi, 14 January 2016)

#### **5.2 Zooming Out: Discussion and Cross-Case Refections**

Te illustration of two innovation projects of frms from diferent peripheral contexts underpins the importance of (i) network linkages to external partners to acquire knowledge/expertise and (ii) frm-internal capacities. Both appear as decisive and intertwined mechanisms that facilitate frms' innovation endeavours. Each of the cases presented refects diferent facets on how this coupling might operate. MÜHLE mostly draws on acquiring specifc technological expertise through purposefully built relations and further mobilises existing linkages to integrate this expertise into the frm. While internal capacities facilitate this integration process, network mechanisms prevail. In developing 'green label' products, OSKAR primarily utilises internal practice-based expertise to adapt externally acquired knowledge to its specifc requirements. Tis coupling can be understood along the lines of Cohen and Levinthal's (1990, 128) conception of absorptive capacity which posits the capability of frms to 'recognise the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends' as a critical innovation resource.

Considering the larger set of cases investigated as part of the wider research afrms the importance of diverse in-house production and experience-based capacities (e.g. ERZ1, ERZ2, ERZ3, ERZ7 | EE1, EE5, EE10) as well as their strategic expansion (e.g. ERZ3, ERZ13 | EE11) for maintaining competitiveness and innovation potential. For instance, ERZ2, a case manufacturer, maintains departments for model construction, mould making and a sewing unit—which, collectively, ensure a high level of in-house production capacities and, thereby, increase the frm's readiness to handle emerging requests fexibly. In addition to expanding technological capabilities as illustrated by the MÜHLE case, in-house production can further expand by internalising the preparation of technical drawings rather than buying them in as external services (EE11), or by establishing of new distribution channels directly targeting end-customers (e.g. ERZ3, ERZ13). Maintaining extensive and further diversifying in-house production capacities enhances fexibility and reduces dependency on external partners. Tereby, frms build self-sufciency which complements the acquisition of innovation relevant knowledge from external and extra-regional sources. Tus, building internal capacities along various dimensions can be considered a strategy of frms from peripheral regions to compensate for lacking relevant knowledge available regionally, which, at the same time, reduces frms' interaction requirements. Tese indications confrm recent research by Flåten et al. (2015) who argue that strong internal capacities, built by workplace-learning, constitute central factors for the competitiveness of frms in 'thin' Norwegian regions. Consequently, this research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the factors that shape the innovation capacity of frms from peripheral regions active in LMT manufacturing: the frms investigated as part of this study tend to rely on diverse and multifaceted internal capabilities, coupled with multi-scalar external linkages—including local and non-local contacts. Tese observations deviate from the seemingly established norm on how innovation in contemporary knowledge economies is organised, i.e. by focusing on core-competencies and knowledge sourcing from local partners (Flåten et al. 2015). Nevertheless, as this research illustrates, these practices induce organisational learning—which in MÜHLE's case, by anchoring technological capacities within the region, expands to a distinct regional and inter-organisational dimension.

Focusing on the wider frm level reveals mechanisms by which frms manage distances to primary markets or knowledge sources. Such mechanisms operate for instance by establishing permanent outposts in relevant hotspots, or the generation of temporary co-presence via high levels of mobility and trade fair participation. Following Maskell's (2014) conceptualisation, MÜHLE's fagship store can, while being primarily a particular marketing tool, be understood as a '*listening post*'. Such an observatory, strategically established as a subsidiary in one of the most relevant hotspots for MÜHLE (Berlin), ofers the potential to identify relevant knowledge and informal information (e.g. specifc demands, trends, perceptions, etc.) directly from consumers and industry players. It thereby contributes to the identifcation of relevant market developments. While such a fagship store certainly represents a special example, the importance of trade and consumer fairs is frequently referred to across cases. Besides their role regarding marketing, fairs are widely considered arenas to make contact and to source relevant knowledge (e.g. ERZ2, ERZ9, ERZ12 | EE1, EE3, EE4, EE7). For instance, during trade fairs, ERZ2, ERZ9 and EE4 established initial contacts with actors which, subsequently, became pivotal for innovation projects as either initiators (ERZ2, ERZ9) or collaboration partners (EE4). Terefore, it can be assumed that the peculiar ecology of such settings ofers frms productive means to overcome distance and to beneft from organised and temporary centrality.

## **6 Conclusions and Implications**

Te empirical material presented in this chapter demonstrates that in order to maintain innovation capacity and competitiveness frms operating from peripheral regions beneft from a twin strategy. Tis strategy is composed of (i) building internal capacities such as in-house production depth and absorptive capacity and (ii) sourcing knowledge and expertise at diferent scales through established as well as newly built network ties. Tese strategies, implicitly and explicitly, work as mechanisms to bypass some of the structural shortcomings of peripheral regions. Tese mechanisms emerge as directive principles, although their coupling and balancing varies between and is contingent upon individual cases and the characteristics of projects and frms.

Expanding frm-internal capacities and associated knowledge bases increases the demand of frms for qualifed labour and specifc human resources. Terefore, in the long run this particular strategy might result in rising pressures to fnd adequate personnel. Especially when considering the challenging demographic developments (ageing, continued out-migration, etc.) many peripheral regions currently are and will be confronted with in the future. A substantial number of frms as well as regional development actors interviewed as part of the wider research indicate pressures arising from tensed local labour markets—and the issue of recruiting qualifed staf is likely to gain even more relevance in the future. To satisfy demand, it will be most important for frms to build attractiveness and visibility—regarding both soft aspects such as employability as well as hard (e.g. monetary) incentives. Building longterm visibility and attractiveness within and beyond regions requires coordinated strategies involving private actors, intermediaries such as economic promotion agencies, business chambers and associations as well as educational institutions. Facilitating such coordination processes needs to be a priority of and should be further encouraged by regional decision takers and policymakers.

Tis research echoes previous studies (e.g. North and Smallbone 2006; Townsend et al. 2016) which emphasise the importance of access to high-quality information and telecommunication technologies (ICTs) for businesses located in peripheral regions. Increasingly digitalised economies rely on powerful ICT infrastructure for networking and marketing, standard working routines and upcoming shifts related to automation and data exchange (e.g. industry 4.0). Tus, if adopted, the provision of high-performance (digital) infrastructures can efectively support businesses from peripheral regions to access wider resources, enlarge networks, expand their reach and ultimately to mitigate isolation and distance (Townsend et al. 2016). Yet, peripheral regions are frequently excluded from access to high-capacity ICTs and 'discriminated against by investments in the telecommunication infrastructure because of the relatively low and dispersed nature of demand' (North and Smallbone 2006, 52), fuelling the digital divide in technology landscapes (Townsend et al. 2016). Many frms consulted in this research use tools such as online procurement and marketing, social media and sophisticated virtual communication/co-development practices as part of their daily business and strategic innovation routines. However, frms from the Erzgebirgskreis in Germany, in particular, perceive the state of their ICT landscape as a distinct '*anachronism*' and an inhibiting factor for competitiveness and business development. Tus, in the context of ongoing peripheralisation processes, this chapter argues that the provision of spatially inclusive access to high-performance ICT must be considered a major component of (national) infrastructural as well as regional development policy.

Finally, Faulconbridge's (2017) refection on relational policy approaches ofers valuable links in light of the previously presented fndings. Tis study corroborates the role of actor mobility and the multiscalar organisation of networks in the innovation activities of frms from peripheral regions. It can therefore be suggested that regional development and innovation policy should strive for measures that promote both local/regional as well as (inter)national connections rather than pursuing local innovation and the promotion of localised networks as guiding imperatives of relational policy. Policy initiatives that take into account the mobility of innovators and encourage frms from peripheral regions to participate in (in)formal networks, trade fairs and industry conventions etc., can efectively support the formation of multi-scalar relations, allowing frms to exchange/acquire innovation-relevant expertise from a broad and dispersed range of actors. Instruments that support for instance trade fair participation, currently maintained by funding agencies in both Saxony and Estonia, could be further strengthened, but need, at the same time, better promotion to become more widely recognised amongst potential benefciaries: frms from peripheral regions.

**Acknowledgements** Tanks are due to Alexandre Dubois and Lukas Vonnahme for their feedback on earlier versions of this chapter, which also benefted from discussions during the 'Young Economic Geographers Network (YEGN)' Workshop 2017 in Goslar.

## **Notes**

as artifcial colouring agents, preservatives, emulsifers, stabilisers, favour enhancers, etc. which, if used, must be indicated as 'E-codes' on conventional products. 'Green label' is a marketing tool by OSKAR and does not have ofcial recognition by Estonian regulative bodies.

#### **Recommendations for Further Readings**

#### **References**

Perspective." *European Planning Studies* 14 (1): 79–93. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654310500339885.

Spillovers?" *Te Annals of Regional Science* 54 (1): 299–321. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00168-014-0655-8.

Policy-Makers." *European Planning Studies* 14 (1): 41–60. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654310500339125.

**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **13**

## **Leading Through Image Making? On the Limits of Emphasising Agency in Structurally Disadvantaged Rural Places**

**Bianka Plüschke-Altof and Martiene Grootens**

## **1 Introduction**

In recent years, the focus of debates on suitable responses to peripheralisation has increasingly shifted from structural factors of regional polarisation to the practices and room for manoeuvre of the local actors subjected to it (Fischer-Tahir and Naumann 2013; Kay et al. 2012; Nugin and Trell 2015; PoSCoPP 2015; Timár and Velkey 2016). Tis emphasis on approaches that focus on the agency of local actors has been particularly prominent in the literature on socio-spatial ascriptions (Bürk et al. 2012; Lang 2013; Meyer and Miggelbrink 2013; Paasi 1995; Wacquant et al. 2014) and place leadership practices (Horlings and Marsden 2010; Hidle and Normann 2013; and others) that intensely discuss leading through image making as a potential

B. Plüschke-Altof (\*)

Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

M. Grootens University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

<sup>©</sup> Te Author(s) 2019

T. Lang and F. Görmar (eds.), *Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation*, New Geographies of Europe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1190-1\_13

development strategy (for example Paasi 2013; Raagmaa 2002; Semian and Chromý 2014). While the latter certainly plays a crucial role in attempts to overcome territorial stigmatisation—constituting an inherent part of peripheralisation—this chapter questions whether this new focus on agency in the form of active image making also represents a suitable response strategy for rural areas1 facing structural disadvantages while simultaneously being encouraged to act as resilient places, proactively fghting those very disadvantages (Bristow 2010; Fischer-Tahir and Naumann 2013; Kay et al. 2012).

Tis chapter is based on feldwork conducted in four rural areas of Estonia between 2015 and 2017, as part of the Marie Curie Initial Training Network 'Socio-economic and Political Responses to Regional Polarisation in Central and Eastern Europe' (RegPol2). It critically scrutinises the potential agency of place leaders to actively shape structurally disadvantaged areas through image making. Following the ongoing neoliberalisation of regional policy along the lines of competitiveness and economic growth, rural areas are increasingly urged to perform as active 'place-sellers' (Bristow 2010, 160; PoSCoPP 2015; Woods 2013). In the same vein, the local leaders in our four case study areas, which are subject to both material and discursive peripheralisation, also turned to image making and place marketing as ways to overcome these processes and enhance regional development. Te case studies included the following municipalities: Järva-Jaani in Central Estonia, the Island of Kihnu in Western Estonia, as well as the newly amalgamated Setomaa2 and Tõrva municipalities (northern part of Valga County) in Southern Estonia (for an overview see Map 1). Te local decision makers in these areas built on the promises of consumption-oriented place promotion and post-productivist entrepreneurialism that is encouraged by successful best practice examples usually located in structurally advantaged urban areas (Bristow 2005; Shearmur 2012). However, due to the rapid trend of (sub)urbanisation in Central and Eastern Europe in general, and Estonia in particular, rural areas have been increasingly subjected to the processes of material peripheralisation. Tese have

**Map 1** Case study areas (Illustration by Grete Kindel)

resulted in tangible structural disadvantages such as socio-economic decline, selective out-migration and institutional thinness (Leetmaa et al. 2013; Nugin and Trell 2015; PoSCoPP 2015). Like other rural areas in post-socialist space (Kay et al. 2012), our case study areas are, moreover, confronted with considerable discursive peripheralisation. Whereas in Setomaa and Kihnu Island this takes the form of a struggle with territorial stigmatisation, Järva-Jaani and Valga County (including Tõrva municipality) are dealing with the issue of invisibility. Against this backdrop of great material and discursive peripheralisation, the question arises as to whether this new focus on place leadership and active image making can really fulfl its promises with regards to regional development.

Our case studies convey the limits of such agency-based approaches in structurally disadvantaged rural areas. While leading through image making may function as a possible solution to challenges of regional polarisation, these examples show that it may also bring about new problems of idealisation and responsibilisation through urging local leaders to take on ever-growing responsibilities for coping with material and discursive peripheralisation. Tese challenges faced by rural place leaders do not only result in a shift of responsibilities from the national to the local level due to a heroisation of local agency, but also precipitate neglect of the structurally difcult context in which these response strategies are supposed to take place.

As the chapter will refect upon, this new focus on agency also has consequences for researchers who wish to make sense of leadership and image making, since they are also agents in those very processes they aim to understand. After introducing the debate on the development potential of leadership through image making, we therefore, move on to discuss the challenges experienced by local leaders who attempt to put these agency-based approaches into practice and the implications they have on the research process. Our analysis builds on 66 interviews conducted with local and regional decision makers and community leaders representing the felds of politics, administration, entrepreneurship, culture, media, tourism and social work (including youth work such as education and sports). Tese people are well known locally for their engagement with these issues. However, it is beyond the scope of this chapter to analyse all interviews and participant observations (for a detailed analysis, see Grootens 2018; Plüschke-Altof 2018), hence only a selection of these are used in this chapter. Tey illustrate the challenges facing local actors engaging in leadership through image making, a situation widely found in other rural areas in Estonia, Central and Eastern Europe and beyond. Table 1 gives an overview of the interviewees represented in this chapter. In order to ensure their anonymity, the names have been changed. Moreover, for the same reason, the table only indicates their felds and regions of activity and not the concrete functions they fulfl in the case study areas. Trough this analysis, we show the complexity of acting in peripheralised rural places. Tis also questions the focus on agency-based solutions in contexts of structural disadvantage.

**Table 1** List of interview partners (Illustration by the authors)

## **2 The Potential to Act in Times of Peripheralisation: Leading Through Image Making**

Increasing regional polarisation in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond has attracted the attention of researchers trying to make sense of these processes from diverse theoretical standpoints (see Kühn 2015; PoSCoPP 2015 for overview). For some time, this debate has focused on the structural difculties to which peripheral places are subjected, thereby depicting local actors as passive and receptive (Kay et al. 2012). Recent scholarship has, however, started to analyse these processes with the help of a more relational approach conceptualising peripheralisation as a multi-scalar, multi-level and, above all, contingent process that can only be understood in relation to its counterpart of centralisation (Keim 2006; Kühn 2015; PoSCoPP 2015). By focusing on the (re-)production of uneven spatial developments, this approach urges us to question why certain types of spaces, such as the rural areas studied here, are more prone to peripheralisation than others (Keim 2006). While not all rural areas are necessarily peripheral, rurality is often associated with peripherality, mirroring not only existing material difculties but also the dominant stigmatisation of rural places, especially in Central and Eastern Europe (Fischer-Tahir and Naumann 2013; Kay et al. 2012; Plüschke-Altof 2016). Moreover, as a processual concept, peripheralisation has the potential to include the room for manoeuvre of local actors (Kühn 2015). Te re-emphasising of agency in these often structurally defned contexts connects to the ideas of Massey (2004) who, among others, warns against the danger of ignoring agency in places and merely seeing them as victims of distant global processes (re-)produced *somewhere else* in space. Following the recent popularity of agency-based approaches, these are instead considered as room of negotiation or power struggles, and potential sites of agency by infuencing local-global relations (Massey 2004; Woods 2007; Kay et al. 2012).

One way of conceptualising this room for manoeuvre in a regional development context is prevalent in the concept of place leadership. Tis concept departs from a focus on studying static heroised individuals seen as leaders. Instead, it centres more on leader*ship* as 'a multi-actor process of place-making' (Mabey and Freeman 2010, 509). Leadership, in this reading, is not necessarily seen as an individual activity but as a multi-faceted process of formal and informal actors operating within and beyond place boundaries in an attempt to improve economic—and potentially other—outcomes (Beer and Clower 2013; Sotarauta et al. 2012). Going beyond studying formal leadership only, practised by mayors or governors, place leadership in this sense can also entail the actions of non-elected leaders, such as cultural activists or entrepreneurs, among others. In other words, the concept of leadership widens our understanding of place leaders, which can therefore, include all those actors purposively working towards improving their places. Despite the critique of the concept that it sufers from 'conceptual confusion and endemic vagueness' (Alvesson and Spicer 2012, 369) and its rather functionalistic and normative tendency towards measurable outcomes (Mabey and Freeman 2010), place leadership thus has the potential to highlight the role of agency in the development of places. Rodríguez-Pose (2013) even goes so far as to consider leadership the missing factor in explaining why some regions grow and others do not.

It is not only in the literature that leadership is usually seen as positive in itself and openly appreciated, but in our feldwork this was also visible, as one of our feld notes from a visit to Kihnu Island by the Minister for Rural Life illustrates. For him, 'local leadership of regional development is extremely important; it's the only counterweight to the central authority.'3 He highlights the role of leadership in institutionally thin regions subjected to the consequences of centralisation, which is also echoed in the academic literature (Beer and Clower 2013). In policy discourse, as Estonia's plans for using EU Structural Funds between 2014 and 2020 show, a belief in the importance of human agency can also be witnessed. Framed under the umbrella of enhancing administrative capacity, training events are organised for public sector ofcials and actors working with NGOs and social partners (Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia 2014). In our interviews, leadership was often understood as positive engagement with communities and connected to activeness in these communities. As Kulno from Järva-Jaani mentioned, 'I really participate in every event, because frst of all I am [working at the school]. It is my example for the students [to show] how everything should be done.' Tis open appreciation of leadership and activeness for the communities in the areas studied makes it clear that these concepts are not only theoretically recognised as essential, but also practically appreciated by actors living in these regions.

Alongside place leadership, also the importance of socio-spatial discourses has been acknowledged in the research on regional polarisation and peripheralisation. Since the cultural turn in human geography, a growing body of literature has focused on the discursive dimension of regional polarisation. On the one hand, it largely concentrates on the meaning that communicative processes have for the evolution and persistence of peripheralisation processes (Bürk et al. 2012; Lang 2013; Meyer and Miggelbrink 2013; Paasi 1995; Wacquant et al. 2014), especially in rural areas (Kay et al. 2012). On the other, it treats regional images as ways of dealing with peripheralisation, or as so-called soft development factors. Tese can be employed as external marketing tools or as an endogenous resource to strengthen social capital in a region (Paasi 2013; Semian and Chromý 2014). Despite acknowledging the power of images that tend to stick to places by infuencing individual as well as collective actions (Bürk et al. 2012; Wacquant et al. 2014), the literature also highlights the agency of people and places to negotiate the images they are subjected to (Meyer and Miggelbrink 2013; Valentine 2007).

In the research on place marketing and place making in particular, there is a strong focus on 'proactive localities' (Leetmaa et al. 2013, 17) that has also inspired the debates in our Estonian case studies and consequently trickled down into numerous national and local development plans (Agan and Kask 2009; Raagmaa 2002). Te local leadership in these areas became aware of the crucial role that images might play for their place development in two diferent ways. While Kihnu Island and Setomaa previously struggled with processes of territorial stigmatisation ranging from a feeling of neglect to the tangible loss of potential investors in the region, Järva-Jaani and Valga instead encountered the problem of invisibility or of being 'blank spaces on the map'. Te conclusions that they drew from these difering experiences were, however, very similar. Te cultural activist Toomas from Setomaa and teacher Kulno from Järva-Jaani noted that they 'seriously reconsidered things and then decided that the orientation had to be changed' (Toomas) and from that point 'do whatever it [takes] to be in the big picture, to be in the big plan' (Kulno). Hence, they opted for the response strategy of active image making, which Bürk et al. (2012, 339) describe as 'trying to prove the opposite.' It means that local actors acknowledge the negative images ascribed to their region and turn them on their head to create positive ones. Tis kind of image reversal is one of the most common response strategies to 'discursive act[s] of peripheralization' (Bürk 2013, 169). It stands in contrast to the other most common responses: that of reproducing negative ascriptions, which might lead to a feeling of hopelessness among the locals, and that of an absolute rejection of the ascribed socio-spatial images (Bürk et al. 2012).

## **3 Unexpected Challenges? Responsibilisation and Idealisation**

Leadership and image making have thus been discussed as agency-based approaches with the potential for a better understanding of peripheralisation processes and dealing with them. However, while ofering an alternative to a structurally determined conceptualisation of place development, this new focus on agency also poses unexpected challenges for local actors in structurally disadvantaged rural areas who try to put these response strategies into practice.

A central challenge local actors experience when trying to react to the backdrop of a new regional policy focus on leadership and agency is the accompanying shift of responsibilities from the national to the local level. In our case studies, it became clear how local actors are urged to take over ever more responsibilities from the state under the veil of active citizenship. For example, during one feldwork visit, the local entrepreneur Jaagup was confronted with this kind of responsibilisation by national politicians paying a visit to the Setomaa region. After he had extensively reported to them on the enormous eforts undertaken by local activists to overcome regional peripheralisation, the politicians replied with an appraisal of local activism while simultaneously suggesting there should be an increase in the number of such active people in order to boost regional development. Jaagup then replied by emphasising that his time is, in fact, limited and that his 'wife might also like to see him once in a while.' Hence, while the politicians drew on a discourse that shifts the responsibility for regional development away from the state to the regions themselves, Jaagup pointed out the consequences this focus on place leadership have for the personal lives of the people who take over these responsibilities. Te problem of local activists 'terribly overburdening themselves,' as Setomaa journalist and cultural activist Greeta phrased it, has been an issue in all of our four case studies. In a broader sense, the case studies thus point to the neoliberal promotion of rural leadership as, in fact, propagating a 'broader "selfhelp" ethos' that urges local actors to take on state responsibilities while simultaneously downplaying the individual burdens that come with it (Kroehn et al. 2010, 498).

Te neoliberal appraisal of leaders taking on responsibilities (and simultaneous denial of the price they pay for it) has a further downside: the blaming of people who are either unable or unwilling to take on these responsibilities. In our case studies, this blaming often took the form of a division between the active and the non-active. For example, Greeta and Toomas, two cultural activists from Setomaa, criticise the non-active as not being willing 'to take on any kind of responsibility.' Liis, a social worker from Järva-Jaani, criticises unemployed people, saying that, 'they are the kind of people that don't want to go and work.' Priit, one of Kihnu's political leaders, went so far as to make the following request from the interviewer: 'if you have any *active* people who want to live on a small island, then send them here.'

In line with the research on territorial stigmatisation (Bürk et al. 2012; Wacquant et al. 2014), this simultaneous appreciation of activeness and a lack of understanding for the non-active usually goes handin-hand with a depiction of the social pathologies of the latter who are portrayed variously as development-resistant alcoholics, social welfare abusers or Soviet nostalgics with personal initiative levels 'close to zero' (Toomas). Imbi, a cultural activist from Valga region, puts it this way:

Work? Oh yeah, there are so many out there who are searching for employees. Tis is what they say. Tere used to be a lack of employment, now there is a lack of employees. Because the state benefts those lazy people who are sitting dust to dawn in the park with their bottles of beer. Gives them money, and they don't go to work. (Interview, Valgamaa, 23 November 2016)

Te strong focus on leadership and active coping, therefore, does not only lead to the placing of responsibilities onto local actors, but also to the disqualifcation of those who are unable or unwilling to meet these normative standards. Tus, there is an interesting ambiguity here that mirrors how local actors are also deeply embedded in neoliberalised (regional) development discourses. On the one hand, they take a critical stance towards local responsibilisation by emphasising the price they pay for taking on responsibility for regional development. On the other, they reproduce these discourses by setting themselves as positive role models of leadership and activeness and blaming and responsibilising exactly those among the local population who cannot partake in the new development and cannot live up to these roles.

Apart from the issue of responsibilisation, which highlights the usefulness of some actors and the ascribed uselessness of others, we also encountered practices of idealisation. Te attempts to overcome territorial stigmatisation with active image making often result in a purely positive portrayal of the place through which structural disadvantages fade into the background. Ragnar from Setomaa and Airi from Kihnu both active in the feld of entrepreneurship—also acknowledged that, due to image campaigns, 'from outside we look better than we actually are' (Ragnar) and 'if we want them to see how poor we are […], then it is possible,' but 'no one wants to do that' (Airi). Further, when talking to entrepreneur Artur and politician Robert, from Järva-Jaani, this idealisation became evident. At the start of the interview, they were not keen to discuss the problems in their region at all, as Artur explained: 'there is no point in just whining, it will not take you anywhere.' Tis tendency among dominant local groups to idealise their place towards the outside and thereby omit persistent material difculties has also been problematised within the research on rural idylls (Little and Austin 1996; Matthews et al. 2000; Valentine 1997; Watkins and Jacoby 2007). Not stating these difculties might thus also mean not dealing with them in practice, which is a considerable risk considering ongoing peripheralisation in these areas.

Moreover, those who wish to address persistent problems might be faced with a situation in which they are treated as 'traitors' or 'trouble-makers' who destroy the beautiful image of a place that others have worked so hard for. Journalists in the Valga region experienced this when they decided to openly problematise and illustrate the consequences of its ongoing decline in population. For example, one of the journalists, whom we here call Helle, explained how the diference between what still appeared in her memories of the place where she spent her early childhood and 'what is there now' motivated her to deal with the topic in a set of newspaper articles, including a photo series. Tis initiative was supported by a local leader who gave an open interview about the problems he encountered. While the articles initiated an intense debate on the peripheralisation of the region, they also resulted in the same leader being accused of having 'ruined our image.' Further, there were complaints against Reili, the newspaper editor, as to why they would only depict 'ugly houses when we have nice ones here too.' As a consequence, the editor decided to publish a counterbalancing photo series portraying only sites of beauty within the region.

What is evident from these examples is that the local leadership aims to put into practice what has been suggested to them in recent regional policy debates, namely, to be active leaders and place sellers. However, against the backdrop of rural peripheralisation processes, they also quickly experience the limits that such agency-based response strategies have in structurally disadvantaged places. While certainly ofering novel possibilities for local development, leading through image making therefore, also poses new challenges of responsibilisation and idealisation in structurally disadvantaged rural places. How then to address persistent material difculties and the limits of local agency when openly stating them is seen as development resistance or re-stigmatisation of the region?

## **4 Researching Leadership and Image Making: Refections on the Agency of the Researcher**

When trying to make sense of these practices of place leadership and image making, we as researchers also faced the challenges of acting in structurally disadvantaged places. Since our research took place in regions facing material difculties, we noticed that we were seen as potential solution bringers and allies of our interviewees, as this occurrence during one of our feld visits to Kihnu shows:

After saying thanks for the interview and goodbye, the interviewee Katrin (who is active in the felds of entrepreneurship, culture and tourism) once again re-emphasised the difculties that they were facing in the community, dealing with unemployment and lack of future economic prospects. She fnished the conversation by expressing her hope that the research she was now participating in could also have a positive infuence on fnding some new ideas for development. (Field notes, Kihnu, 21 January 2016)

On another feld visit, after fnishing the 'ofcial' part of the interview, Egert, a local politician from the Valga region continued to discuss the future perspectives of the place: 'But if you [the interviewer] would come here and work on improving the region, then…' He left the sentence unfnished. For the farewell he prompted, 'Why don't you move here? What are you doing in [the city] anyway!' Tese examples show how hope is vested in the researchers to provide some sort of solution for these places, which also includes the expectation to engage in local image reversal campaigns. Tis is further demonstrated by the following feld note from a meeting of a local development group in Valga County:

At the end of a lengthy meeting, which saw lively discussions on the pros and cons of engaging in place marketing projects with the help of development funds, Peep (a former interviewee and local politician) approached me with a request: 'Listen, how occupied will you be with your work in the near future? I was wondering if you might care to write something for our local newspaper? I mean, your research clearly shows that it is not a question of wanting to deal with image making but that we must, that we must develop the region into a brand.' (Field notes, Valgamaa, 30 November 2016)

Tis local re-interpretation of our research aims and results initially left us puzzled. Did we really convey this image when introducing ourselves and our research? After repeated occurrences of such incidents, it became clear that these were attempts to make our research part of local development and image making processes; our research itself was seen as instrumental in the processes we were studying. For us, this resulted in real conficts of loyalty: how could we ever address fndings that could be deemed critical or not relevant by Peep, Katrin, Egert and others after they had provided us with access to the feld and vested so much hope in us? How should we position ourselves towards these local expectations that we get involved?

Tis not only made us very conscious of the question of how to frame or present our research results (cf. Hörschelmann and Stenning 2008), but also of the fact that as researchers we cannot exempt ourselves from local processes of which we inevitably become part. Tis also requires carefully refecting upon our own agency as well as the ways in which we change the places through our mere presence in them (Annist and Kaaristo 2013; Blondel, forthcoming). We are aware that researchers vary in their willingness to engage with the social processes they study. Teir roles can difer from that of a 'neutral' bystander where any interference with social groups leads to 'systemic bias' (Hammersley 2006, 11) and is thus to be discouraged, to a more activist position that views contributing to social change and empowerment of marginalised groups as a duty of social research (Kitchin 1999). While it, therefore, depends on the positionality of the researcher whether these practices are interpreted as legitimate requests by certain actors to play a more active part in the research or as attempts to instrumentalise it for their own purposes, they certainly infuence the researcher's position in the feld and the knowledge produced.

Next to our embedded roles as researchers in the feld, the methodological choices we make also infuence knowledge production in its fnal form. As Miggelbrink and Meyer (2015) have strikingly noted, the only way *not* to reify spatial images is by refusing to use them at all, rendering research on these topics and writing about them impossible. Terefore, the risk of reproducing hegemonic images of place stigmatising or idealising—in the way we put questions to our interviewees or present our results is real and often remains unrefected upon. Moreover, due to the difculty in grasping local power structures when entering the feld as an outsider, there is also the risk of involuntarily reproducing them in the form of bias in interview partner selection or data collection (Annist 2013; Hörschelmann and Stenning 2008). Tese biases infuence the stories we are told and hence also those we retell afterwards. Tis holds especially true in a post-socialist context, where social networks are often quite fractured and key actors, therefore, difcult to fnd (Hörschelmann and Stenning 2008). We experienced this quite acutely when talking to Endrik, long involved in the political and cultural development of Kihnu Island:

Listen, Mart only gives you the names of his election union and they say the same to you. […] Tey belong to the same wing which is now in power. But if you want to listen a little bit to the opposite side as well, I suggest you speak to Kadri. (Interview, Kihnu, 22 February 2016)

Most such feldwork experiences occurred after the 'ofcial' parts of the interviews were over. Instead of exempting these ambiguous situations and the ambivalent feeling they cause from the research results, we suggest regarding them as rare opportunities to refect analytically upon the intentions and hopes of the interviewee, who may provide the researcher with certain images of the region or recommendations for other interviewees for a specifc reason. Considering the contextuality of socio-spatial discourses (Valentine 2007), it is thus key to ask ourselves continuously how we have infuenced the feld through our presence, if we have spoken to all relevant groups, and what kind of stories the interviewees would convey to other people or in a diferent setting.

## **5 The Limits of Agency in Structurally Disadvantaged Places: Conclusions**

Agency-based concepts such as leadership or image making have been at the heart of recent debates on responses to regional polarisation and also have an important place in this book: *Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation: Rethinking Spatial Policies in Europe*. While acknowledging the potential in these concepts, in this chapter, we have frst of all shed light on the limits experienced by local practitioners in structurally disadvantaged areas who try to employ leading through image making as a potential solution for the peripheralisation of their regions. After acknowledging the room for manoeuvre that these agency-based approaches might open up according to the literature and our feldwork, we pointed out the potential challenges they pose. On the one hand, we have problematised the process of responsibilisation of local actors, in which local leaders are praised for their activeness (while downplaying the risk of being overburdened by taking over these responsibilities) and simultaneously those actors who are neither willing nor able to take up these responsibilities are blamed for their 'inactiveness.' Tis responsibilisation of local actors goes hand-in-hand with the danger of neglecting the structurally disadvantaged contexts in which they fnd themselves. On the other hand, whereas leadership and active image making are often discussed as strategies to overcome stigmatisation discourses, and therefore peripheralisation processes, we have demonstrated that they also pose the risk of idealising these places. In this way, image making—as an example of leading peripheral places—very clearly shows how the active showcasing of some positive or clearly defned images inevitably hides other negative or more ambiguous images. It is important to also bring the latter to the fore so as to make the challenges of acting under the circumstances of peripheralisation visible and therefore debatable.

Secondly, this chapter has refected on the agency of the researcher trying to make sense of these response strategies. As researchers, with our writing, case and interviewee selection or even our mere presence, we are not exempt but in fact deeply embedded in the feld we study, and therefore in the local image making and development processes. Our research practices themselves might even contribute to the processes of responsibilisation, idealisation or stigmatisation we have described, since we are also active agents in the processes we study. Failing to acknowledge this agency of researchers misses out on gaining a more refective understanding of the processes we aim to comprehend.

Tus, in order to gain deeper insight into the ways in which peripheral places are produced, we propose a more processual understanding of place development in general and of the 'hidden diversities' (Kay et al. 2012, 55) within peripheral rural places in particular. Places can thereby be conceptualised in a heterogeneous way, which acknowledges the multiple modes of (non-) engagement, images and relations constituting them. Tis also results in a rather nuanced approach towards agency where rural areas as a whole can be seen as 'inconsistent *and becoming*' (Kay et al. 2012, 60, emphasis added). Such a structurally contextualised understanding of agency can only come to the fore by going beyond the orthodox methods of standard interview situations. Ethnographic methods, as Hörschelmann and Stenning (2008) propose, are useful in this regard as they are better able to grasp local power relations. Only due to longer term or repeated visits to the feld were we able to understand such power structures and see beyond the visible leaders and positive images. We thus believe that such ambivalent feldwork situations as we have described above should in particular be refected upon in analyses instead of omitting them as disturbing background noise. We argue that only by using these 'slower' methods is it possible to overcome situations in which only the same spokespersons for development, who convey the ever-same images, are interviewed and listened to. More concretely, this means that when researchers are selecting cases they should also keep an eye open for those not-so-perfect leaders and 'less glossy' images in order to not simply showcase yet another best practice example of actively coping places.

By paraphrasing Halfacree (2006, 49), we therefore argue that 'only through a focus on contextual practice,' which re-considers the structural limits of agency, can we as practitioners and researchers try to come closer to understanding the 'truth' of place making in rural space, which also applies to situations in which structural factors are preventing an active response or there are no marketable images to instrumentalise. Only by acknowledging this multiplicity of images, these modes of activeness, and thereby also the complexity of agency in structurally disadvantaged contexts, are we able to gain more realistic insights into the potentials of image- and agency-based responses to regional polarisation. Despite their promise such strategies have to consider both problems of stigmatisation (and invisibility) and problems of idealisation as well as not only the possibilities but also the (structural) limits of acting in peripheral places.

**Acknowledgements** We would like to thank Maaja Vadi and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter, and Grete Kindel for designing the map.

## **Notes**

#### **Literature Recommendations**

#### **References**

*Social Injustice*, edited by Andrea Fischer-Tahir and Matthias Naumann, 9–26. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

*Dependencies and Social Injustice*, edited by Andrea Fischer-Tahir and Matthias Naumann, 224–38. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Part IV**

**Conclusions: About the Relevance of Scientifc Research for Political Practice and Policy Making**

## **14**

## **Understanding and Going Beyond the Regional Policy Paradox: Conceptual Contributions to Studying Socio-Spatial Polarisation in Europe**

**Garri Raagmaa, Erika Nagy, Franziska Görmar and Thilo Lang**

Te goal of this concluding chapter is to shed light on the conceptual value of the book. We discuss the chapters within the framework of the overall conceptual approach linking territorial cohesion and socio-spatial polarisation with the notion of spatial justice and also connect analytical fndings with essential policy recommendations, both of which complement each other. Growing social polarisation and economic inequalities unfolding in new forms across various places brought about academic and policy debates on the meanings of 'development', the ways its dimensions (economic, social, cultural, political) are interrelated, and, moreover, on how macro-structural changes are entangled

G. Raagmaa (\*) University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

E. Nagy Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (CERS-HAS), Békéscsaba, Hungary

© Te Author(s) 2019 T. Lang and F. Görmar (eds.), *Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation*, New Geographies of Europe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1190-1\_14

with local and regional processes as well as institutional and social contexts (Pike et al. 2017; Storper 2014). Tis book contributes to discussing socio-spatial inequalities in relation to macro-structural changes from a critical-spatial perspective of the European 'peripheries'—not only adding a new scalar focus for researching spatial unevenness, but also unveiling how power relations of global/fnancial capitalism are reproduced through institutional practices across scales (yet played out in many diferent ways within the periphery) and excavating the reasons for the 'system failures' of actual development policies (see Hudson and Pickles; Hadjimichalis; Pósfai and Jelinek in this volume).

Nowadays, when austerity measures and neoliberal policies are imposed by a few member states and a specifc European elite infuences development in the whole European Union (see Hudson and Pickles as well as Hadjimichalis in this volume), it is more than timely to ask questions going beyond classical economic development. How can we support regional and local development in a way that helps to decrease socio-spatial polarisation? What kinds of policies are needed to ofer equal opportunities for similar living conditions and life chances in all areas and across diferent categories of space? How do we want to live in future?

As these questions show, we do not understand socio-spatial polarisation as a static and unidirectional concept but as a dynamic one (Kühn and Lang 2017) that can be challenged, rejected or even reversed in the long run (Keim 2006; Lang 2013). Te so-called peripheries 'do at times have options, which can become game-changers' (Kühn et al. 2016, 13) and the dynamic, procedural and open character of discourses allows not only central actors but peripheral ones to speak and eventually counteract hegemonic discourses with alternative ones. Some chapters in this book

F. Görmar · T. Lang

Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Leipzig, Germany

T. Lang

Global and European Studies Institute, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

show that actors can regain control over the development of their regions if they are supported by a political framework that does not restrict bottom-up developments but gives appropriate room for manoeuvre (see Grafenberger; Cebotari and Mihály; Plüschke-Altof and Grootens in this volume). Society as a whole has to think about how we want to live in future, whether we just want to set minimum standards for the availability of public services (Kersten et al. 2017) or give every inhabitant of peripheral locations the same opportunities that people have in metropolitan areas. Such approaches could feature an extension of democratic participation at the regional level, regional coalition building, the development of new action strategies in the sense of community-based regionalism, local economic development (see Grafenberger in this volume), or even de-growth aspirations (e.g. Dax and Fischer 2017; Soja 2010, 9).

Dealing with uneven spatial development and growing sociospatial polarisation is a highly debated feld in regional policy and spatial science. From a conceptual theoretical viewpoint, we see the main contributions of the book to this debate in a better understanding of fve interrelated topics, which we will present in the following sections: (1) the regional policy paradox in the European Union, (2) the historical legacies leading to administrative centralisation trends in Eastern Europe, (3) globalisation and regional industrial restructuring causing further polarisation, (4) the mechanisms that produce inequalities, and (5) the production of inequalities through social practices and discourses. Based on these key topics, we argue for more agency centred research in peripheral contexts, which focuses on how actors, organisations and institutions on multiple scales shape the development of currently peripheralised places. In the fnal section of this chapter, we will also discuss the methodological and policy related issues linked to such an approach.

### **1 The Regional Policy Paradox in the European Union**

Tis book—a collection of chapters based mainly on fresh empirical studies—discusses how European cohesion policy and Eastern European Countries' (CEE) regional policies have emerged and were institutionalised, and how the combination of various public interventions dealt with polarisation processes that have intensifed during the last two decades. Several chapters help to better understand a certain paradox: that despite generous regional policies in the European Union—designed to contribute to a decrease in regional disparities—regional polarisation has intensifed, especially in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe (Hadjimichalis in this volume). Interestingly, researchers are increasingly working with spatial policies and development themes including the concepts of 'territorial cohesion' and 'spatial justice'. However, these ideals can be achieved apparently less and less (Jones et al. in this volume).

Tis has undoubtedly challenged geographers, planners and political scientists, giving them the opportunity not only to combine expertise in demography, sociology, political science, classical, new and evolutionary economic geography but also in media studies, ethnography and other disciplines and their methodological armoury. Economic geographers in their own turn have increasingly turned their attention to applied questions of regional development, innovation, socio-spatial inequalities and spatial justice. Te fnancial crisis inspired a shift towards critical approaches that manifested in a growing number of projects grounded in (neo-)Marxism and also in public involvement targeting sociospatial injustice (stemming from neoliberal practices and emerging centralised systems) in CEE in various ways—as was experienced in Margaret Tatcher's United Kingdom. Additionally, political renewal of authoritarian state power in some Visegrad countries accompanied by not only a seeming rise of neoliberal policies but also by nationalist critics towards global capitalism and Brussels provides a rich source of new material to critical geographers.

Up until recently, dominant economic geography theories (such as new economic geography or evolutionary economic geography) and related policy approaches such as growth pole strategies (see Benedek, Varvari, and Litan in this volume) argued that less-favoured, thus peripheralised regions would beneft from knowledge spillovers from and increased connectivity to growing centres. In contrast, recent studies indicate that the hierarchy-reinforcing efects of these features are considerably stronger than the convergence efects (Iammarino et al. 2017, 2). At the same time, critical political economists point to the limitations of growth-based development, which are linked to the limited availability of natural resources, a growing focus on personal satisfaction and well-being and new societal challenges, such as recent migration patterns or demographic change processes (Dax and Fischer 2017).

Te last 20 years witnessed a shift in the rationale of regional policies from distributive policies to a globally oriented innovation policy putting regional competitiveness at the centre. Transnational corporations (TNC) and global organisations such as the World Bank have greatly impacted public governance to meet the needs of global capital. Te prevailing rhetoric suggests that countries, regions and cities compete globally to ofer companies the best environments. In parallel with globalisation, and also as its enabling and spurring factor, the 1980s already saw extensive deregulation: areas that used to be under state control (fnance, telecom, media) were taken over by TNCs (Dicken 2015), even though they were still supported by their mother countries. In this discursive environment, Central and Eastern European innovation policies were hibernated during the transition period and, later after the accession, formulated following normative EU policies that remained very short-term in their outlook (Loewen and Schulz in this volume).

Cohesion Policy is above all trying to keep the EU economically competitive at the global scale, it is moving away from its traditional goal of promoting spatial cohesion by supporting development at the regional and local levels. (ibid.)

After EU accession, which brought large-scale cohesion and regional policy instruments to Eastern Europe, it would have been logical to see a decrease in regional diferences; instead the discrepancies have grown (Finka 2007; Lang 2015). Tis somewhat paradoxical result can be explained by 'the blend of EU-driven regional policies in national political conventions. Tis appears to favour an ongoing territorial polarisation towards the large cities, which consequently leads to the peripheralisation of communities disengaged from development competition' (Brad 2018, 142).

Te general change in thinking has inevitably led to territorial restructuring of governance in response to global processes. An important trend in this regard is the emergence of so-called 'soft spaces', which alongside the tactical use of 'fuzzy boundaries' is related to a policy impetus to break away from the shackles of pre-existing working patterns. EU policies have contributed intensively to a breakaway from current administrative structures and to the creation of these soft spaces; they are leading in 'soft planning' (Purkarthofer 2016; Purkarthofer and Mattila 2018; Telle, Špaček, and Crăciun in this volume).

Another trend is the rising impact of EU sectoral regulations. Te EU uses numerous directives and policy tools that have impact on territorial governance and spatial development. EU environmental legislation has been the most infuential, but many other areas are becoming increasingly operative (Cotella 2017). Te norms and regulations dictated from Brussels are frequently 'spatially blind' and may amplify economic problems in peripheries. As Paasi and Metzger (2017, 27) formulate it,

Te world is much more complex than what can be grasped with the conceptual tools available at any given time.

Concepts that ignore spatial variety and the need for institutional capacity building and fail to involve local actors fall particularly short in CEE (Brad 2018; Loewen 2018; Cebotari and Mihály in this volume). Instead, development policies should be 'solidly grounded in theory and evidence, combining people-based with place-based approaches, and empowering local stakeholders to take greater control of their future' ofering the most realistic and viable options for peripheralised regions (Rodríguez-Pose 2018, 206; see also Iammarino et al. 2017). More fexibility seems to be needed to better translate general EU policies to specifc national, regional and local conditions. Tis would also help to introduce locally rooted and distributed policies (Iammarino et al. 2017; Jones et al. in this volume; Küpper et al. 2017) that address all dimensions of regional development alike and do not only focus on the economic realm.

## **2 EU Policies Meeting Historical Legacies: Discrepancies in Administrative Capacities**

Administrative decentralisation and the restoration of pre-war structures occurred in most CEE countries in the 1990s. Small local municipalities struggled to follow global economic processes and, as a result, discrepancies between national cores and peripheral regions increased. Tis, in turn, forced ministries to centralise services. Te concept of new public management spread and CEE national public authorities themselves began to compete: regional and local operations were gradually taken under the direct control of ministries and central agencies, which starkly contrasts with devolution in Western European countries.

By the end of the 1990s, governing practices in CEE countries were afected by Europeanisation processes, and the pressure increased in the 2000s as a result of EU accession and harmonisation with the *acquis communautaire*. Tese changes had a far greater impact as CEE countries were not used to such rules and lacked, unlike their Western counterparts, established democracies. Te negotiations regarding national and EU policies were mostly done in the interest of getting bureaucracy to function well on both sides. Since the period of negotiations was limited, capacity diferences at lower levels in the administrative hierarchy were not taken into account. Te commission mainly focused on increasing national level performance (Bachtler et al. 2014), which further increased the discrepancies between national and local/regional capabilities and, in fact, excluded the application of partnership and subsidiary principles.

Te European Union tended to choose central governments to distribute pre-joining aid and to implement Structural Funds since it was sceptical of local/regional administrative capacities (Kungla 2007). For the implementation of EU regional development policies, new parallel administrative structures were established. Tis led to increased fragmentation and weakened the possibility of harmonising policies in CEE. It is evident that re-centralisation and the subordination of spatial planning to sectoral regulations came about under European Commission pressure. Since CEE politicians and ofcials wanted to optimise the funds they could get from the Structural Funds, they agreed to the expectations of Brussels without much objection (ESPON 2017).

Cohesion Policy has shifted in its overall aim from refecting ideals of regionalisation and integration associated with the Europe of the Regions strategy to competitiveness and growth [...]. In CEE countries, these shifts coincided, frstly, with transition and EU accession, democratic and institutional capacity-building, and extreme underdevelopment of peripheral regions, and secondly with 'catching up', crisis-induced polarisation, political centralisation and regional competition. (Loewen and Schulz in this volume)

Furthermore, parallel spatial strategy processes have been started, so local development ofcers have been involved in designing a number of different, greatly overlapping local/regional strategy processes: LEADER, coastal fsheries, ERDF measures and county development strategies (see EMoF 2018). Te latter received less attention since there have been no defnite sources for their implementation. In addition, technical work (strategy and project writing) is usually outsourced to professional frms and these strategies are usually evaluated by city-based ministerial ofcials and consultants. Tus, capacity building focused mainly on the national level and the dissonance between CEE national and regional/local governance increased. Te administrative systems in CEE dealing with EU measures became efective as soon as procedural regulatory and fnancial obligations were put in place, but had difculties with programming, project selection as well as the implementation and integration of evaluation feedback (Bachtler et al. 2014). In addition, regions that have long faced serious decline and a loss of human resources are most probably less able to apply for and manage complex projects. As European policies seem to focus more on verifying expenses than on results, this does not yield the expected rise in knowledge and competitiveness, but has created, especially in the still weak CEE civil societies, a rise of *quid pro quo* (clientelist) relationships and an expansion of a professional 'project class' (Kovách and Kučerová 2006). Increased competition and specifc criteria limit the number of potential applicants and strengthen the chances of organisations that are narrowly specialised to consult on certain measures. Te consultancy frms that have built Europe-wide networks, including ofces in Brussels, expand. Moreover, empirical studies suggest that individual Euroregion ofces act more as gate-keepers to Structural Funds than as knowledge pools: despite the many cross-border projects that have been set up, information sharing and joint objectives have proven to be very limited and the capacity of public authorities difers greatly (Telle, Špaček and Crăciun in this volume) potentially leading to dysfunctional joint actions (Telle 2017; Špaček 2018).

Tus, it is unsurprising that EU post-accession investments have contributed to great regional diferences in CEE countries, while turning convergence, partnership and subsidiarity principles into a farce. For the sake of accountability, the EU designed parallel administrative structures, which have weakened local and regional development capacities in CEE. To avoid or resolve sectoral conficts, networking between national administrations is enforced, but this widens the gap with lower-level administrations. Generally, this calls for more administrative decentralisation in CEE countries. Te cases of Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia and Romania show that the centralised EU regional policy cannot fulfl its objectives when there is a lack of capacity in localities and regions. Even national regional policy programmes are now too centralised and ultimately favour the development of urban cores (Raagmaa et al. 2014; Brad 2018; ESPON 2017; Loewen 2018; Špaček 2018; Loewen and Schulz in this volume).

Nevertheless, the example given by Nordic countries shows that strengthening local governments and compensating thin organisational density by bolstering and creating cooperative institutions can countervail peripheralisation processes (Isaksen 2001; Trippl et al. 2015).

## **3 Globalisation and Regional Industrial Restructuring: Causes for Further Polarisation?**

During the last two decades, we have witnessed a triumph of neoliberal thinking. New narratives about globalisation and metropolisation spread not only among business leaders, but were also actively distributed by scientists (such as new economic geography by Krugmann and Venables 1995 and spiky world by Florida 2005) and influential policymakers (such as the new economic geography approach by the World Bank 2009). Sometimes, size has become the only criterion for the competiveness of enterprises, cities and even universities leading to various amalgamation processes in Europe and furthering the increase of regional disparities and spatial injustice.

Hudson and Pickles in their chapter draw parallels with the situation at the turn of the 1970s. Tere are several common features when comparing this early globalisation phase with CEE restructuring in the 1990s: privatisation, infow of foreign capital and greenfeld investments, takeovers and closedowns, the changing role of trade unions, let alone unemployment, environmental degradation and depopulation of old industries that dominated urban agglomerations. Still, there are also remarkable diferences. While Northeast England can be considered a periphery of the UK, whose capital London became the global fnancial centre, industrial agglomerations in CEE are considered to be peripheries of peripheries and are hardly accessible from the European core. In the 1990s, globalisation and the neoliberal values associated with it were rapidly accepted by the political elites in several CEE countries (but not everywhere)—they wanted to rid themselves of their socialist legacy. During the transition period, so called 'cowboy capitalism' (a hyper-liberal variation of capitalism—see Gersemann 2005) caused massive unemployment, simultaneous collapse of existing social security systems and high crime rates.

Enterprises in CEE were privatised and often taken over by Western companies. Teir management concentrated in the capitals; decisionmaking and R&D operations were moved abroad, whereas the branches in Eastern Europe focused mainly on materials and labour (Woods 2011). At the same time, CEE governments lacked (and still do) the means as well as the rights (due to EU limitations on state aid) to boost local companies. Rising wages led to the closing of labour-intensive frms, which has been counterbalanced by asymmetric restructuring and concentration of service jobs into national centres.

In consequence, there is a huge diference between the volume of private R&D investments in Western and CEE countries. Future cohesion policy reforms need to take this 'innovation gap' into account and acknowledge the diferent national policy frameworks. So far, regional capacities for *innovation*-driven growth, such as institutions of higher education or high-tech enterprises, are more developed and more equally territorially distributed in old member states (Telle, Špaček, and Crăciun in this volume).

Tese observations show that, despite the high human development level in CEE (UNDP 2016), diferences in the international division of work have remained. CEE developed from an elite industrial region in the socialist block to a semi-periphery, specialising in labour intensive subcontracting for Western companies. Factories located in peripheries were closed down and nearby settlements lost a major share of their population and housing. Tis has also directly afected migration patterns within the EU: millions of Eastern Europeans have resettled to (Western-)European metropolises in search for better wages and living conditions leaving their countries' peripheries without skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Moldova for instance lost over 40% of its total population during its never ending transition. A vicious circle of peripheralisation emerged: youth emigration from secluded rural areas, mining settlements or the former mono-structural industrial regions (Moldovan in this volume) has led to an imbalanced age structure, downsizing of services and less progressive local policy making. Migration processes raised problems not only in peripheral regions but also in central areas of immigration, where neoliberal dualised housing policies—i.e. public support to households and regions with higher wealth and income—left the problem of housing shortage unresolved producing polarisation and marginalisation at various scales simultaneously (Pósfai and Jelinek in this volume).

## **4 Understanding the Mechanisms that Produce Inequalities: (Re) Conceptualising Macro-Processes**

Revealing the highly complicated mechanisms that produce sociospatial inequalities has given rise to a need *to re*-*think the political economic approach* in current debates, particularly in relation to the recent crisis (Hudson 2015). In consequence, the critical stream of political economy that considers unevenness inherent to capitalism has grown during the last years providing a deeper, more nuanced understanding of socio-spatial processes. In line with this thinking, several authors in this volume (Hudson and Pickles; Hadjimichalis; Pósfai and Jelinek) argue for *re*-*politicising the economic*—understanding polarities as the outcome of historically emerged, imbalanced yet dynamically changing power relations, that manifest in centralities/peripheralities in fows of capital, labour, knowledge etc.; moreover, they stress *the complexity and interrelatedness of socio*-*spatial processes* that produce unevenness. As Hudson and Pickles put it,

…the analysis and diagnosis of the regional problem of inequality and peripheralisation requires a complex articulation of forms of overdetermination, relationality and context that is both economic, cultural and political. (Hudson and Pickles in this volume)

Te critical political economic conceptualisations of socio-spatial unevenness were inspired by *the crises of capitalism*—i.e. the structural problems of industrial regions in the 1970s and 1980s, the collapse of state socialism, and the 2008/2011 fnancial crash and economic downturn—which led to clear manifestations of socio-spatial inequalities (Christophers 2015; Hudson and Pickles; Hadjimichalis; Pósfai and Jelinek in this volume). Moreover, the crises also highlighted how macro-processes shape the everyday life and well-being of people making academic explanations available to the layperson and opening up macro-concepts to everyday life, local communities and individual agency (see Hadjimichalis; Pósfai and Jelinek; Moldovan in this volume) that should be considered as sources for social and economic recovery as well as for new academic concepts such as spatial justice.

What then are the powerful macro-processes that produced new socio-spatial inequalities and reproduced old ones under the recent crisis and the following recovery in Europe—as put forward by the authors of the book? Te institutional context of global capitalism and its operating mechanisms (i.e. fnancialisation, the rentier economy and the reproduction of dependencies through debts), which unfolded unevenly and spread the risks and efects brought about by the crisis in a highly unequal way among households, places, regions and states, eventually recovered and produced an increasingly polarised system in the last few years (see Hadjimichalis; Pósfai and Jelinek in this volume). Understanding how fnancialisation got along with centralised control of capital fows, the reinforcement of inequalities and dependencies through uneven (unjust) access to loans and distribution of wealth, and how processes penetrated everyday life (e.g. through housing mortgage loans) elucidated the need for re-defning state policies in terms of goals, scope and spatiality.

Another process fuelling socio-spatial polarisation across Europe is migration (Lang 2011). Yet while it is considered a factor of growth in neoliberal development policies, for critical academic research it is a source of understanding of how everyday life, individual agency and structural processes are entangled and inequalities (re)produced. Tus, commuting 'out' or moving elsewhere is a structural process supporting peripheralisation—shrinking and ageing of the population, resulting in economic decline—and also an individual strategy to cope with such processes (see Moldovan in this issue). Recent migration trends are embedded in global, European and also sub-national divisions of labour but the consequences emerge locally. Tus, rural shrinkage can be understood relationally, linking macro-processes, regional economies, local (community) strategies and individual agencies. Discussing such issues in a CEE/Romanian/rural context, we take hints how national and EU policies are homogenising such spaces, and how limited community power is in such 'multiply peripheralised' places (see also Cebotari and Mihály in this volume).

## **5 The Production of Inequalities Through Social Practices and Discourses: The Value Added of Agency Centred Research in a Peripheral Context**

Te socio-spatial polarisation and reproduction of peripheralities in Europe inspired research along various theoretical approaches and the reconceptualisation of peripheralisation as a multidimensional, multiscalar process relating to various places and agents simultaneously (PoScoPP 2015). Tis dynamic and relational understanding of uneven sociospatial processes raised more concern among scholars not only about the spatiality of structural shifts, power and social justice, but also about their varied 'landscape' produced by *locally embedded social practices and agencies*. Researching socio-spatial inequalities through this lens is a source of knowledge on the struggles, strategies and practices of institutions, frms, individuals and communities that produce different peripheralities, and thus for critiquing the blindness of dominant concepts of regional development when it comes to diversity and local/regional agency (Massey 2004; Hadjimichalis and Hudson 2014; Pike et al. 2017). Moreover, research focused on a peripheral context (Grafenberger; Plüschke-Altof and Grootens; Mihály and Cebotari in this volume) helps not only to understand and re-conceptualise the making of inequalities, but also to re-consider individual and institutional strategies as well as community actions as relevant responses to decline and crisis, which are worth embracing in new, more just policy measures.

Social practices are shaped directly or indirectly by discourses and underlying power relations (see Brad 2018; Hadjimichalis; Plüschke-Altof and Grootens in this volume). Tus, understanding the ways in which terms, notions, defnitions are produced discursively and reacted to by various agents in peripheries (and beyond) reveal how the hegemonic values and norms of neoliberal capitalism are produced, translated into policies and practices (while pretending to be politically 'neutral'), and how they penetrate everyday life (re)producing unevenness.

*Institutional practices/agencies and the discursive processes* shaping them are drivers reproducing inequalities; yet such processes involve *many dimensions and scales/places*. While researching the power relations of agents acting at various scales, we also should see how inequalities unfold and are reproduced at particular scales and within particular institutional contexts, as is discussed by Kuus, Loewen and Schulz, as well as Telle, Špaček, and Crăciun in this volume. Analysing the uneven production and fow of expertise related to EU regional policies in transnational discourses, Kuus highlights the methodological problem of giving '… an analytically rigorous and empirically nuanced account of these processes' (Kuus in this volume), due to the strong national bias of our analytical toolkit. To overcome this, Kuus suggests a fexible, transnational approach to understand economic, political and symbolic peripherality.

*Researching inequalities from the periphery through social practices and agency* has further empirical, methodological and epistemological lessons. Revealing the institutional (and thereby socio-cultural) aspects of division of labour and changing power relations under global capitalism to get more sophisticated knowledge on uneven development has become mainstream in social geography (Massey 1984; Hudson 2015). (i) *Te spatial embedding of frms* was a lens through which the social relations/practices producing inequalities have been studied since the early 2000s (Coe and Yeung 2015). Yet we still have little knowledge on frms in peripheries, even though frms in peripheries do innovate by overcoming local and regional defcits through networking beyond their local context. Analysing this process, Grafenberger in this volume links the problem of peripheralisation to innovation debates, and discourses on culture, institutions and structural change in economic geography; moreover, he refutes the narrative of periphery as a place of no innovation and highlights the multiple agencies behind it. By doing so, he provides inputs for articulating the specifc needs of such frms and places, and argues for more varied state policies from developing ICT infrastructure to support networks of knowledge transfer, and also for considering local frms as agents of change. (ii) *Communities* are also considered *the makers of local processes/spaces*, and have become a popular subject for academic research in the West; yet the conceptualisation of community agency rested largely on Western experiences, something that should be looked at in light of diferences in the potentials and limits of communities in European peripheries (Loewen 2018; Cebotari and Mihály in this book). Analysing CEE community projects, Cebotari and Mihaly stress the centrality of state (municipal) agency, represented by local leaders (mayors), which is not only the result but also a driver of peripheralisation; while it enhances local state capacities, the lack of local social involvement questions the social sustainability of local initiatives, and their potential for further, cumulative change, thereby easing peripherality. Tus, the methodological problem of (not) diferentiating between communities and municipalities/local state in EU policy measures hides a deeper problem of power relations: state dominance and lack of empowerment in peripheral localities in CEE. (iii) *Te individual agency* of local people has also been widely discussed challenging structuralist arguments on understanding the mechanisms of uneven development (Massey 1984, 2004), and recently as a source of knowledge on the diversity of local/regional trajectories and a resource for putting places that are lagging behind on a new track (Rodríguez-Pose 2013). Although the potential of local agency such as leadership and image making has gained more attention and positive connotations, studies from CEE peripheries highlight the limits of such connotations. Plüschke-Altof and Grootens argue in their chapter that local leaders struggle with enhanced responsibilities and related risks in rural Estonia—e.g. by 'idealising' their localities while changing their image—but their scope is limited heavily by the structural context of multiple dependencies and the lack of resources. Such conclusions should make scholars wary of articulating ideas, arguments, concepts on structures and agencies that might play out very diferently in core/ peripheral/semi-peripheral contexts; e.g. thinking about 'successful' local leadership as a resource for counteracting peripherality, and also as a neoliberal argument that places the socio-spatial consequences of neoliberal policies in the responsibility of local actors.

## **6 Methodology, Positionality and Policy Issues**

In our view, the book contributes to a better understanding of socio-spatial polarisation as a relational, multi-dimensional and multi-scalar concept. Tis understanding includes processes of peripheralisation and (de-)centralisation, highlighting not only economic but also infrastructural, political as well as social and discursive aspects. Te book also provides alternative viewpoints working out (1) the political geographies of spatial injustice, (2) current forms of policy and governance in relation to socio-spatial polarisation, and (3) diferent approaches to regional and local development. Many chapters in the book are based on interactions (interviews) with local, regional and national politicians and policy makers, companies, NGO leaders and also the general public. Tis approach explains the functionality and underlying power structures related to dominant normative assumptions, conceptualises what territorial cohesion and spatially just policies actually mean to diferent stakeholders and, last but not least, understands which role academics and academic concepts can play for the development of local initiatives.

At the moment, it seems that in most cases priority is still given to the economic dimension of regional development and complex problems are simplifed to technical questions. In contrast, the normative concept of 'spatial justice' with its holistic approach can add to a more nuanced understanding of regional development and territorial cohesion as it seeks to ensure 'access to and use of resources' for future generations and encourages locally and regionally rooted solutions without neglecting distinctive structural problems (Pike et al. 2007, 1264; see also Jones et al. in this volume).

Tis book ofers a specifc epistemic lens for understanding growing socio-spatial inequalities and the diverse and interrelated processes behind it: the authors lived and worked in contexts in which peripheralisation and peripherality are experienced in everyday life. Seeing the world from inside places hit by economic decline, powerlessness, social and environmental crisis and seeing how neoliberal capitalism is 'lived' there can be used as sources for motifs to make new claims, arguments and challenge concepts and theories attached to powerful centres of knowledge production. Tis entanglement of the mundane and the academic in a researcher's work is inspiring, and being constantly aware of it is a source of being refective, of placing ourselves/our work within academic life and being attached to and arguing for/against existing concepts and theories, as well as to see our work in a 'wider world' in which our projects are seen, critiqued or praised for (not) being benefcial to those who have been researched. Moreover, our reports might have far-reaching efects on socio-spatial processes by supporting various policies. Here we should always keep in mind the development routes/detours, milestones, relations—of our own academic career to relate our work to the 'world out there' (discussed explicitly by Hudson and Pickles in this volume).

Being part of the world in which we work also raised methodological concerns. One key issue pointed out by some authors in this book is the agency of the researcher deeply embedded in the studied feld (regions, places, institutions) that might shape the interpretations of local processes and the related actions. Moreover, while doing feldwork and relying on information from local actors brings about knowledge that is contingent and fuid, refecting various viewpoints and realities, there is no fast and easy way to grasp the complexity of strategies, practices, relations linked to a place. We need to see the whole picture (always in motion) while understanding individual agencies and their structural contexts (including our own role) (see e.g. Kuus; Plüschke-Altof and Grootens). Revealing the complex relations that produce peripheralities might support moving beyond case studies (that either provide best practices or places of experimentation to achieve them) and getting closer to diverse realities and policies to address community and individual needs that are outside core areas.

#### **References**

**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **15**

## **Translating Scientifc Results: Encouraging Refective Policies as a Chance for Change**

**Sorin Cebotari, Tomas Hanell and Thilo Lang**

## **1 Introduction**

Writing a policy recommendation chapter is both challenging and rewarding at the same time. On one hand, it requires us to translate complex academic research into practical policy suggestions. On the other hand, it ofers an understanding of purpose for the researcher since a policy chapter is one of the few gates through which social scientists can contribute to shaping a policy discourse. Given this context, our main aim is to formulate clear and comprehensible policy recommendations drawing from the existing academic debate and research presented in the previous chapters.

While the results of processes of polarisation and peripheralisation are mostly visible in remote, isolated or excluded spaces, the dynamics fuelling these processes connect to all levels of policy-making.

S. Cebotari (\*)

Research Center for Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geography, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

<sup>©</sup> Te Author(s) 2019

T. Lang and F. Görmar (eds.), *Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation*, New Geographies of Europe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1190-1\_15

It is important, therefore, to consider policy-making, in this context, as a collection of processes which transcend sectoral and administrative boundaries in a multi-actor setting. Given that understanding, we would like to highlight three distinct administrative levels on which the problem of uneven spatial development is tackled. Firstly, the EU level strikes as the one where the polarisation problem is highly debated and triggers policy action across diferent EU level actors and institutions. Trough the mechanisms of Cohesion Policy, and lately also including some mechanisms of innovation policy (see Loewen and Schulz as well as Telle, Špaček and Crăciun), EU level policy-makers aim to address existing regional discrepancies. While this discussion at the EU policy level is clearly getting more and more attention (see Jones et al.), national states retain the sovereignty to decide upon how to redistribute EU and national funding to tackle peripheralisation. Member states' interest in keeping fnancial management tools at their disposal is down to a number of reasons. However, it is clear that by doing so, member states also ensure a possibility to shift EU policy goals to their own, national political aims. In this respect, especially in the case of CEE countries, a series of diferent policies emerged with the main (or at least declared) goal of reducing spatial and income inequalities and promoting even development (see Benedek, Varvari and Litan as well as Posfai and Jelinek). While not with the same amount of political and economic power, regional and local levels ofer us the possibility to see the way in which policies (EU or national) interact with local communities and decision makers. In this way, we can see these policies in action (or inaction) (see Moldovan, Cebotari and Mihály, Grafenberger as well as Plüschke-Altof and Grootens). To a certain degree, all these administrative levels

T. Lang

Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Leipzig, Germany

T. Lang

Global and European Studies Institute, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

T. Hanell

University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

are connected through the policy framework. It is important, therefore, to observe how each level of policy making and policy implementation evolves, but at the same time to consider all of them inter-linked and dependent upon each other.

Te frst three sections of this chapter discuss the main shortcomings and possible improvements of existing public policies at the EU, national and combined, regional and local level. Based on this discussion, the fnal section outlines fve policy recommendations to address rising polarisation and peripheralisation at both the EU and the member state level.

#### **2 Polarisation Viewed by EU Policy-Makers**

Tere is growing interest among researchers in EU-level policies that aim to improve territorial cohesion, thus reducing socio-economic disparities within the EU. Tis book, while looking at specifc contexts mostly from Central and Eastern Europe, has several chapters that discuss the EU policy framework, identifying a series of challenges related to Cohesion Policy and subsequent successful implementation of territorial cohesion goals.

One of the serious issues with Cohesion Policy, as discussed by Jones et al., is the fact that, while it is a well-intended policy, territorial cohesion remains an elusive and complex concept. Tis elusive character of the concept leaves it open to diferent interpretations, thus it is often misused or manipulated in order to promote specifc (or even diferent) priorities in diferent national/regional contexts. Even at the level of the European Union, it seems that Cohesion Policy lacks consistency and, therefore, a clear understanding of the pursued goals. It is true that continuous changes in the policy are required given the varying national contexts, thus we end up having diferent programme goals in diferent states to suit local needs.  Probably the top-rating priorities are to design a consistent policy and to avoid having a series of place-based cohesion policies with diferent local understandings of programme goals (Telle, Špaček and Crăciun). Another shortcoming of Cohesion Policy is its convergence with innovation policies as presented by Loewen and Schulz. Te authors stress that convergence between the two policies can lead to the over-centralisation of management authorities at the national level. Tis in turn would ofer national authorities control over the selection and implementation of projects. Given the availability of material and knowledge resources in metropolitan and urban centres, this type of management would beneft the core regions within CEE countries. Although well intentioned and timely thought, this convergence can in this way decrease the positive efects of Cohesion Policy by re-orienting it towards strict economic development, thus neglecting its moderating force across the EU. Based on these observations, we can see that Cohesion Policy remains an elusive and complex concept which can lead to diferent interpretations by diferent national authorities. Its convergence with innovation policies makes it more prone to local misinterpretations that in the end might steer Cohesion Policy away from the territorial convergence goal altogether.

Given these major challenges, we believe that EU level policy-makers have to consider a series of changes within Cohesion Policy in order to ensure its efciency and keep it focused on the reduction of socioeconomic disparities across the EU. One important measure in this direction would be a better conceptualisation of Cohesion Policy goals. A clear outline of what Cohesion Policy means and what it is expected to deliver would help national policy-makers produce better mechanisms of fund management and resource allocation. Further clarifcation of the policy's goals should look at how it was meant to interact with other policies (for our discussion considering innovation policy). Tere must be a clear separation between Cohesion Policy and any other policy working in a similar direction. For example, although innovation policy could and should serve as possible mechanism to promote economic development, it should not overshadow the social and environmental goals underlined in Cohesion Policy. In this way, Cohesion Policy needs to be updated such that it adds more clarity regarding its goals and objectives. When reconsidering Cohesion Policy at both the conceptual and the mechanism level, we have to be sure that it gives enough insight and clarity that national policy makers are able to follow the policy guidelines without transforming the opportunities ofered by it into tools of political struggle at the national level.

### **3 Polarisation Viewed by Member State Policy-Makers**

It would be mistaken to believe that national policy makers do not consider reducing spatial inequalities a priority for their government. Regardless of the country specifc context, national level policy-makers within the CEE region do devise instruments to reduce intra and inter-regional disparities. Te question remains, however, how efective are those policies and what can be done to improve them?

It is often the case that policies devised by national authorities are based on strict economic analysis and neglect the complexity of uneven development. In Romania for example, national policies aimed at reducing disparities within the regions in fact have widened the gap. National policy-makers chose to focus on developing core cities, hoping for positive spillovers to foster development throughout the region. Discussed in detail by Benedek, Varvari and Litan, it seems that sustaining large urban agglomerations does not reduce peripheralisation within counties with large urban centres. On the contrary, this approach seems to have contributed to the widening of regional inequalities. Hungarian housing policy ofers another example of a national-level policy that reproduces socio-economic discrepancies regardless of the assumed goal of reducing them. As presented by Posfai and Jelinek, Hungarian housing-related benefts are socially but not spatially distributed; however, the management of these benefts is delegated to local municipalities, which, due to a lack of national scale engagement, reproduces spatial discrepancies. Overall, the authors argue that housing policies in Hungary, as they work currently, promote home ownership in the peripheries of the core for the upper middle class. In this way, the policy simply perpetuates existing spatial inequalities that exclude from the scheme those people who need housing beneft the most.

Tese two examples point to a structural problem when analysing national-level policies. Often these are designed with shortterm political gains in mind. Given the ambiguity of EU-level policy mechanisms, it is left for national-policy makers to formulate policies that promote territorial and social convergence. National political actors are also tied to specifc electoral cycles, so the immediate results may surpass long-term efects once a policy is designed. A couple of improvements could be made here to ensure more impactful policies to reduce regional and social disparities. Firstly, in the case of EU funds, national policy makers must ensure that Cohesion Policy goals are also clearly formulated within every national policy. In this way, the guiding principle of national-level policies should also coincide with the outlined goals of Cohesion Policy. Secondly, moving beyond the policy design stage, national authorities have to get more actively involved in regional development. Tis could be ensured by bringing together national and local authorities, representatives of the non-governmental sector and civic organisations in order to analyse and change implemented policies. National-level policy making is crucial in bridging the gap between EU-level policy goals and local implementation and acceptance of these goals. National-level policy makers are here probably the most important link in promoting (or even compromising) the idea of even development.

## **4 Local-level Policy Effects and Pushbacks**

Regional and local actors are rarely considered active policy-makers, least so in CEE countries. Given the lack of serious policy mechanisms, their role is often a practical one, accessing funding from the national level and complying with policy requirements. It is important, however, to consider this administrative level as true refection of a policy's efciency and success. It is often down to regional or local actors to implement the policy and observe the changes it produces.

In some cases, local actors assume an active role in changing the situation of their locality. Tis is often viewed as healthy and benefcial; local leadership is, therefore, praised by national authorities and considered to be a driver for locally based development. While certainly valuable, local leadership also gives national authorities an excuse to shift the responsibility for structural problems to local actors. Tis issue is well described by Plüschke-Altof and Grootens discussing the Estonian context where, in some areas, local leadership assumes an important role in shaping the image of the locality, trying to move beyond the periphery label. Tis active involvement ofers at the same time an ideal opportunity for national policy makers to shift the responsibility to the local level thereby minimising the importance of their involvement and overlooking structural problems that cannot be solved at the local level.

Te role played by national authorities is of utmost importance since no real progress can be made without structural changes and substantial support for less developed regions. As pointed out by Grafenberger, inclusive access to high-performance information and telecommunication technology (ICT) must be considered a major component of (national) infrastructural as well as regional development policy. In this respect, national authorities have to assume an active role in ensuring a dense network of connections within and especially outside the region for local actors since it could foster local development, exchange of ideas and experiences and further the innovation capacities of these actors.

While in some cases local leadership is efective and welcomed, more often than not local communities are deprived of real political or economic instruments to infuence local development processes. Tis is a very serious challenge for local development throughout the CEE region. If policies follow a strict top-down logic, with only national authorities deciding what type of projects better ft regional and local development, we risk ending up in situations where local authorities implement projects only for the sake of accessing funding, but lacking any serious impact on local development. As pointed out by Moldovan as well as by Cebotari and Mihaly, in the cases of Hungary and Romania, the policy direction designed by national authorities does not take into account local needs or the way those needs might be shaped. Tis is the reason some of the projects implemented through EU funding still fall short of reducing disparities between centres and peripheries.

While local actors rarely play an active part in the policy-making process, it is still important to consider them important to the policy process. A series of policy proposals could be formulated here to increase the involvement of local actors. Te frst thing to do is to support local leadership by taking a structural approach involving central, regional and local institutions. Simply considering local leaders as a good example does not sufce. State actors and policies have to provide a supportive environment for local action by investing in local infrastructure and providing a foundation for local actors and extra-regional actors to interact. By doing so, policies aiming to support local development have to consider a closer relationship with local authorities and the non-governmental sector. Te design, implementation and evaluation of every policy should also involve local actors so that it ensures ftness to the local context.

## **5 Policy Recommendations: Five Guiding Points**

Presenting the main challenges and possible alternatives to current administrative lines, we would like to suggest a series of fve policy proposals that could contribute to improving the existing policy framework.

#### 1. *Re*-*connecting Cohesion Policy to cohesion*

Cohesion Policy is one of the most powerful policy instruments available at the EU level that explicitly aims to reduce territorial disparities and promote even development. While it has strong fnancial backing and institutional support, Cohesion Policy encountered a series of challenges that had to be addressed in order to ensure its efciency during the following programming periods. In that respect, we would like to advocate three major improvements that would strengthen the important role played by Cohesion Policy within the EU construct.

– Re-centre Cohesion Policy on the idea of spatial justice. As a pan-EU policy, Cohesion Policy must maintain a high degree of fexibility, ensuring adaptation to local contexts. Tis fexibility should rely on a clear understanding of the policy's main goal, which, in our opinion should draw from the idea of socio-economic justice and support. Clarifying this aim within the policy text should ensure consistency between the practical goal of the policy and the mechanisms it uses to achieve it.

While local and regional actors are the main benefciaries of regional development policies, they are also often excluded from decisionmaking processes. In addition to the standard public consultations, we suggest a series of three policy measures that could improve the participation of local actors, thereby granting the policies consistency, legitimacy and local input.

In order to create a supportive environment for locally based development, national authorities should be encouraged to go beyond policy frameworks and consider direct involvement to support expensive programs or to manage national programmes for which local authorities lack human and fnancial capital.

In some cases, such a presence could be translated into state-owned social housing in less well of areas, thus ofering afordable housing to lower income inhabitants. It is also important to consider increased support for educational and healthcare services in these areas since it is often beyond the capacities of local authorities to provide appropriate incentives for qualifed personnel to move to less developed areas. Hence, there is a need for the central government to step in and ensure support for them.

Another efective way to encourage local participation and to develop remote localities is to provide the required infrastructure and networking possibilities at the local level. We highlight here the clear need for investments in ITC and networking infrastructures at the regional level to promote inter-regional exchange and cooperation. Access to an efective ITC infrastructure would allow local agents to connect with agents from across the region as well as national legislators at the EU level. Tis would enable local actors to increase their visibility, to acquire outside knowledge and experience, to connect to possible suppliers or customers and in the end to ensure locally based development.

#### 4. *Increasing human capital at the local level*

Te basis for sustainable development is local capital, fnancial and human capital being equally important for local communities in order to change the dynamics of peripheralisation. While fnancial capital can be 'outsourced,' local human capital is crucial to realising lasting local development. It can serve as a foundation for increasing participation, community level decision making, proper management of fnancial resources or strategic investments for longer periods of time. In order to boost local human capital, a few public policies could be considered:

Local human capital must be a central priority for policy makers. By encouraging local knowledge and local engagement, we can promote increasing innovative capacity, wider public engagement and subsequent better usage of fnancial resources.

#### 5. *Promote policy*-*making and programming at the local level*

Te policy-making paradigm, as it is at the current moment, is hierarchic, with EU and national-level authorities designing the policies and the mechanisms to implement them. Regional or local actors are passive recipients of EU or governmental programmes with little to no say about them. As discussed in this chapter, while well intended a lot of these policies do not deliver the expected results; in some cases they even make existing discrepancies worse. Tis is hardly surprising since it is rather challenging to design policies in the central, metropolitan regions that would be efective and context-sensitive to remote, peripheralised localities. To address this issue, we believe that the current policy structure requires a series of changes.

It is important within the entire policy discourse that we change our way of communication. Remote, isolated and peripheralised local communities should not be viewed as 'subsidy requiring and dying places.' Tis understanding can be changed once we give local communities the possibility to become central in a diferent, alternative way. Only by starting with the movement of peripheries from the periphery at a conceptual level we can bring about de-peripheralisation processes.

Any successful policy approach to the problems of peripheralisation must consider the diversity of actors and institutions involved. Relying on this diversity and building on existing resources, the above fve points could be used as a roadmap to ensure a structural approach is taken to address peripheralisation problems.

**382 S. Cebotari et al.**

**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.