Place of publishing:
Subject and Keywords:
The field of policy transfer is highly complex. This is particularly true when it comes to territorial governance which is a process integrating several context-dependent policy fields rather than a policy per se. The contribution adopts a conceptual framework developed within the project ESPON TANGO to reflect upon this matter. In particular, it conceptualises distinct modes of policy transfer in the EU, explaining many ways through which a certain territorial governance practice in a given domestic context can reach other context(s) that may apply it. The presented framework is expected to help define what to transfer, how and through whom; in other words (i) what territorial governance elements may be effectively transferred, (ii) what interactive resources may favour the transfer and (iii) what ‘receiving’ stakeholders’ group(s) may constitute the target. Building on this assumption, the contribution reflects upon the potential transferability of territorial governance ‘features’, intended as practical manifestation of good territorial governance in real cases.
1. Adams, N., Cotella, G. & Nunes, R. (Eds) (2011), Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU, London and New York, Routledge.
2. Alexander, E. R. (1995), How organizations act together, Luxembourg, Gordon and Breach
3. Böhme, K. (2002), Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning, Stockholm, Nordregio
4. Bulkeley, H. (2006), Urban sustainability: learning from best practice?, Environment and Planning A, 38(6), pp. 1029-1044.
5. CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. COM (2005)718 Final. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
6. CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2010), EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020, Brussels, 3 March.
7. Cotella, G. & Janin Rivolin, U. (2010), Institutions, discourse and practices: towards a multidimensional understanding of EU territorial governance, paper presented at the XXIV AESOP Congress Space is Luxury, Helsinki, 7–10 July
8. Cotella, G. & Janin Rivolin, U. (2012), Europeanization of spatial planning through discourse and practice in Italy, disP, 186, pp. 42-53
9. Davoudi, S., E. Evans, F. Governa, and M. Santangelo (2008). "Territorial Governance in the Making. Approaches, Methodologies, Practices", in: Boletin de la A.G.E.N, No 46 – 2008.
10. Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D. (2000), Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making, Governance, 13(1), pp. 5-24.
11. ESPON (2006), ESPON 2.3.2 Governance of Territorial and Urban Plicies from EU to Local Level. Final Report. ESPON Coordination Unit, Luxembourg.
12. ESPON (2012), ESPON TANGO – Territorial Approaches for New Governance. Final Report. ESPON Coordination Unit, Luxembourg.
13. Faludi, A (2012). Multi-level (Territorial) Governance. Three Criticisms. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 2012 DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677578
14. Gualini, E. (2001), Planning and the intelligence of institutions. Interactive approaches to territorial policy-making between institutional design and institution-building, Aldershot, Ashgate.
15. Gualini, E. (2008). 'Territorial cohesion' as a category of agency: the missing dimension in the EU spatial policy debate, European Journal of Spatial Development, Refereed Articles, 28, pp. 1-22 http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed28.pdf
16. Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., Nooteboom, S. and Bergsma, E. (2010). The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13 (6), pp. 459-471.
17. Healey P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Mac-Millan, Basingstoke, London.
18. Healey, P. (1999), Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places, Journal of Planning Education & Research, 19(2), pp. 111-122.
19. Healey, P. (2006), Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 299-320.
20. Holzinger, K. & Knill, C. (2005), Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence, Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), pp. 775-796.
21. Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration Lanham MD, Rowman & Littlefield.
22. Hooghe, L., and Marks, G. (2003). "Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 2 (May 2003). Pp-233-243.
23. James, O. & Lodge M. (2003), The limitations of 'policy transfer' and 'lesson drawing' for public policy research", Political Studies Review, 20(1), pp. 179-193.
24. Janin Rivolin, U. (2010), EU territorial governance: learning from institutional progress, European Journal of Spatial Development, refereed articles, 38, pp. 1-28.
25. Janin Rivolin, U. (2012), Planning systems as institutional technologies: a proposed conceptualization and the implications for comparison, Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), pp. 63-85.
26. Janin Rivolin U. & Cotella G. (2014), A conceptual device for spreading (good) territorial governance in Europe, ESPON Scientific Report, Luxembourg, ESPON.
27. Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2008, volume 26, pp. 17-33.
28. Knill, C. & Lehmkuhl, D. (1999), How Europe matters. Different mechanisms of Europeanization, European Integration Online Papers, 7 (3), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-007.htm.
29. Lenschow, A. (2006), Europeanization of public policy, in Richardson, J. (Ed.), European Union. Power and policy making, Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 55-71.
30. Moroni, S. (2010), An evolutionary theory of institutions and a dynamic approach to reform, Planning Theory, 9(4), pp. 275-297.
31. Moulaert, F. (2005), Institutional economics and planning theory. A partnership between ostriches, Planning Theory, 4(1), pp. 21-32.
32. Olsen, J. P. (2002), The many faces of Europeanization, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5), pp. 921-952.
33. Peck, J. (2011), Geographies of policy: from transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation, Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), pp. 773-797.
34. Pierre, J. and Peters, B. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State. Macmillan: Basingstoke, Hants.
35. Radaelli, C. M. (2004), Europeanization: solution or problem?, European Integration Online Papers, 8(16), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016.htm.
36. Stead, D. (2012), Best practices and policy transfer in spatial planning, Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), pp. 103-116.
37. Stoker, G (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. UNESCO 1998. Blackwell.
-42. Wolman, H. L., & Page, E. (2002), Policy Transfer among local governments. An information theory approach, Governance, 15(4), pp. 477-501.
38. Verma, N. (Ed) (2007), Institutions and planning, Oxford, Elsevier.
39. Vettoretto, L. (2009), A preliminary critique of the best and good practices approach in European spatial planning and policy-making", European Planning Studies, 17(7), pp. 1067-1083.
40. Wishlade, F., Yuill, D. & Mendez, C. (2003), Regional policy in the EU: a passing phase of Europeanisation or a complex case of policy transfer?, Regional and Industrial Policy Research Paper 50 (Glasgow, European Policies Research Centre - University of Strathclyde),www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eprc/Documents/PDF_files/RIPR%2050%20ESRC.pdf
41. Wolman H. L., Ford C. C. & Hill E. W. (1994), Evaluating the success of urban success stories, Urban Studies, 31(6), pp. 835-850.
42. Wolman, H. L., & Page, E. (2002), Policy Transfer among local governments. An information theory approach, Governance, 15(4), pp. 477-501.