Spatial Justice and Cohesion: The Role of Place-Based Action in Community Development

Fritsch, Matti (Ed.); Kahila, Petri (Ed.); Németh, Sarolta (Ed.); Scott, James W. (Ed.) Book Spatial Justice and Cohesion: The Role of Place-Based Action in Community Development Regions and Cities Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Fritsch, Matti (Ed.); Kahila, Petri (Ed.); Németh, Sarolta (Ed.); Scott, James W. (Ed.) (2024) : Spatial Justice and Cohesion: The Role of Place-Based Action in Community Development, Regions and Cities, ISBN 978-1-000-96851-4, Routledge, London, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003229681 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/290608 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Spatial Justice and Cohesion Place-based strategies are widely discussed as powerful instruments of economic and community development. In terms of the European debate, the local level – cities, towns and neighbourhoods – has recently come under increased scrutiny as a potentially decisive actor in Cohesion Policy. As understandings of socio-spatial and economic cohesion evolve, the idea that spatial justice requires a concerted policy response has gained currency. Given the political, social and economic salience of locale, this book explores the potential contribution of place-based initiative to more balanced and equitable socio-economic development, as well as growth in a more general sense. The overall architecture of the book and the individual chapters address place-based perspectives from a number of vantage points, including the potential of achieving greater effectiveness in EU and national level development policies, through a greater local level and citizens’ role and concrete actions for achieving this; enhancing decision-making autonomy by pooling local capacities for action; linking relative local autonomy to development outcomes and viewing spatial justice as a concept and policy goal. The book highlights, through the use of case studies, how practicable and actionable knowledge can be gained from local development experiences. This book targets researchers, practitioners and students who seek to learn more about place-based based development and its potentials. Its cross-cutting focus on spatial justice and place will ensure that the book is of wider international interest. Matti Fritsch is a senior researcher in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies at the Karelian Institute of the University of Eastern Finland. Petri Kahila is an adjunct professor of Economic Geography and the Director of the Karelian Institute of the University of Eastern Finland. Sarolta Németh is a project researcher at the Karelian Institute of the University of Eastern Finland. James W. Scott is a researcher in Regional and Border Studies at the Karelian Institute of the University of Eastern Finland. Regions and Cities Series Editor in Chief Joan Fitzgerald, Northeastern University, USA Editors Roberta Capello, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Rob Kitchin, Maynooth University, Ireland Jörg Knieling, HafenCity University Hamburg, Germany Nichola Lowe, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA In today’s globalised, knowledge-driven and networked world, regions and cities have assumed heightened significance as the interconnected nodes of economic, social and cultural production, and as sites of new modes of economic and territorial governance and policy experimentation. This book series brings together incisive and critically engaged international and interdisciplinary research on this resurgence of regions and cities, and should be of interest to geographers, economists, sociologists, political scientists and cultural scholars, as well as to policy-makers involved in regional and urban development. About the Regional Studies Association (RSA) The Regions and Cities Book Series is a series of the Regional Studies Association (RSA). The RSA is a global and interdisciplinary network for regional and urban research, policy and development. The RSA is a registered not-for-profit organisation, a learned society and membership body that aims to advance regional studies and science. The RSA’s publishing portfolio includes five academic journals, two book series, a Blog and an online magazine. For more information on the Regional Studies Association, visit www.regionalstudies.org There is a 30% discount available to RSA members on books in the Regions and Cities series, and other subject-related Taylor and Francis books and e-books including Routledge titles. To order, simply email Luke McNicholas ([email protected]), or phone on +44 (0)20 701 77545 and declare your RSA membership. You can also visit the series page at www.routledge.com/Regions-and-Cities/book-series/RSA and use the discount code: RSA225 146. The Confines of Territory Edited by John Agnew 147. The Randstad A Polycentric Metropolis Edited by Wil Zonneveld and Vincent Nadin 148. Planning Regional Futures Edited by John Harrison, Daniel Galland and Mark Tewdwr-Jones 149. Border Cities and Territorial Development Edited by Eduardo Medeiros 150. Metropolitan Governance in Latin America Edited by Alejandra Trejo-Nieto and José L. Niño-Amézquita 151. Governance and City Regions Policy and Planning in Europe Karsten Zimmermann and Patricia Feiertag 152. Universities and Regional Engagement From the Exceptional to the Everyday Edited by Tatiana Iakovleva, Elisa Thomas, Laila Nordstrand Berg, Rómulo Pinheiro, Paul Benneworth 153. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of Working Spaces Edited by Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Di Marino and Pavel Bednář 154. Climate Governance and Urban Planning Implementing Low-Carbon Development Patterns Deborah Heinen 155. Questioning Planetary Illiberal Geographies Territory, Space and Power Edited by Jason Luger 156. Inequalities, Territorial Politics, Nationalism Edited by Donatella della Porta, Michael Keating and Mario Pianta 157. Spatial Justice and Cohesion The Role of Place-Based Action in Community Development Edited by Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Regions-and-Cities/ book-series/RSA Spatial Justice and Cohesion The Role of Place-Based Action in Community Development Edited by Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott Designed cover image: Bim/Getty Images First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor& Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license. Funded by The University of Eastern Finland. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Fritsch, Matti, editor. | Kahila, Petri, editor. | Németh, Sarolta, editor. | Scott, James Wesley, 1956– editor. Title: Spatial justice and cohesion : the role of place-based action in community development / edited by Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Series: Regions and cities | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Place-based strategies are widely discussed as powerful instruments of economic and community development. In terms of European debate, the local level – cities, towns, neighbourhoods – has recently come under increased scrutiny as a potentially decisive actor in Cohesion Policy. As understandings of socio-spatial and economic cohesion evolve, the idea that spatial justice requires a concerted policy response has gained currency. Given the political, social and economic salience of locale, this book explores the potential contribution of place-based initiative to more balanced and equitable socio-economic development, as well as growth in a more general sense. The overall architecture of the book and the individual chapters address place-based perspectives from a number of vantage points, including the potential of achieving greater effectiveness in EU and national level development policies, through a greater local level and citizens role and concrete actions for achieving this; enhancing decision-making autonomy by pooling local capacities for action; linking relative local autonomy to development outcomes and viewing spatial justice as a concept and policy goal. The book highlights, though the use of case studies, how practicable and actionable knowledge can be gained from local development experiences. This book targets researchers, practitioners and students who seek to learn more about place-based based development and its potentials. Its cross-cutting focus on spatial justice and place will ensure the book is of wider international interest”— Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2023020090 (print) | LCCN 2023020091 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032135236 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032135243 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003229681 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Community development—Social aspects. | Distributive justice. Classification: LCC HN49.C6 S6944 2024 (print) | LCC HN49.C6 (ebook) | DDC 307.1/4—dc23/eng/20230712 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023020090 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023020091 ISBN: 978-1-032-13523-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-13524-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-22968-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681 Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC List of figures x List of tables xii List of contributors xiv Acknowledgements xxi 1 Introduction to the book: the role of place-based action inimproving spatial justice and cohesion 1 MATTI FRITSCH, PETRI KAHILA, SAROLTA NÉMETH AND JAMES W. SCOTT PART 1 Cohesion and the role of localities: research and policy debates 17 2 The localities approach: (European) cohesion, spatial justice and the development role of place 19 JAMES W. SCOTT 3 Spatial justice and locality: the conceptual framework andapplication 33 ALI MADANIPOUR, ELIZABETH BROOKS, MARK SHUCKSMITH ANDHILARY TALBOT PART 2 Spatial justice in local development 47 4 Approaching spatial justice in local development actions: aEuropean comparative perspective on promoters, inhibitors, and achievements 49 SABINE WECK AND PETER SCHMITT Contents Aggeliki Anagnostou (PhD) is Assistant Professor of Macroeconomic Theory and Policy at the Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Greece. She holds also a BA in Economics and Statistics (University of Alberta) and an MA in International Macroeconomics (University of Liverpool). Anagnostou’s research interests include the study and application of non-linear models to macroeconomics and policy, and she has experience concerning regional and local development issues. Cristina Elena Bădiţă is a researcher at the Desire Foundation, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. She is currently a PhD candidate at the Facultatea de Sociologie şi Asistenţă Socială at Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj Napoca, Romania. Her research themes include institutional anthropology, migration, and psychology of migration. She is a psychologist by training and received her master’s degree in Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Psychology from the Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy. Cyril Blondel is Associate Professor of Political Geography at the University of Reims, France. Mobilizing critical thinking, his research mainly takes inspiration in decolonial and feminist theories and aims at unpacking European development policy logics towards its own peripheral populations and territories. Blondel’s focus is mainly on the logics, discourses and materialities of development initiatives implemented by local actors as answers to spatial injustice and territorial stigmatization. Thomas Borén is Associate Professor of Human Geography and Chair of the Steering Committee of the Urban and Regional Planning Programme at the Stockholm University, Sweden. He is also Founding Director of the Stockholm University Higher Seminar in Urban and Regional Planning (SUHSIS). In his research, Borén focuses on urban and cultural geography and has a particular interest in the interaction between urban development strategies, cultural producers and urban decision-makers. Elizabeth Brooks (PhD Ageing Rural Communities) is Research Associate and Associate Lecturer at the University of Newcastle, UK. Brooks has a Contributors Contributors xv wide portfolio of research interests: with a broad humanities background specialized in community development, rural communities, planning, governance and justice, climate change and systemic approaches. Andrew Copus is Senior Researcher at the University of Eastern Finland and Honorary Associate of the James Hutton Institute (Aberdeen). Copus has more than 30years of experience in rural development research at institutes and universities in Scotland, and also as ten years part-time secondment to Nordregio (Stockholm). His interests include rural demography, development approaches for remote rural areas and islands, and European and national rural/regional policy. Victor Cupcea is Research Associate at the Department of Planning and Regional Development, South East Europe Development Center of the University of Thessaly, Greece. His research interests are in the fields of applied economics, econometrics, economic geography, energy economics and political economy. Margaret Currie is Senior Researcher working in the ‘People and Places Group’ of the Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department of the James Hutton Institute (Aberdeen, Scotland, UK). Currie is a human geographer. As part of her PhD, she considered the ability of policies which provided support to bus services to promote accessibility in rural areas of Scotland. Currently, Currie has been contributing a geographical perspective to addressing place-based challenges and spatial injustices faced by rural communities and investigating innovative ways in which these challenges can be met to promote resilience, health and wellbeing to rural communities. She has led the Communities and Wellbeing Work Package of the Scottish Government’s 2016–2022 Strategic Research Programme, which included an interdisciplinary mixed-methods project on the Impacts of COVID-19 in rural areas of Scotland. Karolina Dmochowska-Dudek is a Geographer and Assistant Professor at the Institute of Economic Geography and Surface Planning, Faculty of Geographical Sciences of the University of Łódź, Poland. Her main research fields include in general social (human) and rural geography, geomatics as well as the issue of locational conflicts. She has conducted the cohesion analysis of Warsaw-Lodz bipolar metropolitan area and participated in the program ‘The Network of the Most Interesting Villages in Poland’. Dominic Duckett is Honorary Associate Researcher of the Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department of the James Hutton Institute, Scotland, UK. He works extensively with issues relating to rural sociology and food systems, interested especially in social theories of risk, applying them to diverse areas of socio-technical risk around agricultural production and environmental hazards. Technology as a driver of change is an important component of Duckett’s critical approach leading him into collaborative xvi Contributors work around digitalization, and theories of technological change. He is an expert in participatory scenario planning methodology and has pioneered virtual and blended scenario workshops during the pandemic. Estelle Evrard holds a PhD in Geography and is a researcher at the Department of Geography and Spatial Planning of the University of Luxembourg. She holds also an LLM in European law. Evrard’s interest in European integration is the common thread through her professional career. She studies how the local territorializes space and adjusts to/against European disintegration. Evrard works with notions such as autonomy, spatial justice, territory and practical knowledge. Matti Fritsch holds a PhD in Human Geography and is Senior Researcher at the Karelian Institute of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, University of Eastern Finland. His research interests broadly include spatial development and planning, cross-border co-operation and regional development. He has participated in several ESPON and FP/H2020 projects on territorial co-operation and the inter-linkages between regional development and cross-border interaction. Fritsch has also been involved in evaluation research with regard to the effectiveness and achievements of Cohesion Policy and Territorial Co-operation Programmes. Iulia-Elena Hossu (PhD Anthropology) works as a researcher at the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, as well as at the Foundation Desiré for Social Reflection and Openness in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Her research interests include kindred relations and marriage (doctoral dissertation), transnational families and the socio-territorial inclusion/exclusion of marginalized groups. Petri Kahila (PhD Human Geography) is Adjunct Professor (Economic Geography) and Research Director at, also the Director of, the Karelian Institute of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, University of Eastern Finland. Kahila’s areas of specialities are regional development, regional and local governance, rural development, social and territorial cohesion and policy evaluation. He has substantial experience on European research projects (under ESPON and Framework Programmes) and he has also been involved in several national and European evaluation tasks. Judit Keller is Sociologist and Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic and Regional Studies in Budapest. She received her PhD in Social and Political Science from the European University Institute in Firenze. Her research focuses on mechanisms of institutional change in the governance of socio-economic development. She has participated in several international and national research projects on local development and social change, social and spatial inequalities and the interplay of institutional changes at various levels of governance. Contributors xvii Katalin Kovács (CSc Sociology) is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Regional Studies of the Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Budapest. She has been engaged in academic and applied research and worked as a co-ordinator of numerous consortiums or research teams of consortiums sponsored by domestic and European agencies. She served as the director of the Institute for Regional Studies between 2017 and 2021. The focus of her research has been on regional disparities and social and spatial inequalities in rural areas. She has been a member of the Council of the Hungarian Rural Network since 2014 and took an active role as an advisor of regional and rural policies. Ali Madanipour (PhD Urban Planning) is Professor of Urban Design at the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, and a founding member and the former director of the School’s Global Urban Research Unit (GURU). His research interests include social exclusion and urban governance, which have been funded by the European Commission in a number of major collaborative European research projects. His latest books include the Handbook of Planning Theory (Routledge, 2018) and Rethinking Public Space (Elgar, 2023). Gusztáv Nemes (PhD Sociology) works at the Institute of Economics of the Centre for Economic and Regional Studies. His main field of interest is rural development and has expertise in qualitative social research, visual sociology and researching social innovation. He usually deals with EU rural, agricultural and environmental policies, with special regard to their implementation and institutional aspects, for instance, the application of integrated rural development in the Central and Eastern European contexts. Sarolta Németh (PhD Human Geography) is Senior Researcher at the Karelian Institute of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, University of Eastern Finland. Her main research interests include European regional development, territorial governance of cohesion policies, spatial justice, local development and participation, territorial cooperation (mainly as part of her post-doctoral work), and rural development and technology (topic of her doctoral dissertation). Németh has worked in several EU-funded (ESPON, FP7, Horizon 2020) research projects and has experience in coordinating international projects also under territorial cooperation programmes (Interreg). George Petrakos is Professor of Economics at the Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Greece. His research interests include urban and regional economics, development, structural change, integration and regional policy. He has served a four-year term as the Rector of the University of Thessaly. He has served the Government of Greece for 2.5years as the Secretary-General for Investment and xviii Contributors Development in the Ministry of Economy and Development with responsibility for key aspects of the development policy of Greece. He was the Vice-President of the European Regional Science Association (ERSA) (2007–2011) and a member of the Council of the Regional Science Association International (RSAI) (2008–2011). Simone Piras (PhD Agricultural and Food Economics and Statistics) is an agricultural and rural economist working in the Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences (SEGS) Department of the James Hutton Institute, Scotland, UK. His research activities evolve along two main lines: the socio-economic development of rural areas, with a focus on smallholder farming and the relationship between economic and demographic change, including migration; and the economics of food value chains, with a focus on loss and waste, and consumers’ and farmers’ behaviours. Besides traditional statistical and econometric methods, Simone has expertise in survey design, experimental economics and agent-based modelling. Peter Schmitt is Associate Professor of Human Geography at the Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University, where he is also Managing Director for the Master’s Programme in Urban and Regional Planning. His areas of interest are theoretical, political and practice-oriented views of spatial planning in an international perspective; territorial governance in and across Europe/the Baltic Sea Region; EU territorial development programmes and policies; discursive construction and institutionalization of ‘new’ regions for policy and planning; comparison of spatial planning systems; strategic spatial planning in metropolitan areas; and innovations in urban and regional governance James W. Scott is Professor of Regional and Border Studies at the Karelian Institute at the University of Joensuu (Finland). Prof. Scott obtained his Habilitation (2006), PhD (1990) and MA (1986) at the Free University of Berlin and his BSc at the University of California Berkeley (1979). Among his research interests are urban and regional development policy, geopolitics, border studies, and the spatial implications of Eastern and Central European transformation processes. Mark Shucksmith is Professor of Planning at the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, UK. His research interests include poverty and social exclusion in rural areas, rural development and affordable rural housing. Currently, Shucksmith is leading the Rural Lives research project which explores the wellbeing and resilience of people and families in rural areas: focusing in particular on people’s ability to meet their financial commitments and needs comfortably – having enough income to meet more than life’s essentials and to deal with unexpected financial shocks. Hilary Talbot has been a researcher in the Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University. Her focus is on rurality, and in particular on how Contributors xix people living in rural places band together to provide themselves with services, typically those that the public and private sectors are unable or unwilling to provide to sparsely populated areas. Paulina Tobiasz-Lis currently works as Assistant Professor at the Department of Regional and Human Geography of the Faculty of Geography, University of Łódź, Poland. Her research interests within human geography include qualitative inquiry, urban and spatial planning, urban sustainability, and communities. Lefteris Topaloglou is Research Associate at the Department of Planning and Regional Development at the University of Thessaly, Greece. He is the Director of the Regional Association of Local Governments of Western Macedonia and has been working as a development consultant for local authorities since 1990. His main research interests include territorial cooperation and the development of borderlands (participating in international research partnerships under EU-funded programmes), and recently he has been coordinating development projects across the EU-external border between Greece and Albania (Interreg IPA CBC). Enikő Vincze (PhD Philosophy) teaches at the Faculty of European Studies of Babes-Bolyai University (Cluj-Napoca) courses on Social Europe, Methodology of Social Research, Sociology of International Relations, and Critical Urban Theory. Her research interests include nationalism, feminism, socio-territorial exclusion and marginalization, racism and ghettoization, policies for Roma, housing politics and their socio-economic consequences in post-socialist capitalism, spatialization and racialization of socio-economic inequalities, and uneven urban development. Vincze is also an activist for housing in various organizations in Romania, such as Foundation Desiré for Social Reflection, for which she serves as President, as well as ‘Căşi sociale ACUM!’ (Social housing NOW!) and ‘Blocul pentru Locuire’ (Block for Housing). Tünde Virág is Sociologist and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic and Regional Studies in Budapest. Her studies have aimed to identify and describe processes, mechanisms, institutions and politics that (re)produce and maintain spaces of marginalization for different social groups. She has conducted and participated in numerous national and international research projects focused on spatial and social inequalities and social stratification of Roma communities. Sabine Weck (PhD Spatial Planning) is Senior Researcher ILS – Research Institute for Urban and Regional Development (ILS), Germany. Her research concerns diverse subjects ranging from urban regeneration through migration and local labour market development to the evaluation of local socioeconomic initiatives and social exclusion. Marcin Wójcik (DrHabil Earth Sciences – Socio-economic Geography) is Associate Professor at, and the Head of the Department of Regional and xx Contributors Human Geography of the Faculty of Geography, University of Łódź, Poland. Wójcik does research in Agricultural Economics, Geography and Social Theory. His recent work is focused on urban and rural geography (socio-economic and functional transformations, settlement networks, morphology, socio-cultural and local identity issues, cultural heritage and landscape protection). George Iulian Zamfir is a PhD student at Babeş-Bolyai University, Romania, and a researcher at the Desire Foundation in Cluj Napoca, Romania. He is an expert in housing issues and social policy. He holds an MA in Sociology and Social Anthropology from Central European University, Budapest, and an MA in Anthropology and Development from the University of Bucharest, Romania. The editors of this volume would like to express their gratitude to all our contributors and those who helped us in putting this book together. We furthermore would like to thank all the consortium partners, who provided valuable feedback for the development and refinement of our research. We acknowledge the generous support of the European Commission and the Horizons 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant Agreement No. 727097) which enabled us to implement the project “Resituating the Local in Cohesion and Territorial Development” (RELOCAL). As part of RELOCAL, the contributors to this book were actively engaged in studying local actions targeting place-based development and social justice in several EU member states and in a total of 33 case studies from different urban and regional contexts. In addition, we acknowledge the effort and time invested by many stakeholders and local actors involved in the RELOCAL case studies; it was their openness and willingness to interact with the research teams that made our fieldwork and comparative approach possible. Thanks are also due to our colleagues at the Karelian Institute and to our copy editor Rupert Moreton for his tireless efforts. Last but certainly not least, we would also like to acknowledge the support of the Routledge Regions and Cities Series editor and the staff at Routledge who provided encouragement along the way. Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott Joensuu Acknowledgements DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-1 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Spatial justice, place-based action and cohesion This book is essentially about the consequences of taking place seriously as a locus of economic and social development. In the most ‘radically democratic’ understanding, place-based development involves locally owned and inclusive strategies that employ available resources in novel ways in order to create social and economic opportunities and growth for all members of a given community. Place-based strategies have been discussed as powerful policy tools worldwide and their appeal is grounded in a more holistic and socially aware appreciation of development processes (Pugalis and Bentley, 2014). Moreover, while the place-based paradigm is relatively new, it is clearly linked to more long-standing approaches associated with community development and citizen participation. In terms of European debate, European Union-centred debate more specifically, the local level (cities, towns, neighbourhoods) has recently come under increased scrutiny as a decisive actor in strengthening political and socio-economic cohesion. At the same time, and as understandings of cohesion evolve, place-based approaches directly and indirectly support the achievement of spatial justice. According to Edward Soja (2009: 2), ‘spatial (in)justice refers to an intentional and focused emphasis on the spatial or geographical aspects of justice and injustice. As a starting point, this involves the fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and the opportunities to use them.’ The achievement of the European Social Model, based, among others, upon social protections, inclusion and a commitment to full employment is an important vision that guides many EU policies. Furthermore, as part of addressing the challenge of uneven spatial development, territorial cohesion, along with social and economic cohesion, has come to be a major goal of European Union policy. This important concept, deriving from debates on spatial planning and policy coordination, ‘reinforces the importance of the territorial dimension of access to services, sustainable development, “functional geographies” and territorial cooperation, and territorial analysis or the question how the territorial impact of policies can be measured’ (European Commission, 2010: 24). In particular, and in line with the arguments 1 Introduction to the book The role of place-based action in improving spatial justice and cohesion Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila, Sarolta Németh and James W. Scott 8 Matti Fritsch et al. authors identify and discuss generic types of promoters and inhibitors that emerged across different local and regional contexts and then relate them to achieved outcomes. More specifically, Schmitt and Weck distil factors and filters that enhance or limit local abilities to articulate needs and realize concrete outcomes. They also compare local capacities for exploiting the opportunities generated by local strategies and the extent to which policy changes are induced across places and time. The main objective of the authors is to test the hypothesis that appropriate and ‘fair’ procedures to ensure participation and accountability are key for a more just distribution of resources and opportunities. In concluding, they discuss from a European perspective lessons and prospects in approaching spatial justice in practice, including the dangers of policy failure. Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu continue discussion on spatial justice by focusing on the locally embedded injustices of stigmatization. On the basis of RELOCAL case studies from Spain, Finland, Hungary, France, the Netherlands and Romania, the authors compare ways in which stigmatization is linked with the material formation of peripheries, the constitution of which is a manifestation of spatial injustice and characterized, among others, by neighbourhoods that are impoverished, segregated, disadvantaged, polluted and/or otherwise underdeveloped. The authors investigate the extent to which actions targeted at reducing stigmatization are informed by understandings of its complex socio-political, economic and cultural underpinnings. In this way, the chapter provides analysis that contributes to the understanding of the role of ideas and ideational hegemonies in the creation of socio-economic and spatial orders. Drawing again on selected case studies from the RELOCAL research project, Judit Keller and Tünde Virág interrogate the extent to which local perceptions of spatial injustice (access to public services, employment possibilities, demographic decline, spatial isolation, stigmatization, etc.) are reflected in policy responses. Moreover, Keller and Virág assume that counteracting spatial injustice is dependent on localized actions and the policy regimes within which they are embedded. Building on the idea that place matters, the placebased narrative advocates that socio-spatial inequalities can be overcome by the production of specific public goods designed and implemented through integrated and deliberative policy decisions. Place-based public policies can also make a positive contribution to spatial justice through participative procedures for a more equitable distribution of public resources. However, there is often a mismatch between perceptions of injustice, local desires for change, available resources and support mechanisms provided within systems of multilevel governance. As a result, the authors suggest that the long-term success and potential upscaling of place-based interventions are often dependent on the existence of ‘benevolent state’ policies committed to principles of spatial justice. In the absence of such commitments and strong local capacities for community action, the state can in fact co-opt place-based initiatives in order to promote national policy objectives rather than furthering social cohesion. Introduction to the book 9 The following chapter focuses on scenarios and is the joint work of RELOCAL team members led by Paulina Tobiasz-Lis and including Andrew Copus, Margaret Currie, Dominic Duckett, Karolina Dmochowska-Dudek, Simone Piras and Marcin Wójcik. The authors elaborate scenarios for 33 European localities experiencing spatial injustices and in so doing identify potential change resulting from a variety of possible interventions ranging from public policies to bottom-up initiatives. As part of scenario-making, a novel methodological approach was developed which included elements of Theory of Change (ToC) and morphological scenario elaboration. The single most plausible scenarios for 2030 defined for each of the 33 case study locations in 11 EU member states revealed a high degree of uncertainty and, with a few exceptions, the future outlook seems likely to be negatively shaped by a neo-liberal paradigm perpetuating injustices in terms of winners and losers, especially in locations that do not benefit from spill-over effects generated by more prosperous urban centres as well as in areas stigmatized for different reasons. There seems to be a strong country effect even within regions characterized by the same welfare regime, which captures the country’s economic potential and quality of institutions, confirming the importance of a place-based approach to effectively meet the spatial justice needs of a locality. Many of the local successes and failures are bound up with local factors and shaped by unique contexts. Policy-oriented lessons that can be learned from this analysis concern the tools to design future actions addressing spatial (in)justice as well as their planning in terms of integration, longevity and succession. Coordinated governance approaches appear to be key at this point, together with mutual trust, shared vision and continued support for future local development across administrative levels. In closing this section, Sabine Weck and Sarolta Németh provide a brief overview of the theoretical approach, analytical framework and the rationales behind the choice of case studies that will be discussed in more detail in the case study sections that follow. The case studies serve to provide comparative insight regarding drivers, conditioning factors and constraints of community and area-level action as well as contextual depth regarding specific cross-cutting aspects of spatial justice. This chapter also discusses the specific methods that were developed in order to contrast and compare different local development experiences targeting spatial justice. Urban case studies RELOCAL’s urban case studies are in the centre of focus in Part 3. Rural versus urban are admittedly simplifying categories to apply in European societies with converging lifestyles and manifold urban-rural flows and interconnections. Nevertheless, there are territorial challenges that are more specific to, or more urgent in urban areas, such as for instance segregation and the spatial concentration of vulnerable population groups suffering from multiple disadvantages. Therefore, approaches targeted at places of concentrated 10 Matti Fritsch et al. disadvantage, combating intra-urban inequalities in metropolitan areas and supporting neighbourhood regeneration, as well as new governance arrangements to increase citizens’ engagement in local development form important action clusters in the urban cases. Thomas Borén documents a place-based approach to combating exclusion and processes of urban fragmentation in the case of Stockholm. As Borén indicates, Stockholm represents a prime example of an internationally successful and competitive city, structured around a high-cost, innovationdriven economy. But it is also a highly socially, economically and ethnically segregated city with severe problems of exclusion, rule of law and poverty in a number of neighbourhoods. As in many capital regions in Europe and beyond, segregation is deepening, but the process is especially rapid in Stockholm. In 2014, after eight years of liberal-conservative rule, a left-leaning majority took control of the Stockholm City Council and spearheaded initiatives against inequality and segregation. As one important measure to achieve this goal, the city created a Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm. The work of the Commission is the focus of this case study, based on an action carried out in 2015–2017 that in a direct sense addresses inequalities and spatial differences in life conditions within the city. The key issues dealt with in the chapter relate to the overall RELOCAL project hypothesis that processes of localization and place-based policy can support spatial justice and democratic empowerment. On the basis of interviews and document analyses, Borén examines the processes in place that promote and inhibit the Commission and the city to reach its main goals, with a focus on the role of local agency. Ali Madanipour, Elizabeth Brooks and Mark Shucksmith then elaborate on the high-profile case of PLACE/Ladywell as a local response to the homelessness crisis in London. This is an architect-designed project with business spaces and 24 well-proportioned homes for homeless/insecurely housed families in the London Borough of Lewisham. The scheme, which opened to residents in 2016, is planned and built as a temporary modular structure, fully demountable, which can be moved across ‘meanwhile’ sites, over a total lifespan of around 60years. The scheme addresses three aspects of the housing problem: the need for good-quality temporary housing to house families while the older social housing schemes are regenerated; raising the profile and readiness of derelict sites awaiting long-term development; and experimenting with new methods of housing development and provision and developing the capacity of the modular construction industry in line with government policy. The scheme has found instant popularity with media and policy-makers, in spite of its incapacity to mitigate Lewisham’s homelessness, or provide tenants the reassurance of permanent housing. It is being replicated both within the borough and across London, partly funded by London’s regional authority. The chapter explores the extent to which a scheme such as PLACE/Ladywell measures up as a locality-sensitive and responsive Introduction to the book 11 intervention addressing spatial injustices and the needs of homeless families. The authors examine whether the project constitutes a pioneering niche innovation for construction and planning, or a publicly funded experiment in the production of urban space and rent on marginal sites. Cyril Blondel and Estelle Evrard continue discussion of urban case studies by critically examining neo-liberal and elitist planning practices that have impeded spatial justice in the French cases of Euralens (Pas-de-Calais) and the regional development agency (Etablissement Public d’Aménagement or EPA) of Alzette-Belval (North Lorraine). Although profoundly different in nature and implementation, both initiatives under scrutiny aim to support long-term (re)development and enhance local governance capacities. The first case, Euralens, covers the territory of the Pas-de-Calais mining basin. This association was established in 2009 by regional and local actors as a catalyst for economic, social and cultural development and has capitalized on the creation of the Louvre-Lens Museum in 2012. According to the Euralens website, ‘The transition from the black archipelago [the coal mines of the past] to the green archipelago [the sustainable future] takes inspiration from great European examples that managed the transformation from industrial legacy into culture and innovation.’ In formal terms, Euralens is an association involving elected representatives and public agencies, civil society and business actors and its authority rests on its capacity to animate strategic discussions, prepare development plans and influence local governance. The EPA Alzette-Belval, on the other hand, is seemingly a counterexample of place-based local development. It is one of a dozen state-led public agencies responsible for major development projects in France and has the capacity to wrest control over planning from the eight peri-urban/rural municipalities. The EPA is theoretically empowered to tackle spatial inequalities, as it provides funding and high-level technical, planning and legal expertise to localities facing a continuous reduction in state funding and shifting governance remits. As the authors point out, both these cases raise questions regarding the achievement of place-based spatial justice goals. Indeed, it is unclear what substantive change can be accomplished if action is conceived, decided and performed mostly without local populations. Despite its place-based raison d’être, Euralens does not appear to value local initiative or encourage capacity-building of local actors and project leaders that are struggling with bureaucratic and technical hurdles. On the contrary, Euralens appears more focused on labelling the region as an investment product. The Euralens case is indeed paradoxical, pursuing spatial justice goals, but through spatially unjust means, making alternative solutions more difficult. This incomplete form of procedural justice risks threatening Euralens’ progress, as the rejection of the political class and its methods is expressed more and more through abstention (at a record level in the 2020 local elections) and the persistence of voting for the right-wing Rassemblement National (National Rally) party. 12 Matti Fritsch et al. As for the EPA AB, the main decisions are still taken by local elites and technocrats without citizen involvement, much less citizen control. However, opposition movements have emerged in several municipalities and civil society movements have transformed into political platforms that successfully competed in the 2020 municipal elections. These platforms have openly criticized the governance style of the EPA and called for more participatory forms of democracy. Rural case studies In Part 4 of the book, attention shifts to predominantly rural and/or remote regions which accounted for about half of RELOCAL’s case studies. This category contains also small towns located in a wider rural region, such as the Finnish town of Lieksa, the peripherality of which is the origin of its persistent decline. Many of the rural case studies, especially those situated peripherally within national contexts, are characterized by processes of demographic decline, ageing as well as the out-migration of young and economically active population groups, and declining infrastructures and service provision. Besides this generic set of spatial justice challenges, a ‘rural’ cluster of actions can be characterized by the utilization of opportunities and targeted approaches offered under wider national and European policy frameworks, such as the LEADER programme. Many municipalities in Europe have thus found themselves in a situation where they are required to engage in quick decision-making and problemsolving and cost-effective service provision (often under the guise of New Public Management) whilst simultaneously giving citizens and civil society a stronger role in governance processes. This includes empowering citizens as active agents in participative and collaborative decision-making. Against this background, Matti Fritsch, Sarolta Németh and Petri Kahila elaborate on a case study of a shrinking municipality, Lieksa, in eastern Finland. The authors explore how tensions between the aims of effective administration and democratic accountability manifest themselves in government/governance processes. The chapter first traces the process of managerial and processual change against the background of financial and economic upheaval in the municipality. It then subsequently unpacks the balancing act between achieving effective administration on the one hand and democratic accountability on the other. The focus is on the effects of recent changes – changes and processes that emerged from a failing municipal economy culminating in 2014 and the resulting reform-friendly administrative and political environment within the municipality, including a newly appointed, young mayor. These processes include the aim to enhance local capacities and autonomy, to establish a more effective and transparent city administration and to repatriate decision-making power from Q regional/sub-regional level to the local level. In addition, the town of Lieksa has assumed a more proactive stance with regard to the changing role of municipalities in light of ongoing regional Introduction to the book 13 and social/healthcare reforms in Finland. Finally, the authors link their findings to the wider debates on the dynamics of local autonomy and spatial justice in Europe. In the following chapter, Katalin Kovács, Elizabeth Brooks, George Zamfir, Mark Shucksmith and Gusztáv Nemes provide a comparison of rural local development projects funded by the EU’s LEADER scheme in Hungary, Romania and England. LEADER started as a real-life laboratory for the new rural paradigm in 1991 and has since developed into a mainstream policy tool for European rural development. With over 30years of operation, it has certainly left a very significant mark on European rurality, facilitating LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGS) and local development practitioners to absorb central resources and unlock local ones, empower local communities, and create a framework for integrated rural development. Proposed major changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), under which LEADER is funded (Atterton etal., 2020), as well as the United Kingdom’s secession from the EU, make this a fitting juncture to explore the spatial justice contribution of the LEADER programme. In particular, this chapter seeks to discover whether LEADER has been able to fulfil the promise of autonomy that has inspired and motivated its participants (e.g., Navarro etal., 2016), and how this relates to its spatial justice impacts. The enablers and barriers to autonomy for local development actions and strategies have been a particular focus of the RELOCAL project. This chapter starts out with a theoretical presentation of the concept of autonomy, focusing on Clark’s (1984) important distinction between powers of initiation and powers of immunity, and unpacking the seven autonomy dimensions generated to explore the interaction of local and project-level autonomy through RELOCAL (Blondel and Evrard, 2020: 12). It then goes on to outline the evolution of the LEADER programme since its inception in 1991, and to map the dimensions of autonomy against the core LEADER principles that have continued to inform the programme. The three case study rural LAGs – Balaton Uplands in Hungary, Mara-Natur in Romania and Northumberland Uplands in England – are introduced in relation to their national and local contexts, with the account centred on recent iterations. Each case study LAG is reviewed in relation to the seven dimensions of autonomy, and their associated LEADER principles, enabling cross-national comparisons and, to some extent, reflections on the programme’s evolution over time. In the chapter’s conclusion, LEADER’s (mainly diminishing) autonomy is related to cohesion and spatial justice impacts, drawing out implications for the programme’s future. The Greek case study that follows highlights the importance of multilevel governance environments for both effective place-based strategies and achieving spatial justice goals. The authors, Lefteris Topaloglou, George Petrakos, Victor Cupcea and Aggeliki Anagnostou, present and discuss the experiences of a social economy ecosystem in the rural region of Karditsa. In their contribution the authors raise the critical issue that, aside from the evolution of 14 Matti Fritsch et al. inequalities in national-level allocations of resources and economic opportunities, prospects of lagging regions also depend on local capacities to generate employment and income. Efficiency and equity issues are closely related here to the extent that policy options and responses, or the spatial organization of the state, should produce sustainable and inclusive growth. Addressing spatial imbalances and seeking policies and contexts that will allow a better allocation and utilization of existing resources at a local level is necessary to achieve both equity and efficiency goals. This chapter attempts to examine the capacity and conditioning factors of local initiatives to implement effective development policies in Greece. Given the polarized character of the Greek economy and the centralized structure of the state, the question could be posed whether place-based endeavours are indeed able to achieve spatial justice goals. Conclusions and policy considerations In the final chapter of the book, the editors revisit the set of challenges defined at the outset, challenges which served to provide a frame of reference for comparative analysis of spatial justice and place-based strategies. Based on the case studies and the objectives that informed the overall research agenda, the concluding chapter provides a set of conclusions addressing the question: what can we learn from these different local development actions? Consequently, a number of issues are identified that have particular salience in practical terms: • Local perceptions of spatial justice are key to addressing inequalities. • Questions of scale and multilevel governance are locally significant in complex ways. • The empowerment of grassroots action is locally contingent and has to be gauged with the challenges that place-based and participatory development generate for (an often weak) civil society. • The need for greater learning opportunities, capacity building and experimentation requires redoubled policy attention. • Despite its hypothetical desirability, place-based action often faces ‘hostile’ governance environments. Local development experiences provide examples of experimental governance and institutional learning. As has been elaborated by our contributing authors, one insight from our case studies is that while changing formal governance modes is a difficult and long-term commitment, shifting informal practices can be a faster and highly effective way of creating new governance tools. Institutional learning of course differs greatly from locale to locale. It can, for example, take the form of voluntarism, governance partnerships and a combination of both. Introduction to the book 15 The concluding chapter does not provide a long list of policy suggestions, but it does provide some messages with clear policy consequences. One of these is the insight that there is no such thing as a specific ‘good practice.’ However, in most cases, partnership and learning processes are key elements for successful strategies. Another message is that the creation of synergies through pooling of community and/or network assets increases degrees of freedom and visibility in meeting local development needs. It also helps reinforce a sense of community based on shared concerns. Finally, we find ample confirmation that the ‘network effect’ is not ephemeral or merely a question of therapy. Horizontal networks and exchanges that operate as communities of practice can, on the one hand, provide reliable and contextualized assessments of local problems, assets and relative (dis)advantages. On the other hand, networked learning is a rich source of practical knowledge regarding the elaboration of responsive and inclusive development strategies. While perhaps self-evident, the authors also underline the long-term aspect of achieving spatial justice. Despite steep learning curves and additional burdens that participatory development practices signify for public administrations, there is a wealth of knowledge-based resources available to local actors. However, there is a caveat: without continuous support and well-functioning multilevel governance relationships, place-based approaches to achieving spatial justice and greater cohesion will face an uphill battle. References Asso, P. F. (2021). New perspectives on old inequalities: Italy’s North-South divide. Territory, Politics, Governance, 9(3), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671. 2020.1805354. Atterton, J., McMorran, R., Glass, J., Jones, S.& Meador, E. (2020). The role of the LEADER approach post-Brexit. Rural Policy Centre, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC). Available at: https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/en/publications/the-role-of-the-leaderapproach-post-brexit. Blondel, C.& Evrard, E. (2020). Empirical findings from case studies on regional autonomy and spatial justice. Research report. European Commission, Directorate General for Research& Innovation – Innovation for Growth (I4G)/Université du Luxembourg; University of Eastern Finland. Available at: (halshs-02560323). Clark, G. L. (1984). Atheory of local autonomy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(2), 195–208. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2569279. Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H.& Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). The geography of EU discontent. Regional Studies, 54(6), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.201 9.1654603. European Commission (2010). Investing in Europe’s future: Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Hadjimichalis, C. (2021). An uncertain future for the post-Brexit, post-COVID-19 European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies, 28(1), 8–13. https://doi. org/10.1177/0969776420968961. 16 Matti Fritsch et al. Maksimov, V. (2020). MEP Omarjee: Cohesion, not ‘renationalisation’, should guide Europe’s policies. Euractiv, 21 September 2021. Available at: https:// www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/interview/mep-omarjee-cohesion-notrenationalisation-should-guide-europes-policies/. Navarro, F. A., Woods, M.& Cejudo, E. (2016). The LEADER initiative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom-up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12079. Pugalis, L.& Bentley, G. (2014). (Re)appraising place-based economic development strategies. Local Economy, 29(4–5), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094 214541357. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it), Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189– 209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024. Soja, E. (2009). The city and spatial justice. Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, 1(1), 1–5. Available at: https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JSSJ1-1en4.pdf. Weck, S., Madanipour, A.& Schmitt, P. (2022). Place-based development and spatial justice. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965 4313.2021.1928038. Part 1 Cohesion and the role oflocalities Research and policy debates 24 James W. Scott right-wing populisms could result in attempts to re-appropriate the EU as a platform for national particularisms, anti-pluralist and illiberal political agendas. The political costs of ignoring peripheralization, regional divisions and socio-economic divides within the EU for the sake of competitiveness will come at a very high price. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose (2018) has captured the essence of this dilemma with regard to Cohesion Policy and questions of European cohesion in more general terms. His main argument is that a onesided focus on centres of innovation has relegated many areas of the EU to the status of places ‘that don’t count’ and that this could in fact destabilize the EU, providing support to populist and extremist groupings. More carefully developed and place-sensitive policy instruments are needed to deal with this issue; it cannot be resolved with the traditional efficiency/equity trade-off. Rodríguez-Pose’s (2018) message has been understood, particularly after Brexit and populist challenges which aim to ‘take back control’ of local affairs. This is reflected in the very broadly defined objective of getting the EU ‘closer to citizens’. The EU’s focus on innovation and synergies – which in itself can be seen to strengthen regional disparities – has thus also begun to incorporate the idea that ‘knowledge’ itself is a more basic resource and one that is in addition ubiquitous. As Barca (2017: 1) states: The aim of [the place-based] approach is to unleash knowledge, remove barriers towards innovation and encourage a lively exchange between local knowledge and global knowledge. In this sense, we are glocalists: knowledge of the territories must ‘speak’ with the knowledge of the major centres, universities and corporations. But the latter cannot stand by itself without a knowledge of the territories. The localities approach: spatial justice and the enduring salience ofplace Achieving a greater ‘knowledge of the territories’ to which Barca refers in the above quote was the basis for the RELOCAL project’s attempts to understand local development processes from a bottom-up and ‘inward-out’ perspective. Within this context, the RELOCAL project sought to link the social salience of place identity and attachment with questions of fairness regarding processes of community development. However, it was not assumed that local action automatically results in positive results, nor that a placebased strategy can be isolated from the general conditions of action that operate at various levels of governance. The complexity of policy networks within which localities are embedded and the complexities involved in locally constructing meaningful and inclusive development strategies suggest that policy innovation in terms of place-based spatial justice is a daunting challenge. However, Patsy Healey (2007: 11) has suggested that pragmatic steps towards innovative change are possible if localities are comprehended not in terms of the normative rationality of masterplans but rather as local cultures The localities approach 25 composed of ‘complex socio-spatial interactions through which life in urban areas is experienced’. Jones and Evans (2012) have indicated that development and planning practice must pay greater attention to place-making and the affective relationships between townscapes, communities and a sense of neighbourhood that it involves. Attachment to locale is a major resource for the articulation of individual and collective interests. Furthermore, as a process of bounding space, place-making entails the incorporation of and adaptation to increasingly networked realms of social life. Following Tuan (2001) (urban) places are a product of human intellect and social uses of space in which formal and informal practices of organizing everyday life mutually reinforce each other. Urban places also reflect a need for rootedness and a sense of place (Relph, 1976) and in providing a sense of ontological security, establish conditions for social and political agency (Malpas, 2012). Recognizing the importance of local rootedness and a sense of inclusion, fairness would require greater social understanding, more targeted engagement with different groups and their specific needs, and sensitivity to questions of access, opportunity and local capabilities. One important step in advancing current debate regarding the role of place-based development, local strategies and sustainability within broader understandings of cohesion would be to elaborate notions of locale and the significance of the local in terms of theoretical conceptualizations, development scenarios and potential policy options. One important point of departure is Susan Fainstein’s (2010) notion of the ‘just city’ which eschews the application of a universalist approach based on rational choice; in her reading of spatial justice, one major and necessary step is ‘changing the dialogue’ in order to counter the marginalization of equity concerns. For Fainstein, this entails the recognition of demands and needs rather than mere redistribution. As Attoh (2011) has argued, the right to the city can also be interpreted as a concrete democratic right based on citizen involvement. Similar to Fainstein, Sen suggests a comparative and situational rather than transcendental and universalist approach. In his elaboration of the capabilities approach, Sen (1999) posits the normative claim that the achievement of well-being is dependent upon equality of opportunity for people to achieve the aspirations that they see as central to their lives and to their flourishing within society. Sen also advocates an ‘agent-oriented view’ according to which sustainable development depends on active citizenship and supportive social and political environments (Kimhur, 2020). In this vein, the Barca Report (Barca, 2009: 22) refers to Sen (1999), who promotes the role of individuals ‘as active agents of change, rather than passive recipients of dispensed benefits’. By the same token, indeed, it is also important to understand the role of local participation in actions that construct spatial (in)justice, such as access to or exclusion from decisions and actions. At one level then, place-based development can be related to processes of community-building through connecting local organizations, actors and citizens in ways that promote a sense of shared purpose and practical agency. 26 James W. Scott Moreover, this can be more easily achieved if concrete benefits, for example, in the form of public goods and services, are seen to result out of mutual action. Belanche etal. (2016) emphasize the role of city attachment and positive attitudes towards and greater accessibility of urban services in order to achieve efficiency and sustainable development goals. There can also be strong communications technology elements involved and Lee etal. (2014) link the application and use of such technologies to knowledge about place (see Schmitt and Weck, this volume) as well as greater participation of organizations that represent civil society. At another level, however, the localities approach recognized the importance of understanding specific enabling conditions under which local promotion of social justice and development strategies can potentially flourish (see Nordberg, 2020). Local development is seldom a question of bottom-up agency alone; it is a site where community interests, various levels of governance, multiactor networks, funding modalities and sources of general support coalesce, but always in highly contingent and specific ways. These insights are highly relevant to the case of the EU where the principle of territorial cohesion can be read as a partial recognition of an interconnected and interdependent nature of the contemporary world. Taking Sen’s (1993) concept of capabilities and Fainstein’s just city as starting points, RELOCAL targeted its case studies on localities (rather than specific individuals) and social difference in terms of socio-economic, ethnic, genderspecific, mobility-specific and other issues that characterize such differences. This raised the difficult but essential question: what degrees of freedom and opportunity spaces might a specific locale require in order to sustain its inner workings, stabilize its economic existence and provide future prospects for the local citizenry? In order to address this question, RELOCAL argued for a pragmatic understanding of place-based development and spatial justice that eschews essentialist a priori definitions and instead focuses on what placebased action actually does and how it is approached by involved actors (see Abrahams, 2014). As a consequence of these considerations, RELOCAL adopted a bottomup focus on place-making as a continuous and iterative process of defining community needs and aspirations that at the same time is embedded within different scales of policy definition and delivery. As a result, local experiences in terms of practical implementation and perceived outcomes were of central interest. The project also focused on the role of civil society and public sector actors and as well as potentials for social entrepreneurship. In terms of empirical analysis, the localities approach appropriated Kantor and Savitch’s (2005) analytical framework based upon the definition of concepts and key variables; these were then operationalized using quantitative and qualitative data sets. Steering variables (agency) and driving variables (structure) were defined that influence the impact of place-based strategies in terms of achieving balanced and sustainable development. Steering variables are those which The localities approach 27 reflect how place-based development is shaped on the basis of preferences, options and values and reflect local culture and levels of public participation. Driving variables reflect processes that shape place-based development in terms of structural forces and framework conditions and include levels of multi-scalar policy integration and territorial and socio-economic position. Both variable types are interrelated, though they capture different resources available to ‘successful’ place-making, from an agency and structure perspective. These variables were operationalized and defined in order to allow comparative measurement of equivalent variables in different regional and national contexts. On the one hand, the approach allowed for the identification of drivers and constraints that condition place-based spatial justice outcomes. On the other hand, it was also a question of identifying the factors affecting local capabilities to achieve procedural and distributive justice (see Nordberg, 2020). In pursuing these aims, the localities approach focused on the following broad definitions: Inequalities: what are they, who do they concern, and how can they be measured? Here we will gather local information from various sources regarding social development and territorial factors that influence opportunities and abilities to satisfy needs. Aspirations: what are the locally set development priorities and how do they resonate with sustainability and cohesion goals? To what extent and how are stabilization, greater social equity and/or growth objectives reflected in local strategies? Capabilities: the ability to articulate social needs and goals and to act upon them. This includes the level of participation and visibility of the most disadvantaged groups in agenda-setting as well as the quality of multilevel governance relationships. This approach formed the basis for comparative case studies through which spatial justice and fairness were investigated as they were defined and pursued at the level of urban and rural communities (see Németh and Weck, Chapter8, and Schmitt and Weck, Chapter4). This involved reconstructing trajectories of local strategy development and their links with EU policies, Cohesion Policy in particular. The focus was therefore on the local definition of social needs and articulation of equality demands on the one hand and the ways in which these needs and demands have been pursued in conjunction with EU opportunity structures on the other. Importantly, it will be necessary to assess in a comparative manner the experiences of localities in achieving their objectives; this also involves identifying conditioning factors at the local, regional and national levels and their respective roles in goal achievement. Among the conditioning factors that were considered, we can include local institutions, quality of social infrastructures, levels of civil society engagement and performance, levels of participation, quality of multilevel relations, relative effectiveness of divisions of labour between localities in a regional context. The locality approach also involved an additional central element, 28 James W. Scott namely that of scenario elaboration for all case study areas (see Tobiasz-Lis etal., Chapter7). Scenarios were based on past experience as well as more general good examples of local development practice in order to target prospective actions based on assessments of spatial justice deficits, local development aspirations and realistic goals of stabilization and/or growth. Concluding observations It remains true that within the European context, but elsewhere as well, the local level is often rather a ‘mere’ beneficiary rather than a partner in policy development (see European Parliament, 2016b; Vaughan-Whitehead, 2015). While the political salience of both place-based approaches and spatial justice is undeniable, the potential policy consequences of their more comprehensive integration would require a substantial and political complex thinkingthrough of Cohesion Policy and territorial development more broadly. Evidence of change has in fact emerged in the last decade or so. Aplace-based approach has been reflected in EU Cohesion Policy since the Europe 2020 strategies and the 2014–2020 programming period which introduced new territorial instruments and simplified financing arrangements. Key examples of these are CLLD (community-led local development) and ITI (integrated territorial investments). In addition, normative as well as pragmatic understandings of place as a building block of social and environmental sustainability goals have gradually informed the EU’s urban agenda (Sikora-Fernandez, 2018) and its embrace of the Smart Cities paradigm (Masik etal., 2021). Furthermore, policy objectives of territorial cohesion have sparked interest in things that help constitute place, albeit in the technocratic guise of ‘territorial capital’ which, according to Camagni and Capello (2013: 1398), encompasses ‘a wide variety of territorial assets, both tangible and intangible, of a private, public or mixed nature’. Consequently, to emphasize territoriality in terms of place or locale means to take seriously the idea that locally available resources, public goods and services as well as capacities for action are shaped by place and are themselves place-shaping factors. This also suggests a policy imperative of genuinely integrated social and structural investment that supports community-building and fairness through a redoubled focus, among others, on social services (child care, health care, education), entrepreneurship, housing and group-specific services. As our case studies demonstrate, the diverse experiences of Europe’s cities and localities, particularly those in more marginalized regions, provide a wealth of valuable information regarding conditions necessary for achieving spatial justice and fairness. Above all, it requires the identification of areas of social and cultural activity that (1) resonate with local aspirations and local conceptualizations of policy priorities (e.g. in education, research, entrepreneurship, gender issues, health, linguistic rights, regional development), (2) promote partnerships between civil society organizations, public and private sector actors, the EU as well as other international organizations, The localities approach 29 and (3) enhance everyday social mobility in educational, cultural and economic terms. RELOCAL’s localities approach also reflected the recognition that development is rarely truly ‘bottom-up’ and thus targeted the identification of specific aspects of local-regional-national interactions that either promote or hinder the articulation and implementation of spatial justice goals. Indeed, in our case studies questions of partnerships involving not only horizontal relations between local actors but also vertical relations between different levels of governance and policy support revealed themselves as critical. Ultimately, the achievement of fairness would also require resolve on the part of the EU and member states to ‘even out’ a playing field that for historical, economic, geographic and other reasons is not even and will not be for generations to come. As Gräbner etal. argue (2020), diverging patterns between technologically sophisticated cores and struggling peripheries are so entrenched within the Eurozone (and the EU as a whole) that only public investment and progressive redistribution policies will be able to alleviate the situation. These authors (2020: 666) remind us, for example, that undertaking entrepreneurial activity under uncertain conditions ‘represents a social learning process that should be facilitated by government policies’. The same can be said for local strategy development; here as well social learning is a major factor in mid-term to long-term success. By the same token, openness to policy learning processes at all levels is also needed: while certainly disappointing, failures of place-based approaches are also sources of important knowledge that could improve the prospects of struggling places (Petrakos etal., 2021). References Abrahams, G. (2014). What “is” territorial cohesion? What does it “do”?: Essentialist versus pragmatic approaches to using concepts. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2134–2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.819838. Asso, P. F. (2021). New perspectives on old inequalities: Italy’s North-South divide. Territory, Politics, Governance, 9(3), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671. 2020.1805354. Attoh, K. A. (2011). What kind of right is the right to the city? Progress in Human Geography, 35(5), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510394706. Bachtler, J., Oliviera Martins, J., Woster, P.& Zuber, P. (2019). Towards Cohesion Policy 4.0: Structural transformation and inclusive growth. Regional studies policy impact books, Volume 1. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. Aplace-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/sites/default/files/2010-12/ docl_17396_240404999.pdf. Barca, F. (2017). Here is the threefold inequality that Europe must fight. Notes by Fabrizio Barca on a new Cohesion Policy. Luiss Open. Available at: https://open. luiss.it/en/2017/12/01/ecco-la-triplice-disuguaglianza-che-leuropa-deve-combat tere-appunti-di-fabrizio-barca-per-una-nuova-politica-di-coesione/. 30 James W. Scott Belanche, D., Casaló, L. & Orús, C. (2016). City attachment and use of urban services: Benefits for smart cities, Cities, 50, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2015.08.016. Camagni, R.& Capello, R. (2013). Towards smart innovation policies. Growth and Change, 44(2), 355–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12012. Chilla, T.& Evrard, E. (2021). EUropean (dis)integration: Implications for the Cohesion Policy. In D. Rauhut, F. Sielker& A. Humer (Eds.), EU’s Cohesion Policy and spatial governance: Territorial, economic and social challenges (pp.98–114). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Commission of the European Communities. (2004). A new partnership for cohesion convergence competitiveness cooperation. Third report on economic and social cohesion COM(2004), 107. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Connelly, S.& Bradley, K. (2004). Spatial justice, European spatial policy and the case of polycentric development. Proceedings of the ECPR Joint Sessions 2004. ECPR Joint Sessions 2004, 13–18 April2004, Uppsala, Sweden. ECPR. Dabinett, G. (2010). Spatial justice and the translation of European strategic planning ideas in the urban sub-region of South Yorkshire. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2389– 2408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009357964. European Anti-Poverty Network (2018). Making social rights the compass in the European Semester! EAPN assessment of the country reports and proposals for country-specific recommendations 2018. Brussels: European Anti-Poverty Network. Available at: https://www.eapn.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/EAPN-2018-EAPNCountry-Reports-Assessment-and-proposals-CSRs-1.pdf. European Commission (2004). A new partnership for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness, cooperation. Third report on economic and social cohesion. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2007). Growing regions, growing Europe. Fourth report on economic and social cohesion. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2010). Investing in Europe’s future. Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission (2014). Investment for growth and jobs. Promoting development and good governance in EU cities and regions. Sixth report on social, economic and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Parliament (2016b). Report on new territorial development tools in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: Integrated territorial investment (ITI) and community-led local development (CLLD). Strasbourg: European Parliament. Available at: https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0032_EN.html. Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Farole, T., Goga, S.& Inonescu-Heroiu, M. (2018). Rethinking lagging regions. New York: World Bank. Gorzelak, G.& Smętkowski, M. (2010). Regional development dynamics in Central and Eastern European countries: Development processes and policy challenges. In G. Gorzelak, J. Bachtler& M. Smętkowski (Eds.), Regional development in Central and Eastern Europe (pp.34–58). London and New York: Routledge. The localities approach 31 Gräbner, C.& Hafele, J. (2020). The emergence of core-periphery structures in the European Union: Acomplexity perspective. ZOE Discussion Papers No. 6, ZOE. Bonn: Institut für zukunftsfähige Ökonomien. Gräbner, C., Heimberger, P., Kapeller, J.& Schütz, B. (2020). Structural change in times of increasing openness: Assessing path dependency in European economic integration. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30, 1467–1495. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00191-019-00639-6. Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge. Jones, P.& Evans, J. (2012). Rescue geography: Place making, affect and regeneration. Urban Studies, 49(11), 2315–2330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011428177. Kantor, P.& Savitch, H. V. (2005). How to study comparative urban development politics: Aresearch note. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00575.x. Ketels, C.& Porter, M. E. (2018). Towards a new approach for upgrading Europe’s competitiveness. Harvard Business School Working Papers, 19, 033. Kimhur, B. (2020). How to apply the capability approach to housing policy? Concepts, theories and challenges. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2019.1706630. Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G.& Hu, M.-C. (2014). Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.033. Magone, J. M., Laffan, B.& Schweiger, C. (2016). The European Union as a dualist political economy: Understanding core-periphery relations. In J. M. Magone, B. Laffan& C. Schweiger (Eds.), Core-periphery relations in the European Union: Power and conflict in a dualist political economy (pp.1–16). Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge. Malpas, J. (2012). Putting space in place: Philosophical topography and relational geography. Environment and Planning D: Society in Space, 30(2), 226–242. https:// doi.org/10.1068/d20810. Masik, G., Sagan, I.& Scott, J. W. (2021). Smart City strategies and new urban development policies in the Polish context. Cities, 108, 102970. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102970. Nordberg, K. (2020). Spatial justice and local capability in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 78(4), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.008. Petrakos, G., Topaloglou, L. Anagnostou, A.& Cupcea, V. (2021). Geographies of (in)justice and the (in)effectiveness of place-based policies in Greece. European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928050. Pugalis, L.& Bentley, G. (2014). (Re)appraising place-based economic development strategies. Local Economy, 29(4–5), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094 214541357. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024. Rolfe, S. (2018). Governance and governmentality in community participation: The shifting sands of power, responsibility and risk. Social Policy and Society, 17(4), 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746417000410. 32 James W. Scott Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum& A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp.30–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shrotryia, V. K.& Singh, S. V. P. (2020). Measuring progress beyond GDP: Atheoretical perspective. Emerging Economy Studies, 6(2), 143–165. https://doi. org/10.1177/2394901520983784. Sikora-Fernandez, D. (2018). Smarter cities in a post-socialist country: Example of Poland. Cities, 78, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.011. Soja, E. (2009). The city and spatial justice. In B. Bret, P. Gervais-Lambony, C. Hancock& F. Landy (Eds.), Justice et Injustices Spatiales (pp.56–73). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Nanterre. Stiglitz, J. (2020). GDP is the wrong tool for measuring what matters. Scientific American, 323(2), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0820-24. Tooze, A. (2018). Crashed. How a decade of financial crises changed the world. London: Penguin UK. Tuan, Y.-F. (2001). Space and place: The perspectives of experience. Fifth Edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (Ed.). (2015). The European social model in crisis: Is Europe losing its soul? Cheltenham and ILO/Geneva: Edward Elgar/Pugali. Wargent, M. (2021). Localism, governmentality and failing technologies: The case of Neighbourhood Planning in England. Territory, Politics, Governance, 9(4), 571– 591. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2020.1737209. DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-4 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. The aim of this chapter is to provide a brief outline of the RELOCAL project’s concepts, methods, and their application. The chapter thus complements James W. Scott’s previous discussion of the ‘localities approach’ in terms of elaborating the normative foundations of the project. The chapter is structured into two sections. The first section outlines the conceptual framework of the RELOCAL project by introducing the two key concepts of spatial justice and locality, the relationship between them, and the research methodology that was used in the RELOCAL project. The second section explains how this conceptual framework was applied during the course of the research, and how it was used in work packages. An extended discussion of the project’s concepts and a full list of references are available in Madanipour etal. (2017, 2020, 2022). Some of the project’s findings are available in two special issue journals of Justice Spatiale/ Spatial Justice (Blondel and Evrard, 2019) and European Planning Studies (Weck etal., 2022). The concept of spatial justice As Schmitt and Weck indicate in Chapter4, the concept of spatial justice is one of the key concepts employed in the RELOCAL context. Spatial justice closely relates to, and overlaps with, the concepts of social justice, territorial cohesion, sustainable development, and the European Social Model. The European Social Model is one of the ways in which the EU pursues its efforts in social justice, but the Model does not engage with spatial justice. Territorial Cohesion Policy, with its focus on spatial connections and distribution, would be more closely related to the concept of spatial justice. Both, to an extent, address the more institutionalized forms of social and spatial justice through their emphases on improving some of the systems that could mitigate against oppression, vulnerability, and disadvantage. The concept of spatial justice indicates equity in social space, integrating five dimensions of justice: social, procedural, distributive, spatial, and temporal, which distinguish it from related concepts. 3 Spatial justice and locality The conceptual framework and application Ali Madanipour, Elizabeth Brooks, MarkShucksmith and Hilary Talbot 40 Ali Madanipour et al. the experiences of spatial exclusion and injustice, and the responses developed towards them, were analysed in qualitative case studies. In addition to Work Package 6, qualitative methods were also used in Work Packages 3, 4, 7, and 8. Quantitative methods were best placed to compare different localities, especially regarding distributive justice. Quantitative methods were especially used in Work Packages 2 and 5. These methodologies will be further introduced in the relevant sections and chapters (Figure3.2). The RELOCAL project, therefore, examines the capacity of place-based approaches to deliver spatial justice. Localities are defined as multifarious and porous, at the intersection of vertical, horizontal, and transversal forces. Spatial justice is conceptualized as integrating social, spatial, temporal, distributive, and procedural dimensions. By focusing on a spatial ontology, through a relational epistemology and a mixed methodology, we investigate whether spatial justice, as a fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and the opportunities to use them, can be achieved through place-based strategies, and whether these can be achieved within as well as across places and times. Applying the conceptual framework Work Package 2: mapping patterns of inequality and change Work here focused on the distributive aspect of spatial justice, notably, the disparities in economic and social advantage between European regions and their interlinkages. Due to this focus on comparison across regions, the key Figure 3.2 Relationship between the theoretical framework and Work Packages Spatial justice and locality 41 level of locality for this WP was the ‘horizontal.’ Moreover, the originality of this quantitative comparison of EU regions was reflected in a broader-thanstandard thematic ambit, and also, where data is available, carrying analysis to a more fine-grained (NUTS 3) level than previous such studies. The role of this work package within the RELOCAL study was, through its initial analyses, to inform the selection of case studies. Its main findings emphasized the significance of looking beyond purely economic indicators and the importance of looking across multiple scales when investigating spatial justice. WP3. Territorial governance structures and practice The core RELOCAL concept investigated here was that of procedural justice, viewed as one of the two key components of spatial justice mapped out in the project’s conceptual framework. Work Package 3 explored the procedural aspect of spatial justice through a comparison of how the RELOCAL case studies have implemented project governance: who are the key actors and institutions and how have these been mobilized to become stakeholders? The key level of locality that this analysis takes place at is the internal (or differential) level, in that the investigation, while it includes higher levels of governance, is concerned with how these impact at the local level and on the actions or projects that are the focus of the case studies. Work followed the example of many of the RELOCAL case studies, which provided its source material, in taking a broad and general perspective on procedural justice and its relationship to spatial justice. This is based on standard measures of participation and transparency, rather than providing details on accessibility to marginalized and excluded groups. Even at this very mainstream level of procedural justice, however, the analysis affords appreciation of the close relationship, or interdependency, between spatial justice and procedural justice. WP4. The local, spatial justice, and cohesion policy The core RELOCAL concept explored in this work package was the perception of spatial justice in case study localities. It deployed a relational concept of locality which was one of the two main RELOCAL concepts alongside spatial justice (see Chapter3), and included the component dimensions of differential (or internal), horizontal, vertical, and transversal relationships. WP4 could be described as taking a bottom-up perspective, in that it explores people’s perceptions of spatial justice and injustice in their locality. Its perspective is also relational in that it places these perceptions in a context where place-based actions are subject to various and changing influences across all four locality relationship levels that we identified earlier: those internal to the locality; those from similar places; those from higher levels; and those from distant locations, be they EU region or global levels. While all levels were considered, the key levels of locality relationship in this WP can be identified as the internal (differential) level and the vertical and transverse level (in 42 Ali Madanipour et al. particular EU Cohesion Policy) with its significant impacts on the horizontal and internal relationships. WP5. Longitudinal studies of spatial inequality The core RELOCAL concept used here was the distributional aspect of spatial justice, and in terms of the level of localities it focused on neighbourhood effects regarding individual socio-economic outcomes, both as a snapshot in time and longitudinally. Because it was also comparative, dealing with outcomes between localities, internal and horizontal levels were the main focus. The intention of the work package was to gain a better understanding of the suitability of different geographical units, in terms of both scale and boundary, for assessments of area effects on individual labour income (after controlling for individual’s characteristics and, where possible, family background) (Janssen and van Hamm, 2018). This is because the effects appear different depending on the scale of analysis, which evidently has consequences for the design and implementation of public policies. The main finding of this WP was that to determine the impact of place of residence on outcomes such as income, the relationship should be measured and tested at a number of scales; it also recommended that countries provide better and more detailed fine-level data to enable the closer-grain level of analysis (Melo etal., 2019). WP6. Case studies Following RELOCAL’s conceptual framework, the aim of the 33 case studies carried out in the project was to investigate whether spatial justice, as a fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and the opportunities to use them, can be achieved through place-based strategies, and whether these can be achieved within as well as across places and times. The possibilities for case study selection were set wide: they embraced a wide range of local strategies. The studies could thus be place-based or community-based, involve participatory cohesion strategies for improving the local quality of life as well as promote more balanced and sustainable development (see Weck etal., 2020). Three pillars guided the process of case study selection: • Representation of different welfare regimes in the list of final cases • Informed knowledge of national case study representatives on localities and actions which correspond best with the study’s research interest and questions • Representation of different types of actions, such as level of maturity in the policy process, territorial governance arrangements, EU funding, diversity of top-down and bottom-up actions, etc. Spatial justice and locality 43 WP7. Regional autonomy and spatial justice Aspects of the two core RELOCAL concepts, those of locality and spatial justice, were addressed in this work package. The question of relative autonomy of a given locality in relation to vertical levels of governance relationships was the main focus. This produced some overlaps with the question as to whether case study actions were able to be effective in their place of operation. However, WP7 had a specific focus on aspects of actions that result from bottom-up local organization to address spatial injustices, and to what extent this might produce spatial justice gains both locally and at higher levels, including the question of to what extent these local initiatives may translate and alter within and across scales. Thus, there were two key levels of locality for this WP – the internal (or differential) and the vertical and transversal. Ultimately it asks the question of whether greater autonomy for local-level actions might generate greater levels of spatial justice. This relates back to the main question of the Horizon 2020 call to which RELOCAL responded, which sought an answer to the question of whether ‘regional autonomy or decentralization are – or are not – justifiable on account of economic, political and social justice.’ WP8. Coherence and scenarios This is the second RELOCAL work package that reviewed the 33 RELOCAL case studies in their entirety and thus it addressed both key concepts of spatial justice (procedural and distributional) and the relationality of localities (at internal/differential, horizontal, vertical, and transverse levels). This work package used a scenario approach, defined as ‘qualitative methods to identify the drivers of certain phenomena (in this case, spatial injustice) based on expert opinion’ (Piras etal., 2020: 2). Mechanism Maps and Theory of Change narratives for each of the 33 cases allowed the authors to develop a typology of three types of spatial (in)justice faced by the localities and addressed though the actions: namely (1) Territorial Disadvantage (19 case studies), (2) Neighbourhood Effects (stigma) (11 case studies), and (3) Disempowered Places (three case studies). The first group were places that provide fewer opportunities and poorer outcomes compared to adjacent areas, for geographical and/or geo-political reasons. Neighbourhood effects were found mainly in urban contexts and represent segregated urban areas which reinforce population disadvantage with locational effects. Finally, the smallest category, of Disempowered Places, were those where ineffective, or inappropriate, multi-level governance structures blighted localities in terms of wellbeing and the entrepreneurial environment, relative to neighbouring administrative areas. The approach used was unusual, compared with the extant literature on scenario methods, in requiring partners to determine the single, most likely, scenario for their action, rather than the more standard approach of 44 Ali Madanipour et al. presenting a number of possible scenarios, or contrasting examples of a positive and negative scenario. This simplification enabled comparison between all 33 cases but did not exclude the recording of uncertainty, because at the same time, factors influencing development over time were rated for relevance as well as probability, enabling a further level of analysis about future contextual impacts on spatial justice. Finally, the individual Mechanism Maps created for each action were adapted by each RELOCAL case study team and, as necessary, restructured to reflect the anticipated change in contextual conditions and drivers by 2030 that had been identified through the Nexus-State Array exercise. Conclusion The analysis of work packages and academic output has shown that the Conceptual Framework (Madanipour etal., 2017) for RELOCAL, as developed at the start of the project, has served the project well. Two concepts formed its core: spatial justice (with its five dimensions: social, procedural, distributive, spatial, and temporal) and locality (with its four dimensions: differential, vertical, horizontal, and transversal). Based on these two key concepts and their relationships, a spatial ontology, a relational epistemology, and a mixed methodology were developed, which were applied in 10 work packages over a period of five years, 2016–2021. This theoretical-analytical framework provided a primary foundation upon which the teams of RELOCAL researchers have conducted their empirical investigations and analysis. The intersection of distributive and procedural justice with relational spatiality and different aspects of locality has provided a framework through which communication across research teams has been facilitated and the collection and analysis of empirical material have been supported. The outputs of each work package demonstrate how the concepts of spatial justice and locality, as discussed and unpacked in RELOCAL’s Conceptual Framework, have been taken up and developed further by the different research teams. These researchers have further elaborated the initial conceptual framework with their additional literature reviews and theoretical tools that were specifically necessary for their work package but have broadly shared RELOCAL’s definitions of spatial justice and locality. References Blondel, C.& Evrard, E. (2019). Autonomy + development=spatial (in) justice? Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, (13) October. Available at: https://www.jssj.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/10/JSSJ_13_1_INTRO_EN2.pdf. Janssen, H.& van Hamm, M. (2018). RELOCAL, deliverable 5.2 report on multiscalar patterns of inequalities. Joensuu: University of East Finland. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/D5.2-Report-on-multi-scalar-pat terns-of-spatial-inequalities-Version-1-20180531.pdf. Spatial justice and locality 45 Madanipour, A., Shucksmith, M.& Brooks, E. (2022). The concept of spatial justice and European Union’s territorial cohesion. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 807–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928040. Madanipour, A., Shucksmith, M., Talbot, H.& Crawford, J. (2017). RELOCAL deliverable 1.1 conceptual framework for the project. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ Deliverable-1.1.pdf. Madanipour, A., Shucksmith, M., Talbot, H., Crawford, J.& Brooks, E. (2020). RELOCAL, deliverable 1.2 revised conceptual framework for the project. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland (internal working document). Melo, P., Gaspar, J., Janssen, H. J., van Ham, M., Andersson, E.& Malmberg, B. (2019). RELOCAL, deliverable 5.3 location and context – analysis of spatial inequalities at different geographical scales. Joensuu: University of East Finland. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/D5.3-Report_FINAL.pdf. Piras, S., Currie, M., Duckett, D., Copus, A., Tobiasz-Lis, P.& Dmochowska-Dudek, K. (2020). RELOCAL, deliverable 8.3 scenario report: Trajectories of spatial justice and actions to achieve it across Europe. Joensuu: University of East Finland. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RELOCAL_D8.3_020720.pdf. Weck, S., Kamuf, V., Krehl, A., Schmitt, P., Borén, T., Kovacs, K. Virág, T., Tagai, G., Blondel, C., Evrard, E.& Nienaber, B. (2020). RELOCAL comparative case study research in RELOCAL: An overview on the methodology. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/D6.4-Methodology-Comparative-Case-Study-Research-20200420.pdf. Weck, S., Madanipour, A.& Schmitt, P. (2022). Place-based development and spatial justice, introduction to special issue. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928038. Part 2 Spatial justice in local development DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-6 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Introduction The challenging question of how procedurally and distributively just forms of governance can be achieved has attracted considerable interest in the local and regional development and planning literature (Reynolds and Shelley, 1985; Davoudi and Brooks, 2014; Uitermark and Nicholls, 2017; Williams, 2017). In this chapter, we approach the questions regarding procedural and distributive justice from an empirical perspective. Building on a sample of 22 case study reports on local development actions, we scrutinize the extent to which the investigated actions provide evidence of procedural and distributive justness. These actions are either policy-driven or bottom-up initiatives that aim to achieve greater spatial justice within a specific policy area (see Chapter8 on case study research in this book) focusing on a specific locality (e.g. neighbourhood, metropolitan area, rural village). Drawing on the debates in the literature on ‘just’ or ‘fair’ processes as well as their outcomes, we systematically assess the investigated local development actions. As examples, we further analyse five cases in detail, discussing the promoters and inhibitors of procedural and distributive justness that become evident. Our chapter contributes to research on ‘just planning’. On the basis of rich empirical evidence, we derive several practical principles for assessing the justness of processes and outcomes of local and regional development projects. In addition, we identify the promoters and inhibitors of just processes and just outcomes that are relevant across different local or regional settings, and that can be instructive for leading local actors coping with similar local development actions in practice. Assessing procedural and distributive justice ‘Justice is not static, instead it is always in process, being negotiated, maintained and brought into being through practice’ (Williams, 2017: 2222). In the RELOCAL project, we conceptualized spatial justice relationally, with a focus on both the processes and the extent to which these cause (un)just distributive outcomes. This approach can be distinguished from a 4 Approaching spatial justice in local development actions A European comparative perspective on promoters, inhibitors, and achievements Sabine Weck and Peter Schmitt 56 Sabine Weck and Peter Schmitt Table 4.5 Assessed justness of outcomes for the ‘Youth centre Rabryka in Görlitz’ case Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of outcomes Redistribution of resources (material/ economic) Promoting distributive justice – Creates new infrastructure/anchor institution for young people in the locality. – Enhanced understanding of officials in terms of youth participation (transformative impact on city governance and resource spending). Recognition of thus far underrepresented interests (socio/ cultural) Promoting distributive justice – Supports young people’s capacity building – Positive effects on belonging for those who get involved in the initiative – Processes of learning on both sides, the municipality and the Rabryka stakeholders – Positive narratives about Görlitz. Table 4.4 Assessed justness of processes for the ‘Youth centre Rabryka in Görlitz’ case Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of processes Forms of leadership of identified leading actor(s) Potentially promoting procedural justice Leadership was acknowledged by other initially involved formal actors, which supported coordination and implementation of the action. Forms of coordination and functioning of collaboration Slightly promoting procedural justice Action was embedded within existing and well-functioning forms of collaboration, which offered room for informality and flexibility. Participation of initial non-key actors and their exertion of influence Promoting procedural justice Action was characterized by a rather broad participation process that offered considerable opportunities for engagement and exertion of influence by initial non-key actors. Transparency and intelligibility Slightly promoting procedural justice Transparency and a high level of intelligibility for initial non-key actors existed if these actors became acquainted with the action. Based on Schmitt, 2020. Approaching spatial justice in local development actions 57 in local development processes. The Rabryka stakeholders actively reach out to various youth groups, motivating young people to get involved in collective decision-making processes. At the same time, as the interviews show, becoming involved with the initiative can strengthen young people’s feeling of belonging to the town. In the context of outmigration, structural change, and the rise of populist parties in the region the relevance of these impacts of the initiative has been acknowledged by the majority of the Görlitz population. However, this positive assessment is not generally shared by the local population or across all political parties. The researchers noted a politically polarized debate about the initiative and its impact. The initiatives’ response to it is to try to keep out of party politics and remain non-partisan and neutral, communicating with all interested parties and stakeholder groups. Involving young population groups, including marginalized ones, and increasing youth engagement, as the case study authors have argued, are deeply linked to how the initiative is set up and managed (Kamuf and Weck, 2021). The initiative has created a new platform for sociocultural activities and makes a difference in the locality not only in new infrastructure and meeting places but also in the capacity building of young stakeholders. The analysis of the Görlitz case reveals promoters for just processes and outcomes that also prove relevant for other cases in Group A. Actions in this group are characterized by rather broad participation processes and a high level of intelligibility and transparency for (initial) non-key actors, which helped them to become engaged with the action and exert influence. Thus, the actions succeeded in increasing community resources and engagement. Importantly, the exertion of influence was often linked to material investments (physical rehabilitation measures, new meeting places, etc.) and thus concrete outcomes for local population groups and enhanced opportunities. Ultimately, actions in this group are shaped to different degrees, according to the priorities and needs of local community groups, even if the actions do not develop from the bottom up but are initially designed by higher local or regional policy levels. Group B: unjust processes and unjust outcomes: Alexander Innovation Zone The representative case for this group is from the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki in Greece, which faces significant growth and restructuring challenges. According to Petrakos etal. (2021: 10), this is particularly noteworthy, because despite the presence of significant academic and research institutes and an organized industrial area, ‘Thessaloniki is behind the national average in terms of GDP per capita, faces significant unemployment problems and has a low innovation and competitiveness index compared to European standards’. To unlock this metropolitan area’s innovative potential, the local ‘Alexander Innovation Zone’ action, established in 2006, aims to connect universities and other research institutes, as well as ‘incubators’ and related private firms 58 Sabine Weck and Peter Schmitt located in the larger metropolitan area of Thessaloniki through a permanent public-private cooperation platform. This platform is intended to identify common interests and potential benefits, and thereby to function as a magnet for other large and small enterprises, and to stimulate the transformation of innovations into commercial activities. The action is supervised by the central government, here through the Minister of the Interior in the form of an outsourced company that forms the managing body of the intended metropolitan innovation ecosystem. The decisions are taken by a board of directors appointed by the Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace (Topaloglou, 2020: 85–87). The action as such is assessed as a top-down public intervention, characterized by a complex legislative framework, rigorous public accounting, and overregulation by the prevailing centralized administrative system (Petrakos etal., 2019). This structure has also prevented the action from showing a clear and mutually accepted leadership and developing a collaborative culture among the involved local stakeholders. Even more seriously, it has discouraged locally available creative forces from participating. Hence, the action succeeded neither in involving all relevant stakeholders nor in empowering other non-initial actors that could exert influence. In other words, the action appears to have been handled within a closed club and is thus characterized Table 4.6 Assessed justness of processes for the case of the ‘Alexander Innovation Zone’ Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of processes Forms of leadership of identified leading actor(s) Inhibiting procedural justice Leadership was contested and/or characterized by a high level of ambiguity and negatively affected the coordination and implementation of the action. Forms of coordination and functioning of collaboration Slightly inhibiting procedural justice Action was coordinated by a rather formalized network, which developed some forms of collaborative culture, but with considerable room for improvement. Participation of initial non-key actors and their exertion of influence Slightly inhibiting procedural justice Participation during the action was limited to those who had the capacity to engage themselves; otherwise, the initial key actors mainly exerted influence on the action. Transparency and intelligibility Neutral Transparency and a high level of intelligibility for initial non-key actors existed only if these actors became acquainted with the action. Approaching spatial justice in local development actions 59 by a lack of transparency. Since the central state has the power to intervene, its traditionally strong influence on local affairs is reproduced, which has made it impossible for the respective local actors ‘to change the prevailing “dependence culture” and to take a greater share of collective responsibility in developing an innovative ecosystem in their city’ (Petrakos etal., 2021: 10). Overall, since its inauguration in 2006, the connecting platform, promotion of business-research networks, and the facilitation of innovative actions have been assessed as ineffective at fighting distributive injustice. According to Petrakos etal. (2021), there were no measurable outcomes, either in mobilizing endogenous dynamics that could lead to a redistribution of resources or in concerning the utilization of the existing critical mass in the form of the many local actors and their innovative capacity, because they could not be mobilized and integrated with the zone as such. These disappointing outcomes are mainly associated with the ‘dependency culture’ mentioned earlier, as well as the limited capacities of the involved leading actors to formulate a clear strategy, navigate the complicated legislative structure, and set realistic goals that were subsequently followed up (Topaloglou, 2020). Table 4.7 Assessed justness of outcomes for the ‘Alexander Innovation Zone’ case Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of outcomes Redistribution of resources (material/ economic) Promoting distributive justice – Positive educational achievements (decline in school dropouts, an increasing number of higher-level students mentoring their younger peers). – Positive achievements for young people on the labour market, career guarantees by local employers. – The action avoided a further socioeconomic decline in the district; specifically in relation to other ‘problem districts’ in the national context. Recognition of thus far underrepresented interests (socio/cultural) Promoting distributive justice – The redistributive achievements have been widely recognized among different groups; positive image of the action (e.g. being effective), twothirds of projects are on course (in terms of their expected goals). – Strong focus on some focus areas in Rotterdam South; groups that represent other areas that are not targeted by the action partly may recognize this as an issue of distributive injustice. 60 Sabine Weck and Peter Schmitt Group C: unjust processes but fairly just outcomes: Rotterdam South on Course Rotterdam South is characterized by a relatively strong concentration of socioeconomically vulnerable households, compared not only to other parts of the city, but also to other urban districts in the Netherlands. Many of Rotterdam South’s approximately 200,000 residents suffer from a multitude of problems such as low income, inadequate professional skills, educational and language deficiencies, unmanageable debts, substance abuse, and health and mental problems (Dol etal., 2019: 1). In 2010, in response to this precarious situation, the Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid was initiated by the national government with the main goal of improving education and employment opportunities specifically for the younger generation and promoting more social diversification based on broad participation across the district. This specific national programme is a long-term approach that is still running. Arelatively small office forms the locus of a network of several stakeholders and organizations which coordinates several actions that are financed by the national government. This office is the leading actor, which, unlike the Alexander Innovation Zone case, works independently of the national government. The case study shows that this leading actor can harmonize various sectoral interests, but at the same time ‘is not shy about taking action’ (Dol etal., 2019: 18). Such leadership was acknowledged by other formal actors. Despite shifting political majorities and changes to its board’s chairs and delegates, the office was also able to maintain strong leadership due to charismatic personalities, and at the same time was able to mobilize the participation of initial non-key actors. In doing so, the office succeeded in guaranteeing long-term commitment and solid funding to projects across parties and stakeholders. However, the office’s central position also led to a somewhat controlled, strict, and formalized collaboration, which allowed little room for the voicing of the opinions of those who have restricted capacities to do so. In addition, some wariness of and reluctance to engage with individual representatives of different social groups or organizations (e.g. schools, residents in specific neighbourhoods) were noted (Dol etal., 2019). Hence, the collaborative culture and the power to influence the design and scope of the action at hand is centred on formalized networks between initially involved formalized actors, but has not developed beyond them. The initial objective, which was to guarantee representation of the most marginalized groups, has therefore not been achieved (Keller and Virág, 2021: 8). One reason for this weak representation of vulnerable groups and those with little organizational capacity is that the transparency and intelligibility of the action for initial non-key actors decreased during the action’s lifetime. Despite these weaknesses regarding procedural justness, the outcomes of the action have been assessed much more positively (Dol etal., 2019). Approaching spatial justice in local development actions 61 Table 4.8 Assessed justness of processes for the ‘Rotterdam South on Course’ case Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of processes Forms of leadership of identified leading actor(s) Promoting procedural justice Leadership was acknowledged by other initially involved formal actors, which supported coordination and implementation of the action. Forms of coordination and functioning of collaboration Slightly inhibiting procedural justice Action was coordinated by a rather formalized network, which developed some forms of collaborative culture, but with considerable room for improvement. Participation of initial non-key actors and their exertion of influence Slightly inhibiting procedural justice Participation during the action was limited to those who had the capacity to engage themselves; otherwise, the initial key actors mainly exerted influence on the action. Transparency and intelligibility Slightly inhibiting procedural justice The transparency and intelligibility of the action for initial nonkey actors decreased during the action’s lifetime. It was recognized that the local action showed positive impacts on educational scores (e.g. declining school dropouts), and long-term unemployment has decreased. At the same time, the situation of the labour market for young people has improved, specifically since local employers continue to provide career guarantees for those choosing education in ‘technical subjects’ and ‘(health)care’. Overall, the action seems to have avoided a further socioeconomic decline, because the situation has somewhat deteriorated in other urban districts in the Netherlands with a similar context. In this sense, Rotterdam South seems to have broken that trend (Dol etal., 2019: 34–35). In addition, the achievements of the action are widely recognized by diverse social groups in Rotterdam South. As such, the action is considered to have been effective and to have achieved its goals (specifically in regard to its educational objectives). However, on closer inspection, some local voices have criticized the action’s geographical selectivity, because only some targeted areas clearly profit from it. Explicitly, those areas whose inhabitants’ selforganizational capacity is rather low are targeted to a lesser extent by this action (Dol etal., 2019: 30–32). 62 Sabine Weck and Peter Schmitt Group D – fairly just processes, but unjust outcomes: neighbourhood regeneration György-telep, Pécs György-telep is a neighbourhood of some 700 residents in the northeast of Pécs, the fifth largest city in Hungary. The first development projects here started in 2007. The integrated neighbourhood renewal action for the last ten years, as investigated by Jelinek and Virág (2019), addresses issues such as housing, poverty, unemployment, and community building in what is officially delineated as a ‘segregated area’. The action has been initiated at multiple levels: national, regional, and local. It is carried out and implemented by an NGO, the Hungarian Charity Service of the Order of Malta (known as Málta) in cooperation with the local municipality and other stakeholders. We assessed the case as showing some fairly just processes (at the neighbourhood level), but with unjust outcomes overall. In the national context, this neighbourhood renewal action receives prominent attention for its place-based, integrated approach in a highly stigmatized area (with a large percentage of Roma in the population), and for a long-term Table 4.9 Assessed justness of outcomes for the ‘Rotterdam South on Course’ case Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of outcomes Redistribution of resources (material/ economic) Promoting distributive justice – Positive educational achievements (decline in school dropouts, an increasing number of higher-level students mentoring their younger peers). – Positive achievements for young people on the labour market, career guarantees by local employers. – The action avoided a further socioeconomic decline in the district; specifically in relation to other ‘problem districts’ in the national context. Recognition of thus far underrepresented interests (socio/ cultural) Promoting distributive justice – The redistributive achievements have been widely recognized among different groups; positive image of the action (e.g. being effective), two-thirds of projects are on course (in terms of their expected goals). – Strong focus on some focus areas in Rotterdam South; groups that represent other areas that are not targeted by the action partly may recognize this as an issue of distributive injustice. Approaching spatial justice in local development actions 63 Table 4.10 Assessed justness of processes for the ‘Neighbourhood regeneration in György-telep’ case Assessment Criteria Assessment Justness of processes Forms of leadership of identified leading actor(s) Slightly promoting procedural justice Acknowledgement of leadership by other initially involved formal actors was rather weak at the beginning, but increased throughout the coordination and implementation of the action. Forms of coordination and functioning of collaboration Neutral with regard to procedural justice Action was embedded within existing and well-functioning forms of collaboration, but offered hardly any room for informality and flexibility. Participation of initial non-key actors and their exertion of influence Inhibiting procedural justice Generally, weak participation of initial non-key actors throughout the action, so that only initial key actors exerted influence on the action. Transparency and intelligibility Inhibiting procedural justice Transparency and intelligibility for initial non-key actors hardly existed due to the complicated structure of the action or an increasingly paternalistic approach by the leading actor(s). approach combining social with physical regeneration. Furthermore, unlike similar actions in the domestic context, this action explicitly aims to engage the local community and contribute to capacity building. The interaction with the local community was mostly in the hands of Málta, which became the leading actor in the implementation of the action, acting as a broker between the local community and the local authority (specifically, the housing department), and ensuring considerable continuity over the years and across different project funding cycles (Jelinek and Virág, 2019). Although embedded in a local development coalition with other stakeholders, including the municipality, case study researchers noted that the local authority willingly handed over all responsibility to the NGO and practically withdrew from the process, which inhibited learning processes and the establishment of common problem definitions, and flexible adaptations of the implementation. As the case study report shows, initial non-key actors such as local community stakeholders could attain only a weak influence on the overall decision-making and implementation. 64 Sabine Weck and Peter Schmitt György-telep has achieved positive results in recent years, measured, for example, in terms of unemployment indicators, housing quality, and the household indebtedness of local residents. This action shows a socially sensitive regeneration approach implemented using a long-term approach and was thus good practice in the national context. The impact is directly related to the NGO’s approach to the local community. Those residents signing a cooperation agreement with the NGO received help and long-term intensive care (in what researchers noted was a sometimes paternalistic approach). At the same time, however, in a wider context, the action did not tackle the municipalities’ institutional routines that were producing inequalities in the locality. Evictions in other neighbourhoods were therefore carried out, for example. ‘While injustice is counteracted with a concentrated effort in one territory as a result of EU funds, the production of injustices is reproduced systematically elsewhere’ (Virág and Jelinek, 2019: 19). In its broker role, the NGO has achieved improvements in how local people are treated in the housing department. But these achievements are counteracted in a municipality which is not cooperating on a par with the NGO, but rather sees the NGO Table 4.11 Assessed justness of outcomes for the ‘Neighbourhood regeneration in György-telep’ case Assessment Criteria Outcomes Justness of outcomes Redistribution of resources (material/ economic) Slightly promoting distributive justice (neighbourhood level) – Long-term, socially sensitive regeneration approach achieves positive effects in the neighbourhood according to some indicators (unemployment, housing quality, household indebtedness, etc.). Inhibiting distributive justice (city as a whole) − Improvement in one neighbourhood achieved at the expense of others in the locality. Recognition of thus far underrepresented interests (socio/ cultural) Slightly promoting distributive justice (neighbourhood level) – Smoother cooperation between the local community and the local housing department due to the broker role of Málta. Inhibiting distributive justice (city as a whole) − No change in the municipalities’ institutional routines (structural discrimination), no structural reforms. Approaching spatial justice in local development actions 65 as a problem solver. Overall, there are therefore few to no intraor interorganizational learning processes in the municipality, and structural routines continue, reproducing inequality and discrimination in the city as a whole. While the NGO is striving for a just planning and implementation process in György-telep, the outcomes cannot be assessed as just in a wider municipal context. The example of György-telep is representative of several actions in our sample that show structural limits with regard to the transformative power of place-based approaches to changing unfair policy routines and procedures (beyond the very local context in which they are implemented). Mechanisms which enable knowledge transfer from bottom-up to higher policy levels, and which provoke changes in the governance system, bridging routines, and practices across levels, would make these local and regional initiatives more effective and would allow spatial justice to be achieved in many places. As Keller and Virág (2021) show in their comparative article about three neighbourhood regeneration approaches, including the case of Rotterdam South discussed earlier, place-based strategies are strongly shaped in their outcomes by how they are integrated with local and higher-level contexts and politics. They depend on the strong commitment of the municipality, as well as the regional and national institutional environment to support place-based projects, and the political will to implement institutional learning processes. Just and unjust processes and outcomes: strengthening communities in the Western Scottish Isles Strengthening communities, capacity building, and sustainable economic growth are some of the Scottish Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) economic and community development agency’s priority work areas. The Highlands and Islands is a rural and sparsely populated region. It has experienced a long-standing process of selective outmigration of younger and more economically active people, and the strengthening communities work of HIE is designed to tackle this challenge, fostering social and economic development in an integrative approach. HIE’s work involves two place-based intervention tools which were chosen as the focus of research: support of community land buyouts and Community Account Management, which is offered to community trusts to support their long-term growth in social and economic terms. In their report, the case study researchers analyse the strengthening communities work of HIE on the Isle of Lewis in the Western Isles since 2007 (Currie etal., 2019). HIE is only one among several agencies working to support communities in the Western Isles, but it has become a key player in supporting local communities in land buyouts and strengthening community trusts in their long-term strategic development. HIE provides practical and material support to communities aspiring to buy land (according to the Scottish Land DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-7 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 5 Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu Introduction Our study addresses the subject of spatial (in)justice from the perspective of several analytical approaches that characterized the RELOCAL research project. Following Ed Soja’s (2011a, 2011b) call to embrace a critical spatial and historical-temporal perspective in conceptualizing injustice, we are interested in both the unequal territorial distribution of resources and the processes that cause and perpetuate unjust geographies. In particular, we address Soja’s perspective regarding place-specific manifestations of uneven development and underdevelopment. Moreover, by making use of the empirical material that is available as part of our collaborative research (i.e. the case studies and the national and comparative reports), our conceptual understanding of spatial injustice enlarges the basic RELOCAL theoretical frame in three directions: (1) towards addressing uneven development and spatial fix as endemic features of capitalism (Harvey, 2001, 2005; Smith, 2006, 2010; Jessop, 2001); (2) interrogating the role of the state and neoliberal governance in the support of capital accumulation regimes (Jessop, 1997, 2002; Hubbard and Hall, 1998; Sager, 2011); (3) interrogating the role of cultural hegemony in the formation and maintenance of the social order (e.g. as suggested by Gramsci, 1971), and especially the role of territorial stigmatization in (re)producing spatial unevenness (Wacquant, 2007, 2014; Kallin and Slater, 2014; Slater, 2015; Horgan, 2018). The principal question addressed here concerns stigmatization as part of a larger cultural/ideological apparatus, its material effects, and its role in (re)producing territorial unevenness. Chapters4 and 8 of this volume provide an overview of the project’s case study methodology, as well as information regarding the location and nature of the specific cases of place-based action that were investigated. Starting with the clustering that resulted from a crosscomparative analysis of country perspectives on spatial injustice,1 we selected 12 out of the 33 case studies conducted in 2018 and 2019 for our purposes. In particular, we focused on the cluster of cases where stigmatization was addressed as part of combating spatial injustice. This work concerned cases in Spain, Finland, Hungary, France, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Romania.2 Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 73 The first section of our chapter addresses unequal territorial development across the selected RELOCAL countries as reflected in Eurostat data regarding poverty, inequalities, and housing deprivations, but also in government spending on their reduction. We interpret these manifestations of social injustice as characteristics of uneven territorial development, which is in turn an endemic feature of capitalism. In the second section, using the RELOCAL reports that made a comparative analysis of the case studies from a national perspective,3 we highlight the role of the state, and in particular of neoliberal governance in the (re)production of territorial inequalities within the national and local contexts of the addressed actions, tackling stigmatization and other phenomena to reduce spatial injustice. In the chapter’s third section, we make a comparative analysis of the selected case studies by answering two sets of questions regarding territorial stigmatization: (1) What and who was stigmatized in the particular local contexts, and what kind of stigma(s) were attached to them? (2) Who were the stakeholders participating in the actions tackling stigmatization, and how did they understand stigmatization and explain its enduring character? In closing our chapter, we provide a synthesis of our conceptual framework and its contribution to the analysis of spatial (in)justice. The conclusion synthesizes the contribution of our analysis to the theoretical/conceptual approach adopted by the RELOCAL research. We emphasize the flux of mutual determinations between the capital accumulation regime, neoliberal governance and policymaking, and (territorial) stigmatization. Moreover, we highlight some trans-local patterns and trends of stigmatization, as well as factors which contribute to its temporal endurance as simultaneously a spatial and temporal, and material and symbolic, process. Uneven territorial development and welfare state retrenchment The overall subject of this volume is the pervasive problem of uneven development and spatial inequality, and questions that emerge as to how spatial (in)justice can be understood and elaborated as a policy issue. The debate on European cohesion has been marked by a robust academic and policy research that has investigated persistent and often increasing patterns of unequal territorial development. In parallel with the economic transformations of recent decades, processes of welfare state retrenchment have resulted in increasing levels of poverty that have also affected certain groups such as single-adult and single-parent households more than others (Alm etal., 2020). In their study, Iammarino etal. (2019) confirm a more general trend to a greater spatial inequality, and the failure of market processes and polices to create conditions for greater prosperity and opportunity. Without more just redistributive practices the danger of polarization within European societies – and more globally between countries – will certainly increase, and with it the danger of social and political destabilization. 74 Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu This situation is even more precarious for Europe’s more ‘peripheral’ economies. As Petmesidou and Guillén (2014) argue, the effects of the 2008– 2011 economic crisis were particularly brutal for southern European countries, raising questions as to the sustainability of their welfare regimes. The EU’s ‘post-socialist’ member states were generally not better off, given the low fiscal capacity of their government sectors and large shadow economies (Aidukaite, 2010). Figures5.1 and 5.2 show that in countries where poverty, income inequalities, and housing deprivation are high, state investment in social protection, social inclusion, and housing tends to be lower. While such data require contextual interpretation, they do indicate a divide between old and new member states, particularly in terms of housing expenditure. Eventually, this divergence is not only manifested spatially but reinforced by territorial unevenness, which is deepening as capital and expertise freely move towards areas promising more profit. We cannot delve more deeply into the local-level consequences of these complex issues, given a lack of statistical information for the areas where initiatives addressing spatial injustice were conducted. As the RELOCAL report on the multi-scalar patterns of spatial inequalities showed,4 from the large pool of the targeted countries only Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom had data measuring spatial inequality at multiple geographical scales (Janssen and van Ham, 2018). Regardless of the scale at which they are displayed, the statistical data used reveal territorial inequalities within the EU in poverty, inequalities, and housing deprivation, as well as government spending to reduce them. The RELOCAL national reports5 highlight that rising unemployment rates, persisting long-term unemployment, a weak Figure 5.1 Percentage of government expenditure addressing social exclusion for selected countries, 2018 Source: Eurostat Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 75 economic infrastructure, low incomes, and shrinking cities and rural areas as a result of de-industrialization and youth outmigration are issues in all the EU member states where our research was conducted. Concerning city-level territorial disparities, the Report on Multiscalar Patterns of Inequalities6 – comparing the patterns of spatial inequality at the lowest spatial scale across Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands – saw the highest level of segregation in Finland and the lowest in the Netherlands, and considered that a possible explanation for this was the large social housing sector in the Netherlands, with social housing available in a large proportion of neighbourhoods. What is lacking is effective territorial development policies that might equalize the disparities driven by the logic of capital accumulation, resulting from the concentration of capital and productivity in certain core areas of the EU. We therefore apply an interpretation of this situation through the prism of neoliberal governance. Indeed, it should be mentioned that the persistence of unevenness across the EU member states in what, despite the cohesion policy, can be termed a competition union, may be explained by the spatial fix underlying the historical process of EU-fication, alongside the structural tension between the economic and social policies practised by the European Union (see Vincze, 2021). Varieties of neoliberal governance across countries The sources for the analysis from this section are the RELOCAL reports that conducted a comparative investigation of the case studies from a national perspective.7 Based on them, we highlight in what follows the role of the Figure 5.2 Percentage of government expenditure on housing for selected countries, 2018 Source: Eurostat 76 Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu state, and in particular of neoliberal governance in the (re)production of territorial inequalities. These reports reveal that despite the embeddedness of neoliberal governance in different country-specific types of administrativeterritorial organization, similar patterns of in-country inequalities manifested in space are reproduced. Because our analysis focuses on stigmatization, we selected those countries where case studies were conducted to tackle stigmatization in reducing spatial injustice. From the western and northern core European countries we included Germany, France, and the Netherlands (the creators of the first European economic community), the United Kingdom (which acceded in 1973), and Finland (a latecomer core country, acceding in 1995); and from the southern and eastern peripheries, Spain (acceding in the 1980s), Hungary (acceding in 2004), and Romania (a latecomer member state, acceding in 2007). Of these, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Hungary, and Romania are defined as unitary states undergoing a recent process of decentralization, while Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain display a longer history of decentralized administrative-territorial governance. As the EU country with the best economic indicators and the largest number of multinationals conquering the economies of the European periphery, federal Germany, sustaining a state-based welfare regime or social state, even if weaker than in previous decades, displays disparities among its western and eastern, and northern and southern territories. The RELOCAL case studies reveal how its remote rural areas seek innovative connections with the world (through digitalization), and how youth from cities undergoing depopulation attempt to reinvent local community life through cultural events. The authors of the National Report8 consider – in conditions in which a shift of responsibilities to the local level has recently been observed – that the German social state should not be eroded and should remain accountable for structural inequalities and territorial disparities. Besides, while appreciating what a social city might do, they consider that it would be good to integrate successful civil initiatives in higher-level structures. Nevertheless, it would also be necessary for dispersed grassroots projects to be coordinated by an overarching public administration structure. In the recent decades of neoliberalism, the centralized republic of France has undergone successive waves of decentralization. Yet the French ideal of equality has not disappeared from the public sphere but has seen several transformations. The century-old principle of l’égalité des territoires, which recognized the value of each space due to their specific contribution to the economy as a whole, has been transformed in the conditions of decentralization and de-industrialization into the idea of the competitive regulation of territorial cooperation. The new role of the state in this context is to launch nationally led thematic initiatives to support local development and provide related financial schemes. The analysed French cases displayed top-down and bottom-up initiatives. One was more focused on improving procedural justice in the metropolitan government; the other implemented a housing Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 77 project in a severely declining region. The authors of the National Report9 ask if greater autonomy assures greater spatial justice. They conclude that in conditions in which the deepened territorial inequalities require committed government redistributive measures, and the real access of those in need to EU regional policy tools and resources is reduced, the French state should plan and coordinate more top-down appropriate measures, even if bottomup case-sensitive local projects should also continue to be supported from the public budget. Centralized government in the United Kingdom began to undergo devolution in the 1970s, so the analysed RELOCAL cases in Scotland and England were already affected by the particularities of the different national contexts. Nevertheless, after the 2008–2009 crisis, the central government of the United Kingdom disbanded the regional levels of government and promoted the distribution of EU funds to initiatives with a strong business focus. The authors of the National Report10 note that beyond these changing trends it was the neoliberal welfare regime and austerity-led reduction in the public sector that created a huge need in both territories to tackle – via project-based interventions – structural spatial problems. The analysed English local action therefore aimed to halt homelessness in conditions of high rents, insecure tenancies, and insufficient social housing, while the Scottish initiative created a community land trust to empower low-income people from disadvantaged areas. In the relatively small Netherlands11 the switch to decentralization that started around 2015 resulted among others changes in a shift from the former urban restructuring policy, which was characterized by a top-down national policy framework and hundreds of millions of euros of investment capital from housing associations and other actors. With the significant budget cuts and reforms in policies regarding youth and elderly care, education, and employment, in the domain of housing and urban regeneration, this change also meant that local governments turned more to ‘the market’ for housing construction and area upgrading. The actions studied by RELOCAL case studies observed that in both Rotterdam and Groningen the stakeholders currently identified a set of spatial injustice-related problems that were of a magnitude that local policies and resources alone were deemed insufficient to address. Consequently, both localities are now the target area of a ‘national programme’. In the RELOCAL project, Sweden and Finland12 represent society-based/ social democratic welfare regimes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis in the late 1980s saw the introduction of several neoliberal policies from the beginning of the 1990s. In the last three decades, they have therefore seen the growth of large inequalities. The Accession Treaty for Sweden and Finland to join the EU in 1995 included a special provision to promote the development and structural adjustment for Northern Sparsely Populated Areas. One of the Finnish case studies that also had an anti-stigmatization component was a community-led development initiative implemented in the city of Kotka. 78 Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu Its beneficiaries were the young, unemployed, and immigrants, as well as other disadvantaged groups facing issues such as high levels of morbidity, substance abuse, and mental health problems. The Kotka case represents the larger EU-inspired recent trend of place-based strategies for local development, and despite its many empowering effects, it also displays the limits of the local level in addressing spatial injustice, because both the problems they seek to address and the actions themselves are governed by multiple levels. Since 1978 Spain has been divided into seventeen autonomous communities and two autonomous cities as a way of recognizing the right to selfgovernment of the ‘nationalities and regions’. The autonomous communities have wide legislative and executive autonomy which is enacted through their parliaments and regional governments. The authors of the National Report13 observe that urban growth in Spain between 1960 and 1975 created several disadvantaged and under-urbanized neighbourhoods, with poor communications with the rest of the locality, and suffering from an infrastructure deficit and socio-spatial segregation. In time, many of these neighbourhoods became increasingly abandoned and marginalized, and these disadvantages were only partly overcome by people’s struggle to improve their conditions. After 1990 the local administrations, pressurized by civil society, began to improve infrastructure and services in mostly declining rural areas to increase the opportunities for regional development. Nevertheless, what has subsequently happened seems insufficient, and the targeted rural areas’ populations continue to decrease each year, which in turn triggers an increase of territorial inequalities across all the autonomous communities. Experts agree that one of the most important policy domains to focus on in urban areas should be housing, because difficult access to housing is one of the key factors leading to the increase of social inequality in today’s Spain. Housing is also the target of civil society organizations. The ‘Sindicat de Llogaters’ in Barcelona fights for fair rents in the city; ‘Santa Coloma – Renovem els barris’ is a project to improve housing stock in a street in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona; ‘Habitatges en cessió d’ús’ is a project through which the Barcelona City Council facilitates access to land to be used for housing cooperatives; and ‘Fundació Hàbitat 3’ is a private foundation that manages housing to support social inclusion in Barcelona. Following the fall of state socialism in Hungary,14 the 1990s were characterized by an emphasis on local democracy and the elimination of central state control in local affairs, while the funding allocated for the provision of public services did not cover the real costs of their maintenance. In parallel with this, the emergence of the market economy brought about new patterns of spatial inequalities that have been characterized by growing territorial disparities triggered by a structural crisis (the cessation of mining, decline of light and heavy industry, and dissolution of large-scale cooperative farms). The early decentralization trend was followed by a recentralization process that began in the early 2000s. With regard to territorial policies, a Government Decree from 2007 launched the ‘Most Disadvantaged Micro-Regions’ Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 79 programme, which targeted the development of these extremely deprived territories. In 2010 the conservative/right-wing government began intensive centralization in public policymaking by pulling administrative and executive functions away from local government in all policy areas. By 2012–2013 local government reform was especially devastating for peripheral/marginalized settlements and regions, characterized by the heavy outward migration of their competent professional elite. The two actions analysed by RELOCAL in Hungary that targeted stigmatization were implemented from 2007 under these changing national contexts, focusing on segregated areas suffering from deep poverty. The actions studied by RELOCAL in Romania have taken place in the context of the country’s major transformation in the last three decades, that is, the transformation of actually existing socialism into neoliberal capitalism, which have aggravated previous manifestations of unfairness and created new ones. The processes of privatization, marketization, the formation of the banking sector, and the reduction of social expenditure were conditions for Romania’s accession to the European Union and/or for gaining loans from international financial organizations. The author of the National Report15 observes that Romania’s competitive advantage on the stage of global capitalism is the low cost of its labour force, its market for imported products, and as a territory open to foreign capital investment. Regarding the territorial distribution of several socioeconomic problems, statistical data show that Romania entered the ‘transition’ with a relatively low level of regional disparity compared with other new member states, but that these disparities have rapidly increased. Territorial planning aims to support the dominant developmental trends in the country, sustaining the model of polycentric development and the agglomeration of economic activities in a few big cities. In this system, the ‘magnet cities’ compete to attract capital and demonstrate their entrepreneurial capacities. The country’s administrative-territorial organization remained unchanged after 1990 in the sense that the localities and the counties continue to be the units where decisions are taken by the elected deliberative bodies, but the whole system of public administration underwent a process of decentralization. However, new forms of territorial governance that lack administrative/political attributes have been formed to absorb EU funds. The four case studies conducted in Romania highlight several manifestations of spatial injustice such as the persistent residential segregation of the Roma, informal housing, declining rural areas in former mining territories, and the underdevelopment of some urban areas in the capital. The RELOCAL case study reports reveal that government representatives, whether national, regional, or local, did not consider using the concept of spatial injustice to uncover inequalities within their territories, but they mostly preferred to use the terms disparities or differences. Nevertheless, as the investigations revealed, people from the deprived or underdeveloped territories and grassroots-action stakeholders shared a strong sense of injustice, 80 Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu expressed in a sense of being left behind by their cities, states, and/or by Europe. Besides, the interviewed representatives of governing stakeholders expressed an official optimism about the great potential of EU funding to tackle this phenomenon. Nevertheless, in all the cases covered earlier, the means of project-based interventions proved too weak in the face of the historically formed socioeconomic inequalities, accumulated over time in particular territories, that is, in spaces where economies and people have suffered most from the economic transformations of the last five decades of neoliberal capitalism. The actions (projects, strategies, programmes) tackling manifestations of spatial injustice could therefore make available more resources to more people during their lifetime (slightly compensating the deficits created as a result of the collapsing government redistribution system, economic congestion, and the lack of proper incomes); and/or could create in the actions’ participants a sense of increased procedural justice in immediate community life, however ephemeral and formal this was in many cases. Nevertheless, they could not induce structural changes in either form of justice. Making and unmaking stigmatization in local contexts In this section, we make a comparative analysis of how stigmatization was made and unmade in the local contexts analysed by the RELOCAL case studies. We understand stigma as a contextual product that marks the negative differentiation of an entity (country, city, neighbourhood, people) from the perception of the mainstream’s ‘normality’ in society at large. This differentiation is not a simple semantic act, but a practice of classification and hierarchization with severe material effects. In what follows, starting from the already listed RELOCAL case studies, we describe comparatively what/who is stigmatized in different contexts, and how the stigmas are defined. What/who is stigmatized? By scanning the selected RELOCAL case studies, we could observe a recurrence of particular groups that were affected by spatial injustice and its associated stigmatization. Although they were constituted in different local contexts via specific economic processes, social relations, and institutional/ policy arrangements, one may use the following typology to highlight their occurrence across localities: a) Former working class. Our research covered cases of miners who had lost their jobs due to the decline of the mining industry. Nevertheless, the unemployed from other branches of bankrupt industries also belong to this category of the stigmatized (FR 17, HU 14, RO 26). b) Immigrants. Some of the RELOCAL cases described how, on arrival in the host country, immigrants lacked good material and social capital, and Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 81 ended up living in deprived areas with low living costs (ES 8, ES 9, FI 12, NL 20, UK 32). They often failed to leave these neighbourhoods, lacking access to the resources of the majority/native population. c) Historically stigmatized minorities. The RELOCAL research displayed many examples of impoverished Roma being settled in segregated communities as a result of their multiple dislocations and their rejection by the majority society. They often lived on the outskirts of localities (RO 25, RO 27, ES 9, HU 13, HU 14) in informal and infrastructurally underdeveloped settlements. Moreover, the stigmatization of the Roma has a long history, linked to the production and maintenance of their inferior status, marginalization, and violations of their rights (Lucassen etal., 2008). d) Young people with a low level of school education. Very often they are the second or third generation of the inhabitants of deprived areas whose material conditions and stigmatization are great obstacles to any sociospatial mobility. Trapped in the vicious circle of such socioeconomic contexts, people are subjected to intergenerationally reproduced marginalization (ES 8, FI 12, DE 2, UK 31, RO 25, RO 27). Nevertheless, we could observe that many actions studied by the RELOCAL research targeted youth, because they were considered a potential key in the process of disrupting marginalization and stigmatization at the level of the whole community to which they belonged. e) Specific vulnerable groups (such as drug users). The RELOCAL case studies focused less on this category (except UK 32, ES 8, FI 12), but wherever they were subjected to stigmatization it was observed that such practices were ways people attempted to escape from their severely depressing realities. Yet even if drugs are widespread across social groups and classes, their most negative association is with deprived areas. How are stigmas defined? The case studies illustrate that injustice was recreated in time and space at local levels, as well as the ways in which the inhabitants affected by it were associated with stigmas. In their turn, the latter were defined by some negative characteristics associated with the places where people lived, their ethnicity, social background, jobs, and other elements that placed them in particular positions in the overall local socioeconomic and spatial structure. Interviews revealed that regardless of the specificity of the local contexts, some terms associated with the categories described in the previous section of our analysis or their places of living occurred repeatedly: ‘different’; ‘underdeveloped’; ‘negative reputation’; ‘behavioural difficulties’; ‘poor population’; ‘disadvantaged’; ‘low income’; ‘uneducated’; ‘poor conditions’; ‘survival mode’; ‘sewage drain’; ‘uneducated’; ‘peripheral’; ‘penal’. Below we describe a list of utterances used by the majority society and public authorities to identify stigmatized spaces and inhabitants, which, 88 Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu homogeneous (as a result of which the subject of the stigmatized is created) and applying the stigmas associated with them to each of the individuals, (self-)perceived through their belonging to such collectives. When an individual is an inhabitant for a long time of a stigmatized area, he/she is blamed by several actors/stakeholders. Stigma is interconnected with historical contexts that may change over time, but once it is installed, it is strongly connected with structural inequalities and contributes to their intergenerational transmission (Frost, 2011). Stigma prevents individuals belonging to a group taking a full part in the life of the community, but even more, the whole group comes to be identified with the stigma itself over time. Finally, the analysed RELOCAL cases reveal that spatially manifested stigmatization is always shaped over a long period (Horgan, 2018: 503). We therefore conclude it is both a spatial and temporal, as well as a material and symbolic, process. It includes a history of marginalization resulting from racialized and class-based inequalities and denigration, but also from poorly considered or implemented policies that reinforce instead of tackling the latter. Furthermore, if the dispossession of a territory of developmental resources is longer because of structural causes, its stigmatization linked to the supposedly natural features of the territory and/or cultural/biological characteristics of the inhabitants becomes stronger, and its unmaking is more difficult. In such cases, the role of stigmatization in reproducing injustice is also definite among others because of how its impact leads policymakers and politicians wrongly decide that people do not deserve to be invested in or to live where they do. When stakeholders consider spatial disparities as natural manifestations and not inequalities produced by economic policy or manifestations of injustice, stigmatization not only justifies the status quo but also plays a political role in the (re)production of the structural disadvantages of particular territories and their inhabitants. Figure 5.4 Links between actions promoting spatial justice and stigmatization Source: Authors Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 89 Notes 1 Situating the RELOCAL cases: Cross-comparative analysis of country perspectives on spatial justice, January2020. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2020/06/D-6.4-RELOCAL-Situating-the-Cases_Final_20200130.pdf. 2 According to the RELOCAL key (see Chapters1 and 8), the case studies dealt with here are: ES 8 – Action Plan for the Promotion of Quality of Life in a Segregated Neighbourhood, Premià de Dalt; ES 9 – La Mina Neighbourhood Transformation Plan, Barcelona; FI 12 – Community-led local development, Kotka; HU 13 – Give Kids a Chance programme, Encs; HU 14 – Ten Years of Urban Regeneration in a Poor Neighbourhood, György-telep; FR 17 – Euralens, Pas-deCalais; NL 20 – Rotterdam South: Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid, Rotterdam; DE 2 – Second Attempt: Centre for Youth and Socioculture, Görlitz; UK 31 – Northumberland Uplands Local Action Group, Northumberland; UK 32 – AHomelessness Project: The PLACE/Ladywell ‘pop-up village’, Lewisham; RO 25 – The Pata Cluj project, Cluj-Napoca, and RO 27 – The Mălin-Codlea project, Braşov County. Available at: https://relocal.eu/all-cases/. 3 Available at: https://relocal.eu/all-cases-2/. 4 Available at: https://relocal.eu/multi-scalar-patterns-of-inequalities/. Accessed 31 August2021. 5 National reports are available on the project website at: https://relocal.eu/allcases-2/. 6 National reports are available from the project website at: https://relocal.eu/ multi-scalar-patterns-of-inequalities/. 7 Available at: https://relocal.eu/all-cases-2/. Accessed 30 August2021. 8 Kamuf, V., Matzke, F. L., Weck, S.& Warnecke, L. National report Germany. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/09/RELOCALNational-Report_Germany.pdf. 9 Evrard, E.& Blondel, C. National report France. Available at: https://relocal.eu/ wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RELOCAL-National-Report_France.pdf. 10 Brooks, E., Currie, M., Wilson, R., Copus, A., Pinker, A., Madanipour, A.& Shucksmith, M. National report United Kingdom. Available at: https://relocal. eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RELOCAL-National-Report_Scotland-and-Eng land-CHECKED-FINAL.pdf. 11 Kleinhans, R. National report The Netherlands. Available at: https://relocal.eu/ wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RELOCAL-National-Report_Netherlands.pdf. 12 Löfving, L., Borén, T., Heleniak, T.& Norlén, G. National report Sweden comparing Västerbotten and Stockholm from a spatial justice perspective. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RELOCAL-National-Report_ Sweden.pdf. 13 Biosca, O.& Noguera, L. National report Spain. Available at: https://relocal.eu/ wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RELOCAL-National-Report_Spain.pdf. 14 Jelinek, C., Keller, J., Kovács, K. in collaboration with Tagai, G.& Virág, T. National report Hungary. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/10/RELOCAL_National-Report_Hungary_AD_Checked.pdf. 15 Vincze, E. National report. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/09/RELOCAL-National-Report_Romania.pdf. References Aidukaite, J. (2010). Welfare reforms in Central and Eastern Europe: Anew type of welfare regime? Ekonomika, 89(4), 1392–1258. https://doi.org/10.15388/ Ekon.2010.0.969. 90 Enikő Vincze, Cristina Elena Bădiţă and Iulia-Elena Hossu Alm, S., Nelson, K. & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2020). The diminishing power of one? Welfare state retrenchment and rising poverty of single-adult households in Sweden, 1988–2011. European Sociological Review, 36(2), 198–217. https://doi. org/10.1093/esr/jcz053. Frost, D. M. (2011). Social stigma and its consequences for the socially stigmatized. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 824–839. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00394.x. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers. Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. New York: Routledge. Harvey, D. (2005). Spaces of neoliberalization: Towards a theory of uneven geographical development. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Horgan, M. (2018). Territorial stigmatization and territorial destigmatization; a cultural sociology of symbolic strategy in the gentrification of Parkdale (Toronto). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(3), 500–517. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12645. Horgan, M. (2020). Housing stigmatization: Ageneral theory. Social Inclusion, 8(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i1.2345. Hubbard, P.& Hall, T. (1998). The entrepreneurial city and the ‘new urban politics’. In T. Hall& P. Hubbard (Eds.), The entrepreneurial city. Geographies of politics, regime and representation (pp.1–23). New York: John Wiley. Iammarino, S., Rodriguez-Pose, A. & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby021. Janssen, H. J.& van Ham, M. (2018). RELOCAL report deliverable D5.2 report on multi-scalar patterns of inequalities. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2018/06/D5.2-Report-on-multi-scalar-patterns-of-spatial-inequalitiesVersion-1-20180531.pdf. Jessop, B. (1997). The entrepreneurial city. Re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital? In N. Jewson& S. MacGregor (Eds.), Transforming cities. Contested governance and new spatial divisions (pp.28–41). London: Routledge. Jessop, B. (2001). Spatial fixes, temporal fixes, and spatio-temporal fixes. United Kingdom: Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. Available at: https:// www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/jessop-spatiotemporal-fixes.pdf. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: Astate-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00250. Kallin, H.& Slater, T. (2014). Activating territorial stigma: Gentrifying marginality on Edinburgh’s periphery. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1351–1368. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45634. Lucassen, L., Willems, W. & Cottaar, A-M. (2008). Gypsies and other itinerant groups: Asocio-historical approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Petmesidou, M.& Guillén, A. M. (2014). Can the welfare state as we know it survive? Aview from the crisis-ridden South European periphery. South European Society and Politics, 19(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2014.95 0369. Stigmatization and cultural foundations of spatial injustice 91 Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76(4), 147–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. progress.2011.09.001. Slater, T. (2015). Territorial stigmatization: Symbolic defamation and the contemporary metropolis. In J. Hannigan& G. Richards (Eds.), The handbook of new urban studies (pp.111–126). London: Sage Publications. Smith, N. [1984] (2010). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. Smith, N. (2006). The geography of uneven development. In B. Dunn& H. Radice (Eds.), 100years of permanent revolution. Results and prospects (pp.180–196). London: Pluto Press. Soja, E. (2011a). Spatial justice and the right to the city: An interview with Edward Soja. Spatial Justice, 3. Soja, E. (2011b). The city and spatial justice. Spatial Justice, 1. Vincze, E. (2021). Uneven EUfication, the spatial fix and the dominance of economic over the social policies. Studia Sociologia, 65(LXV), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.2478/ subbs-2020-0006. Wacquant, L. (2007). Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven, 91(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0725513607082003/. Wacquant, L., Slater, T.& Borges Pereira, V. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1068 %2Fa4606ge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-8 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Introduction Economic, social, and territorial cohesion has been a fundamental policy norm of the European integration process since the 1957 Treaty of Rome. As an overarching policy goal, it has been stipulated in a number of EU documents, most recently in the new Territorial Agenda 2030, which views territorial cohesion as one of its central priorities for a just Europe (Informal meeting of Ministers responsible for spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion, 2020). The notion of a ‘just Europe’ is derived from the concept of spatial justice. Academic discussions have defined spatial justice as the distribution of resources and opportunities (distributive justice), linked to fair and transparent decision-making about resources (procedural justice) (Pirie, 1983; Israel and Frenkel, 2017; Madanipour etal., 2022). The implementation of spatial justice is envisioned by commentators and EU policy documents through place-based policies that promote participative procedures for the more equitable distribution of public resources (European Commission, 2011; Camagni and Capello, 2015; Madanipour etal., 2022; Weck etal., 2022). Since its inception in the Barca report (2009), the place-based approach has become the mainstream policy tool of the EU’s cohesion policy. The ‘new paradigm of regional policy’ proposed to tackle persistent patterns of social exclusion and the underutilization of potential through the provision of ‘integrated bundles of public goods and services aimed at triggering institutional change’ (Barca, 2009: XI). The place-based approach contends that national governments and top-down strategies have limited capacities to design good local policies to address challenges perceived at the local level. The ownership of development is best advanced locally through the deliberation of local stakeholders (Keller and Virág, 2022). This chapter aims to contribute to discussions on the relationship between local perceptions of spatial (in)justice and place-based policy efforts. It investigates the extent to which local perceptions of spatial injustice (access to public services, employment possibilities, demographic decline, spatial isolation, 6 Drivers of place-based community development Perceptions of spatial injustice and the role of institutionally embedded responses Judit Keller and Tünde Virág Drivers of place-based community development 93 stigmatization, etc.) are reflected in place-based policy responses. Perceptions of spatial justice are related to local citizens’ wellbeing. Drawing on Amartya Sen’s capability approach (1999), the Barca report argues that an individual’s perceptions of wellbeing are multidimensional and ‘are largely determined by the success or failure of public institutions to provide public goods and services ... [in] healthcare, education, housing, law and order, working conditions, transport services and so on’ (Barca, 2009: 32). Since perceptions of wellbeing and individual contentment are place-based, interventions to combat challenges to wellbeing should also be place-based (Barca, 2009). Contrary to this proposition, empirical evidence in RELOCAL case studies suggest that counteracting spatial injustice depends not only on the ‘place’ and localized actions but also on the policy regimes within which they are embedded. The variety of place-based actions featuring in RELOCAL case studies were embedded in the heterogenous institutional environment of RELOCAL states and accommodated the logic of placebased interventions in different ways. The post-crisis structural trends and meta-level governance architecture of individual RELOCAL countries influenced the implementation of place-based actions. While the former demonstrates similar trends in RELOCAL countries in the aftermath of the global economic crisis, the latter displays diversity in states’ commitment to subsidiarity, partnership, integrated policy mechanisms, and support for place-based actions. We often found a mismatch between perceptions of injustice, local desires for change, available resources, and support mechanisms provided within systems of multilevel governance. These findings suggest that the long-term success and potential upscaling of place-based interventions often depend on the existence of ‘benevolent state’ policies committed to principles of spatial justice. In the absence of such commitments and strong local capacities for community action, the state can in fact co-opt place-based initiatives to promote national policy objectives rather than furthering social cohesion. We ground our analysis in theories that view development as institutional change (cf. Sen, 1999; Evans, 2004; Rodrik, 1999). According to this approach, development is about ‘the enhancement of freedom’ (Sen, 1999: 37) inherently requiring the elicitation of local knowledge through participation and public discussion. Defining developmental goals adequately and exercising capabilities require deliberative institutions such as joint planning, problem-solving, and strategizing (Fung and Wright, 2003). Deliberative institutions can thrive in governance that describes the relationship and different forms of interaction between diverse societal and institutional actors (Pierre, 2014). Discussions of governance consider the distribution of power and resources, and how they influence collective action (Pierre, 2014) by studying formal and informal, public and private, and regulatory and normative mechanisms. Ultimately, governance reviews who can have a say, and what counts, in joint planning. 94 Judit Keller and Tünde Virág Awareness of multiple actors in development is related to state rescaling processes (Brenner, 1999) and the resulting complex contingencies in which localities are embedded (Piattoni, 2010; Pierre, 2011). The array of vertical institutional scales (transnational, central state, regional, local) and horizontal relationships in which cities are entrenched prompts governance to be sensitive to both formal institutions and less institutionalized interactions (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Pierre, 2014). Formal institutions define the rules of the game, while ‘effective practice’ (Sen, 1999: 159) and ‘institutional arrangements’ (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013: 1037) denote local, potentially less institutionalized, solutions shaped by local actors who always retain the capacity to interpret rules. Studies of governance have underlined that stable developmental results require interventions to be embedded in an institutional framework that endows local actors ‘from above’ with capacities to mobilize institutional resources ‘from below’ (Trigilia, 2001: 439). The multi-level governance system of the EU enables the European Union, member states, and regional authorities to set policy directions that local actors can implement through funding within a regulatory system for integrated policies. However, the diversity of national institutional environments in EU member states results in there being no uniform way for the ‘effective practice’ of place-based interventions (European Commission, 2015). The effects of place-based actions largely depend on the coherence of multiple levels of governance (Pike etal., 2007). In member states with an experience of and/or a strong central state commitment to collective action, a solid regulatory framework, and a financial commitment to principles of (spatial) justice in public policies, place-based interventions fare better (Avdikos and Chardas, 2016). In member states that lack the central state’s financial and regulatory commitment to partnership, deliberative governance, and the equitable distribution of public goods, place-based interventions may struggle (Andreotti and Mingione, 2016; Keller and Virág, 2019). The analysis draws on selected case studies of the RELOCAL project, which studied place-based actions in deprived urban neighbourhoods. The RELOCAL case studies were compiled using a common methodology for comparative purposes. The inductive process-centred approach of the case study research sought to discern the complexities and contradictions in manifestations of spatial justice (Weck and Kamuf, 2020). Localities were understood as places in which power relations, processes, and the experiences of spatial injustice could be understood and investigated at different geographical scales (Weck and Kamuf, 2020). Almost a third of the RELOCAL case studies were concerned with deprived urban neighbourhoods (DE 2, ES 8, ES 9, FI 12, HU 14, NL 20, RO 25, RO 27, RO 28, UK 32). The vulnerable development position of marginalized neighbourhoods was tackled through hybrid action, mixing communitydriven bottom-up initiatives with externally (state-) driven, top-down actions. CP and other transnational instruments played an important role in financing Drivers of place-based community development 95 some of these place-based interventions. This chapter presents the main findings of these case studies through an in-depth analysis of a series of integrated urban development projects targeting a poor neighbourhood in György-telep, Hungary. Our choice of György-telep was driven by our familiarity with this case study site, where we conducted extensive sociological fieldwork between June2018 and February2019. We collected and analysed documents and articles, and statistical data about the neighbourhood. In what follows, we first present the perceptions of spatial injustice in relation to other localities/scales as they appeared in RELOCAL case studies of deprived urban neighbourhoods. This is followed by an overview of structural trends in RELOCAL states in the aftermath of the global economic crisis. In the next section, we present findings derived from urban development projects through an in-depth analysis of the series of integrated urban development projects that took place in György-telep. In the final section, we draw some lessons and present a conclusion. Perceptions of spatial injustice RELOCAL case studies give an account of local actions attempting to temper and remedy diverse challenges to citizens’ wellbeing. The concept of wellbeing has been of interest to philosophy and the social sciences for centuries. For Aristotle ‘being well’ and living a good life meant achieving one’s fullest potential of knowledge, health, friendship, wealth, etc. (Western and Tomaszewski, 2016). In recent decades studies have posited a multidimensional definition of wellbeing, based on subjective and objective perceptions of ‘living a good life’. Subjective wellbeing is linked to people’s own assessment of their lives and their perceptions of their conditions. Objective wellbeing is related to the individual’s capabilities of living the life they value by having the freedom to choose between various ‘doings and beings’ such as bodily health and integrity, the exercise of reason and autonomy with respect to one’s own life, flourishing through education, and social and political participation (Sen, 1999; Nussbaum, 2000). Subjective and objective wellbeing is closely intertwined: people’s own perceptions of their conditions may not have an ‘actual’ objective measurement, since it is they alone who can provide information on their state and values. However, the enhancement of people’s capabilities may improve their perceptions of their lives, even if it does not trigger greater subjective wellbeing (Sen, 1999; Stiglitz etal., 2009). Wellbeing occurs when individuals ‘have the psychological, social and physical resources they need to meet a particular psychological, social and/ or physical challenge’ (Dodge etal., 2012: 230). These resources may be economic, such as income and consumption products, and non-economic, such as opportunities for people in health, education, work, political voice, social connections, etc. These resources – as well as the constraints that challenge them – are manifested in people’s lives within the social space of their communities, that 96 Judit Keller and Tünde Virág is, through the locality in which they live. The fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and opportunities to use them constitutes spatial justice (Soja, 2009). Recent interpretations of spatial justice have drawn on a relational understanding of space and its linkages to social processes (Shucksmith etal., 2021). These approaches have defined spatial justice as geographical distribution of social benefits and burdens; as access to space as a condition of possibility for decent living; as the processes of spatial formation and production that consolidate and generate unequal social relations; and as temporality of spatial justice across and between generations. (Madanipour etal., 2022: 324) Thus, the distribution of resources and the procedures to use them are not exclusively tied to the locality, but are inherently shaped by objective/structural variables such as key aspects of governance (e.g. rule of law, legislative guarantees, power mechanisms, transparent and fair decision-making processes) or the state’s regulatory capacity to uphold social cohesion across different localities, scales, and social groups and to guarantee ‘citizens’ rights independently of the local conditions in which a person is embedded’ (Andreotti etal., 2012). The RELOCAL case studies enumerate this relational understanding of spatial justice and the interlinked subjective and objective perceptions of wellbeing through dual semantic structures within local narratives. Dualities presented on different scales compare localities with other more desirable places in terms of (a) urban-rural divisions, typically when rural localities are compared with capital cities or regional centres, (b) differences between neighbourhoods within cities, and (c) differences between more and less prosperous regions. These comparisons express how stakeholders position their locality in the broader space, how they perceive and explain injustice, and what they define as the reference point for the locality’s desired future development trajectory. The spatial position of localities was generally related to the intertwined effects of larger structural shifts (deindustrialization and crisis-related economic restructuring) and migration patterns. Domestic mobility and different migration waves affected urban and rural areas differently: as certain territories lost their economic significance, they slid down the hierarchy of places (within a city, or within a larger regional/national setting), and selective migration processes occurred. Although they affected local societies differently, the downward spiral of a parallel economic and social downturn was usually reinforced by stigmatization. Several case studies described the historical trajectory through which disadvantaged neighbourhoods were produced. As a common meta-trend, the production of disadvantaged neighbourhoods Drivers of place-based community development 97 was connected with larger structural shifts, most importantly to deindustrialization and economic restructuring. In urban areas, the historical significance of the mass immigration of lower-status households was often mentioned as a factor resulting in local tensions and in the production of disadvantaged segregated neighbourhoods. Another important element in these historical narratives was immigration: as certain territories lost their economic significance, and as they were filtered down in the hierarchy of places (within a city or a larger regional/national setting), households of a lower status moved into the neighbourhood. This parallel economic and social downturn is usually reinforced by stigmatization. The production of disadvantaged neighbourhoods thus seems inseparable from larger structural processes of uneven development (see Hadjimichalis, 2011; Vincze and Zamfir, 2019). While in each case there were different combinations of these socioeconomic factors, local perceptions of spatial (in)justice in RELOCAL case studies were always related to challenges of wellbeing generated by structural trends. Perceptions of spatial injustice could be clustered around three dimensions: (1) access to public services and the quality of governance structures supporting this access; (2) employment possibilities; (3) stigmatization and other labelling processes. In the majority of the localities, there was a clear demand for better access to basic public services such as education and healthcare. In urban areas, manifestations of differences in the quality of services within the city were connected to the existence of segregated, impoverished neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, challenges in access to various institutions were cited in both rural and urban localities, which indicates that the dysfunctionality of public services and basic infrastructure provisions is a crucial aspect of spatial (in)justice. Perceptions of injustice related to the lack of employment possibilities are derived from processes of deindustrialization and the subsequent disappearance of old employment possibilities in ‘traditional’ blue-collar sectors such as the mining and textile industries. Although in these localities people with low and/or very specific educational attainment felt ‘left behind’ (FR 17–18, GR 3–5, HU 14, NL 20, ES 9, PL 21, RO26), local perceptions of being ‘left behind’ varied according to the locality’s positionality. Differences depended on whether the entire surrounding region (EL3, RO26), the whole locality (FR17), or just one part (a neighbourhood) of the locality (ES8, NL20, RO25, RO28) was affected by economic decline. Perceptions of having been ‘left behind’ were also triggered by selective outmigration. Selective job-related outmigration from rural to urban regions, particularly of younger and well-educated people that led to a constantly shrinking population and ageing, was also often perceived as ‘being left behind’ (cf. German, Polish, Finnish, Hungarian, and Romanian cases). The third most frequently cited perception of spatial injustice was stigmatization and negative labelling, which appeared at the interplay of remoteness, social and demographic polarization, and fragmentation in the most disadvantaged rural and urban localities. Based on negative discourses and 104 Judit Keller and Tünde Virág initiatives within the EU’s multi-level regulatory framework, in which domestic political/institutional constellations can have a more marked influence on local development than the catalysing effects of the place-based approach in a multi-level governance system. In the absence of domestic commitments and strong local capacities for community action, the state can in fact coopt place-based initiatives to promote national policy objectives instead of furthering social cohesion. References Andreotti, A.& Mingione, E. (2016). Local welfare systems in Europe and the economic crisis: European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 252–266. https://doi. org/10.1177%2F0969776414557191. Andreotti, A., Mingione, E.& Polizzi, E. (2012). Local welfare systems: Achallenge for social cohesion. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1925–1940. https://doi.org/10.1177 %2F0042098012444884. Avdikos, V.& Chardas, A. (2016). European Union Cohesion Policy post-2014: More (place-based and conditional) growth – less redistribution and cohesion. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2014.992460. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. Aplace-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/future/pdf/report_ barca_v0306.pdf. Accessed 24 February2021. Brenner, N. (1999). Globalisation as reterritorialisation: The re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union. Urban Studies, 36, 431–451. https://doi. org/10.1080/0042098993466. Bressaud, S., Patti, D.& Tosics, I. (2019). Local Pact for priority neighbourhoods: Anew approach for tackling urban poverty. URBACT Policy Paper. Available at: https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/urbact_capitalisation_local_pact_2020.pdf. Bruszt, L. (2007). Multi-level governance – The eastern versions emerging patterns of regional developmental governance in the new member states. EUI Working Papers, SPS No. 2007/13. Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/7672/ SPS-2007-13.PDF. Camagni, R.& Capello, R. (2015). Rationale and design of EU cohesion policies in a period of crisis, Regional Science Policy& Practice, 7(1), 25–47. https://doi. org/10.1111/rsp3.12047. Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J.& Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222–235. doi:10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4. European Commission (2011). The territorial agenda of the European Union 2020. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2015). Territorial agenda 2020 put in practice: Enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of Cohesion Policy by a place-based approach. Volume I – synthesis report. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/ what/territorial-cohesion/territorial_agenda_2020_practice_report.pdf. European Commission (2017). My region, my Europe, our future. Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Brussels: European Commission. Drivers of place-based community development 105 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/ cohesion7/7cr.pdf. Evans, P. (2004). Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 4, 30–52. Fung, A.& Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso. Hadjimichalis, C. (2011). Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial justice and solidarity: European regions after the 2009 financial crisis. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(3), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776411404873. Israel, E.& Frenkel, A. (2017). Social justice and spatial inequality: Toward a conceptual framework. Progress in Human Geography, 42(5), 647–665. https://doi. org/10.1177/0309132517702969. Jelinek, C.& Virág, T. (2019). György-telep: Ten years of urban regeneration in a poor neighbourhood, Hungary. RELOCAL Case Study No. 14/33. Available at: https://relocal.eu/gyorgy-telep. Jelinek, C. S., Keller, J.& Kovács, K. (2019). RELOCAL deliverable 6.2 national report: Hungary. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Keller, J.& Virág, T. (2019). Possibilities and constraints of place-based development pro-jects to temper hierarchical dependencies in a deprived neighbourhood. Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, 13, 11–22. Available at: https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/ up-loads/2019/10/JSSJ_13_4_KELLER_VIRAG_EN1.pdf. Keller, J.& Virág, T. (2022). Adrop in the sea or catalyst for change: Diverse effects of the place-based approach in Europe. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 860– 878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928047. Ladner, A., Keuffer, N.& Baldersheim, H. (2016). Self-rule index for local communities. Final report. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate General for Urban and Regional Policy. https://doi.org/10.2776/432291. Madanipour, A., Shucksmith, M.& Brooks, E. (2022). The concept of spatial justice and the European Union’s territorial cohesion. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 807–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928040. Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development and/or Territorial Cohesion (2020). Territorial Agenda 2030. Afuture for all places. Available at: https://www.territorialagenda.eu/files/agenda_theme/agenda_data/Territorial%20 Agenda%20documents/TerritorialAgenda2030_201201.pdf. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piattoni, S. (2010). The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, theoretical, and normative challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pierre, J. (2011). Rethinking comparative urban politics: From urban regime theory to urban governance? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1909759 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1909759. Pierre, J. (2014). Can urban regimes travel in time and space? Urban regime theory, urban governance theory, and comparative urban politics. Urban Affairs Review, 50(6), 864–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087413518175. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A.& Tomaney, J. (2007). What kind of local and regional development and for whom? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1253–1269. https://doi. org/10.1080/00343400701543355. 106 Judit Keller and Tünde Virág Pirie, G. H. (1983). On spatial justice. Environment and Planning A, 15(4), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1068/a150465. Rhodes, J. (2012). Stigmatization, space, and boundaries in de-industrial Burnley. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(4), 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.20 11.591406. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies, 47(7), 1034–1047. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2012.748978. Rodrik, D. (1999). Institutions for high-quality growth: What are they and how to acquire them. Paper Presented at IMF Conference on Second-Generation Reforms. Washington, DC, 8–9 November. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shucksmith, M., Brooks, E.& Madanipour, A. (2021). LEADER and spatial justice. Sociologica Ruralis, 61(2), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12334. Slater, T. (2013). Your life chances affect where you live: Acritique of the “cottage industry” of neighbourhood effects research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2013.01215.x. Soja, E. (2009). The city and spatial justice. Justice Spatiale|Spatial Justice, (1) September. Available at: http://www.jssj.org. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A.& Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Available at: www. stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr. Telle, S., Špaček, M.& Crăciun, D. (2019). Divergent paths to cohesion: The (unintended) consequences of a place-based cohesion policy. In T. Lang& F. Görmar (Eds.), Regional and local development in times of polarisation. New geographies of Europe. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-13-1190-1_7. Trigilia, C. (2001). Social capital and local development. European Journal of Social Theory, 4(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310122225244. Vincze, E.& Zamfir, G. (2019). Racialized housing unevenness in Cluj-Napoca under capitalist redevelopment. City, 23(4–5), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/136048 13.2019.1684078. Virág, T. & Jelinek, C. S. (2019). Development brokers and place-based projects in deprived urban neighbourhoods: The case of Pécs, Hungary. Justice Spatiale/ Spatial Justice, (13), 11–22. Available at: https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/JSSJ_13_4_VIRAG_JELINEK_EN1.pdf. Wacquant, L. (2007). Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven, 91(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513607082003. Weck, S.& Kamuf, V. (2020). Part of RELOCAL deliverable 6.4 comparative case study research in RELOCAL: An overview on the methodology. Dortmund: ILS – Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development/Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Weck, S., Madanipour, A.& Schmitt, P. (2022). Place-based development and spatial justice. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965 4313.2021.1928038. Western, M.& Tomaszewski, W. (2016). Subjective wellbeing, objective wellbeing and inequality in Australia. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0163345. https://doi.org/10.1371/ jour-nal.pone.0163345. DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-9 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Introduction This chapter presents medium-horizon (2018–2030) development scenarios for 33 European localities experiencing spatial injustice at different scales and identifies implications for interventions targeting spatial justice, ranging from public policies to bottom-up initiatives. Anovel methodological approach has been developed (Piras etal., 2022), combining scenario planning and Theory of Change (ToC) approaches (see Serrat, 2017) to assess the internal and external coherence and effectiveness of place-based interventions addressing spatial justice across Europe. This can be a useful tool for monitoring and course-correcting policy interventions during their implementation, and for final evaluation to shape future policies in the same locality or elsewhere. The final goal of the presented analysis was to extract relevant stylized facts that inform us about the mid-term effectiveness of interventions addressing spatial justice, and what is expected to drive or inhibit their success. The notion of spatial justice is simultaneously abstract and complex, and expands the more widely used concept of social justice, incorporating the spatial implications of fairness into a focus on the fair distribution of resources across social groups (see Schmitt and Weck, this volume). According to Soja (2010), the universal and normative character of the theory of justice does not reflect the distribution of inequalities through space, the specifics of different societies and cultures, and the temporal aspect of development in modifying the level of spatial disparities. This author proceeds to argue that despite the equal distribution of socially valued resources across a territory, it is practically impossible to achieve equal access (Soja, 2010). If other factors are added to basic distributional inequality (e.g. institutional inefficiency, budgetary demands, ethnic intolerance, or the abuse of power), inequalities 7 Towards spatial justice across Europe through place-based interventions Lessons learned from considering medium-horizon future scenarios Paulina Tobiasz-Lis, Simone Piras, Karolina Dmochowska-Dudek, Margaret Currie, Dominic Duckett, Andrew Copus, and Marcin Wójcik 108 Paulina Tobiasz-Lis et al. are further accentuated and may be reflected in people’s perceptions of injustice (see Keller and Virág’s discussion in Chapter6). Soja (2010: 5) stresses the interrelation of justice and space, recognizing a dialectical relationship between spatial organization and social processes: ‘spatiality of injustice ... affects society and social life just as much as social processes shape the spatiality or specific geography of injustice’. For the purposes of the EU Horizon 2020 RELOCAL, spatial justice was defined as ‘an equitable spatial distribution of resources and opportunities, and fairness in the relations of power that shape and transform the social space’ (Madanipour etal., 2020: 75). The focus is thus on two main domains: ‘procedures’ (institutions and power mechanisms) and ‘outcomes’ (distribution of resources and opportunities). The EU includes a large diversity of places where place-based interventions addressing spatial justice are implemented. Place-based development strategies have been defined in the Barca Report (Barca, 2009) as ‘longterm strategies aimed at tackling persistent underutilization of potential and reducing persistent social exclusion in specific places through external interventions and multilevel governance’. Such strategies were recognized as more effective than neoliberal space-blind approaches. Thirty-three European interventions were chosen as case studies in the RELOCAL project, either for their relevance to place-based development or as examples of coping strategies for improving living conditions and promoting more balanced and sustainable growth. The project’s main aim was to assess how far spatial justice could be achieved through place-based strategies, and whether achievements were place-bound or could be extended to other locations and times. Although the underlying motivation of the studied local actions was to ameliorate disparities in opportunity, potential, or socioeconomic outcomes, empirical research revealed that the translation of spatial injustice into policy concepts varied among countries and localities. In terms of the perceptions and geographic scales at which spatial injustice occurs, Copus etal. (2019) distinguish its three main manifestations: (1) Territorial Disadvantage (TD), exemplified by rural municipalities, remote places, and postindustrial regions where interrelated deficits in a range of territorial capitals and the lack of a ‘critical mass’ for local development make attaining an acceptable level of wellbeing or sustainability challenging; (2) Neighbourhood Effects (NE), referring to the problems of residential segregation due to ill-conceived planning policies, or unregulated development aggravated by secondary effects such as stigma or the sense of limitation associated with disadvantaged neighbourhoods and leading to poorer opportunities for future living, business success, or achieving a satisfactory level of wellbeing; (3) Disempowered Places (DP), often associated with ineffective multi-level governance structures which may lead to localities performing relatively worse in terms of wellbeing compared to neighbouring areas, because they lack the capacity to address local needs and support local businesses. It is not claimed that these three manifestations represent the full range of spatial Towards spatial justice through place-based interventions 109 justice issues, but they provide concrete situations of injustice and ways to address them (Copus etal., 2019). At a very general level the long-term goal of the ongoing interventions analysed in 2018 was to improve the quality of life and increase opportunities in particular places (Figure7.1). Structured in this way, the case studies are relevant with respect to the EU Cohesion Policy, which focuses on wellbeing equality across Europe. However, there are some nuances between territories affected by the different typologies of spatial injustice described earlier. Nineteen interventions undertaken within areas defined Figure 7.1 Key statements addressing long-term goals of analysed interventions Source: Copus etal., 2019: 15 Note: the font size corresponds to the frequency of the particular statement being used, with a larger font indicating more frequent statements. 110 Paulina Tobiasz-Lis et al. by territorial disadvantage aim to reduce developmental disparities that frame the conditions and quality of life as their inhabitants perceive them. Interventions in this group focus on finding alternative development paths and developing new functions of particular places through integrated or inclusive development programmes that require the empowerment of social capital, cooperation, and institutional or administrative changes. Digitalization as a tool for sustainable development is implemented especially in remote rural areas lacking the ‘critical mass’ to provide residents with sufficient access to goods and services. Eleven cases affected by neighbourhood effects aim to address poverty, segregation, and polarization through ad hoc interventions or by promoting socioeconomic renewal in the area so that everyone can benefit from positive spill-over effects. The key targets of these interventions are vulnerable social groups, whereas housing (affordability, good quality, without spatial segregation) is the most common intervention area. Three interventions implemented within the third category of spatial injustice – disempowered places – focus mainly on administrative issues, for example, small-scale municipalities are merged to improve their situation in the future, and border areas adopt a cross-border governance model (Copus etal., 2019). An analysis of the intervention logic for ongoing actions in 2018 allowed the identification of five generic ‘paradigms’ for enhancing spatial justice with place-based strategies (Copus etal., 2019): 1. Wellbeing can be improved by focusing on the built environment and open space. 2. Local development and wellbeing are contingent on endogenous processes rooted in community and social capital. 3. ‘Identity’ – that is, place attachment and understanding of local assets’ unique values is a starting point for ‘placemaking’. 4. Human capital, entrepreneurship, and innovation improve local economic performance, with beneficial spill-overs for the rest of the locality. 5. Administrative-scale economies and cooperation can boost the voices of smaller localities and their administrations. Medium-horizon scenarios, the main subject of this chapter, allowed an assessment of the resilience of these paradigms from the perspective of 2030. They were elaborated before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe in March2020. They therefore do not consider the potential effects of this crisis on the economy (including redistributive measures for recovering from the lockdown) and society (reduced mutual and institutional trust, or a re-evaluation of the social dimension). As the pandemic’s direct impact and the measures taken by single countries to limit its spread are not included, the present discussion should be interpreted in the pre-pandemic context. Towards spatial justice through place-based interventions 111 Methodology Scenario planning emerged as a formal research method during the second half of the last century and quickly became an important instrument for supporting public policy. Applying systematic analysis to ‘clarify present action in the light of possible and desirable futures’ was a core of the prospective approach established by pioneering futurist Gaston Berger (1896–1960) (Godet and Roubelat, 1996; Durance and Godet, 2010: 1488). More recently, a range of techniques has emerged (see Bishop etal., 2007; Martelli, 2001), and scenario planning is not considered a single method but a set of methods integrating the theoretical background with applied knowledge and planning practice (Duckett etal., 2017). Further to the prospective approach, Kosow and Gaßner (2008: 1) underline that ‘scenarios are not intended to represent a full description of the possible futures but to highlight central elements of a possible future and draw attention to the key factors that will drive future developments’. Their value thus lies in their ability to process and interpret information associated with complex issues in the future (FOREN Network, 2001; Börjeson etal., 2006; Bishop etal., 2007). Depending on their application’s purpose, scenarios can take various forms: descriptive or normative; exploratory or projective; desk research or participatory; qualitative or quantitative (Van Notten etal., 2003: 426). Their chronological horizon can be flexible and range from short-term scenarios of two to three years to the distant future; however, political cycles tend to influence planners to set time horizons in the range of five to ten years. Scenarios can be developed at multiple spatial scales, including the global, international, national, regional, or local levels (Kosow and Gaßner, 2008: 36). The RELOCAL project assessed either ongoing interventions, or interventions whose impacts were not yet fully realized. Thus, a single most plausible scenario was judged more suitable than elaborating a ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ scenario for each of the 33 case study areas in 11 EU member states. Scenarios were elaborated in the framework of a multi-step process, including elements of the Theory of Change (ToC), mechanism mapping, and morphological scenarios (Figure7.2). It was a participatory forecasting exercise, implemented by analysts in consultation and with the substantial contribution of local experts and stakeholders. We describe here the methodology used, showing the three main steps undertaken to draw the final synthesis. However, the results presented in the rest of the chapter, focusing on future frames of place-based interventions undertaken to improve local communities’ wellbeing and indicating their effectiveness, will be derived mainly from the second and third steps. For details of the methodological approach developed for the purpose of the RELOCAL project, see Piras etal. (2022). The methodology’s first step focused on deconstructing the logic underpinning each intervention as of 2018 and the assumptions on which this logic was conditional. This activity was centred on a systematic diagram developed in two stages, roughly equating to the basic ToC and mechanism mapping. 112 Paulina Tobiasz-Lis et al. The two methods are overlapping and complementary, as the intervention’s internal assumptions identified through the baseline ToC are crucial for considering, relations with external contextual conditions and drivers in mechanism mapping (Williams, 2017, 2020). Henceforth, the ToC and mechanism mapping exercises’ joint output are identified as a ‘baseline mechanism map’ (Figure7.3). The maps were elaborated by analysts in collaboration with local stakeholders, drawing on the latter’s familiarity with the interventions and the local context. Our approach deviates from the original ToC mechanism map (Connell and Kubisch, 1998; Taplin and Clark, 2012), because the process was implemented ex post on an already running (or completed) intervention. To build their baseline mechanism map, analysts must follow seven steps: 1) describe the intervention’s long-term realistically achievable goal; 2–3) identify the intervention and deconstruct it into one or more constituent actions; 4–5) specify intermediate outcomes and link them as milestones between the initial intervention and the long-term goal; 6) add baseline assumptions, alongside the intermediate outcome(s) or the causal link(s), to represent either drivers boosting a certain causal pathway or inhibitors hindering it; 7) add contextual conditions and drivers (CC&D) representing the external environment in which the intervention is implemented. CC&D can be divided into various domains, and we focused on three: (i) geography; (ii) policy; and (iii) society and market. CC&D represent the link between the mechanism map and the scenario(s) developed in the next step. Analysts should therefore select them carefully, possibly deriving them from the ‘states’ of the ‘nexuses of changes’ defined in the following paragraphs. The second step in reflecting on the future of RELOCAL case study localities focused on formulating scenarios to explore how particular interventions were likely to perform within a potential future context. This context Figure 7.2 Overview of the process envisaged in the methodology Source: Own elaboration Towards spatial justice through place-based interventions 113 was defined based on macro-trends affecting local communities throughout Europe, which were in turn structured into six domains: Demography, Economy, Policy and Governance, Environment, Society and Technology (DEPEST). The DEPEST domains, including several potential macro-trends for the 2020–2030 period, were identified to guide the case study analysts in their reflections about the plausible futures of their particular localities. The DEPEST structure follows Aguillar (1967), who introduced PEST (Political, Economic, Social, Technical), to be further extended to include additional domains, that is, PESTEL, STEEPLE, STEEPVL, DESTEP (Walsh, 2005; Burt etal., 2006; Nazarko etal., 2017). Similar structures are used in management sciences to provide a comprehensive list of influences on the possible success or failure of development strategies and thus a starting point for scenario planning (Schoemaker, 1995; van der Heijden, 2005). However, due to their high level of abstraction and relatively wide (global or national) character, the DEPEST domains could not be used directly to formulate local spatial justice scenarios. They were therefore disentangled and reassembled to identify eight more explicit ‘nexuses of change’ capturing two dichotomous key trends with spatial implications. When cross-tabulated, the dichotomous trends generated four possible but mutually exclusive states for each ‘nexus of change’. The ‘nexuses’ and their states are presented in the form of a ‘nexus-state array’ as a final part of preparatory activities undertaken to frame the scenarios proper. As in any morphological scenario exercise (see further Coyle and Young, 1996; Johansen, 2018), the ‘nexus-state array’ served as a ‘palette’ of scenario elements and a framework for scenario narrative to be elaborated by case study experts (Figure7.4). As they focused not on the intervention but on the locality where this was implemented, the scenarios were framed by combining the most likely states of relevant nexuses as indicated in the nexus-state array illustrated earlier. However, to capture the level of uncertainty and thus the probability of deviation from the most plausible outcome, case study analysts were asked Figure 7.3 Overview of the first step integrating elements of the ToC framework Source: Own elaboration 120 Paulina Tobiasz-Lis et al. dynamic demography is rated as likely in areas affected by neighbourhood effects; (2) equity, where territorially disadvantaged areas and disempowered places see their future either in the scope of ‘progressive inclusion policies’ or in a negative scenario of ‘non-distributional policies and austerity’; and (3) policy, where analysts of the cases representing disempowered places agree that a state of ‘top-managed austerity’ (with a focus on financial stability and a renewed role of public institutions in elaborating holistic visions for the territory through broad policies) will be the most likely outcome by 2030 (Figure7.6). Rural areas are clearly identified as losers in a 2030 scenario, while cities are identified as winners. However, the negative effects of overcrowding clearly emerge in the neighbourhood effects case studies. Therefore, by promoting a fairer distribution of the population, interventions promoting spatial justice are likely to generate a double dividend (Piras etal., 2020). These results, combined with a second bubble chart illustrating the same step in the scenario exercise for different welfare systems in Europe, show that in the areas of mixed welfare regimes (countries undergoing socioeconomic transitions since the 1990s such as Poland, Romania, and Hungary) the directions of future changes are the most difficult to predict. As for the nexuses focusing on changing economic activity, politics, or administrative patterns, which still tend to be unstable in central Eastern Europe, at least three out of four states deriving from the intersection of trends were assessed as neither likely nor unlikely in 2030. In contrast, in areas representing the familiar welfare model, typical of countries in Southern Europe (the Spanish and Greek cases), experts were more confident about the future shape of equity and policymaking. The neoliberal growth paradigm sharpening spatial disparities in socioeconomic terms combined with demographic depletion was seen as likely in the Nordic countries’ society-based welfare models (the Finnish and Swedish cases). In these locations case study analysts were most confident about future policymaking, characterized by locally managed austerity resulting from contractionary fiscal policy, project-led development, and the decisive role of local institutions and NGOs. In state-based welfare systems (the German, Dutch, and French cases) different states within each nexus were rated as highly likely in the future, but in most cases, with some exceptions, there was one main indication. The nexuses where analysts were less sure about future changes were the direction of policymaking, climate change, demography, and neighbourhoods. Scenarios for the cases in the United Kingdom, representing the liberal welfare regime, seem almost certain. Analysts were almost unanimous in their choices of states. Perhaps unsurprisingly, experts often chose a state reflecting some element of neoliberalism, for example, ‘city-led neoliberal growth’ for economic activity, ‘neoliberal non-distributive growth’ for equity, and ‘neoliberal top-down growth’ for governance (Figure7.7). A more descriptive, but richer overview from pen pictures (scenario narratives) describing evolutionary paths to spatial justice in every case study area in 2030 reveals both spatial and non-spatial factors as important for Towards spatial justice through place-based interventions 121 conditioning the development of these localities. These portraits provide a clear understanding of place-based and well-coordinated local development approaches to spatially just localities. Specifically, place-based human capital – exemplified by the demographic balance and the capacity of civil society to organize itself – was present in the great majority of case studies. The communication and coordination of activities between different administrative levels were also widely underlined as governance issues, as divisions of power often suffer from unclear responsibilities. According to these scenario narratives, there is a need for specific mechanisms enabling proper dialogue and coordination to connect local development strategies with strategies at higher governance scales. Regarding effective governance, to unlock development opportunities in areas affected by spatial injustice, there is strong potential for a single agency or intermediary actor (a local or regional leader) to combine and channel relevant resources into the area in pursuit of a long-term vision for its development. Innovative interactions are needed to deal with the non-spatial aspects of spatial injustice. Discussion and conclusion The most plausible scenarios for 2030 that were defined for each of the 33 case study localities in 11 EU member states revealed a high degree of uncertainty, and with a few exceptions the outlook of the interventions designed to solve problems of local spatial injustice seems likely to be negatively affected by a neoliberal paradigm in planning strategies across Europe. There seems to be a strong country effect even within regions characterized by the same welfare regime. This reflects the country’s economic potential and quality of institutions, confirming the importance of a place-based approach to effectively meet the spatial justice needs of a locality – and this within a coherent, higher-level plan and vision. Equally, top-down interventions seem to be based on assumptions that do not account for CC&D and are thus less effective in the long run. Bottom-up interventions prove more effective because they address specific local problems and are in a certain sense less ambitious, but the local capacity to act from the bottom up is highly dependent on preexisting endowment, especially in terms of human and social capital. The importance of place-specificity for future trends is confirmed by the fact that a local nexus of change, uncaptured by more general trends, was identified in 29 out of 33 case studies. However, many of the interventions studied seemed to lack a well-considered intervention logic, or their underpinning logic was weak and failed to account for changing contextual conditions and drivers. Future EU projects might address such shortcomings, encouraging a more structured design and long-term strategies with such tools as mechanism mapping and scenario planning. Three general conclusions arise from the exercise. First, the scenarios reveal a clear, though not universal, pessimism about the ability of placebased, bottom-up interventions to effectively deliver spatial justice within a 122 Paulina Tobiasz-Lis et al. broader socioeconomic system shaped by a neoliberal paradigm. The current economic incentives perpetuate inequality of all kinds in terms of winners and losers, especially in rural areas and in locations that cannot benefit from the spill-over effects of wealthy urban centres, as well as in areas stigmatized for various reasons. The general ‘lesson’ is that to mitigate spatial injustices, policy goals must be decoupled from economic growth, especially in the context of population decline. The main mechanism identified through which spatial injustice is perpetuated is the concentration of resources in urban centres to the detriment of smaller settlements. Centralization is antithetical to place-based, bottom-up approaches, starving places of resources and agency. Equally, macrostructural deficiencies like tax differentials between municipalities are highly likely to hinder the effectiveness of local bottom-up initiatives. Aradical paradigm shift from neoliberalism does not represent the most likely scenario in any case studies. However, without such a shift, agglomeration effects will continue to drive outward youth migration. The prevailing absence of national redistributive policies will prohibit the effective stabilization of areas affected by decline. Second, the comparative exercise highlighted the need for a coordinated approach to governance, both vertically, in linking local development programmes with those at the regional, national, and EU levels, and horizontally, between institutions and other stakeholders. An intermediary agency or actor coordinating governance efforts would play an influential role in the longer term. Without this the power imbalances between hierarchies and the lack of joined-up strategy from silo to silo is likely to result in local measures, however promising, failing to be translated into policy, seeing hard-won gains subject to erosion, derailed because of political change, running out of funds, or failing to enrol successors. In some cases, there was optimism where integration was judged effective, and where a scenario of continuing spatial justice enhancement could be plausibly anticipated. However, the synopsis is that the existing interplay between structures is inadequate and ineffective. Third, there are also concerns around paradoxical disadvantages created in which effective measures in one place leave neighbouring villages or districts relatively poorer. Drawing on the above findings, we can add some nuances to the paradigms identified in Copus etal. (2019): 1. Wellbeing can be improved by focusing on the built environment and open space, but this requires resources that may not be locally available in the most disadvantaged places. 2. Local development and wellbeing are contingent on endogenous processes rooted in community and social capital and are thus seriously threatened by population decline. 3. ‘Identity’ will become increasingly important both in the sense of attachment to a locality, which reinforces commitment and reduces depopulation, Towards spatial justice through place-based interventions 123 and in the sense that it highlights the unique assets of the locality as a starting point for ‘placemaking’. However, the window of opportunity in this respect is narrowing due to many localities adopting similar strategies. 4. Human capital and the promotion of an entrepreneurial environment and innovation will become the primary strategy to improve local economic performance, but this implies competition between places: the long-term spread effects for surrounding localities are uncertain. 5. Administrative scale economies and cooperation may give greater weight to the voices of smaller localities and their administrations if the new entity is comparatively strong at the regional level. However, there is a risk of reproducing spatial inequalities at a lower level. The lessons learned from this analysis can help design more effective future interventions addressing spatial injustice, and their planning in terms of integration, longevity, and succession. Coordinated governance approaches appear essential, as well as mutual trust, shared vision, and continued support, for future local development across administrative levels. Instead of viewing localities affected by territorial disadvantage, neighbourhood effects, or disempowered places only from a deficit-oriented perspective, their specific potentials also need some attention. They may be considered laboratories for experimental and innovative cross-sectoral policy interventions, actions promoting capacity building, and testing the potential of digital infrastructures and highly relevant services. References Aguillar, F. J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: MacMillan. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. Aplace-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/sites/default/files/2010-12/ docl_17396_240404999.pdf. Bishop, P., Hines, A.& Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight – The Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking, and Policy, 9(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516. Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K., Ekvall, T.& Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38, 723–739. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002. Burt, G., Wright, G., Bradfield, R.& Hejiden van der, K. (2006). The role of scenario planning in exploring the environment in view of the limitations of PEST and its derivatives. International Studies of Management and Organization, 36(3), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825360303. Connell, J. P.& Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, 2(15–44), 1–16. 124 Paulina Tobiasz-Lis et al. Copus, A., Piras, S., Tobiasz-Lis, P., Dmochowska-Dudek, K., Wójcik, M.& Napierała, T. (2019). D8.2 synthesis report: Towards an operational concept of spatial justice. Project report, H2020 RELOCAL, Version 1, September. Available at: https:// relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/D8.2-Synthesis-Report-Towards-anOperational-Concept-170120.pdf. Accessed 6 April2021. Coyle, R. G.& Young, Y. C. (1996). Ascenario projection for the South China Sea: Further experience with field anomaly relaxation. Futures, 28(3), 269–283. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(96)00001-8. Duckett, D. G., McKee, A. J., Sutherland, L.-A., Kyle, C., Boden, L. A., Auty, H., Bessell, P. R.& McKendrick, I. J. (2017). Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 138–151. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.034. Durance, P.& Godet, M. (2010). Scenario building: Uses and abuses. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1488–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2010.06.007. FOREN Network (2001). A practical guide to regional foresight. Brussels: European Commission-Research Directorate General. Godet, M.& Roubelat, F. (1996). Creating the future: The use and misuse of scenarios. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301 (96)00004-0. Johansen, I. (2018). Scenario modelling with morphological analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 116–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2017.05.016. Kosow, H.& Gaßner, R. (2008). Methods of futures – and scenario-analysis. DIE studies, Volume 39. Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. Madanipour, A., Shucksmith, M., Talbot, H., Crawford, J.& Brooks, E. (2020). D1.2 revised conceptual framework for the H2020 project RELOCAL, April. Unpublished document. Martelli, A. (2001). Scenario building and scenario planning: State of the art and prospects of evolution. Futures Research Quarterly, 17(2), 57–74. Nazarko, J., Ejdys, J., Halicka, K., Nazarko, Ł., Kononiuk, A.& Olszewska, A. (2017). Factor analysis as a tool supporting STEEPVL approach to the identification of driving forces of technological innovation. Procedia Engineering, 182, 491–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.142. Piras, S., Currie, M., Duckett, D., Copus, A., Tobiasz-Lis, P.& Dmochowska-Dudek, K. (2020). D8.3 scenario report: Trajectories of spatial justice and actions to achieve it across Europe. Project report, H2020 RELOCAL, Version 2, June. Available at: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RELOCAL_D8.3_020720.pdf. Accessed 06 April2021. Piras, S., Tobiasz-Lis, P., Currie, M., Dmochowska-Dudek, K., Duckett, D.& Copus, A. (2022). Spatial justice on the horizon? Ahybrid theory of change scenario tool to assess place-based interventions. European Planning Studies, 30(5), 952–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928057. Schoemaker, P. (1995). Scenario planning: Atool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36, 25–34. Serrat, O. (2017). Theories of change. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-10-0983-9_24. Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Towards spatial justice through place-based interventions 125 Taplin, D.& Clark, H. (2012). Theory of change basics: Aprimer. New York: Actknowledge. Available at: https://www.actknowledge.org/PDFs/PACETheoryof ChangeDiscussionPaper.pdf. Accessed 06 April2021. van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Second Edition. Chichester: John Wiley& Sons, Ltd. Van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., Van Asselt, M. B. A.& Rothman, D. S. (2003). An updated scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0016-3287(02)00090-3. Walsh, P. (2005). Dealing with the uncertainties of environmental change by adding scenario planning to the strategy formulation equation. Management Decision, 43(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510572524. Williams, M. (2017). External validity and policy adaptation: Afive step guide to mechanism mapping. Policy Memo. Blavatnik School of Government. University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/files/docu ments/BSG-WP-2017-019_0.pdf. Accessed 10 July2017. Williams, M. J. (2020). External validity and policy adaptation: From impact evaluation to policy design. The World Bank Research Observer, 35(2), 158–191. https:// doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky010. DOI: 10.4324/9781003229681-10 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Introduction Qualitative case studies formed the basis for knowledge generation in the RELOCAL project, which investigated relationships between the placebasedness of actions and their contribution to enhanced spatial justice. Atotal of 33 case studies were conducted, which on the one hand produced standalone and conclusive analytical reports, and on the other were themselves raw material that was processed further in more comprehensive and comparative analyses. This chapter reflects on RELOCAL’s rationales and approach to comparative, multiple case-study-based research, offering concrete insights into the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of this major undertaking. We intend to share with the reader how we came to choose our set of particular localities and actions for study, and the solutions we found for balancing the obvious necessity for context sensitivity in our qualitative case studies with the need to compare them with more generalizable conclusions. The authors will also elaborate on RELOCAL’s especially reflective and interactive approach, which guided the research process, focusing on how it was achieved, and the benefits it provided. Beyond these methodological aspects, this chapter sheds light on the similarities of and differences between the cases in our sample along various parameters, providing context and orientation for detailed analyses of selected actions in this book’s subsequent chapters. Conceptual underpinnings and analytical tools of the RELOCAL approach facilitating comparison In comparative case study research we find a variety of concepts, from concrete empirical findings to more abstract conclusions (Kantor and Savitch, 2005; Nijman, 2007; Ward, 2008). Some approaches ‘measure’ different cases against predefined categories or hypotheses. In a study of spatial justice, territorial cohesion, and local development this would require a definition of spatial justice, and an explanation of the character and nature of territorial cohesion. As many publications have observed, territorial cohesion is a 8 The RELOCAL case studies approach Sarolta Németh and Sabine Weck The RELOCAL case studies approach 127 somewhat fuzzy concept, and its essentials are difficult to define (Abrahams, 2014; Faludi, 2005). It is easier to describe what it aims for: namely, more balanced territorial development and the reduction of territorial disparities. The same applies to the concept of spatial justice, which can be minimally defined as ‘an intentional and focused emphasis on the spatial or geographical aspects of justice and injustice’ (Soja, 2009: 4), but likewise for which a single normative narrative does not exist (Israel and Frenkel, 2017: 651). Rather than ‘measuring’ cases against (researchers’) predefined concepts of spatial justice, the RELOCAL approach was to analyse and understand the different manifestations of spatial (in)justice in the given contexts, as perceived by various local development stakeholders within and external to the examined localities. The researchers’ aim was therefore to analyse, using a process-oriented approach, the factors behind these interpretations and manifestations of spatial injustice, and assess the local development action’s contribution and impact accordingly. The conceptual frame for this assessment builds on the work of Madanipour etal. (2017), which targets ‘resituating the local in cohesion and territorial development’, and hence their conceptualization of locality and spatial justice. This is also elaborated in more depth by Schmitt and Weck (in Chapter4 of this book). Madanipour and his colleagues develop a spatial ontology that situates empirical work on localities in terms of places where the challenges of and responses to spatial justice can be understood. They also provide a relational epistemology, defining justice ‘as a comparative concept: it is a process of judgement on the quality of relations [in a locality] between two or more states of affairs’ (Madanipour etal., this volume). Finally, the authors suggest an analysis of localities as in themselves both heterogeneous and porous in their boundaries, that is, situated ‘at the intersection of vertical, horizontal and transversal forces’ (Madanipour etal., this volume). Such a conceptual framework suggests an inductive research approach to comparative case study work. RELOCAL’s in-depth and qualitative approach in the investigation of 33 somewhat diverse cases meant that to produce generalizable findings, the project needed to implement a consistent and cohesive methodological framework running across the research process, from selecting cases and gathering data to the composition of individual analytical reports and the production of various comparative syntheses. At the heart of such a methodological solution was a set of key common analytical categories defined early in RELOCAL that arose from the conceptual framework, and to which all case study researchers were to respond with their data collection and eventual analyses of the investigated local development actions. The empirical research was thus from the outset guided by five analytical dimensions along which the assessment of the complex relationships and processes between ‘the locality’ and ‘the action’ across a diversity of 33 case studies could be addressed. Additionally, three synthesizing dimensions emerged that could 128 Sarolta Németh and Sabine Weck more directly facilitate lesson drawing, broader interpretation, and reflection on the findings concerning the capacities for change to improved spatial justice (see Figure8.1). The guidelines for researchers allowed some flexibility in adapting the project’s list of guiding research questions to the specificities of local contexts and situations. Importantly, we avoided predefined concepts or normative assumptions, asking researchers to remain critical in their interpretation of findings. For example, concepts such as ‘vertical policy integration’ and ‘citizen participation’ are culturally bound: their meanings vary from place to place. Instead, we defined such key terms in their characteristics and asked case study researchers for critical analyses and assessments in specific contexts. In a similar vein, the term ‘spatial justice’ may evoke very different connotations and overlaps with a diversity of concepts in different national contexts. In some countries (reported for Hungary and Sweden), spatial justice is perceived as politically loaded and hence even avoided by using more technical terms instead, such as regional inequalities or territorial differences. As no clear ‘functional equivalent’ of spatial justice is easily translatable to different national languages and contexts, the RELOCAL researchers were asked to seek alternative terms to use with their respective research participants and reflect on their meaning. Figure 8.1 Research dimensions and analytical categories. Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on RELOCAL Case Study Manual; see also Weck and Kamuf, 2020 The RELOCAL case studies approach 129 The selection of the cases and the implementation of the analytical framework in fieldwork Our premise was to seek to achieve a good representation of cases, at least with regard to different welfare regimes and various macro-regions across Europe, as well as a diverse mix of urban and rural settings. The selection of cases was then furthered by the work on the aforementioned conceptualanalytical dimensions and key variables for explaining the role of the local in achieving spatial justice. As a result, a RELOCAL case was defined as an approach or action to deliver spatial justice – embodied by a policy, project, or initiative implemented in a locality that aims to achieve a fairer or more just distribution of goods and services via more equal opportunities and just processes, which ultimately bring about such a fairer distribution. The chosen action was expected to have an identifiable impact on the locality (in contrast to a purely conceptual idea or short-term action), and possibly be part of a longer-term strategy or vision of stakeholders in the locality to improve living conditions and achieve more balanced and sustainable development. It could be an action initiated by local communities, or a policy-driven action initiated by governmental or non-governmental organizations, but shaped or influenced by the local community. The final list, comprising 33 cases, is shown in Table8.1. The RELOCAL project organized several instances of collective learning, critical reflection on the research approach, and thinking across different cases (some of these also engaged research participants, ‘stakeholders’ of the localities – see more Table 8.1 The RELOCAL cases in predominantly rural/urban regions Predominantly rural Close to urban-central regions (DE 1) Smart Countryside DE 2) Görlitz Youth Centre (EL 3) Post-Mining Regional Strategy (EL 6) Ecosystem of Collaboration (FI 11) Lieksa Development Strategy (HU 13) Give Kids a Chance (HU 15) Producer Organization (HU 16) Balaton LEADER (NL 19) Induced Earthquakes (PL 23) Goth Village (PL 24) Rural Public Spaces (RO 26) Mara-Natur LEADER (SE 29) Digital Västerbotten (UK 31) NULAG LEADER (UK 33) Strengthening Communities (EL 4) Alexander Innovation Zone (EL 5) Overcoming Fragmentation (ES 7) Local Strategic Plan (ES 8) Llei de Barris (ES 9) La Mina Transformation Plan (ES 10) Association of Municipalities (FI 12) Activation of Youth Kotka (HU 14) Urban Regeneration (FR 17) Euralens (FR 18) EPA Alzette-Belval (NL 20) Rotterdam South on Course (PL 21) Participatory Budget Lodz (PL 22) Social Cooperative (RO 25) Pata Cluj Project (RO 27) Malin-Codlea Project (RO 28) Plumbuita PIDU (SE 30) Stockholm Commission (UK 32) Homelessness Project Bold: Actions that are analysed in detail in the book’s subsequent chapters. 232 Matti Fritsch, Sarolta Németh and Petri Kahila Table 13.1 Elements of public management reform when aiming for increased effectiveness versus the accountability of administration Administrative effectiveness Democratic accountability Role of local government Provider of services and welfare Facilitator of the integration of citizens into political decisionmaking processes Legitimacy produced Output/performance legitimacy through efficient decisionmaking for effective interventions Input/political legitimacy: ‘citizens expressing demands institutionally and deliberatively through representative politics while providing constructive support via their sense of identity and community’ (Schmidt, 2013: 7). Throughput/procedural legitimacy:via ‘institutional and constructive governance processes that work with efficacy, accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness’ (ibid., pp.7–8). Role of the citizen (Satisfied) Customer/ client Citizen (actively engaged in decision-making processes) Local leadership traits Professional and decisive administrator (effectiveness) Listening bureaucrat (responsiveness) Trustworthy, fair, impartial, and credible (Schmidt and Wood, 2019: 4) Local leadership focus Problem-solving Process-solving Governance ‘style’ Managerial, technocratic, ‘apolitical’ expert (NPM, the ‘new public management’ paradigm) Participatory, transparent, and inclusive (NPG, the ‘new public governance’ paradigm) Source: Authors’ compilation based on Vetter and Kersting, 2003; Montin, 2000; Stivers, 1994; Scharpf, 1999; Schmidt, 2013; Schmidt and Wood, 2019; Klijn, 2012. The aim of achieving administrative effectiveness emphasizes the role of local government in providing well-functioning welfare services costeffectively and efficiently. Result orientation and thus output legitimacy are key here. Meanwhile, democratic accountability emphasizes local government as a democratic nexus and facilitator of the integration of citizens into political decision-making processes. Consequently, the nature of the role of citizens in a municipality also changes along the two different dimensions. Whereas administrative effectiveness draws attention to the citizen as a customer or client utilizing services provided by the municipality, a The struggle against territorial disadvantage in Lieksa 233 hallmark of the functionalist idea of the interrelationship between the local state and civil society (Montin, 2000), democratic accountability draws attention to the role of citizens as engaged and empowered stakeholders in local government/governance. This renders citizens subjects (initiators and actors) in the democratic decision-making process and the development of the municipality as a whole, rather than objects (receivers and targets) of wisdom and measures from a select few. Achieving this necessitates an overall governance style that is communicative and participatory in outlook and inclusive in nature, echoing Stiver’s (1994) call for responsive and listening bureaucrats. The client–provider relationship on the other hand, an essential element in the quest to achieve administrative effectiveness, favours a managerial approach, with professional and decisive bureaucrats. Political deliberation forms the legal basis for municipal decision-making, but strong administrative management is equally required. Akey assumption is that the political and administrative leadership is expected to interact for shared purposes and objectives. Thus, ‘a strong political and administrative leadership’ is also often stressed as an essential element of municipal renewal (Montin, 2000: 12) to solve complex problems and challenges. In this sense municipalities generally function via a complementary model in which the political leadership decides the objectives and strategies, while the administrative leadership executes them. Abroader meaning is attached to leadership under the heading of democratic accountability, one that focuses on achieving fair and sound processes in decision-making, which again emphasizes deliberative and participatory processes and practices, and – to return to Stivers – the ability to listen and communicate. National context Finnish local government The Finnish government system is characterized by a strong central state and strong municipalities. Ahigh degree of power is devolved to local government in Finland, and the municipalities are equal in legal terms, be they the capital Helsinki, with half a million inhabitants, or a small rural municipality of a thousand. Finnish municipalities are furnished with a high level of autonomy, and they have the responsibility for a wide range of welfare and social services, which are mostly financed through local income taxes (Haveri and Airaksinen, 2007). Asystem of central government transfers to the municipalities, which mainly consists of direct subsidies calculated based on socioeconomic, locational, and demographic factors, also exists. Generally, Finnish municipalities have had wider opportunities since the 1990s to implement independent resource-based local policies, but their diminishing financial resources as a result of declining state subsidies have restricted their financial ability to put these opportunities into practice. 234 Matti Fritsch, Sarolta Németh and Petri Kahila Municipalities are a strong pillar in the Finnish system of government and a foundation of both democratic representation and identity formation in the country. The Finnish Local Government Act (410/2015) (Ministry of Finance, Finland, 2015) states that all Finnish municipalities must have a municipal council, a municipal board (executive), and an audit committee, but the administrative structure is the responsibility of each municipality to decide. Acertain variation between Finnish municipalities regarding the balance between political and professional management is thus discernible. The highest decision-making body in a municipality is the Municipal Council (kunnanvaltuusto), elected every four years. Asmaller group of representatives is appointed from the council members to act as the Municipal Board (kunnanhallitus), which oversees the implementation of the decisions the council takes. The council also elects and appoints the municipal manager (mayor), who plays an important part in the daily running of municipal affairs. The Finnish regional level is relatively weak in European comparison and consists of joint municipal authorities and state executive regional agencies. From the regional policy perspective, the Regional Councils are important joint municipal authorities that promote regional development and planning, as well as supervising regional interests within and for their jurisdictions. The state executive regional agencies (ELY Centres) are responsible for the regional implementation of the government’s regional and development policies in fields such as economic development, transport, and the environment. Inter-municipal cooperation has also become increasingly common and plays an important role specifically in public service provision. Finnish municipalities may establish joint authorities, that is, legal public entities, which basically form the second tier of municipal government (Mäenpää, 2012). The joint municipal authorities are especially important for small municipalities that struggle to organize demanding and cost-intensive services. Rights to participate in Finnish municipalities In addition to the well-established system of representative democracy at work in Finnish municipalities, participatory and deliberative practices have garnered increasing interest as part of the wider societal shift to empowering citizens and civil society in governance processes and the quest for greater legitimacy and accountability in decision-making processes (see Sørensen and Torfing, 2018). At the local level in Finland the overall framework and foundation for this is provided by the principles laid down in the Finnish Local Government Act (410/2015), which guide the activities, including participatory practices, of any Finnish municipality. Interestingly, Paragraph 1 (Purpose of the Act) of the current Finnish Local Government Act establishes its purpose along the two dimensions of input (participation and exertion of influence) and output (arrangement of wellfunctioning services) legitimacy (see Section2). Input legitimacy is illustrated The struggle against territorial disadvantage in Lieksa 235 by point 1 in paragraph 1, stating that: (1) The purpose of this Act is to establish the conditions in which, in municipal activities, the self-government of the residents in a municipality can take place and opportunities can occur for the residents to participate and exert an influence. Afurther purpose of the Act is to advance and facilitate the systematic nature and financial sustainability of municipal activities. Output legitimacy follows immediately in point 2: (2) Municipalities shall advance the well-being of their residents and the vitality of their respective areas, and shall arrange services for their residents in a way that is financially, socially and environmentally sustainable. Recent revisions of the Local Government Act have strengthened participation (osallisuus) as an element of local government. Residents’ participation is guaranteed in chapter5 of the Local Government Act (Right of participation of municipality’s residents) which, in addition to the obvious requirements related to the right to vote in local elections and referenda, secures the right for municipal residents to participate and exert influence. Section22 of chapter5 of the Local Government Act calls for municipalities to establish ‘diverse and effective opportunities for participation’ and proposes multiple ways through which participation can be realized in practice, including local resident panels, the election of representatives of service users to municipal decision-making bodies, and the joint planning and development of services with their users. However, the practical organization of participation and the measures taken are largely left to the discretion of municipal councils (Kuntaliitto, 2017). This discretion has resulted in a variety of approaches and intensity levels in Finnish municipalities’ participatory practices. As a general trend, the character of participatory practices in local government has changed in Finland. Initially, participatory processes were established by municipal government to gain approval and legitimation for political decisions that ‘had already been taken’. More recently, democratic innovations and participatory arrangements have gained status to such an extent that it has placed further pressure on municipalities to open arenas and channels for citizen-led (rather than municipality-led) initiatives that precede any political decisionmaking. This new democratic environment forces administrative leadership to go a step beyond the requirements and guidelines set out in the Local Government Act for the participatory dimension of municipal decision-making. Introducing the Lieksa case Lieksa, located on the northern shores of Lake Pielinen in eastern Finland, is a municipality of about 11,000 inhabitants. It is one of currently (2020) 310 municipalities in Finland and 14 municipalities in the eastern Finnish region of Pohjois-Karjala (North Karelia). Finnish municipalities can choose whether to call themselves a ‘city’, as Lieksa does, if the requirements for an urban community are met. ‘Cities’ and ‘municipalities’ are entirely equal before the law. More than 80 per cent of Lieksa’s population is concentrated 236 Matti Fritsch, Sarolta Németh and Petri Kahila in its central urban area, while the rest of Lieksa’s territory is a large hinterland of tiny villages, managed forests, and uninhabited wilderness (Halonen etal., 2015). Even by Finnish standards, Lieksa can be described as extremely peripheral because of its cul-de-sac location on the Finnish-Russian border (with no international border crossing points nearby) and the long distances to the next regional centre (of North Karelia; Joensuu 95km) and national capital (Helsinki 525km). In the following we offer a brief description of those key elements in Lieksa’s condition that triggered the change in how the town was run. These are complex socioeconomic processes of shrinking (partly derived from persistent territorial disadvantages) and the recognition of a risk of missing out on newly emerging opportunities offered by a more conscious political and social turn to environmental sustainability and the subsequent major restructuring of the economy. Complex processes of shrinking The municipality has suffered continuous population decline since the early 1960s, during which period Lieksa has lost half its population. Moreover, Lieksa experienced the highest rate of population decline (−42%) of all Finnish municipalities with a population of 10,000 or above (2017) between 1972 and 2017. As a result of continuous natural decrease (more deaths than births) since 1990 and continuing outmigration, the remaining population of Lieksa is characterized by ageing. The percentage of the population aged above 64 has increased from approximately 15 per cent in 1987 to 35 per cent in 2017. Lieksa’s population decline since the 1960s has mainly been the result of two interrelated phenomena. First, a diminished demand for labour due to structural change (mechanization) in forestry and agriculture was not fully replaced by new jobs created in the emerging manufacturing and service sector, which was the result of state-led welfare and regional policies. Second, around the same time the first post-WWII generation entered the job market and moved to larger cities in search of better jobs and educational opportunities. Outmigration from Lieksa has thus been a combination of necessity (due to the lack of employment and higher education opportunities) and choice (the prospect of better opportunities in other parts of Finland or even abroad). More recently, manufacturing has played a significant role in Lieksa’s economy, but modernization processes in this sector have also reduced labour demand in the municipality from about the 1980s onwards (Halonen etal., 2015). Lieksa has become an archetype of a peripheral, shrinking, and declining municipality. This development has led to significant stigma being attached to the municipality, including in the national press. Stigmatization renders Lieksa ‘a place with no real future’, making it more difficult to retain residents, especially young people looking for educational and employment The struggle against territorial disadvantage in Lieksa 237 opportunities in larger cities, and to attract highly skilled new residents to the significant number of vacancies in the city’s business sector. Indeed, the ongoing shrinking processes resulting from outmigration and ageing have been accompanied by increasing levels of unemployment despite a dire need among local companies for skilled labour. High unemployment levels and a declining population have therefore resulted in a dwindling tax base amid rising costs for the provision of municipal services. In addition to these ‘internal’ factors municipalities have faced external pressure as a result of receiving an increasing number of tasks and responsibilities in public services from the central government in the recent past. However, this has not been accompanied by increasing financial resources being made available by central government. On the contrary, by cutting the expenses in government subsidies, municipal economic resources have been pushed to their limit. Indeed, the dire financial situation in many Finnish municipalities is illustrated by the fact that in 2019 three quarters of all Finnish municipalities had negative final annual accounts (Kuntaliitto, 2020). Lieksa has grappled with years of financial distress, characterized by declining income and increasing expenditure. Table13.2 clearly shows this trend since 2010. Amidst a declining population and a continuously increasing share of pensioners, the proportion of the unemployed rose continuously, Table 13.2 Key socioeconomic indicators for Lieksa 2010–2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Population 12,687 12,585 12,399 12,303 12,117 11,772 11,580 11,297 11,098 Proportion of the unemployed among the labour force, % 18.0 18.8 21.4 21.4 20.6 21.5 21.2 20.5 15.6 Proportion of pensioners of the population, % 38.1 38.3 38.8 39.3 40.1 41.4 41.7 42.9 43.7 Social care and healthcare activities, total, operating net costs, EUR per capita 3,253 3,420 3,820 4,097 4,159 4,389 4,443 4,505 4,513 Overall tax income, thousand EUR 40,798 40,627 39,119 38,900 Data sources: Statistics Finland and Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities (for overall tax income) 238 Matti Fritsch, Sarolta Németh and Petri Kahila peaking at 21.5 per cent in 2015. The problematic financial and economic trajectory is also illustrated by the constant decline in overall tax income as the operating costs for social care and healthcare activities continued to decrease. Emerging opportunities Despite these significant local development problems, Lieksa is currently already utilizing emerging opportunities in several economic sectors, which may trigger positive developments in the municipality if external and internal conditioning factors are correct. One of these sectors is tourism. Lieksa’s location in a vast and unspoilt natural area may provide opportunities to harness increased demand for sustainable forms of tourism. Lieksa also plays home to the ‘national landscape’ and major tourism destination of Koli, for which significant investments in the tourism infrastructure are planned. The bioeconomy is another sector that could benefit from the industrial and forestry traditions available in Lieksa, particularly against the background of the EU’s reformed Cohesion Policy and the Green Deal, which will provide more incentives in this sector and therefore employment opportunities. Another potential field of economic development may emerge from the renewed focus on land-based industries that can be expected because of an already observable trend of increasing demand for ‘green’ and local products and services. New municipal leadership and strategy The difficult financial and economic situation in Lieksa culminated in 2014/2015, when concerns about the city’s future socioeconomic viability and vitality reached saturation point among local decision-makers and politicians. Moreover, several looming public policy reforms also significantly affected the municipal level, creating additional external pressure on municipal decision-makers. This watershed resulted in a desire to part with old habits in local government. In this climate ripe for change a young, reformminded mayor was appointed, who was instrumental in the changes that were subsequently brought about in the government/governance of the municipality. He claimed and was awarded significant powers from the local political leadership. As one interviewee said: ‘In 2015 we got a new mayor. He was a younger, reform-minded man who wanted to develop further the working and functioning of the city and the public sector to correspond with modern times. That’s probably where it started’. Also under his tenure a new municipal strategy (Lieksa Strategy, 2030) was drawn up to steer a reorientation of municipal government and governance, although the previous mayor had already started the process of renewing the municipal strategy. The Lieksa Development Strategy 2030, whose goal was to provide the city with more effective tools for realizing its own The struggle against territorial disadvantage in Lieksa 239 local development aims, especially aimed for the improvement of the business environment. The spatial justice motive behind this strategy was largely related to the safeguarding of the municipality’s socioeconomic viability against the distributive background of continuing demographic decline, a peripheral location (poor accessibility) in both regional and national contexts, and the resulting dwindling financial resources, as described earlier. Reforming the municipal apparatus and management style and the repatriation of development resources provided a pathway to a more deliberate and Lieksabased approach to enable the municipality to use emerging opportunities to attract new businesses. Loosely connected with this ‘viability’ objective, the strategy also included the strengthening of community and citizen participation in local decisions, directed especially at the young and active cohorts, whose engagement and wellbeing (and willingness to stay) were seen as an equally important factor in ensuring Lieksa’s survival. Lieksa’s reorientation in municipal governance to tackle its territorial disadvantage and spatially ‘unjust’ position incorporated procedural fixes into the former ways of doing things in the municipality, indicating an attempt to bring together the aims of administrative effectiveness on the one hand and inclusivity and democratic accountability on the other. The following sections unpack the deployment of this strategy and examine the balancing act between the two aims. Analysis Towards administrative effectiveness The new approach taken to local government and governance in Lieksa since 2015, facilitated and structured by the Lieksa 2030 Strategy, has included an increasingly managerial and entrepreneurial approach to city management and administration. The strategy emphasized ‘vitality’ (elinvoima) and the policies supporting it. The vitality policy is an emerging policy paradigm in Finnish local government that not only emphasizes industrial and entrepreneurship policies but underlines the importance of soft factors (wellbeing and human interaction within and by the municipality) (Makkonen and Kahila, 2020). Nevertheless, as stated earlier, much of Lieksa’s focus aimed to develop the business sector and economic policies. In terms of city management, the focus was on business-like and fast decision-making based on the effective preparation of policy proposals. Policy proposals have increasingly met little discussion, and disagreements in the city council have been quickly adopted. Pragmatism and the aim of ‘getting things done’ have become an overarching style of government in the city, which is intended to solve the problem of socioeconomic distress in the municipality. There is little doubt that this approach has resulted in a more flexible and efficient municipal apparatus that provides a fertile and responsive operating environment for local businesses, which in turn helps provide services and welfare to its citizens. As part of the new operating environment in Lieksa, entrepreneurs and businesses 240 Matti Fritsch, Sarolta Németh and Petri Kahila enjoy better conditions, existing companies have started to expand and invest, and some new businesses have been established. Unemployment levels have also fallen since the mid-2010s (and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), although it is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the extent to which this is due to local government efforts or a positive change in the wider Finnish economy or the fact that the pace of retirement exceeds that of labour market entries by (the decreasing number of) potential young jobseekers. The entrepreneurial approach taken by municipal leadership has also resulted in a prioritization of economic wellbeing above other strategic and democratic aims, as the following quote illustrates: ‘It is clear that economic vitality is the number one thing, and if we don’t succeed in that, our social care and healthcare, as well as educational services, can’t be kept up’. The approach taken has contributed to the municipal leadership emerging as decisive and effective administrators safeguarding Lieksa’s socioeconomic survival against the risks posed by demographic decline, a peripheral location, and the resulting poor accessibility and dwindling financial resources. It has also contributed to the attribution of output legitimacy to the local leadership. The professionality, (self-)efficacy, and decisiveness that is the aim of local government is not only visible in the above management style of Lieksa’s internal affairs; it also appears in Lieksa’s relationship with its surrounding region and neighbouring municipalities. Here, a distinct Lieksa-centred and egocentric approach towards its neighbouring municipalities and especially the regional centre of Joensuu has emerged, which includes the repatriation of economic decision-making power and initiative and resources from the joint municipal and regional levels. The basic thrust of the argument in support of this approach has been that the municipality had to strengthen the supervision of Lieksa’s own interests and use the limited available resources in the municipality itself and for the benefit of its own population, based on the explicit knowledge of local needs and opportunities. (It is basically) the idea that there is no other choice than to take things firmly in your own hands, because the path where we are being taken by ‘the current’ – we’ve seen it doesn’t lead to a good result. That’s a bit of an exaggerated way to put it, because of course we used to think about Lieksa’s advantage, but that vision has now truly been enforced. A manifestation of this approach emerged in 2016 when Lieksa’s municipal leadership decided to leave the subregional economic development agency PIKES (Pielisen Karjalan Kehittämiskeskus Oy), which Lieksa and the neighbouring municipalities of Nurmes and Valtimo had founded in July2006. PIKES had been tasked with the promotion and development of the subregional area of Pielinen Karelia (the northern part of the region of North Karelia) through the support of business, entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurship. PIKES was also assigned the role of attracting new companies to the area by operating as a first contact and source of support for businesses planning to settle in the area. The struggle against territorial disadvantage in Lieksa 241 Although the stated aim of PIKES was to benefit the entire subregion, a feeling in Lieksa (and Valtimo) emerged that PIKES was favouring the municipality of Nurmes, even though the City of Lieksa was the largest shareholder and thus paid the major share of costs. Acontributory factor was that the PIKES headquarters was in Nurmes. The new leadership in Lieksa was instrumental in the finalization of the separation from PIKES. An argument advanced in that decision was its coherence with the new City Strategy 2030. As the improvement of vitality in the city was one of the cornerstones of the strategy (its first priority area), it was deemed important to repatriate as many vitality-related measures as possible to a unit controlled by the city itself. Towards democratic accountability The new approach adopted in city governance in Lieksa not only included a striving for more effectiveness and speedy decision-making but also had the goal of improving transparency and openness under the banner of ‘vitality’, which in turn contributed to increased legitimacy, accountability, and trust. In Lieksa, this endeavour mostly included a basic appreciation of participation, that is, an overall understanding that local human interaction was an important resource for local (economic) development. Participation (osallisuus) is one of the four priority areas of the City Strategy 2030, which states in this context that ‘the residents of Lieksa will be more responsible, active and aware: increasing the appreciation of municipal decision making’. The strategy itself was also drawn up in a more participatory manner than previous ones, which was manifested in an effort to involve and include the views of a diversity of stakeholders representing various sectors in Lieksa. The inclusion of these diverse views also increased the legitimacy of the municipal leadership in the strategy’s implementation. As one of the respondents put it: ‘It (the change in procedures and ways of doing things) is probably linked to the fact that the strategy was jointly drawn up, prepared, planned, and widely accepted – and people rely on it’. In this context, civil society organizations and village associations play an important role as conduits and interfaces between the municipal leadership and citizens. Village associations play an especially important role in addressing the growing divergence and disconnect between the urban centre of Lieksa and the municipality’s surrounding small villages. In these small settlements municipal service provision has been reduced as a result of reduced demand and cost-cutting, and more emphasis has had to be placed on communal initiatives and activities. Overall, the local municipal leadership saw the value of citizens and civil society having access to information about decision-making and the benefit of having an accessible and communicative leadership in Lieksa (a responsive administration). Indeed, these aspects were also understood as factors of ‘administrative effectiveness’, enabling citizens to become engaged in and be of benefit to municipal affairs. In practice this 248 Katalin Kovács et al. second section, the concepts of Autonomy and Spatial Justice are explored in the context of the LEADER approach, in order to develop a framework for analysing the autonomy of the case study actions, with a particular focus on a widely adopted definition of autonomy as powers of initiation and immunity and considering the role of participation and vernacular knowledge in local development. There follow the two empirical sections of the paper, starting with the Findings, which begins by looking at the broader institutional and policy contexts for each compared LEADER programme at national levels, including the implications of later EU accession. This is succeeded by subsections on the autonomy themes of Participation, Powers of Initiation and Powers of Immunity, under each of which similarities and differences between the three case studies’ implementations of the programme are explored. The fourth and final part, the Discussion and Conclusion, integrates the foregoing discussions of local autonomy and spatial justice at the theoretical level with the empirical evidence of the case studies, clarifying what degree of autonomy might be expected of a LEADER action, its impacts on spatial justice and the flaws in the programme design that make it vulnerable to co-option by more powerful players at local and higher levels. LEADER, governance and rural development Historically, the governance of Europe’s rural areas focused on their role in servicing towns and cities. Then, particularly in the post-war period, this crystallized into an approach known as ‘exogenous rural development’, whereby rural areas were developed and governed by external authorities in a top-down manner, which went hand-in-hand with a productivist attitude to rural industrial sectors, in particular food production. By the early 1990s when the pilot LEADER community initiative was introduced, agricultural surpluses and environmental concerns had for some time shown the inadequacies of the exogenous, sectoral approach and led to calls for a broader, cross-sectoral form of rural development (Commission of the European Communities, 1988). ‘Endogenous’ approaches placed a new focus on area-based rural development, based on making the most of local resources through local participation. Within this context, LEADER represented a switch for the European Commission towards bottom-up, area-based rural development with a focus on capacity building (Black and Conway, 1996; Ray, 1998; MacKinnon, 2002; Scott, 2002; Woods, 2005). Key for this to work is that area-based local development, informed by local participation, also needs to be well-networked and integrated externally, securing the place of the dependent local area within wider power structures and external sources of support. [N]etworked development involves not only deliberative governance and territorial place shaping, but also institutional capacity building, Autonomy and LEADER 249 engagement in relational networks and sharing of responsibilities with an enabling state and other actors ... to secure their wider spaces of association in a networked world. (Shucksmith etal., 2021: 326) LEADER is supposed to be particularly designed to affect this kind of ‘neoendogenous’, networked rural development, given the definitional principles and the broad structure that it has evolved through its various iterations since 1991. At the highest, EU level, LEADER evolved from an experimental phase, focused solely on deprived rural areas, and aimed at identifying and building on local economic strengths with the aim of reducing rural-urban disparities; to a greater focus on intra-regional equity, creating internal spatial justice through addressing the inclusion of marginalized groups (ENRD, 2016; Shucksmith etal., 2021). At an administrative level it has moved from being an independent, small-scale funding stream of £1.2billion in LEADER I, shared between 217 schemes; to integration as a delivery option within a major EU funding programme (Pillar 2 of CAP), at a value of £9.8billion, implemented by over 2,650 schemes as part of overall EU rural development policy (Atterton etal., 2020). It is the seven principles,1 set out by European Commission, which make the LEADER approach adequate to bottom-up rural development for an enlarged Union. While old member states were building up their experience in LEADER implementation, by the early 2000s the first wave of new member states from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) were joining the initiative. They encountered LEADER as a mature, no longer experimental policy (Augustyn and Nemes, 2014). Aclash between the already mature conceptual apparatus of LEADER and the newly encountered social and institutional structures soon emerged, as particularly exemplified in the Romanian case study in the analysis below. LEADER has both a horizontal, networked aspect and an aspect of vertical integration – in this sense it is both bottom-up and top-down. Shucksmith etal. (2021) argue that, while Local Development Strategies were negotiated with and approved by the European Commission in LEADER I, subsequently the scheme has become ever more subject to national and sub-national oversight and control (Ray, 1998; Hubbard and Gorton, 2011; Müller etal., 2020; Konečný etal., 2020, cited in Shucksmith etal., 2021: 323), a process of appropriation observed in numerous European case studies. This is one of the key dimensions along which our case studies were analysed and compared. Autonomy and spatial justice in the context of the LEADER approach In this section we will problematize the degree of autonomy of LEADER local action groups (LAGs), and the ways in which this relates to two aspects 250 Katalin Kovács et al. of spatial justice, procedural and distributive justice. In scrutinizing LEADER LAG autonomy, we adopt the approach of Ladner etal. (2015) as already adapted for the objectives of the RELOCAL project by Blondel and Evrard (2020) who made the first attempts to link the concept of autonomy to spatial justice. Following Ladner etal. (2015), Blondel and Evrard adopted the definition unaltered from Clark, who in his seminal article on the theory of local autonomy, identified two primary principles of local autonomy: the power of initiation and the power of immunity (Clark, 1984: 198). Initiation, according to Clark, means ‘the actions of local governments in carrying out their rightful duties’ whilst immunity expresses the ‘powers of localities to act without fear of the oversight of higher tiers of the state’. According to Clark, ‘autonomy also defines the extent of local discretion in terms of local functions, actions, and legitimate behaviour’ (Clark, 1984: 198). What permits adapting a classification tailored to local governments for our purpose is that LAGs act, within the bounds of their remit, as the bottom layer of a multi-level governance system, in which authorities at the EU and national levels represent the top and intermediate tiers. In drawing this parallel we disregard the feature of LEADER whereby each Local Action Group defines its own territory and thus LEADER goes beyond ‘local’ and can be interpreted as ‘territorial’. However, it still represents a Local Administrative Unit (LAU) level according to the EU classification system. Another contextual parallel that can be drawn between LEADER and local autonomy is decentralization induced by the so-called neoliberal turn of the last decades of the 20th century, which entails a reduced central state with competences devolved to lower levels as well as more collaborative governance. It was the OECD’s New Rural Paradigm (2006) that advocated a new approach in rural development based on three main factors, with decentralization and changed regional policies among them. The shift of focus pointed to the increasing importance of the local (focused on place, rather than sectors) and investments, rather than subsidies (OECD, 2006: 56–58). The LEADER Programme was highlighted in this OECD publication in appreciation of its integrated and endogenous approach to rural development and its multi-level governance model (OECD, 2006: 90–94). The two notions of decentralization and local autonomy appear to be closely connected in a large body of the literature, for example, the central hypothesis of a recently published volume is that the ‘degree of decentralization and the level of local autonomy correlates positively with the level of development’ (Silva, 2020: 2). Concerning LEADER, Chardas (2017: 629) argues that its realization presupposes the existence of state apparatuses with decentralized competences and financial autonomy, which runs into problems in highly centralized states. Other commentators warn that decentralization does not always generate proportionate autonomy in the sense that it might enable local governments to deliver public policies that respond to the needs of their citizens. The capability of local governments to do so depends on the Autonomy and LEADER 251 extent to which the seven dimensions of local autonomy identified by Ladner etal. are within their disposal, that is: legal autonomy, political discretion, scope, financial autonomy, organizational autonomy, non-interference and access (Blondel and Evrard, 2020: 12). It is not only neoliberal ideology that can induce decentralization of the central state, but historical events can also trigger radical decentralization too: this was the shared experience of several Eastern European countries at the time of the fall of state socialism, deriving from real political demand on the part of municipalities for democratic control and autonomy (Devas and Delay, 2006: 678). The process of Europeanization also played a pivotal role in the creation of more decentralized multi-level government structures in Eastern European Countries; Romania was cited as an example by Marquardt etal. (2012: 5) but, more generally, ‘regionalization’ of government was considered as an important condition for entering the EU across the region.2 However, as the Hungarian case has illustrated after 2010, decentralization and even (a restricted) local autonomy might fade suddenly away as a consequence of a sharp political turn towards centralization (Pálné Kovács, 2020: 46). According to Ladner etal., Hungary has gained an outlier position among the European countries in the period 1990–2014 as the only one where local autonomy significantly decreased (Ladner etal., 2015: 60–78). The LEADER Programme is not only decentralized but also collaborative and participatory, which brings it close to local governance issues. In the analysis of Michaels and de Graaf on citizen participation, three of its features are highlighted as factors enhancing democracy: its educative function (it can support citizens to increase their civic skills), its integrative function (it can contribute to citizens’ feeling of belonging of their community) and its role in establishing greater legitimacy of decisions; all of these functions are also pivotal in LEADER (Michaels and de Graaf, 2010: 480). The authors cite a paper in Dutch from 2010, to the effect that participatory policymaking is expected to ‘narrow the gap between citizens and government, enlarges the problem-solving capacity and ... improves the quality of policy’ (Michaels and de Graaf, 2010: 482); these are dimensions frequently mentioned as positive attributes of the LEADER programme. Moreover, according to Devas and Delay, a greater stock of information on resources and their use gained through public participation helps to build the accountability of local government and the emergence of civic society actors ‘capable of engaging effectively with local government ... on behalf of the poor’ (Devas and Delay, 2006: 484), thus contributing to increased social justice prevailing in the locality. There are, however, counterarguments. Zamfir (2020) argues in his article on the Mara Natur case (Romania) that in the present context of intricate procedures and low funding levels, LEADER serves first and foremost as a pedagogical exercise in uneven development. In this vein, the newly inculcated civic skills are factors in furthering uneven development. Similar criticism by 252 Katalin Kovács et al. Husu and Kumpulainen (2019) was raised in relation to the ‘creation of new moral actors’ as an outcome of aspirations in neoliberal policy to ‘empower’ local communities through (among other things) participation. The critical discourse around the neoliberal (Finnish) rural development paradigm argues that ‘community development is not about transferring more power to local people, but rather about withdrawing government resources from communities’ (Husu and Kumpulainen, 2019: 895). The authors’ critical judgement resonates with Peck and Tickell’s (2002) process-based analysis according to which through neoliberalization ‘local institutions and actors were being given responsibility without power’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002: 386). The concept that provides a chance of obviating the shortcomings of neoliberalization is Shucksmith’s ‘disintegrated rural development’. Shucksmith argues that the state can contribute to empowering local communities if it is capable of ‘becoming a catalyst for local action, mobilising less powerful actors and becoming an agent for change’, as the example of Scottish community-based land reform indicates (Shucksmith, 2010: 10). Numerous less radical critiques of the impact of the LEADER Programme on local democracy diagnosed that the LEADER approach fails to reach vulnerable layers of rural communities. Those who are already well resourced, skilled and networked can access LEADER programmes and cope with the demands of the grant applications process, whereas lower-skilled, more isolated actors with less capital behind them may struggle to engage and if engaged, to win grants (Shucksmith, 2000: 13–15). Navarro etal. (2016: 272–273) adduce a long list of authors who found that the LEADER and/or endogenous development approach can reinforce existing power structures and marginalize the poor. The latter article calls attention to the specificities of the Eastern European context owing to a weak presence of interest groups in rural areas in general, and civil society organizations in particular, as a legacy of the socialist past, aggravated by rural outflow, which had been triggered by transition from state socialism. Moreover, people’s lack of trust in the competencies of nonprofessional and non-statutory actors has enabled statutory actors, mayors and employees of local administration or governance frameworks such as micro-regional municipal associations to dominate rural development partnerships across the wider region. This was a common finding for Furmankiewicz etal. (2010) in the Polish context, Macken-Walsh and Curtin (2013) in the Lithuanian context and Marquardt etal. (2012) in the Romanian context. It should be added that the public sector dominance in LEADER LAGs and the strong influence of the power elite are not specific to the Eastern European context. Examples were reported from the Welsh and Spanish contexts as well (Esparcia etal., 2015: 33, 39; Navarro etal., 2016: 283). Looking at the operations of one LAG in Northern Italy and one in Eastern Finland, Rizzo (2013) concluded that local governance styles deeply influence how structures operate. While the Finnish case showed rural activists Autonomy and LEADER 253 to have played a major role in the foundation of the LAG, the Italian case exhibited characteristics of top-down approaches closely contained by the administrative governance bodies. Development as a process and activity can be translated into the language of Clark as the powers of LEADER LAGs, ‘to initiate’, or in the words of Blondel and Evrard ‘to accomplish tasks of local interest’ [our emphasis] (Blondel and Evrard, 2020: 8). Considering the criterion of autonomy and its conditions, self-determination of any local (or territorial) community is obviously related to resources, especially endogenous resources: we might assume that the more locally controlled resources are available for development in a given local community, the higher its level of autonomy. Ray uses the term ‘development repertoire’ to refer to the means of endogenous development, implying ‘a stock of resources or regularly used techniques’ a community might select from in the pursuit of local development objectives (Ray, 1999: 526). His concept envisages resources as both tangible and intangible, examples of the latter being local history, culture or local knowledge ‘transformed into resources available for the territory’ (Ray, 1998: 9). The concept of neo-endogenous development ‘retains a bottom-up core ... yet understands that extralocal factors ... impact on – and are exploitable by – the local level’ (Ray, 2006: 281). Exploiting external factors implies increasing the resource base for local development, yet it does not automatically and immediately increase the level of local autonomy. However, depending on the kind and volume of external resources absorbed, internal resources can be impacted positively too, notwithstanding the fact that external resources embedding into the local context might soon become part of an extended endogenous ‘development repertoire’ of the locality. A parallel concept to neo-endogenous development, and indeed closely related to it in that there is a similar interplay between local and external, is so-called vernacular knowledge as a special form of hybrid expertise. Vernacular knowledge is regarded by Lowe etal. as ‘place based but crucially nourished by outside sources and agents’ (Lowe etal., 2019: 28) generated ‘through the joint production of knowledge, the creation of networks for expertise exchange, and helping equip local actors with methods and tools they can use to develop and apply their own expertise’ (2019: 36). To conclude, neo-endogenous development and vernacular knowledge intertwine in the development process and contribute to the empowerment of the local community; they enhance local resources and thus strengthen local autonomy. The degree of ‘immunity’ according to Clark is the second criterion of local autonomy denoting the scale of interventions and control by donor and/or government agencies of the upper levels of government. Regarding the immunity of LEADER LAGs, which can be translated as the possibility ‘to act, without oversight by higher levels for the local interest’ (Blondel and Evrard, 2020: 8) [our emphasis], the literature as well as our case studies provide 254 Katalin Kovács et al. ample examples. The crudest and most direct state intervention regarding the implementation of the LEADER Programme was reported by Chardas as taking place in austerity-driven Greece, where dictated austerity measures related to governance reform. He presents a gradual recentralization of decision-making regarding local affairs in Greece, where austerity measures imposed by the Greek Government percolated down through a highly centralized and corruption-ridden state to local actors, affecting public institutions managing LEADER. LAGs of course suffered from severe cutbacks in public expenditure but, sadly, declining financial resources in Greece were also coupled with open political corruption, which completely undermined the organizational autonomy of the LAGs. The political manipulation of the projects that are to be implemented is a constant feature of the project selection process in the LEADER programmes. All the mayors and elected members of regional councils are attempting to intervene and promote investment programmes of their political friends. (Chardas, 2017: 630, 639) What was essentially government intervention over LAG autonomy was reported by one of RELOCAL’s case studies from the post-crisis United Kingdom. In this case local development strategies were overridden by the responsible government ministry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), imposing a mandatory minimum limit (70%) of LEADER spending on job creation (Shucksmith etal., 2021: 10). This government action is less surprising if one takes into consideration the United Kingdom’s poor reputation regarding the ‘immunity’ of local government bodies. According to Ladner et al.’s Self-Rule Index (2015: 47), the United Kingdom figured in the group of lowest-scoring countries with a value of 11.74, compared to which only Ireland scored worse among the EU’s advanced capitalist countries (10.47). Of the 39 European countries reviewed, 29 were placed ahead of the United Kingdom and only 9 scored behind, including Albania, Georgia and Moldova. Other accounts of the scope of autonomy of LEADER LAGs reflect either on mismanagement of the Programme at the national level, such as the frequent change of rules (Marquardt etal., 2012: 403), delays in starting the Programmes of which the Hungarian and England case studies also provide examples, or attest to inconveniences deriving from the reporting obligations and overwhelming bureaucracy (Cardenas Alonso and Nieto Maso, 2020; Chevalier etal., 2017; Oostindie and van Broekhuizen, 2010). Navarro etal. (2016: 280, 284) raise in their study the issue of the ‘erosion of idealism’ in LEADER that has been a growing feature of the subsequent programming periods, speeding up particularly since it has been mainstreamed in the 2007–2013 cycle. Autonomy and LEADER 255 The latter authors implemented a comparative survey among LAG managers in Wales and Andalusia which is highly relevant from the point of view of governance issues. Managers were asked among other things about their LAG’s autonomy, indicating the level of decision-making autonomy on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high); the mean score was 3.8. They also gave positive evaluations of their LAG’s impact on the enhancement of local decisions (4.1 mean score). In spite of such basically positive views, the most important attributes of LEADER LAGs and their democratizing impact was considered to be on the wane, and moving towards stronger integration with mainstream rural development policies, which resulted in deficiencies in many instances: ‘LAGs have often been controlled by mayors and political representatives of the local and regional public sector, and this has resulted in the RDPs being used to promote political patronage, with political and economic leaders taking decisions over objectives’ (Navarro etal., 2016: 283) At this point the conclusion begins to consolidate that the Greek case described by Chardas may not be that far from the mainstream. Findings The diversity of implementations of LEADER is widely acknowledged. The contextual drivers can be presented in a number of dimensions: one is related to the different geopolitical histories, particularly the situation of new versus old member states; the second relates to institutional background, that is centralized or decentralized state and multi-level governance structures; the third regards policy contexts. And finally, regarding LEADER, the territorial/local context must be underlined, as the crossroads where all the other dimensions meet and interact. A comparison of the broader national contexts and their impacts on the implementation of the LEADER programme in the two most recent iterations is introduced in the first part of the section below. The second part features a discussion of the similarities and differences concerning the degree of autonomy and related issues revealed by the analysis of the three examined cases. EU membership, multi-level governance, institutional environment Differences are apparent between the countries, as far as the institutional environment at the local level is concerned. These are partially related to multi-level governance structures and management patterns. In Hungary, the LEADER Programme has always been governed from the centre, in England implementation was still regionalized at the beginning of the 2007–2013 iteration, up to 2012, when the regional level in Northeast England was dissolved following a sharp political turn to the right at national level. The political turn in both countries paradoxically brought about similar changes 256 Katalin Kovács et al. in multi-level governance: the beginning of significant recentralization by, among others, abolishing NUTS-2 regions (in Hungary LAU-1 micro-regions as well). In Romania, programme-level pursuit of LEADER was also centralized; nevertheless, county-level authorities (NUTS-3 level) remained influential actors playing an important role in sustaining LAGs through membership fees. In Hungary, county-level authorities are not involved with LEADER LAGs. Further differences of institutional environment for implementing the LEADER Programme can be illustrated by the UK example where local authorities have had administrative and supporting roles to play (host body, managing body) for LAGs. Such an institutionalized pattern of embedding LAGs into the realm (and services) of local authorities is unknown in both Hungary and Romania. Continuing with the LEADER Programme as it matured through its successive phases, the advantage of the United Kingdom was immense at the beginning of the 2007–2013 cycle: the United Kingdom/England had taken part in all iterations of LEADER since its introduction in 1991. While Hungary only joined the European Union in 2004, a so-called experimental LEADER Programme was already launched there in 2001 by the Rural Development Department of the Ministry for Agricultural and Rural Development. This was followed by LEADER+ after EU accession in 2004, still as a pilot phase, but with the opportunity of learning and experimenting now provided for many more LAGs (70). It was with the 2007–2013 cycle that LEADER implementation in Hungary entered a more-or-less established phase. Unlike in the United Kingdom/England and later in Romania, Hungarian policymakers were self-confident enough to implement LEADER not only as a separate axis (Axis 4) of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) but also as a crosscutting instrument in the delivery of four of the six3 measures of Axis 3. This is the period when the programme was extended to the entire country. In 2007, when preparations for the new programming cycle commenced in the other two countries, Romania had just joined the European Union. It thus implemented LEADER from scratch, with a three-year lag after Hungary, and no home-grown experimental phase. The broader policy context The main goals to be achieved by the EU Rural Development Programme (RDP) were changed rather significantly in the 2014–2020 iteration. New priorities emerged, such as Priority 64 addressing poverty reduction, the most relevant from the point of view of our interest. Agreater sensitivity towards social issues, however, mostly remained at the level of rhetoric rather than reality: because social inclusion was to be achieved as an overall impact of economic and ICT development, the scope of Local Development Strategies (LDS) did not show much difference from those of earlier iterations in either of the investigated cases. The new EU framework for rural policy provided more flexibility for national-level policymakers than before, which Autonomy and LEADER 257 was used to a different degree in member states. In Mansfeld-Südharz (East Germany), for example, 14% of the RDF was allocated to LEADER (Dax etal., 2016), whilst in the three countries under investigation, the allocation was limited to the mandatory minimum of 5% and the big innovation of the programming cycle, namely multi-funded CLLD, was not adopted either. The financial support of mono-funded LEADER significantly declined in the 2014–2020 period in Hungary and England; although not in Romania, which in 2014 entered its first full iteration. The largest reduction of LEADER-like rural development, to one-quarter of the support given in the previous iteration was experienced in Hungary, where the ordinary rural development measures were recentralized, and the poorly funded LEADER measure itself remained the sole measure implemented in a decentralized manner by LAGs. The local context The size and territorial coverage of the LAGs are by and large similar in the three cases, representing areas with resident populations of 43,000 (Hungary), 55,000 (England) and 68,000 (Romania). It is characteristic of LEADER that the LAG catchment area will have been evolved specifically for the bid to the programme, and it may not have any other governance or administrative profile outside of the LAG action. Therefore, emerging shared identity is indicative of a successful community-building process implemented throughout the idiosyncratic LAG history. It is probably not by chance that positive connotations concerning the LAG community and a definite, newly evolved common identity seem to be strongest in the Balaton Uplands case, where the LAG catchment area was built through a series of negotiations by the local actors in 2007. As far as territorial disparities are concerned, a rather significant gap between wealthy lakeside and disadvantaged ‘inland’ villages around Sümeg prevailed within the LAG area. Nevertheless, overall, it is an area rich in resources, with regard not only to its economic attributes (high touristic potential, vine growing, agglomeration zones) but also to its natural beauty, cultural heritage and human capital. In England, the first NULAG catchment area was initiated by the regional development agency, One North East (ONE NE), in 2007, which separated the more prosperous and accessible coastal area of the former county-wide Northumberland LAG, from the remote uplands, which are dominated by low-income upland farms, forestry and military ranges, and with an economy characterized by SMEs and micro-businesses. ONE NE was also responsible for bringing together the team of uplands residents who were behind the first NULAG LDS, which represented the bid to central government for the LEADER grant. In its second and final period – it ended prematurely in 2020 due to Brexit – when it was hosted by the Local Authority, Northumberland County Council (NCC), this LAG expanded its boundaries to embrace 264 Katalin Kovács et al. Balaton Uplands LAG has operated independently of any upper-level local authorities; it is extremely vulnerable to national-level policy decisions and the shrinking financial endowment of the LEADER Programme; it has suffered a major drop in funding and lengthy delays in implementation; but its autonomy has not been disturbed otherwise than by procedural issues. LEADER is a programme which makes available small grants for rural actors and thus its direct impact on spatial injustice is necessarily limited. However, if the distributional aspect of LEADER, linked to development, is considered, the aim of contributing to a more just territorial distribution of resources represented a specific focus in two of the three case studies (NULAG and Balaton Uplands). In addition to territorial targets, social targets were clear in the NULAG case in the first iteration and in the Balaton Uplands LAG in the second, both having a particular focus on rural youth. The most vulnerable social and minority groups were not addressed in any of the investigated LDSs, which is understandable, if we consider the programme-level thematic agendas of LEADER in the two most recent iterations. If small-scale entrepreneurship, rural tourism and networking of these actors are addressed, for example, in case of the Balaton Uplands LAG, it is necessarily the small business-owning class which gains most benefit from the Programme. This is, however, a legitimate and adequate purpose of rural development, especially in the context of post-state socialism. This fact does not detract from the failure of LEADER to consider how systems of governance and dimensions of power may act to the benefit of existing powerholders, emerging repeatedly in the literature (Commins and Keane, 1994). Those who are already well-resourced, skilled and networked can access LEADER programmes and cope with the demands of the grant applications process, whereas lower-skilled, more isolated actors with less capital behind them may struggle to engage and if engaged, to win grants (Shucksmith, 2000: 213–215). LEADER has been interpreted through diverse discourses. According to critical social scientists quoted earlier, for example, LEADER might work in favour of uneven development and has been shaped by the neoliberalization that was a prevailing trend at the time of its origins in the early 1990s. It is seen by the latter discourses as scaling down responsibility to local levels without providing these lower government levels with financial autonomy and power. Governing approaches and epochal trends are of course always influential but empirical evidence suggests that the concrete drivers of decentralization differ by macro-region in Europe. The allocation or withdrawal of resources can be triggered by different contexts as well. In the former state socialist countries, and in Hungary specifically, decentralization of state administration was a reaction to the failing, over-centralized socialist state structures, rather than a manifestation of neoliberalization, and withdrawal of the already meagre development resources from the local level in 2009 was a desperate step enforced by the critical financial status of the heavily [Document text truncated for crawler view.]