Territorial cohesion: an EU concept

eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 1 The Eu opean Jou nal o Spa ial De elopmen is published by No d egio, No dic Cen e o Spa ial De elopmen and Del Uni e si y o Technology, Facul y o A chi ec u e and Buil En i onmen . ISSN 1650-9544 Publica ion de ails, including ins uc ions o au ho s: www.no d egio.se/EJSD Indexed in Scopus and DOAJ Te i o ial Cohesion: An EU concep Edua do Medei os Abs ac This a icle add esses he concep o Te i o ial Cohesion, which has been gaining inc easing in e es wi hin academia and he EU policy ci cles. In pa icula , his a icle examines i s ele ance and main dimensions, and also sugges s a comp ehensi e de ini ion based on hose dimensions. Ad- di ionally, his pape p oposes a me hodology which can be used o meas- u e Te i o ial Cohesion in a gi en e i o y. Fu he mo e, he a icle also highligh s he impo ance o he e i o ial dimension as a key opic in he EU poli ical agenda and, a he same ime, gi es a con ibu ion o answe se e al ques ions o deba e exp essed in he G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion. Keywo ds: socioeconomic cohesion, e i o ial cohesion, e i o ial coope a ion, e i o ial go e nance, e i o ial sus ainabili y AUTHOR INFORMATION Edua do Medei os Uni e sidade de Lisboa, Ins i- u e o Geog aphy and Spa ial Planning (IGOT), Lisboa, Po ugal, e-mail: emedei os@ campus.ul.p To ci e his a icle:Medei os, E. (2016). Te i o ial Cohesion: An EU concep , Eu opean Jou nal o Spa ial De elopmen , 60. A ailable om: h p://www.no d egio.se/Global/EJSD/Re e eed a icles/ e e eed60.pd Online publica ion da e: Ap il 2016 Re e eed a icle No. 60 Ap il 2016 eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 2 1. In oduc ion The Eu opean concep o e i o ial cohesion is a ela i ely ecen de el- opmen , ye i is complex, elusi e, and ambiguous. In he bigge pic u e, acco ding o Faludi (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011), his concep has F ench oo s, as i was i s discussed by he Assembly o Eu opean Regions, unde he ice p esiden Robe Sa y (chai man o he F ench Comi é in e minis é iel de l’aménagemen du e i oi e), and a e wa ds popu- la ized in he Eu opean Commission (EC) by he F ench Commissione o Regional Policy Michel Ba nie , who “ ensu ed ha e i o ial co- hesion ecei ed a men ion in ela ion o gene al se ices o economic in e es in he T ea y o Ams e dam coming in o o ce in 1997” (Faludi, 2009: 2). In essence, his e lec ed a will o coun e ac he p e ailing endency o ma ke o ces o a ou he mos compe i i e and popula ed egions, hus ollowing he F ench ision o p omo ing mo e cohesi e and balanced de elopmen by he end o he 20 h cen u y. Since hen, a chain o e en s has p omp ed a ange o deba es and discussions a ound his concep , wi h wo highligh s: he launch o he G een Pape on Te - i o ial Cohesion (EC, 2008), and i s inclusion in he Lisbon T ea y, in 2009, as one o he h ee main pilla s o he EU (Eu opean Union) Co- hesion Policy. In he mean ime, he ecen ascina ion wi h his eme ging ‘EU con- cep ual no el y’, along wi h he need o b ing new insigh s and o cla i y he concep o e i o ial cohesion ( hus en iching he knowledge base su ounding his c ucial and comp ehensi e concep ), has begun o pe mea e academic discou se (see Böhme e al., 2008, 2011; Camagni, 2008; ESPON 3.2, 2006; ESPON INTERCO, 2011; Schön, 2009; Faludi, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 1013a, 2013b; Da oudi, 2005; Van Well, 2012). Ye , so a , ew s udies ha e a emp ed o iden i y i s main dimensions o o o e a ich ein o heo e ical easoning ha could p o e ins uc i e owa ds he elabo a ion o a me hodology which e ec i ely measu es he e i o ial cohesion o a gi en e i o y. He e, some ESPON epo s p o ide in e es ing a emp s o ope a ionalize and measu e his ague concep (ESPON 3.2, 2006; ESPON INTERCO, 2011). In his con ex , his a icle aims o p o ide an upda ed o e iew o he concep o e i o ial cohesion, and i s ele ance o he EU objec i e o a mo e balanced and ha monious e i o y, by o e ing a s a e o he a e iew o he exis ing li e a u e on his concep . Fu he mo e, his ex e lec s on he need o app ecia e no only he concep ’s his o i- cal backg ound and ela ed mains eam poli ical discou ses, bu also o mo e beyond he pe sis en EU (mis)unde s anding o ‘ e i o y’ as he simpli ied sum o economy, socie y and en i onmen . In o de o ga he a mo e comp ehensi e and holis ic pe spec i e o he concep o e i o ial cohesion, his pape is di ided in o ou main sec ions. Each one o hem a emp s o answe a conc e e ques ion. The i s e lec s on he ele ance o he e i o ial dimension o cohesion policies in an inc easingly globalized wo ld. In he end, a undamen al ques ion needs o be answe ed: in wha way can his holis ic no ion o e i o ial cohesion imp o e policies o educing inequali ies? The ol- eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 3 lowing sec ion is dedica ed o shedding some ligh on he meaning o he e i o ial cohesion concep . Unlike adi ional app oaches, my analysis p oposes a clea -cu de ini ion o e i o ial cohesion. This de ini ion is u he explo ed in he hi d sec ion, whe e he main dimensions o e - i o ial cohesion a e iden i ied and explained. Finally, he las sec ion is dedica ed o explaining how o measu e he e i o ial cohesion in a gi en e i o y, by cons uc ing and applying an agg ega ed e i o ial cohesion index in an EU Membe -S a e. 2. Why e i o ial cohesion? Why is he no ion o e i o ial cohesion so impo an ? As one o he i s s udies which discussed he e i o ial cohesion concep a gues, economic cohesion does no e ol e in a simila way in all e i o ies and indi iduals (COR, 2003:8). Indeed, as he Fi h Cohesion Repo (EC, 2010a: 11) ecognizes, he egional dispa i ies in GDP pe head emain p onounced in he EU, al hough, o e all, be ween 1996 and 2007 he coe icien o a ia ion ell om 42.7 o 39.1. Howe e , acco ding o he same documen , egional dispa i ies ha e inc eased in se e al Membe S a es du ing his pe iod o ime, which e lec s he in ense concen a- ion o g ow h in hei me opoli an a eas. Also, a cu so y glance a a mo e wo ldwide analysis makes i di icul o dispu e ha economic ac i i y is inc easingly concen a ed wi hin coun ies, which ha e likely been con ibu ing o spa ial dispa i ies in li ing s anda ds and wel a e. This unde lines he common assump ion ha he “concen a ion o he economic ac i i y is ine i able and usu- ally desi able o economic g ow h, bu he esul ed spa ial dispa i ies in wel a e a e no ” (WB, 2009: 2). Indeed, such e i o ial ends a e widely belie ed o be a esul o poli ical in e es s and ma ke o ces, which p i ilege he highly p oduc i e egions, no mally loca ed in la ge me opoli an a eas. These p oduc i e egions no mally expe ience high le els o esou ce e iciency and inno a i e capaci y (EC, 2014), along- side he a ailabili y o socioeconomic in as uc u e, la ge ma ke s, quali ied labou o ce, and access o capi al. F om he onse , he (p esen ly known) EU ecognized, in hei ea ly ea ies, he need o co ec exis ing social and economic imbalances. Fo ins ance, A icle 130a o he Single Eu opean Ac clea ly s a ed ha “in o de o p omo e i s o e all ha monious de elopmen , he Commu- ni y shall de elop and pu sue i s ac ions leading o he s eng hening o i s economic and social cohesion. In pa icula he Communi y shall aim a educing dispa i ies be ween he a ious egions and he backwa d- ness o he leas - a ou ed egions” (EC, 1987: 337). Al hough he no ion o e i o ial cohesion is no explici ly used in he ex , i is implici ia e e ences made o he ‘Eu opean Regions’. Howe e , a p obable eason no o include he no ion o e i o ial cohesion a his s age o EU poli- ics is he ac ha e i o ial cohesion policy is a sensi i e issue o he so e eign y o s a es. D i en by he need o be e unde s and he causes behind hese in- c easing e i o ial dispa i ies a all scales (sup a-na ional, na ional, in- a-na ional), mos schola s d aw on a e ile adi ion o ocusing hei eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 4 analysis on he social and economic aspec s o cohesion (see Amin and Tomaney, 1995a; Hannequa , 1992; Danson, 1999; Leona di, 2005, 2006; Wishlade, 2008; Flo io, 2006; Mai a e, 2006; Giannias e al., 1999; Gue sen , 2001), while o he s base hei analysis in he s andalone economic dimension by u ning o econome ic models, like he inpu - ou pu analysis (Ma in and Tyle , 2006; Ba e bu y, 2006; Bach le and W en, 2006; Badinge e al., 2004; C escenzi, 2009). He e, cohe- sion and inequali ies a e discussed wi hou men ioning he e i o ial dimension speci ically, as he concep o cohesion is essen ially associ- a ed wi h he goal o educing socioeconomic dispa i ies in Eu ope (see Mayes, 1995). Running pa allel o his longs anding p e alence o socioeconomic cohesion analysis in a ailable li e a u e is an inabili y om he main- s eam geog aphical analysis o impose a mo e comple e and holis ic ision o he cohesion concep . The e ha e been, mo eo e , s a is ical cons ain s in ge ing compa able indica o s in non-socioeconomic e i o ial componen s. In ma ked con as , socioeconomic cohesion analysis can be mo e easily c ea ed. Fo ins ance, economic cohesion analysis can be based on he use o GDP, employmen /unemploymen a es, and p oduc i i y changes in a gi en place. Fo i s pa , he socio- cohesion analysis uses, all oo o en, da a ela ed o educa ion, heal h, social exclusion, and social p o ec ion ela ed indica o s (Molle, 2007; EC, 2010a). This is o say ha o p oduce a socioeconomic analysis o cohesion is no as complex as p oducing a e i o ial cohesion analysis. E en so, some ea ly s udies on cohesion did no ully neglec he exis ence o e i o ial imbalances in Eu ope in, o ins ance, p oduc- i i y, unemploymen , and GDP (Amin and Tomaney, 1995b; Amin e al., 1992), while o he s b ough o he discussion he en i onmen al di- mension o cohesion (Bach le and Michie, 1994) a a e y ea ly s age. No wi hs anding, he elease o he Eu opean Spa ial De elopmen Pe - spec i e (ESDP – EC, 1999) ma ks he decisi e miles one in pu ing he ‘ e i o y’ as a ‘new dimension o he Eu opean Policy’. Cu iously, his documen only used he e m ‘ e i o ial cohesion’ once in i s ex , as a complemen o social cohesion. And soon a e i s publishing, he Com- mission ceased i s suppo o in e go e nmen al spa ial planning (Fa- ludi, 2009). The e i al o he e i o ial cohesion no ion wi hin he EU agenda was only ins illed se e al yea s la e , wi h he publica ion o he G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion (EC, 2008), which “has succeeded in ex- ending he e i o ial cohesion deba e o a b oade coali ion o g oups ha compe e o in luence o e policy de elopmen ” (Adams e al., 2014: 729) and ended up pu ing he de ini ion o e i o ial cohesion up o deba e (Faludi, 2009). Despi e hese e o s, he inclusion o he e i o- ial cohesion as a main goal o EU policy, alongside social and economic cohesion ela ed ones, in he Lisbon T ea y (2009), did no p o ide a clea and o icial de ini ion o his concep . Ne e heless, i endo sed a message ha “ e i o y is ele an o p omo ing compe i i eness and o add essing egional and social inequi ies” (Faludi and Pey ony, 2011:4). eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 5 In spi e o his ecogni ion, he adop ion o he Eu ope 2020 s a egy by he EU, ollows a ‘g ow h’ a he han a ‘de elopmen ’ na a i e, in- cluding he no ion o e i o ial cohesion wi hin he ‘inclusi e g ow h’ p io i y: “ os e ing a high-employmen economy deli e ing social and e i o ial cohesion” (EC, 2010b:3). This migh indica e a lack o ocus and poli ical will o be e unde s and he no ion o e i o ial cohesion wi hin EU poli ical ci cles. Mo e ecen ly, he cu en s a us o EU Cohesion Policy (2014-2020), in imes o inancial cons ain s, gene ally ollows he guidelines o he Eu ope 2020 s a egy in suppo ing i s main p io i ies (sma , sus ain- able, and inclusi e g ow h) and he ele en ela ed speci ic hema ic ob- jec i es. E en so, he main mission and goals exp essed in i s egula ion con inue o s a e ha “ he Funds shall con ibu e o de eloping and pu - suing he ac ions o he Union leading o s eng hening o i s economic, social, and e i o ial cohesion in acco dance wi h A icle 174 TFEU” (EC, 2013, 63). Mo eo e , wo new ins umen s ha e been in oduced in o de o achie e he e i o ial cohesion objec i e in his p og amming pe iod: (i) he Communi y-Led Local De elopmen (CLLD), and (ii) he In eg a ed Te i o ial In es men s (ITI). The i s ollows om he p e- ious expe iences o he LEADER Communi y Ini ia i e in de eloping u al a eas, and he second is sold as a lexible mechanism o o mula e in eg a ed esponses o di e se e i o ial needs. Be ha as i may, he unde going EU poli ical agenda does no place e i o ial cohesion policy as a main opic o poli ical discussion, while he exis ing UE documen s which shed some ligh on he e i o ial co- hesion no ion, like he la e Cohesion Repo , b ing ew con incing a - gumen s o his deba e (see EC, 2014: 202). Indeed, based on indings o he ESDP, Faludi (2006, 2007) emembe s ha e i o ial cohesion also ela es o sus ainabili y, good go e nance, he need o s eng hen a mo e balanced and polycen ic u ban sys em, and o encou age e - i o ial coope a ion and ne wo king. Howe e , he agueness o he e - i o ial cohesion concep (Faludi, 2013a), associa ed wi h i s di e en in e p e a ions wi hin each one o he EU Membe S a es (Luukkonen, 2010), and he lack o a widely accep ed me hodology o analyse and measu e he e i o ial cohesion in a pa icula e i o y, de e s many schola s om pu suing his ype o analysis. Howe e , he eal challenge is o ansla e he e i o ial cohesion concep in o an easily unde s ood and easily measu ed ype o concep , as he economic and social ones a e. None heless, he e should be an a emp o a oid edundan and excessi e componen s and dimensions, which would make i di icul o d aw use ul conclusions on he e olu- ion o e i o ial cohesion in a gi en e i o y. In his ega d, he e a e posi i e signs owa ds he elabo a ion o me hodologies which can p o- ide a solid g ound o analyse e i o ial cohesion, namely wi hin he ESPON P og amme (ESPON INTERCO, 2011; ESPON KITCASP, 2012). Rega ding his P og amme, i was launched in 2002 by he EC, wi h he expec a ion o suppo applied esea ch and s udies on e i o ial de el- opmen and spa ial planning, in suppo o policy de elopmen , namely by: (i) diagnosing he p incipal e i o ial ends, po en ials and imbal- eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 6 ances wi hin he Eu opean e i o y; (ii) assessing he main impac s o EU policies; (iii) elabo a ing spa ial scena ios and de elopmen oppo - uni ies; and (i ) building policy e alua ion ools, echniques, me hod- ologies, indica o s and da abases. Indeed, he need o measu ing e i o ial cohesion is wo old. Fo one, a widely accep ed me hod o measu ing e i o ial cohesion would help o educe i s scien i ic misunde s anding, and o engage he aca- demic communi y in p oducing use ul s udies, which could be o i al impo ance o be e unde s and and co ec e i o ial imbalances. Sec- ondly, a he poli ical le el, he e i o ial cohesion concep could be dis- cussed in a mo e conc e e and ocused way. In bo h cases, he need o he elabo a ion o agg ega ed e i o ial cohesion indica o s is o c ucial impo ance, as his would allow o he design o a conc e e indica o . Such an indica o could measu e he e i o ial cohesion in a ce ain pe- iod o ime, hus pe mi ing he measu emen o e i o ial cohesion ends in gene al and in all hei main dimensions. This is especially use- ul in assessing he impac o cohesion and de elopmen policies, such as EU Cohesion Policy. The goal is o p o ide an addi ional con ibu- ion o his deba e in he ollowing sec ions. No wi hs anding, I am ully awa e ha good esea ch does no necessa ily lead o a mo e in o med policy. Bu , in my iew, lea ing he a e o knowledge ega ding e i o- ial cohesion o non-measu able and unin o med academic discussions would only con ibu e o main ain he p esen , elusi e s a us quo o his no ion ad e e num. 3. Wha is e i o ial cohesion? One way o sol ing a concep ual iddle is by explo ing he exac mean- ing o he wo ds which compose he concep . In his case, he i s wo d ( e i o ial) is ela ed wi h he key geog aphical no ion o ‘ e i o y’. No need o say ha ‘ e i o y’ is, by i sel , a complex (Da oudi e al., 2008) and dynamic (Elden, 2013) concep . Also, he e is a need o a mul i- disciplina y app oach o unde s and all he elemen s p esen in human sociospa ial o ganiza ions. Indeed, i one ega ds ‘ e i o y’ as an a ea o e which igh s o owne ship a e exe cised (Hagge , 2001), o an ex- p ession o he usion o powe and social space (Delaney, 2009), se - e al in e ela ed componen s and dimensions become implici in his discussion, such as go e nance, economy, so e eign y, and ci izenship. As Delaney (2009: 196) pu s i : ” e i o y and e i o iali y a e among he mos basic and signi ican e ms in human geog aphy (…). He e, e i o y delimi s he spa ial scope and limi s o so e eign y, ju isdic- ion, adminis a ion, and ci izenship”. In u n, “ he e m ‘ e i o iali y’ is used in a numbe o senses”. Mo e speci ically, e i o iali y is ela ed wi h: (i) he eeling o owne ship o a space by i s occupan s (place a - achmen ) (Wa wick, 2009: 202; Was l-Wal e , 2009: 332); (ii) any o m o beha iou displayed by indi iduals and g oups seeking o es- ablish, con ol, main ain, and exe cise powe o e space (Gold, 2009: 282; Pen ose, 2009: 223; Fy e, 2009: 212; S o ey, 2009: 245; Coleman, 2009: 255); and (iii) he in ol emen o e i o ial ensembles wi h o he social phenomena such as powe o iden i y (Delaney, 2009: 197). In eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 7 sum, e i o ial analysis is complex as i in ol es he in e play o se e al in e ela ed elemen s. When con empla ing he second wo d o his concep (cohesion), he Sho e Ox o d English Dic iona y de ines i as “ he ac ion o condi ion o cohe ing” (OXFORD, 1970). Unsu p isingly, no answe s a e e iden conce ning he meaning o e i o ial cohesion. By implica ion, and in iew o he abo e, a simple connec ion o bo h he ‘ e i o ial’ and he ‘cohesion’ meanings opens up a window o a a ie y o possible abs ac de ini ions such as: ‘a way o cohe ing an a ea o e which igh s o own- e ship a e exe cised’. Al e na i ely, in an a emp o espond o he challenge posed by he G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion, and o p opose a widely ac- cep ed de ini ion o he e i o ial cohesion concep (EC, 2008: 12), one p obably has o be keen o s e ch hei hinking in a di e en di ec ion. Mo e conc e ely, his challenge could p incipally be ocused in de ec ing i s main dimensions and componen s. In his sense, some in oke he mul i-dimensional cha ac e o he Te i o ial Concep , and i s dynamic cha ac e is ics, making i p one o di e en in e p e a ions (ESPON, 2011; G asland and Hamez, 2005). This line o easoning leads me o concen a e he analysis in iden- i ying he main dimensions and componen s o his concep , which will be discussed la e on, a he han inding a ‘nea dic iona y ype o de ini ion’ o e i o ial cohesion. In he end, a p oposed de ini ion will depend on his iden i ica ion. No wi hs anding, in he cou se o he las decade, se e al a emp s we e made o cla i y and de ine his concep . Some o hese ha e an ‘ins i u ional and no ma i e pu pose’, and he emaining en ail a mo e scien i ic in e p e a ion (see Table 1). In a wide sense, he o me emb ace some o he EU T ea ies’ gene al policy goals o p omo ing a mo e balanced, sus ainable, and socially accessible EU e i o y. Con e sely, he la e mos ly con empla e and iden i y mo e conc e e elemen s o his concep . E en hough a di ec e e ence o he e i o ial dimension o he co- hesion goal is no p esen in he Maas ich T ea y, i is implici , since i shows conce n o he EU egional dispa i ies. The same ecogni ion was pu o wa d soon a e by a “Commission’s 1993 Whi e Pape ”, which in oked he compe i i eness imp o emen o he EU weake e- gions (EC, 1996: 11). A ew yea s la e , in 1997, he Ams e dam T ea y used he e m e i o ial cohesion (Mi wald e al., 2009) (A icle 16) alongside wi h he need o p omo e social cohesion in he Union. Ye , he e i o ial dimension was only o icially added as he hi d pilla o he cohesion in he Lisbon T ea y (a icle 3 - 2009), oge he wi h he ‘old EU’ goals o social and economic cohesion. This explici ecogni ion o include e i o ial cohesion as a main EU poli ical conce n was also accompanied wi h a new de ini ion o subsidia i y, p o iding he op- po uni y o s eng hen he ole o egional and local ac o s (Samecki, 2009). In he mean ime (be ween he Ams e dam T ea y and he Lisbon T ea y), he impo ance o he e i o ial dimension in se e al ‘ e i o- ial planning/de elopmen /cohesion’ lagship epo s was consis en ly eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 8 Table 1. P oposed de ini ions o Te i o ial Cohesion Sou ce De ini ion INSTITUTIONAL DEFINITIONS G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion - To ensu e a balanced and sus ainable e i o ial de elopmen o he EU as a whole, s eng hening i s economic compe i i eness and capaci y o g ow h while espec ing he need o p ese e i s na u al asse s and ensu ing social cohesion - I builds b idges be ween economic e ec i eness, social cohesion and eco- logical balance, pu ing sus ainable de elopmen a he hea o policy design Thi d Cohesion Repo - A policy seeking o ensu e ha people should no be disad an aged by whe - e e hey happen o li e o wo k in he Union Fi h Cohesion Repo - Te i o ial Cohesion ein o ces he impo ance o access o se ices, sus ain- able de elopmen , ‘ unc ional geog aphies’ and e i o ial analysis Te i o ial Agenda backg ound documen - To achie e a mo e balanced de elopmen by educing exis ing dispa i ies, a oiding e i o ial imbalances and by making bo h sec o ial policies which ha e a spa ial impac and egional policy mo e cohe en Six h P og ess Repo on Cohesion - To p omo e an ha monious and sus ainable de elopmen o all e i o ies by building on hei cha ac e is ics and esou ces Ki una Con e ence on Te i o ial Cohesion - Te i o ial Cohesion is abou ensu ing a balanced de elopmen o all hese places and abou making su e ha ou ci izens a e able o make he mos o inhe en ea u es o hei e i o y Con e ence o Pe iphe al Ma i ime - To o e ai access o se ices o gene al in e es and o ensu e op imal com- pe i i eness condi ions o all e i o ies Regions Ro he ham Decla a ion - Te i o ial Cohesion ansla es he goal o sus ainable and balanced de elop- men assigned o he Union in o e i o ial e ms SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATIONS Robe o Camagni - Te i o ial Cohesion may be seen as he e i o ial dimension o sus ainabili y -beyond he echnological, he beha iou al and he diploma ic dimensions And eas Faludi - To educe he dominance o a cen al u ban a ea no only economically bu also in e ms o access o decision making - Te i o ial cohesion is hough o in e ms o how well ac i i ies wi hin and also be ween he s acked con aine s ha monise wi h each o he Willen Molle - Te i o ial Cohesion can be seen as a si ua ion whe eby people and i ms a e no unduly handicapped by spa ial di e ences in access o basic se ices, basic in as uc u e and knowledge ESPON 2.2.1 - Te i o ial Cohesion is seen o add ess he po en ial, he posi ion and he ela- i e si ua ion o a gi en geog aphical en i y. I can be analysed and ope a- ionalized a a ious geog aphical le els o scales, i.e. a he mic o, meso o mac o le els ESPON INTERCO - Sma g ow h in a compe i i e and polycen ic Eu ope - Inclusi e, balanced de elopmen and ai access o se ices - Local de elopmen condi ions and geog aphical speci ici ies - En i onmen al dimension and sus ainable de elopmen - Go e nance and coo dina ion o policies and e i o ial impac s Sou ces: (EC, 2008; EC, 2004a; EC, 2010a; EC, 2005a; EC, 2005b; ESPON, 2005; ESPON INTERCO, 2011; EC, 2009a; EC, 2009b; ESPON, 2010; Camagni, 2008; Faludi, 2004, 2013a; Molle, 2007) - Au ho compila ion eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 9 solidi ied, wi h pa icula emphasis o he ESDP (EC, 1999), he Te i o- ial Agendas (Te i o ial Agenda, 2007; Te i o ial Agenda, 2011) he G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion (EC, 2008), and inally he ESPON P og amme. Cu iously, and acco ding o Faludi (2004: 1349), he ini ial ocus o he e i o ial cohesion idea has been on egional economic de elop- men . The same au ho claims ha he oo s o his concep a e o be ound in he F ench exp ession ‘Aménagemen des Te i oi es’, and ha he e is a decisi e F ench poli ical in luence in including his dimen- sion o cohesion in o he EU poli ical agenda, o suppo he Eu opean Model o Socie y, in opposi ion o he libe al Anglo-Saxon model o de- elopmen (Faludi, 2004: 1350). In his ega d, he o me EU Com- missione , Michel Ba nie , had a c ucial ole in including he e i o ial dimension o cohesion in he EU Second Cohesion Repo (EC, 2001), which was absen in he Fi s Cohesion Repo (EC, 1996). He e, he no- ion o e i o ial cohesion associa ed wi h he idea o p omo ing a mo e balanced and ha monious de elopmen was in oked by ollowing he p inciples exp essed in he ESDP, eleased wo yea s ea lie (EC, 1999). Ce ainly, he main dicho omy appea ing in he exis ing in e p e a- ions o he no ion and he EU goal o e i o ial cohesion is ha i is ei he e e ed o as a new EU gene al goal, which goes beyond he social and economic cohesion goals, o i can be unde s ood as an enla gemen o he p e ious goals, by encompassing and including hem in a b oade EU goal. He e, bo h he Lisbon T ea y and he i h EU Cohesion Repo ollow he o me in e p e a ion. Howe e , he e i o ial cohesion goal should no be unde s ood as a new sepa a e goal (o en associa ed wi h he en i onmen al sus ainabili y componen – see EC, 2010a) de ached om he social and economic componen s o cohesion, simply because he Te i o ial Cohesion goal canno be achie ed wi hou ‘ ouching’ se - e al dimensions and componen s associa ed wi h e i o ial de elop- men , which includes social and economic ones. Again, as Da oudi (2004) pu s i , a my iad o isions and de ini ions o e i o ial cohesion we e o e ed by a ious publica ions. Ye , he one ha discussed his concep in a mo e de ailed manne was he EU Thi d Cohesion Repo (EC, 2004a: 27) by s a ing ha “people should no be in disad an age by whe e e hey happen o li e o wo k in he Union”. The same au ho highligh s he impo ance o he e i o ial cohesion concep in b inging a new dimension o (o spa ializing) he deba e on he Eu opean social model: “wi hin he con ex o he Eu opean social model, e i o ial cohesion no only b ings i s embedded poli ical en- sions o he o e, i also gi es hem a spa ial dimension” (Da oudi, 2005: 436). Analogous and dissonan ideas eme ge in his cons an lux o aca- demic enligh enmen o e he e i o ial cohesion no ion. Ne e heless, in a b oad sense, he e is a endency o associa e cohesion wi h ‘con- e gence’. Fo ins ance, acco ding o Molle (2007: 7) “con e gence o weal h is he main objec i e o cohesion policy and hence i is impo an o measu e i s de elopmen and cap u e he ac o s ha con ibu e o ei he a posi i e o a nega i e de elopmen ”. Ye , he same au ho ec- eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 16 so, much o he ini ial discussion on he e i o ial cohesion no ion “has ocused on economic and social aspec s a he han he en i onmen- al dimension”. To change his pic u e, and “ o ensu e ha sus ainable de elopmen is pu sued h oughou Eu ope, he concep o e i o ial cohesion needs o inco po a e he idea o sus ainable de elopmen - in- cluding he en i onmen al dimension” (EEA, 2010: 7). Indeed, ag eemen on he impo ance o he no ion o sus ainable de elopmen as a c ucial mechanism h ough which he cohesion goal can be achie ed can be ound ac oss a wide poli ical spec um (Hje p e al., 2011). Mo e pa icula ly, en i onmen al sus ainabili y is seen as a undamen al ing edien o p omo e in eg a ed e i o ial de elopmen (Te i o ial Agenda, 2011: 4), egional economic g ow h, quali y o li e and egional a ac i eness (EC, 2010a: 238). Fo all hese easons, he p e iously discussed ESPON me hods o as- sess Te i o ial Cohesion (TEQUILA, INTERCO) included he en i on- men al componen as a key elemen in analysing e i o ial cohesion. Fu he mo e, he G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion main ains ha a mo e sus ainable de elopmen is implici in he no ion o e i o ial co- hesion (EC, 2008: 5). Mo eo e , he Eu ope 2020 s a egy in okes he need o p omo e a mo e esou ce e icien , g eene and mo e compe i- i e economy (sus ainable g ow h) (EC, 2010b: 8). In addi ion, he up- da ed Te i o ial Agenda de ines as one o i s main p io i ies he need o manage and connec ecological, landscape and cul u al alues o egions (Te i o ial Agenda, 2011: 8). In sum, he en i onmen al dimension is gaining mo e and mo e ele ance in he EU poli ical agenda, and his dimension canno be se apa om he cen al goal o achie ing a mo e cohesi e EU e i o y. Te i o ial polycen ici y dimension (mo phology): The educ ion o e i o ial dispa i ies is one o he main goals o Eu o- pean Spa ial Policy (ESPON a las, 2006: 14). Acco dingly, he e i o- ial cohesion goal should no only be conce ned wi h he con e gence o economic, social and en i onmen al indica o s, bu also wi h changes in he u ban ne wo k, which should coun e ac monocen ic endencies. In his ega d, he Thi d ESPON Syn hesis Repo is clea when i p edic s ha “in he long- e m, he enla gemen o dispe sion o he Pen agon, and s ong u ban agglome a ions in mo e emo e loca ions, migh con- ibu e o inc eased e i o ial cohesion” (ESPON, 2006: 15). Equally, he ESDP emphasizes ha “ he concep o polycen ic de elopmen has o be pu sued o ensu e egionally balanced de elopmen ” and o a oid excessi e economic and demog aphic concen a ion in he co e a ea o he EU (EC, 1999: 20). Mo eo e , acco ding o he Leipzig Cha e , one o he h ee main s a egic p inciples o he EU de elopmen policy wi h a iew o achie e e i o ial cohesion is ela ed o he es ablishmen o a balanced e i o- ial o ganiza ion, based on a polycen ic u ban s uc u e, o make be e use o a ailable esou ces in Eu opean egions (LC, 2007: 1; Te i o ial Agenda, 2007: 3). As i s ands, he ac i e encou agemen o polycen- ici y is an inc easingly signi ican policy goal in a Eu opean Con ex eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 17 (Hall and Pain, 2006). C ucially, he ESDP s ood ou as an impo an miles one in his end, as i unde lined ha he p omo ion o a mo e polycen ic spa ial a angemen o he EU e i o y is an essen ial p e- equisi e o mo e balanced and sus ainable de elopmen , and con- sequen ly a mo e cohesi e e i o y (EC, 1999: 20-21). O cou se, he analysis o polycen ism la gely depends on he s udied e i o ial scale. Fo his eason, he concep o polycen ic de elopmen can be ega ded as a ‘ a he uzzy’ one, since i means di e en hings o di e en ac o s and on di e en scales, and also because “ he concep s o e i o ial co- hesion and polycen ic de elopmen s ill need o c ys allize ou on he Eu opean scale” (Meije s e al., 2007: 3). None heless, one can a gue ha he e is a s ong case o placing u - ban polycen ici y as one o he main pilla s o he e i o ial cohesion concep , as i p o ides a means o coun e ac excessi e u ban concen- a ion, u ban di usion, and u ban in eg a ion inequali ies (Baudelle and Cas agnède, 2002). Again, a ious ESPON policy scena io epo s unde line his ela ion be ween he goal o e i o ial cohesion and he goal o p omo ing a mo e polycen ic and balanced u ban sys em a he na ional le el (ESPON, 2004). This can be done, o ins ance, by p o- mo ing polycen ic accessibili y in he Eu opean egions, because “e en in he in o ma ion socie y, anspo sys ems and hei physical in a- s uc u e emain i al i u ban ne wo ks a e o lou ish and e i o ial cohesion is o be achie ed” (ESPON ATLAS, 2006: 36). Wha is mo e, “depending on he e i o ial con ex , la ge u ban agglome a ions, small and medium sized owns as well as u al a eas can p o ide good de elopmen oppo uni ies o en e p ises and a ac i e li ing condi- ions o ci izens. Indeed, egional s a egies ha ocus on unc ional specialisa ion and suppo ing en ep eneu ship and SME de elopmen can ein o ce ends owa ds inc easing e i o ial cohesion” (ESPON, 2006:20). The use o his dimension, howe e , equi es pa icula a en ion o he ac ha polycen ici y has wo complemen a y aspec s: one ela es wi h he mo phology (numbe o ci ies, connec i i y, dis ibu ion and hie a chy) and he o he wi h he ela ions be ween u ban se lemen s ( lows, ne wo ks, coope a ion, unc ional complemen a i y) (ESPON, 2004: 3). As such, and since he nex discussed e i o ial cohesion di- mension co e s, in la ge measu e, he la e one ( ela ions), he indica- o s selec ed o measu e his dimension a e mos ly ela ed o he mo - phologic aspec s o polycen ici y (see Fig. 2). In simple e ms, i is expec ed ha e es ial cohesion canno only be achie ed h ough he con e gence o social, economic, and ecological componen s, bu also by he p omo ion o a mo e balanced u ban ne - wo k, which: (i) a ou s he posi ion o small and medium sized owns wi hin he u ban sys em hie a chy/ anking; (ii) imp o es he u ban ne - wo k connec i i y; and (iii) p omo es a mo e compac g ow h o ci ies. The e ised Te i o ial Agenda ollows he same line o hough by s a - ing ha “polycen ic and balanced e i o ial de elopmen o he EU is key elemen o achie ing e i o ial cohesion”, wi h he a gumen ha a mo e polycen ic u ban pa e n con ibu es o be e e i o ial de elop- eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 18 men and os e s he e i o ial compe i i eness o he e i o ies ou - side he la ge me opoli an a eas (Te i o ial Agenda, 2011: 7). Likewise, he ESPON INTERCO (2011) de ined he goal o p omo ing an ‘in eg a ed polycen ic e i o ial de elopmen ’ as one c ucial dimen- sion o e i o ial cohesion, al hough i ocuses mo e on he ela ional el- emen s o he polycen ism concep . Also, he TEQUILA model (ESPON 3.2, 2006), includes polycen ism wi hin a my iad o elemen s which a e impo an o achie ing e i o ial cohesion, despi e no including i as a main pilla o his no ion. No wi hs anding, i would be di icul o con- cei e an unde s anding and measu emen o he p ocess o e i o ial cohesion in a gi en e i o y i one neglec s he e i o ial a angemen s, and mo e conc e ely he u ban ne wo k o ganiza ion and i s e i o ial connec i i y. Te i o ial coope a ion/go e nance dimension: The las dimension is no di ec ly ela ed o any main objec i e o he ESDP. Ye , his documen suppo s he idea ha an in eg a ed spa ial de elopmen equi es new ways o ho izon al and e ical coope a ion, wi h a iew o ein o ce u ban and egional ne wo ks and pa ne ships. I is also impo an o no ice ha he no ion o ‘Te i o ial Go e nance’ - which is ega ded “as a p ocess o he o ganiza ion and co-o dina ion o ac o s o de elop e i o ial capi al in a non-des uc i e way in o de o imp o e e i o ial cohesion a di e en le els” (ESPON 2.3.2, 2006: 13) - is e y much ela ed wi h he no ion o ‘Te i o ial Coope a ion’. Fo his eason, I decided o join bo h designa ions in his ou h and las pilla o he e i o ial cohesion concep . Clea ly, i is possible o unco e a complemen in he ‘ba ie b eak- ing e ec /b idging e i o ies’ aim o he e i o ial coope a ion objec- i e and i s c ucial con ibu ion o achie ing he ESDP goals (ESPON, 2007: 3). The e i o ial go e nance objec i e can be a “condi io sine qua non o gua an ee mo e balanced de elopmen ac oss Eu ope and o achie e e i o ial cohesion” (ESPON 2006 2.3.2: 12), because i o - e s an al e na i e o a ypical ‘hie a chical ype o go e nmen ’ (Schou and Jo dan, 2007: 838). This can allow mo e ac i e public in e en ion and collec i e ac ion o ake place a di e en e i o ial le els h ough a mo e in eg a ed e i o ial de elopmen policy. F om his e i o ial go e nance pe spec i e, which iews ‘ e i o y’ as a ich, complex sys em o public and p i a e ac o s (Faludi, 2004: 1353), e i o ial coope a ion b ings an addi ional con ibu ion o he e i o ial cohesion by enhancing a mo e in eg a ed e i o ial app oach h ough he de elopmen o mul i-le el spa ial de elopmen s a egies. Equally, Gualini (2008) also sugges s ha he e i o ial cohesion “can only gain e ec i e meaning h ough i s app op ia ion and enac men by local- egional go e nance ac o s”. In he bigge pic u e, as Janin Ri olin (2005: 93) no es, “ he pu sui o e i o ial cohesion equi es coo dina ion o na ional planning sys- ems and subsidia i y”, and ha he EU “Cons i u ion should a leas encou age planne s o discuss p inciples o good EU e i o ial go e n- ance by add essing he pe o mance o s a u o y planning sys ems in eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 19 he common a eas o e i o ial cohesion”. Mo e ecen ly, he same au- ho ad oca es ha “ he ecen es ablishmen o e i o ial cohesion as a sha ed compe ence be ween he EU and he Membe S a es, as well as he simul aneous accep ance o he ‘good go e nance’ no ion, may be seen as p omising inpu s owa ds new ins i u ional de elopmen s o EU e i o ial go e nance” (Janin Ri olin, 2010: 19). In bo h a gumen s, he e is a qui e in e es ing connec ion be ween he need o es ablish a sound e i o ial go e nance sys em wi hin he EU, and i s impo ance o he pu sui o he e i o ial cohesion goal. He e, he EU p inciple o subsidia i y a ises as he key ehicle o im- p o ing he e i o ial go e nance p ocess wi hin he EU, by ein o cing ela ions be ween all le els o go e nmen , and consequen ly by helping o implemen a sound mul i-le el go e nance p ocess wi hin he EU e - i o y. Indeed, as Faludi (2013b: 1595) concludes, “subsidia i y is abou ela ions be ween le els o go e nmen , each esponsible o he e i- o y o e which i has ju isdic ion. In o he wo ds, subsidia i y ela es o wha in he EU con ex is being discussed as mul ile el go e nance”. The same au ho also eminds us ha e i o ial cohesion ela es o he o mula ion o cohe en policy packages, and ha “ his unde s anding b ings e i o ial cohesion close o spa ial planning” (Faludi, 2013b: 1596). Fu he mo e, he e i o ial coope a ion p ocess has a key ole o play in p omo ing e i o ial cohesion, namely h ough he enhance- men o he e i o ial de elopmen po en ial associa ed wi h ci y ne - wo king, based on unc ional complemen a i ies (ESPON, 2006: 20). Te i o ial cohesion also has a ole in b idging e i o ies by educing he ba ie e ec in all i s dimensions (see Medei os, 2010). Ul ima ely, he e i o ial coope a ion p ocess adds o a mo e cohesi e e i o y i i is able o es ablish and inc ease he le els o ho izon al (wi hin he same adminis a i e le el) and e ical (in ol ing di e en adminis a- i e le els) coope a ion in a gi en e i o y. 5. How o measu e e i o ial cohesion? When i comes o measu ing he e i o ial cohesion ends in a selec ed e i o y, wo hings ha e o be conside ed. Fi s ly, his concep is a ela- i e one, as i sugges s a pa h owa ds he educ ion o dispa i ies wi hin he analysed e i o y (ei he a he egional, na ional o con inen al le - el). This equi es a compa able analysis o wo di e en pe iods o ime. Secondly, hese dispa i ies should no only co e he economic and so- cial dimensions o cohesion, bu should also co e componen s associ- a ed wi h he en i onmen al sus ainabili y, he e i o ial go e nance/ coope a ion, and he mo phologic polycen ici y, as explained in he p e ious sec ion. Such ci cums ances make he p ocess o measu ing e i o ial cohesion a challenging ask. Despi e hese cons ains, and as The G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion ecognizes, he e is a need o use quan i a i e/quali a i e indica o s o imp o e unde s anding and o closely moni o he ends in e i o ial cohesion (EC, 2008: 12). He e, Table 4 p o ides some guidance o he selec ion o he mos adequa e indica o s o each one o he e i o ial cohesion dimensions and com- eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 20 ponen s, which should p e e ably be used in a balanced ma e , i.e., no choosing oo many s a is ical indica o s in one o wo dimensions and neglec ing he emaining ones. Finally, a en ion mus be b ough o he ac ha , in mos cases, hese indica o s should be chosen acco ding o he s udied e i o ial scale, and should no be used in absolu e alues, in o de o enable egional compa isons. No su p isingly, so a , such a emp s o quan i y o measu e e i o- ial cohesion ends a e sca ce, as hey can be o excep ional di icul y. No many a emp s ha e been made o emba k in a simila endea ou . Howe e , he a ailable li e a u e (Medei os, 2005; ESPON INTERCO, 2011) p o ided some guidance and es ablished a a ionale, on he aca- demic le el, o he possibili y o measu ing e i o ial cohesion. Also, a F ench s udy p oposed he use o an agg ega ed s a is ical index o measu e e i o ial cohesion in Eu ope (G asland and Hamez 2005). Howe e , he indica o s used in his pa icula s udy (GDP – as an indi- ca o o economic compe i i eness; unemploymen a e – as an indica- o o social cohesion, and (iii) pe cen age o young - as an indica o o sus ainable de elopmen ), a e somewha nego iable and incomple e, as hey only co e some elemen s o he socioeconomic cohesion dimen- sion. As i s ands, i is no he pu pose o his pape o explo e all he possi- ble me hods which can be used o measu e he e i o ial cohesion con- cep . Ne e heless, despi e he ac ha some migh a gue ha se e al mul i a ia e da a echnics (like he ac o analysis) can be used o ge an agg ega ed indica o o he e i o ial cohesion in a speci ic e i o y, one speci ic s udy showed ha he me hodology used in he Uni ed Na- ions Human De elopmen Repo s, o c ea e he Human De elopmen Index, is he mos app op ia e one o pain a clea pic u e o e i o ial imbalances a dis inc e i o ial le els (DPP, 2009). In his ligh , mo e ecen ly, he use o his echnique (use o an ‘ag- g ega ed e i o ial cohesion index) was applied o he Ibe ian and Scan- dina ian (Medei os, 2014) peninsulas, bo h a he NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 le els, in o de o de ec he e i o ial cohesion ends o e he las ew decades (1990-2010). In he ollowing, he esul s ob ained o he Po - uguese NUTS3 egions a e p esen ed as a p ac ical example. Rega ding he selec indica o s o his speci ic case-s udy, o all he analysed di- mensions, hey appea in bold in Figu e 2. He e, i is expec ed ha he NUTS3 wi h he ’lowe pe o mance’ in all hese indica o s, a an ini ial pe iod o ime (1990), would ha e a be e pe o mance in he la e pe- iod o analysis (2010). Such an exe cise p oduced ou agg ega ed indexes (socioeconomic cohesion index, en i onmen al sus ainabili y index, e i o ial go e n- ance/coope a ion index, and he polycen ici y index). In he ollowing, hei a i hme ic a e age e ealed wo Te i o ial Cohesion Indexes, one o 1990 and he o he o 2010, o each NUTS3 egion. The end esul , ha is, he inal ‘Te i o ial Cohesion Index’ esul ed om sub ac ing he 2010 alues wi h he 1990 ones. Based on he use o he selec ed in- dica o s, he esul s show a oubling pic u e o ma ked unbalanced e - i o ial ends in he Po uguese e i o y o e he las se e al decades, eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 21 Table 4. Te i o ial Cohesion Dimensions/Componen s sugges ed indica o s Indica o - Socioeconomic (dis ibu ion) Dimension Componen Sou ce EU Human De elopmen Index GDP Compe i i eness Index Ne adjus ed disposal income o p i a e households Te ia y educa ion Access o he in o ma ion socie y Resea ch Cen es P oduc i i y Employmen Ra e Pa en s g an ed Lib a ies Physicians Po e y Ra e C iminali y Ra e Access o public anspo s Schools T ans e sal Income Income Income Knowledge Knowledge En ep eneu ship P oduc i i y Employmen Inno a ion Cul u e Heal h Exclusion/Inclusion Secu i y Basic In as uc. Public Se ices (EC, 2010a) Se e al (EC, 2010a) (EC, 2010a) Se e al (EC, 2007a) Se e al Se e al Se e al (Medei os, 2010) Se e al Se e al (Medei os, 2010) (Medei os, 2010) Se e al Se e al Indica o – Coope a ion/Go e nance Dimension Componen Sou ce Coope a ion P ojec s In ensi y (same e i o ial le el) Twin Ci ies In e -Municipal Coope a ion Coope a ion P ojec s In ensi y (di e en e i o ial le el) Regional and Local Coope a ion Associa ions E-go e nmen use/a ailabili y Adminis a i e Decen alisa ion Pa icipa ion in Elec ions H. Coope a ion H. Coope a ion H. Coope a ion V. Coope a ion V. Coope a ion T. Go e nance T. Go e nance T. Go e nance (ESPON a las, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) (ESPON, 2004) (ESPON a las, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) Eu os a (EC, 2004b) (EC, 2004b) Coope a ion P ojec s In ensi y (same e i o ial le el) Twin Ci ies In e -Municipal Coope a ion Coope a ion P ojec s In ensi y (di e en e i o ial le el) Regional and Local Coope a ion Associa ions E-go e nmen use/a ailabili y Adminis a i e Decen alisa ion Pa icipa ion in Elec ions H. Coope a ion H. Coope a ion H. Coope a ion V. Coope a ion V. Coope a ion T. Go e nance T. Go e nance T. Go e nance (ESPON a las, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) (ESPON, 2004) (ESPON a las, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) Eu os a (EC, 2004b) (EC, 2004b) Indica o – En i onmen al/Sus ainabili y Dimension Componen Sou ce Renewable Ene gy P oduc ion Ene gy E iciency Eco-E iciency Was e T ea men P o ec ed a eas En i onmen al Risk Reduc ion Ene gy Ene gy Ene gy En i . – Heal h Biodi e si y En i onmen (Medei os, 2005) (DPP, 2009) (DPP, 2009) (EC, 2010a) (Medei os, 2010) (ESPON 3.2, 2006) Polycen ic Index Ci y Rankings Specialized Func ions Popula ion Densi y Compac Ci y Fo m Road Densi y T anspo s Accessibili ies Accessibili y o In as uc u es Telecommunica ions In as uc u es T ans e sal Hie a chy Hie a chy Densi y Densi y Densi y Connec i i y Connec i i y Connec i i y (ESPON, 2004) (ESPON, 2004) (Medei os, 2005) (Medei os, 2005) (ESPON 3.2, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) (Medei os, 2005) (ESPON 3.2, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) Indica o – Polycen ici y (Mo phology) Dimension Componen Sou ce Polycen ic Index Ci y Rankings Specialized Func ions Popula ion Densi y Compac Ci y Fo m Road Densi y T anspo s Accessibili ies Accessibili y o In as uc u es Telecommunica ions In as uc u es T ans e sal Hie a chy Hie a chy Densi y Densi y Densi y Connec i i y Connec i i y Connec i i y (ESPON, 2004) (ESPON, 2004) (Medei os, 2005) (Medei os, 2005) (ESPON 3.2, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) (Medei os, 2005) (ESPON 3.2, 2006) (Medei os, 2005) No e: The sou ce indica es he epo whe e his indica o is sugges ed/used. The indica o s would ha e o be made compa able. eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 22 despi e la ge inancial suppo om EU Cohesion Policy (mo e han 80 billion eu os execu ed om 1990 o 2013 – Medei os 2013a) (Fig. 3). In all, he mos dynamic and de eloped NUTS3 egion (G ande Lis- boa - GLI) ended up ha ing he bes pe o mance in he e olu ion o bo h indexes. By con as , some less de eloped and pe iphe al NUTS3 egions, like Co a da Bei a (COV) and Tâmega (TAM) had negligible posi i e changes o e he same pe iod o ime. This is a clea sign ha he EU and i s na ional e i o ial de elopmen policies ha e no made Po uguese e i o y signi ican ly mo e cohesi e o e he las ew dec- ades. These ou comes a e e en clea e i one compa es he esul s o he 1990 and he 2010 Te i o ial Cohesion Indexes closely (Fig.4), since one will ind ha many o he NUTS3 egions which egis e ed lowe Te i o ial Cohesion Indexes in 1990 we e no he ones which expe i- enced imp o ed esul s in he 2010 Te i o ial Cohesion Index. 6. Conclusions The 2013 Human De elopmen Repo en i led ‘The ise o he Sou h’, in i s o emos conclusions, a gues ha o e he las decade, a la ge numbe o de eloping coun ies ha e had a no able con e gence in he alues associa ed wi h Human De elopmen Indica o s globally. How- e e , his epo also ecognizes ha p og ess was une en wi hin and be ween egions (UN, 2013). A he Eu opean le el, my own analysis o he e i o ial impac s o EU Cohesion Policy, which made use o a hos o e i o ial de elopmen indica o s (Medei os. 2013b, 2014b, 2014c), concluded ha Cohesion Policy was pi o al in p omo ing e i o ial de- elopmen in he Ibe ian Peninsula, ye was insu icien o achie e e - i o ial cohesion. Indeed, i is e iden ha pe sis en e i o ial asymme ies be ween he Eu opean egions pa ed he way o he inclusion o e i o ial cohe- sion as a undamen al goal o he Eu opean Union in he 2009 Lisbon T ea y. Howe e , he use o his e m in EU poli ical ci cles, which goes qui e a back in ime (a leas in he las couple o decades), is s ill used in a uzzy, ambiguous, and uncomp ehensi e way, bo h by poli ical and echnical EU ins i u ions. This can be seen in he wo la es (Fi h and Six h) Cohesion Repo s. He e, I do no necessa ily ag ee wi h Begg (2010: 78) when he claims ha mo e ecen ly, conside able a en ion has been paid o his ‘ e i o ial’ dimension o cohesion wi hin he EU, a leas in a quali a i e, sound and ui ul manne . On he con a y, in my pe spec i e, he discussion launched in he Sec- ond Cohesion Repo (EC, 2001), whe e he no ion o e i o ial cohe- sion was connec ed wi h he goal o achie ing a ‘mo e balanced e i o i- al de elopmen ’, ollowing he a ionale o he o mula ion o he ESDP (EC, 1999), was no p ope ly explo ed bo h scien i ically and poli ically a ound he elease o he G een Pape on Te i o ial Cohesion, in 2008. Ne e heless, as seen h oughou he pape , a as a ay o exis ing li e - a u e pu s an emphasis on he need o include se e al e i o ial analysis elemen s o shed ligh on he e i o ial cohesion ends which go be- yond he common socioeconomic cohesion indica o s (i.e en i onmen- al sus ainabili y, e i o ial go e nance, and spa ial planning) in a gi en egion, coun y o con inen s. eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 23 O e he pas decades, mul iple a emp s ha e been made o p o- pose a clea and accep ed de ini ion o e i o ial cohesion, e en wi hou iden i ying he concep ’s main dimensions. In his ega d, Faludi (2009: 24) eminds us ha de ining e i o ial cohesion should no be a p io - i y because, in he end, hese de ini ions depend on who gi es hem, when, and wi h which pu pose. Con e sely, one can a gue ha he lack o a p ope de ini ion will only con ibu e o he pe sis en uzziness as- socia ed wi h he concep o e i o ial cohesion, g adually educing i s poli ical and scien i ic impo ance. In he end, a globally accep ed de ini ion o e i o ial cohesion is unlikely o exis in he nea u u e. Despi e his pessimis ic no e, he Figu e 3. Te i o ial Cohesion Index e olu ion in Po u- gal - NUTS III (1990-2010). Sou ce: Da a (se e al). Au ho Ca og aphy eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 24 ole o academia is o con inue o p o ide conc e e discussions on he ope a ional meaning o e i o ial cohesion. Mo e conc e ely, schola s can a icula e he concep ’s main dimensions and componen s, which can hen be linked o ela ed s a is ical indica o s, making i possible o measu e e i o ial cohesion ends in a gi en e i o y. This was es- sen ially he main goal o his pape , which began by iden i ying and dis- cussing he ele ance o he main dimensions o he e i o ial cohesion concep , since, ul ima ely, i s de ini ion should be buil a ound hese di- mensions. Consequen ly, i sugges s a de ini ion o e i o ial cohesion as ‘ he p ocess o p omo ing a mo e cohesi e and balanced e i o y, by: (i) suppo ing he educ ion o socioeconomic e i o ial imbalances; (ii) p omo ing en i onmen al sus ainabili y; (iii) ein o cing and imp o ing he e i o ial coope a ion/go e nance p ocesses; and (i ) ein o cing and es ablishing a mo e polycen ic u ban sys em’. Following om he abo e de ini ion, he nex s ep would be o s uc- u e he p e ious concep ual ision in o an ope a ional package (con- s uc ion o a Te i o ial Cohesion Index), which can be bo h use ul and comp ehensible o policy-make s and egional/local s akeholde s. These ac o s could hen iden i y, o ins ance, he majo e i o ial im- pac s o he EU Cohesion Policy unds in achie ing he goal o e i o ial cohesion a he egional, na ional and Eu opean le els. In his ega d, Figu e 4. Te i o ial Cohe- sion Index compa ison in he Po uguese NUTS III (1990- 2010) No e: TCI – Te i o ial Cohesion Index eu opean jou nal o spa ial de elopmen | no 60 | ap il 2016 25 his pape sugges s se e al s a is ical indica o s o each dimension o e i o ial cohesion, despi e he ac ha ele an and compa able da a a he EU egional le el is sca ce in many speci ic domains (especially ega ding he 20 h Cen u y). Speci ically, my p oposed me hod o as- sessing e i o ial cohesion is concep ually di e en om he exis ing ones, because: (i) i does no es exclusi ely in he use o socioeconomic indica o s (like he G asland model); (ii) i highligh s he impo ance o he u ban polycen ism as a key dimension o he e i o ial cohesion concep (unlike he TEQUILA model); and (iii) i also b ings some e i- o ial go e nance elemen s o his deba e (unlike he ESPON INTERCO p oposal). Mo eo e , i dese es no ice ha he ‘ e i o ial cohesion’ no ion is s ill e y much iewed as a poli ical concep , subjec o mul iple in- e p e a ions. Hence, an a emp o p oduce a ‘concep ual analysis’ e- la ed o his no ion is unlikely o be consensual. Howe e , he g owing need o policies wi h a e i o ial ocus, ollowing he EU Te i o ial Agenda’s p oposals, is p omp ing he EU Membe -S a es o seek mo e insigh s in o implemen ing e i o ial de elopmen s a egies and poli- cies. Amongs hose p oposals a e many o he key ing edien s (like he p omo ion o a polycen ic e i o ial de elopmen ) which can lead o he c ea ion o a mo e cohesi e e i o y (see Te i o ial Agenda, 2011). In u n, he ope a ionaliza ion o hese p oposals equi es he use o conc e e e alua ion echniques and models which measu e he impac s o hei implemen a ion and hei con ibu ion o achie ing a mo e co- hesi e e i o y. Pu di e en ly, I ad oca e ha he scope o e i o ial cohesion analysis should no be es ained by his o ical na a i es, bu should be ocused in mo e p ac ical issues. Finally, I would like o s ess ha I look o wa d o seeing a global o- cus and discussion on he need o e i o ial cohesion, which is s ill e y much ega ded as a Eu opean cons uc ion. This is e en mo e ele an in he con ex o inc easing economic globaliza ion, which o en ha e p o oundly nega i e e i o ial de elopmen e ec s in lagging egions. In his ega d, his a icle in ends o make an addi ional con ibu ion o his wo ldwide poli ical and academic deba e. As such, I hope ha he e i o ial cohesion objec i e is g adually b ough o he cen e o he poli ical agenda h oughou he wo ld, in a p ac ical manne , wi h a iew owa ds imp o ing he impac s o p og ammes and policies o e- ducing e i o ial exclusion and consequen ly p omo ing mo e balanced and ha monious e i o ies. Acknowledgemen s The au ho would like o hank he jou nal edi o and he anonymous e iewe s o he manusc ip o hei help ul commen s and sugges ions, and G aça Rønning o he English e iew.