From "European Spatial Planning" to "Territorial Cohesion"

“Spatial Planning” is a multifaceted concept that may lead to confusion. Due to its relevance for regional development at the European scale, it is worth a pause to think of its actual meaning. "Spatial Planning"  is used as a European generic label to refer to the very diverse national or regional approaches to land use management: Raumplanung, Aménagement du Territoire, Town and Country Planning, Assetto Territoriale, Ordenación del Territorio, Planowanie Przestrzenne, and so on (Dühr et al., 2010).

Blue banana: distribution of human activities: Reclus, 1989

Moveover, “Spatial Planning” also alludes to a substantive European domain that emerged in the 80s, consolidated during the 90s, and was subsumed into the objective of “territorial cohesion” in the 2000s, until present day. When European Spatial Planning appeared in 1983, the CEE defined it as “the geographical expression of the economic, social, cultural and ecological policies of society. It is at the same time a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a policy conceived as an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach directed towards a balanced regional development and physical organisation of space according to an overall strategy” (CEMAT, 1983; p.5). Despite its initial policy character, it is worth underlining that European Spatial Planning has never constituted a community competence; instead, its expression has been based on policy cooperation between EU member states through the establishment of spatial strategies and visions, and not through statutory land-use plans (Faludi, 2010).

Policentricity by the ESDP

Since Delors chaired the European Comission in the 80s, strategic European infrastructures and cohesion policy came to the forefront, under the argument that core countries benefited disproportionately from the recent Southern enlargement, and new countries needed assistance to compete (Faludi, 2010). In the following years, some member states and regions recognised transnational spatial development issues and established cooperation mechanisms, subsequently replicated at the EU level through INTERREG. However the generalised political willingness among member states to retain spatial planning competences face to the EU remained (Dühr, 2010; Faludi 2010). 

       During the 90s European Spatial Planning experienced its very political momentum, through the elaboration of a compendium of Spatial Planning systems and policies, and the agreement on the main European spatial development issues. Consequently, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in 1999 pointed out five strategic objectives: the achievement of a balanced development, polycentricity, economic competitiveness, prudent management of natural and cultural heritage and parity of access to infrastructures and knowledge.

Macro-regional strategy for the Danube region*

 In the following decade, the Lisbon-Gothemburg Agenda put forward the EU goals of economic competitiveness, social cohesion and to a lesser extent, sustainable development. Politically, the term “spatial planning” was edged to prevent the EU from eventually absorbing central or regional spatial planning competences. Instead, the domain was subsumed under the mere objective of “territorial cohesion”, a fuzzy concept currently under wide public debate that has eased an ambiguous consensus, broadly understood as an “umbrella for the pursuit of balanced development, competitiveness, sustainability and good territorial governance” (Faludi, 2010; p.2). This objective, together with economic and social cohesion, has been recently enshrined at a Treaty level with Lisbon 2007. Nevertheless, the definition of this objective remains controversial, and even contradictory. Along the ongoing discussions, four major understandings have developed. The first contends for "polycentric and endogenous development", privileging "clusters of competitiveness and innovation across Europe" (Myrwaldt et al. 2009, v). A second interpretation of cohesion policy advances "balanced development" aiming at "reducing regional socio-economic disparities" (Ibid.). Thirdly, an "accessibility" approach privileges "equal access to facilities, services and knowledge" (Ibid.), and finally the objective can be understood as a a "form of networking" between the "communication centres and their surrounding areas" (Ibid.). This blurriness may render a real challenge the delivery of an effective implementation and evaluation of territorial cohesion within the EU.

    Currently, the two pillars of European spatial planning (territorial cohesion) include on the one hand two strategic spatial visions, the ESDP (1999) setting the European spatial objectives and the TAEU 2020 (2011), developing territorial priorities. These are applied on the other hand through four major instruments: the cooperation across borders Community Initiative INTERREG, officially “European territorial cooperation”, the new bottom-up and more flexible Macro-regional strategies for transnational cooperation, the also bottom-up grouping of transboundary local authorities instrument EGTC, and the European network of research institutes on spatial planning, ESPON.


CEMAT (European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional/Spatial Planning) (1983), “Chartre Européenne de l’Amenagement du Territoire (Chartre de Torremolinos)”, adopted 20/05/1983, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, www.siseministeerium.ee/public/terr.harta.ingrtf.rtf 

Dühr, S., Colomb, C., Nadin, V. (2010) “European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation” Routledge, New York 
Murwaldt, K., McMaster, I., Bachtler, J. (2009) "Reconsidering Cohesion Policy: The contested debate on territorial cohesion" European Policy Research Paper 66. EPRC, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Faludi, A. (2010) “European Spatial Planning: Past, Present and Future” Town Planning Review. Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 1-22 
*www.cef-see.org

Triple Helix for Regional Innovation:

A comparison between the Netherlands and the Region of Valencia

Enterprises, Universities and Governments

Innovation has become a European policy mantra for jobs creation, strongly anchored in the European 2020 Strategy towards a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This strategy promotes the development of an economic model based on knowledge and innovation, which would eventually bring growth and jobs to European regions. The interplay between knowledge generation agencies, market forces and the state development steering has been an in vogue mechanism promoted by the EU to unleash creativity, ideas and innovation, conceptualised under the label of “triple helix” (Caniëls et al., 2011; Dzisah et al., 2008). This analytical and normative tool is defined as the cooperation between enterprises, universities and government geared towards commercialisation of knowledge: universities create knowledge that firms utilise, through stable exchange partnerships that governments facilitate and reinforce (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). Smooth knowledge transfer has to be built on transparency and trust among the different actors (Tödtlin et al., 2011), proximity and informal relations becoming important factors for the success of a triple helix network (Huggins et al., 2008). Therefore, spatial distribution of knowledge transfer matters, and this explains, besides other reasons, why most triple helix networks are organised around clusters.

Triple Helix model

This article compares how the triple helix model has been applied in the Netherlands and the Spanish Region of Valencia, a country and a region (comunidad autónoma) with similar competence attributions in innovation policy, but very different traditions on the field of spatial development of economic and social activities. The analysis tries to explain how historical paths have shaped different patterns of triple helix, and what lessons can these territories draw nowadays from each other.

Local context embedding the emergence of stable cooperation between enterprises, universities and governments in the two territories have some similarities and important differences. Under the endogenous growth paradigm, the Dutch national government promoted the development of 12 universities-firms clusters since the 1990s in order to achieve a more knowledge-based economy. In the 2010s, the new national strategy strongly influenced by the EU 2020 agenda fostered the creation of university-firms networks within nine well-embedded sectors showing high innovative potential. In turn, knowledge transfer between universities and firms was illegal in Spain until 1983. Ever since, besides some pioneering universities offering commercial services to firms generally linked to training, the central and new regional governments also promoted the development of clusters, although they usually grouped only firms from the same sector (self-propulsion, toys, furniture, textile, ceramic, etc.). The current regional strategy pinpoints the need of fostering university-firms relationships, which still remain very weak (García-Aracil et al. 2008).

Philips + Dutch Universities partnership for medical imaging *

Regarding the European 2020 strategy, the triple helix tool for innovation has been promoted by the governmental strategies of the two territories. However, the soft character of European regulation facilitated the emergence of different triple helix patterns heavily influenced by the different local traditions of firms-university-government cooperation and knowledge transfer. In the Netherlands, the concept of triple helix is consolidated in policy-making, and examples of smooth and intense collaboration generating creativity and innovation, such as the Brainport Eindhoven cluster of high-tech, can be found together with softer cooperation is other industries. The Dutch triple helix pattern stresses networking of actors across the territory, instead of taking advantage of spatial concentration of knowledge transfer. Leadership on the development of cooperation is exerted by the three components of the helix. The central government establishes a strategic approach to be facilitated by regional and local authorities, often taking the initiative but from a hands-off approach. Universities remain the main knowledge creators and SMEs the main users, but in the most successful examples, both actors take over the role of each other: universities commercialise their knowledge acting as entrepreneurs, and firms become knowledge creators.

Ceramic Triple Helix products in Region of Valencia

On the other hand, the triple helix is a new concept in Valencian policy-making. Stable cooperation pattern in the Region of Valencia has been generally based on research institutes developed by firms-government partnerships. Universities have remained alien to cooperation in many industries, although some successful examples exist, such as the ceramic cluster around Castelló de la Plana. Historical advantageous spatial concentration of economic sectors continues to define new cooperation patterns among an enlarged set of actors. The creation of firms-government research institutes was primarily led by the central and regional authorities, whereas for the existing triple helix clusters, the leadership came from committed academics, while the government facilitated this breaking form of cooperation. However, SMEs have kept a low leader profile in establishing cooperation geared towards knowledge transfer, due to low managerial skills and a relatively high misgiving from firms towards universities. These patterns are slowly shifting; enterprises increasingly utilise university knowledge, especially the large ones, although traditional training continues to represent the main activity, and not so much joint R&D projects. In turn, universities are increasing their bridges towards entrepreneurialism and knowledge commercialisation, supported by regional authorities.

Comparing the two patterns of triple helix developed in the Netherlands and the Spanish Region of Valencia, some lessons can be drawn for improving the models towards smoother and more intense knowledge transfer, in order to enhance creativity and innovation. The Netherlands could consider the value of spatially concentrated distribution of actors in the Region of Valencia, which may facilitate informal relations in building trust and easing transfer processes. In turn, the Region of Valencia could contemplate the Dutch efficient knowledge utilisation examples, based on mutual confidence between enterprises and universities, higher managerial skills in SMEs, intense joint R&D projects between firms and universities beyond traditional training. Although the role of government cannot be easily exchanged between such different contexts, in broad terms, Valencian authorities could adopt a more resolute coordination role and leadership in the establishment of knowledge transfer networks between firms and universities.

Based on Sánchez Brox, M. and Holstein, F. (2012) "The triple helix approach in innovation and competitive policies: a comparison between the models of the Netherlands and the Region of Valencia, Spain"

Caniëls, M.C.J. and van den Bosch, H. (2011) “The role of Higher Education Institutions in building regional innovation systems”. Papers in Regional Science 90 (2) 271-286

Dzisah, J. and Etzkowitz, H. (2008) “Triple helix circulation: the heart of innovation and development”. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 7 (2) 101-115.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) “The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations”. Research Policy 29 (2) 109–23.

 García-Aracil, A. and Fernández de Lucio, I. (2008) “Industry-University Interactions in a Peripheral European Region: An Empirical Study of Valencian Firms”. Regional Studies, 42 (2) 215-227.

Huggins, R., A. Johnston and R. Steffenson (2008) “Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1; 321-340

 Tödtling, F., P. Prud’Homme van Reine and S. Dörhöfer (2011) “Open Innovation and Regional Culture-Findings from Different Industrial and Regional Settings” European Planning Studies 19 (11) 1885-190 

* http://www.tue.nl