DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2020, 12(3):108-132 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2020.024

The Role of Territorial Capital in Urban Renewal in a Non-Core Central European City

Ildikó Egyeda, Szilárd Rácza,b
a CERS Institute for Regional Studies, H-7621 Pécs, Papnövelde u. 22
b Széchenyi István University, H-9026 Győr, Egyetem tér 1

Keywords: territorial capital, competitiveness, city success, second tier cities, Central Europe, Pécs

The concept of territorial capital, presented by the authors as an alternative to exogenous, FDI-driven economic restructuring strategies, has fertilised regional development policy thinking in multiple ways. Triggering reflections on the bottom-up reconceptualisation of regional policy, it has a particular salience in peripheral or lagging regions due to its potential to reverse deeply-entrenched core-periphery relations. The paper discusses the concept of territorial capital with a view to its policy embeddedness and academic valorisation. The structure of the paper is as follows. The first section presents the theoretical antecedents and conceptual evolution of the notion of territorial capital. This is followed by a brief discussion of the relevance of territorial capital in non-core or peripheral Central European contexts. The concluding section seeks to identify the main obstacles to collaborative and integrated strategy-making relying on the territorial capital approach in the case study city of Pécs, demonstrating its crucial absence from post-2000 top-down regional development programmes.

Published: October 31, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Egyed, I., & Rácz, S. (2020). The Role of Territorial Capital in Urban Renewal in a Non-Core Central European City. DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism12(3), 108-132. doi: 10.32725/det.2020.024
Download citation

References

  1. Amodio, T., Bencardino, M., Iovino, G. & Siniscalchi, S. (2019). Emerging Topics in Italy: The Territorial Capital Value. Bollettino della Società Geographica Italiana, 14(2) Special Issue: 75-89. https://doi.org/10.13128/bsgi.v2i3.718 Go to original source...
  2. Aydalot, P. (Ed.) (1986). Milieux innovateurs en Europe, Paris: GREMI, C3E.
  3. 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 Request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Danuta Hübner, European Commission, Brussels.
  4. Berkes, J. (2016). I Like Living Here. Social Stratas Attachment to the Hungarian Big Cities. Deturope, 8(2), 8-22. Go to original source...
  5. Camagni, R. (1991). Local 'Milieu', Uncertainty and Innovation Networks: Towards a New Dynamic Theory of Economic Space. In: Camagni, R. (Ed.), Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives (pp. 121-144). London: Belhaven. Go to original source...
  6. Camagni, R. (1999). The city as a milieu: applying GREMI's approach to urban evolution, Revue d'Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 3, 591-606.
  7. Camagni, R. (2006). Compétitivité territoriale: la recherche d'avantages absolus. Reflets et Perspectives de la Vie Economique, 1, 95-115. Go to original source...
  8. Camagni, R. (2008). Regional competitiveness: towards a concept of territorial capital. In Capello, R., Camagni, R., Fratesi, U., & Chizzolini, B. (Eds.): Modelling regional scenarios for the enlarged Europe (pp. 33-48). Berlin: Springer. Go to original source...
  9. Camagni, R. (2013). Regional competitiveness and territorial capital: a conceptual approach and empirical evidence from European Union. Regional Studies 47(9), 1383-1402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.681640 Go to original source...
  10. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2002). Milieux Innovateurs and Collective Learning: From Concepts to Measurement. In: Acs, J. Z., de Groot, H. L. F., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.): The Emergence of the Knowledge Economy (pp. 15-46). Berlin: Springer. Go to original source...
  11. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional Innovation Patterns and the EU Regional Policy Reform: Toward Smart Innovation Policies. Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, 44(2), 355-389. Go to original source...
  12. 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 Go to original source...
  13. Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2015). The Rise of Second-Rank Cities: What Role for Agglomeration Economies? European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1069-1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.904999 Go to original source...
  14. Capello, R. (2007). Regional economics. Routledge, New York.
  15. Capello, R., Fratesi, U. (2013). Globalization and Endogenous Regional Growth. In Crescenzi R., Percoco M. (Eds.), Geography, Institutions and Regional Economic Performance. Advances in Spatial Science (The Regional Science Series). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33395-8 Go to original source...
  16. Cejudo, E., & Navarro, F. (Eds.) (2020). Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas. Springer Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33463-5_14 Go to original source...
  17. Crevoisier, O. (2000). Les milieux innovateurs et la ville. In Crevoisier, O., Camagni, R. (Eds.) Les milieux urbains: innovation, systèmes de production et ancrage (GREMI, EDES). Neuchâtel, EDES.
  18. Davoudi, S., Evans, N., Governa, F., & Santangelo, M. (2008). Territorial Governance in the Making. Approaches, Methodologies, Practices, Boletín de la A.G.E, 46, 32-52.
  19. EC (2005). The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union, Towards a Stronger European Territorial Cohesion in Light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Ambitions. A background document for the Territorial Agenda of the European Union. May 2005, European Commission, Luxembourg.
  20. EC (2011). Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions.
  21. EC (2020). Labor market information - Hungary. (https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=lmi〈=en∥entId=0&countryId=HU.(Downloaded: Novemver 18, 2020)
  22. ESPON (2006). Territory matters for competitiveness and cohesion. Facets of regional diversity and potentials in Europe. ESPON Synthesis Report III, results by autumn 2006, Luxembourg.
  23. ESPON (2014). ET2050 Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Europe. Final Report, ESPON Coordination Unit, Luxembourg.
  24. ESPON (2018). The territorial dimension of future policies, ESPON EGTC working paper.
  25. Eurostat (2019). Eurostat regional yearbook 2019.
  26. Faludi, A. & Peyrony, J. (2011). Cohesion Policy Contributing to Territorial Cohesion - Future Scenarios, European Journal of Spatial Development, 43.
  27. Faludi, A. (2006). From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy, Regional Studies, 40:6, 667-678. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600868937 Go to original source...
  28. Faragó, L. (2012). Urban regeneration in a "city of culture" the case of Pécs, Hungary. European Spatial Research and Policy, 19(2) 103-120. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10105-012-0017-4 Go to original source...
  29. Faragó, L. (2014). Growth poles/centres in development policy. In: Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (Ed.), Industrial Districts and Cities in Central Europe (pp. 13-26). Győr: Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Ltd.
  30. Faragó, L. (2019). A Modern városok program mint fejlesztéspolitikai rezsim helye a magyar területfejlesztési politikában. Tér-Gazdaság-Ember, 2-3(7), 181-203.
  31. Fekete, D. (2019). A Modern városok program jelentősége a hazai városfejlődésben, Tér és Társadalom, 33(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.1.3066. Go to original source...
  32. Fratesi, U., & Perucca, G. (2014). Territorial capital and the effectiveness of cohesion policies: An assessment for CEE regions. Investigaciones Regionales, 29, 165-191.
  33. Fratesi, U., & Perucca, G. (2016). Territorial capital and EU Cohesion Policy. EU Cohesion Policy. In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska, (Eds.), EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and direction. Taylor & Francis. Go to original source...
  34. Fratesi, U., & Perucca, G. (2020). EU Regional Policy Effectiveness and the Role of Territorial Capital. In Della Torre S., Cattaneo S., Lenzi C., & Zanelli A. (Eds.): Regeneration of the Built Environment from a Circular Economy Perspective. Research for Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33256-3_4 Go to original source...
  35. Füzér K. (2017). A projektesített város. Részvételi városfejleszté az ezredfordulós Pécsett., Pécs: Publikon Kiadó.
  36. Gál, Z., & Ptáček, P. (2019). The role of mid-range universities in kowledge transfer and regional development: the case of five central European regions. In Erdős, K., & Varga, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Universities and Regional Development (pp. 279-300). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Go to original source...
  37. Garcilazo, E., Martins, J. & Tompson, W. (2015). The Modern Regional Policy Paradigm: Rationale and Evidence from OECD Countries. Geography and Spatial Planning Journal, 7 (June), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.17127/got/2015.7.001 Go to original source...
  38. Gualini, E. (2004). Integration, Diversity, Plurality: Territorial Governance and the Reconstruction of Legitimacy in a European 'Postnational' State. Geopolitics, 9(3), 542-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040490478639 Go to original source...
  39. Hadjimichalis, C., & Hudson, R. (2014). Contemporary Crisis Across Europe and the Crisis of Regional Development Theories, Regional Studies, 48(1), 208-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.834044 Go to original source...
  40. Hajdú, Z. (2005). Hungary's changing geopolitical situation during the transitional period. In Barta, Gy., G. Fekete, É., Kukorelli Szörényiné, I., & Timár, J. (eds.): Hungarian spaces and places: patterns of transition (pp. 28-149). Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies. http://hdl.handle.net/11155/1048
  41. Hajdú, Z. (Ed.) (2006). A Kárpát-medence régiói 3. Dél-Dunántúl. Pécs-Budapes: Dialóg Campus.
  42. Hajdú, Z., Horeczki, R., & Rácz, Sz. (2017). Changing settlement networks in Central and Eastern Europe with special regard to urban networks. In Lux, G., & Horváth, Gy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook to Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 123-140). London-New York: Routledge.. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315586137 Go to original source...
  43. Jóna, Gy. (2015). Determinants of the Hungarian sub-regions' territorial capital, European Spatial Research and Policy, 22(1), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1515/esrp-2015-0019 Go to original source...
  44. Józsa, V. (2019). A helyi beágyazódás útjai Magyarországon. Budapest: Dialóg Campus.
  45. KSH (2019). Területi Statisztikai Évkönyv 2018.
  46. KSH (2020). Summary tables (STADAT database) Time series of annual, regional statistics. https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_annual_6_6(downloaded: November 13, 2020)
  47. Lacquement, G., & Chevalier, P. (2016). Capital territorial et développement des territoires locaux, enjeux théoriques et méthodologiques de la transposition d'un concept de l'économie territoriale à l'analyse géographique >>, Annales de géographie, No. 711 (5/2016), 490-518, Armand Colin. https://doi.org/10.3917/ag.711.0490 Go to original source...
  48. Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le Droit à la ville. Collection Société et Urbanisme. Paris: Anthropos.
  49. Lengyel, I., & Varga, A. (2018). A magyar gazdasági növekedés térbeli korlátai - helyzetkép és alapvető dilemmák. Közgazdasági Szemle, 65(5), 499-524. http://doi.org/10.18414/KSZ.2018.5.499 Go to original source...
  50. Luukkonen, J. (2010). Territorial cohesion policy in the light of peripherality. Town Planning Review 81 (4), 445-467, DOI: 10.3828/tpr.2010.12. Go to original source...
  51. Lux, G. (2014). Industrial Districts: Building Blocks of the Organised Economy. In Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (Ed.) Industrial Districts and Cities in Central Europe (pp. 27-45). Győr: Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Ltd.
  52. Lux, G. (2017). Újraiparosodás Közép-Európában. Pécs-Budapest: Dialóg Campus.
  53. Lux, G. (2019). A Modern városok program újraiparosítási törekvései. Tér és Társadalom, 33(1), 44-65. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.1.3067 Go to original source...
  54. Lux, G. (2020). Manufacturing in the Post-Industrial City: The Role of a "Hidden Sector" in the Development of Pécs, Hungary. In: Cudny, W., & Kunc, J. (eds.): Urban Growth and Change: The Case of Central Europe. Routledge, forthcoming. 18 p.
  55. McCann, P. (2016). The UK regional-national economic problem: Geography, globalisation and governance. Routledge.
  56. Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial Cohesion: An EU concept, European Journal of Spatial Development, 60.
  57. Melbye, P. (2006). Territory matters for competitiveness and cohesion. Facets of regional diversity and potentials in Europe Evidence from the ESPON 2006 Programme.
  58. Nick, G., Várgedő, T., Nagy, C., & Szaller, Á. (2019). The territorial contexts of Industry 4.0 in Hungary, the present and future challenges and expectations of the digital ecosystem. Deturope. 11(3), 29-58. Go to original source...
  59. Nordregio (2009). The Potential for regional Policy Instruments, 2007-2013, to contribute to the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives for growth, jobs and sustainable development. Final Report. Nordregio, Stockholm.
  60. OECD (2001). Territorial Outlook Report - Territorial Economy. Paris: OECD. Go to original source...
  61. OECD (2009). Regions Matter. Economic Recovery, Innovation and Sustainable Growth, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Go to original source...
  62. OECD (2011). OECD Regional Outlook 2011: Building Resilient Regions for Stronger Economies. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264120983-en Go to original source...
  63. Pálné Kovács, I. (2013). Pécs, as the victim of multi-level governance: the case of the project "European Capital of Culture" in 2010. Urban Research and Practice, 6(3), pp. 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.827907 Go to original source...
  64. Pálné Kovács, I. (2019). A magyar önkormányzatok korlátai a helyi gazdaságfejlesztésben, Tér és Társadalom, 33(2), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.2.3088 Go to original source...
  65. Pálné Kovács, I., Bodor, Á., Finta I., Grünhut, Z., Kacziba, P., & Zongor, G. (2016). Farewell to Decentralisation: The Hungarian Story and its General Implications. Croatian and comparative public administration: a journal for theory and practice of public administration, 16(4), 789-816. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.16.4.4 Go to original source...
  66. Pasquier, R. (2015). Regional Governance and Power in France. The Dynamics of Political Space. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Go to original source...
  67. Pecqueur, B. (2005). Les territoires créateurs de nouvelles ressources productives : le cas de l'agglomération grenobloise. Géographie, économie, société, vol. 7(3), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.3166/ges.7.255-268 Go to original source...
  68. Pike, A, Marlow, D, McCarthy, A. (2015). Local institutions and local economic development: The Local Enterprise Partnerships in England, 2010. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(2), 185-204. Go to original source...
  69. Póla, P. (2020). Az iparvállalatokat támogató helyi intézményrendszer. In Lux, G. (Ed.), Ipari középvállalatok és regionális fejlődés (pp. 159-179). Budapest: Dialóg Campus.
  70. Pugalis, L., Gray, N. (2016). New regional development paradigms: An exposition of placebased modalities. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, Vol 22(1), 181-203.
  71. Rácz, Sz. (2017). Main characteristics of Hungarian-Croatian political relations and Cross-Border Co-operations. Geographica Pannonica, 21(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.18421/GP21.01-05 Go to original source...
  72. Rácz, Sz. (2019). Development Processes of Regional Centres in Central and Southeast Europe - From State Socialism to Dependent Market Economies. Deturope, 11(2), 92-100. Go to original source...
  73. Rácz, Sz., Kovács, S. Zs., & Horeczki, R. (2020). Pécs fejlődési pályája. In: Rechnitzer J., Berkes, J. (Eds.), Nagyvárosok Magyarországon. Budapest: Dialóg Campus.
  74. Rechnitzer, J. (2016). A területi tőke a városfejlődésben. A Győr-kód. Budapest-Pécs: Dialóg Campus. Go to original source...
  75. Rechnitzer, J. (2019). Nagyvárosok a magyar területi politikában és területfejlesztésben a rendszerváltozástól napjainkig. Tér és Társadalom, 33(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.1.3069 Go to original source...
  76. Rechnitzer, J., Berkes, J., & Filep, B. (2019). The most important city development initiatives of Hungary. Regional Statistics, 9(2), 20-44. Go to original source...
  77. Rechnitzer, J., Páthy, Á., & Berkes, J. (2014). A magyar városhálózat stabilitása és változása. Tér és Társadalom, 28(2), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.28.2.2623 Go to original source...
  78. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Garcilazo, E. (2015). Quality of government and the returns of investment: Examining the impact of cohesion expenditure in European regions. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1274-1290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1007933 Go to original source...
  79. Schragger, R. (2016). City power: Urban governance in a global age. Oxford University Press, N.Y.
  80. Servillo, L., Atkinson, R., & Russo, A. P. (2012). Territorial attractiveness in EU urban and spatial policy: A critical review and future research agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(4), 349-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776411430289 Go to original source...
  81. Simó, B., Gordos, T. & Józsa, V. (2018). Regional Institutions at the Doorstep of post 2020 Cohesion Policy - Status Report from Hungary. Deturope, 10(3), 14-32. Go to original source...
  82. Territorial Agenda (2007). Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig on 24/25 May 2007.
  83. Tóth, B. I. (2015). Territorial Capital: Theory, Empirics and Critical Remarks, European Planning Studies, 23:7, 1327-1344, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.928675 Go to original source...
  84. World Bank (2008). World Bank's World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington: The World Bank. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.