马辛·东布罗夫斯基 卡塔知娜·皮斯雷克

Marcin D?browski, Katarzyna Piskorek

关键词：战略规划；欧洲化；欧盟凝聚政策；历史制度主义； 波兰；捷克共和国；匈牙利

Keywords：Strategic Planning; Europeanisation; EU Cohesion Policy; Historical Institutionalism; Poland; Czech Republic; Hungary

摘要：

本文讨论了波兰、捷克共和国和匈牙利这三个中东欧国家的空间规划体系演变历程，以及这三个国家自1990 年代初的后共产主义过渡时期开始引入的战略规划及其实践。研究以历史制度主义概念的视角来解释战略空间规划的演变过程，并阐明加入欧盟在变革中起到的催化作用。研究特别指出并分析了产生路径依赖的关键节点，以及它们如何影响了区域和地方决策者在适应欧盟凝聚政策框架及参与战略规划的制定和执行时的能力。

Abstract：

Focusing on three of the Central and Eastern European countries – Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary – the paper investigates the evolution of spatial planning systems and the introduction of strategic planning practices from the beginning of the post-communist transition in the early 1990s to the present. It sheds new light on this issue by applying the conceptual lens of historical institutionalism to explain this process and elucidate the role of the accession to the European Union (EU) as a catalyst for change. In particular, the paper identifies and analyses the critical junctures at which path dependencies emerged and later constrained the capacity of the regional and local actors to adjust to the EU Cohesion Policy framework and engage in strategic planning as part of it.

马辛·东布罗夫斯基，荷兰代尔夫特理工大学城市规划系，副教授。m.m.dabrowski@tudelft.nl

卡塔知娜·皮斯雷克，波兰弗罗茨瓦夫技术大学，博士生

金盼盼，浙江大学区域与城市规划系，硕士研究生。21812249@zju.edu.cn

傅舒兰，浙江大学区域与城市规划系，副教授；中国城市规划学会城市规划历史与理论委员会，委员。fushulan@zju.edu.cn

• [1] ADAMS N, COTELLA G, NUNES R. Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: building on EU enlargement[M]. London: Routledge, 2012.

  [2] BACHE I. Europeanization and multi-level governance: cohesion policy in the European Union and Britain[M]. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

  [3] BACHTLER J, MCMASTER I. EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions: investigating the influence of structural funds in the new member states[J]. Environment and planning c: government and policy, 2008, 26(2): 398-427.

  [4] BACHTLER J, MENDEZ C, ORA?E H. From conditionality to europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe: Administrative performance and capacity in cohesion policy[J]. European planning studies, 2014, 22: 735-757.

  [5] BAFOIL F, BEAUMELOU F, GUYET R, et al. Jumelages institutionnels: les limites d’un apprentissage collectif[J]. Critique internationale, 2004, 25(4): 157-167.

  [6] B?HME K, WATERHOUT B. The europeanization of planning[M] // FLAUDI A, ed. European spatial research and planning. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2008: 225-248.

  [7] BRUSIS M. Between EU requirements, competitive politics, and national traditions: re-creating regions in the accession countries of Central and Eastern Europe[J]. Governance, 2002, 15(4): 531-559. 

  [8] BUZOGáNY A, KORKUT U. Administrative reform and regional development discourses in Hungary. Europeanisation going nuts?[J]. Europe-Asia studies, 2013, 65(8): 1555-1577.

  [9] Committee on Spatial Development. ESDP European spatial development perspective towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union[M]. Brussels: European Commission, 1999.

  [10] COTELLA G. Spatial planning in Poland between European influence and dominant market forces[M] // REIMER M, GETIMIS P, BLOTEVOGEL H H, eds. Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: a comparative perspective on continuity and changes. London: Routledge, 2014: 255-277.

  [11] COTELLA G, RIVOLIN U J. A conceptual device for spreading (good) territorial governance in Europe. ESPON scientific report[M]. Luxembourg: ESPON, 2014.

  [12] D?BROWSKI M. Europeanizing sub-national governance: partnership in the implementation of European Union structural funds in Poland[J]. Regional studies, 2011, 47(8): 1-12.

  [13] D?BROWSKI M. Shallow or deep Europeanisation? the uneven impact of EU cohesion policy on the regional and local authorities in Poland[J]. Environment and planning c: government and policy, 2012, 30(4): 730-745.

  [14] D?BROWSKI M. EU Cohesion policy, horizontal partnership and the patterns of sub-national governance: insights from Central and Eastern Europe[J]. European urban and regional studies, 2014, 21(3): 364-383.

  [15] D?BROWSKI M, BACHTLER J, BAFOIL F. Challenges of multi-level governance and partnership: drawing lessons from European Union cohesion policy[J]. European urban and regional studies, 2014, 21(4): 355-363.

  [16] DüHR S, COLOMB C, NADIN V. European spatial planning and territorial cooperation[M]. London: Routledge, 2010.

  [17] FALUDI A. From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy[J]. Regional studies, 2006, 40(6): 667-678.

  [18] FALUDI A. Territorial cohesion policy and the European model of society[J]. European planning studies, 2007, 15(4): 567-583.

  [19] FALUDI A. Centenary paper: European spatial planning: past, present and future[J]. Town planning review, 2010, 81(1): 1-22.

  [20] FALUDI A, WATERHOUT B. The making of the European spatial development perspective: no masterplan[M]. London: Routledge, 2002.

  [21] FERRY M, MCMASTER I. Implementing structural funds in Polish and Czech regions: convergence, variation, empowerment?[J]. Regional & federal studies, 2005, 15(1): 19-39.

  [22] FERRY M, MCMASTER I. Cohesion policy and the evolution of regional policy in Central and Eastern Europe[J]. Europe-Asia studies, 2013, 65(8):1502-1528.

  [23] FINKA M. 5 evolving frameworks for regional development and spatial planning in the new regions of the EU[M] // ADAMS N, COTELLA G, NUNES R, eds. Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: building on EU enlargement. London: Routledge, 2012: 103-122.

  [24] HALL P, TAYLOR R. Political science and the three new institutionalisms[J]. Political studies, 1996, 44(5): 936-957.

  [25] HLADíK J, KOPECKY V. Public administration reform in the Czech Republic[J]. Research paper, 2013: 1-34.

  [26] HOOGHE L. Building a Europe with the regions: the changing role of the European Commission[M] // HOOGHE L, ed. Cohesion policy and European integration. building multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 89-128.

  [27] HUGHES J, SASSE G, Gordon C. Conditionality and compliance in the EU's eastward enlargement: regional policy and the reform of sub-national government[J]. JCMS: Journal of common market studies, 2004, 42(3): 523-551.

  [28] KOVáCS I P. Regionalization in Hungary: options and scenarios on the “road to Europe”[M] // SCOTT J W, ed. Decoding new regionalism. shifting socio-political contexts in Central Europe and Latin America. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009: 199-214.

  [29] KOVáCS I P. Local governance in Hungary – the balance of the last 20 years[D]. Discussion Papers Centre for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2011.

  [30] KOVáCS I P, PARASKEVOPOULOS C, HORVáTH G. Institutional ‘legacies’ and the shaping of regional governance in Hungary[J]. Regional & federal studies, 2004, 14(3): 430-460.

  [31] MAHONEY J. Path Dependence in historical sociology[J]. Theory and society, 2000, 29(4): 507-548.

  [32] MAHONEY J, THELEN K. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

  [33] MAIER K. 11 The Pursuit of Balanced Territorial Development[M] // ADAMS N, COTELLA G, NUNES R, eds. Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU. London: Routledge, 2011: 266-290.

  [34] MAIER K. Changing planning in the Czech Republic[M] // REIMER M, GETIMIS P, BLOTEVOGEL H, eds. Spatial planning systems and practices

  in Europe. a comparative perspective on continuity and changes. New York: Routledge, 2014: 215-235.

  [35] MALY J, OND?EJ M. European territorial cohesion policies: parallels to socialist central planning?[J]. Moravian geographical reports, 2016, 24(1): 14-26.

  [36] MANZELLA G P, MENDEZ C. The turning points of EU cohesion policy[M]. Brussels: European Commission, 2009.

  [37] MILIO S. Can administrative capacity explain differences in regional performances? evidence from structural funds implementation in southern Italy[J]. Regional studies, 2007, 41(4): 429-442.

  [38] MILIO S. The conflicting effects of multi-level governance and the partnership principle: evidence from the Italian experience[J]. European urban & regional studies, 2014, 2(4): 384-397.

  [39] NEDOVI?-BUDI? Z. Adjustment of planning practice to the new Eastern and Central European context[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2001, 67(1): 38-52.

  [40] OECD. Territorial reviews: Poland 2008[R]. OECD, 2008 

  [41] OECD. How regions grow: trends and analysis[R]. OECD, 2009.

  [42] PALLAGST K M, MERCIER G. Urban and regional planning in Central and Eastern European countries – from EU requirements to innovative practices[M] // STANILOV K, ed. The post-socialist city. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007: 473-490.

  [43] PIERSON P, SKOCPOL T. Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science[M] // KATZNELSON I, MILNER V H, eds. Political science: the state of the discipline. New York: W. W. Norton: 693-721.

  [44] POLVERARI L, BACHTLER J. The contribution of European structural funds to territorial cohesion[J]. Town planning review, 2005, 76(1): 29-42.

  [45] POLVERARI L, MCMASTER I, GROSS F, et al. Strategic planning for structural funds in 2007-2013. a review of strategies and programmes[C]. 20th IQ-Net Conference, Glasgow, 2006.

  [46] REGULSKI J. Local government reform in Poland: an insider’s story[M]. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, 2003.

  [47] REIMER M, GETIMIS P, BLOTEVOGEL H. Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: a comparative perspective on continuity and changes[M]. New York: Routledge, 2014.

  [48] SCHERPEREEL J A. EU cohesion policy and the europeanization of Central and East European regions[J]. Regional & federal studies, 2010, 20(1): 45-62.

  [49] SCHIMMELFENNIG F, SEDELMEIER U. Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe[J]. Journal of European public policy, 2004, 11(4): 661-679.

  [50] SEDELMEIER U. Is Europeanisation through conditionality sustainable? lock-in of institutional change after EU accession[J]. West European politics, 2011, 35(1): 20-38.

  [51] SORENSEN A. Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history[J]. Planning perspectives, 2015, 30(1): 17-38.

  [52] STEAD D, COTELLA G. Differential Europe: domestic actors and their role in shaping spatial planning systems[J]. DisP-the planning review, 2011,47(186): 13-21. 

  [53] STEAD D, NADIN V. Shi f ts in territorial governance and the europeanization of spatial planning in Central and Eastern Europe[M] // ADAMS N, COTELLA G, NUNES R, eds. Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning. knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU. London: Routledge, 2011: 154-177.

  [54] SWIANIEWICZ P. Size of local government, local democracy and effciency in delivery of local services-international context and theoretical framework[M] // SWIANIEWICZ P, ed. Consolidation or fragmentation?

  the size of local government in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Open Society Institute, 2002: 5-29.

  [55] VARRó K, FARAGó L. The politics of spatial policy and governance in post-1990 Hungary: the interplay between European and national discourses of space[J]. European planning studies, 2016, 24(1): 39-60.

  [56] WBU. Studium Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Pogranicza Polsko-Czeskiego[R]. Warsaw: Ministry of Infrastructure and Construction of Poland/Ministry of Development of the Czech Republic, 2004.

  
  

• 收起