{"title":"欧盟的区域治理还是:“地区中的欧洲”发生了什么?","authors":"Gabriele Abels, Jan Battke","doi":"10.4337/9781788978620.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) is perceived to be a ‘multilevel’ system. If ‘multi’ is to be more than two, logically, we have to consider not only the supranational EU and the national member state level in our analysis of EU governance, but also a third level, i.e. the subnational or regional level (Keating 2017a). We can, indeed, observe an increasing interest in the role of regions and the dynamics of territorial politics in Europe since the 1980s. The ‘rise of regional Europe’ (Harvie 1993) potentially leading to a development towards a ‘Europe of the regions’ (Borrás-Alomar et al. 1994; see also Hrbek and Weyand 1984) was an idea widely praised until the mid1990s. It was as much a ‘vision’ as an ‘incitement’ (Piattoni 2016: 68). This development has its roots in economic, political and cultural developments of the 1960s (see Piattoni in this volume); varying intensity and outcomes have actually led to ‘regionalisation in different shades’. Firstly, we can observe striking territorial dynamics leading to increasing regionalisation as decentralisation in many European countries (see, for many, Keating 2009; Hendriks et al. 2010; Scully and Wyn Jones 2010). This goes along with changes in the democratic fabric of states (Loughlin et al. 2010). This development is most interesting for comparative research on federations and federalism, but also has an impact on EU studies. Secondly, in 1966 Ipsen famously considered European integration to be ‘landesblind’ or ‘federal blind’ (quoted in Finck 2017: 5); this blindness has at least changed or diminished with stronger recognition of regions in the EU ‘constitutional’ order since the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, today the EU is rather ‘myopic’ (Tatham 2014: 42) than totally blind. Regions became aware of the changing opportunity structure restricted and simultaneously provided by the multilevel nature of European integration. For many this was connected to the chance to circumvent the nation state. A result of this activism was, for example, the establishment of the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) in 1994 (Piattoni and Schönlau 2015) or","PeriodicalId":436753,"journal":{"name":"Regional Governance in the EU","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regional governance in the EU or: what happened to the ‘Europe of the regions’?\",\"authors\":\"Gabriele Abels, Jan Battke\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/9781788978620.00007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Union (EU) is perceived to be a ‘multilevel’ system. If ‘multi’ is to be more than two, logically, we have to consider not only the supranational EU and the national member state level in our analysis of EU governance, but also a third level, i.e. the subnational or regional level (Keating 2017a). We can, indeed, observe an increasing interest in the role of regions and the dynamics of territorial politics in Europe since the 1980s. The ‘rise of regional Europe’ (Harvie 1993) potentially leading to a development towards a ‘Europe of the regions’ (Borrás-Alomar et al. 1994; see also Hrbek and Weyand 1984) was an idea widely praised until the mid1990s. It was as much a ‘vision’ as an ‘incitement’ (Piattoni 2016: 68). This development has its roots in economic, political and cultural developments of the 1960s (see Piattoni in this volume); varying intensity and outcomes have actually led to ‘regionalisation in different shades’. Firstly, we can observe striking territorial dynamics leading to increasing regionalisation as decentralisation in many European countries (see, for many, Keating 2009; Hendriks et al. 2010; Scully and Wyn Jones 2010). This goes along with changes in the democratic fabric of states (Loughlin et al. 2010). This development is most interesting for comparative research on federations and federalism, but also has an impact on EU studies. Secondly, in 1966 Ipsen famously considered European integration to be ‘landesblind’ or ‘federal blind’ (quoted in Finck 2017: 5); this blindness has at least changed or diminished with stronger recognition of regions in the EU ‘constitutional’ order since the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, today the EU is rather ‘myopic’ (Tatham 2014: 42) than totally blind. Regions became aware of the changing opportunity structure restricted and simultaneously provided by the multilevel nature of European integration. For many this was connected to the chance to circumvent the nation state. A result of this activism was, for example, the establishment of the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) in 1994 (Piattoni and Schönlau 2015) or\",\"PeriodicalId\":436753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Governance in the EU\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Governance in the EU\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978620.00007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Governance in the EU","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978620.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
欧盟(EU)被认为是一个“多层次”体系。从逻辑上讲,如果“多元”要多于两个,我们在分析欧盟治理时不仅要考虑超国家的欧盟和国家成员国层面,还要考虑第三个层面,即次国家或地区层面(Keating 2017a)。事实上,我们可以观察到,自1980年代以来,人们对欧洲各区域的作用和领土政治的动态越来越感兴趣。“地区欧洲的崛起”(Harvie 1993)可能导致“地区欧洲”的发展(Borrás-Alomar et al. 1994;(参见Hrbek and Weyand 1984)在20世纪90年代中期之前一直受到广泛赞誉。这既是一种“激励”,也是一种“愿景”(Piattoni 2016: 68)。这种发展源于20世纪60年代的经济、政治和文化发展(见本卷中的Piattoni);不同的强度和结果实际上导致了“不同程度的区域化”。首先,我们可以观察到,在许多欧洲国家,随着权力下放,显著的地域动态导致区域化的增加(见Keating 2009;Hendriks et al. 2010;Scully and Wyn Jones 2010)。这伴随着国家民主结构的变化(Loughlin et al. 2010)。这一发展对联邦和联邦制的比较研究最为有趣,但也对欧盟研究产生了影响。其次,1966年,Ipsen认为欧洲一体化是“州盲”或“联邦盲”(引用于Finck 2017: 5);自《马斯特里赫特条约》(Maastricht Treaty)以来,随着对欧盟“宪法”秩序中各地区的更强承认,这种盲目至少已经改变或减少了。因此,今天的欧盟与其说是完全失明,不如说是“短视”(Tatham 2014: 42)。各地区开始意识到欧洲一体化的多层次性质所限制和同时提供的不断变化的机会结构。对许多人来说,这与规避民族国家的机会有关。这种激进主义的结果是,例如,1994年成立了欧洲地区委员会(CoR) (Piattoni和Schönlau 2015)或
Regional governance in the EU or: what happened to the ‘Europe of the regions’?
The European Union (EU) is perceived to be a ‘multilevel’ system. If ‘multi’ is to be more than two, logically, we have to consider not only the supranational EU and the national member state level in our analysis of EU governance, but also a third level, i.e. the subnational or regional level (Keating 2017a). We can, indeed, observe an increasing interest in the role of regions and the dynamics of territorial politics in Europe since the 1980s. The ‘rise of regional Europe’ (Harvie 1993) potentially leading to a development towards a ‘Europe of the regions’ (Borrás-Alomar et al. 1994; see also Hrbek and Weyand 1984) was an idea widely praised until the mid1990s. It was as much a ‘vision’ as an ‘incitement’ (Piattoni 2016: 68). This development has its roots in economic, political and cultural developments of the 1960s (see Piattoni in this volume); varying intensity and outcomes have actually led to ‘regionalisation in different shades’. Firstly, we can observe striking territorial dynamics leading to increasing regionalisation as decentralisation in many European countries (see, for many, Keating 2009; Hendriks et al. 2010; Scully and Wyn Jones 2010). This goes along with changes in the democratic fabric of states (Loughlin et al. 2010). This development is most interesting for comparative research on federations and federalism, but also has an impact on EU studies. Secondly, in 1966 Ipsen famously considered European integration to be ‘landesblind’ or ‘federal blind’ (quoted in Finck 2017: 5); this blindness has at least changed or diminished with stronger recognition of regions in the EU ‘constitutional’ order since the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, today the EU is rather ‘myopic’ (Tatham 2014: 42) than totally blind. Regions became aware of the changing opportunity structure restricted and simultaneously provided by the multilevel nature of European integration. For many this was connected to the chance to circumvent the nation state. A result of this activism was, for example, the establishment of the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) in 1994 (Piattoni and Schönlau 2015) or