Content uploaded by Franziska Görmar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Franziska Görmar on Jul 06, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Report
“Regional SPHERES– Transformative governance
processes through new forms of cooperation of key
actors in different spheres”
(Regional SPHERES – Transformative Governance-Prozesse durch neue Kooperationen
von Schlüsselakteuren aus unterschiedlichen Sphären)
Authors:
Lucia Mrazová, Yuliana Lazová, Franziska Görmar (Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde)
Jörn Harfst, Michael Giesch, Carmen Kern (Universität Graz, Institut für Geographie
und Raumforschung)
Contact:
Franziska Görmar: f_goermar@leibniz-ifl.de
Jörn Harfst: joern.harfst@uni-graz.at
Acknowledgements:
We are thankful to our interviewees not only for spending their time for the
interviews but also for participating in the regional workshops to discuss our results
and develop further activities. We also would like to thank Carsten Debes from our
partner CWE (Chemnitzer Wirtschafts- und Entwicklungsagentur) for comments on
earlier versions of this paper.
The project was funded by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture and Tourism in
accordance with the Saxon budget decided by the Saxon regional parliament.
Diese Maßnahme wird mitfinanziert mit Steuermitteln auf Grundlage
des vom Sächsischen Landtag beschlossenen Haushaltes.
2
Content
1. Research background and questions.................................................................................. 5
2. (Old) industrial regions and their challenges ..................................................................... 6
3. Regional development as a holistic process ....................................................................... 8
4. Governance in regional development ................................................................................ 9
5. Structural factors influencing local and regional development ....................................... 10
5.1. Regional institutional frameworks ........................................................................................ 11
5.2. Regional (post-socialist & post-industrial) culture ................................................................ 11
5.3. State strategies ..................................................................................................................... 12
6. Local agency in (old) industrial regions ............................................................................ 13
6.1. Collective agency .................................................................................................................. 15
6.2. Institution-level agency: institutional entrepreneurship, work and navigation ................... 15
6.3. Place-based leadership ......................................................................................................... 16
7. Collaborative governance and co-production .................................................................. 17
7.1. Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 17
7.2. Conditioning factors for collaboration .................................................................................. 19
8. Summary of the theoretical framework ........................................................................... 21
9. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 22
9.1. Case study regional selection................................................................................................ 22
9.2. Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 23
9.3. Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 24
10. Case Studies – Results from Czech Republic .................................................................... 25
10.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Czech Republic .......................... 25
10.2. The Ústí region ...................................................................................................................... 26
10.2.1. Regional profile ..................................................................................................................... 26
10.2.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions ............................................................................. 28
10.2.3. Key actors .............................................................................................................................. 30
10.2.4. Tools and structures of cooperation ..................................................................................... 30
10.2.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 33
10.2.6. Summary of the Ústí region case study ................................................................................ 35
10.3. The Karlovy Vary Region ....................................................................................................... 37
10.3.1. Regional profile of Karlovy Vary Region ................................................................................ 37
3
10.3.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions ............................................................................. 39
10.3.3. Key actors .............................................................................................................................. 41
10.3.4. Tools and Structures of cooperation .................................................................................... 42
10.3.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 44
10.3.6. Summary of the Karlovy Vary case study .............................................................................. 46
11. Case Studies – Results from Poland ................................................................................. 47
11.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Poland ....................................... 47
11.2. Łódź Voivodeship .................................................................................................................. 49
11.2.1. Regional profile of the Łódź Voivodeship ............................................................................. 49
11.2.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions ............................................................................. 50
11.2.3. Key Actors ............................................................................................................................. 51
11.2.4. Tools and Structures of Cooperation .................................................................................... 51
11.2.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 52
11.2.6. Summary of the Łódź case study .......................................................................................... 53
11.3. The Silesian Voivodeship ....................................................................................................... 53
11.3.1. Regional profile of the Silesian Voivodeship ......................................................................... 53
11.3.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions ............................................................................. 55
11.3.3. Key actors .............................................................................................................................. 55
11.3.4. Tools and Structures of Cooperation .................................................................................... 56
11.3.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 57
11.3.6. Summary of the Case Study Silesian Voivodeship ................................................................ 58
12. Case Studies – results from Slovakia ................................................................................ 59
12.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Slovakia ..................................... 59
12.2. The Košice Region ................................................................................................................. 60
12.2.1. Regional profile of the Košice Region ................................................................................... 60
12.2.2. Regional strategy, projects and visions ................................................................................. 61
12.2.3. Key actors .............................................................................................................................. 62
12.2.4. Tools and structures of cooperation ..................................................................................... 63
12.2.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 63
12.2.6. Summary of the Košice region case study ............................................................................ 64
12.3. The Trenčín Region ............................................................................................................... 65
12.3.1. Regional Profile of the Trenčín Region ................................................................................. 65
4
12.3.2. Regional strategy, projects and visions ................................................................................. 66
12.3.3. Key actors .............................................................................................................................. 67
12.3.4. Tools and structures of cooperation ..................................................................................... 68
12.3.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 68
12.3.6. Summary of the Trenčín region case study .......................................................................... 69
13. Case Studies – results from Austria .................................................................................. 70
13.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Austria ....................................... 70
13.2. Regional profile of the Leoben Region .................................................................................. 71
13.2.1. Regional strategy, projects and visions ................................................................................. 72
13.2.2. Tools and structures of cooperation ..................................................................................... 73
13.2.3. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 74
13.3. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 74
14. Case Studies – results from Germany .............................................................................. 75
14.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Germany .................................... 75
14.2. Regional profile of the Chemnitz Region .............................................................................. 76
14.2.1. Regional strategy, Projects and Visions ................................................................................ 77
14.2.2. Key actors .............................................................................................................................. 78
14.2.3. Tools and Structures of Cooperation .................................................................................... 78
14.2.4. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation ..................................................................... 79
14.2.5. Summary of the Case Study Chemnitz Region ...................................................................... 79
15. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 80
15.1. Challenges ............................................................................................................................. 80
15.2. Sustainable development in (old) industrial regions ............................................................ 81
15.3. Agency and governance arrangements for sustainable regional development ................... 82
16. Overview of types of agency in case study regions .......................................................... 85
17. Conclusions and Outlook .................................................................................................. 86
18. Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 88
Annex 1: Profiles of interview partners ................................................................................. 107
Annex 2: Evaluation Table...................................................................................................... 113
5
1. Research background and questions
(Old) industrial regions are facing very specific challenges in different dimensions (economic,
social, cultural, and environmental) and should be therefore looked at in a holistic way
addressing all dimensions alike. These challenges come also along with specific requirements
to governance arrangements. A key feature of such governance arrangements is the capability
of local agents to act, hence local agency. Local agents from different sectors or spheres are
important in this regard. Governments and other political actors need to take over the role to
‘facilitate, guide and sometimes actively steer [collective] development processes’ (Asheim &
Herstad, 2021: 46). Economic actors usually pursue at first their own interests in form of
economic activities but also engage often beyond economic boundaries in the fields of
corporate citizenship or corporate local and regional responsibility (see Lang et al., 2019;
Schiek, 2017). Last but not least, civil society actors, in economic geography sometimes called
‘fringe agents’ (Autio, 1998), play a role in local development processes. Learning and the
creation of resources through interaction between these different types of actors, as well as
different types of knowledge they possess, are seen as crucial for further development, which
calls for collaboration between the different spheres.
Against this background, the present study focusses on the process of collaboration in the
development of (old) industrial regions. It offers an actor-centric approach that at the same
time places local agents’ activities in the wider context of institutional frameworks and
governance arrangements. Therefore, our main research question is:
How do key actors in politics, administration, economy, and civil society cooperate in the
context of sustainable and holistic regional development in (old) industrial regions in Central
and Eastern Europe?
We look closer at this question by asking about (1) Which actors are involved in sustainable
development, (2) How they are related to each other and (3) Which cooperation structures
do exist. Furthermore, we examine (4) Which factors support or hinder cooperation and (5)
Which role joint narratives play.
We answer these questions by exploring in total eight case studies, two in Poland, Czech
Republic and Slovakia and one in Germany and Austria. The study is meant as a preparatory
project for further research on collaborative governance in specific action fields, such as youth
participation and attractiveness of (old) industrial regions. In the theoretical part of this
report, we address the challenges of (old) industrial regions and clarify concepts such as
holistic and sustainable regional development, agency, governance, and collaboration. We
suggest combining agency and governance perspectives by employing the notion of
collaborative governance focussing on interactive engagement of key actors. After a short
overview on our methodological proceeding, we present our empirical findings from the case
studies. We close this report with a synopsis where cross-case study results are used to shed
light on the above-mentioned questions and an outlook towards future research is presented.
6
2. (Old) industrial regions and their challenges
Manufacturing industries worldwide have once more undergone deep changes at the end of
the 20th century. Literature has highlighted some of the triggers and the outcomes of these
processes on industrial societies worldwide (e.g., Bell, 1976; Castells, 1996; Jessop, 2001).
These trends also have had profound repercussions on many (old) industrial towns and
regions in Europe. Here, these processes have increased the already existing trends of job
losses in the manufacturing sector, triggering manifold social problems, such as outmigration
and the loss of urban functions – all these aspects are well documented in the academic
literature (e.g., Heim, 1997; Hudson, 2005). While many of the changes in (old) industrialised
regions throughout the last decades have been dramatic, the on-going changes have created
a complex spatial pattern of manufacturing. Here different trends of continuing de-
industrialisation, competitive core industries and re-industrialisation create a highly
diversified picture of manufacturing places across Europe (e.g., Hardy, 2014; Buokowski &
Sniegocki, 2017; Bramanti, 2019; Sunley et al., 2021).
In small and medium-sized (old) industrial towns these processes take place against the
backdrop of a specific historic development. One common aspect is a phase of rapid growth,
interconnected to their industrial heyday, which – especially in Central and Eastern Europe
sometimes entails the actual foundation of the town itself (e.g., Tychy in Poland or
Eisenhüttenstadt in Germany). This rapid growth or planned realisation brought a range of
additional social functions and infrastructures to these places alongside an often-
overemphasised reliance on one industrial sector, to which all other activities were
secondary. While these places were in many cases nationally acclaimed and symbolically
elevated as ‘energy regions’ (Lausitz) or the ‘bread-loaf of Austria’ (Erzberg), these mono-
structural places often had weak connections to their hinterlands and lacked economic
diversification, making them extremely vulnerable to processes of structural change in their
core industries. In the literature these processes of ‘path development’ are widely covered in
economic geography under terms of ‘lock-in’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘resilience’ (Pike et al., 2010).
A variety of literature has addressed the outcomes of these structural changes in such (old)
industrial regions around the world (e.g., Ache, 2000; Hassink & Shin, 2005). Western Europe
has seen waves of de-industrialization across various sectors, especially in the textile,
shipbuilding, steel, and mining industries since the 1970s (Baeten et al., 1999; Cho & Porter,
1986; Hudson, 1998), while in Central and Eastern European countries heavy industries shrank
in the 1990s after the fall of the Eastern bloc (Müller et al., 2005; Lux, 2009). Despite these
processes taking place under different framework conditions, the situations in the affected
regions were quite similar: declining economic roles, rising unemployment, shrinking tax
bases, and outmigration - especially of the skilled labour force. Hence, these regions having
to face simultaneous changes in their political, social, and economic structures (Leick & Lang,
2018). However, not only the economic and social future of these places was affected; the
7
processes of industrial closure and restructuring were also often accompanied by the
discovery of risky environmental legacies at former production sites (Bridge, 2004).
Given the complexity of changes, governance arrangements need to be questioned
continuously regarding their suitability including, besides the usual top-down approaches,
also bottom-up perspectives and new formats of collaboration (Miörner, 2020; Sotarauta &
Mustikkamäki, 2015; Sotarauta & Pulkkinen, 2011; Schlappa, 2017; Ansell & Gash, 2008).
Existent research on the topic of (old) industrial regions has predominantly focused on major
city regions and their restructuring efforts, such as the much-discussed examples from the
northeast of the UK, the Wallonie in Belgium, and the German Ruhr Valley (see, amongst
others, Shaw 2002; Hudson 2005). On the other hand, regions that are comprised of
predominantly small and medium-sized industrial towns outside agglomeration areas have
attracted little research interest in the last decades (for some exceptions see, Luukkonen,
2010; Atkinson, 2017; Hoekstra et al., 2017). This marks a significant gap in the research field,
because smaller industrial towns are typically hit hardest by factory closures. These areas are
often mono-industrial and are often overwhelmed by rapidly evolving processes of change,
which overtax their existing administrations (Lintz & Wirth, 2009). Despite these often severe
socio-economic problems, such places are nevertheless often relatively resilient in times of
economic crisis (Bole et al., 2020). The political repercussions of their neglect have been
recently discussed in academia by, amongst others, Rodríguez-Pose (2018).
Recently, some (mainly European) studies have started to once more focus on the industrial
towns’ and regions’ economic development (Meili & Mayer, 2017; Kaufmann & Wittwer,
2019; Görmar & Harfst, 2019; Bole, 2022) or their role in regional settlement networks and
big town-small town relationships (Korzeniak, 2014). In addition, issues pertaining to
entrepreneurship and economic development in small and medium-sized towns (Vonnahme
& Lang, 2017; Kinossian, 2017; Carvalho & Vale, 2018) have recently been addressed more
prominently, as has been the role of the specific, place-based ‘industrial culture’ of such
places (Harfst et al., 2018; Kozina et al., 2021). The success or failure of such structural
transformation processes is often strongly linked to the actions of local and regional actors
and their ability to realize chances or potentials within these processes (Görmar & Harfst,
2019; Harfst et al., 2020). This important role of actors and governance arrangements in
regional development is not new and has been covered from various perspectives: leading to
concepts of regional innovation systems (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2013; Komninaki, 2015),
learning regions (Morgan 1997) and endogenous development (Stough et al., 2011). As Ghinoi
et al. (2021) consider, the capabilities and resources embedded in regional networks are
important for governance and the realisation of regional development aims. The interaction
and composition of stakeholders must be considered to identify the relevance and local
perspectives for understanding the development processes in peripheral areas. Thus, an
analysis of interaction and composition is also important to explore possible improvements
of their influence on regional development, a notion covered via research focussing on key
8
actors (Döringer & Eder, 2020; Graffenberger, 2020) and agency of change (Döringer, 2020;
Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2020; Görmar et al., 2019).
Therefore, specific challenges which (old) industrial towns and regions face, demand closer
inspection of their assets and needs, so that they may escape pre-defined ‘one-size-fits all
solutions’, especially when these places are situated outside major agglomeration regions. As
highlighted by Görmar et al. (2019), there is an urgent need for creative concepts, new
strategies, and sound investigation of the feasibility of supporting such (old) industrial regions
in their attempts to redefine themselves by new narratives and move towards holistic and
more sustainable development options. One important aspect in developing such new
narratives and visions for the future is cooperation between stakeholders across sectoral and
territorial boundaries (Lintz & Wirth, 2009).
3. Regional development as a holistic process
Regional development in the context of (old) industrialised regions is often associated at first
(and not seldom only) with economic development, based on the assumption that ‘growth’
can return in some way and improve the causes of poverty, inequality, and exclusion
(Schlappa, 2017, p. 164). Yet, scholars increasingly challenge this economic-centrism and
growth-oriented models. Schlappa, for example, argues that a market-led recovery of cities
(and regions) in decline cannot be relied upon (Schlappa, 2017, p. 164). MacKinnon et al.
(2022) and Johal et al. (2014) highlight that one creates a very narrow understanding of the
economy by solely focusing on the GDP and GVA, condemning such low or slow-growth places
(eternally) to ‘catch-up’ with national averages. Moreover, the priority of economic
development has left socio-environmental issues lagging (Winter, 2016, p. 131) and
contributed to further peripheralization (Cebotari & Mihály, 2019).
Based on these insights, we emphasize the limitations of such economic-centric approaches
and call for alternative conceptualisations that go beyond the economic dimension of regional
development and counter the process of peripheralization. In other words, we call for a shift
from economic centrism towards a progressive understanding of regional development as a
holistic process. Particular emphasis is placed on the aspect of sustainability, both in its social
and environmental dimensions (Cebotari & Mihály, 2019, p. 256). This understanding is
underpinned by the belief that uneven development and spatial disparities (Harvey, 2000),
which are specifically visible in (old) industrial regions, need to be challenged. It acknowledges
the complex nature of development and the need to incorporate approaches of economic
and social, environmental, political, and cultural concerns alike to effectively tackle inequality,
poverty and uneven development (Pike et al., 2007, p. 1265). Equally, it calls for an end to the
‘one-size-fits-all’, technocratic, top-down approaches to regional development, replaced by a
place-based approach sensitive to local challenges (Gherhes et al., 2020, p. 915) and local
agents’ capabilities.
9
Place-based approaches reflect the continual search for solutions to address territorial, social,
and economic inequalities, development capacities and competitiveness, by mobilising the
underutilised potential in the region (Bentley & Pugalis, 2014, pp. 284-290). In other words,
they have helped to reaffirm that place matters (Bentley & Pugalis, 2014, p. 290) and that an
‘infrastructure fix’ is not a sufficient condition for local development (Tomaney, 2010, p. 30).
In effect, they deploy local resources, capabilities, and cultures to tackle local challenges,
enabling a holistic understanding of regional development (Peck & Tickell, 2012; Schlappa,
2017, p. 170; Bernt et al., 2013). In other words, for change to be effective, it needs to be
initiated from the ‘bottom up’ (Bernt et al., 2013). Therefore, what constitutes ‘local and
regional development’ varies both within and between countries and its differing articulations
change over time (Beer et al., 2003; Danson et al., 2000; Reese, 1997).
According to Pike et al. (2007, p. 1260), the principles and values of local and regional
development reflect the relations and balances of power between state, market and civil
society and are socially and politically determined within localities and regions. This concerns
the relative degree of political autonomy, issues of the allocation of public expenditure, the
actions of local or transnational firms, or ecological damage (Pike et al., 2007, p. 1261).
Similarly, Harvey (2000) argues that individuals and institutions with social power and
influence can seek to impose their specific interests and visions of local and regional
development, but these may be contested. Therefore, it is crucial to question whose values
are being pursued in local and regional development (Pike et al. 2007, p. 1261; Jessop 2006)
and which narratives about future development options are fulfilled. Hence, a holistic
approach to regional development also needs to include the voices of those who are
disadvantaged, marginalised, pushed to the peripheries. Nevertheless, within the framework
of this project, we were only partially able to fulfil this requirement, since we did not speak
directly with disadvantaged groups themselves but with representatives of NGOs working
with them.
Overall, we propose a holistic approach to regional development to effectively tackle local
and regional challenges, based on the endogenous resources, capabilities, cultures, and
structures of each region. To do so, it is necessary to scrutinise governance arrangements,
cooperation structures and local agency.
4. Governance in regional development
(Old) industrial regions are frequently confronted with substantial changes (see above) which
may challenge regional governance arrangements. Governance, in contrast to government,
consists of non-hierarchical forms of control and decision-making including voluntary forms
of regulation (Benz, 2004; Heinelt, 2018). The concept emphasises particularly network-like
forms of cooperation and interaction crossing the boundaries between public and private
sectors (Schwalb & Walk, 2007; Schuppert, 2011). Accordingly, Healey defines governance as
10
encompassing ‘all forms of collective action focused on the public realm […] from those
orchestrated by formal government agencies, to lobby groups, self-regulating groups and
social campaigns and movements’ (2006: 302). The participation and involvement of local
actors such as businesses and citizens are essential elements of regional governance (Schwalb
& Walk, 2007), requiring different formats for collaboration and cooperation. According to
that, in our research, we lay a strong focus on the role of cooperation between actors across
sectoral, administrative, but also regional boundaries, in the framework of regional
governance.
Numerous scholars have raised deep concerns about the technocratic character of a so-called
‘quasi-governance’, especially at the regional and local levels, in particular pointing to the
problems of accountability, coordination, and transparency (Allen & Cochrane, 2007;
Skelcher, 2000; Pike, 2002; 2004; Blackman & Ormston, 2005). Consequently, some
discourses on local and regional governance see regions as simply responding to an abstract
globalisation, or rather as puppets of national governments (Hodson, 2008, p. 1060). It is
necessary to challenge such negative assumptions, since they ignore the attempts of local and
regional governments to shape relationships across space with a variety of other actors, as
for example, national, supranational, and other regional government departments and
agencies (Hodson, 2008, p. 1060). Governance arrangements can hence be understood as
institutional structures within which local agency may unfold (ibid.). From this perspective,
regions are not simply passive recipients of development projects (Sen, 1999). Instead,
‘[g]reater freedom enhances the ability of people to help themselves and also to influence
the world, and these matters are central to the process of development’ (Sen, 1999, p. 18).
This approach highlights the degree of agency and the power relations on a local level, brings
forward the benefits of multi-level institutional structures and cooperation and calls for a
need to complement top-down approaches to regional development, with bottom-up
insights, bringing the needs and wishes of local actors as well as structure-agency
interrelations to the centre of the debate.
5. Structural factors influencing local and regional development
Place-based approaches usually tend to focus primarily on local agency and endogenous
resources and capabilities. While we emphasize their importance and will expand on this
later, we are also aware of the interrelations and mutual co-constitution of local agency and
structural factors such as the regional institutional framework (Gunko et al., 2021; North,
2005; Sotarauta et al., 2017), regional cultures (Cooke & Rehfeld, 2011; Gherhes et al., 2020)
and imaginaries (Miörner, 2022), but also state strategies (Görmar et al., 2022), power
relations and directionality (again Miörner, 2022). In the following section we will briefly
outline the effect of the aforementioned factors on agency and collaborative governance in
regional development.
11
5.1. Regional institutional frameworks
Institutions are public norms (Granqvist et al. 2020) that can be considered as products of
purposive human interaction (Jepperson, 1991), while at the same time promoting or
restricting individual behavioural intentions (North, 2005). Considered as ‘the rules of the
game in the form of humanly devised constraints on (or enablers of) certain forms of
behaviour’ (ibid.), they consist of ‘cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements’
(Scott, 2001, p. 48) that provide stability and meaning to social life (Wijen & Ansari, 2007) and
economic interaction (Bathelt & Glückler, 2014). Institutions comprise both formal norms and
regulations as well as informal social conventions, mental scripts, and background ideas
(Granqvist et al., 2020, 3). For (old) industrial regions this is particularly valid as they have
been formed for long by paternalistic structures shaping a distinct industrial culture and
identity which often have led to path-dependent processes (Görmar & Harfst, 2019). As a
result, the structure-agency interactions and particularly the consequential systemic
constraints become visible when one scrutinises the role of institutions and the power
relations constraining local agency (Görmar et al., 2022). This rests on Sotarauta’s claim that
institutions are built on stability and performance and are therefore by definition resistant to
change (Sotarauta, 2017, p. 586). Institutions mediate structure–agency interactions in
specific spatio-temporal contexts and are relative to specific spatio-temporal horizons of
action (ibid.).
However, actors may find it sometimes difficult to draw on common modes of
communication, customs, conventions, and social norms (Sotarauta, 2017, p. 594). This is
particularly true for post- and (old) industrial regions since the complex nature of their specific
institutional and cultural milieus is a product of developments of the industrial past of each
region (Harfst et al., 2018; Görmar et al., 2019). These milieus and in particular the
consequential governance-arrangements have been greatly challenged during de-
industrialisation. However, Květoň and Blažek (2018) argue that not the former regional
structure is the main hindrance for the new development trajectories of the region, but rather
the long-term malfunctioning and insufficient development of the institutional framework. It
results in a lack of trust and widespread passivity among key actors even though significant
hotspots of proactivity and dynamism and visionary do exist in these regions as well (ibid.).
Hence, place-specific institutional arrangements should not be taken for granted, reified, or
naturalised (Jessop, 2001, p. 1230; Keller & Virag, 2021), but can be challenged by local
agency. However, domestic institutional environments, i.e. national regulations, laws and
government arrangements, influence place-based initiatives significantly (Keller & Virag,
2021) and are hard to address from local levels (see 5.3).
5.2. Regional (post-socialist & post-industrial) culture
One important aspect of the institutional framework, which is increasingly getting more
attention, is a region-specific industrial identity, including related narratives (Jolly et al., 2020;
12
Byrne, 2002; Harfst et al., 2018). In most of the cases, a specific ‘industrial structure[s] of
feeling’ (Byrne, 2002) evolved that has shaped the way people live, the way they do things,
and the sense of personal and collective identity in these regions. Importantly, industrial
identity as part of a broader industrial culture is very enduring - it persists long after the
material symbols (mines or factories) have disappeared and can co-exist with other, more
dominant post-industrial cultures (Bole, 2021; Van Hoose et al., 2021). Industrial economic
activity in these places has been (and often still is) a source of civic pride, and the thriving
industrial place fostered a strong sense of community and a shared place identity (Byrne,
2002). Yet, with the change from a production-based to consumer-led economy, communities
were forced into a competitive environment requiring entrepreneurial practices and
discourses (Jessop, 1997; Gherhes, 2020). While some communities were able to adapt to
such discourses and transition towards entrepreneurial practices (e.g., McKeever et al., 2015;
Anderson & Gaddefors, 2016; Berglund et al., 2016), adaptation in other communities has
been weaker and many people continue to oppose or disapprove of it (e.g., Anderson et al.,
2018). Deindustrialization ‘turned on its head what these towns were here to do; they had a
purpose then’ (Gherhes et al., 2020, p. 909). The impact therefore extended beyond
widespread unemployment and economic decline, as it led to the loss of purpose and collapse
of local communities (ibid.). The loss of local industries was not overcome easily by the local
communities but has evoked struggles about communities’ self-definition or even
perceptions of emptiness and marginalisation which, over time, have developed into negative
perceptions of opportunity (Gherhes et al., 2020, p. 914).
Moreover, in Central and East European states, the lack of involvement of citizens in decision-
making during state socialism and later during the post-socialist period, seems to have
negatively influenced the development of CEE citizens’ civic engagement (Cebotari & Mihály,
2019). Fekete et al. (2017) argue that civil society was oppressed during state socialism in CEE
and did not become a real partner of the state in the post-socialist period either. Compared
to Western Europe, civil society is weak and underfinanced in CEE (Ciepielewska-Kowalik et
al., 2015; Defourny & Nyssens, 2014). Hence, particularly in CEE countries cognitive lock-ins
based on path dependent industrial trajectories (Grabher, 1993; Hassink, 2010) are coupled
with low-levels of local citizen participation. This results in particular mindsets, narratives, and
identities becoming important constraints to the development of post-industrial regions
particularly in CEE.
5.3. State strategies
The role of national political economies and strategies of the state towards regional policies
cannot be underestimated (Birch et al., 2010), particularly in regions that are marked by
industries of strategic importance for the state such as mineral extraction or energy
production (Görmar et al., 2022). State strategies set the regulatory framework within which
local actors may operate and hence define the boundaries of local agency (MacKinnon et al.,
2009) and are hence part of the institutional environment. Examples include decisions to
13
phase out coal-based energy production or to support renewable energies, electric car
production and the like.
Yet, multi-scalar state institutions assume a variety of, and at times, conflicting roles in
regional path development (Birch et al., 2010). Particularly local state actors, such as
municipalities, exercise agency on their own either in form of institutional
entrepreneurship/work or in form of place/maintenance leadership (Sotarauta & Suvinen,
2018; Bækkelund, 2021). This double role, boundary setting as well as development driving
agency, may result in tensions to be dealt with at the local level, calling for a relational
understanding of regional development. Recent research suggests that the scope for agency
increases if national, regional, and local state strategies complement each other and place-
based development strategies are embedded in multi-scalar long-term strategies (e.g.,
Görmar et al., 2022; Harfst, 2021; Keller & Virág, 2021). It is hence worthwhile to look at the
interrelations between local agency and state strategies and how they impact collaborative
governance arrangements in regional development.
6. Local agency in (old) industrial regions
The aforementioned obstacles in (old) industrial regions can be addressed by re-directing the
research focus on the role of local agency in regional development (see e.g., Sotarauta, 2017;
Jessop, 2001; Huggins & Thompson, 2019). Agency is defined as a temporally embedded
process of social engagement, informed by the past and oriented towards the present and
the future (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998), bringing intended, as well as unintended
consequences (Giddens, 1984). The most well-rounded definition of agency was developed
by Moulaert et al. (2016), in which they define agency as meaningful human behaviour,
individual or collective, that makes a significant difference in the natural and/or social worlds,
either by direct, unmediated action or through the mediation of tools, machines, institutions,
or other affordances. In addition, Bandura (2001), amongst others, highlights the intentional
aspect of agency by defining it as the capacity for independent action and expression of one’s
own power to act (Huggins & Thompson, 2019; Gunko et al., 2021). Fung and Wright add that:
‘Agency implies local actors’ capacity and capability to renegotiate, reassemble and transform
the prevailing web of relations they are part of by setting deliberative institutions such as joint
planning, problem-solving and strategizing to adequately define developmental goals and
exercise the capability to choose’ (Fung & Wright, 2003). Actors may exercise various forms
of agency in the course of development processes. Agency is hence dynamic, evolving over
time (Gunko et al., 2021) and a central factor in regional policy-making processes (Benner,
2020).
On one hand, agency is bound by institutions, structural conditions, and selectivity (Miörner,
2022), which we have already discussed in the previous chapter. On the other hand, human
agency can shape and challenge the very institutions that underpin development frameworks
of regions and cities (Huggins & Thompson, 2019, p. 138). It ‘both reproduces and transforms
14
those structures [and institutions] in interactive response to the problems posed by changing
historical situations’ (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 970). Moulaert et al. (2016, p. 170) refer
to this as the spatio-temporal horizons of action. An actor-centric or bottom-up research
strategy sheds light on the interaction of actors with institutions, and what kinds of social
positions enable them to combine knowledge across institutional barriers (Sotarauta, 2017,
p. 590), while still being aware of the structural constraints put onto them. To do so, actors
need to learn from each other’s ways of knowing, learning, and acting on a shared object of
interest, and essentially find ways to understand the different ways actors are rewarded and
sanctioned by differing institutional arrangements (Sotarauta, 2017, p. 594).
Scholars have developed numerous conceptualisations of agency, emphasizing different
aspects and directions it can take: personal (i.e. individual) and collective agency (Bandura,
2001); agency that either leads to changes in (Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2020) or the
maintenance or reproduction (Baekkelund, 2021) of existing regional development paths;
organisational-level agency or system-level agency (Blažek & Květoň, 2022). Change oriented
agency consists of institutional entrepreneurship, innovative entrepreneurship, and place
leadership – collectively also referred to as trinity-of-change agency (Grillitsch & Sotarauta,
2019). In many cases it is complemented with supportive agency which includes visionaries,
support actors, mentors, and critics (Sotarauta et al., 2021: see table below). Bækkelund
(2021) developed this idea further and amended three types of reproductive agency as
counterparts to the trinity-of-change agency, which are replicative entrepreneurship,
institutional work, and maintenance leadership that aim at maintaining existing institutions,
institutional practices and stability (Bækkelund, 2021, p. 759).
In our work, we put strong emphasis on the role of collective agency in regional development,
because we believe that to achieve meaningful, sustainable change it is crucial to involve
actors across the whole spectrum. Therefore, it is necessary to define collective agency.
Figure 1. Types of agency
ACTOR
DIRECTION OF AGENCY
REPRODUCTIVE AGENCY
CHANGE AGENCY
SUPPORTIVE AGENCY
Organisational-level
Replicative
entrepreneurship
Institutional work
Innovative
entrepreneurship
Institutional
entrepreneurship
Critic Visionary
Mentor
Support actor
Institutional work
Maintenance
leadership
Institutional
entrepreneurship
Place-based leadership
Critic Visionary
Mentor
Support actor
Personal
Collective
System-level
Source: Based on Blažek & Květoň (2022), Baekkelund (2021), Grillitsch & Sotarauta (2019), Grillitsch et al. (2022); Sotarauta et al.
2021.
15
6.1. Collective agency
The notion of collective agency is rooted in social cognitive theory and based on shared beliefs
in the power of collective action to produce desired effects (Bandura, 1997, p. 2000). In the
field of regional development, it is exercised through group action in form of cooperation and
collaboration (Bandura, 2002). According to Bandura, many of the things people aim for are
achievable only by working together through group effort. Through collective agency, they
pool their knowledge, skills, and resources and act in concert to shape their future. In this
multiagent model of collective agency, participants achieve unity of effort for common
purpose (Bandura, 2018). In other words, collective agency represents the finalized and
autonomous capacity for the collective action of a specific group. Through the exercise of
collective agency, a group will obtain collective capabilities. In addition, Pahl-Wostl (2006)
demonstrates that collective agency cannot be imposed; it has to emerge through a learning
process. Social interactions, such as group discussions, community meetings, participatory
workshops or informal conversations provide the opportunity for people to share their
representation of the ‘common good’ and wellbeing with others (Pelenc et al., 2013). This
collective learning process in the framework of change agency is supported by institutional
entrepreneurs, place-based leaders, and their respective counterparts (Grillitsch & Sotarauta,
2019). This is necessary to overcome structural factors influencing local and regional
development which we have discussed above.
6.2. Institution-level agency: institutional entrepreneurship, work and navigation
The ‘industrial way of life’ governed by practices and a set of values, norms and behaviours
that developed in relation to industrial activity have been influencing the development of
local communities in (old) industrial regions for decades (Byrne, 2002; Harfst et al., 2019).
One of the unfortunate side effects has been the development of cultures unsupportive of
entrepreneurship (Stuetzer et al., 2016). This is particularly challenging for regions currently
undergoing transitions and economic restructuring. Numerous scholars have developed the
concepts of institutional entrepreneurship, navigation, and work, which aim to tackle and/or
overcome such institutional barriers (Holmen & Fosse, 2017; Marquis & Raynard, 2015;
Miörner, 2020; Sotarauta & Mustikkamäki, 2015; Sotarauta & Pulkkinen, 2011; Baekkelund,
2021). Entrepreneurship is an endeavour that reflects the values of independence, autonomy,
individualism, and achievement (Dodd & Anderson, 2001; Wyrwich, 2015; Stuetzer et al.,
2016). Hence, ‘institutional entrepreneurship’ refers to an agency that aims to change
institutional arrangements to better support combinatorial knowledge dynamics (Sotarauta,
2017, p. 592). In other words, it refers to the ‘activities of actors who have an interest in
particular institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to create new institutions
or to transform existing ones’ (Maguire et al., 2004, p. 657). According to Fotopoulos and
Storey, through institutional entrepreneurship negative perceptions of entrepreneurship can
be reversed and values and attitudes towards entrepreneurship become locally embedded
(Fotopoulos & Storey, 2017, p. 672). Institutional work, on the contrary counters the category
16
of institutional entrepreneurship, in that it includes actions with the aim to maintain,
reproduce, or strengthen the status quo (Baekkelund, 2021). The term ‘institutional
navigator’ refers to actors who work to position themselves, and more importantly also other
agents, in the jungle of complementing and conflicting sets of institutions so that combining
knowledge would be possible (Sotarauta, 2017, p. 592).
Ritvala and Kleymann (2012) highlight that institutional entrepreneurship and navigation as
specific components of governance arrangements ought to be studied as multi-actor, multi-
scalar, and multi-locational phenomena in time (Sotarauta & Mustikkamaki, 2015). This goes
in line with Bentley and Pugalis’ perspective (2014) that multi-level collaborative governance
involving all stakeholders is considered essential to devise a development strategy for a
locality. Collective institutional entrepreneurship is hence achieved through sustained
collaboration among numerous dispersed actors with different frames of reference, tensions,
and contradictions (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Wijen & Ansari, 2007). It may hence be
distributed beyond local and regional levels. Pike et al. (2007, p. 1266), for example, highlight
the benefits and potentials of international intergovernmental coordination and national and
decentralised decision-making structures, coordinating and integrating their relationships
within multi-level institutional structures operating across a range of scales. Hence, by
studying regional development as a holistic process, we put strong emphasis on collaborative
processes and agency across sectors and administrative boundaries within and across regions.
6.3. Place-based leadership
A second form of agency which is of importance for place-based development is that of place-
based leadership. According to Beer and Clower (2013) leadership is enacted by politicians,
professionals, and state and non-state actors in different settings. Davies (2013) reminds us,
that catalysts for change and innovation can happen at a small, individual level, but can have
a large impact on place and society. Lowndes and McCaughie (2013) reaffirm this observation
in their study of local government responses to austerity in the UK. They note a surprising lack
of national leadership or big ideas about how to manage the crisis. Instead, they observe
coping strategies at a local and individual level in a bid to offset the negative effects of
austerity. Hence, bottom-up creative responses should not be overlooked in shaping the
leadership of place (Ayres 2013, p. 22).
Sotarauta et al. (2020, p. 189) use the notion of place-based leadership to provide an
additional ‘agential’ lens through which issues and relationships of structure and agency can
be explored, particularly in sub-national spaces (cities, regions, and city-regions). This way,
they bring to the fore the less ‘heroic’ and less visible or loud ways of leading (ibid.). In many
sub-national settings, place leadership can be thought of as a more discrete form of agency
that is shadowed and sometimes constrained, but not always dominated by, wider structures
(Sotarauta 2016). Yet, at times, place leadership may also challenge such wider contextual
constraints and path dependency tendencies. According to Horlings et al. (2018) place
17
leadership is exercised by initiating interfaces vertically and horizontally, building coalitions,
creating local institutional arrangements, and delivering place-tailored services.
Brunetta and Caldarice (2014) scrutinised the role of self-organised partnership between
public authorities, private firms, and civil society. They argue that the relations of reciprocity,
trust, and a sense of belonging, characterised by a continuous and strong exchange of
information, or in other words, a pattern of collaborative governance, was essential (Brunetta
& Caldarice, 2014). This highlights the role of collective agency and strongly accords with
some of the tenets of place-based thinking, including individual and collaborative leadership
and robust partnerships and networks developed over time and anchored in place (Pugalis &
Bentley, 2014).
The above-described notions of agency are more or less ideal types. In reality, not all types of
agency are likely to have the same level of power, with some agents hindered by their position
in terms of their social relations, which may allow elites to capture urban and regional
development agendas (Lovering, 1999; Gregson, 2005). Even in an era of more globally
integrated economies and more complex, multi-layered institutional architectures, locally
and regional rooted understandings and agency remain integral to the reproduction and
exercise of political power (Pike et al. 2007, p. 1258) and are hence important for regional
governance arrangements.
7. Collaborative governance and co-production
7.1. Definitions
Collective institutional entrepreneurship and place-based leadership is most likely to be
exercised in interactive and collaborative governance arrangements. Therefore, the concept
of collaborative governance needs some scrutiny.
At its core, collaborative governance is about involving non-traditional policy actors in
decision-making (Bevir, 2009; Van Buuren & Edelenbos, 2007). The concept emerged as a
response to failures of nation states’ implementation of policies and programs at the
community level (Fung & Wright, 2001). Van Buuren and Edelenbos (2007, pp. 105-106)
describe it as ‘a reaction to traditional planning and policy-making approaches that are
primarily top-down oriented, focusing on the government instead of the governed, mainly
technocratically oriented and adversarial organized.’ Gibson (2014) adds that collaborative
governance enables multiple actors with different and complementary knowledge and
experience to engage in an interactive process.
In this paper, we follow the definition provided by Ansell and Gash (2008, p. 544) who
understand collaborative governance as ‘a governing arrangement where one or more public
agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that
18
is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public
policy or manage programs or assets.’ They outline six criteria that need to be included for a
process to be categorised as collaborative governance:
(1.) the collaborative governance forum is initiated by public agencies or institutions;
(2.) participants in the governance forum include non-government actors;
(3.) participants engage directly in the decision-making process, and are not just
consulted;
(4.) the governance forum is formally organized and meets collectively;
(5.) the governance forum aims to make decisions by consensus; and
(6.) the focus of collaboration is on public policy or public management.
The focus on collaborating with non-traditional policy actors, sharing of power, and new
interdependencies clearly illustrate the move from government to governance (Van Buuren
& Edelenbos, 2007; Gibson, 2014). Collaboration implies that non-state stakeholders will have
real responsibility for policy outcomes. Hence, a condition is that they must be directly
engaged in decision-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 545). Therefore, collaborative
governance embodies the shift from hierarchical structures to co-constructed networks
(Gibson, 2014) in which collective agency plays a crucial role. It emphasises the point that the
growing complexity of actors involved in contemporary local governance requires transparent
and tangible processes where civil society actors have an influence on deciding the future
(Pestoff, 2012). As a result, it requires an explicit public strategy of organising the influence
(Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 545). The development of collaborative governance structures
requires place-based leadership necessary to advocate for the region’s needs, good
coordination of actors involved, institutional agency in order to develop governance
structures favourable for collaboration and a change of mind-sets adversary to collaboration.
Going one step further, co-production is a particular form of collaborative governance
comprising a mix of activities where both public service agents and citizens contribute to the
provision of public services - the former are involved as professionals, or ‘regular producers’,
while ‘citizen production’ is based on voluntary efforts by individuals and groups to enhance
the quality and/or quantity of services they use (Parks et al., 1981, p. 1002). Both work with
the intention to generate outcomes both parties desire (Schlappa, 2017, p. 169). Co-
producing a shared vision, together with a practical strategy to achieve it, can lead to a mutual
adjustment of expectations regarding the roles public agencies and civil society play in
governing a city or region that finds itself caught up in a long-term and profound crisis
(Schlappa, 2017, p. 167). Co-production is well suited to the exploration of cross-sectoral
practices (Brandsen et al., 2005; Brandsen & Pestoff, 2008) as it directs the inquiry towards
the actual collaborations between different societal actors, putting less emphasis on the
institutional structures in which they operate (Bovaird, 2007). Similarly, it is based on the
acknowledgement that the state is not the sole or even primary actor in the provision of public
services (Schlappa, 2017, p. 165).
19
According to Gibson (2014), the main advantages of collaborative governance include: the
expansion of the number and diversity of policy-making contributors and decision-makers;
fostering an environment of participation among regional actors, governments and the
private sector; facilitation of new networks; further enhancement of the trust base; and the
ongoing sharing of ideas (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Bevir, 2009). In addition, it leads to an increase
in the legitimacy of public policies and has the potential to restore relationships between
regional actors and traditional decision-makers (Gibson, 2019; Beierle & Konisky, 2001).
Moreover, it can generate flexible and regionally appropriate solutions. In the words of Van
Buuren and Edelenbos (2007, p. 106): ‘Collaborative governance offers the potential to utilize
the creativity and experience expertise of those involved in order to address issues on a
broader, and possibly more innovative way’.
The main points of critique of collaborative governance revolve around: speed of the process
of decision-making influenced by the participation of actors who have little experience in this;
contested legitimacy in case individuals drop out or due to a lack of transparency or record of
outputs, and finally hesitancy by government to change. The traditional procedures and
practices utilized by both government and regional actors may not be suitable for
collaborative governance. The inability to revise and adapt these procedures and practices
hinders governance (Gibson, 2014).
7.2. Conditioning factors for collaboration
Collaboration does not simply happen but requires a common basis, sometimes called
‘regionalist behaviours’ which means the ‘institutionalised capacities to do things together’
(Storper et al., 2015, p. 139). These capacities are influenced according to Ansell and Gash
(2008) by three sets of starting conditions: asymmetries between different stakeholders in
power resources and knowledge; incentives for stakeholders to collaborate; and
stakeholders’ joint history of conflict and/or cooperation.
A collaborative process must be open and inclusive paying attention to questions of power.
This is important as only groups that feel they have had a legitimate opportunity to participate
are likely to develop a ‘commitment to the process’ (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 556). Moreover,
commitment to the collaborative process requires an up-front willingness to abide by the
results of deliberation, even if they should go in the direction that a stakeholder does not fully
support (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 559). For this reason, ownership is necessary implying a
shared responsibility for the process. This responsibility requires stakeholders to see their
relationship with other stakeholders in a new light, one in which they share responsibility with
their opponents. Trust is critical because why would you share responsibility with people you
do not trust (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 558; see also Sotarauta, 2009)? Nevertheless, numerous
scholars still highlight that the key challenge for public agencies remains overcoming
resistance to adopting collaborative practices (Brookes & Grint, 2010; Loeffler et al., 2012;
Taylor-Gooby, 2013).
20
Hence, it is important to look at the incentives for collaboration as explaining factor.
Incentives to participate are low when stakeholders can achieve their goals unilaterally or
through alternative means (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 10). Furthermore, the face-to-face
dialogue between stakeholders is of crucial importance at the beginning of a collaborative
governance process. Access to the collaborative process is hence perhaps the most
fundamental issue. “If some stakeholders do not have the capacity, organization, status, or
resources to participate, or to participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders, the
collaborative governance process will be prone to manipulation by stronger actors” (Ansell &
Gash, 2008, p. 551).
It needs to be noted that co-production often does start without there being a new pot of
money (Pestoff et al., 2012), thus encouraging the development of strategies rooted in
existing resources and shared objectives (Schlappa, 2017, p. 170). This is of particular
significance at a time of shrinking budgets and growing social needs. Many public agencies
are re-discovering the benefits of working more closely with their citizens to govern, manage
and deliver services in their localities (Alford & O’Flynn, 2012; Banks et al., 2013; Macmillan,
2013). It helps to challenge the narrative of the state being the sole or even primary actor in
the provision of public services (Schlappa, 2017, p. 165). Therefore, it is important to develop
a sense of engagement and responsibility within citizens to care for their local environment
and community and hence contribute to the development of their regions. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to keep this narrative in check since it is the primary responsibility of the state to
represent and provide for its citizens. National and regional governments should not neglect
their responsibility to continue striving to improve citizens living conditions, in particular in
times of austerity (Plüschke-Altof & Grootens, 2019).
To overcome systemic and institutional barriers in post-industrial regions, it is also necessary
to develop a joint vision for the region. Identifying a vision is a process that involves a
multitude of actors that may be ‘an arena for discussions, battles and quarrels’ (Sotarauta,
2018, p. 197). In processes of path development, regional imaginaries play a particularly
important role. They work as mental maps of collectively shared beliefs that structure
economic life (Miörner, 2020, p. 4, see also Boudreau, 2007). Strong and well aligned
imaginaries influence the opportunity space perceived by actors in the region (Grillitsch &
Sotarauta, 2020). Yet, agency that targets the reinterpretation and redefinition of existing
structures in order to incentivize path development activities remains an under-
conceptualised mechanism of regional reconfiguration (Miörner, 2020, p. 10). Hence, studies
should be geared to provide answers in relation to the relative importance of structure and
agency in triggering reconfiguration processes (the source of change), the influence of system
selectivity on how efficiently changes comes about (the rate of change) and what steers
change processes (the direction of change) (Miörner, 2020, p. 10).
21
8. Summary of the theoretical framework
In the first chapters of this paper, we could show that there is a considerable gap in the
research on the effects of transformation especially in non-metropolitan (old) industrial
regions (see, for example, Luukkonen, 2010; Atkinson, 2017; Hoekstra, 2017). To fill in this
gap, our research focuses on such regions, typically suffering most of the consequences of de-
industrialisation (Lintz & Wirth, 2009). We conceptualised regional development as a holistic
process, in order to move away from compartmentalising, one-size-fits-all, growth-oriented
models, as these overemphasise the role of the economy and hence contribute to
peripheralization in and of (old) industrial regions. Instead, we argue to tackle social,
environmental, cultural, and political issues concurrently. From this perspective, local
resources, capabilities, cultures, and structures are deemed relevant as potentials for
sustainable regional development. At the same time, the approach reflects upon the
complexity of local changes, imbalances, governance arrangements and argues that regions
may re-define themselves by using bottom-up approaches calling for a local embeddedness
of actors and development measures.
In a second step, we introduced the concept of governance, which contrary to government
lays emphasis on non-hierarchical forms of control and decision-making (Benz, 2004; Heinelt,
2018), whilst highlighting the participation of both public and private actors (Schwalb & Walk,
2007; Schuppert, 2011). We argue that it is necessary to focus on the cooperation of
stakeholders between and beyond sectoral and territorial boundaries, e.g., administration,
civil society, businesses, politics, and academia. By focusing on governance and cross-sectoral
cooperation there is a possibility to tackle the constraints of the institutional framework in
(old) industrial regions including state strategies, as well as collectively develop new
narratives for the future of these regions (Cruickshank et al., 2013).
Cooperation takes place in agentic processes among different kinds of actors; hence agency
is another key concept. The concepts of collective agency, institutional entrepreneurship and
place-based leadership seem to be particularly relevant for research on collaborative
governance. The concept highlights the role of collective local agency to overcome
development challenges, and particularly emphasizes the role of non-state actors in providing
public services, and hence more transparency in local governance (Pestoff, 2012). The forms
of agency have not only the potential to strengthen local governance frameworks but also to
support their adaptation to the growing complexity of local actors and transformation
processes. We have identified several conditioning factors for successful collaboration in (old)
industrial regions, these include: developing incentives for stakeholders to enter
collaboration; developing a common ground; strengthening dialogue and communication;
enable open and inclusive assess to collaborative processes; ensure collaboration on an equal
footing, coupled with deliberation. This all requires being able to view opponents in a new
light by sharing responsibility and developing trust. Moreover, it is necessary to develop
strategies using endogenous resources, since financial resources are often scarce. In this
22
regard, it seems to be important to develop a common vision and new narratives about the
region, what can be done through regional imaginaries. It has been noted, still, that one of
the greatest challenges is overcoming resistance to collaborative practices.
9. Methodology
By means of an comparative, explorative study in eight regions in Central and Eastern Europe,
the project SPHERES has aimed to examine the actor and cooperation relationships in selected
fields of regional development and to give initial considerations on how these can be shaped
in a participatory and future-oriented manner. The focus is on the cooperative relationships
of key actors, factors that promote and hinder cooperation, and potential solutions for
transformative governance arrangements. Following the paradigm of multiple perspectives,
the research project enables a new view on structurally weak regions.
9.1. Case study regional selection
To select our case study regions and gain an overview, we conducted desk research and
developed regional profiles for each region selected. The main criterion for selecting the case
studies was that they have been characterised by manufacturing or extractive industries and
are currently in different phases of transformation (e.g., mining regions, regions that are or
were characterised by the automotive industry). The focus is on middle-sized towns and their
regional interdependencies. Sectoral and geographical linkages between cities and regions
were explicitly considered. Capital cities, as central growth engines of the Central and Eastern
European countries, were explicitly excluded from the research. Another selection criterion
was the access to the respective field and the willingness of key actors to support the project,
which was already asked for in the preparation of the application.
As a result, we chose the following (old) industrial regions: the Ústí Region and the Karlovy
Vary Region in Czech Republic; the Silesian and the Łódź Voivodeship in Poland; the Košice
and the Trenčín Region in Slovakia; the Leoben District located in Styria in Austria and the
Saxon district of Chemnitz in Germany. Initially, one of our Polish case studies was the West
Pomeranian Voivodeship, but after conducting the first interviews we realised that most of
the focus in regional development lies on the capital city Szczecin. At the same time, we were
not able to find equivalent smaller towns with a post-industrial character in the region that
would be compatible with our other case study regions. We also faced difficulties in
establishing contacts in the region and hence decided to change our focus on the Silesian
Voivodeship and particularly Bielsko-Biała and its surroundings which also met our selection
criteria.
23
Spheres Case Study Regions. Source: Cartography Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography.
9.2. Data collection
To get an overview of the specific regions, we conducted preliminary interviews with
academic experts from the respective regional universities. This gave us the opportunity for
an actor analysis, so that we could choose the right experts from the regions for the following
interviews. After the recommendation of our preliminary interview partners, we established
contacts with the representatives from each specific region. Followingly, through a snowball
effect, we managed to reach out to additional experts. Also, we contacted actors from past
projects and identified further local actors by desk-research.
For each case study, we conducted three to eight semi-structured expert interviews with
representatives from the areas of administration, regional politics, economy, and civil society.
A total of 46 expert interviews were conducted in the selected regions, nevertheless it was
particularly difficult to find interview partners in Slovakia and Poland, possibly due to the
language barrier. In each of the Czech regions, we conducted eight interviews with members
of all targeted sectors (academia, regional politics, municipality, economics, and civil society).
In the Polish regions, we were able to conduct six interviews in the Lodzkie Voivodeship and
five in the Silesian Voivodeship, specifically in the Bielsko-Biała district. Unfortunately, we
were not able to establish contact with representatives of the economic and civil society
sector in Poland. In each of the two regions of Slovakia, five interviews were conducted, but
unfortunately, it was not possible to reach representatives of the economy and civil society
in each region (civil society is missing in Trenčín, economy is missing in Košice). In Austria we
24
were able to conduct a total of six interviews with representatives of politics, administration,
and economy. In the selected Chemnitz region in Germany, we were able to interview three
representatives of the business community and civil society.
Interviews were conducted using a guiding questionnaire based on the research questions
and the literature analysis. The questionnaire was divided in four clusters: (1) introduction of
the actor(s), their organisation, and the region; (2) narratives about the region based on its
industrial past; (3) key actors involved in regional development and their cooperation; (4)
structures and tools enabling/inhibiting cooperation.
All interviews were conducted via zoom, lasted approximately 1 hour, and were mostly
carried out in English. A few were done in the local language due to the language skills of one
of the project staff members, who later translated the interview into English for further data
analysis. During all interviews, minutes and notes were taken. All interviews were recorded
with the consent of the interviewees and either transcribed or documented by extensive in-
depth protocols.
Table 1: List of conducted interviews
Country
Region (District)
Sector
Total
Academic
Politics
Municipality
Economy
Civil society
Czech Republic
Ústí
1
2
1
1
3
8
Czech Republic
Karlovy Vary
1
3
1
2
1
8
Poland
Lodzkie
2
---------
2
1
1
6
Poland
Silesia (Bielsko-Biała)
2
1
2
-----------
----------
5
Slovakia
Košice
1
2
1
----------
1
5
Slovakia
Trenčín
1
2
1
1
----------
5
Germany
Saxony (Chemnitz)
2
1
3
Austria
Styria (Leoben)
-
2
1
2
-
6
Interviews in
total
46
9.3. Data analysis
To evaluate the collected data, we used qualitative content analysis based on Mayring (2014).
We created a coding-scheme according to four main categories: (1) regional development; (2)
actor landscapes; (3) pre-requisites for cooperation; (4) narratives. Each category included
various subcategories (see Annex 2). Using this scheme, we prepared a table for the
evaluation of the collected data. Additionally, we created portraits of the individual regions
and analysed governance arrangements in regional development and factors enabling or
hindering collaboration based on the evaluation coding-scheme. This gave us a better
overview of each region, and we were able to understand the region’s specifics more
profoundly and answer our research questions. The results were reflected and validated by
our interview partners, academic experts, and additional participants from the region either
25
by giving feedback on written policy briefs or in focus group discussions in regional
workshops.
10. Case Studies – Results from Czech Republic
10.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Czech Republic
The Czech Republic is a unitary state and the Constitution from 1993 establishes two levels of
local governments: regions (more historical) district (kraj) and municipalities (okres) (Nemec
et al. 2016). Municipalities are the basic territorial self-governing communities. They were
established in the early 1990s with the same boundaries as the previous local administrative
units. There are currently about 6,250 municipalities in the country. Moreover, 14 regions
were established in 1997. Until December 31st, 2002, 76 districts also existed, i.e.,
deconcentrated branches of the national government in the Czech Republic. Their existence
came to an end as a part of the public administration reform.
Municipalities and regions operate independently of the central or regional level of
government. The councils are elected in popular elections which take place every four years.
The mayor and the regional president are elected by the council from the council members.
The municipal manager is appointed by the mayor and this appointment (or removal) must
be approved by the director of the regional office.
Local government responsibilities are divided into two groups: independent competencies
and delegated powers. For independent competencies local governments can implement
their own policies: management of local government, formulation and approval of the
budget, establishment of legal entities and organizations, management of the local
governments´ office, publishing of generally binding regulations of the municipality, local
referenda, municipal police force, penalties for administrative offences, program of
development for the municipal cadastral district, planning and regulating plans and
cooperation with other municipalities.
Independent competencies represent both a right and a duty to the municipality. There are
defined services which a municipality must provide in the self-administration provision, e.g.,
elementary schools, kindergartens, children’s homes, rest homes and social housing,
theatres, libraries and museums, free-time activities facilities, water quality and delivery, gas
and electricity delivery, public space cleaning, cemeteries, provision of public roads, public
lighting, public transport, municipal police, firemen etc. Municipalities must finance these
services from their own revenues, especially from tax revenues.
In case of the delegated powers local self-governments are executing central government
policy. Due to the very fragmented municipal structure, not all municipalities exercise all types
of delegated powers. Currently, municipalities are divided into three categories. The scope of
the state administration is determined together with the grants for its provision. These grants
26
are drawn from the state budget. The provision of the state administration theoretically
should not financially burden the local government; however, the grants finance only a part
of the total expenses. There are significant differences between municipalities and regions in
the volume and share of capital expenditures (Nemec et al., 2016).
10.2. The Ústí region
10.2.1. Regional profile
The Ústí Region is an old-industrial region in Northern Czech Republic at the German-Czech
border. It is marked by several mountainous areas (e.g., the Ore mountains) and the river Elbe
(in Czech ‘Labe’). The district capital city is Ústí nad Labem which is also seat of the regional
university. The region has 817.000 inhabitants and covers the surface area of 5.335 km².
Demographically, the region has a relatively young population (41.4 years), however lowest
number of births, the highest mortality and the health indicators rank among the worst in the
country (World Health Organization, 2018). In terms of unemployment, the region has the
highest unemployment rate (5.3%) in the whole republic, right after is the Moravian-Silesian
region with 4.8% (Beránková, 2022; iROHZLAS, 2022).
The region has been marked particularly by mining activities, energy production and related
heavy industries. The region has undergone two periods of mining: first, medieval mining of
copper, silver, and tin in the Ore mountains around the 15th century; second, lignite (brown
coal) mining in the 19th and 20th century. ‘Historically, the region was focused on open
surface brown coal mining, producing electricity and partly on heavy chemistry’ (U7_rp). The
rich history of mining has even been recognised as UNESCO world heritage and became a
strong part of the regional identity.
Still today, the industrial past and the post-mining landscape of the Ore Mountains seem to
contribute to a rather bad reputation of the region (also in comparison to our second case
study, the Karlovy Vary region). Narratives about the regional identity and the reflection of
the post-industrial history play an important role in regional development. Yet, identity
building in the region seems to pose a great challenge as one interviewee noted: ‘they have
no roots, or we have no roots. We don’t know the history of our region, so it is a big topic for
us’ (U3_cs). This lack of identity has its historic roots in the re-population of big parts of the
region after the expulsion of the former German population (U3_cs; U4_cs; U5_cs). Residents
are often not aware of the rich history of the region being the ‘power-house’ of
Czechoslovakia, but also before WW2 home to a textile company bigger than Škoda auto
(U5_cs). On the contrary, an interviewee stated: ‘This area was something like a deposition of
sick people, people with disabilities, people with psychiatric problems, and also a lot of gypsy
communities were moved here from Slovakia… So now we have concentrated troubles in the
social area’ (U3_cs). Particularly the media is still creating a very negative image of both the
city and the region as the ‘waste basin of Czech Republic’ (U3_cs; U6_rp; U7_rp). According
27
to some interviewees, the negative perceptions have mainly prevailed amongst people from
outside of the region (U2_ac) and have not really changed over the years: ‘They have the
expectation that they will find bad environment, a lot of pollution’ (U3_cs). However, once
people come to the region, they seem to be very positively surprised due to the beautiful
nature of the region (U7_rp; U3_cs). Most interviewees highlight that the region has recently
undergone numerous revitalisation projects ameliorating the physical landscape as well as
infrastructures - nevertheless there is still a lot of work to be done. At the end of the 1980s,
air pollution in the region was very high, however thanks to regeneration and re-cultivation
of the former mines, the situation has rapidly improved since then (U2_ac; U1_mn) leaving a
beautiful countryside and recreational areas (U7_rp). One interviewee noted that the regional
government needs to develop a strategy for a change of the negative mind-set, ‘because the
coal mines and power-stations are closing, and the conditions here are better than 10-20 years
ago…but people still have the picture of this region as something filthy and polluted… This
must change because I think it is a good place for living’ (U3_cs).
In addition, the region is also struggling with negative self-perceptions and stigmatisation
from inside the region, making it a great challenge to persuade locals that the region is nice
and worth staying in (U3_cs) - particularly for young people. This has been confirmed by a
recent questionnaire by the local government, in preparation for a new regional strategy,
which asked local inhabitants about their perceptions of the city. ‘It ended up pretty horrible,
people from Ústí are negative towards the city, towards their politicians, officials, they don’t
like anything. They complain about basic things such as cleanliness in the city’ (U6_rp).
Nevertheless, they also noted that the situation is improving and that ‘you can notice more
positive thinking’ (U6_rp). This is partly a result of the improved economic situation and the
number of projects taking place in the region (U6_rp) as a recent Czech-wide survey proofed.
The region improved its position slightly particularly in the fields of environment and resident
satisfaction. People appreciate the low property prices, a high proportion of protected natural
areas, the high number of hospital beds in the region, the high capacity of facilities for the
elderly and the high number of police officers per thousand inhabitants (Přibyl, 2022).
Nevertheless, the region still faces a lot of pressing challenges. Economically, due to a rather
narrow industrial specialisation in combination with the challenges of the socio-economic
transition after the collapse of socialism, the region has been struggling to find a new
innovative direction, with a higher added value (U1_mn; U7_rp). In addition, the region is
facing the ‘common challenges’ of post-industrial and post-mining regions: lower levels of
entrepreneurship, weakened social and demographic structures due to brain drain of
qualified people (U1_mn), low levels of education and a high concentration of low-skilled
workers. Consequently, entrepreneurs who want to open up businesses often leave the area
and young people with children do not want to bring their children into local schools due to
low levels of quality compared to the national average (U5_cs).
Due to the in-migration of excluded communities from Czechoslovakia after the expulsion of
Germans after World War II (U4_cs), but also current migration of Roma people from Slovakia
28
and Hungary (U4_cs), there is a high concentration of socially excluded areas (U3_cs; U6_rp)
resulting in poverty, a lack of housing and challenges with inclusion (U6_rp; U5_cs). ‘There are
large ghettos. Inclusion that used to be here does not exist. It is only a media term about
inclusion through education- this does not exist here. It is all done selectively in those classes-
between the better and worse kids’ (U6_rp). A representative of the humanitarian sector
noted that: ‘Poverty trade is flourishing here (U4_cs).’ According to them, ‘the goal or vision
of the city should be to get rid of the socially excluded areas’ (U6_rp).
Additionally, the region faces a lot of environmental challenges on top of the energy
transition which is currently a pressing issue, due to the raising energy prices and threats of
energy poverty (U3_cs) caused by the war in Ukraine. Moreover, revitalisation of coal and
industrial brownfields (U6_rp), waste management and forest management (U3_cs) are to be
tackled. However, there are differing opinions about the role of sustainable regional
development in the region due to a strong mining identity (U7_rp). ‘There are people who still
feel proud as miners, and they do not want this activity to be stopped. On the other side, we
have people who would stop mining right now’ (U7_rp). During the regional workshops we
were discussing the generational split about the opinions on transition and how to raise
environmental awareness in the region, not only in schools, but also for the older generations
in order to tackle local resistance to transition. This divide is visible from the interviews, since
for certain actors, sustainable regional development is not topical (U3_cs), according to other
actors, however, it is gaining more awareness (U7_rp), in particular due to the approaching
energy crisis (U3_cs).
10.2.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions
The local strategy focuses on the three pillars of environment, economy, and social topics
(U3_cs) which is in line with our understanding of a holistic and sustainable regional
development. Important topics of the environmental pillar are nature preservation and
adaptation (natural parks, lake Milada), environmental awareness and education, restoration
of historic buildings, waste and energy management and emission-free public transport
(U3_cs; U6_rp). In contrast, in the economic sector, ‘SRD means sustaining traditional
industries like the energy and chemical industry, but in a more modern, sustainable way’
(U8_ec). There is, for instance, the plan to transform Ústí nad Labem into a ‘green city’ by
becoming pioneers in hydrogen-based transport: ‘The first hydrogen bus in the Republic will
drive in the public transport of the city of Ústí nad Labem…This could become the pride of the
city…This might improve the perceptions of identity of the people’ (U6_rp). In general, people
agree with this strategy and support it, nevertheless there are problems to implement it
(U6_rp, U2_ac; U7_rp). An example of this is the repeatedly failed implementation of the
city’s architect’s office that was agreed on by the local council in 2021, however its realisation
did not take place due to internal disagreements (U6_rp).
Despite this incidence, the number of projects in the region with reference to SRD is on the
rise both on regional, national and international levels. Here are just a few:
29
Regional projects:
- Creation of sub-regional development plans within the Ústí region (2022-2026) that
will be later presented to the national government and become part of the regional
development strategy of Czech Republic (U7_rp).
- Projects supporting local schools and enhancing inclusive education (equipment, staff
and capacities) (U4_cs), e.g., history project at schools including design of a regional ‘kroj’
(regional traditional costume)
- Promotion of regional products (U3_cs).
National projects:
- Re:start (Ústí, Karlovy Vary and Moravian-Silesian Region) - transformation of coal
mining regions - until 2033 (U1_mn).
- Just Transition Fund - hydrogen fuel mobility; Krusne hory lithium batteries;
recultivation and revitalisation of post-mining landscape (U2_ac)
- Energy communities & public events within the framework of SECAPS (Strategic Action
Plan for Environment and Climate) (U3_cs)
International projects:
- Vital Cities - in cooperation with 10 EU cities sharing experiences and revitalising public
spaces and socially excluded areas (U4_cs).
- Forget Heritage (Interreg Central Europe) (U6_rp).
- Smart City in cooperation with Union of Towns and Local Governments (U6_rp).
Personal visions for the region were quite divers and ranged from economic specialisation,
e.g., in the hydrogen economy (U8_ec) or in tourism, improved services and infrastructures
to strengthening local identity and improvement of the living conditions. The latter includes
also better education and place-based learning as well as stronger support of and solidarity
with socially excluded children and families. The focus on hydrogen, for example, would not
only increase regional economic performance, but also lead to the development of further
technologies, contributing equally to environmental improvements and an improvement of
the living conditions for locals. In order to attract returnees interview partners suggested that
the next regional strategy should focus on the life cycle of human beings in a rural area and
place-based learning of local children in order to enhance embeddedness ‘so that they return,
once they have been away for their studies’ (U3_cs). Social exclusion could be tackled by a
dedicated coordinating office and a comprehensive strategy including awareness raising
measures addressed to the public.
30
10.2.3. Key actors
Public: On a regional level there are municipalities, Regional Authorities and their
contributory organisations and agencies, Local Action Groups, University Jan Evangelista
Purkyně (UJEP), Innovation Centre of the Ústí Region (ICUK)
1
, Chamber of Commerce,
Economic and Social Council (KSR-UK)
2
. On a national level other ex-coal regions within the
framework of JTF (Karlovy Vary, Morava-Silesia), Union of Towns and Municipalities
3
,
universities from outside of the region (Czech Technical University Prague), Czech
Government Ministries and their contributory organisations: Development, Environment,
Regional Development (offices in the region responsible for Re:start), Transportation,
Education, Labour, Social Affairs, the Technology Agency (TA CR). On an international level:
German Foundations (Friedrich Ebert), Saxonian National Park Management, state enterprise
DIAMO- former PKU (recultivating lakes Milada and Most).
Private: companies such as, AGC Processing, Aluminium Manufacturing Plant Constellium,
Henley, Orlen Unipetrol.
Civil Society: local associations and NGOs: cultural centre Hraničář and different civil-society
initiatives that cooperate (Promyky; Střekovské matky, z. s.; Skřivánek).
10.2.4. Tools and structures of cooperation
Cooperation in the region happens both in formal structures and informal arrangements
within and across different sectors like administration, economy and civil society. Key areas
of cooperation include tourism, the environment, transformation, economic and regional
development and entrepreneurship. Cooperation happens both within the region (horizontal
cooperation), between different scales (vertical cooperation: regional-national/international)
or in forms of interregional cross-border/transregional projects. However, it needs to be
noted that it is difficult to strictly divide them, since some work across several levels.
Collaboration seems to have increased over the past 4-5 years, possibly because actors are
beginning to see the benefits of it (U3_cs): ‘I would say that the people are becoming to learn
that only projects that are made and prepared in cooperation have a much bigger impact for
the region (U7_rp).’
Regional cooperation tools and structures have a cross-sectoral nature and consist of the
preparation and implementation of strategies & projects, for instance: JTF (Just Transition
Fund) (U8_ec, U3_cs), Participatory Budgeting (U6_rp)
4
; energy communities & SECAP
1
Established in 2015 by the Regional Chamber of Commerce and UJEP in order to enhance regional
innovation.
2
Initiating, coordinating and conciliating body for negotiations with the Czech government on economic,
environmental and social development matters.
3
https://www.smocr.cz/en
4
https://www.usti-nad-labem.cz/cz/uredni-portal/obcan/granty-dotace/participativni-
rozpocet.html?fbclid=IwAR0jcz6vGShdC5i3mjApkqo2lOKvycou1QYwCu-eVy-St4tqps_df_sYiCM
31
(Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan) (U3_cs, U6_rp); Creation of sub-regional
development plans (U7_rp).
In addition, there are regular regional working groups, fora & platforms, which are generally
cross-sectoral, such as: Pact of Mayors (U6_rp), Union of towns and villages of Lake Milada
(U6_rp), ICUK (U5_cs), Research and Development Platform for the Ústí region, hydrogen
platform (U8_ec), destination management platform (U3_cs), coordination & working groups
in the local government: transport, tourism, regional development, brownfields, energy,
socially excluded areas (U6_rp; U7_rp; U4_cs). Universities and educational facilities also serve
as platforms for regional, but also national and international cross-sectoral cooperation
(U6_rp; U4_cs, U5_cs). The cooperation between the humanitarian sector and the city or
regional authorities appears to be rather hierarchical, partly due to financial dependencies
(U4_cs). Moreover, there are also ad-hoc working groups that are created when a crisis
happens, such as the management of refugees, natural catastrophes such as floods, fires,
plans of closure of the local dormitory or the establishment of a ‘tax-free’ zone (U4_cs).
Local Action Groups (LAGs) (U5_cs; U1_mn) are in the words of one interviewee: ‘a platform
for this (cross-sectoral) cooperation’, and often act as initiators of cooperation because they
know well the needs of the region (U3_cs). The preparation of the Memorandum of
Cooperation between LAGs and the local regional government fostered cooperation among
them (U3_cs). LAGs are in close cooperation with mayors, and they noted that cooperation
among mayors who are in office for longer is more informal: ‘they believe in us, and we believe
in them,’ but with those who are new, it is rather formal (U3_cs). In other words, a lot of
cooperation is dependent on personal relations (U6_rp).
There are some organisations and places serving as nodes for cooperation like the cultural
centre Hraničář and different civil-society initiatives that cooperate (Promyky; Střekovské
matky, z. s.; Skřivánek) (U4_cs).
Despite the existence of the mentioned tools interviewees are complaining that a strategy or
concept for networking between smaller towns and villages in the region (U1_mn) as well as
a solid infrastructure or strategy for supporting and guiding projects in the region (U7_rp) are
missing. In general, there seems to be no leader to collect all the actors into one cooperative
body and develop a common vision (U5_cs). But also in sectoral policies, like socially excluded
areas, a responsible person for the whole region is missing (U4_cs). Additionally, the region
would need more tools to cooperate with local inhabitants and increase their participation
(from staff recruitment, development of a strategy, to implementation) which is difficult as
particularly older generations are not used to it (U6_rp). Additionally, more tools for cross-
regional cooperation are required (U7_rp).
Willingness to cooperate across different sectors seem to have increased in the last five years
(U8_ec; U7_rp), e.g., between regional authority and small and medium enterprises (SME), or
between regional authority and local action groups. Nevertheless, half of the interviewees
said that the level of cooperation across sectors is still insufficient. In their opinion, key
32
hindering factors for cross-sectoral cooperation have been personal and political conflicts
(U6_rp; U5_cs). In addition, most sectors do not have much crossover and rather work within
their area (U6_rp): ‘We live more separately: NGOs, business, university, innovation centre.
We are too separate, like molecules, not like one body, and no one is feeling we are one body,
one region’ (U5_cs).
National cooperation tools and structures include topical networks for each sector: e.g.
Czech Network of Regional Development Agencies (U7_rp); National Volunteers Association,
Panel of Humanitarian Organisations (U5_cs); Člověk v tísni network (U5_cs) the Ministry of
Environment is responsible for the running of the local national parks (U4_cs); the Ministry of
Regional Development has a local branch in charge of the Re:start strategy (U8_ec); same as
the Technology Agency of Czech Republic (TA CR) (U8_ec). Moreover, there are national
cross-sectoral forums and exchanges, such as the Union of Towns and Municipalities (U6_rp);
National Network of LAGs (NSMAS) and cooperation with other ex-coal regions (Ostrava,
Moravia-Silesia) within the Re:start and JTF network (U7_rp).
However, local actors consider it as problematic that there seems to be no national strategy
for the development of the regions (U5_cs) and no established set of guidelines regarding
subsidies (U7_rp; U6_rp). We have shown some existing tools and structures, nevertheless
actors may not have access to it or are unhappy about their effectiveness. Moreover, the
national government would need to support the regions with specialised staff in order to not
only manage, but also develop visions for the region (U5_cs).
Transnational cross-sectoral platforms, projects and exchanges include, Interreg Czech
Republic-Saxony (U3_cs), National Park cooperation between Saxony and the Ústí region
(U1_mn), cooperation of the Ústí region with other coal regions in transition, such us Bosnia
& Herzegovina within the framework of the project ‘Re:start’ (U8_ec);
5
NGOs from Czech
Republic and Saxony sharing experiences in dealing with socially-excluded people (U4_cs). In
addition, there is a rather sectoral national cooperation between NGO sister organisations
within the region and in neighbouring regions, including international exchanges and
internship opportunities with their Slovak partners - Človek v ohrození (U5_cs, U4_cs).
Moreover, there are international funding programmes fostering cooperation through
projects e.g., ERASMUS+, Danube, Horizon Europe, European Solidarity Corps (U5_cs).
Particularly one actor representing the humanitarian sector highlighted the need and benefit
of international corporations due to the lack of endogenous resources and a need for more
help, but equally due to the valuable opportunity for exchange, sharing inspiration and visions
(U5_cs).
Yet, several actors mentioned that changes of the politics and legislation in general, e.g., in
the fields of social policies, poverty reduction or energy related fields would be needed
(U4_cs; U6_rp). This even applies to international cooperation where, for example, a
platform between Saxonian and Czech Ministries of Environment (U3_cs) is deemed as
5
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/ener/newsletter-archives/38813
33
beneficial for improved cooperation. Yet, also more generally, there is a perceived need for
more international networking (U5_cs).
When asked what actors would wish for to improve cooperation the following answers came
to the fore: a shared sustainable vision and strategy for the region supported by the local
politics (U8_ec). Connected to this there is a wish for more willingness of local actors and a
pro/active approach: ‘I don’t think that anything is standing in the way of cooperating with
other sectors and actors. If we want to, we can do it’ (U6_rp). Moreover, developing an
agenda on participation and employ staff solely responsible for this within the municipality
(U6_rp). Finally, regular subsidies/finances to be able to work more sustainably (U7_rp), but
also the establishment of larger and more efficient projects providing a deeper and broader
scope of services for the region (U8_ec).
10.2.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation
The main factors promoting cooperation in the region mentioned by our interviewees include
the following, nevertheless it needs to be noted that not all actors share the same views, since
their experiences differ according to the area they are working in:
1. Pro-active mind-set and local embeddedness
- It was mentioned several times that the baseline for successful cooperation is sharing
common goals (U8_ec, U6_rp) and an active local government (U5_cs; U1_mn). In fact,
more actors from different sectors seem to acknowledge the benefits of cooperation,
leading to an increased willingness to cooperate (U3_cs; U7_rp).
- People are returning to the region and becoming active: ‘they are trying to give
something back to the region…they are also kind of drivers of changes because they
are participating in the process of regional development’ (U8_ec).
- An additional benefit is the location of the management of local companies in the
region: ‘If not, you can feel it. For example, the director of the insulation company in
Krupka is here, so he is closer to people around his factory’ (U5_cs).
2. Personal ties & soft skills
- Individuals or groups with networking qualities and good communication are a strong
enabler of cooperation, since they act as bridges between actors and sectors (U5_cs).
Similarly, personal relations with actors have been mentioned to improve cooperation
(U6_rp).
- The language barrier in cross-border projects has partly been solved by Czechs
working in German institutions (U3_cs).
3. Physical & virtual tools facilitating cooperation
- An additional factor that improves cooperation is sharing the same premises (U3_cs).
- The establishment of the Innovation Centre for the Ústí Region (ICUK) has been
considered to be a key factor in promoting cooperation, not only because it acts as a
34
laboratory for business and new ideas, but it brings together the industry or SMEs, the
local university (UJEP) and the Chamber of Commerce (U7_rp, U5_cs).
- Furthermore, digitalisation has enabled cooperation, because it has made it barrier-
free and accessible from everywhere (U5_cs).
4. Exchange through international projects
- The benefits of international and cross-border projects have been highlighted
numerous times, not only due to the access to funding, but in particular due to the
opportunity to share experiences and develop new innovative ideas (U3_cs; U5_cs;
U6_rp).
The main factors inhibiting cooperation in the region mentioned by our interviewees include
the following, nevertheless it needs to be noted that not all actors share the same views, since
their experiences differ according to the area they are working in:
1. Scale of decision-making
- Since decision-making on topics of healthcare or education are taken on a higher level,
cooperation becomes more difficult (U1_mn).
2. Lacking unity, common vision, cooperation infrastructure and leader
- No common vision between actors due to limited cross-sectoral cooperation and
hence limited feeling of unity between all actors (U5_cs). An example of this are the
unnecessary frictions between sectors due to unclear responsibilities since activities
in some areas are overlapping (U7_rp).
- Political representatives not actively looking for solutions (U4_cs).
- Leadership and solid cooperation infrastructures are missing which includes changing
attention of policy makers and financial support (U7_rp). ‘We haven’t got someone in
this region who can collect people with visions to one group and to lead a speech and
to develop something that will be a common vision of these people’ (U5_cs).
3. Lack of financial & specialised human resources
- Lack of financial and specialised human resources is a hindering factor for cooperation
(U8_ec; U3_cs; U4_cs; U6_rp; U5_cs): ‘
- Language barrier to learn from foreign best practice examples: ‘In my city no one
speaks easily English… so we can’t go and spend a week with another officers,
politicians to learn’ (U5_cs).
4. Wrong or lacking prioritisation & reflection about needs of the region
- Decision-makers rather invest in hard factors like shopping, building than in “soft”
projects. Hence, cooperation and exchange are not prioritized. (U6_rp). Established
companies seem rather unwilling to adapt SRD measures and are instead prioritising
individual interests (U8_ec).
35
- The regional government and university have been criticised for focusing on too many
topics, instead of structurally prioritising and reflecting the needs of different parts of
the region (U3_cs).
5. Short-term nature of projects and political terms
- The short-term nature of cross-border and international projects is considered as
another hindering factor, since the tools and structures that it establishes rarely
outlive the project. The same is true for the short-term nature of political terms with
a time horizon of four years (U6_rp).
6. Negative perceptions, blame and self-victimisation
- Discontent with the local political representation mainly focused on the economy and
‘throwing the blame on each other’, what has a negative impact on local inhabitants
(U6_rp).
- Local inhabitants feel like victims of the national government or even the EU,
increasing numbers of populist and anti-EU voters: ‘Prague is doing bad things to us,
Europe is doing bad things, we have bad city government. Everything is negative. This
was the same in socialism’ (U5_cs).
- Negative perceptions about the region in the country: ‘The media image about the city
is also horrible. If you find something about Ústí, 9 out of 10 news about it are negative’
(U4_cs).
10.2.6. Summary of the Ústí region case study
The Ústí Region is still marked by numerous heavy and energy-producing industries and, at
the same time, its beautiful nature. According to the interviewees, the new pathway to
development after the process of transition will be tourism and recreation, particularly
important for the improvement of the negative image of the region. Nevertheless, due to the
combined challenges of industrial restructuring and post-socialist transformation the Ústí
Region has to deal with a variety of challenges in social, economic, environmental and
structural terms. Besides the need to raise educational levels and increase access to education
tackling poverty is a central issue. Additionally, the region suffers from negative internal and
external perceptions and is currently in the process to reinvent its identity, to increase trust
among regional actors and increase their local embeddedness. The latter is particularly
relevant as the population structure changed a lot since 1945 with important impacts on the
regional identity and culture. After the transition the region has to find a new economic
direction, foster entrepreneurship, economic participation, and professional specialisation
and tackling the brain-drain of qualified people. There is a pressing need to develop new
infrastructures and services but also new regional governance arrangements. Finally, the
region faces numerous environmental challenges due to the large number of brownfields and
36
the need to increase environmental awareness cross-generationally in the face of the
approaching energy crisis.
Collective local agency in form of institutional entrepreneurship can be recognised in
cooperation processes leading to the development and implementation of regional strategies
and projects (e.g., JTF, Participatory Budget) and is arguably increasing over the past few
years. Values such as the willingness to cooperate or the acknowledgement of the need to
communicate across sectoral and regional boundaries are gradually changing not least
because of few motivated actors including returnees from other Czech regions or abroad. The
Innovation Centre of the Usti Region (ICUK) can be considered to act as institutional
entrepreneur in the region (Sotarauta, 2017), since it fosters cooperation among actors from
different sectors in the form of a collective platform for exchange, creating conditions
favourable for collective agency. The local university UJEP could be seen as an institutional
navigator since it works to combine knowledge across regional and institutional boundaries
(ibid). Local Action Groups are an important example of place-based leadership (Grillitsch &
Sotarauta, 2019) in smaller micro-regions due to their cross-sectoral character and outreach.
They are not only most ‘in touch’ with the needs of the local communities, but also foster
collective forms of agency, which go beyond institutional arrangements. Other important
actors in this regard are cultural centres (e.g., Hraničář) and civil society initiatives.
Nevertheless, regional leadership on an overarching political level appears to be rather weak.
Organisations such as the Network of Regional Development Agencies help to carry regional
matters to a national level displaying structures of multilevel governance. Cross-regional,
national as well as international platforms and projects foster exchange beyond regional
borders and support the region to develop its capacities and strengthen local leadership.
Nevertheless, actors’ capacity to overcome institutional barriers is often limited, due to party
politics and the short-term nature of political terms. This points to the fact that not all actors
possess a similar degree of power (Pike et al., 2007). Crucial matters such as healthcare,
education and social exclusion are not in the regional competence, not to mention the role of
party politics which often hinders long-term cooperation. Additionally, actors’ priorities differ
and there is little reflection about the actual needs of the region. The lack of unity, of a
common vision and of a regional leader hinders the ability to develop a holistic regional
development despite the increased willingness to cooperate. On an economic level, still
persisting functional and cognitive lock-ins of established firms can be recognised and cultural
perceptions favouring ‘hard’ investments in infrastructures and alike over ‘soft’ projects
leading to greater social cohesion and identity building. Similarly, the negative perceptions
about the region, blame and self-victimisation of local inhabitants are hindering actors from
developing long-lasting cooperation.
37
10.3. The Karlovy Vary Region
10.3.1. Regional profile of Karlovy Vary Region
The Karlovy Vary region is the smallest region in Czech Republic with a population of 282.932
inhabitants and an area of 3.314km². The region is famous for its spa and balneology, bringing
thousands of tourists on a yearly basis to the ‘Spa triangle’ (K8_ec). In addition, it is home to
traditional industries such as: porcelain production, glass works (Moser), textile & clothing,
water (Mattoni), alcohol (Becherovka). The spa and travel industry have been particularly
flourishing over the last few decades (K2_rp), nevertheless it seems that the industry is
missing innovation and has experienced various lock-ins. The most industrial part of the
region is the Sokolov district, home to coal and chemical industry, engineering, and
production of construction materials. This part is currently undergoing a process of transition
within the framework of the Just Transition Process with the plans to end coal by 2035 (K2_rp;
K8_ec; K3_mn).According to one interviewee, only few people are aware of the industrial
character of the region and many Czech people think that Sokolov is part of the Ústí region,
and not of Karlovy Vary (K6_rp). Moreover, Ostrov is home to engineering, wood processing
and the automotive industry; Cheb to engineering, production of building materials and
logistics and Aš to plastic production, textiles, and engineering (K8_ec). The transformation
of these industries to more sustainable ones is the greatest challenge the region is facing,
bringing with it further economic, social, and environmental challenges (K1_ac; K8_ec).
Due to the combined challenges of a rather narrow industrial specialisation and the socio-
economic transition after the collapse of socialism, the region has been struggling to find a
new innovative direction, with a higher added value. In local actors’ perceptions, the Ústí
region seem to have a much more stable vision than Karlovy Vary based on the transformation
of the existing industries in a modern and sustainable way (K1_ac; K4_ec). The fact that the
Karlovy Vary region does not have a regional university or an innovation centre like ICUK is a
great disadvantage for them (K1_ac). There seem to be little job opportunities outside of the
spa industry and SME are missing (K7_cs). Related to this issue, the most pressing challenge
mentioned by almost all interviewees is the outmigration of the young people and skilled
workers (K1_ac; K3_mn; K4_ec; K7_cs; K8_ec).
At the same time, also as a result of comparably low unemployment rates
6
, the region is
struggling with a lack of specialised staff who are locally embedded and consequently,
workers from abroad have to be recruited (K4_ac; K8_ec).
‘It is a problem to find someone who works, but also to find someone who works and
has a relationship to the region and fulfils the prerequisites of a professional
orientation’ (K4_ec).
6
The unemployment rate in the Karlovy Vary region in September 2022 was 3.98%- considerably lower
compared to the other two regions part of the JTF (Ústí Region- 5.27%; Moravian-Silesian Region- 4.94%)
- https://www.czso.cz/csu/xc/mapa-podil-kraje
38
Besides economic restructuring the social situation in the region is considered by some actors
as the main problem (K1_ac). The Karlovy Vary region has to tackle poverty and a high
concentration of socially excluded areas (K7_cs), which brings a lot of connected problems
with criminality and most pressingly people’s hopelessness (K1_ac). Connected to this is a
need to improve health and social care in the region, since people from the region die the
youngest in the whole of Czech Republic (K6_rp). Additionally, there is a need to organise
better education opportunities in the region in order to tackle the concentration of people
with lower educational levels and the highest number of early dropouts in the whole of Czech
Republic (8% in KV- compares to 1, 5 EU average). Similarly, it is crucial to raise equal
opportunities in education (K6_rp; K7_cs) and offer better work opportunities for people with
higher specialisation to be able to return to the region (K3_mn; K6_rp). Another issue is the
need to increase financial literacy, since, according to an interviewee: ‘We have the highest
rate of people with financial difficulties - they are not able to pay their debts’ (K6_rp).
Moreover, the region has a high number of migrants from countries like Mongolia, Romania
and Ukraine - for instance in Mariánske Lázne there are over 10-15% migrants (K6_rp).
Similarly, the Karlovy Vary region has accommodated the highest number of Ukrainian
refugees per inhabitant which has put a lot of pressure on the local social services and schools,
making it more difficult to address long-term problems (K7_cs). However, on a positive side,
it has demonstrated the ‘integration potential’ of the region (K7_cs).
Like other post-industrial regions, Karlovy Vary is struggling to challenge the negative image
of the region (K6_rp; K1_ac; K4_ec; K7_cs). Very famously, ‘the former Prime Minister has
already said it- we are the worst region ever’ (K7_cs), ‘this motivated the people in the Region
and made some movement, that there is a motto- we are the worst ever- but it motivated
them to do something’ (K1_ac). This is a particular challenge for the Sokolov district since
many are not even aware that it is part of the Karlovy Vary region (K8_ec). Additionally, people
do not have strong roots in the region (K8_ec), and as a consequence they did not use to have
many traditions or cultural activities. However, an interviewee noted that this has improved:
‘It is changing a lot. In small towns and villages, they have many cultural activities - some are
typically Czech, some are new - games without borders they play, or who can prepare the best
goulash (K6_rp).’ Amongst our interviewees, there are differing opinions about the regional
identity. One interviewee argued that there are two types of identity in the region: one group
is demonstratively proud, but not as strongly as in Ostrava, and the other group hasn’t got a
strong mental connection with the region, however apparently the second group is more
prevalent (K1_ac). Therefore, it could be argued that: ‘the region is still searching for its
identity’ (K4_ec). This challenge can to a great extent be tackled through local participation.
There are calls for more participation and awareness of local inhabitants about the direction
the region is taking (K3_mn) in order to increase trust and strengthen the local society: ‘We
need to get to people certain dignity… it is about the long-term education. It is not possible to
do it through an administrative way, or through some project, it is long-term strengthening
the society’ (K1_ac).
39
In terms of structural challenges, the region made apparently good use of EU grants for
restoring the infrastructures - communal building, restoring roads, greenery, etc. However,
these projects were not really connected to sustainable energies, since the region had much
more pressing problems related to clean water, building roads, etc. (K6_rp). Similarly, there
is a problem with social housing that is common in Czech Republic and Slovakia (K7_cs).
Throughout the regional workshops, the local participants were calling for better connections
to Prague by car and by train in order to improve people’s mobility and tackle the problem of
youth outmigration.
Last but not least, like in ÚstÍ, the energy transition is currently considered a pressing problem
(K3_mn; K7_cs; K8_ec). To this end, two actors noted that it is challenging for the region to
change the mind-set of older generations regarding renewable energies, particularly those
who formerly worked in the coal mines, but also of ordinary citizens who ‘after 10 years keep
complaining about the noise of the windmills’ (K1_rp; K6_rp), as well as local decision-makers
(K2_rp). Many mayors apparently belong to an older generation and have been in their
positions for a few decades, seemingly with little knowledge about and connection to
renewable energies (K6_rp). In fact, there seems to be a generational divide between the
young people who prefer renewables and older generations that think that the mines will re-
open in the brink of the energy crisis (K6_rp). In addition, the transition is said to have also
psychological impacts on the staff of the company who fear to lose their jobs (K2_rp). The
labour office has thought that there will be a lot of unemployment after the transition,
however an interviewee noted that many people from the coal mining companies retired and
others started to work on new projects in the company (U8_ec). The local private mining
company - Sokolovská Uhelná - is in the process of moving towards more sustainable energies
and is creating small companies related to new industries to prepare for the transition
(K2_rp). In cooperation with other stakeholders, they are creating new types of energy
production that will possibly lead to new job opportunities (K3_mn). Moreover, local actors
seem hopeful for a positive change since there are motivating leaders who are moving away
from the post-industrial mind-set (K1_ac) and the number of projects supporting the energy
transition is on the rise (K3_mn). However, some actors complained about difficulties in
involving the mining companies into sustainable regional development projects (K6_rp).
10.3.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions
The key aims of the Regional Development Strategy of the region (2021-2027) are focused on
(1.) increasing the economic competitiveness of the region (2.) attractiveness of the region
for its inhabitants, investors, and visitors and (3.) intensified cross-border and interregional
relations. In terms of more specific goals the region aims to: improve the image of the region,
increase the economic attractiveness of the region, focus on balneology, tourism and culture,
improve the quality of education, improve the access and quality of social services and
healthcare, protect the environment, provide sustainable energy and transport, and improve
40
strategic planning (Karlovarský kraj, 2021). Two interviewees criticised that there is a lack of
clarity regarding the regional strategy:
‘In Karlovy Vary they are searching for a vision and every month they are formulating
a new vision in many documents. Now we will be active in creative industries, and next
month or half a year, we are now orienting on tourism or balneology’ (K1_ac).
Likewise, a holistic approach towards development seems missing:
‘We have the problem that there are so many working groups that it is missing a
central or regional management that would give it a certain form. It is missing a holistic
approach towards the problems’ (K7_cs).
This criticism was also brought up during our regional workshops. Two interviewees noted
that the regional strategy is not so widely supported and worked with (K6_rp; K1_ac). This is
particularly the case for mayors who not only have to be reminded that they have to develop
a strategy for their towns, but also that they should be using the regional strategy (K6_rp).
Nevertheless, it was also noted that ‘the core stakeholders are following it somehow… they
are intensively in connection, in communication, that their mindsets are coming closer and it
means they have a similar vision’ (K1_ac).
The following projects regarding sustainable regional development have been mentioned:
Regional Projects
- Smart Akcelerator 2.0 - building regional innovation systems and institutional
capacity (K2_rp)
7
- Žijeme Regionem – marketing campaign with the aim to strengthen the local
identity (K4_ec; K8_ec)
8
- Local Action Plans connected to kindergartens & elementary schools (K6_rp)
- Reclamation of the mines - lake Medar (K8_ec)
- Green energy projects of Sokolovska Uhelna (K8_ec) - they are planning a big EU
project focused on lithium batteries (K6_rp)
- Gigafactory and the creation of a technology park (K3_mn)
National Projects
- RE:START – strategy for economic restructuring of Czech coal regions (Ústí,
Karlovy Vary and Moravian-Silesian Region)
9
- Just Transition Fund - recultivation and revitalisation of post-mining landscape
(K4_ec; K8_ec)
7
http://www.kr-karlovarsky.cz/region/projektyKK/Stranky/smart2.aspx
8
https://www.zijemeregionem.cz/
9
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/archived-pages/resources/restart-strategy-economic-restructuring-czech-
coal-regions_en
41
- Energy communities & public events within the framework of SECAPS (Strategic
Action Plan for Environment and Climate)
International Projects
- CLARA - cross-border cooperation between Saxony, Bavaria and Czech Republic
on the topics of: civil defence, tourism and spa, environment, governance,
regional development and spatial planning, human resources and education
(K2_rp)
10
- Cross-border Interreg Central Europe projects (K6_rp)
- Euregio Egrensis - cross-border platform for cooperation between Karlovy Vary
and Bavaria and Saxony (K6_rp)
11
In terms of future visions, innovation, and openness, but also nature protection and education
are considered as relevant: ‘In 15, 20 years, I hope the region will be full of innovative and
creative people. And it will be an open-minded region, an open-minded and perfect place for
living, doing business, traveling.’ (K2_rp).
10.3.3. Key actors
Public: On a regional level there are municipalities, Regional Authorities and their
contributory organisations and agencies, Local Action Groups, University Jan Evangelista
Purkyně (UJEP), Chamber of Commerce, Karlovy Vary Business Development Agency (KARP),
Regional Agrarian Chamber for the Karlovy Vary Region, Povodí Ohře (water management),
local schools and kindergartens. On a national level other ex-coal regions within the
framework of JTF (Karlovy Vary, Morava-Silesia), Union of Towns and Municipalities
12
,
universities from outside of the region (University of West Bohemia Plzen - Faculty of
Economics Cheb), Czech Government Ministries and their contributory organisations:
Development, Environment, Regional Development (offices in the region responsible for
Re:start), Industry and Trade (Czech Invest), Education, Labour, Social Affairs. On an
international level: Saxonian and Bavarian Regions, German (Saxony and Bavaria) Industry
and Trade Chamber, Saxonian National Park Management.
Private: companies such as Sokolovská Uhelná, BMW test circuit, College of Karlovy Vary.
Civil Society: local associations and NGOs.
10
http://www.clara2.eu/
11
https://www.euregio-egrensis.de/home.htm
12
https://www.smocr.cz/en
42
10.3.4. Tools and Structures of cooperation
Cooperation in the region happens both in formal structures and informal arrangements
within and across different sectors like administration, economy, and civil society. Key areas
of cooperation include tourism, the environment, transformation, economic and regional
development, entrepreneurship. Cooperation happens both within the region (horizontal
cooperation), between different scales (vertical cooperation: regional-national/international)
or in forms of interregional cross-border/transregional projects. However, it needs to be
noted that it is difficult to strictly divide them, since some work across several levels.
There are regional cooperation tools and structures that have a cross-sectoral nature mainly
aimed at the preparation and implementation of strategies & projects, for instance: JTF (Just
Transition Fund) (K4_ec; K8_ec), Žijeme Regionem (K4_ec; K8_ec), preparation of the regional
strategy (K7_cs), local action plans connected to kindergartens and elementary schools
(K6_rp).
In addition, there are regular regional working groups, fora & platforms, which are generally
cross-sectoral, such as: working groups on social and environmental affairs, grant schemes,
exchanges between school directors in the region (K2_rp; K4_ec; K8_ec; K7_cs), the Council
of Research, Development and Innovation - one actor noted that it is often that the same
members are represented in all groups (K2_rp). In addition, there is a Regional Standing
Conference - a platform linking stakeholders to discuss development issues in the region,
search for solutions and formulate them in the direction of the national level (K1_ac).
Similarly, the local Chamber of Commerce has regular meetings with Czechinvest (both formal
and informal), Karlovy Vary Business Development Agency and the Labour Office (K8_ec). In
fact, the Business Development Agency of Karlovy Vary Region (KARP) was noted to act as a
door opener in the region (K1_ac).
Local Action Groups (LAGs) (K6_rp; K5_rp) are not only actors, but also serve as formal and
informal platforms for cooperation linking both private and public actors from the sub-
regions, implementing community led, bottom-up local development (K2_rp).
Despite the existing structures, cooperation between sectors seems not easy, since it all
depends on who is in power (K2_rp) and some actors see it as a burden and ‘avoid it on
purpose’. However once actors see the benefits of it, they continue to cooperate (K4_ec).
Another interviewee noted that there is good cooperation across sectors, however they ‘don’t
know if it is enough for a big change’ (K8_ec).
Yet, there seems to be a lack of regional management with a clear regional strategy,
representing a holistic approach towards local problems (K7_cs). Connected to this is the fact
that there is a missing actor or a body that would check on the implementation of projects,
strategies and visions: ‘We have so many different working groups and so many different
platforms, but there is nobody who check or who realize or implement the outputs. It's hard
to work with outputs and implement it into practice. […] you need to have some leader who
43
work with the information and who is able to realise all ideas that the groups mentioned’
(K2_rp). The problem could be addressed, for example, by regional mentors or experts, for
instance from the European Commission, who would be sent to the region for a period of
time and act as ‘natural leaders from the outside becoming inside leaders and mobilising or
multiplying ideas and enthusiasm in endogenous conditions’ (K1_ac; K4_ec). Additionally, the
region is missing a space or platform of public nature, such as a university or a creative
incubator connecting people in the region (K1_ac; K4_ac; K7_cs; K8_ec). Moreover,
particularly the representative of LAG is missing a cooperation structure with the local mining
company: ‘They (Sokolovská Uhelná) never contacted us, they work for themselves. Maybe
they do some good activities, but I am not aware of them’ (K6_rp). Nevertheless, other actors,
such as the local Chamber of Commerce or Department of Regional Development are
apparently in close cooperation with the company (K2_rp; K8_ec). A representative of the
humanitarian sector who works with people from socially excluded areas calls for an
improvement of access to education and its quality, and later develop cooperation structures
with the private sector: ‘We have a problem with human resources… I think it has a huge
potential. When we say that we don’t have qualified workers then there is a chance that the
employers or administration should strive to qualify those people… this opportunity should be
used in order to reverse the trend’ (K7_cs). Finally, it is told that cooperation structures on
regional level should not be dependent on the political party in power, as this has a negative
effect on the sustainability of projects as elections take place every four years.
On a national level, there are topical networks for each sector: e.g., network of regional
development agencies (K4_ec) and cooperation between regional and national Chambers of
Commerce who are in close contact with the Czech government (K8_ec).
Similarly, there are national cross-sectoral forums and exchanges, such as the cooperation
with national ministries in preparation of support schemes for regional governments (K4_ec);
Just Transition Fund as a platform for cooperation with other coal regions (K8_ec); the
National Standing Conference (K1_ac) and finally the Memorandum between UJEP and the
Karlovy Vary regional authority (K1_ac).
On a transnational level there are cross-sectoral platforms, projects and exchanges: e.g.,
Euregio Egrensis (K6_rp; K7_cs; K2_rp) and sectoral platforms, projects and exchanges, e.g.,
cooperation between the Czech and German Chambers of Commerce in the areas of tourism
& spa (K8_ec). Moreover, there is cooperation between NGO sister organisations within the
region and in neighbouring regions; international exchanges e.g., yearly exchanges with a
NGO’s Slovak partners - Človek v ohrození, also offering opportunities for internships (K7_cs).
Regarding cross-scalar and transregional cooperation, exchange structures with other regions
seem to be missing (K7_cs; K4_ec). Instead, regions like the Ústí and Karlovy Vary Region, see
each other rather as competitors: ‘but they are in the same position’ (K4_ec). There is limited
inter-regional cooperation between the Karlovy Vary Region and the Ústí Region due to
mental separateness of both regions. As a result, more students from Karlovy Vary region go
44
to study in Plzen, than to UJEP (K1_ac). Yet, there are attempts to foster cooperation between
the regions. One actor who used to work in both regions and now works at UJEP has fostered
a memorandum between UJEP and the Karlovy Vary regional authority in order to strengthen
and formalise their cooperation (K1_ac). ‘This way we may realise that we share similar
problems… exchange is probably the best thing we can do’ (K7_cs).
Further on, interviewees perceived the national government to miss a clear strategy to end
coal by 2030 (K2_rp). In theory, the national government has a strategy to exit coal by 2033
(Europe beyond Coal, 2022), however the interviewee voiced their frustration with the
implementation process. At the same time, actors also wish for better communication with
the national level regarding EU projects and a clear set of guidelines (K2_rp). To this end,
subsidies and calls from the national government should be more focused on the needs of
the region: ‘The state could react better to the conditions in the regions and the calls, or their
focus should be directed more towards their specialisations’ (K4_ec). Another interviewee
voiced the wish for more incentives for cooperation from higher level entities on a national,
but also international level, in the case when the region is stuck: ‘Cooperation should be made
willingly, but to start something, you should push a little bit and make them do the
cooperation…maybe orders from higher about you have to cooperate, or you will not get this
or this- will help’ (K6_rp).
10.3.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation
The main factors promoting cooperation in the region mentioned by our interviewees include
the following, nevertheless it needs to be noted that not all actors share the same views, since
their experiences differ according to the area they are working in:
1. Pro-active mind-set and trust
- ‘The basis of all cooperation is knowing each other, seriousness and trust’ (K4_ec),
coupled with transparency and open communication about the next step of each
stakeholder (K3_mn), as well as sharing a common vision: ‘They (key stakeholders) are
intensively in connection, in communication, that their mindsets are coming closer and
it means they have similar vision, or they can formulate in similar words, what the
region needs and what we are trying to change’ (K1_ac).
- Acknowledging benefits of cooperation leads to increased willingness to cooperate:
‘Cooperation is developing. We can kick start it, and they can continue with it. Those
key actors who tried it, and saw that it has its benefits, they continue cooperating. They
are looking for ways to collaborate’ (K4_ec).
- In addition, leadership is crucial for cooperation since actors who are in cooperation
long-term often act as leaders (K4_ec).
2. Soft skills & personal relations
- Soft skills such as the commandment of foreign languages is a big benefit for
cooperation (K6_rp).
45
- The same applies for good personal relations on an equal footing (K6_rp). ‘Informal
contacts are [not seldom] resulting in formal cooperation on strategy, vision
formulating’ (K1_ac), what can in turn ensure the longevity of cooperation even if
there are changes in administration.
- Actors’ embeddedness in the region: commuting to work or studying in the regional
university promotes cooperation within their region (K1_ac; K6_rp), as well as a cross-
sectoral and cross-regional experience (K1_ac).
3. Sharing knowledge & experiences in international projects
- International projects and exchange can serve as example for cooperation processes
(K6_rp).
The main factors inhibiting cooperation in the region mentioned by our interviewees include
the following, nevertheless it needs to be noted that not all actors share the same views, since
their experiences differ according to the area they are working in:
1. Competition, lacking unity & common vision
- Limited common goals and understanding between actors for their situation often
results in everyone ‘pulling their own string’, unable to adapt to the changing situation
(K7_cs). Connected to this is communication problems and competitiveness between
actors who cooperate - they often do not pass on important information to their
colleagues (K8_ec).
- One actor has argued that the local educational institutions should focus on the
strengths of the region and build on them, highlighting the spa industry (K4_ec).
Nevertheless, an actor representing the coal part of the region has criticised that the
more industrial parts of the region are rather forgotten and that local politicians are
putting little effort into improving the negative image of the region (K6_rp).
- Connected to this is a missing holistic approach to development of the region as many
actors often do not see the complexity of certain problems and rather simplify them
(e.g. socially excluded areas): ‘The state only has long-term strategic goals and they
only address some indicators. Our situation is more difficult since we see the life stories
of the people’ (K7_cs).
2. No solid cooperation platform, building & leader
- An actor representing entrepreneurs noted that the fact that the innovation and
technology park has still not been built is a big obstacle for cooperation with local
entrepreneurs (K4_ec). They added that little effort has been put into supporting local
entrepreneurs, since they do not acknowledge that it would support the region as a
whole: ‘They rather look at the region like at the administration of some land, and if
they will maintain public transport running, or public toilets, that that is enough, but
they are not thinking about the future’ (K4_ec).
- There is a missing leader who would be accepted by actors across all sectors (K6_rp;
K7_cs).
46
3. Lack of financial, specialised human resources and bureaucratic jargon
- A lack of financial resources apparently hinders cooperation (K2_rp). Nevertheless,
this perspective has also been criticised: ‘The discussion in the region is often oriented
towards money- we need money; however, I often say it is not only about money- we
need ideas, people, and when we will have more money with the same staff, nothing
changes’ (K1_ac).
- There seem to be lots of working groups and many different platforms, however only
a few actually implement the plans and strategies they set, and also there is no one
who keeps check of their implementation (K2_rp), e.g. in case of non-profit projects
but also motorways (K7_cs).
- Lacking time capacity: Bureaucracy apparently takes up a lot of the capacities, time
and energy of local actors (K1_ac; K7_cs; K2_rp). They are calling for more trust, since:
‘Bureaucracy is the result of mistrust’ (K1_ac). Similarly, actors wish for more flexibility
through legislative changes so that they are able to ‘adapt to the reality’ (K1_ac;
K7_cs).
- The language barrier is considered to be a key factor in hindering international
cooperation and participation of local actors (K2_rp).
4. Short-term nature of projects & political terms
- Political power and those who are in leadership and the political system do not enable
cooperation or sustainability of projects - since the elections are every four years and
this hinders the continuation of activities and cooperation in the region (K2_rp).
5. External factors
- External factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian-Ukrainian war have
considerably affected the region (K2_rp).
10.3.6. Summary of the Karlovy Vary case study
The Karlovy Vary Region is famous for and has a strong history in the balneology industry,
however at the same time it is home to the coal and chemical industry, as well as engineering
and production of construction materials. In the process of transition and the process of
searching new pathways to development, the aim of the region is to specialise further in
balneology and tourism and work on the region’s strengths. Nevertheless, the Karlovy Vary
Region suffers from numerous social, economic, environmental but also structural challenges
connected to its industrial restructuring and post-socialist transformation. Challenging the
negative image of the region on the inside, but also on the outside is strongly linked to the
need to reinvent the regional identity. In order to strengthen the local society, it is necessary
to develop trust and local embeddedness, as well as increase local participation and
awareness cross-generationally, particularly in environmental and social matters in the face
of the energy crisis. These are pressing issues that need to be tackled collectively and across
sectors, since they have a significant effect on the outmigration of young people, and
47
consequentially brain-drain. Finding a new innovative economic direction after transition and
diversification of the economy, as well as fostering entrepreneurship and participation are
equally as important as raising educational levels, accessibility, and specialisation. This in turn
is connected to the pressing need to develop new infrastructure and services and particularly
new regional governance arrangements.
Collective local agency through institutional entrepreneurship is rather limited in the region
due to a missing cooperation platform or body, such as a university or innovation centre that
would bring together actors across sectors. Nevertheless, to some degree collective local
agency is exercised in the processes leading to the development and implementation of
regional strategies and projects (e.g., JTF, Žijeme Regionem). In fact, collective local agency is
arguably on the rise possibly due to the acknowledgement of the benefits of cooperation by
the key actors. Coupled with good soft and personal skills, as well as cross-sectoral and cross-
regional experience, it is helping actors to overcome institutional barriers in (old) industrial
regions. KARP or the local Business Development Agency could be considered to act as an
institutional navigator since it was referred to be a door opener for the region, promoting
competitiveness and innovation. Place-based leadership (Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2019) is
exercised through the work of Local Action Groups who are in touch with smaller micro-
regions and foster collective forms of agency, which go beyond institutional arrangements.
The Regional Standing Conference is a regional platform, which enables communication
between key actors in the region particularly regarding EU projects. Actors on the national
scale like the Council of Research, Development and Innovation or the local branch of the
Ministry of Regional Development help to carry regional matters to a national level, e.g. in
the frame of the Re:start programme. Cross-regional, national as well as international
platforms and projects foster exchange beyond regional borders and support the region to
develop its capacities and strengthen local leadership.
It needs to be noted, that regional leadership on an overarching political level appears to be
rather weak. Stakeholders are missing a common vision and bad communication leads to
competition between actors who as a result rather act in self-interest, instead of focusing on
the region’s strengths and developing a holistic approach to regional development. From a
local perspective the national government seems to miss a clear environmental strategy, but
also better awareness about the region’s needs - possibly a result of the bad communication
between both levels.
11. Case Studies – Results from Poland
11.1. Country specific structures and administrative system of Poland
Local government in Poland is organized on three levels. The largest units, at the regional
level, are the województwa (voivodeships or provinces), which were consolidated and
reduced in number from 49 to 16 in 1999. At the next level are 380 powiaty (districts),
48
followed by about 2,477 gminy (municipalities). Latter are the fundamental territorial units
within Poland. Both powiaty and gminy are governed by councils, elected for four-year terms.
These councils in turn elect the heads of local administration. The representatives to the
sejmiki wojewódzkie (provincial legislature) are also elected for four-year terms. The head of
provincial administration, the wojewoda, is nominated by the prime minister.
Within the three-level administrative system, bottom-level units (municipalities) are largely
responsible for most tasks and for driving local development. The municipalities are divided
into urban, urban-rural and rural groups; rural areas account for 90% of the national territory,
and rural municipalities alone are home to 11 million people, i.e., 30% of the total population
(Kozera et al., 2020).
The Polish political system is based on the subsidiary principle. The Act on Local Self-
Government of 8 March 1990 states that the jurisdiction of the local council shall extend to
all matters falling within the terms of reference of the municipality unless stipulated
otherwise by separate legislation. Public tasks can be accomplished by cooperation on all
levels and obligatory tasks may only be assigned by parliamentary acts. Local governments
are granted the right to own property, have legal personality and may promulgate local law
in selected areas (Sauer, 2013).
Municipalities (gminy) are responsible for meeting the collective needs of communities for
public services (spatial, property, water and environmental management, general
infrastructure upkeeping, public transport, municipal housing, healthcare, social assistance,
public education - primary and preschool, etc.).
Districts (powiaty) are responsible for local issues which cannot be ascribed to gminas. They
are large enough to maintain everyday organisations of public life (secondary schools,
hospitals, police, tax office, etc.). Their tasks include the following matters: public education
(secondary), care homes, public transport and roads on district importance, culture and
tourism, water management, environmental protection, prevention against catastrophes,
etc.
Self-governmental voivodeships (regions, województwa) are responsible for all issues of
regional importance as determined by law: economic development, some regional public
services, international cooperation, including the creation of regional development policy
programs (public education - higher education, promotion and protection of health, culture,
social welfare, family policy, rural modernisation, spatial planning, environmental protection,
etc.) (Sauer, 2013).
49
11.2. Łódź Voivodeship
11.2.1. Regional profile of the Łódź Voivodeship
The Łódź Voivodeship is in the centre of Poland, bordering six other voivodeships. It is one of
the relatively well-developed Polish regions, with a high share of industry in gross value added
(28.9% in 2018, against the Polish average of 25.8%) and a dynamically growing share of
services (L5_mn). The capital of the voivodeship is the city of Łódź. In the past, the
development of the city was characterised by a concentration of the textile and clothing
industry - referring to the city as the ‘Polish Manchester’. After the collapse of communism in
Poland (1989) and the subsequent socio-economic transition, the textile industry in the city
collapsed (L2_ec). This led to a high unemployment rate. More than 30% of the women
employed in the textile and clothing industry could not find new jobs and needed new
education (L2_ec). Today Łódź is a centre of culture, high school education, logistics and
services. The well-known University of Łódź, the Polytechnic University, other private
universities, and other institutions are located here. The city is a logistic hub of Poland and
Central Europe. The logistic companies are located not only in Łódź but also in other cities in
the region (L4_ac). Based on the academic experience, the IT industry is also located in Łódź.
Due to a frequent reconfiguration of the regional borders in the past and the Polish local
government reforms adopted in 1998, the region has a rather heterogenous character. The
northern part of the region is dominated by agriculture with the biggest share in employment.
Several projects are being implemented here with the help of EU programmes (L1_ac). South
of the capital Łódź lies the town of Bełchatów, which is the centre of the mining industry and
home to Europe’s largest open pit mine. It is part of the industrial triangle of Bełchatów,
Szczerców and Kamieńsk. Characterised by different types of activity (agriculture, textile and
clothing industry and mining industry), a heterogeneous identity is observed in this region.
The residents do not think in the context of the whole region but rather locally.
Numerous key challenges can be observed in the region. Economic challenges include:
transforming the industrial sector, maintaining the advantage in agricultural specialization
and agri-food processing, and using the untapped potential of higher education institutions
in the Łódźkie Region (L5_mn). Moreover, another challenge that was mentioned is the lack
of strategy for investment - despite Łódź having cheap conditions for starting businesses, the
quality suffers what results in investors leaving to other regions (L4_ac).
The main social challenges mentioned are connected to the political and economic
transformation after communism and the collapse of the textile industry particularly in Łódź.
This resulted in a high rate of unemployment, which is perceived to have led also to increased
crime (L6_mn). After Poland joined the EU in 2004, the labour market of Western European
countries was opened to Polish citizens. Many of them emigrated e.g. to Germany or the UK
during this period. This led to an ageing population in the region, especially in the city of Łódź.
As a result, the district of Łódź has the highest share of people over 60 years old in Poland.
50
(L6_mn; L5_mn). Another challenge is the persistence of areas of poverty and social exclusion
(L5_mn) leading to high dependency on social benefits (L3_cs).
The narratives of other representatives of the region showed a great discrepancy between
urban and rural areas, leading to structural problems, namely limited accessible transport
and healthcare, particularly in rural areas: ‘It is a huge gap in relation to, for example,
transport, public transport, because you mainly have public transport services in the cities, and
you don't have them in rural areas. If you don't have a driver's license, if you don't have a car,
if you don't have somebody that can drive you, you are basically excluded from a lot of things’
(L3_cs). Additionally, outmigration is seen as a big challenge. The close distance to the main
city of Warsaw, only 100 km from Łódź, encourages many young people to leave their
hometowns and move to Warsaw for a better job.
In terms of environmental challenges, the industries and agriculture in the region use a lot of
water and the region is one of the largest producers of lignite and hard coal - making it eligible
for the Just Transition Fund. There is uncertainty particularly among people living in proximity
of the coalmines in Bełchatów about their future and workers are worried that their jobs will
be lost in the course of the transition programmes: ‘in the next 10 or 20 years, doing
something with this part of region is a very big challenge, for sure. So, when they hear about
the transition towards the more sustainable energy, they usually think that it will be in
consequence. There will be, you know, the decline of workplaces’ (L1_ac). Other
environmental challenges are the ‘very poor air quality, in particular in urban areas and
regulating the water and sewage management system’ (L5_mn).
11.2.2. Regional Strategies, Projects and Visions
Particularly actors from the city of Łódź claim to be ready for a future sustainable
development. It was noted that young people at the age of 20 do not remember the industrial
time in Łódź and are therefore not ‘open’ for industrial development of their city (L1_ac).
Green energy, logistics and service sector, industry 4.0 and 5.0 and the circular economy were
mentioned as topics for future sustainable development which is reflected e.g. in the
following projects:
Regional Projects
- Local government centre for the circular economy and internationalisation of
enterprises (Łódzkie GREEN HUB) - Regional Operational Programme (L5_mn)
- Participative Budget Project (L5_mn)
National Projects
- Central Communication Port in Poland (L6_mn)
51
International Projects
- ‘Supporting the clean energy transition of coal-intensive EU regions’ (DeCarb)
INTERREG EUROPE Programme (L5_mn);
- Enhancing SME competitiveness and sustainability in the organic sector (SME –
ORGANICS), INTERREG EUROPE Programme (L5_mn);
- Green public procurement for resource efficient regional growth (GPP4Growth),
INTERREG EUROPE Programme (L5_mn);
- Improved environment and resource efficiency through use of Life Cycle instruments
for implementation of regional policies of the European Union (LCA4Regions),
INTERREG EUROPE Programme (L5_mn);
- ‘Technical farming school’ - international cooperation projects to youth (Sweden)
(L3_cs)
In terms of future visions, it was mentioned that the region should focus more on sustainable
energy resources and the local government should feel more pressure from its citizens to
keep the region green and environmentally friendly (L2_ec). Moreover, in the next 15 years,
Łódź should be seen as a centre for logistics and services in central Poland, what would create
business opportunities for the region (L4_ac).
11.2.3. Key Actors
Public: Łódź city government, the Marshal's Office of the Łódzkie Region, universities (Łódź
University, University of Technology, Medical University, Academy of Fine Arts), self-
government structures, the Chamber of Commerce, local educational institutions.
Private: companies and experts from different fields.
Civil Society: NGOs and Local Action Groups.
11.2.4. Tools and Structures of Cooperation
Cooperation in the region happens both in formal structures and informal arrangements
within and across different sectors like administration, economy and civil society. Key areas
of cooperation include tourism, the environment, transformation, economic and regional
development, entrepreneurship.
Cooperation in the region consists of preparation and implementation of strategies and
projects, such as public consultations (L3_cs); Participatory Budget and the preparation of
regional strategic documents (L5_mn; L3_cs). Similarly, it was noted that there is good
cooperation across sectors: ‘Better, than we think’ (L4_ac). A good example for such kind of
cooperation is the cooperation between the IT cluster, universities, businesses, and the city
hall in Łódź (L1_ac; L5_mn). The university also cooperates with public spaces (exhibitions and
discussions) (L1_ac). However, it was mentioned that a critical mass would be needed to do
more projects between the municipality, university, and entrepreneurs (L1_ac).
52
Interviewees have asked also for better involvement of interested residents and practitioners
at the beginning of decision-making processes and not only at the end, when the decision has
been made (L3_cs). One interviewee voiced the wish: “to teach people how to do
participation’ (L3_cs).
On a national level actors called for better adaptation of the tax to the individual industries
(until now, the tax is universal with a focus on better environmental results), more legal
support from the government and more initiatives from the higher levels to foster sustainable
development in the region (L4_ac). ).
On a transnational level cooperation takes form in different projects and platforms as e.g.
the Technical Farming School (L3_cs) or EU-programmes operating in Central Poland (L4_ac).
Yet, there is also the wish for more platforms for the exchange of knowledge and experiences
(L6_mn).
11.2.5. Factors that promote and hinder cooperation
The main factors promoting cooperation in the region mentioned by our interviewees include
the following, nevertheless it needs to be noted that not all actors share the same views, since
their experiences differ according to the area they are working in:
1. Sharing knowledge and experiences through international projects (L4_ac)
2. Soft skills (L4_ac)
- Being able to speak foreign languages is a big benefit for cooperation (K6_rp),
3. Networking in each individual sector (e.g., logistic) (L4_ac)
4. Virtual tools facilitating cooperation
- Digital communication makes communication between partners from different
countries easier (L4_ac)
The main factors inhibiting cooperation in the region mentioned by our