Prof. Andy Pike, Henry Daysh Professor of Regional Development Studies; Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS); Newcastle University, UK.
Programm und Ablauf des Seminars
03. - 07.06.2024 jeweils von 16:00-19:00 Uhr
- Session (03. Juni 2024):
Defining ‘left behind places’
‘Left behind places’ has become the shorthand for geographical inequalities since the 2008 crisis. Identifying what we mean by ‘left behind places’, this session addresses the term’s origins, definition and implications for economic geography research and policy.
- Dijkstra, L. et al (2020): “The geography of EU discontent”, Regional Studies, 54, 6, 737-753.
- Fiorentino, S. et al. (2023): “‘Left behind places’: what are they and why do they matter?”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society
- Muro, M. (2021): “Recognising the geography of discontent in the USA: ‘Building Back Better’ by countering regional divergence”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 631-639.
- Pike, A. et al. (2023): “‘Left behind places’: a geographical etymology”, Regional Studies (Open access).
- Velthuis, S. et al. (2023): Locating ‘left-behindness’ in the EU15: a regional typology. Beyond Left Behind Places Project Working Paper 03/23, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, UK.
Potential seminar activity question: Has the term ‘left behind places’ been a help or a hinderance in helping us understand, explain and respond to geographical inequalities?
- Session (04. Juni 2024):
Explaining ‘left behind places’
Accounting for the emergence and persistence of ‘left behind places’ is a central task for economic geography. This session addresses the main conceptual and theoretical frameworks based on agglomeration economies and the rise of ‘superstar cities’ and spatial polarisation.
- Kemeny, T. and Storper, M (2020): Superstar cities and left-behind places: disruptive innovation, labor demand, and interregional inequality, Working Paper (41), International Inequalities Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science.
- Lang, T. and Görmar, F. (Eds.): Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation: Re-thinking Spatial Policies in Europe, Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke (Open Access)
- Martin, R. et al. (2021): Levelling Up Left Behind Places: The Scale and Nature of the Policy Challenge, Regional Studies Association: Falmer.
- Moretti, E. (2013): The new Geography of Jobs, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, MA.
- Storper, M. (2018): “Separate worlds? Explaining the current wave of regional economic polarization”, Journal of Economic Geography, 18, 2, 247-270.
Potential seminar activity question: Can the economic benefits of ‘superstar cities’ be spread geographically to help resolve the problems of ‘left behind places’?
- Session (05. Juni 2024):
Institutions and policy for ‘left behind places’
The geography of discontent and disruptive rise of political populism has spurred governments into developing institutions and policies to address the problems of ‘left behind places’. This session examines the longstanding and persistent policy challenges and place-based approaches to local, regional and urban development.
- Barca, F., McCann, P. and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012): “The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place-neutral approaches”, The Journal of Regional Science, 52, 1, 134-152.
- Austin, B., Glaeser, E. and Summers, L. H. (2018): Saving the Heartland: Place-based Policies in 21st Century America, Brookings Institution: Washington DC.
- Hendrikson, C. et al. (2018): Countering the Geography of Discontent: Strategies for Left Behind Places, Brookings Institution: Washington DC.
- Martin, R. et al. (2021): Levelling Up Left Behind Places: The Scale and Nature of the Policy Challenge, Regional Studies Association: Falmer.
- MacKinnon et al. (2023): Spatial Policy Since the Global Financial Crisis, Beyond Left Behind Places Project Working Paper 05/23.
- Overman, H. (2020): “People, places, and politics: the challenge of levelling up the UK”, CentrePiece, Spring 2020.
- Pike, A. (2018): “The origins of city centrism” and “The limits of city centrism?”, City Evolutions blog.
Potential seminar activity question: Should spatial policy focus on people or places? - Debate on place-based versus spatially-blind approaches.
- Session (06. Juni 2024):
Reframing urban and regional development for ‘left behind places’
‘Left behind places’ have been neglected by spatial policy that is more focused on enabling ‘superstar’ cities as the places best able to prosper in the knowledge economy. Yet prevailing approaches have failed adequately to address the problems of ‘left behind places’, prompting the search for alternatives to harness their overlooked economic potential. This session sets out the criticism of conventional approaches and emergence of alternatives.
- Crisp, R. et al. (2023): “‘Beyond GDP’ in cities: assessing alternative approaches to urban economic development”, Urban Studies.
- MacKinnon, D. et al. (2022): “Reframing urban and regional ‘development’ for ‘left behind’ places”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 15, 1, 39-56.
- Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Tomaney, J. (2007): “What kind of local and regional development and for whom?”, Regional Studies, 41, 1253-1269.
- Tomaney, J. et al. (2023): Social Infrastructure and Left Behind Places, Regional Studies Policy Impact Books Volume 5
Potential seminar activity question: Are alternative approaches sufficient to resolve the problems of ‘left behind places’?
- Session (07. Juni 2024):
Alternative approaches – foundational economy and ‘left behind places’
The foundational economy has emerged as a leading alternative approach for ‘left behind places’ across Europe. This session outlines the approach and examines how it seeks to address the problems of ‘left behind places’.
- Bentham, J. et al. (2013): Manifesto For The Foundational Economy, CRESC Working paper 131.
- De Boeck, S. et al. (2019): “Making space for a more foundational economy: the case of the construction sector in Brussels”, Geoforum, 105, 67-77.
- Hansen, T. (2022): “The foundational economy and regional development”, Regional Studies, 56, 6, 1033-1042.
- Martynovich, M. et al. (2023): “Can foundational economy save regions in crisis?”, Journal of Economic Geography, 23, 577-599.
- Russell, B. et al. (2022): “Placing the Foundational Economy: an emerging discourse for post-neoliberal economic development”, Environment and Planning A, 54, 6, 1069-1085.
Potential seminar activity question: What are the potentials and pitfalls of the foundational economy for addressing the problems of ‘left behind places’?
