The research project on which this report is based highlights a number of current trends in Nordic urban policy:

Focus group interviews in the Nordic countries.

Emphasising the strengths of towns and urban areas in relation to others seems rather un-Nordic at first sight. Such an approach runs counter to the traditional Nordic welfare model based on equitable development and focusing on strengthening the weak in the society, towns and areas where they live.

Urban policy, on the other hand, aims to enhance the strengths of towns, which may be why urban policy has failed to gain a foothold in the Nordic countries compared with elsewhere in Europe. It also explains the character of the urban policy that has been implemented. Urban policy is about equipping towns and urban areas to cope with ever increasing competition. The goal is to identify strengths and create win-win situations. Commitment to an area or region brings attention, energy and resources with it; and once the decision has been taken, synergies soon emerge to enhance development and faith in the decision.

In the Nordic version urban policy is about regarding the weak as a source of potential rather than a problem. This is true of regional policy, but the trend is also apparent in the social sector in the fight against segregation and social/physical decay in certain residential areas. The players in urban policy have, for example, tried to change the perception of the places and social groups traditionally regarded as a problem to one of their representing potential for shared growth, with there being room for everyone on the train that is growth and development. As well as focusing on such social groups as a source of potential growth, the intention with urban policy initiatives is to focus on people's overall conditions of life and environment more than has previously been the case. This is being done in recognition of the fact that remedying the marginalisation of vulnerable groups will require a holistic effort.

An important challenge in the urban policy game, which is about the competitiveness of towns and regions, involves the various democratic and administrative levels and their geographical scope. In this context the constituency represented by the decision-makers does not always coincide with the geographical area affected by their decisions. This means, for example, that local authorities make planning decisions with consequences that extend beyond their boundaries. Some of these decisions are taken in competition with other local authorities, e.g. attracting new retail trade by creating large out-of-town shopping centres or funding exclusive housing developments with a view to attracting affluent citizens.

The individual parties to such competition typically lack the instruments to influence such structural matters. This can be remedied in part with urban policy initiatives in the form of control and coordination, which means a direct link between central administration at state level and a given local area.

Coordination works best between central and local parties, while at a regional and local level, e.g. between ministries or local authorities, there is a lack of coordination in all the countries. This lack of coordination is most apparent in two contexts: the prioritisation of large infrastructure projects and investments, and the emphasis on and location of educational institutions. These two areas have gradually become crucial competitive parameters for towns and regions, but are not included in the urban policy game.

Danish Building Research Institute
Denmark
Thorkild Ærø, tel. 0045 742262

18/02/2008

18/02/2008

Thorkild Ærø, Gertrud Jørgensen

research

Urban Policy > Economy knowledge & employment > Urban economy

Competitiveness