Mark Wise

The Atlantic Arc: Transnational European Reality or Regional Mirage?

In promoting transnational regional development, the European Commission designated the ‘Atlantic Arc’ as one of eight ‘Euroregions’ in its Europe 2000 reports. This article critically examines this ‘Arc’ concept and assesses the degree to which it is being transformed into reality. It then draws implications for builders of other potential transnational regions within the EU. While the Atlantic Arc Commission has promoted a range of cross-border activities, commitment to it varies greatly and the projects undertaken remain limited in scale. Therefore, it is too soon to judge whether it is generating durable transnational ‘bottom-up’ development, or merely pursuing a regional mirage.

From Atlantic Arc to Atlantic Area: A Case of Subsidiarity Against the Regions?

Introduction: the EU’s subsidiarity principle This restricted interpretation is far removed from the Responding to criticism that too much was being more general rhetoric about moving decision making regulated by central European Union (EU) institutions, c̀loser to the citizen’. Nonetheless, the concept, with the principle of subsidiarity was incorporated into the its broader implications of devolving powers down to Treaty on European Union (TEU) signed at Maastricht regional levels, had been unleashed. The subsequent in 1991. Although the concept is ambiguous and debate has inevitably revealed that the ill-de® ned therefore interpreted in a variety of ways, it basically notion of subsidiarity is open to a variety of interpretarequires that policies should only be developed at EU tions. For example, there are no absolutes in questions level if there is a clear reason for so doing. Thus, the of whether an action can best be achieved at local, preamble and Article A of the TEU present subsidiarity regional, national or European level. This is re ̄ ected in terms of taking decision making as c̀losely as possible in studies examining how the principle might aVect to the citizen’ in order to reduce a d̀emocratic de® cit’ the formal distribution of powers between European, that was alienating the general public from the process national and regional governmental levels (DUFF, 1993; of European integration (TREATY ON EUROPEAN BERMANN , 1994; DE BUÂ RCA, 1998). However, none UNION, 1997). This aim also relates to ideas of a of this work has examined how the principle impinges `Europe of Regions’ in which, while some powers on the relationships between these formal levels of would be transferred to central supranational institugovernment and the various transnational regional tions, others would be devolved to regions within the bodies that have emerged in the EU. Such organizations nation-state in a process of building a multi-layered have proliferated in response to initiatives encouraging federal EU (SCOTT et al., 1994; LOUGHLIN , 1997). cross-border co-operation, bottom-up endogenous Such regional devolution already exists to varying economic development and a greater involvement of degrees within most EU Member States. Following local actors in European decision making in accordance the Single European Act (SEA), which required a with the wider interpretations of subsidiarity. One such major transfer of competences to European institutions organization is the Atlantic Arc Commission (AAC) in order to develop a genuine Single European Market, which groups local and regional governments along demands for a counterbalancing decentralization grew, the EU’s western oceanic fringe (Fig. 1). This article not least from the LaÈ nder in federal Germany. Conexamines the impact of subsidiarity on AAC activities sequently, the subsidiarity principle was embedded in and provides evidence that an application of the printhe TEU in various ways (MITCHELL and MCLEAVY, ciple emphasizing devolution of EU competencies to 1999, p. 177). Most obviously, an advisory Committee national rather than regional level has frustrated some of the Regions (CoR) was established to represent local actors on the Atlantic periphery.

The European regional development fund: Community ideals and national realities

Abstract Despite the creation of a European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in 1975, it is argued that the EC still lacks a policy instrument able to generate a significant reduction of the gap between the common markets richest and poorest regions. This paper argues that the ERDF remains essentially ‘cosmetic’ in character in that it camouflages the lack of a serious effect to diminish regional inequalities. This contention is based on a series of arguments related to the size, nature and geographical distribution of the Funds expenditure. The limitations of the ERDF can be partially explained by the continuing dominance of the wealthier member states within the supra-national political structures of the EC. The Single European Act, adopted in July 1987, reasserts the belief that regional disparities must be reduced in order to maintain the ‘economic and social cohesion’ of the EC and promises a shift towards qualified majority voting on matters relating to the ERDF within the Communitys key decision-making forums. However, whether these changes will lead to an ERDF which is able to make a really significant impact on the reduction of regional inequalities within the common market remains to be seen.

THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, TRANSPORT INVESTMENT AND EUROPEAN UNION OBJECTIVES: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

Abstract Although for over 30 years the European Investment Bank (EIB) has provided large-scale funding for transport infrastructure, its activities in this sphere have not been researched. Working primarily through analyses of European Union (EU) documentation, and of more than 700 transport-related loans made by the Bank between 1986 and 1992, this paper provides insights into the structure of this investment; into the mechanisms which have evolved to sustain its continued growth; and into its relationships to EU priorities for the transport sector. Models of EIB clients are proposed, and it is demonstrated that in the majority of the EU periphery a limited number of ‘dominant’ clients have been essential to the impressive expansion of EIB activity. It is also shown that EIB funding coincides only partially with current EU priorities. Although this divergence can in part be considered more apparent than real (in that it is related to data interpretation issues) it is argued that it is primarily a consequence of the Banks terms of reference and of its independence of the main Commission bureaucracy. Research opportunities identified include the need for further investigations into the processes of EIB transport-sector investment and its impact.

Book Reviews: A. Buzelay and A. Hannequart PROBLÉMATIQUE RTGIONALE ET COHÉSION DANS LA COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE Economica, Paris, 1994, pp. 158, 98F, ISBN 2-7178-2655-6

In conclusion, by presenting such detailed, empirical case-studies, which illustrate the diversities and complexities associated with organizational innovation, this book may help raise the awareness of policy-makers of the possibilities, and negative effects, of new forms of organization. However, the grand aim given at the beginning of this volume, to provide’... clear indications of the route which is necessary ... to stimulate the revival of growth and employ-ment’ (p. xi), is somewhat overstated. It implies a clear-cut model which, when adopted, will provide a solution for stimulating economic growth and employment in Europe as a whole and, understandably this aim is not achieved. Overall, the material and message of the book would have been strengthened through further exploration of the issues introduced by the authors, as well as discussing the problems associated with proposing ’model’ solutions or attempting to replicate particular ’successful’ organizational forms in different national, historical and cultural contexts, I