skip to Main Content

The selection of case study localities reflects a need to consider and include the different policy environments that characterise the European Union. Case study locations will thus be chosen to allow for a balanced representation of different institutional contexts, manifested in terms of five welfare regimes. These are: 1) Society-based Model (Finland, Sweden); 2) Individual (UK); 3) State-based (Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands); 4) Familial (Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy) and 5) Transitional (the former socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe: Hungary and Poland).

The proposed project will focus the empirical work on disadvantaged places as potential case study areas, with formerly lagging, now consolidated or even well-to-do places as reference cases.

Indicative Types of Cases

  • Social exclusion in remote rural areas in England, where the remoteness of the area and the legacy of austerity policies has posed challenges for investment and the delivery of services. Type of location: Glendale, Northumberland, England.
  • Urban borough with high unemployment and high representation of ethnic minorities, close to very well-off boroughs, as a case for the study of social exclusion, inequality, and the tensions of multi-level governance in a metropolitan area. Type of location: Barking and Dagenham, a borough in East London.
  • City region characterized by unbalanced economic structure and inequalities, as a case for coordinated cross-boundary management and strategic planning and decision making of city-region issues. Type of location: Aberdeen City.
  • Large-scale and long-term urban regeneration of a substantial district of a large city characterized by de-industrialisation, significant loss of low-skilled labour, high poverty, large ethnic diversity, strong pressure on primary and secondary education system and widespread maintenance problems in the private housing stock. Urban type: national priority area.
  • Bottom up regeneration of a former (partly industrial) deprived district that reflects various forms of citizen-based, community-driven area redevelopment strategies in which traditional actors (local government, housing associations, private developers) play a relatively marginal role. Urban type of location: Randstad.
  • Border region with several decades of de-industrialisation facing major changes in terms of institutional organization and the rise of the right extreme party. Intermediate type of location: Nord-Pas de Calais.
  • Cross-border functional urban area with economic growth next to regions in economic reconversion. Specific emphasis is on social cohesion (incl. access to services, housing) and the sustainability of cross-border integration on both sides of the border in the context of heterogeneous institutional contexts. Urban and intermediate type of location: Cross-border functional urban area of Luxembourg.
  • Integrated approach to local development for disadvantaged neighbourhoods in an old-industrialised urban region; URBAN I/II. Type of location: Ruhr Area.
  • Predominantly rural or intermediate area, characterized by out-migration, economic decline and challenges in access to services. Type of location: rural areas in Eastern Germany.
  • Most distressed urban areas in a city region; the municipal comprehensive plan as well as the regional development plan are being revised and the issues of social sustainability and spatial justice are being the key topics of the process. Type of location: Swedish capital city-region (Potential reference case).
  • This case will focus on sparsely-populated periphery regions where population decline and concentration of the population into larger settlements has made service delivery and economic growth difficult in smaller towns. Rural type of location: periphery regions in northern Sweden.
  • Urban region where the industrial base has undergone several upheavals, and the specific challenge in spatial development concerns the city itself; with segregation of housing areas and persistently high unemployment being key challenges. Type of location: Tampere.
  • Inner periphery region close to metropolitan centre, where pronounced population decline and the removal of a number of essential service provisions (top-down process) calls for bottom-up and local policy responses. Rural or intermediate type of location: Etelä-Savo in southeastern Finland.
  • Metropolitan urban area, characterized by inequalities, as a case for coordinated cross-boundary management, strategic planning and decision making of city-region issues. Urban type of location.
  • Centrally located (city-)region with low economic profile hit by economic crisis. Intermediate type of location.
  • De-industrialisation and restructuring needs in a peripheral region with once strong regional economy. Intermediate type of location.
  • Social exclusion in rural areas, where the remoteness of the area and the legacy of austerity policies has posed challenges for investment and the delivery of services. Rural type of location.
  • Metropolitan urban area characterized by unbalanced economic structure, high unemployment and inequalities with the need for strategic planning and decision making of city-region issues. Type of location: Metropolitan Area of Athens.
  • Metropolitan urban area with high unemployment and only moderate growth due to low investments of the private sector, inability to exploit a potential gate and service hub role, and insufficient infrastructure. Type of location: Metropolitan Area of Thessaloniki.
  • Centrally located (city-)region with low economic profile hit by economic crisis. Intermediate type of location: City-conurbation of Volos in the region of Thessalia.
  • De-industrialisation and restructuring needs in a peripheral region with once strong regional economy. Rural type of location: The Region of Dytiki Makedonia.
  • Declining urban area within rural or intermediate NUTS3 unit hit by structural (industrial) crisis with segregated neighbourhoods and governance crisis. High representation of low-skilled, young, Roma population. Urban type of location: Northern Hungarian crisis zone.
  • Traditionally disadvantaged agricultural area from the North-East border area with spreading segregated neighborhoods in rural context. High rate of outflow, also high representation of low-skilled, young, Roma population. Remarkable local (bottom up) initiatives as regards public work programs. Rural or intermediate type of location: Eastern border area of Hungary.
  • Inner peripheral FUA with socio-economic difficulties in the region where market towns prevail. Poverty is increasingly characteristic, local initiatives are important. Rural or intermediate type of location: Great Plain area.
  • Inner peripheral FUA in the Transdanubian region; small town surrounded by small villages, lack of resources. Mixed experiences among local communities as regards top-down/bottom up development models. Rural or intermediate type of location: Transdanubia.
  • Integrated approach to local development in a dynamically and coherently developing functional urban area. Type of location: The Region of Wielkopolska with a very strong, dynamically and coherently developing functional urban area of Poznan (Potential Reference Case).
  • Region struggling with de-industrialisation, demographic and economic problems. A bottom-up approach to local development only recently meets a planned, top-down approach. Intermediate type of location: The Lodzkie Region with functional urban area of Lodz.
  • Outmigration, ageing population and economic decline in an inner periphery rural region. Type of location: Rural areas of Świętokrzyski Region.
  • Active local communities and a bottom-up approach in a rural, remote border region, with strong territorial identities. Type of location: Rural areas of south-eastern Poland (Podkarpacki Region) (Potential Reference Case).
  • Metropolitan urban area, rescaling the policies designated for territorial desegregation of marginalized neighborhoods. Type of location: North-West Romanian region.
  • Medium town, characterized by de-industrialization and out-migration, with disadvantaged neighborhoods. Intermediate type of location: South-East Romanian region.
  • Small town in a cross border area within a region with a relatively lower level of risk of poverty and unemployment. Intermediate or rural type of location: West Romanian region.
  • Rural area, characterized by economic decline, impoverished by uneven development. Type of location: North-East Romanian region.
Back To Top