The coordination of policy priorities among regional institutions from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic: the institutions – coordination dilemma

Aalto, Pami; Espiritu, Aileen A.; Kilpeläinen, Sarah; Lanko, Dmitry

doi:10.1080/01629778.2016.1210660

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is perhaps in this regard where the EUSBSR differs most from the other macro-regional strategies which have more of an eternal focus, such as the EUSDR and EU Strategy for the Adriatic Ionian Region (EUSAIR). Regional cooperation below the EU level has been characterized in the past by a plethora of region-specific actors and arrangements, covering a wide range of objectives and policies (Aalto et al, 2016). The EUSBSR, therefore, serves as a facilitator of coordination in the Baltic Sea Region with significant effects beyond its territorial boundaries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the wake of EU enlargement, many policy-makers of the Baltic Sea Region eventually felt the urgent need to improve coordination amongst the plethora of institutions that had started to populate regional collaboration over the past few years, and to integrate better the EU member states participating in Baltic Sea cooperation (Aalto, Espíritu, Kilpeläinen, & Lanko, 2016;Hubel, 2004). To achieve these goals, the ND was morphed into a common policy beyond the EU to include Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation.…”

Section: The Path Towards the Eusbsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘Experimental Union’ and Baltic Sea cooperation: the case of the European Union’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

Gänzle

2018

Regional Studies, Regional Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past, Baltic Sea cooperation has been characterized by a plethora of actors, embracing a wide range of policy objectives, such as the establishment of a good environmental status for the regional sea. In 2009, the European Council endorsed the European Union's (EU) Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) as a new tool in the repertoire of Cohesion Policy and European Territorial Cooperation (ETC). The EUSBSR seeks to foster cross-sectoral coordination and functional cooperation in policy areas of 'macro-region-level' relevance, such as transport infrastructure, economic development and environmental protectionthus projecting a 'soft space' of transnational Baltic Sea cooperation. Although firmly placed under the socalled 'Three No's', that is, the requirement of no additional EU funding, institutions and legislation, a lean governance architecture at the macro-regional level has emerged over time and the strategy mobilizes actors from all tenets of the EU's multilevel governance system, including the EU itself, its member and adjacent partner states, as well as subnational authorities and civil society. Drawing on the lens of experimentalist governance, this paper analyzes the underlying mechanisms that allow it to be gauged to what extent the Baltic Sea 'soft space' has solidified over the past decade. It also shows that the EUSBSR effectively rebalances EU transnational and intergovernmental regional cooperation in the Baltic macro-region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Path Towards the Eusbsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Experimental Union’ and Baltic Sea cooperation: the case of the European Union’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

Gänzle

2018

Regional Studies, Regional Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of comprehensive package deals, of which the NORDEK plan was exemplary, they switched to deals devoted to deepening cooperation in particular sectors [10]. That tendency appeared especially visible after the establishment of the Nordic Council of Ministers in 1971 [38]. In the following years the sectoral approach became the solution allowing the Nordic countries to harmonize cooperation among themselves with the varying patterns of cooperation tying each of them to the EEC.…”

Section: Finland Becomes the Gamechangermentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling negotiations on the Nordic Economic Area: Uncertainty and absolute gains as factors of international solidarity

Lanko

2022

Vestnik SPbSU. International relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article revisits the negotiations on NORDEK, a Nordic Economic Area, held by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in 1968–1970. Finland, which initially took active part in the negotiations, later reversed its position under pressure from the Soviet Union as well as for other reasons. Four remaining Nordic countries refused to pursue a Nordic Economic Area without Finland for multiple reasons, of which one was solidarity with Finland. This article presents multiple game models, of which some reflect the actual outcome of the NORDEK negotiations, i. e., their failure, while others reflect hypothetical outcomes of the negotiations, such as emergence of a NORDEK of four without Finland. Those models allow concluding on the main factors causing Nordic solidarity, for which the NORDEK negotiations were a testing ground, and which had been the defining feature of regional politics in the European North during fifty years following the failure of the negotiations. First, domestic uncertainty about the issue debated by multiple nations contributes to greater solidarity among those nations. Second, majority’s focus on their absolute gains during international negotiations contributes to greater solidarity among negotiating nations. Third, relative equality among negotiating nations does not have any influence on solidarity among them. The latter conclusion supports the theoretical assumption that that organic solidarity (solidarity among different) is as possible as is mechanical solidarity (solidarity of similar).

show abstract

“…This argument has not been tested in local governments. However, the research of Aalto et al (2017), in the field of international relations, suggests that it could be valid. They find that organizations responsible for coordinating regional cooperation between the Baltic and Arctic countries could not fully exploit the advantages of cooperation because, even though countries agreed on certain priorities, the interests of each nation, their internal leadership, and the identity policies of each hindered collaboration (Aalto et al 2017).…”

Section: An Alternative Explanation: Organizations As Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Institutional Collective Action: Why and When Do Metropolitan Governments Collaborate?

Salas

2019

State and Local Government Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The essay explores why and when metropolitan governments collaborate beyond the assumptions of the Institutional Collective Action (ICA) framework. It claims that metropolitan governments not only create collaborative arrangements after comparing their costs and benefits, or when spontaneously their agendas get aligned. This article argues that the success of metropolitan interlocal collaboration also rests on the proclivity to collaboration of independent local governments’ institutional structures, which, in turn, depends on how local governments and their management capabilities have been shaped and evolved, both individually and comparatively with neighboring governments. Additionally, the article classifies and explains four basic models of metropolitan collaborative arrangements.

show abstract

The coordination of policy priorities among regional institutions from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic: the institutions – coordination dilemma

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

‘Experimental Union’ and Baltic Sea cooperation: the case of the European Union’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

‘Experimental Union’ and Baltic Sea cooperation: the case of the European Union’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

Modelling negotiations on the Nordic Economic Area: Uncertainty and absolute gains as factors of international solidarity

Beyond Institutional Collective Action: Why and When Do Metropolitan Governments Collaborate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About