Two frontiers for regional science: Regional policy and interdisciplinary reach

Abstract

In this note, I address two frontiers where we, as regional scientists, can raise the visibility and impact of regional science and enlarge the community of scholars in our fold. The first is the resurgence of regionalism as a phenomenon and policy arena. My argument here is that many politicians, practitioners and citizens are actively debating the health and future of metropolitan regions, but we are not playing the intellectual role that we could be. The second frontier involves expanding the interdisciplinary reach of regional science towards the "softer" social and policy sciences, especially in the direction of sociology, political science, and city and regional planning. My argument here is that our tools of analysis, especially our understanding of agents and institutions, would be more powerful if amplified by selected contributions from neighboring fields. JEL classification: A11, A12, R1, R58 The resurgence of regionalismWhat is happening in the real world of regions? Regional questions have been driven to the forefront after two decades of relative retreat. During the 1970s in the US, Europe and elsewhere, issues of differential regional growth rates and industrial restructuring propelled movements towards the development of regional redistributive policies, struggles over infrastructure placement, and revenue-sharing

The Economic Development of the Regions and the Migration

“…The territory of the tourist and recreational facilities locates market stalls, selling actively souvenirs, pieces of folk crafts, food items. For the excursions, there is a well-developed circular tourist trail with observation platforms, as well as with zones for rest and waiting, tourist and information services (Markusen, 2002).…”

The role of moral values in urban planning: Can the capability approach make a contribution?

“…Therefore, we need to reconceptualize planning in a way that focuses attention away from the spatial results of decision‐making toward the impact that it can have on developing capabilities. Planning should incorporate softer social and policy sciences, especially sociology and political science (Clark et al, 2019; Markusen, 2002). In such a view, planning should be understood as a synergy of different sectors of policy and social services, and as a tool that can be used to adapt and change the relational conditions that stand between means and ends (Basta, 2015; Frediani, 2010).…”

“…Instead of accommodating economic growth or competitiveness, these theories seek to promote and implement a form of justice, including visions of the just city (Fainstein, 2010; Harvey, 2010; Soja, 2010). These authors also believe that VLTs (such as advocacy, pragmatist, collaborative, agonistic, postmodernist, or feminist approaches) are best suited to answer the big challenges of the twenty‐first century, such as climate change, big data, inequality, or technological development (Markusen, 2002; Schweitzer, 2017).…”

Problem-driven Research in Regional Science

“…The fact that two of the journals with policy in their titles are newcomers is encouraging and may result from greater pressure on universities and their faculties to provide policy guidance to decision makers and the public. Yet, scholars in planning and public policy schools are responsible for much of the interest in problem-related research (Markusen 2002). Feser (2007) makes the case that public administration and public policy programs may be better equipped to prepare students for kind of research because their curricula emphasize the policy-making process and policy implementation.…”