Place-based policies

Place-based policy can be seen as a “...long-term strategy aimed at tackling persistent underutilisation of potential and reducing persistent social exclusion in specific places…”

(Barca 2009, vii). Taking a place-based approach in development policy can mean the conscious targeting of policy measures to benefit under-developed or poorly performing areas, such as former industrial areas or neighbourhoods suffering from structural change (Neumark et al., 2015, 1). From the thematic viewpoint, place-based approach thus closely resonates with the ideas of harmonised or even development of areas implicit in the notion of Cohesion policy and territorial cohesion.

21

According to the Barca report (2009, vii), the practical implementation of place-based policies is based on external interventions and multi-level governance, the use of local knowledge being a key aspect. It is argued that the approach will enhance the delivery of goods and services to appropriate localities and can lead to institutional changes. It is also claimed that such a geographically orientated strategy is better than the spatially “blind” policies (Barca 2009, vii).

These described components of place-based policies have had a substantial impact on the development of local initiatives such as CLLD and are thus helpful in understanding the way these policies have been designed.

Rationale for place-based policies

The motivation for place-based intervention stems from an emerging consensus that there is no

“one-size fit all” when it comes to public governance or growth strategies. In a way, including the local people in the process signifies a new approach in development policies as it challenges the prevailing notion of “State knows better” (Barca, 2009, 25-26).

It is helpful to understand what a different policy approach – sectoral policies – entail. Sectoral policies do not have spatiality as a key focus, instead they are characterised by a focus on investments in clearly definable sectors such as transportation, infrastructure or energy production. In this sense, they can appear as simple but “flashy” solutions, often offering a chance to publicly display the opening of a new road or bridge etc. (Barca et. al, 2012, 137).

While sectoral policies also contribute to the development of less developed areas, the connection between sectoral policy investments and the supposed benefits they bestow upon disadvantaged areas or groups of people is debatable (Barca et. al, 2012, 137 & Dall'erba et al., 2008, 29). The argument here is that place-based policies can provide an alternative, better, option.

The spatial impact of public intervention can be difficult to foresee due to the generally limited information available to decision-makers. Unlike the spatially “blind” policies, place-based policies inherently advocate a transparent, verifiable and public decision-making process, where information proved by the locals is used and the locality assessed as a whole. A broader awareness of the (economic) impacts that policy interventions can have on the locality can create a more accountable system of decision-making and stimulate greater utilisation of local informal (re)sources in public action. The report further suggests that economic institutions have to be shaped and designed to suit local contexts and take advantage of local knowledge.

Ideally, this would create a system where local people would increasingly interact and

22

participate in development and democratic processes. This would then stem additional trust, ownership and competences among the locals, the positive effects correlating into increased joint private and public investments (Barca, 2009, 23-27). The system of transparent and local-based decision-making described here is also a key element in the CLLD tool, and hence an important topic for later assessment in this paper.

Place-based policies and their social dimension

The scope of place-based policies is tied to the concept of equity. The goal of improving equity is closely related to social issues, for instance social exclusion, problems caused by rising inequalities and the negative impacts of globalisation. The Barca report (2009, 28, 32) argues that if exogenous intervention were to be taken in tackling the aforementioned social issues, the policy would have to be place-based. It proclaims that things such as social inclusion are inherently tied to a “place”, i.e. the surroundings where people live. The nature of social inclusion is also reflected in the local institutions, most remarkably in situations where the decision-making of the local elites may in fact contribute to social exclusion (or inclusion).

Additionally, inequalities and social exclusion are spatially concentrated, but often in a small enough scale, even in that of particular neighbourhoods or “pockets” of deprivation, that extensive knowledge of the local conditions and the place are necessary (Barca, 2009, 32-33).

Moreover, place-based approach is ought to better mobilise local populations in combatting social exclusion. It gives local level the opportunity to guide the action, define its goals and scope, combine different sources of information through a participatory process, and create a policy implementation culture that can deal with incomplete information (Barca, 2009, 33-34).

In this light, the place-based approach aims to bring the whole decision-making structure closer to the local level, giving it an intrinsic “bottom-up” character (Stahlecker et al., 2010, 1). The Barca report (2009, 34) firmly states that the place-based approach can enable more operationally effective delivery of social inclusion and other social policies.

In short, thanks to influential policy documents such as the Barca report, the EU interventions for combatting social problems have taken a turn towards policies with a distinctive spatial focus. To deliver on the goals of Cohesion policy and territorial cohesion, and to finance concrete place-based initiatives, the EU has turned to financial instruments previously used for regional policy: the European Structural and Investment Funds.

23