European policy through a national filter - The Finnish way of community-led local development

(1)

EUROPEAN POLICY THROUGH A NATIONAL FILTER –

THE FINNISH WAY OF COMMUNITY-LED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Patrik Hämäläinen European policy through a national filter – The Finnish way of community-led local development Master´s thesis Human Geography; Border Crossings: Global and Local Societies in Transition University of Eastern Finland, the Department of Geographical and Historical Studies November 2019

(2)

University of Eastern Finland Research statement

The European Commission´s Common Provisions Regulation No 1303/2013 established the community-led local development (CLLD) approach for the programming period 2014-2020, proposing it as a specific tool for place-based local development. It offers a unique chance of an integrative use of European Structural and Investment Funds on a sub-regional level.

Previously, the funds for rural and coastal areas channelled through the LEADER programme (EAFRD, EMFF) and those for urban areas (ESF, ERDF) had worked separately. Essentially, under CLLD, close collaboration expected between local beneficiaries entails the need for tight cooperation similarly between the various financing authorities.

In Finland, as in most EU countries, the adoption of CLLD has so far been limited. As disclosed during research in the RELOCAL project (EU Horizon2020, 2016-2020), the responsible national authorities had made the deliberate choice not to implement CLLD the way the Commission recommended. CLLD is regarded optional, and consequently reduced to an often small-scale, project-based approach. Such local development is generally encouraged, but the CLLD envisioned by EU did not receive widespread support from the Finnish authorities.

This paper examines how the CLLD concept is being reconfigured to suit the Finnish institutional setting and the resulting implementation trajectories characterising the current situation. Expert interviews, questionnaires and a review of policy documents show how the

‘Finnish way of CLLD’ is shaped by the European Social Fund and its orientation towards socially marginalised groups of people, and by national and European policies that emphasise growth and employability. The place-based approach of this supposedly bottom-up tool is overshadowed by the people-based mentality defined by a top-down process.

Amid the conditions that did not permit a more comprehensive local development -focused approach, the tool has been harnessed for the use of local associations that often operate with the people at risk of social exclusion. When used, CLLD has greatly invigorated and enhanced the third sector -level. These activities can then indirectly benefit the development of the locality. Through its multi-level governance setup, also synergies have been achieved from connecting expertise and vision of the higher (EU, national) levels with the practical know-how of locally embedded associations. It is this feature of being a part of something bigger that has the potential to truly add value into this local development initiative.

Author: Patrik Hämäläinen Student number: 259541

Title of research: European policy through a national filter – The Finnish way of community- led local development

Faculty: Social Sciences and Business Studies

Subject: Human Geography/ Border Crossings Master’s Degree Programme Supervisors: Dr Paul Fryer (HiMa) and D Sarolta Németh (KTL)

Number of pages: 83 pages, plus 12 pages appendices Work: Master’s thesis

Time: November 2019

Keywords: CLLD, community-led local development, multi-level governance, local, scale, policy, EU, local development

(3)

Itä-Suomen yliopisto Tutkimustiedote

Euroopan Unionin ohjelmakaudelle 2014-2020 visioima paikallisen kehittämisen työkalu, community-led local development – tai tuttavallisemmin CLLD, tarjosi yhteistä rahoitusmallia ja yhdenmukaistettuja käytännön keinoja maaseudulla ja kaupungeissa erikseen käytettyjen EU:n koheesiorahastojen hyödyntämiseen. Siinä missä työkalun käytännön toteutukseen kuuluu keskeisenä osana erilaisten paikallisten sidosryhmien välinen yhteistyö, nyt yhteistyötä odotetaan vastaavasti myös kansallisilta viranomaisilta ja hankkeiden rahoittajilta. Suomessa, kuten myös muualla Euroopassa, CLLD:n käyttöönotto on vain harvoin ollut EU:n alkuperäisen ehdotuksen mukaista. Kuten RELOCAL -hankkeen (EU Horizon2020, 2016-2020) myötä opittiin, viranomaiset Suomessa tekivät tietoisen valinnan olla ottamatta CLLD:tä käyttöön siten kuin EU-tasolla oli suositeltu. Sen käyttö on jäänyt vapaaehtoiseksi ja siitä onkin vakiintunut useimmiten pienen budjetin omaava Euroopan sosiaalirahaston hanke.

Tässä gradussa tutkitaan miten CLLD:tä on muokattu kansallisella tasolla paremmin Suomalaisiin lähtökohtiin sopeutuvaksi ja mitä tämä on tarkoittanut työkalun käytön kannalta.

Asiantuntijahaastattelut, kyselyt ja (poliittisten) asiakirjojen analysointi osoittavat miten

”Suomen versio CLLD:stä” on muodostunut ESR:n tavoitteita, sekä eurooppalaisten ja kansallisten työllisyyttä ja kasvua edistävien päämäärien pitkälti mukailemaksi. Sen kautta toteutetut hankkeet keskittyvät sosiaalisen osallisuuden ja köyhyyden torjunnan sekä työpaikkojen luonnin teemoihin, eikä niinkään ”pelkästään” paikalliseen kehittämiseen. Tämä alun perin ´paikkaperusteinen´ ja alhaalta ylöspäin suuntautuva toiminta onkin määritelty ylhäältä alaspäin tulleiden päätösten kautta pikemminkin ´ihmisperusteiseksi´.

Lähtökohdista, jotka eivät ole olleet otolliset puhtaasti paikallista kehittämistä ajatellen, CLLD on otettu käyttöön paikallista yhdistystoimintaa tukevina projekteina. Näiden projektien myötä kolmannen sektorin toimintaa on merkittävästi pystytty kehittämään, ja sitä kautta usein sosiaalisesti heikossa asemassa olevia ihmisiä on pystytty lähestymään ja auttamaan. Tästä on seurauksena ollut siten välillisiä positiivisia vaikutuksia kaupungeissa, joissa sitä on toteutettu.

CLLD-hankkeiden tunnusomainen piirre on niiden monitasoinen hallinto, jonka kautta on luotu hyvinkin toimivia malleja, joissa ylemmän tason resurssit ja asiantuntemus yhdistyvät ruohonjuuritason yhdistysten käytännönläheiseen toimintaan. Tämän ominaisuuden myötä CLLD-hankkeet ovat osana laajempaa kokonaisuutta, mikä nostaa työkalun arvoa ja potentiaalia paikallisen kehittämisen näkökulmasta.

(4)

Acknowledgements

This Master´s thesis was carried out at the University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu. The idea for this study emerged while working for the RELOCAL project (Horizon2020) at the Karelian Institute – a research institute based at the UEF. One of the case studies in this project was specifically about an example of applying the community-led local development initiative in the city of Kotka.

The outline of this thesis slowly developed in the late 2018 concomitant to the case study work, and the more detailed framework for carrying out rest of the research was clear as of March 2019. The thesis slowly but steadily progressed at the side of the full-time working. Being just a student again in the Autumn enabled focusing solely on this paper, and the writing was finally brought to an end in November 2019.

The time spent at the Karelian Institute provided an excellent starting point for carrying out such academic work. Being thoroughly introduced to the topic, getting access to the empirical material, and having expert council nearby if needed all helped pave way for the eventual independent writing process. I would like to thank my colleagues Matti Fritsch, Petri Kahila and Sarolta Németh – my supervisor extraordinaire – for the many valuable lessons ranging from philosophical discussions to practical academic writing tips. I remember fondly of my time there.

I also want to thank Paul Fryer – my main supervisor – for the patience towards my changing thesis topics and the not-insignificantly prolonged writing process. He helped nudge the writing to the right direction at key times and helped with the technicalities.

Finally, I want to thank Franziska for all the support during the process!

(5)

Definitions

CLLD Community-led local development

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

ELY-centre Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund

ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds

EU European Union

LEADER Liaisons Entre Actions de Développement de l'Economie Rurale

(6)

List of Figures

(7)

Figure 1. The research questions reflect the different scales of the CLLD initiative. ... 3

Figure 2. The four principles of Cohesion policy from 1988. ... 15

Figure 3. Cohesion policy funding for 2014-2020. ... 17

Figure 4. The five goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. ... 18

Figure 5. Three principles of territorial cohesion... 19

Figure 6. The budgets of the five ESIF for the 2014-2020 programming period, billion €. ... 23

Figure 7. The Seven Features of LEADER... 26

Figure 8. Overview of CLLD structures ... 38

Figure 9. The priorities and objectives of the Sustainable growth and jobs 2014 – 2020 programme. 41 Figure 10. The localities that have carried out CLLD projects ... 44

Figure 11. The localities using CLLD put on a map. ... 45

Figure 12. Example of a CLLD Action from Joensuu. ... 46

Figure 13. Simplified description of the steps of starting a CLLD project... 47

Figure 14. Simplified graph of the working of a CLLD initiative. ... 49

Figure 15. Some concrete examples of sub-projects. ... 50

Figure 16. Simplified illustration of the different scales of managing the CLLD projects. ... 70

List of Appendix Figures

Appendix Figure 1. Research participants in the RELOCAL project. 84 Appendix Figure 2. Research interviews conducted in the KAKE-project. 85 Appendix Figure 3. The respondents of the initial questionnaire. 85 Appendix Figure 4. Breakdown of all the CLLD projects discovered 86 Appendix Figure 5.Planned yearly funding of the CLLD projects 87 Appendix Figure 6. The runtime of the CLLD projects by different managing authorities. 87 Appendix Figure 7. Breakdown of the first Webropol-questionnaire. 88 Appendix Figure 8. Breakdown of the second Webropol-questionnaire. 88 Appendix Figure 9. First Webropol-questionnaire, question #13. 89 Appendix Figure 10. First Webropol-questionnaire, question #17. 90 Appendix Figure 11. First Webropol-questionnaire, question #17 part 2. 91 Appendix Figure 12. First Webropol-questionnaire, question #18. 92 Appendix Figure 13. Second Webropol-questionnaire, question #9. 93 Appendix Figure 14. Second Webropol-questionnaire, question #12. 94 Appendix Figure 15. More detailed account of the different ESIF. 95

(8)

1

1. Introduction

The phrase ”Geography matters!”, used as the title of their book by Massey et al. (1989), is an anecdote demonstrating the importance of the ´spatial´ factor within the discipline of human geography. It symbolises the significance of ´place and space´ when conducting research on the society, social processes or policies. The spatiality within geographical studies often revolves around the concept of ´scale´ and its relation to, among others, policies and governance. Indeed, the appropriate scale of policy action, and the capacity of institutions to influence the socio- spatial dimension through decision-making have been contemporary themes in human geography studies (Servillo, 2019, 1). On a general level, these are topics that this thesis too is set to explore.

This paper investigates the Finnish implementation of a European Union (later EU) Cohesion policy tool called community-led local development, or CLLD. Cohesion policy embodies one of the core ideas of the EU: supporting the balanced and harmonious development of the different countries and regions within the Union. Cohesion policy – often synonymously labelled as regional policy – was not a prominent topic during the early days of the European Community (the predecessor to the EU). There was no particular regional or spatial focus in European policies. The political will for having such a policy slowly began to emerge only from the 1960s on. Over the years Cohesion policy grew more important. An important acknowledgement of the rising importance of the policy was given in the Maastricht Treaty from 1992 which made economic and social cohesion the EU´s core objectives. These days, Cohesion policy makes up for the EU´s largest investment policy and the methodology and objectives have close connections to the EU´s key strategic documents and aims (Manzella et al., 2009).

CLLD is one of the EU´s newest Cohesion policy tools used for local development. The initiative represents the latest chapter in EU policies designed to “bypass” the nation state and more directly empower and involve the regions, local communities and people. It is designed as a ´bottom-up initiative´, meaning it should be used and shaped by the communities and residents, and not by the typical ´top-down´ authorities traditionally responsible for regional or local development. This way it will be the local residents who define the problems that they have, and then proceed to find solutions to them. A large portion of the financial support for the measures comes from the EU.

(9)

2

Introducing such a community-based initiative that uses a combination of EU funding and local human capital is not new. The tool is based on the successful legacy of LEADER – a local development tool very much like CLLD, but with the clear distinction that it has only operated in the rural and coastal areas. CLLD on the other hand is to be operationalised in urban centres and cities, which previously were not able to receive LEADER funding. The novel quality of CLLD lies in the possibility to pool funding from different European regional development funds – both those used for rural and urban development – effectively integrating the miscellaneous use of EU funding, fostering cooperation among the funding authorities and promoting joint development activities between urban and rural areas.

The national implementation of this EU-wide initiative has been far from homogenous.

Individual Member States have taken the method to varying directions. This has been well illustrated by the works of Servillo (2018, 2019). Deviations from EU directives or policies is not uncommon, and some of the reasons have to do with the way the planned policies can be normative or simply left open for interpretation. It is then interesting to explore both the EU policy constructs underlining the operationalising of the CLLD tool and the national conditions and processes that shape these supranational policies.

In addition to analysing the policy framework and implementation, this thesis will also investigate the more practical aspect of the use of CLLD in Finland. The proposed positive implications were often associated with the trademark characteristics of the tool, such as increased multilateral and -sectoral cooperation, networking, and the possibility to funnel EU resources to deprived areas. To what purposes and with which measures the tool has been used in Finland makes for the other half of the study.

Research Questions

To summarize, this thesis aims to investigate two separate, albeit closely linked, aspects of the CLLD initiative (Figure 1). The first part will elaborate the development of EU policies relevant to CLLD. The purpose is to show the background and origin of the tool, examine the motive(s) behind it, and demonstrate the progression of the policy implementation from the EU to the local level (chapter 4). The policy framework analysis should also serve as a means for exposing the operational possibilities and limitations of CLLD.

The second part serves to illustrate how CLLD has been operationalised in Finland by showing what are the key components that make up the tool, who is using it and how, and how it fares as a method for mitigating social problems (chapter 5). Also, the Finnish implementation and

(10)

3

characteristics of CLLD will be more thoroughly discussed (chapter 6) and comparisons to the EU ideal will be drawn. These findings will then be compared to the theory behind, especially focusing on the multi-level governance aspect of the CLLD tool.

Figure 1. The research questions reflect the different scales of the CLLD initiative.

Together, the policy concept examination and the subsequent analysis of the empirical data will be reflected against the theoretical framework, and answers to the following research questions and their sub-questions will be provided:

• What is community-led local development or CLLD? What factors have shaped the policy development and the use of CLLD before it has been put into practice?

o What is the rationale for the EU to endorse spatial policies that promote place- based initiatives, such as CLLD?

• What are the defining qualities of the Finnish version of CLLD?

o In what ways is this local initiative used and to what ends?

• What does the study tell about the multi-level governance of the tool?

o

At what geographical scale is the CLLD initiative designed and used?

(11)

4

2. Theoretical Framework

The CLLD tool raises a distinctive question concerning the scale of policy action: what is the rationale to allocate power and resources to be used by communities or people at the grassroots level? It is not spontaneous local action organised by a community or group of people, such as a neighbourhood coming together to organise a flea market or a celebration of sorts, but the CLLD initiative is inherently embedded in EU-level policies. While the concrete activities eventually carried out through the tool may resemble the aforementioned community happenings, or even strive towards such, the background of the initiative itself is firmly rooted in much wider institutional settings. It may aim to be a genuine bottom-up initiative, but regardless it is conceptualised, instigated and defined by European and national level decisions through a top-down process. In order to successfully approach the mechanisms behind the method and to comprehend the associated policy constructs of the EU, the concepts of space, governance and power and their interrelations ought to be understood.

2.1 Space

The meaning of space in geographical research has changed over time. Historically it has been seen as abstract or something fixed. This prevailing idea was challenged by a relational concept of space that argues space being something fundamentally connected to social processes and constructed by the society. The notion works the other way too, meaning that the social dimension and society can be affected by spatiality as well. By changing the way that space is viewed, human geographers have come to terms with space being something that is constantly changing and porous, socially constructed but also having the capacity to shape our society (Blaut, 1961 & Massey et al. 1992 & Thrift, 2003 & Gregory, 2009).

As Bates et al. (2008, 199) argue, the relational notion of space (and time) makes it primed to impact political and social process and phenomena. Assessing the spatial element of institutional settings or social relations helps to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their wider implications to the political and socio-economic dimensions. Especially the research on change (of policies, societies etc.) should do well to incorporate space as one of the key elements. Furthermore, since the relationship between space and the proposed impact should not be seen as something universal, but rather based on individual and case-specific conditions, empirical research with a spatial approach is welcomed (Bates et al., 2008, 199- 202).

(12)

5

The idea of relational space within the theoretical framework of this thesis is perhaps captured the best with the concept of ´scale´ and its application to policymaking. As remarked by Servillo (2019, 1), the appropriate geographical scale for policies and the influence institutions have on the socio-spatial dimension through decision-making are contemporary themes of research, and closely connected to the concept of CLLD. As the EU Member States have opted to divide decision-making among several different governing bodies at various geographical scales (supra-national – national – regional – local), a valid starting point for illuminating the relationship between scale and policy is the concept of governance.

2.2 Governance and scale

Governance is a hot topic spanning the EU´s entire political spectrum. Decision-making in the EU is not straightforward or one-sided, but it involves a wide range of stakeholders at various levels: national, regional and local (Griffin, 2007, 2). The term governance itself is rather vague, and it has been interpreted in a variety of ways. As Treib et al. (2007, 16) firmly recommend, one should define the particular dimension of governance used in their research. This thesis will approach the concept from the theoretical viewpoints of geography and scale, as will be elaborated in the following.

According to Pieter et al. (2002, 1) “...the link between geography and governance is easy to establish”. On a very general level, they define governance as the management of collective affairs and society which is socially and spatially organised. Through the lens of (social) geography, the concept gets added layers of complexity. Governance and public decision- making are not meant to be seen as purely hierarchical in nature, but in fact rather performed via the (often long-term) connections between a multitude of individuals or organisations at different geographical levels (John, 2001, 9). The governing arrangements of today involve a wider spectrum of stakeholders ranging from the national to the local level, including representatives from the public, private and third sector, and they are characterised by the increasingly complex connections between them (Griffin, 2012, 209-210). In this light, governance appears multi-scalar and networked (Pieter et al., 2002, 1). These relations between the different scales of governance are what gives it an inherently geographical dimension, commonly referred to (especially in the context of EU policies) as ´multi-level governance´.

The term multi-level governance is so often used since being coined in the early 1990s that the legitimate question of whether it will end up being a meaningless “umbrella” for many non- related policies can be asked (Stephenson, 2013, 817 & Piattoni, 2009, 163). In order to avoid

(13)

6

falling into this trap, the use of the term needs to be aptly defined. Here, it is distinguished as the importance of the different tiers of governance (EU, national, regional, local) as relevant parties in policymaking, while simultaneously referring to the (re)distribution of (political) power between these different scales (Griffin, 2012, 210). This definition is closely resembling the original use of the term as it was used for analysing the EU´s use of the structural funds through Cohesion policy, and for capturing the cooperative process of implementing EU policies at several scales by national, regional and/or local authorities (Stephenson, 2013, 822).

The manner in which multi-level governance is envisioned above resonates closely with the operational qualities featured in the CLLD tool (elaborated in 4.1 and 4.2).

It should be noted that the concept of multi-level governance does not necessarily mean a concrete system of policymaking, but it can also be used as a discourse. Since the term can arguably be used as a rhetoric by the EU to sell ideas such as integration (Piattoni, 2009, 176), it is of great interest to analyse in this thesis whether this is also the case with CLLD. To put it a bit exaggeratingly: is the multi-level governance linked with CLLD functioning policymaking with a defendable purpose or merely an attempt of the EU to show itself in a more positive light by giving ostensible “power” to the local level? Furthermore, testing the practical validity of the concept though empirical research demands more attention (Piattoni, 2009, 176). To properly gauge the effectiveness and interplay of governance and decision-making at various geographical scales, the concept of power demands an overview.

2.3 Power

Through things such as authority to make decisions, or availability of financial resources, institutions, authorities and other stakeholders hold power. Appreciating the ways that power is divided, used or misused between different levels of governance is key for understanding the way democratic decision-making works, or is ought to work (Griffin, 2007, 15).

The distribution of power has changed in the recent decades, and the traditionally strong role of the state has decreased, giving the local and regional levels an opportunity to take more control for themselves. Described by Jessop (2000, 51) as the turn from government to governance, portraying the re-location of power from the state to other public or private parties, several new arrangements of exercising (political) power have emerged. This is even more noticeable in the EU countries, where the states have given a fair share of their sovereignty to the supranational body of the EU. The European Commission and the Parliament have a

(14)

7

profound effect on the policies, regulations and institutions of all Member States (John, 2001, 11-12).

The new configurations of governance have introduced several new actors, resulting in new and more complex interactions between the stakeholders involved in the decision-making processes. Amongst the plurality of actors hoping to be heard it is likely that certain stakeholders have considerably more influence on the process at the expense of others. And while these new settings can often promote new and innovative ways of governance, they do not always lead to good governance. Since there is not necessarily a central source of power and authority (traditional top-down setting), the exercising of power is being shaped in the partnerships and networks of the involved actors (Griffin, 2007, 15 & 2012, 210).

Since the decision-making structure of the CLLD tool is by design based on shared ownership between different stakeholders, it raises certain questions about the use of power in decision- making. This also applies to power as a financial resource, because one key component of CLLD is to deliver financial investments to the local level. Who gets to contribute and participate, who are the financial beneficiaries, and what benefits are achieved from the collaborative decision-making and practical measures stemming from CLLD´s multi-level governance framework?

(15)

8

3. Materials and Methodology

The topic of this thesis is motivated by the personal involvement of the author in two different research projects that were both dealing with CLLD initiatives in Finland. Hence, the materials used for this paper are comprised of the empirical data gathered in large parts by the author for these two projects.

The first project was called RELOCAL (´Resituating the local in cohesion and territorial development´)¹ and on a general level it was focusing on place-based policies, territorial cohesion, and various local-level initiatives, as well as participation and empowerment of the local level linked to the accessibility of EU funding. These aforementioned themes became the starting point and the theoretical backbone of this thesis.

The second research project Selvitys rakennerahastovaroin toteutetusta kansalaistoimijalähtöisestä kehittämisestä (translated as ´Assessment of the CLLD projects implemented from the Structural Funds´, later referred to as KAKE-project – the unofficial acronym for the project) was commissioned from the Karelian Institute by the Finnish Ministry for Economic Affairs and Employment and it aimed to provide an overview of the usage of the CLLD tool in Finland. This project had a particular emphasis on the role that the Structural Funds have, focusing on the part that the funding authority plays. The contribution from this project was the greater understanding of the practice of CLLD implementation.

A more detailed account of the available empirical data is given in the next pages, followed by a description of the methodology applied for this thesis. Ensuing is the statement of ethical conduct.

3.1 Materials

One of the Finnish case studies carried out during the RELOCAL project was specifically focused on ESF-funded CLLD projects in Kotka, Finland. The collected empirical data consists of 25 semi-structured expert interviews plus a three-hour long focus group discussion (see Appendix Figure 1 for a complete description of the interviews). In addition, supporting statistical and media analysis were carried out. Most of the interviewees were local stakeholders involved concretely with the projects, but also national level interviews were conducted with representatives from the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Employment and the Ministry of

1 Horizon 2020 research project. Grant agreement: 727097. Duration: 48 months, between 2016-2020.

(16)

9

Agriculture and Forestry. The empirical data was gathered from 11/2017 onwards, and the case study report was finished in 03/2019.²

The national level interviews have contributed essential information for tracing the origin of the CLLD approach in Finland and have shed light on the decisions determining the nature of the tool in its national-level implementation. The interviews with the local organisations provided a richer description of the practicalities and the impact of such projects on the city and grassroots levels.

The author of this thesis was involved in transcribing and analysing all the interviews, conducted some of the interviews personally, carried out statistical and media analyses, participated in the focus group meeting, and was closely involved in writing of the case study report. He also attended a public seminar in Kotka³ in October 2018, where discussions were held about the current state of EU-funded projects and measures used for local development.

Several Finnish MEPs and relevant public authorities were present. Among other things, an up- to-date examination of the CLLD tool and some examples from its use in Finland were presented. This event was an important milestone regarding this thesis as it gave rise to some of the questions that were to be investigated by this paper and the KAKE-project.

The second research project investigated the uptake and implementation of the Finnish CLLD on a more general level across Finland, analysing the various approaches used by the different stakeholders implementing these ESF-funded projects. During the course of the project, more than a dozen cities implementing the community-led approach were identified. The materials that are also used in this thesis consist of a set of expert interviews (see Appendix Figure 2 for a complete description of the interviews), preliminary questionnaires sent to the contact persons of the individual projects in different cities (a set of open-ended questions, essentially an interview in written form, see Appendix Figure 3) and two Webropol-questionnaires (mainly multiple-choice questions, done with a programme made for creating surveys).

The first Webropol-questionnaire focused on the actual usage of the CLLD tool and was thus sent to the different stakeholders involved in the planning and implementation of the concrete projects and events. The second questionnaire had a rather different thematic focus as it was

2 The final report can be read from here: https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/05/12_FI_Kotka- Pilot-Case-Study-Report.pdf

3 The event was called ´Kasvun Karavaani´ and it took place on the 30.10.2018. A more detailed description of the contents and attendants can be found here: http://www.sepra.fi/ajankohtaista/241-kasvun-karavaani-kotkassa- 30-10

(17)

10

more about the ways that a given City organises or enables forms of resident-participation in cities in general, although simultaneously further investigating the important role that associations and local actors have in implementing these types of projects and events. That questionnaire was prepared in collaboration with Kuntaliitto⁴. This questionnaire was sent to the administrations of different cities and targeted at the officials responsible for participation related measures in their city. More specific information on the content of the Webropol- questionnaires can be found in the Appendix (Appendix Figures 7 and 8). The data for the KAKE-project was collected from 02/2019 on, and the final report was completed in 07/2019.

The materials of the second project are utilized for providing a description of the diverse ways that CLLD has been used in the different cities, as well as how it has been received, implemented and evaluated by the stakeholders involved. This more general nation-wide review should complement well the more detailed case study of the RELOCAL-project.

Whereas in the RELOCAL-project the author of this thesis was more of a participant working in a team, the KAKE-project was essentially based on the research agenda of this thesis. If this thesis was a spin-off of the RELOCAL case study, then the KAKE-project was a spin-off of this thesis. For example, the interviews carried out primarily investigated the topics discussed by this paper, but questions were added to make them useful for the KAKE-project as well. The author of this thesis was conducting all the interviews, writing up and circulating the different questionnaires, and led the writing of the final report.

3.2 Methodology

This thesis is a qualitative study. Arguably, a qualitative methodology is best suited for the particular data available, accumulated by the two research projects described in the previous chapter. The RELOCAL case study in Kotka was one of several case studies carried out during the project, all of them advocated to deploy a qualitative approach (UNEW, 2017, 79). The case study comprised of semi-constructed expert interviews, focus group discussion, internet and media analysis – all important components in order to develop a deep and confident understanding of the particular action and the space it happens in (Herbert, 2010, 3). As the case study provided deep knowledge of the Action in the particular context through mixed and versatile methodology and data collection, it is evidently classifiable as a qualitative study (Lune et al., 2017, 171).

4 The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Specialised also in research related to municipal

affairs. See: https://www.localfinland.fi/

(18)

11

In the KAKE-project, the materials used were partly taken from the Kotka case study, but also complemented with an additional set of semi-structured expert interviews, multiple questionnaire surveys and general level content analysis of the material available online, most notably in the internet database of the funding authority responsible for the distribution of EU funds in Finland (EURA). These methods similarly created a set of qualitative data, as identified by Lune et al. (2017, 65, 70, 170, 181). Furthermore, from the start it was apparent that the set of CLLD projects carried out in Finland showed a great degree of heterogeneity, meaning that applying a strict or uniform research methodology would not be feasible. Overall, the available data for this thesis corresponds to that used in qualitative research in the social sciences, defined by Ritchie et al. (2013, 4) as being:

• detailed, rich and complex;

• collected through mainly non-standardised and flexible methods; and

• with an objective to provide an in-depth interpretation and understanding of the studied phenomena.

This thesis is therefore built on the simultaneous participation in these two research projects and the data made available through them. This makes it a “research-before-theory” type of study, i.e. a study that does not stem from a pre-established theory or research question but is instigated by discovered data and the ensuing hypotheses and further questions. The research process of this paper then better follows the “spiralling research approach”. This notion does not see the structure of research as strictly linear, but rather as a fluctuating process where

“later” stages can affect the “earlier” ones, for example data collection and analysis may shape the traditionally earlier phases of setting research questions or establishing the design of the study (Lune et al. 25-26).

The data and results from the questionnaires and interviews are used for qualitative analysis, whereas the Webropol-questionnaires in addition provide material for descriptive statistical analysis. This does not constitute for actual quantitative research, but it does provide an additional numerical element that can be seen to nicely complement the qualitative part (Lune et al. 2017, 16 & Ritchie et al, 2013, 20).

Due to the aforementioned conditions, the epistemological approach to the research is mainly

“inductive” (or bottom-up), meaning that in general the collection of materials and making observations have been done first, and only then are they used to shape knowledge and theory (Herbert, 2010, 5). However, as is often the case with qualitative research, also this paper is not

(19)

12

just strictly inductive. Since the researcher is familiar with the topic, it is not possible to approach it with a blank mind. Instead, this knowledge is also utilised in a “deductive” manner, as the researcher is enabled to evaluate the familiar data through newly developed research questions (Ritchie et al., 2013, 6).

Unlike majority of geographic research (Jensen et al., 2010, 2), this thesis deals in large parts with policy and policy development. This disposition towards assessing certain (mainly EU) policies is important for better understanding the particular local initiative under investigation.

CLLD is not a typical local development project because it is rooted in wider EU-level context and methodology. The paper also does not follow a particular research tradition but is rather complex in its methods and approach. The use of mixed methodology and the inclination towards basing the methods rather on the context and material on the particular settings of the study is known as ´pragmatism´ (Jensen et al., 2010, 9 & Yvonne Feilzer, 2010, 6). In fact, according to Ritchie et al. (2013, 19-20, 22) pragmatism, or adopting a self-conscious, broad and case-specific approach is advocated as being better than confining to a particular ideological tradition.

The crux of this paper is to analyse, compare and evaluate the CLLD implemented in Finland, and to then compare it to the construct of CLLD proposed by the EU. The latter part is done through a literature review on the relevant EU documents, supported by mainly research literature as secondary sources (Lune et al. 2017, 161). An exhaustive review of the policy documents and literature are used in producing an outline of the relevant EU policy concepts that should form a logical background of the concepts behind CLLD as well as clarify the term itself. The primary data gathered first-hand or otherwise discovered forms the results part, which should provide a comprehensive examination of the uptake of the CLLD initiative in Finland. Some of the key findings of these two chapters can then be compared and assessed more thoroughly in the discussion section. While every chapter has its connections to the concepts of the theoretical framework, it will be the conclusions where the results are explicitly tied to the overarching theory and the research questions will be answered.

To conclude, the study employs a pragmatic and case specific qualitative methodology. This thesis combines the empirical materials, observations and results accumulated by two different research projects, both more or less directly concerned with the use of CLLD in Finland. Added value is achieved by reviewing the data from a thematically original point of view.

(20)

13 3.3 Ethical Conduct

A social scientific research should be aware of its possible ethical implications, since topics dealing with humans, policies or practices can be delicate in nature. The researcher is responsible for the welfare of the target population, thus necessitating ethical responsibility, sensitivity and respect for privacy in conducting the research and data collection (Lune et al., 2017, 43-44).

The interviews and questionnaires were voluntary and based on written informed consent or implied consent. The participants were provided appropriate information on the purpose and use of their contributions, as well as given the ability to withdraw their statements at any given time. The questionnaires were anonymous, and for the interviews the interviewees were given the opportunity to decide whether they want to remain anonymous or be referred by name, and whether they allowed the interview to be recorded. All the material collected were handled with discretion, care and confidentiality. It can be argued that the two research projects that this thesis is based on have both followed good scientific practices and conduct (Lune et al., 2017, 46-49).

The careful assessment of the researcher is of the mind that the topic in question has a low capacity to provide harm to the participants, since it is not socially particularly sensitive in nature. This thesis does not directly deal with personally sensitive topics, as it is mainly focused on the methodology and structures of a policy and its practice. However, cautionary measures have been taken. Despite vast majority of the interviewees agreeing to be referred by name, the names will not be used in this paper. When referring to the contents of a particular interview, only the function of the person shall be apparent.

The researcher states that he does his best to adhere to ethical scientific conduct, as described in the document on ethical guidelines by the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics (Tutkimuseettinen neuvottelukunta, TENK) and Universities Finland (UNIFI). The use of other people´s work will be appropriately accredited and quoted, the empirical material and data made available at request, and the results honestly and objectively evaluated.

(21)

14

4. Assessing the EU Policy Framework behind the CLLD tool

The aim of this chapter is to describe, evaluate and critically examine community-led local development and the relevant thematic concepts by using available literature. This consists of primary sources mostly in the form of EU policy documents as well as secondary sources, such as relevant research. The literature review forms the background to the concept of CLLD on which the results about the Finnish example can later be compared to.

In order to trace the process of bringing an EU development policy into practice on the local level, it is necessary to understand certain distinguishable – however closely interconnected – concepts that are explained in the subsequent chapters. The first section deals with European policy developments in the field of place-based and regional policies and the related political agenda that underline the processes leading to the establishment of CLLD. The mechanisms and the policy tools relevant for the implementation of CLLD will also be assessed.

The second part (4.2) focuses more specifically on CLLD itself. The way it has been conceived, discussed and put into practice will be assessed. Also, the social dimension of the tool will be examined, meaning identifying in the literature the possible social challenges CLLD could mitigate. This should give greater perspective for discussing the usage, impact and achievements of the tool so far. It is worth reminding that the issues included in this chapter are primarily on the scale of the EU, and the Finnish case is only covered in chapter 5.

4.1 The theoretical and thematic conceptualisations related to CLLD

Cohesion policy and the interlinked concept of territorial cohesion represent a field of EU policies characterised by their geographical focus that advocate an idea of a place-based approach, an alternative to the more traditional sectoral policies. The growing financial investments to regional policies and initiatives, such as the rural revitalisation tool of LEADER or the crux of this paper – the CLLD initiative, is a testament to the rising importance of “place”

and geography in the EU´s political agenda.

The relevant EU policy constructs and terms discussed in the coming sections are complex and multi-faceted in nature and could take up another study (or several) just by themselves, but as they are highly relevant for understanding the connection between EU´s political agenda and the CLLD initiative taken on in Finland, a brief overview is necessary.

(22)

15 4.1.1 Cohesion policy

Cohesion policy embodies the EU´s political will of ensuring the ´harmonious´ development of the Union by directing financial investments into the more backward territories or regions through its Structural and Investment Funds (European Commission-webpage, K). Four key ideas guide the Cohesion policy implementation and the use of the Funds: concentration, programming, partnership and additionality (Figure 2). These four concepts were introduced as early as in 1988, and they continue to have an important status in the policy today (Manzella et al., 2009, 8-15).

Concentration meant the selection of a limited amount of priority objectives, meaning that Cohesion policy would have a more concentrated focus (Manzella et al., 2009). These days they are also accompanied by “priority axes” and a list of thematic objectives (Rakennerahastot.fi- webpage, 2019d).

Programming institutionalised a change to multi-annual programming periods that gave the projects and policy measures much needed longevity. The programmes were to be drawn up by the Member States according to European Community´s objectives, and then approved by the Commission (Manzella et al., 2009). Today, the programming periods remain a norm with a length of seven years, the current one being established for the years 2014-2020 (ESIF for HEALTH).

Partnership demanded the formal inclusions of several levels of authorities to be involved in the drawing up and implementing of the Cohesion policy programmes, not just national authorities and the European Commission (Manzella et al., 2009). The partnership aspect was also later extended to other than just between authorities, entailing so called “social partnerships” (Marks, 1993, 397). To date, multi-level, multi-sectoral partnerships remain a distinctive feature, the practice trickling down to some of the implemented projects as well, such as CLLD (European Commission, 2018a, 25).

Additionality necessitates a financial contribution from the MSs, so that the Cohesion funding is not used as a supplement for national funding. This principle remains the basis for funding (Manzella et al., 2009). Today the portion received from the various cohesion funds varies between 50-85%, the remaining share having to be covered by national public or private sources (European Commission, 2014a, 6).

Figure 2. The four principles of Cohesion policy from 1988.

(23)

16

Through the 1990s to mid-2000s, Cohesion policy was reformed in several (yet not so drastic) ways to make it more streamlined and easier to utilise. The decentralisation and simplification measures were in a way counterbalanced with increased monitoring and reporting requirements, more frequent evaluation, performance-based incentives and more demanding financial management and control by the Commission. Leading up to the programming period of 2007- 2013, a decision with significant impact on the policy was made: it was decided to tie Cohesion policy to the Lisbon strategy and its goals (Manzella et al., 2009, 15-20).

Over the years, Cohesion policy has become an instrument that through its partnerships effectively involves also regional and local actors. This setting became associated with the term multi-level governance, which also entailed a shift of power from the national to the local and regional levels (Marks, 1993, 407). The policy has undergone many changes, transforming it from a financial transfer tool into a genuine regional development toolkit (Brunazzo, 2016, 33).

Manzella et al. (2009, 21) summarize the transformation the following way:

“Over time there has been a progressive transformation from an, essentially, redistributive mechanism strongly linked to Member State preferences into a genuine regional development policy, based on EU-wide objectives and priorities and delivered through an innovative implementation system entailing cooperative mechanisms among supranational, national and regional

administration.”

Cohesion policy of today

Cohesion policy has become the EU´s largest investment policy, taking nearly one third of the total EU budget during the programming period of 2014-2020. The total Cohesion policy budget for the seven-year period is 351.8 billion euros (European Commission, 2014a, 3).

While all EU countries receive a part of the funding, the most distinctive feature of Cohesion policy is that the investments are distributed between regions and MSs according to their development status measured in GDP – not just simply with capita. In this system the poorer areas are the largest beneficiaries. Regions are divided into different categories based on GDP compared to the European average. For the current programming period those categories are more developed, transition and less developed areas. This status will define how much funding is allocated to any particular area (Figure 3) (European Commission, 2014a, 6).

(24)

17

Figure 3. Cohesion policy funding for 2014-2020.

(source: European Commission, 2014a, 7)

During the 2014-2020 period, Cohesion policy has its priorities aligned according to the five thematic objectives of the new Europe 2020 strategy (later EU2020) (European Commission, 2014a, 2). The five themes of the EU2020 are: employment, research and development, climate change and energy, education, and poverty and social inclusion (Figure 4). The strategy is characterised by the phrase: “Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” (European Commission, A), which is also serving as an overarching guideline for Cohesion policy until 2020 (European Commission, 2014a, 2).

Employment

- 75% of people aged 20–64 to be in work Research and development (R&D)

- 3% of the EU's GDP to be invested in R&D Climate change and energy

- greenhouse gas emissions 20% lower than 1990 levels - 20% of energy coming from renewables

- 20% increase in energy efficiency

(25)

18 Education

- rates of early school leavers below 10%

- at least 40% of people aged 30–34 having completed higher education Poverty and social exclusion

- at least 20 million fewer people in – or at risk of – poverty/social exclusion

Figure 4. The five goals of the Europe 2020 strategy.

(source: European Commission)

The way it is designed, Cohesion policy forms a system in which wealth is in a way redistributed within the Union for the purpose of developing the poorer countries. Balancing the various economic and social differences between nations through monetary investments based on GDP remained the sole policy focus until quite recently (European Commission, 2014a, 2). This was changed when an alternative concept emerged, where the focus was increasingly placed to the specific features of areas and territories. This idea came to be known as territorial cohesion.

4.1.2 Territorial cohesion

While Cohesion policy has already had a particular geographical focus, territorial cohesion would further approach development from the perspective of individual areas, their specific geographical qualities and circumstances. The idea was, and is, that the individual conditions are turned into competitiveness. The EU claims that the emphasis on territorial cohesion “will help to develop sustainable communities and to prevent uneven regional development” (The Council of the European Union, 2006, 28-29).

The term itself is rather new, first appearing in EU policy discussions in the late 1990s and being then shortly mentioned in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 (Medeiros, 2016, 2). The concept gained increasing interest and, importantly, it ended up being included into the Treaty of Lisbon from 2009, where the previous political agenda of “economic and social cohesion”

was replaced by “economic, social and territorial cohesion” (European Union, 2007, 84-85).

Simultaneously to the preparation of the Treaty of Lisbon, the term had received attention in the Cohesion policy document: “Council decision on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion” from 2006, which was to be the basis for the new programming period of 2007-2013.

The document argued for the importance of including the territorial aspect tighter into Cohesion policy (The Council of the European Union, 2006, 29):

“In fact, for the next generation of programmes, promoting territorial cohesion should be part of the effort to ensure that all of Europe's territory has the

opportunity to contribute to the growth and jobs agenda.”

(26)

19

The term had so far appeared somewhat unclear and intangible, so the European ministers for spatial planning and regional development decided to prepare the so called “Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” in 2007. Although the document was supposed to be more of a starter for a debate on what territorial cohesion is, it also aimed at shedding light into the concept by providing some suggestions for future policy consideration. Territorial cohesion was envisioned to entail more balanced and sustainable regional development, and it was deemed an essential approach for mitigating the inter-European regional disparities resulting from the uneven distribution of economic activity. This uneven distribution can be seen as differences between the more developed and less developed MSs, regional disparities within the Member States, but also manifested within wealthy, large cities. Whereas rural areas may face challenges due to remoteness and lack of accessibility, urban centres can be struggling with congestion, pollution and social exclusion (European Commission, 2008, 5).

Territorial cohesion in policy

According to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, for tackling the aforementioned problems hindering a more balanced growth and development of the Union, three policy responses are suggested: concentration, connection and cooperation (Figure 5).

Concentration of people into densely populated areas can provide many benefits, such as easy access to services of general economic interest, vicinity of quality health care and education, as well as abundant provision of qualified workers for businesses. However, majority of the large cities experience the flipside as “pockets of deprivation” emerge within the cities, wherein levels of social unrest, unemployment and crime are noticeably elevated. Territorial cohesion would see to a more balanced development and growth of European cities, being ever aware of the problems that excessive concentration of people can inflict on social cohesion.

Connection also means access to services, such as health care and education, as well as immaterial connections, for example between different institutions. The way regions are connected varies greatly between and within different MSs, causing inevitably challenges to some (especially rural) areas regarding accessibility.

Cooperation is seen as a necessity for obtaining the profits achieved by concentration and connection. Without strong multi-level and multi-sectoral cooperation, the negative aspects cannot be dealt with.

Figure 5. Three principles of territorial cohesion. (source: European Commission, 2008, 5-8)

(27)

20

Besides the three main focus points in achieving territorial cohesion, also areas with certain geographic features have been identified as problematic in the context of balanced territorial development: mountain regions, island regions and sparsely populated regions. However, these aforementioned challenges, caused by the uneven distribution of economic well-being, or those resulting from a disadvantageous geographical location, have not really correlated in the amount of EU support. Argued by the document, in the future policy considerations, territorial qualities should be better integrated to the conditions of EU support (European Commission, 2008, 8-9).

Balancing territorial inequalities on the European scale is one thing, but as demonstrated by Medeiros (2019), the notion of territorial cohesion has been applied to the development of cities and urban areas as well. Since the majority of EU citizens live in cities today, urban development policies and initiatives (like CLLD) gain increasing importance. While several measures can be deployed to advance the harmonious development of urban areas, a particularly relevant aspect regarding the focus of this thesis is the importance of enhanced multi-sectoral and multi-level governance. As Medeiros (2019, 18) argues, coordination between different levels (local-regional) as well as between different sectors (authorities – civil society – local communities) is one of the key components in furthering the objectives of territorial cohesion in the urban context.

On the scale of the European Union, regions as well as the cities and urban areas undoubtedly exhibit diverse problems, challenges and local conditions. In this light, achieving the objectives of Cohesion policy and territorial cohesion calls for a “...tailor-made approach to the characteristics of each territory” (Medeiros, 2019, 19). This idea to approach development from the viewpoint of a particular area is better known as “place-based policies”.

4.1.3 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.

(28)

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

(29)

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.

European policy through a national filter - The Finnish way of community-led local development