European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No.

4, 2001

EUROPEAN BRIEFING

From Core-periphery to Polycentric Development:

Concepts of Spatial and Aspatial Peripherality

ANDREW K. COPUS

ABSTRACT Technical changes in the Želd of transport, communication and information technology, together
with long-term structural shifts will, in the new century, allow a degree of spatial reorganization of European
economic activity. The validity of conventional ( spatial) models of peripherality is increasingly questionable.
They should be supplemented by more appropriate ‘aspatial’ concepts. Although many elements of these are
already well understood, coherent models and operational indicators are required. These could provide a sound
theoretical basis on which to further the European Spatial Development Perspective’s polycentric development
objective. They could also provide new opportunities for peripheral regions, and relief from ‘overheating’ at the
core.

1. Introduction
Regional policies, both national and those of the European Union, seek to reduce regional
disparities in economic activity and income. One of the key causes of disparities has always
been peripherality. However, the global economic environment is currently entering a period
of radical change, the consequence of which is likely to be a substantial spatial reorganization
of activity. Associated with this is the need to rethink our concepts, models and indicators of
peripherality.
Conventional core-periphery concepts, models and indicators are driven almost exclu-
sively by distance costs ( although some models also stress the importance of agglomerative
economies ). This explains the traditional policy focus on improving transport and communi-
cations infrastructure. However, this paper argues that both the impact of earlier interventions
and ongoing structural and technological changes mean that in future peripherality will
increasingly become an aspatial issue, necessitating fundamental changes to our concepts,
models, indicators, and policy approaches. It is suggested that the European Spatial Develop-
ment Perspective’s ( ESDP’s) emphasis on ‘polycentric development’ provides a broad aspira-
tional framework, within which a more detailed conceptual basis for appropriate forms of
intervention may be developed.

Andrew K. Copus, Rural Policy Group, SAC, Management Division, Maitland Building, Craibstone Estate,
Aberdeen AB21 9YA, UK. Tel: 1 44 (0)1224 711246; Fax: 1 44 (0)1224 711270.

ISSN 0965-4313 print/ISSN 1469-5944 online/01/040539– 14 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/09654310120049899
540 European BrieŽng

2. Conventional (Spatial) Concepts, Models and Indicators

2.1 Concepts
Accessibility and peripherality are notoriously vague and variable concepts. In 1969 Peter
Gould described accessibility as “… a slippery notion … one of those common terms everyone
uses until faced with the problem of deŽ ning and measuring it” (Gould, 1969, p. 37 ). A few
years later the Norwegian sociologist Naustdalslid stated “… there is no such thing as a single
centre-periphery theory or concept … it is difŽ cult, if not impossible, to extract any common
element from the wide variety of usages of the centre-periphery metaphor …” (Naustdalslid,
1983, p. 17 ). However, this paper will, initially at least, focus on peripherality in the
conventional spatial and economic sense (rather than sociological or political core-periphery
theories ), since it is this core concept which has had most impact upon regional policy in
Europe.
Conventional concepts of peripheral disadvantage generally include a number of elements.
These can be roughly classiŽ ed into three broad groups, causal, contingent and associated
(Figure 1 ), (although the boundaries between the second and third are very hard to draw).
There are two causal elements. The Ž rst is, by deŽ nition, increased travel and transport cost
(expressed either in Ž nancial or time penalty terms) resulting from remoteness relative to the
main centres of population and economic activity. The second is the absence of agglomerative
advantages ( external economies of scale, broadly deŽ ned) enjoyed by less remote locations.
The second group of elements are those which are contingent upon the Ž rst, and include for
example, the high cost of service provision, and low rates of entrepreneurship and innovation.
The third group of elements is often associated with peripherality, although the causal link is
less direct. These include sparsity of population, a dependence on primary industries, poorly
developed local and interregional infrastructure, poorly developed research and development
sector, and a lack of in uence in the wider governance arena.

Figure 1. Elements of conventional ( spatial) concepts of peripheral disadvantage.

 European BrieŽng 541

2.2 Models and Theories

In broad terms two ‘families’ of formalized models have sought to explain the economic
processes which lie behind peripheral disadvantage. The Ž rst, mainly coming from the Ž elds
of land economy and regional science, seeks to answer the question “How can we account for
apparently systematic changes in land value and economic activity with increasing distance
from pre-existing urban/industrial centres?” The second, referred to by Krugman (1994 ) as
‘high development economics ’, addresses the development of spatial disparities in economic
activity, with a strong emphasis on the role of agglomerative economies and processes of
‘cumulative causation’.
The Ž rst of these modelling traditions originated in the late eighteenth century with Von
Thunen (Hall, 1966 ), but was perhaps in its hey-day in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the
basic ‘bid-rent’ principle was developed and applied not only to rural land use ( such as in
Chisholm, 1962 ) but also within the contexts of urban land use and industrial location by such
writers as Isard (1956 ), and Alonso ( 1964 ), and the empirical analyses of city structure,
beginning perhaps with Burgess’ ( 1925 ) description of Chicago. Closely related to these
models are various dynamic macro-scale land use models [Peet, 1972; Wallerstein, 1991;
Terlouw, 1992; and their essential ‘distance decay’ concept underpinned the Newtonian
gravity analogy for core-periphery variations in ‘economic potential’ (Keeble et al., 1981;
Keeble et al., 1988 )].
What all these ‘models’ have in common is the assertion that type and intensity of
economic activity at any given location can be at least partially explained in terms of penalties
imposed by distance from a given city or concentration of industry. Most, if not all, of them
subsequently discuss various local characteristics, which ( in the real world) caused distortion
of simple concentric patterns. However, ‘the tyranny of distance’ remains at the heart of such
theories, and the considerable literature of empirical and policy application which they have
generated.
‘High development economics ’ as developed by writers such as Myrdal ( 1957 ), Hirschman
(1958 ) and Friedmann (Wight, 1983 ) during the 1950s was distinctive in its emphasis on
regional divergence (in terms of levels and growth of economic activity) due to processes of
‘cumulative causation’. Of central importance in the latter was the role of agglomeration and
‘external economies of scale’. The latter were mainly seen in terms of what Fujita et al. (1999 )
call ‘Marshall’s trinity’:

· proximity to suppliers of intermediate inputs and to purchasers of intermediate outputs ( i.e.

linkages);
· the beneŽ ts of ‘labour pooling’;
· the facility for the rapid transfer of information.

However, in recent years agglomerative economies have been shown to include a range of less
tangible aspects, to which we shall return to later in section 3.
In a recent major contribution to the literature Fujita, Krugman and Venables have
suggested that the work of Myrdal, Hirschmann and Friedmann during the 1950s was
‘heuristic’ (Fujita et al., 1999 ), “a sort of muscular pragmatism in grappling with the problem
of development” ( Krugman, 1994 ). They failed, Krugman argues “to produce buttoned-down,
mathematically consistent analysis” which was at that time “increasingly becoming the unique
language of discourse of economic analysis” ( Krugman, 1994 ).1 Fujita, Krugman and Ven-
ables seek to remedy this omission. They demonstrate that the existence of agglomerative
processes and ‘increasing returns’ may be modelled with mathematical rigour on the basis of
linkages alone, without reference to the other two Marshalian forces. They also show that a
reduction in transport costs ( both for industrial goods and for agricultural products) will (ceteris
542 European BrieŽng

paribus) tend to accelerate the process of agglomeration. Population growth, they argue will
result in further spatial differentiation, with the emergence of an ordered hierarchy of cities,
similar to that posited by Central Place Theory.
This ( admittedly inadequate) review of the major formalized models shows that they have
generally focussed on the two causal elements (distance costs and lack of agglomerative
economies ) of the broader concept of peripherality which we began by describing.2 This
simpliŽ cation means that such models are probably of limited value as a basis for regional
policy design. For instance, whilst proof that agglomeration can take place on the basis of
physical linkages alone may be of considerable theoretical signiŽ cance, in reality the process
is far more complex, and probably not amenable to mathematical modelling (as we know it).
Peripheral areas need policies that ‘unwind’ this complex process. The ability to develop an
effective response will almost certainly be enhanced by taking cognisance of the full range of
observed effects, including many that cannot at present be modelled in a rigorous quantitative
manner.

2.3 Indicators
Over the past 20 years a large number of indicators have been designed to allow the impact
of peripherality to be mapped. Table 1 shows a selection of these. These indicators are of
broadly two types; those based on a gravity model, and those which are simpler travel
cost/time estimates. The Ž rst well known gravity model indices were those of David Keeble,
published in 1981 and 1988. A number of attempts to elaborate the model followed, but from
the early 1990s simpler travel cost/time indicators, generated by increasingly  exible and
affordable Geographic Information System ( GIS) software gradually became dominant.
There are three main ways in which peripherality indicators may be evaluated:

(1 ) By comparing them with other sources of information or local knowledge. A careful

examination of the mapped indicator will sometimes highlight counter-intuitive patterns.3
( 2) By assessing their ability to explain socio-economic patterns and trends. Keeble (1981 ) did
this by tabulating indicators such as GDP, employment and economic structure for
peripheral, intermediate and central regions. It has also been shown (Copus, 1996 ) that the
Lutter et al. ( 1992 ) travel time index has provided at least a partial explanation of regional
patterns of GDP per capita and their development during the 1980s. Regression analysis
of the impact of various ‘input indicators’ on gross value added (GVA) per capita and per
worker suggests that the Copus ( 1997 ) index accounts for a signiŽ cant proportion of
regional variation in competitiveness ( Cambridge Economic Consultants, 1998 ).4
(3 ) By considering their internal rational, and the degree to which their assumptions accord
with what we know of the role and impact of peripherality in the real world. It has to be
said that none of the indicators listed in Table 1 have clear and explicit links to economic
models of core-periphery processes. It is not clear, for instance, in several of the gravity
models, whether the mass variable represents the size of accessible markets, or the
potential for upstream linkages, or both.

Another neglected issue relates to the sectoral impact of accessibility. Some industries derive
greater beneŽ ts from agglomeration than others, some are not constrained by a need for
proximity to markets or suppliers, others (especially consumer services ) are of necessity
‘residentiary’ (Mack & Jacobson, 1996 ). This is the empirical justiŽ cation for Pred’s base
multiplier analysis, one of the most important explanations of the cumulative growth process
(Fujita et al., 1999 ) Some activities, notably tourism, actually derive beneŽ ts from peripherality.
Furthermore, despite the dynamic nature of ‘high development economics ’ models, all the
 Table 1. A selection of recent peripherality indicators
Authors Date Type Coverage Regions Nodes Distance estimation Mass

Keeble, Owens and 1981 Gravity EU12 NUTS I Functional centroids SimpliŽ ed road networks 1 GDP (ECU)
Thompson specially written software
Keeble, Offord and 1988 Gravity EU15 NUTS II Functional centroids SimpliŽ ed road networks 1 GDP (ECU and PPP)
Walker specially written software
Linneker and Spence 1992 Gravity GB 179 zones Functional centroids DOT RouteŽ nder software Total employment
Lutter, Pçtz and 1992 Un-weighted travel- EU12 NUTS III NUTS III centroids/194 SimpliŽ ed road rail and air NA
Spangenburg time ‘Economic Centres’ network 1 EVA model
Bruinsma and Rietveld 1993 Gravity Europe (incl. NA 42 cities Road, rail and air travel times Total population
Central) from published sources
Owen and Coombes 1993 Gravity GB TTWA Functional centroids SimpliŽ ed road network 1 Total employment
specially written software
Chatelus and Ulied 1995 Travel time and EU15 Flexible- NA Dedicated network Population or GDP
travel cost major analysis software
cities/towns
Gutierrez and Urbano 1996 ModiŽ ed gravity EU12 NA 94 cities Detailed road network ( 1 GIS Aportioned GDP
(also 1997 draft of the software)
ESDP)
Spiekermann and 1996 Day-trip (5 hour) EU15 70,000 10 NA ‘Air-line’ travel time to NA
Wegener accessible population km squares nearest rail station, then
scheduled travel time
Atlas of Freight Transport 1998 Estimated road freight EU15 NUTS II Not given Not given NA
in Europe (June 1998 cost of accessing 30
draft of the ESDP) million people
Federal German OfŽ ce 1999 Population accessible EU15 NUTS II Not given Road, rail and air network 1 NA
for Building and Regional within 3 hours GIS software to Ž nd fastest
Planning (1999 draft of route
European BrieŽng

ESDP)
Copus 1997/ Gravity EU15 NUTS II/III Functional centroids AA Autoroute digital maps 1 GDP (ECU and PPS),
1998 Routeview software population, workforce
543
544 European BrieŽng

indicators take the form of static snapshots, with no facility to show changing patterns through
time.
In summary, it is fair to say that, despite increasing technical sophistication, there has been
little, if any, advance in the conceptual basis of peripherality indices since Keeble wrote his
Ž rst report in 1981. There is a widening gap between what we know about the nature of
peripherality, and our ability to measure it.

3. New Concepts for a Changed Economic Environment: Aspatial Peripherality

3.1 Key Changes in the Economic Environment
The two decades which have passed since Keeble produced his Ž rst maps of European
peripherality have seen a number of changes in the economic environment, some long
standing and gradual, others more recent and rapid, some in response to market and
technological conditions, others at least partly driven by policy interventions.
Three developments are particularly relevant to deŽ ning concepts of peripherality:

(1 ) Improvements in transport and communications infrastructure, both through ongoing

technological change and through publicly funded improvements in infrastructure [includ-
ing the Trans European Networks (TENs) programme].
( 2) Structural changes, notably the continued expansion of the service sector and light
manufacturing together with the decline of heavy manufacturing and primary production.
(3 ) The recent rapid technological change in the Ž eld of information society technology (IST)
and the rapid growth of E-Commerce.

The Ž rst two of these have reduced both the absolute cost of remoteness, and the overall
importance of distance/travel time costs in relation to other locational considerations. Even in
the case of many of the manufacturing industries which are traditionally sensitive to transport
costs, infrastructural improvements have reduced their relative role in locational decision-mak-
ing. Transport costs now account for a relatively small percentage of production costs in most
modern industries ( Vickerman, 1991; PIEDA, 1997 ). Furthermore, there is little or no
evidence that transport costs account for a larger proportion of the value of output in remoter
areas ( PIEDA, 1984; 1997; Chisholm, 1995 ).
However, upgraded transport and communications may, in certain circumstances, have
perverse ‘pump’ effects, whereby the removal of the ‘natural protection’ of poor accessibility
results in economic activity being siphoned away from the periphery to more accessible areas
enjoying various agglomerative advantages ( EU Commission, 1999a; McKinnon, 1992;
Bachtler, 1996 ).5
The rise of IST and E-Commerce has, for many economic activities rendered location
(relative to the ‘core’) irrelevant. In contrast to the incremental shifts resulting from conven-
tional infrastructure improvements, it is a radical change, a change in kind rather than degree.
The Committee of the Regions recognized the importance of these developments in its
response to the ESDP: “Advances in communications technologies will … bring major
changes in the siting and nature of economic activity … The ESDP rightly sees ICT as a
means of overcoming the adverse impact of geographical remoteness on business start-ups”
(COR, 1998). The Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) has also noted
the opportunities presented by these changes: “The advent of information highways is one of
the aspects that has raised greatest hopes in the peripheries. The entry into the century of the
immaterial would at last make it possible to do away with disparities linked to geographic
distance …” ( CPMR, 1997 ). This optimism, is, (as explained later), quickly qualiŽ ed by
concerns regarding ubiquity of access to the new technology.
 European BrieŽng 545

Figure 2. Key elements of aspatial peripherality.

3.2 The Concept of Aspatial Peripherality

These fundamental changes in the geographic constraints to many economic activities, and
especially the key growth sectors, will mean that the economic potential of all regions
(including those on the ‘periphery’ in spatial terms) will become less closely related to location,
and increasingly in uenced by a variety of ‘aspatial’ characteristics ( see later). Seen in a
positive light, some of these characteristics provide a viable alternative to the agglomerative
advantages which have until now formed the attraction of core areas. Others are associated
with links to, and information  ows from, global markets and centres of economic activity.
These issues may therefore still be discussed within the context of ‘peripherality’, and it
therefore seems appropriate to refer collectively to these constraints by coining the term
‘aspatial peripherality’.
The concept of aspatial peripherality is best described by disaggregating it into a number
of elements ( Figure 2). Each of these is already the subject of a separate body of research and
academic literature. However, a holistic approach is desirable here, stressing the relationships
between them and placing them within the context of the wider ongoing changes in the
economic environment.

Quality of the local IT infrastructure. Good, broad band access to the internet is clearly a basic
pre-condition for the successful development of IST-based activities and E commerce. With
the widespread withdrawal of the public sector from telecom service provision, investment in
new and improved networks is increasingly demand-led ( Ilbery et al., 1995 ), and peripheral or
sparsely populated areas often lag behind in this respect. There have in the past been some
conspicuous attempts to compensate for this through large-scale public investment.6 However,
it is the view of the EU Commission that such investments should in future be the
responsibility of the private sector, and only in exceptional circumstances be assisted by
Structural Funds (EU Commission, 1999b ).

Human capital, especially capacity to utilize IST. Human capital or ‘capacity’ building has been
deŽ ned as “strengthening the knowledge, skills and attitudes of people … for establishing and
546 European BrieŽng

sustaining development within the area” (Mannion, 1996 ). It is now widely accepted that
human capital is an extremely important ‘soft factor’ which has an important in uence on the
degree of effectiveness achieved by public intervention in economic development ( Tzamarias
& Copus, 1997 ). Of the many aspects of human capital, perhaps the most important within
the context of the present paper is the capacity of local people and businesses to exploit the
opportunities provided by new IST infrastructures. The need for appropriate training and
dissemination of information to boost the ‘absorption capacity’ of rural areas with regard to
information technology is re ected in the EU ‘RISI’ ( Regional Information Society Initiative )
programme.

Quality of local business networks. The importance of effective local business networks is
highlighted by the literature on regional competitiveness (Porter, 1990 ) and ‘ exible specializa-
tion’ (Piore & Sabel, 1984 ), and on the determinants of local variations in innovation and
entrepreneurship ( Asheim, 1999 ). These networks are the medium for both business trans-
actions and less tangible ‘untraded interpdependencies’ ( Storper, 1995 ). Such networks seem
to provide an alternative to more conventional agglomerative economies as a stimulus to local
development.

Local embeddedness and civic society. In the academic literature the concepts of ‘local embedded-
ness’ ( Granovetter, 1985 ) and ‘civic society’ ( Putnam, 1993 ) are distinct from the local business
networks discussed above, although in the real world they are probably inextricably inter-
twined. They refer to the extent to which local businesses are rooted in local society and
culture, and the extent to which the latter, in turn provides a cohesiveness and participatory
ethos which strengthens local entrepreneurship and innovativeness.

Local institutional structures/networks. The importance of institutions and agencies, the effective-
ness of networks between them and linking them, the business community and the wider
governance/policy arena, has been recognized since at least the 1970s—when it took the form
of ‘dependency theory’ ( Seers, 1979; Bryden, 1979 ). The issue was subsequently addressed by
the structuralist debate, but in recent years it has received attention in practical policy-making
circles through the emphasis on ‘bottom-up’ development and partnership.

Quality of links to European/global markets and information networks. A recurrent theme in the
literature on ‘industrial districts’ and regional clusters is the need not only for effective local
networks, but also for the latter to be well integrated into the European policy and business
environments, and into global markets and information networks ( see, for instance, Maillat,
1998 ). This is a particularly clear illustration of aspatial peripherality, some very remote
regions being very well connected to the global environment, and vice versa.
These aspatial peripherality processes, in various combinations can affect the economic
development of regions in two ways:
· they can enhance/degrade a region’s economic relations with core regions independent of
its location ( a static effect );
· they can hamper or enhance the capacity of a region to exploit the economic beneŽ ts of
improvements in transport and communication (a dynamic effect ).

3.3 From Concepts to Indicators

They key elements of aspatial peripherality described earlier are already the subject of a
signiŽ cant and in some cases substantial multi-disciplinary literature. The concept of aspatial
 European BrieŽng 547

peripherality may thus be initially established through a careful synthesis of this literature.
However, in order to make this knowledge of practical utility to policy-makers speciŽ c and
measurable indicators will be required. Much of what has been written to date is essentially
conceptual, rather than empirical, and there is an urgent need for case study work leading to
the development of practical indicators. There is also a need to explore the validity of the
existing conceptual discourse (largely developed within the context of accessible and relatively
densely populated regions ) within ( geographically) peripheral and sparsely populated environ-
ments.

4. Spatial and Aspatial Peripherality Models as a Basis for European Regional

Policy
4.1 The Importance of Sectoral Differences
Just as different economic sectors are affected to differing degrees by conventional ( spatial)
peripheral disadvantage, so aspatial peripherality processes impact differentially across the
spectrum of types of economic activity. Generally speaking services and light manufacturing
are more likely to feel the effects of the changes described in section 3 than primary industries
and heavy manufacturing. Mack and Jacobson (1996 ) have shown that the latter have, at least
until recently, tended to dominate the economies of the more remote parts of Europe. This
would seem to suggest that, for the time being at least, conventional peripherality models ( and
policy measures derived from them ) will continue to have some validity, in parallel with
aspatial concepts.7
However, since the major growth industries are generally to be found in the service and
light manufacturing sectors, whilst many primary and heavy manufacturing industries are in
various stages of decline, it seems logical to assume that in future growth-orientated regional
policy measures will (or should ) focus on overcoming the symptoms of aspatial peripherality,
whilst conventional spatial models will underlie essentially remedial actions to slow the rate of
decline of certain sectors in more remote areas. As such, both concepts, and measures derived
from them, must be of continued interest to policy-makers. However it is clear that the
aspatial approach suggests important potential opportunities for peripheral regions, and
presents a chance for them to occupy a ‘level playing Ž eld’ with rural regions closer to
Keeble’s ‘golden triangle’. To this end, there is an urgent need to develop the theory in greater
detail, to validate it with reference to empirical evidence, and then to explore ways in which
concepts may be translated into practical policy measures. As we shall see in the following
section, such a path of regional policy development is very much in harmony with the
aspirations of EU spatial planning perspectives.

4.2 From Core-periphery to Polycentrism

European regional policy (as manifested primarily through the Structural Funds) has taken
cognisance of peripheral disadvantage ( in the conventional sense ), for at least a decade. A
review of major policy documents (Table 2) shows that this has been a key theme in the
thinking of the Commission since the 1980s. In addition to its in uence over mainstream
policy targeting (Objective 1, especially before 1994, and the Cohesion Fund ), peripheral
disadvantage has been addressed by a variety of speciŽ c measures, such as the TENs initiative,
various telematics schemes, and the Northern Periphery Programme ( Article 10 ).
Thus, until very recently EU regional policy seems to have been dominated by a remedial
approach to conventional peripherality through investment in physical infrastructure. How-
ever recent documents—notably the ESDP ( EU Commission, 1999a; Williams, 1996, 2000;
548 European BrieŽng

Table 2. Some key documents showing the EU Commission ’s interest in peripherality

1981, 1988 Keeble Economic Potential reports

1988 ‘Future of Rural Society’ document—the ‘three standard problems’
1994 Fifth Periodic Report (Lutter Index)
1991 Europe 2000
1994 Europe 2000 1
1997– 1999 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (Nordwijk 1997, Glasgow 1998,
Potsdam 1999)
1998– 1999 Agenda 2000 and the Berlin agreement
1999 Draft guidance for 2000– 2006 Structural Fund programmes

Richardson & Jensen 2000; Dabinett & Richardson, 1999 ) and the Draft Guidance for
2000 – 2006 Structural Fund Programmes ( EU Commission, 1999b )—suggest a shift towards
promoting the replacement of the simple core-periphery pattern by a more balanced
‘polycentric’ system which will “help to avoid further excessive economic and demographic
concentration in the core area …” ( EU Commission, 1999a ). It is also afŽ rmed that such a
policy will more fully utilize the potential of all regions, and so enhance the overall
competitiveness of the EU within a global context. The vision is described as follows:
The creation of several dynamic zones of global economic integration, well dis-
tributed throughout the EU territory and comprising a network of internationally
accessible metropolitan regions and their linked hinterland (towns, cities and rural
areas of varying sizes ), will play a key role in improving spatial balance in Europe.
(EU Commission, 1999a, p. 20 )

This change of approach is not so much a principled stand for ‘balanced development’ based
on a new understanding of the processes which affect the location of economic activity, but
more a pragmatic acceptance (within the context of a politically-driven process of negotiation )
of powerful ongoing spatial reorganization processes. Clearly some of the fastest growing foci
of the ‘new economy ’ ( such as Oulu, Aberdeen, Dublin, Lisbon ) are in relatively remote
locations. Placing this form of development at the heart of the ESDP both protects the
interests of those member states already beneŽ ting from it, and gives the policy aspirations a
better chance of fulŽ lment.
However, although the concept of polycentric development is superŽ cially attractive as a
guiding principle for the EU’s response to regional disparities, a range of weaknesses and
pitfalls have the potential to undermine its effective implementation.
The Ž rst of these is that by ‘riding the wave’ of development in certain relatively dynamic
peripheral centres, such a policy might create an illusion of ‘balanced development’ at a broad
brush level, whilst presiding over, or even exacerbating, polarization at a more localized scale.8
This perhaps explains the document’s compensatory emphasis upon exploiting new forms of
rural– urban interaction.
A second weakness is the absence or weakness of both theoretical foundations and
practical policy recommendations. The ESDP has more to say about aspirations than about
processes, or appropriate interventions. The document does suggest a number of ways in
which polycentric development might be promoted, including:
· measures to stimulate growth in conurbations outside the core;
· measures to strengthen small-medium sized rural towns;
· support for endogenous rural development and ‘multifunctional agriculture’;
 European BrieŽng 549

· infrastructural improvements designed to yield local or regional beneŽ ts;

· universal access to IST;
· support for innovation and wider access to research and development.

Some of these are closer to ‘ends’ rather than ‘means’, and no theoretical arguments are
provided to make the case that such activities will stimulate the desired forms of ‘polycentric
development’. To be fair this lack of theoretical vigour and practical application must be
largely a consequence of the unique political provenance of the document (Richardson &
Jensen, 2000 ). It has not been produced by a professional civil service with a clear mandate
to propose the best policy response to a clearly understood need for government activity. It
is, by contrast, the consequence of the interaction of member states ( each with differing
objectives ) in a context which although closely related to both EU and member state policies
is nevertheless outside the compass of the Treaty of Rome.9
The concept of ‘aspatial peripherality’, as described earlier, has the potential to Ž ll this
theoretical vacuum, and to provide a structure within which to design rational forms of
intervention. Although it is already evident that achieving ‘balanced development’ in the
twenty-Ž rst century will require a rather more sophisticated toolbox of policy measures than
has been used in the past, we still have a lot to learn about the processes which will
increasingly drive differential development as conventional peripheral disadvantage progres-
sively weakens. If location is now less relevant, we need to know what regional socio-economic
characteristics or processes can enable a rural or peripheral region to succeed. It is of course
likely that for historical reasons such preconditions are more commonly found in traditional
core regions, and there is no guarantee that the demise of conventional peripheral disadvan-
tage will beneŽ t the rural periphery. However, a better appreciation of aspatial peripherality
processes will suggest ways in which such regions may maximize their potential ( particularly
with regard to quality of life and residential environment ) and so more effectively compete in
the new economy.

5. Conclusions
Both the accumulated beneŽ ts of infrastructural improvements, and the impact of the rapid
expansion of IST and E Commerce have the potential to dramatically reduce the locational
disadvantages of peripheral regions, especially with respect to the service sector and light
manufacturing. The extent to which redistribution of economic activity takes place, perhaps
transforming a core-periphery system into a polycentric one, will depend on a number of
factors. Some of these, such as the degree of ‘overheating’ in the core regions, are exogenous
to the policy environment of the periphery. Others, such as the continued improvement of
transport and communications infrastructure, are already being addressed by both national
and EU policies. However, this paper has sought to highlight the critical and increasing
importance of a range of ‘soft factors’ collectively described by the term ‘aspatial peripheral-
ity’. Although recognized in the theoretical literature, these have not hitherto been synthesized
as a holistic conceptual framework, or an integrated set of policy measures for the develop-
ment of remote regions. The Ž rst step towards this goal would be to validate the concept of
aspatial peripherality through empirical research. This would facilitate the development of
operational indicators and evaluation methodologies. These will then need to be linked to
effective strategies for intervention. Although this may, in part, be achieved through harness-
ing policy ‘tools’ already in use elsewhere, the successful exploitation of the new opportunities
presenting themselves to peripheral regions depends on the development of a clear theoretical
basis for intervention, and its maintenance throughout the process of policy formulation and
delivery.
550 European BrieŽng
Notes
1. The fact that they ‘perished in the wilderness ’ as Krugman put it, was not solely a consequence of lack
of mathematical modelling rigour, but also due to the fact that in their models generally argued for
regional divergence, which was not consistent with the rising neo-classical assumptions regarding
free-market equilibrium processes.
2. Indeed, in the case of Fujita et al. (1999 ) agglomerative advantages—being deŽ ned simply in terms of
physical linkages, turn out to be simply a function of distance costs.
3. A recent example is the fact that in the accessibility map reproduced in the 1999 draft of the ESDP
NE Scotland ( Grampian region ) is shown as more peripheral than the Highlands and Islands.
4. Disappointingly, however, a simple distance from Luxembourg indicator seems to have greater
explanatory power than the gravity model index, at least at the NUTS II level.
5. It is interesting to note that this is precisely the effect predicted by Fujita et al. (1999 ) on the basis of
mathematical modelling.
6. Such as the ERDF/UK Ž nance installation of ISDN lines in the Highlands and Islands in the early
1990s
7. Continued investment in transport infrastructures will need to be paralleled by a willingness to
diversify, to focus on quality, and improved marketing, particularly through developing regional
appellations.
8. Rather as in First Cohesion Report ( EU Commission, 1996 ), and Fifth Periodic Report (Eu
Commission, 1994a ), noted reduced disparities between countries, but increased disparities within
countries.
9. Thus Dabinett and Richardson (1999 ), state “… EU spatial planning is being developed in a complex
institutional framework, and will be shaped by major tensions and power relations. It is important
then that we do not try to understand this emergence of an EU spatial planning framework as a purely
comprehensive rational process, or the benign convergence of national planning systems …”.

References
ALONSO, W. ( 1964 ) Location and Land Use. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.
ASHEIM, B.T. ( 1999 ) Innovation, Social Capital and Regional Clusters: and the Importance of Co-operative Interactive
Learning and Localised Knowledge in Learning Economies. Regional Studies Association International
Conference, Bilbao.
BACHTLER, J. ( Ed. ) (1996 ) Peripherality, Economic Development and EU Regional Policy, Regional and Industrial
Policy Series 17. Aberdeen: European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde.
BRYDEN, J. ( 1979 ) Core-periphery problems: the Scottish case, in D. SEERS, B. SCHAFFER and M.
KILJUNEN ( Eds ) Underdeveloped Europe: Studies in Core-Periphery Relations. Hassocks: Harvester.
BRUINSMA, F. and RIETVELD, P. (1993 ) Urban agglomerations in European infrastructure networks,
Urban Studies, 30( 6), pp. 919 – 934.
BURGESS, E. ( 1925 ) The growth of the city, The City, Chicago.
CAMBRIDGE ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS (1998 ) Regional Competitiveness Indicators. Unpublished report for
DGXVI: Cambridge.
CHATELUS, G. and ULIED, A. ( 1995 ) Final Report to the European Commission ( DGVII ) on Union Territorial
Strategies linked to the Transeuropean Transportation Networks. Paris/Barcelona ( unpublished).
CHISHOLM, M. (1962 ) Rural Settlement and Land Use. London: Hutchinson.
CHISHOLM, M. (1995 ) Britain on the Edge of Europe. London: Routledge.
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (COR ) ( 1999 ) Opinion on the European Statial Development Perspective, CdR
266/98 Ž n, Brussels.
COPUS, A.K. (1996 ) Does Peripherality Matter any More? Paper presented at the IGU Development Issues in
Marginal Regions Study Group Meeting, University of Strathclyde.
COPUS, A.K. ( 1997 ) A New Peripherality Index for European NUTS II Regions. Report for the Highlan ds and
Islands European Partnership.
COPUS, A.K. (1999 ) A New Peripherality Index for the NUTS III Regions of the European Union. Report for
DGXVI.
CONFERENCE OF PERIPHERAL AND MARITIME REGIONS ( CPMR) (1997 ) Towards a Balanced Europe: From
Peripheries to Large Integrated Maritime Units. Rennes.
 European BrieŽng 551
DABINETT, G. and RICHARDSON, T. (1999 ) The European Spatial Approach: the role of power and
knowledge in strategic planning and policy evaluation, Evaluation, 5( 2), pp 220– 237.
EU COMMISSION ( 1988) The Future of Rural Society, COM( 88) 501 Ž nal/2. Luxembourg: EC.
EU COMMISSION ( 1991 ) Europe 2000. Luxembourg: EC.
EU COMMISSION (1994a ) Competitiveness and Cohesion, Fifth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic
Situation of the Regions of the Community. Luxembourg:EC.
EU COMMISSION ( 1994b ) Europe 2000 1 . Luxembourg: EC.
EU COMMISSION ( 1996 ) First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Luxembourg: EC.
EU COMMISSION ( 1997 ) European Spatial Development Perspective, First OfŽ cial Draft. Noordwijk: EC.
EU COMMISSION ( 1998) European Spatial Development Perspective, Complete Draft. Glasgow: EC.
EU COMMISSION ( 1999a ) European Spatial Development Perspective, Final Draft. Potsdam: EC.
EU COMMISSION (1999b ) Draft Guidance for Programmes in the Period 2000 – 2006, Working Paper. Brussels:
EC.
FUJITA, M., KRUGMAN, P. and VENABLES, A. ( 1999 ) The Spatial Economy; cities, regions and inter-
national trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
GOULD, P. (1969 ) Spatial Diffusion. Washington, DC: Commission on College Geography, Association of
American Geographers.
GRANOVETTER, M. (1985 ) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American
Journal of Sociology, 91(3 ), pp. 481 – 510.
GUTTIEREZ, J. and URBANO, P. ( 1996 ) Accessibility in the European Union: the impact of the
Trans-European Road Network, Journal of Transport Geography, 4, pp. 15– 25.
HALL, P. ( 1966 ) Von Thunen ’s Isolated State. Oxford: Pergamon.
HIRSCHMAN, A. (1958 ) The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
ILBERY, B., CLARK , D., BERKELEY, N. and GOLDMAN, I. ( 1995 ) Telematics and rural development:
evidence from a survey of small businesses in the European Union, European Urban and Regional
Studies, 2(1 ), pp. 55– 68.
ISARD, W. (1956 ) Location and Space-Economy. New York: Technology Press.
KEEBLE, D., OWENS, P.L. and THOMPSON, C. (1981 ) The Inuence of Peripheral and Central Locations on the
Relative Development of Regions. Cambridge: Department of Geography, Cambridge University.
KEEBLE, D., OFFORD, J. and WALKER, S. (1988 ) Peripheral Regions in a Community of Twelve Member States.
Luxembourg: Commission of the European Community.
KRUGMAN, P. (1994 ) The Fall and Rise of Development Economics. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/
dishpan.htm
LINNEKER, B.J. and SPENCE , N.A. ( 1992) An accessibility analysis of the impact of the M25 London
orbital motorway on Britain, Regional Studies, 26, pp. 31– 47.
LUTTER, H., PÇTZ, T. and SPANGENBERG , M. (1992 ), Accessibility and Peripherality of Community Regions: The
Role of Road, Long Distance Railway and Airport Networks. Luxembourg: Report to the Commission of the
EU.
MACK , R.S. and JACOBSON, D.S. (1996 ) The impact of peripherality upon trade patterns in the European
Union, European Urban and Regional Studies, 3(4 ).
MAILLAT, D. ( 1998) Interactions between urban systems and localised productive systems: an approach
to endogenous regional development in terms of innovative milieu, European Planning Studies, 6( 2),
pp. 112– 131.
MANNION , J. ( 1996 ) Strategies for Local Development in Rural Areas—the Bottom-up Approach. Paper presented at
the European Conference on Rural Development, Cork.
MCKINNON, A.C. ( 1992 ) Manufacturing in a peripheral location: an assessment of logistical penalties,
International Journal of Logistics Management, 3( 2).
MYRDAL , G.M. (1957 ) Economic Theory and Under Developed Regions. London: Duckworth.
NAUSTDALSLID , J. (1983 ) Centre-periphery models and theories: some introductory notes, in J.C.
HANSEN , J. NAUSTDALSLID and J. SEWEL (Eds ) Centre-Periphery Theory: Theory and Practice. Sogndal
Sogn and Fjordane Regional College.
OWEN, D.W. and COOMBES, M.G. ( 1983 ) An Index of Peripherality for Local Areas in the United Kingdom.
Newcastle: CURDS, University of Newcastle.
PEET, R. ( 1972) In uences of the British market on agriculture and related economic development in
Europe, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, LVI, p. 1.
552 European BrieŽng
PIEDA ( 1984 ) Transport Costs in Peripheral Areas. Report for EU Commission, Industry Department for
Scotland and Northern Ireland Department for Economic Development.
PIEDA (1997 ) Transport Costs and the Economy of the Highlands and Islands. Report for the Scottish OfŽ ce
Development Department.
PIORE, M.J. and SABEL, C.F. (1984 ) The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
PORTER, M.E. ( 1990 ) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London/Basingstoke: Macmillan.
PUTNAM , R. ( 1993 ) Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. ( 2000 ) Discourses of mobility and polycentric development: a
contested view of European Spatial Planning, European Planning Studies, 8( 4), pp. 503 – 520.
SEERS, D. (1979 ) The periphery of Europe, in D. SEERS, B. SCHAFFER and M. KILJUNEN (Eds)
Underdeveloped Europe: Studies in Core-Periphery Relations. Hassocks: Harvester.
SPIEKERMANN, K. and WEGENER, M. (1996 ) Trans European Networks and unequal accessibility in
Europe, EUREG (European Journal of Regional Development ), 4 pp. 35– 42.
STORPER, M. ( 1995 ) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later, European Urban and Regional
Studies, 2, pp. 191 – 219.
TERLOUW, C.P. (1992 ) The Geography of the World System: External Arena, Periphery, Semiperiphery, Core.
Netherlands Geographic Studies.
TZAMARIAS , N. and COPUS, A.K. (1997 ) The Role of Local Capacity Building in Rural Development. Paper
presented at the XVII Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, Chania, Crete.
VICKERMAN, R. (1991 ) Infrastructure and Regional Development ( Introduction). London: Pion.
WALLERSTEIN, I. ( 1991 ) Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World System. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
WIGHT, J.B. ( 1983 ) From centre/periphery to territory/function: John Friedmann in Transition, in J.C.
HANSEN , J. NAUSTDALSLID and J. SEWEL (Eds ) Centre-Periphery Theory: Theory and Practice. Sogndal
Sogn and Fjordane Regional College.
WILLIAMS , R.H. ( 1996 ) European Union, Spatial Policy and Planning. London: Paul Chapman.
WILLIAMS , R.H. ( 2000 ) Constructing the European Spatial Development Perspective: consensus without
competence, policy brieŽ ng, Regional Studies, 34(9 ), pp. 190 – 198.