Opportunities for Democracy in Cross-border Regions? Lessons from the Øresund Region

Border Region

Øresund Region, Denmark, Sweden

Language(s)

Anglais

Type

Note on a scientific paper, a conference paper, etc.

Main Category

Regional Development – Sustainability

Governance – Power – Cooperation

Introduction

By using Øresund Region as a case study, this article evaluates cross-border cooperation and reveals that rather than bringing spearhead ideas of democratic organization, they tend to perpetuate the problem of citizen participation within EU.

Summary

This article aims at evaluating the democratic status and prospects of the strategic, institutional and cooperative level within CBRs, based on a case study of the Øresund Region, situated on the border between Denmark and Sweden, and complemented with secondary evidences from other CBRs. The following questions are asked:

Do the strategies promoted have a democratic scope?
Are institutions reasonably accountable, in a traditional sense, to citizen within the region?
Is the concrete cooperation inclusive of broad categories of citizens?

Content

As a starting point, this article provides a section with general background on CBRs and the Øresund Region in particular. This section is followed by three others showing results of the case study and answering the research questions in order. The final section discusses the democratic problem of CBRs as an indicator of the crisis of organized, output-oriented politics within the European Union.

DEMOCRACY AND CROSS-BORDER REGIONS

Democracy has only recently become an issue in studies on EU integration through partnerships. By its “cohesion system” Eu provides a system of governing regional integration by some basic rules for allocations of funds as well as for their steering and use. Elected local and regional authorities, as well as larger public are involved in issues of regional development. To acquire legitimacy, decisions making in cross-border institutions must be handle by accountable politician.

CROSS BORDER REGIONS AND THE ØRESUND CASE

In Northern Europe as it is the case for the Øresund Region cross-border institutions work as a supplement of existing institutions even if the Øresund committee is not a legal subject and not elected. There is no possibility to hold it, or any other authority, accountable for its politics. The project is dominated by leading public officials of the member organizations, public officials at the Øresund secretariat and a few high-rank politicians, who develop integration in a highly incremental and non-formal manner. In general, CBRs lack civil participation and leave little room for democracy.

APOLITICAL POLITICS IN THE FUNCTIONAL REGION

The strategy of the functional region is considered as apolitical because of its purely technical and instrumental aspect. Instead of a community built on public deliberation, the Øresund region is the result of management firms and its identity is about consumerism rather than nationalism or ethno-regionalism. The Øresund has been developed as a brand.

ACCOUNTABILITY PROBLEMS OF CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION

Cross-border co-operation faces many accountability problems like the lack of representative government, transparency and deliberation in elected councils as well as an emphasis on consensual decision making. Citizens are kept away from the decision-making system and, from the first draft of the Interreg programme, the Øresund secretariat is involved in many informal practices.

PARTNERSHIPS AS DEMOCRATIC POTENTIALS OR PLAYINGGROUNDS FOR REGIONAL BUREACRACY?

Citizen participation has been neglected in many CBRs. Inclusion through partnerships needs to involve every entity with an interest to participate. EU funding is a new way of financing public sector activities.

Conclusions

This study has led to a series of interesting findings:

What local or regional agencies authorities do within Europe’s cohesion policy system in term of fund use, decision-making, inclusion of partners, etc. is up to their discretion as long as they do not violate fund regulation.
EU cohesion policy aims at reducing disparities between different territories with the ultimate goal to shape a functionally integrated common market.
Most of the cross-border institutions lack legal capacities and national states remain formally in charge of financing. Members of the monitoring committees are formally elected by the national states and in charge of programme implementation.
The Øresund region suffers from the same kind of democratic deficit as the EU generally. The project is dominated by leading public officials of the member organizations, public officials at the Øresund secretariat and a few high-rank politicians, who develop integration in a highly incremental and non-formal way.
As a nonlegal and nonelected entity, the Øresund committee cannot be hold accountable for its politics. CBRs lack civic participation and leave little rooms for democracy.
Branding is an important part of cross-border cooperation. Ethno-nationalism or nationalism have been replaced by consumerism as regional identity and public deliberation by management firms.
From the lack of representative government, transparency and deliberation in elected councils as well as an emphasis on decision making, cross-border cooperation faces many accountability issues.
The Øresund case shows that EU funding is a new way of financing public sector activities. Partnership is an expansion, not of popular participation, but of the bureaucratic sector of society.

Key Messages

This article motivates everybody to look closer into what could seem without default from far. CBRs in Europe face several issues in term of democracy, accountability, strategy, etc. They are not subject to citizen participation and, sometimes, involves entities or people by informal network. Behind the noble idea of reducing disparities between nations, a system of profit has been built allowing a closed circle of people or organizations to benefits from EU funds. Region identity has been redirected towards consumerism.

Lead

School of Technology and Society, Malmo University College, Malmo, Sweden

Author of the entry

Perrine

Dethier

Links

https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701281592

Keywords