Suchergebnisse

Functional regions have earned a growing relevance in EU documents and proposed regulations for the EU financial framework for 2014-2020. In fact, the European Commission proposals for the five Funds of the Common Strategic Framework, as well as several other strategic documents, let believe that the concept of functional region may be an important tool in the design and implementation of some instruments of EU cohesion, rural development and even specific sectoral policies in the 2014-2020 financial programming period. The use of functional regions, as a policy tool, brings along a large set of challenges that test the limits of the institutional capital of the territories where they will be implemented. In this paper we will expand on the institutional constraints and capacity gaps that may emerge in the face of the use of functional regions as a policy concept and forward a set of pre-emptive guidelines towards an institutional environment that will better accommodate partnership-based functional policies. ; As regiões funcionais ganharam crescente importância nos documentos e propostas de regulamento da preparação do quadro financeiro da União Europeia para 2014-2020. De facto, as propostas da Comissão para os cinco fundos do Quadro Estratégico Comum, e outros documentos estratégicos, deixam antever que o conceito de região funcional pode ser importante no desenho e implementação de alguns instrumentos da política de coesão, desenvolvimento rural e até de algumas políticas sectoriais no período de programação financeira de 2014-2020. O uso das regiões funcionais, como instrumento de política pública, testa os limites do capital institucional dos territórios onde serão implementadas. Neste artigo iremos debater os obstáculos institucionais e lacunas de capacitação que podem emergir do uso das regiões funcionais e iremos sugerir algumas linhas de orientação para a construção de um ambiente institucional mais acolhedor de políticas públicas funcionais. ; Conselho Económico e Social, CES.

The multiple challenges of the Anthropocene set a new context for transformative social innovation towards a form of living and working based on the principles of sustainability. Community-based initiatives (CBIs), the most visible representatives of the latter, have started to appear worldwide and are increasingly perceived as a crucial actor in the socio-ecological transition towards sustainability. CBIs are receiving a growing attention from transdisciplinary academia. Yet, there remains a research blind spot on the transformative social innovation dynamics in Portugal. This paper addresses this gap by inquiring into Portugal's CBI dynamics, appearance, buildup, reach and future transitional pathways. Having traversed a rapid and significant growth over the last decade, CBIs, their practices and discourses are still marginalised in Portugal's public arenas. Therefore, this paper argues, Portuguese CBIs remain an untapped resource for socio-ecological transitions and institutional innovation in Portugal. We scrutinize why the latter falter to engage head-on with the public and political spheres and identify key contextual changes and premises that determine CBIs social innovation potential in Portugal: a) CBIs need to engage the existent institutional landscape and become politicized change actors in order to sit at key decisionmaking processes, and b) CBIs' full potential is unlikely to bloom without favourable institutional frameworks and policy environments. This paper applies a value-based lens onto social transformation frameworks and engages in a wider theoretical debate on the role of niche actors, thereby adding to the existing literature on socio-ecological transitions. Based on an actor-, politics- and governance-centered approach, we ultimately inquire into Portugal's CBI's agency and how it can bring about wider structural change in a socio-ecological transitions. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Post print version. ; Community-based initiatives (CBIs) are an embodiment and potential catalyst of societal change towards sustainability. In Portugal, they remain a largely untapped resource. This paper examines different nuances of CBIs' societal change agency by proposing an innovative inquiry framework focused on substance, processes and outcomes via an actor, politics and governance-centered approach. Through an inward- versus outward-looking dialectical reflection on CBIs' politicization dynamics, we analyze Portugal's CBI landscape drawing upon previous research, databases and semi-structured interviews. We conclude that a politicization gap and the absence of both socio-political visibility and of favorable institutional and policy frameworks are crucial contextual premises hindering CBIs' change agency. Notwithstanding, CBI's transformative potential is undeniable. We find them perfectly positioned to mediate co-shaping processes between social innovators and incumbent institutions, contesting the latter's unsustainable development logic. If CBIs and governments acknowledge the complementarity of their scope of societal change agency, CBIs' transformational time may have arrived. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

As the 21st century settles in, an array of tightly intertwined migratory, social, economic, financial, political, and ecological unrest has brought to the fore the restrictive adaptability of contemporary political arenas, institutions, development models, and policy instruments, inviting us to interpret and to address the causes underlying these upheavals (Ferrão 2016; Kolb 2010; Castles 2004; Smith and Wiest 2012) and attempt to mitigate their negative impacts (Akyüz 2014). Beyond that looms an unpredictable regime of climate change that may permanently undermine the Planet's habitability (O'Brien 2014). We appear to have reached what is today conceptually identified as the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002; Barry and Maslin 2016; Steffen et al. 2011), interpreted as Earth's newest epoch in which humankind has turned into a collective geochemical force profoundly altering the planet's natural cycles (Biermann et al. 2015). Rickards (2015) and Ferrão (2017) argue that the Anthropocene provides an opportunity, however, not only to produce new thinking, but also to bring about new actions in the field of sustainability. In line with the latter, a rising call for structural change that catalyzes societal transformations toward sustainability has appeared concurrently with – or seemingly as a result of – the predominant neo-liberal capitalist, productivityand growth-led hegemonic worldview (McMichael 2010). Among the reasons underlying this call are that continued and distributed economic growth can no longer be taken for granted (Krugman 2014), that growth endangers socio-ecological sustainability, and that there exists increasing awareness and wariness of its limits (Rydin 2013; Eastin et al. 2011). Alarmingly, the mainstream understanding of sustainability underpinning contemporary development politics and policies is still to openly embrace and exploit the discussion and experimentation of non-growth-dependent development solutions (Bina 2013; Martinez Alier 2009). ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Over the last decade, soft planning has become an increasingly visible concept in planning literature. Since the term soft spaces was firstly coined, soft planning has been used to describe a growing number of practices that occur at the margins of statutory planning systems. However, as soft planning-related literature proliferates, so does the diversity of approaches and planning practices it encompasses. Such diversity fuels long-standing questions about what can or cannot be considered as soft planning as well as about its usefulness for today's planning theory and practice. To shed light on this still unclear conceptual outline, this article divides the soft planning debate into five contextual components (ethos; governance; politics; policies; spaces; and scale) while paying particular attention to the relationship between soft planning and strategic spatial planning. The aim is to foreground soft planning as a concept, and add clarity and awareness on the challenges, the risks and opportunities, planning currently faces.

Over the last decade, soft planning has become an increasingly visible concept in planning literature. Since the term soft spaces was firstly coined, soft planning has been used to describe a growing number of practices that occur at the margins of statutory planning systems. However, as soft planning-related literature proliferates, so does the diversity of approaches and planning practices it encompasses. Such diversity fuels long-standing questions about what can or cannot be considered as soft planning as well as about its usefulness for today's planning theory and practice. To shed light on this still unclear conceptual outline, this article divides the soft planning debate into five contextual components (ethos; governance; politics; policies; spaces; and scale) while paying particular attention to the relationship between soft planning and strategic spatial planning. The aim is to foreground soft planning as a concept, and add clarity and awareness on the challenges, the risks and opportunities, planning currently faces. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion