Regional policy and regionalisation in the Northern peripheries - the case of Troms county
Paper to be presented at the Nordic Local Government Research Conference in Gothenburg, 23- 24 November 2007.
Lisa Hörnström
Department of Political Science Umeå University
S-901 87 Umeå lisa.hornstrom@pol.umu.se
Work in progress. Please do not quote.
1 Introduction
Territorial division plays a crucial role in the shaping of the modern nation-state. In some states, the nation-state has been formed when provinces or regions have found it necessary to co- operate, e.g. Italy and Germany. The nation-state guarantees the creation of similar conditions in different parts of its territory. In the Nordic countries, the municipalities are the important sub- national level and regions (administrative, functional and cultural regions, see further down) have played a minor role (Keating 1998, Flora et al. 1999). The ideas of New Regionalism and Europe of the regions have spread to the Northern peripheries through the general globalisation process and also due to the Finnish and Swedish memberships in the EU. EU membership and especially the Structural Funds have an impact on the Northern peripheral regions both in terms of resources for project and when it comes to the formation of and change in institutions where regional policy is shaped.
“…there has been a change of thinking about regional development policy. The old paradigm, which guided policy between the 1950s and the 1980s, was based on the state and its command of macroeconomic policy and an array of interventionist instruments.” (Keating 1998, p.140)
The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze how regional actors in North Norway handle new ways of thinking regional policy. Do regional actors in the Northern peripheries use the ideas put forward in New Regionalism in their arguments of how to handle the challenges or do they rather argue for the redistributive state-dependent regional policy to be preserved? What differences are there between different regional actors? How can the differences be understood?
This paper is the first draft of an empirical chapter in my dissertation that consists in a comparative study of North Norway, North Sweden and North Finland. The study is to be considered in a wider context of growing importance of regional (and local) government and the changing role of the nation state in Western Europe. Scholars have described this changing role as a matter of public policies forming in complex negotiating ad hoc networks rather than in hierarchal processes (e.g. Le Galès 2003).
1.1 New Regionalism
Since the mid-1980s new ways of thinking and doing regional policy has emerged where the focus is on the region as an independent actor. These new ideas are summarized in the concept of New Regionalism. The concept of New Regionalism as well as the concept ‘Europe of the regions’ have been frequently used by scholars to illustrate the increased attention to regions.
New Regionalism is claimed to be a ‘chaotic concept’ (Harrison 2006) but is still crucial to the debate on regions both in political, economic and cultural terms. New Regionalism can be defined as a paradigm of thinking and doing regional policy (e.g. Keating 1998, Süssner 2006;
Hudson 2005). This paradigm contains a description of reality, many empirical studies on economic, political and cultural aspects of regionalism show that the importance of regions is
increasing (Gren, 1999; Keating, 2001) but it also contains a prescriptive element, according to which the region is considered the most appropriate territorial unit for planning and implementation of policies. According to the new regionalist perspective regions are more than just bricks in a larger political project, i.e. the nation-states. Regions can and should take responsibility for their own development and be less dependent on state incentives. New Regionalism has in many ways conquered the minds of both politicians and scholars of territorial politics (Keating, 1998; Gren, 1999; Baldersheim, 2000; Keating, 2003, Lovering 1999). New Regionalism is a perspective that touches upon aspects of economy, geography and political science likewise. In this study it is of course considered as a tool for studying political processes.
As a descriptive perspective on regions, new regionalism describes a process of regional actors positioning the region within the nation-state and making claims of increased influence on policy- making. New Regionalism as a prescriptive view encourages such a development. However, New Regionalism is also about regionalisation because the perspective also includes the changing role of the region as a consequence of state reforms.
As every concept labelled “new”, New Regionalism is to be considered in contrast to something
“old”. In Old Regionalism the focus is on redistributive top-down measures to secure equal conditions in all parts of the country. Initiatives are also taken from below but these are mainly expression of historic regionalism and a will to defend certain regional identities. In New Regionalism, regionalisation and regionalism are discussed in economic terms; regions are considered as the motors of economy. In Old Regionalism regions were considered as complementary units in state economy whereas in New Regionalism regions are competing (Keating 1998, p. 72f). Old Regionalism can be described by the following citation:
“(…)a certain cynicism involved whereby a national authority hand out general economic support and certain political autonomy but retains the actual reins of power and transfers only minor or controversial parts of it to the regions.”(Gren 1999, p.33f).
Thus, even though the main aim of regional policy were to create equal conditions in all parts of a country the state control and regulation were strong. In New Regionalism, it is the other way around; the influence of the region on regional policy tends to increase and at the same time the region is more left “on its own”.
However, most regions in the European Union are influenced by this ideal and thus try to adopt the ideas of New Regionalism to their own conditions. At the same time, making regions more autonomous by transferring functions and decision-making to the regions can be a way of handling challenges to these regions. It can be a way of making regional development policy better adapted to specific regional conditions in order to face economic and demographic changes in a more efficient way. One difficult task is to confirm whether New Regionalism is really part of the challenges or actually part of the response to these challenges. New Regionalism is part of the challenges in the sense that it imposes a new ideal on political actors to follow. As New Regionalism has developed through studies of favoured centre regions (e.g. Lovering 1999, Süssner 2006) this new ideal or model for regional policy may be a more suitable solution for some regions than others. New regionalism is “political entrepreneurialism and identity-led regional
mobilization in a context of strong economic growth” (Le Galès, 2003, p.389). The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze if and how the ideas of New Regionalism are applied in peripheral regions.
Regional policy in these three countries is characterized by redistribution by means of centralized incentives. This regional policy tradition is likely to make constraints to how the ideas of New Regionalism are applied.
2 Outlining the empirical study
The empirical focus of this paper is on the county of Troms in North Norway. Regional elites are limited to leaders of public and private institutions within the county of Troms. The general definition of North Norway includes the counties of Finnmark and Nordland but at the moment regional elites from these two counties are not included in the study. The purpose of the thesis is not to compare regions within Norway but to compare peripheral regions in Norway, Finland and Sweden and can therefore be motivated to limit the study to one region in each country.
However, there are of course problems with such a limitation. One of the key characteristics of New Regionalism is that the concept of region is multi-faceted and that it goes beyond the administrative region. Therefore it is by definition problematic to limit the study to an administrative region as is being done here. The city of Tromsø and the surrounding region can be considered as a centre in North Norway and therefore it is being used as a point of departure in this study.
2.1 Regional actors – regional elites
The overall question to be answered in this paper is how regional actors handle new ways of thinking regional policy. Regional actors can be many different institutions and organisations but in this study regional actors are limited to ‘regional elites’. First, regional elites as opposed to national (and local) elites even though it is difficult to make a strict difference between local, regional and state actors. The county governor is the state representative in the regions and has a mandate to coordinate and survey the implementation of national policies on regional and local level. Local politicians are of course primarily defenders of local interests but take part on a regional arena as well. Second, regional elites as opposed to regional actors in general. Regional elites are defined as leaders of public institutions but also leaders of business organisations that take an active part in the formation of regional development policy. Other studies have been made of other organised interests and their influence (or lack of influence?) on regional policy (e.g. Hudson 2005, Hudson and Rönnblom, 2007).
Regional elites are in this study defined as the leaders of the county council, municipalities, the county governor and private sector organisations.
2.2 Material
The empirical material in this paper consists of semi-structured qualitative interviews with politicians and civil servants in Troms county (see appendix 1). The interviews were performed during two weeks in August 2007. The questionnaire (see appendix 2) contains a limited number of questions as the purpose was to let the interviewees express themselves freely and let their understanding of the processes lead the conversation.
Some written documents are also included in the study but this part will be completed further.
2.3 Regional redistribution policy vs. regional development policy
Even though actors in the Northern peripheries in many perspectives have adopted the “new”
regional development policy, the “old” regional redistribution policy still persists. Development and redistribution can be considered as two ideal types for the form and content of regional policy. The aim of regional redistribution policy is to create equal conditions in all parts of a country. In regional development policy the aim is to make regions grow on its own terms and by its own means. The characteristics of the two concepts has in this paper been divided into three categories: the role of the region, regional identity and strategies.
The role of the region
In regional redistribution policy the region plays a minor role than in regional development policy and regions are important only as administrative units. The key characteristic of regional development policy is that the region is an important unit in the political system and also as a functional and cultural unit. The concept of regions refers to more than the administrative division of a country of which we normally think when regions are mentioned. A region can have other geographical boundaries than the politico-administrative region. It can cover a group of municipalities within an administrative region or a group of counties in one part of a country. A region can also be trans-national as it covers counties in different countries. There are regions based on other principles than politico-administrative ones, a region can be defined by a common culture and/or language. A region can also be functional, i.e. defined by the fact that there are close contacts between branches and companies within an area and that people commute to work and study within a certain area.
The region is considered a more appropriate unit for the administration of certain policy areas such as health care, education and collective transports than the local or central level.
Regionalisation implies that functions are transferred from state and local level to regional level.
The region as a functional unit (which not necessarily follows the administrative borders) is also emphasized in New Regionalism. Labour-market regions are examples of functional regions.
Labour-market regions are enlarged by improving communications between different parts of the region.
The question is what importance regional elites think that regions in general have as political- administrative, functional and cultural units. Do regional actors put forward other regions than the administrative one as important and if so, why?
In traditional regional policy regions have been objects to policy. Redistribution of resources through financial state incentives and relocation of jobs from the centre to peripheral regions have characterized regional policy in the Nordic countries. In the new regionalist paradigm the region is seen as subject to policy and regional actors are encouraged to find and use the characteristics of their regions in order to develop instead of relying on measures taken from the state (e.g. Keating 1998; Süssner 2006).
Regional identity
One key characteristic of the New Regionalist paradigm is the importance of regional identity. It can be historic regional identity based on culture and often on language that has been through a revival during the last decades. This is true for regions like Spanish region Catalonia and British region Wales. The historic identity is used by regional actors to create an image of a strong region. In regions with a weaker or no such distinct identity regional actors might try to create one to reinforce the image of an economically strong region. In regional redistribution policy regional identity is not linked to regional development in the same way. Regional identity is more a matter of cultural features and “folklorism”. In regional development policy regional identity is seen as a tool for marketing the region and promoting economic growth. Regional actors try to build a label to make the region stronger both in political and economic sense.
Strategies for regional development
Which are the main strategies for regional development in the region? To what extent should regions be responsible for their own development? To what extent should state incentives and redistribution be the tools for promoting regional development?
‘Redistribution’ characterizes the regional policy of unitary welfare states. Regional redistribution policy is focusing on generalized “state-aid-packages” aiming at smoothing out economic differences in the country. Redistribution policy is built on a top-down-approach on regional planning; incentives and support are planned and administrated by central institutions (e.g. Gren 1999). The policy process within redistribution policy is characterized by ‘government’, policies are made within a rather strict hierarchy between different institutions on national, regional and local level. According to regional development policy regions are responsible for their own development and state incentives therefore aim at creating conditions for regions to find their own means to (survive and) develop. In development policy there is an aim to coordinate different policy areas with importance to regional development. Regional development policy is also characterized by networking between both public and private actors. Policies are formed within a complex interaction between different levels, that is often summarized in the concept
‘multi-level governance’ (e.g. Hooghe and Marks 2001, Jerneck and Gidlund 2001,). The regional
partnerships is a strive towards integration of different actors in the process of forming regional policy. The aim was to give actors on regional level increased influence on policy-making but research on regional partnerships in Sweden has shown that this is only a new way for the state to control the process (Hudson 2005).
According to New Regionalism, regional strategies are outward-looking in the sense that cross- border and trans-national co-operation are encouraged. Different forms of co-operation between regions in different countries have been increasingly encouraged during the last decade. External contacts of a country are established and run by the government. Through the EU membership direct contacts between regions and municipalities in different countries are encouraged. National and regional strategies for regional policy are “Europeanized” in the sense that they are led by policy strategies taken on European level.
3 Regional policy and regionalisation in Norway – a background
There are many common features of regional policy in Sweden and Norway but the most important difference is that the periphery has been given even more priority in the Norwegian context compared to Sweden. Regional policy is a national incentive to create equal conditions for population growth and development in economic development in all parts of the country.
District policy is an important complement to the more general regional policy and is focused on parts of the country that need special attention to secure welfare services and promote economic growth (Stortingsmelding nr.34, 2000/2001).
In the aftermath of the Second World War the production growth in economic development in Norway was weak as a result of important destruction of infrastructure and a low import level.
Immigration from rural areas to the cities led to increasing differences between regions and district policy was initiated to help regions that were lagging behind. This also added a territorial dimension to economic policy. To solve regional problems it became necessary with more general resources to regions and not only resources that came through each sector area. Problems were particularly severe in North Norway and in the 1950s the central government initiated a programme for this part of the country (Hersoug 1988, p.179). North Norway was lagging behind when other parts of the country went through a modernisation process. In the early 1950s 50% of the workforce in North Norway still worked in traditional branches like agriculture and fishing. Industrialisation was the key word in the debate on how to put North Norway on the same level as the rest of the country (Hersoug 1988, p.179).
District policy aiming at helping regions and communities that are lagging has been an important part of regional policy in Norway. The centre-periphery cleavage still plays a vivid role in the debate on regional and district policy and also in the regionalisation debate. Baldersheim and Fimreite (2005) talk about North Norway as the ‘triumphant periphery’. There are many signs of the strong position of the periphery in Norway. The electoral system favours the peripheral
regions as they have more mandates in proportion to their population compared to centre regions.
3.1 Regional organisation
The Norwegian way of organizing regional development issues can be situated between the Swedish model where state level authorities are in charge of regional policy and decisions are implemented on regional level and the Danish model where the regional level is considered the important and active development actor (Gjertsen 2002, p.205).
The responsibility for regional policy is divided between state and regional level. On regional level, there are 19 county councils, fylkeskommuner. Since 1975 the county councils have been directly elected institutions with taxation rights. Before 1975 the county council was a part of the county governor’s office. The county councils are responsible for dental care, upper secondary schools, culture institutions and regional development. In 2002 specialized health care was transferred from the county councils to the state. This marked an important change in the division of responsibilities between different levels in the public welfare system. The role of the county councils changed from being important welfare service producers to have a more distinct regional development role. County councils are responsible for the regional development programs (RUP).
The state representative on regional level, the county governor, fylkesmannen, is responsible for the implementation of national policies in each county. The county governor is the coordinator of incentives and activities in emergency planning and crisis management, environment protection, social affairs etc. The county governor supervises and controls the implementation of national policies on municipal level. The county governor’s office plays a minor role in implementation of regional policy than does the state representative on regional level, the county administration board in Sweden.
On national level the Ministry of Local government and Regional Development has the main responsibility for regional policy issues. The Ministry is also responsible for the coordination of different policy areas with regional aims such as labour market, economic development, fishery, agriculture, education and research. Innovasjon Norge and SIVA are important actors on regional level. SIVA, the Industrial Development Corporation of Norway is owned by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and was funded in 1968. SIVA aims at supporting regional and local industrial centres by making investments in infrastructure and competence and by establishing business incubators. Innovasjon Norge was funded in 2004 as an amalgamation of the Norwegian Tourist Board, the Norwegian Trade Council, the Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (SND) and the Government Consultative Office for Inventors (SVO). The aim of Innovasjon Norge is to support innovation and the establishment of new enterprises. It equally aims at promoting Norway as a tourist destination.
3.2 The regionalisation debate
In their declaration on co-operation (Soria Moria-erklæringen) the current government (that consists of the Labour Party, the Left-wing Party and the Centre Party) presented a reform proposal on a new regional structure. This reform aims at transferring regional development issues to the regional level. Some of the county councils are too small to handle these assignments and therefore larger regions will be necessary. New regional structure will be implemented in the beginning of 2010. The Right-Wing party and The Progress Party want to abolish the county councils and replace it with a two-level system with larger municipalities. The regionalisation debate in Norway can be considered as a reflection of the pan-European regionalisation debate and a part of the on-going reform ambitions in all the Nordic countries (e.g. Sandberg 2004.). However, Baldersheim and Fimreite (2005) argue for a scenario where Norway goes towards less regionalisation in opposition to the general regionalisation process in West European countries.
Many municipalities in Norway have important difficulties to provide welfare services for their citizens due to a decreasing population. The question of amalgamation of municipalities has been on the agenda for several decades. However, there has been reluctance towards reducing the number of municipalities. In the Soria Moria-erklæringen the government states that the current three-level system should be preserved and that amalgamation of municipalities should be voluntary.
The Norwegian Association of Local Authorities (Kommunenes Sentralforbund – KS) has played an important role in the regionalisation debate. In 2004 KS published a report on a new regional structure (KOU 2004:1) where a system with seven regions is put forward. North Norway should form one single region perhaps with an adjustment of the southern border. The new regions should be based on three principles: size, functionality and identity. ‘Size’ implies that regions should be large enough to have fiscal capacity to provide services; ‘functionality’
refers to the new regions corresponding to economic areas and finally, ‘identity’ refers to drawing the new borders so that it takes the sense of belonging to a certain territory into account. In the White Paper on regional reform (Stortingsmelding nr.12, 2006-2007) these three principles are put forward as the point of departure of a new regional structure.
4 The county of Troms
In the empirical part of the paper, a brief overview of the county of Troms and its characteristics will be made before describing and analyzing the views of regional elites on regional policy and regionalisation
Troms is the second northernmost county in Norway. The county has 153.000 inhabitants and the population density is 5,9 inhabitants/km². The population is concentrated to Tromsø municipality with 65 000 inhabitants, Harstad municipality with 23 000 inhabitants and Lenvik
municipality with 11 000 inhabitants. The migration from the smaller municipalities to the larger ones in Troms is important. This implies a decreasing tax base and difficulties for the smaller municipalities to secure welfare services. It is also a problem to enterprises that have difficulties to recruit personnel with the right competence.
As almost half the population in Troms lives on islands transport by boat is important and often more time efficient than land transport.
Fishing is the traditional industry that still is of crucial importance to Troms county. More efficient catching methods have however reduced the number of fishermen. As in other peripheral regions in Finland and Sweden the dependence on public sector employment is high in Troms. The University of Tromsø, the University hospital and the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromsø are important employers.
4.1 Regional organisation in Troms county
When the responsibility for the hospitals was transferred from the counties to the state this gave the county council a role more focused on regional development issues. But as the most welfare component that concerns all citizens has been removed this has also made the county council more invisible.
The county council in Troms is organized in sector areas. This organisation structure implies a more distinct political steering and hence better accountability. The new organisation is based on political considerations rather then on an understanding of which policy areas that are linked to each other. However, it becomes more difficult to coordinate the different policy areas and therefore to act over the sectors. Coordination is a keyword in regional policy and this system could make coordination more difficult.
The role of the state representative on regional level, the county governor has also changed. State functions that used to be separate institutions are now parts of the county governor organisation.
Agricultural issues and control of primary and secondary school and health care used to be handled by separate organisations.
Regional Development Program
When the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development transferred the responsibility of regional development resources to the county councils this was an important step towards more responsibility to the regions. The county council is responsible for the Regional Development Program (RUP), where it is stated which development areas should be prioritized in the region. The resources are then distributed on the basis of the program. The central government imposed the work with RUP on the county councils as part of the new regional development strategy. The idea of partnership where both private and public regional interests will work jointly to set up the RUP came from central level. Has this lead to an increased
regional influence on regional policy? The county councils must also have the responsibility for distribution of resources and not only the “permission to talk”. The problem is that the central institutions are not willing to transfer more of their responsibility over the resources to regional level. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development have transferred resources whereas other Ministries such as the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Even though the county council is responsible for the planning through RUP there is still a strong central control.
Differentiated employment tax
The system of differentiated employment tax is one of the most important examples of the redistribution ambition and an important part of the district policy. In 2003, the central government had to limit the system because of the EES agreement. However, in 2007, the system was reinstalled as a result of NHO Troms and other regional actors using their direct links to the EU system. Today, the county of Finnmark and the northernmost municipalities of Troms county has 0% employment tax and the rest of Troms county and Nordland county has 5,1%.
Only in the cities of Tromsø and Bodø the tax level has been raised to 7,9% which is a higher level than before 2003.1 To compensate for the change in reduction level of the employment tax there are 170 millions crowns destined to Tromsø.
External changes
The most important external challenges are internationalisation and demographical change. The region is more affected by what happens in other parts of the world and on a global arena.
Competition from other countries has escalated and the enterprises in North Norway have to work on a more globalised arena. People move from the districts to the larger cities and 10 of 25 municipalities in Troms have today less then 2000 inhabitants. This imposes a difficult challenge to the municipalities as the tax incomes are reduced but at the same time the demands of welfare service persist.
Internationalisation has also made actors in North Norway more aware of what contribution, especially in terms of natural resources, the region can make to the rest of the world. The tourism sectors in North Norway also has an increasing potential as people tend to be more interested in the region as a safe and calm place to visit.
The central government has taken an initiative to promote development in the Northern areas:
the Strategy of the High North (“nordområdesstrategin”). The primary aim of the initiative is to focus on natural resources in the Barents Sea in order to compete internationally. The northernmost regions in Norway are of course in the centre of attention of this initiative but they must also act themselves to profit from the initiative. The Strategy of the High North is a strong
1 Employment tax is also reduced in parts of the following counties: Nord-Trondelag, Sør-Trondelag, More og Romsdal, Sogn og Fjordane, Hordaland, Rogaland, Aust-Agder, Hedmark, Telemark, Buskerud and Oppland, from 5,1% to 10,6%. In the rest of Norway the employment tax is 14,1%.
statement from the government but as there is no particular planned expenditure in the Estimates for this initiative it becomes more symbolic than pragmatic. The natural gaz field Snøhvit outside Hammerfest in Finnmark is the first gaz field to be built in the Barents Sea and will have a great importance to regional development in North Norway.
4.2 The role of the region
In the regionalisation debate in Norway, the overarching question is about creating larger directly elected regions with more responsibilities to replace the existing counties. From the regional point of view, the creation of a larger region is functional in two ways. Firstly, Northern Norway is a labour-market region and thus, it is logical that the administrative region have the same geographical boundaries as the labour-market. NHO puts forward the Barents region including Northern Norway, Northern Sweden, Northern Finland and North-West Russia as a trans- national labour-market region. Secondly, the region must be large enough to be able to provide a high quality on health care and higher education, it is necessary with a critical mass of half a million inhabitants in the new region. If more responsibility is going to be transferred to the regional level this takes a larger region with more people.
From a private sector perspective geographical limitations per se are of less (or no) importance.
What is interesting to enterprises is the functionality of a particular region. What can be the advantages for the private sector with new geographical boundaries and a stronger role of the region? The concept of region implies a territory larger than a city or a local community. ‘Region’
is a dynamic concept; the region we are talking about depends on what functions it has/should have. Northern Norway can be considered a functional region; as a resource region or a tourism region. The creation of a larger region should be lead by economic development policy.
The advantage with a stronger role of the regional level in the political system is that the coordination of development incentives in the region will be much better and the incentives therefore more efficient (Fylkesmelding nr.1/2005). On regional level, it is possible to have an overview over the different sectors and co-ordinate incentives between these sectors. Policies should be formed and adjusted to the conditions in each region. Actors in the region know their region best, they know which are the needs and can prioritize between different parts of the region. If the regional level gets more responsibilities this reduces the risk of decisions made only based on local interests. There are examples where national politicians have made decisions of investments in infrastructure that has been an advantage for their own small community. If the regional level is responsible for prioritizing between different infrastructure projects, this can be avoided. To be able to act vis-à-vis the national level it is indispensable that the region is larger.
Small regions (as small as today or only slightly larger) will imply competition between the regions in North Norway and thus it would be more difficult to influence national decision-making. The central administration does not have enough knowledge about regional conditions. The local (or municipal) level is too small to handle certain issues. Local politicians are elected to consider local interests and will of course defend those interests.
Responsibility over a number of policy areas and thus resources should be transferred from the state to the region. The subsidiarity principle should be leading; decisions are taken as close as possible to those who are concerned by them. Legitimacy and accountability will be secured as the region should have a directly elected assembly. In addition, the region will have a stronger mandate to influence national decision-making. The dialogue and co-operation between the region and state sector authorities can be more formalized and thus more efficient. The problems that today are due to the fact the Northern Norway is divided into three counties will be overrun with a new larger region.
The negative consequences with a model with larger regions are that there will be costs due to the administrative changes that will have to be made, there will be larger geographical distances within the region and the democratic model of course won’t eliminate the differences in opinion within the region (perhaps even the contrary?).
The important region is Northern Norway and to a smaller extent the three counties Finnmark, Troms and Nordland. There is also an understanding of different levels of region, from trans- national regions like the Barents region to the micro-regions within Troms county. The micro- regions referred to are the four inter-municipal co-operations in Troms county, the ‘region councils’. The municipalities co-ordinate health care services, libraries, fire brigade etc. The region councils do not have any decision-making power; all initiatives are the result of consensus between the municipalities.
4.3 Regional identity
In Troms, the regional identity is about defining North Norway against the centre, Oslo. In the regionalisation debate regional elites in Nordland and Finnmark have claimed a distinct regional identity and they are reluctant to a larger region in North Norway. Finnmark claims having a distinct regional identity based on both natural resources and culture. In Nordland, there is the same tendency based on Nordland being a region with a strong industrial sector. Troms County has tried to find a profile as the ‘competence county’ with the University of Tromsø, Tromsø University College and the Norwegian Polar Institute. Troms has perhaps the weakest profile and therefore regional actors in Troms are more eager to amalgamate counties.
The debate on regional identities and the creation of a larger region was also held in the daily regional newspaper Nordlys in Tromsø. The debate started when Kjell-Arne Røvik, professor in political science at Tromsø University claimed that ‘elites’ in Nordland county tried to impose an identity in Nordland in order to preserve the county. This statement was fiercely criticised by the editor of Nordlys, Ivan Kristoffersson (Nordlys, 2007-08-09) and the vice chairman of the county council in Finnmark, Runar Sjåstad (Nordlys, 2007-08-10). Røvik states that the county council elites, i.e. county politicians and civil servants tend to be the strongest defender of the current system. In the regionalisation debate, they try to find means of defending the county council and in Nordland county, one of these is to try to impose a regional identity on the citizens in Nordland. Røvik means that there is that there is not such an identity and makes reference to the
southern part of Troms county where the county border to Nordland is seen only as an obstacle (Nordlys, 2007-08-03). Sjåstad argues that Finnmark should be preserved as an administrative region. He claims that power will be concentrated to Tromsø but the elites in Tromsø will not be able to see and handle all the diversities of an enlarged region (Nordlys, 2007-08-10).
Regional identity is not primarily linked to the county but to the larger region, i.e. North Norway.
The more important territorial identity is however linked to the local community, not necessarily the municipality but to the smaller community. One example is the island of Senja that is divided into four municipalities but where it seems that people are more attached to the island as a whole.
Regional identity has an importance when you are outside the region. It is a wish to define oneself towards someone or something else.
Does regional identity matter? Clearly it is used as an argument in the regionalisation debate.
County elites in Finnmark and Nordland argue that there are distinct regional identities in their counties and that they therefore should be preserved as administrative regions. The opponents of a larger region in North Norway mean that this will imply a concentration of power to Tromsø.
It is of course a facilitator to the creation of a larger region that both elites and citizens identify themselves with the region. To the private sector, functionality is however the lead word. In the political debate, there is also a strive to focus on what is most functional even though in reality, the debate is very much about where to locate the regional capital and thus the power.
4.4 Strategies for regional development – empowering the region
‘Regional development’ is a rather new concept; it was introduced when the county council became more of a development actor than a welfare service provider. Regional development is about creating good conditions for economic development and for people to settle down in the region. A development built on own identity and incentives. It is a mix of concerns within different sectors; economic development, population growth, culture, infrastructure, education, in order to create good living conditions for people and conditions for enterprises to establish and grow.
There have been some important changes in the role of the region and the making of regional policy described above. The county council has moved in a direction towards being a development actor rather than a welfare service provider. This has been a pronounced ambition both from the central government and the county councils. Changes in demographic structure and the increasing international competition that enterprises in North Norway are exposed to imply challenges as well as opportunities for the region. But what strategies do regional elites want to use to handle the challenges and to take advantage of the opportunities? How should the responsibilities for regional development policies be divided between state, regional and local level according to regional elites?
Currently, different central institutions admit resources to incentives in the region; the Ministry of Education to universities and other institutions of higher education; the Ministry of Trade and
Industry to Innovasjon Norge, the Ministry of Culture to cultural institutions etc. There is an ambition of the central government to make institutions on regional level co-operate to a larger extent. As has been shown earlier in this paper regional elites see the regional level as a co- ordinator because it is actors within the region that best know the region and what priorities that should be done. But to make this possible, to really “empower” the region, responsibilities and resources have to be transferred from central to the new regions. Central institutions, ministries etc. must be prepared to transfer power to the regional level. The new regions must have a real capacity to act, otherwise it will just be a change of names. The new regions should have full control over Innovasjon Norge and SIVA. The regions should have a better control and influence of higher education either by transferring the ownership of the universities to the regions or that the regions could buy education services from the universities. The regions should be responsible for running the culture institutions. Finally, the regions should get an increased control over the road system. These demands mark a strong will from regional level to have control over the resources and to take responsibility for their own development.
It is important that the new regions can control the financing of both welfare services and regional development projects. The system of financing on regional level should be well co- ordinated and as a result of negotiations between central and regional level. This will give the regional level a real influence on the financing of its own activities. It is important to keep a system of income equalization to compensate for the weak (and weakening) tax base in North Norway. Economic resources for regional development should be destined to the regions and not as the case is today to the state representative on regional level.
The region should also be a more important actor when it comes to international relations. A larger region in North Norway should have an increased influence on foreign policy not least through the Barents region. This would be against the principle of state control over foreign policy. Formation of the Strategy of the High North should be the result of a dialogue between national and regional level in order to take advantage of experiences that actors in Northern Norway (Fylkesmelding nr.1/2005, p.49).
The county governor plays a minor role in economic development policy (and thus to regional development) but has an indirect impact as s/he administrates resources to agriculture and works as a mediator between different interests on regional level. But does the minor role of the county governor necessarily imply that the state steering of regional policy is weaker? Other state institutions, e.g. SIVA, Innovasjon Norge are to a large extent responsible for the implementation of regional policy.
5 Concluding remarks
Regional actors in Troms county are in favour of a stronger role of the region in the political system. The regions should have a stronger control over resources and decision-making to be able to steer the development in the region. Regional actors have a better understanding than central institutions on what priorities should be made between different sectors and different parts of the region. Strengthening of the region can of course not be realized if central institutions are not willing to transfer responsibility and resources to regional level. NHO and the Chamber of commerce in Troms are in favour of more responsibility to larger regions but at the same time it is of course in their interest that the politicians should intervene less than they do today. Policy-makers should create good opportunities and possibilities for the enterprises but they should not steer the process. Economic development policy must not be used as a tool to secure employment and growth in smaller communities.
The question of regional identity and what importance it has to the regionalisation process is complex. The actors in Troms county claim that people in general feel more attached to the local community and to North Norway as a region than to the county and that is an argument for the creation of a larger region in North Norway. County council leaders in Finnmark and Nordland have however expressed another view on regional identity claiming that there is a distinct regional identity in their counties. Regional actors in Troms being more in favour of a larger region can perhaps also be explained by the fact that Troms county is located in the middle of the potential region. It is clear that the question of regional identity has an importance in the regionalisation process but it might be used only as a tool for the county council leaders to defend the position of their county.
Regional actors in Troms tend to see beyond North Norway underlining that the trans-national Barents region is of crucial importance to regional development in their part of the country.
6 References
Baldersheim, Harald and Fimreite, Anne Lise (2005), “Norwegian Centre-Periphery Relations in Flux: Abolition or Reconstruction of Regional Governance?” West European Politics, 28(4), p.764-780.
Gjertsen, Arild (2002), “The Norwegian Cases. Partnerships Out of Step? The Regional Level under Pressure” in Östhol, Anders and Svensson, Bo, Partnerships Responses – Regional Governance in the Nordic states, Nordregio R2002:6.
Fylkestingsmelding nr.1/2005, Grep om egen utvikling.
Fylkesmelding nr.2/2006, Felleskap og muligheter i nord! Nordområdemeldingen.
Hersoug, Bjørn (1988) “Mellom politiske idealer og økonomiske realiteter – norsk distrikts- og regionalpolitikk i perioden 1945-85.” i NordREFO om regionalpolitiken som politikområde.
Hooghe, Liesbet and Marks, Gary (2001), Multi-level governance and European Integration, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hudson, Christine (2005), ”Regional Development Partnerships in Sweden: Putting the Government Back in Governance?” Regional and Federal Studies, 15(3), p. 311-327.
Hudson, Christine and Rönnblom, Malin (2007), ”Regional Development Policies and the Constructions of Gender Equality: The Swedish Case”. European Journal of Political Research.
46, p.47-68.
Jerneck, Magnus och Gidlund, Janerik (2001), Komplex flernivådemokrati – Regional lobbying i Bryssel, Malmö: Liber Ekonomi.
Keating, Michael (1998), The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Keating, Michael (2001), “Rethinking the region – Culture, Institutions and Economic Development in Catalonia and Galicia.” European Urban and Regional Studies, 8(3): 217-234.
Keating, Michael, Loughlin, John and Deschouwer Kris (2003), Culture, Institutions and Economic Development. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
KOU 2004:1, Sterke regioner – forslag til ny regioninndelning av Norge, Rapport til Kommunenes Sentralforbund. Tor Selstad.
Le Galès, Patrick, (2003) “The Changing European State: Pressures from Within” in Hayward Jack, and Menon, Anand, Governing Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lovering, John (1999), "Theory Led by Policy: The Inadequacies of the "New Regionalism”
(Illustrated from the Case of Wales)." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2): 379-395.
Nordlys, 2007-08-03 (Kjell-Arne Røvik), ”Fylkeskommunale eliter og historieskrivning”.
Nordlys, 2007-08-09 (Ivan Kristoffersen), ” Grenser og samkjensle”.
Nordlys, 2007-08-10 (Runar Sjåstad), ”Tromsø-eliten snakker for seg selv”.
NOU 2004:19, Livskraftige distrikter og regioner.
Plattform for regjeringssamarbetet mellan Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialistisk Venstreparti og Senterpartiet, Soria-Moria-erklæringen, September 2005.
Sandberg, Siv (2004), Den folkvalda regionala nivåns ställning i Norden, paper presented at the XIIII Nordic local government research conference in Oslo 26-28 November 2004.
Stortingsmelding nr.34, 2000-2001, Om distrikts- och regionalpolitiken.
Stortingsmelding nr.12, 2006-2007, Regionale fortrinn – regional framtid.
Süssner, Josefina (2006), What Kind of Regionalism? Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Appendix 1: Interviews
Grete Kristoffersen Chamber of commerce, Tromsø region
Paul Dahlø (Ap) chairman of the county council board in Troms county Irene Lange Nordahl (Sp) Troms county council
Pia Svensgaard (Ap) vice chairman of Tromsø municipal board Bård M. Pedersen the county governor in Troms county Rolf Andersen (H) vice chairman of Lenvik municipal board
Stein Ovesen Troms county council
Arne Eidsmo NHO, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises,
Troms
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
a) The current situation
• How do you define regional development?
• Which are the strategies of your organisation to promote regional development?
• What role do you play in the formation of regional policy?
• Which aspects of regional development are most important?
• Which are the most important changes in regional policy during the last ten years?
How has the role of different actors changed? The role of the state? The county governor? The county councils? The municipalities?
b) The regionalisation debate
• What is a region?
• How should regional policy be organized?
• What position should the regions have vis-à-vis the state and the municipalities? Why?
• What responsibilities and decision-making power should regions have?
• What principle/which principles should decide the territorial division?
• What importance does regional identity have?
