The Rise of the Regional State in Economic Governance: ‘Partnerships for Prosperity’ Or New Scales of State Power?

By Martin Jones. 2001

241 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Finance, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1748fe6432a49d3f43833ac4b25e5446d8a8cbf3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Finance

1. N. Brenner
2. A. Rodríguez‐Pose
3. Nick Henry
4. S. Pinch
5. N. Gill
6. K. Morgan
7. J. Bachtler
8. K. Ward

In Political Science and International Relations

1. A. Rodríguez‐Pose
2. N. Brenner
3. N. Gill
4. M. Storper
5. Nick Henry
6. S. Pinch
7. T. Farole
8. K. Morgan

Citations in the corpus

• Human geography and the institutions that underlie economic growth (2011, background): “how territorially bounded political processes affect economic development (Jones, 2001).”
• The Global Trend towards Devolution and its Implications (2003, background): “…(Rodr|¨guez-Pose, 1996)], devolution biased towards the decentralisation of resources can be expected; in contrast, where the central government has dominated [as in the case of the English regions (Jones, 2001; Morgan, 2002, page 802)], greater decentralisation of responsibility may well ensue.”
• Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: Explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state (2005, background): “…are not restricted to the UK global processes of economic development (see above), and it is certainly ‘a mistake to take an insular view on it could be suggested that this institutional unevenness – devolution and see it as a unique process that we in the UK are going through’ ( J, 2001, p. 5).”
• Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of State Space in Contemporary Western Europe (2003, background): “Although the notion of a new regionalism is intensely contentious (Lovering, 1999; Jones, 2001; MacLeod, 2001), it has been used quite pervasively in recent years as a shorthand reference to at least two broad strands of analysis within contemporary political and economic geography.”
• Neo-Marshallian Nodes, Institutional Thickness, and Britain's ‘Motor Sport Valley’: Thick or Thin? (2001, methodology): “Indeed, citing Lovering's (1995; 1999) new regionalist critique, and to use the phrasing of Jones (2001), it could be construed as being much more about political mobilisation of a regional service-class elite than an issue of economic development per se.”
• On the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution (2005, background): “The fifth section concludes. economic networks has raised the profile of regional institutions as a vehicle to reduce a supposed ‘economic ECONOMIC DISCOURSE OF deficit’ ( J , 2001, p. 1186).”
• EU Cohesion Policy and the Role of the Regions: Investigating the Influence of Structural Funds in the New Member States (2008, background): “Structural Funds have been accorded a key role in mobilising and supporting regional development institutions and networks, which has helped them to lead and coordinate bottom-up, integrated responses to economic development challenges and, more generally, to establish a `fabric' of regional organis”
• Sustainable regions: Governance, innovation and scale (2004, background): “‘New Regionalist’ writers are generically taken to task because they ‘take regions for granted as objects of analysis by failing to consider how they have been historically institutionalized as spaces of political-economic intervention and action’ (MacKinnon et al, 2002; MacLeod, 2001).”
• The Rise of the “City-region” Concept and its Development Policy Implications (2008, background): “…decades, however, this role of the state has become increasingly challenged by the emergence of regionalist tendencies (Keating, 1998; MacLeod & Goodwin, 1999; Jones, 2001) and by the regionally based competition induced by the process of globalization (Storper, 1997; Cheshire & Gordon, 1998).”
• Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000 (2004, background): “1 Important forays into such an investigation include Jessop (1998), Jones (2000) , MacLeod (2000), MacLeod and Goodwin (1999), Goodwin and Painter (1996).”
• Excavating the logic of British urban policy: Neoliberalism as the "crisis of crisis-management" (2002, background): “There is, of course, further mileage in this perspective; elsewhere, we have discussed the need to consider a “fourth-cut” theory of crisis (Jones 2001; Jones and Ward 2001) as part of a longer excavation of the logic underscoring “mainstream local economic initiatives” (Gough and Eisenschitz 1996a:”
• From competitive regions to competitive city-regions: a new orthodoxy, but some old mistakes (2007, unknown): “Though much cited by academics – and variously labelled as ‘imaginative and rousing’, ‘highly provocative’, ‘deeply contentious’ (MacLeod, 2001b), a ‘piercing academic critique’ (Jones, 2001), and a ‘hard-edge and negative critique’ (Harrison, 2006b) – it remains noticeable how Lovering’s critique o”