Content uploaded by Daniel Rauhut
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Rauhut on Aug 17, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Regional Development, Power, and Topological Reach: To
Reach Out or Fold In?
Richard Ek, Karlstad University, Sweden, richard.ek@kau.se
Daniel Rauhut*, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, and Carinthia University of Applied
Sciences, Austria, rauhut_research@outlook.com
* Corresponding author
2
Regional Development, Power, and Topological Reach:
To Reach Out or Fold In?
Abstract. This paper discusses the growing regional socio-economic disparity in Sweden and
investigates two regions’ power relationship to the economically and politically dominant
Stockholm region; one region with a negative economic trajectory and one with a positive
economic development over 25 years. The conceptual framework is based on the
topography/topology nexus, using the key concepts of ‘reach out’ and ‘fold in’ in different
resources. To enrich this framework, we incorporate two concepts in regional planning:
‘borrowed size’ and ‘agglomeration shadow’. The findings suggest that ‘reach out’ and ‘fold
in’ explain why ‘borrowed size’ and ‘agglomeration shadow’ take place or do not.
Introduction
In this article we discuss the growing regional economic disparity in Sweden and investigate
two regions’ power relationship to the central state; one with a negative economic trajectory,
and one which shows a positive economic development. We approach these regions through a
framework based on the conceptual topography/topology nexus, primarily based on the work
of John Allen (2016). Consequently, we answer Paasi et al.’s (2018) call for a ‘stress test’ of
the explanatory value of concepts that circulate in regional geography. To take Allen’s
topological reasoning (2016) further, in our framework we incorporate two widely discussed
concepts in regional planning: ‘borrowed size’ and ‘agglomeration shadow’. The ambition is to
show how regional economies of positive and negative trajectories are connected to the nature
of the power relationship between the central state and the capital city’s economic dominance
and the different regions. As this relationship of power is more than topographical (based on
physical proximity), topological dimensions of power need to be included. Hence, the article
delivers three contributions to regional geography, and the issue of growing polarization
between core and peripheral regions. First, it consolidates topological reasoning on regional
geographies and shows its useability in redescribing the relationship between the central state
and the regions, as well as its economic consequences. Second, it extends Allen’s (2016) thesis
3
on the topologies of power by infusing the reasoning on borrowed size and agglomeration
shadow. Third, it offers a spatial interpretation for how ‘left-behind’ places increasingly lag
behind socio-economically (Leyshon, 2021).
Allen’s work on topologies of power comes out of the ambition to unfold the
particularities and modalities of power in a human geography that, influenced of
poststructuralism, see power everywhere. It is, however, less known how geography ‘makes a
difference to the exercise of power’ (2003, p. 1). To achieve such an understanding, a
topological approach to the spatial is needed in which reach and proximity are not measured in
a territorial manner only (Allen, 2009, 2011, 2016).
Since 2000, topological reasoning has become increasingly invoked in economic,
regional and urban geography to shed new light on relational spatialities (Allen & Cochrane,
2010; Amin, 2002; Hoffman & Thatcher, 2019; Smith, 2003) as policy mobility (Prince, 2016;
Robinson, 2015) or urban density (McFarlane, 2015). The adduced reason for this is that the
topological vocabulary unfolds possibilities to reimagine socio-spatialities, using spatial figures
and concepts like the Möbius Strip (Agamben, 1998), the fold (Deleuze, 1993), fluid and fire
topologies (Law & Mol, 2001), and stretch and reach (Allen, 2011, 2016), since Michel Serres
and Bruno Latour (1995) mused on the crumpled handkerchief. Such a topological vocabulary
and imagination stresses the posteriori of space (in contrast to the Cartesian space as a priori),
always already in becoming (Doel, 1999). The topological imagination offers analytical
avenues to an enriched post-Euclidean spatial theory (Martin & Secor, 2014). Non-metric
properties (density, connectedness, functionality) as well as the processes of spatial emergence
come to the fore (McFarlane, 2015; Murdoch, 2006).
Topology is often juxtaposed with topography, even if they signify different spatialities
(Martin & Secor, 2014). However, McFarlane (2015, p. 632) insists that topology and
topography do not imply two mutually influencing distinct realms, but that a ‘topological
4
approach to density expands the notion of density beyond metrics of territorial distance and
appropriate resources, but it cannot be opposed to topographical readings’. We apply the same
approach to topology in relation to topography. Hence, this paper aims to contribute to the
literature that invokes a topological approach and vocabulary in the contemporary spatiality of
regions (Galaso, 2018; Pain et al., 2020) using Allen’s thesis on the topologies of power (2016,
2020) as a framework.
In this paper, we use the Swedish regions Gotland and Södermanland as case studies, and
investigate if and how their presence/intensity in their spatial relations with the economic
centre, the Stockholm region, has changed. Gotland is an island in the Baltic Sea with about
60,000 inhabitants, of which almost half live in the town Visby (SCB, 2022). The dominant
economic sectors are agriculture along with food processing, the public sector, tourism, ICT,
and design, as well as concrete production from locally mined limestone. Gotland’s economy
is characterized by small-scale production (Gibson, 2022). Södermanland has experienced a
rapid population increase: from ca. 250,000 inhabitants in 2000 to ca. 300,000 in 2021, mainly
due to refugee immigration. The educational level in Södermanland is relatively low compared
to the national average (SCB, 2022). Manufacturing is bigger in Södermanland than in Sweden
generally, while the public and service sectors in general hold smaller shares. The labour
productivity in Södermanland is lower than for Sweden in general (Regionfakta, 2022).
This article unfolds in six sections. Following next is the theoretical groundwork, then a
section on methodology and material. After this follows a discussion on topologies and
topographies in the studied regions. The paper continues with an analytical section before the
summary, conclusions and suggestions for future research.
5
Topological Reach and Relational Power: A Conceptual Framework
Prior work in this area has applied the topology concept to several issues: urban infrastructure
and agglomeration economies (Pain et al., 2020), the topological properties of social capital
(Galaso, 2018), technocratic policy mobility (Prince, 2016, 2017; Robinson, 2015), national
and regional crises (O’Callaghan et al., 2015), and the engineering of a regional spatial fix
(Ahlqvist, 2013). These authors, in different ways, relate the topological to the topographical;
some highlight the benefits of the topological approach (Prince, 2016, 2017; Fraser, 2017;
Galaso, 2018), while others stress the usefulness of a dialectics between the two spatial
ontologies (Ahlqvist, 2013; Hoffman & Thatcher, 2019; Pain et al., 2020; O’Callaghan et al.,
2015; Kjaerås, 2021). None deny the value of topographical approaches per se, but express
different shades of emphasis that echo the wider debate between realist and relational takes on
regional space (Sayer, 2004, 2013; Cochrane, 2018).
By using this topological approach and the topography/topology dialectics, it becomes
possible to explore the spatialities of institutional presence and intensity beyond the territorial
proximity logic (Prince, 2016; Robinson, 2015), as the framework heuristically investigates
how power is made effective despite physical distances (Fraser, 2017; Hoffman & Thatcher,
2019; Kjaerås, 2021).
Further, we are inspired by recent elaborations on the polycentric urban region (PUR)
framework on the emergence of PURs, as it stresses a need for a nuanced understanding of
proximity within the territory–politics–governance nexus, even though the topology concept is
not used in the reasoning (Harrison et al., 2022). In their study of the emergence of the
Amsterdam–Rotterdam–Antwerp polycentric port region, Van den Berghe et al. (2022) depart
from the notion that polycentric systems (as a higher-level property) emerge out of the interplay
of societal activities of three dimensions of lower-level properties: morphological, functional
and institutional. Through this analytical framework it then becomes possible to study the
6
relation between the interaction between lower-level properties and its outcome as a higher-
level property (the polycentric region). In our analytical framework we reproduce the thought-
model of Van den Berge et al. (2022) in the sense that we work with topological and
topographical properties. Topological distance/proximity can be considered as a higher-level
property and the outcome of the topological manoeuvres of reach out and fold in, and
topographical ‘borrowing size’ and ‘agglomeration shadow’ can be considered as situations of
lower-level property. Let us explain this further.
By borrowing the meanings of terms from the field of topology and applying them in a
reasoning on power relations, Allen (2016) constructs a framework designed as an equation: a
topological redescription of power on the left side, the reproduction of power relationships on
the right. Here, we focus on the left side, and work with the concepts of ‘reach out’ and ‘fold
in’ (Allen, 2016, 2010, 2011, 2020).
‘Reach out’ depicts how a region (A) can reach towards a political and economic centre
(B) to exploit its resources (Allen and Cochrane, 2010). Usually, the strongest region is the
capital, and consequently it makes sense for other regions to reach out to the national growth
pole. However, other places of strategic economic importance for regional development may
also be of interest for the region (A), like ports, airports and railway hubs. A successful reach
does not definitely imply closer geographical proximity, but a stronger institutional presence
that creates an intensified interaction and increased functionality between the two regions A
and B. Such an outcome opens up the possibility for a power-topological rapprochement
between the two regions without necessarily making it an actual fact. One more topological
manoeuvre is needed.
The term ‘fold in’ catches this manoeuvre as it describes the capacity that the central
region reaching out (B) has to institutionally and functionally incorporate the region reaching
out (A) into its power sphere. Only if the centre reached out to (B) is interested in and actually
7
does increase its institutional cooperation and functional interaction with the region that reaches
out (A), can the region reaching out benefit from the regional centre (B). The larger region (B)
includes the smaller region (A) by folding it into its power sphere, i.e. it closes the power-
topological distance between the two (Allen, 2016). A topological reduction in distance thus
requires the actualization of two topological manoeuvres: reaching out and folding in.
Topological attempts to ‘reach out’ and allowed ‘fold-ins’ are not tangible, visible or
possible to be mapped out or measured in a territorial sense. However, ‘borrowed size’ and
‘agglomeration shadow’ are two topographical concepts of lower-level properties that make it
possible to flesh-out the topographical/topological nexus, orient Allen’s reasoning to regional
planning and take the equation a step further.
‘Borrowed size’ originally referred to smaller cities that, through physical/topographical
proximity, can take advantage of larger cities and get agglomeration benefits without suffering
the costs (Alonso, 1973). In regional planning, the concept has been used in discussions on
agglomeration externalities created through both network relations and physical proximity
(Burger et al., 2015, Burger & Meijers, 2016; Meijers & Burger, 2017). ‘Agglomeration
shadow’ refers metaphorically to a contrary situation: physical/topographical proximity to an
urban or regional agglomeration that implies negative consequences (Burger et al., 2015,
Partridge et al., 2009). To be competitive at a global level, the centre is picky in sharing its
benefits and externalities to its topographical hinterland as it also has its attention on other larger
centres on a continental or even global scale (investigated in detail in the World City literature,
see e.g. Sassen, 1991). The hinterland may well end up in the ‘shadow’ of the growth pole, not
gaining much interaction and functionality even if in the topographical vicinity of the larger
region (Cardoso & Meijers, 2016).
The two concepts express two different situations, even if the physical distance between
A and B is the same, but there is also a topological dimension at play here that unfolds even
8
more complex spatial relations between the regions. A smaller region (A) that borrows size
from a larger region (B) is both topographically and topologically close. A smaller region (A)
in the agglomeration shadow of a larger region (B) is topographically close but topologically
more distant from the centre (B). This duality can be analytically unfolded (Pain et al., 2020).
By linking Allen’s reach out and fold in as topological concepts (of higher-level property) with
the topographical concepts of borrowed size and agglomeration shadow (of lower-level
property), we can schematically identify and measure shifts in topological proximity as an
outcome of interacting agent-driven actions, and how attempts to change the topological
distance/power relations can be made.
The final action taken in our construction of the analytical framework is to diversify
agency, if still in a schematic way. As Van den Berghe et al. (2022) stress, the emergence and
actualization of a PUR is not necessarily an outcome of a clear spatial planning strategy, but an
emergent entity of a plethora of economic and political agents and activities. We integrate this
insight by categorizing agency into, a) planning and policy agency, and b) commercial agency.
A region (A) may have a pile of planning strategies and documents expressing a desire to reach
out to a larger national centre (B), but if the commercial agency of region A is not acting
accordingly, not much can happen. In the same way, the larger national centre B may have a
pile of planning strategies and documents enunciating a willingness to fold in the smaller region
(A), but if the commercial agency of national centre B is not interested in following suit, a
power-topological rapprochement will probably not take place, or will be much more limited.
The most promising scenario for a power-topological rapprochement between the two regions
will be when both planning and policy agency and commercial agency in both regions express
an intention, and actually follow up this intention. The least-promising scenario will be the
opposite: no intention from both types of agencies in both regions to intensify institutional and
9
functional interactions. But between these two end points, a number of alternatives exists, which
can be unfolded in our analytical framework (see Figure 1).
[Figure 1 about here]
It should be clear by now that our application of the concepts of reaching out, folding in,
borrowed size and agglomeration shadow is a schematic and idea-driven endeavour to combine
a certain thinking and vocabulary of two different disciplinary debates (see Van den Berghe et
al., 2022). We are aware of the limits of this, but see this endeavour as a first attempt to construct
a skeleton-like analytical procedure suitable for ‘stress-testing’ the applicability of strands of
topological reasoning on the topic of disparities of regional geographies.
Methodology and Material
Gotland and Södermanland have been chosen as case studies because they, according to our
assessment, display two different development paths and abilities to act strategically. We do
not make a systematic comparison of the two regions but study them in their context (of
Swedish regional policy, as well as Sweden’s regional development) in search of new
theoretical insights. They are thus information-oriented cases (Flyvbjerg, 2011). The
investigation of each region is based on the interpretation of qualitative material (policy
documents that express agental ambitions) as well as quantitative data (an index) that indicate
socio-economic regional development. The qualitative material addresses the upper half of the
theoretical framework in Figure 1, while the quantitative data addresses the lower half. The
analysis starts from 1995, when Sweden became an EU member, and ends in 2019, which is
the last year with available statistical data.
10
Several national-policy documents outline the direction of the regional policy and what
strategic choices the Swedish Government has made, i.e. the context in which the two case-
study regions are embedded. The possibilities for regions to increase their presence/intensity
when stretching out as well as what possibilities a region has for folding in a region and
increasing its presence/intensity are defined. Documents such as Regeringskansliet (2015;
2007) and Regeringen (2021, 2001) describe the objectives, priorities and strategic choices, as
well as tools and actor responsibilities, in Swedish regional development. Also, the Law (Lag
2010, p. 630) on responsibility for regional development and the Regulation (Förordning 2017,
p. 583) on regional growth work define roles, tools and responsibilities. They set the rules for
what agency a region can display to achieve regional development.
The Swedish regions are supposed to develop long-term growth goals and actions in their
Regionala utvecklingsstrategier (RUS – Regional Development Strategies), and turn
weaknesses and challenges into opportunities and strengths (Regeringskansliet, 2015;
Boverket, 2020). The regions are obliged to base their RUSs’ on the Government’s policy
priorities (Regeringen, 2021), and are set up by each Regional Council (Tillväxtverket, 2021).
These RUSs define eventual regional ambitions for stretching out, and indicate how the regions
want to change their presence/intensity in their spatial relations; they describe how and in what
direction the regions want to move ‘on the map’. This is related to agency, i.e. how the region
can act given the set of rules and tools to improve its situation. We use the RUSs for Gotland
and Södermanland (Gotlands kommun, 2013; Region Gotland, 2021; Regionförbundet
Sörmland, 2011). Corresponding policy programs of the Stockholm Region (Regionplane- och
Trafikkontoret, 2002; Regionplanenämnden, 2010) are also included. Commercial ambitions
are gathered through the official referral responses on the RUSs from commercial and civic
organizations outside the planning and policy apparatus. In total, about twenty key policy
documents at local, regional and national levels have been interpreted in order for us to create
11
an understanding of the two cases in their relevant contexts, i.e. changes in the
operationalization of (European and) Swedish regional policy.
To quantitatively measure to what extent the regions have managed to change their
presence/intensity in the spatial relations, we use the Territorial Cohesion Development Index
(TCDI), developed by Rauhut and Costa (2020, 2021a, 2021b). In this index, the minimum and
maximum values are set to transform the indicators expressed in different units into indices on
a scale of 0 to 1. The component indicators are then standardized (Equation 1a, 1b).
When the minimum and maximum values have been defined, the dimension index for
a certain indicator Ix can be calculated (see Equation 1a). For indicators with the goalpost
xmax, the denominator is replaced by the defined target value.
𝐼=
(1a)
For indicators such as the share of population aged 65+ years, the share of population at risk
of poverty and social exclusion, and the youth-unemployment rate, having a high value is not
positive. Hence, the dimension index controls for this by inverting the indicator value, as in
Equation 1b.
𝐼= 1 −
(1b)
The TCDI is the arithmetic mean of the dimensions’ indices included:
𝑇𝐶𝐷𝐼 = ⋯
(2)
The time-series of TCDI for each of the analysed regions is based on the calculation of a TCDI
value for every year from 1995 to 2019.
12
The TCDI is built on ten indicators, of which three focus on each of the three dimensions
of the ECP (Table 1). All indicators are tied to key EU policy documents, stating what
performance is expected of these indicators (Rauhut and Costa, 2020, 2021b).
[Table 1 about here]
Nine of the ten indicators used follow the indicators used by Rauhut and Costa (2020, 2021a,
2021b): GDP/cap, employment rate, share of population aged 30–34 with tertiary education,
youth-unemployment rate, share of 65+ years, share of population at risk of poverty, km of
motorway per 1,000 km2, number of medical doctors per 100,000 inhabitants, and share of
households with access to broadband. Data for the share of renewable energy is not available
on an annual basis at NUTS3 level in Sweden. The availability of statistical data is displayed
in Table 2.
[Table 2 about here]
While the TCDI can be used to identify a relative ‘move’ topologically, it reveals
nothing about what ambitions the regions have in changing their presence/intensity in the spatial
relations, or what actions a region has taken to do so (agency). First, the region A needs to
express an ambition to change the spatial relations with region B, then A has to take active
measures in doing so given the available rules and tools (agency). Second, B must be willing to
change its spatial relation with A as well. (This information is found in the RUSs of A and B,
and in the official referral responses on the RUSs.) Third, the TCDI can identify to what extent
a relative ‘move’ topologically has taken place. In line with Pain et al. (2020), we thus combine
qualitatively data (the RUSs and policy documents) and quantitative data (TCDI) to identify
13
and explain changes in the presence/intensity in the spatial relations. Such a mix-method
approach addresses both theoretical and empirical gaps on the nature of power relations that
influence regional disparities, agency and topological moves.
The Topologies and Topographies of the Two Regions
When Sweden became an EU member in 1995, regional growth plans (Regionala
tillväxtprogram – RTP) were introduced, denoting a shift in regional policy from traditional to
growth, with a bias towards competition (Foss et al., 2004). In 2004 the RTPs were replaced by
mandatory regional development programmes (Regionala utvecklingsprogram – RUP), which
have now been renamed as regional development strategies (Regionala utvecklingsstrategier –
RUS). The RUP was assumed to be a tool for the coordination of activities for stimulating
economic growth. Regional councils, the county administrative board or regional cooperative
bodies were obliged to formulate frequent development plans. In 2004, physical spatial
planning of strategic interest was introduced into the RUP, and in 2007 coordination with
physical spatial planning at the local level was added. Between 2007 and 2013, regional
competitiveness, entrepreneurship and employment were the guiding principles for regional
economic growth (Tillväxtanalys, 2013). However, the RTPs and RUPs were policies targeting
the planning perspective of regional development; commercial interests were sidestepped.
Generally, the private sector was not involved in the planning processes (Tillväxtverket, 2015).
Gotland
Gotland’s ambitions follow an insularity logic, stressing the inherent resourcefulness of the
people on the island. The strategies depart from the topographical fact that Gotland is situated
in the middle of the Baltic Sea. Its physical geography is both a (mythical) reason for
resourcefulness and a precondition to addressing it (Gotlands kommun, 2013). The ferries and
14
airlines become crucial for the island; both are needed to enable it to make the topographical
position an asset and an opportunity (Region Gotland, 2021).
While the ferries relate to Gotland’s transportation needs, topographically, the flight
connections relate to a topological need to ‘reach out’. Gotland stresses that the Stockholm
region is of primary interest. As a well-known tourist destination, Gotland’s brand is strong in
the capital city. The airline between Stockholm and Visby ties the two regions together
(Gotlands kommun, 2013). Gotland, however, reaches out to the capital city not only with this
airline but also when it comes to higher education. The university college in Gotland was in
2013 incorporated into the larger Uppsala University in the Greater-Stockholm region. This
fusion is recognized in the RUS as a strategic asset and an opportunity to reach out and attract
more students to make use of the larger university’s international network (Region Gotland,
2021). Furthermore, Gotland has since 2019 been a part of Stockholm’s healthcare region, in
practice a functional part of the main capital’s public sector. Consequently, Gotland’s
cooperation with Stockholm is not only on healthcare but also on transport policy, together with
other regions topographically bordering the Stockholm region (Region Gotland, 2021).
These functional and organizational ties with the Stockholm region are expressed as an
additional topological awareness of the topographical understanding of Gotland, as in the
periphery of national space but also in the centre of the Baltic Sea: ‘The geography does not
decide the choice of cooperation partners, the added value for Gotland does’ (Region Gotland,
2021, p. 15, our translation). Gotland regards itself as a part of Stockholm’s regional
enlargement (Gotlands kommun, 2013). This conclusion is shared by commercial organizations
through their official referral responses to the RUS, expressing a strong sense of ‘we’ in Gotland
(Region Gotland, 2020, p. 12). Also organizations outside Gotland, like Uppsala University,
express this sense of agreement, unity and eagerness to contribute to the regional development
of the island, particular concerning higher education, healthcare, infrastructure and tourism. RF
15
SISU Gotland (the regional sports confederation), however, asks for an ambition to reach out
to not only Stockholm airport but an additional international airport like Copenhagen,
Amsterdam or Helsinki (Region Gotland, 2020, p. 36).
Gotland thus both ‘reaches out’ to and ‘borrows size’ from Stockholm. However, Gotland
is not present in Stockholm’s RUS. Stockholm’s attention is further away (topographically),
and is focused on enhancing its position as the economic centre of the Baltic Sea. Stockholm
does fold in Gotland, but through administrative and organizational manoeuvres when it comes
to public health and higher education. Seen from a theoretical perspective, not just planning
actions by public actors are in motion to ‘reach out’ to the Stockholm region. Commercial
interests, primarily in tourism and hospitality, also play an important role in moving Gotland
closer to Stockholm topologically. As both public and private actors in Gotland and Stockholm
are actively involved in reaching out and folding in, the likelihood of achieving positive changes
in the power-topological distance/proximity is higher.
[Figure 2 about here]
The TDCI index for Gotland does indicate this. Gotland has managed to move closer to
Stockholm topologically (see Figure 2). In 1995, the TDCI was 0.32 in 1995 and 0.21 in 2005,
but increased to 0.47 in 2019.
Södermanland
Södermanland is located southwest of the neighbouring Stockholm region. It has experienced
a rapid population increase from ca. 250,000 inhabitants in 2000 to ca. 300,000 in 2021, mainly
due to refugee immigration. The educational level in Södermanland is relatively low compared
to the national average (SCB, 2022). Manufacturing is bigger in Södermanland than generally
16
in Sweden, while the public and service sectors in general hold smaller shares. The labour
productivity in Södermanland is lower than for Sweden in general (Regionfakta, 2022). This
region struggles with an obsolete economic branch structure, and displays slower regional
branch changes than at the national level. Both the structural and branch effects reinforce each
other, resulting in slower growth than in the national economy (Rauhut and Kahila, 2008).
Södermanland is one of the least emission-efficient regions in Sweden considering carbon
dioxide-equivalent emissions; it is second in Sweden regarding emission-intensive industries
(Tillväxtverket, 2022).
As a neighbouring region, Södermanland aspires to ‘borrow size’ from and ‘reach out’ to
the Stockholm region. If investments in infrastructure are made, it would be possible for more
people in many parts of Södermanland to commute daily to Stockholm (Regionförbundet
Södermanland, 2011). However, the Stockholm region is only interested in ‘folding in’ three
municipalities in Södermanland bordering the Stockholm region; the rest of Södermanland is
uninteresting to it (Regionplane- och Trafikkontoret, 2002; Regionplanenämnden, 2010). ‘The
choices made regarding time horizon, content and concreteness means that the [Södermanland
RUS 2020] has limitations’ (Stockholms Läns Landsting, 2012, 4).
We could expect Södermanland to formulate its own regional-development strategies, but
the only strategy it has is to ‘borrow size’ from Stockholm. The region is ‘characterised by a
polycentric urban structure, weak intra-regional connections and regional imbalances in
accessibility, population and employment development’ (Regionförbundet Sörmland, 2011, p.
40). The solution is to expand public transport to be better connected with Stockholm. An
expanded IT infrastructure can also create better conditions. Södermanland is a
deindustrializing region in need of more entrepreneurs and a growing service sector. This will
be done the following way: ‘It is important to create positive attitudes towards starting and
running companies. Therefore, efforts are needed that increase interest in entrepreneurship and
17
that stimulate curiosity and the desire to discover. The regional actors should be better at
identifying and targeting support to groups of potential entrepreneurs and companies facing
expansion’ (Regionförbundet Sörmland, 2011, p. 52). These presented solutions are vague and
imprecise.
In Södermanland, the intra-regional cooperation with the RUS does not take place in the
way the legislator intended. The Swedish Government concluded that this is not fully the case
in Södermanland: ‘Some form of collaboration appears to take place in … the Södermanland
region’ (Regeringen, 2015, p. 181). Moreover, ‘the collaborative body [in Södermanland] has
retained the responsibility for the regional development’ (Regeringen, 2015, p. 359). However,
the collaborative body contains predominantly public institutions and public actors, while key
actors from the private sector are conspicuous by their absence (Länsstyrelsen i Södermanlands
län, 2018). Consequently, as private-sector interest appears absent in the activities for ‘reaching
out’ towards Stockholm, the likelihood of achieving positive changes in the power-topological
distance/proximity is reduced.
Södermanland struggles with challenges related to its economic structure
(Regionförbundet Sörmland, 2011). It appears that private and public actors have different
agendas and priorities. The planning actions taken by the public sector are based on different
priorities and ambitions than the commercial interests, something which makes the attempts to
reach out less effectual. In turn, it will be more difficult to achieve positive changes in the
higher-level property (reduce the topological distance/proximity).
When looking at the TDCI for Södermanland (Figure 2), the negative development trend
is clearly displayed when benchmarked towards Stockholm. The TDCI score dropped from 0.29
in 1995 to 0.19 in 2019. Södermanland has moved away from Stockholm topologically.
However, a key analytical question is to what extent these moves we can observe in the TCDI
18
are caused by changing values for the Stockholm region or the regions of Gotland and
Södermanland. We turn to this and other issues in the following section.
Analysis: Regional Development, Power and Topological Reach
Södermanland has just one focus: to borrow size from Stockholm, and this is described as a
successful strategy in research (Burger et al., 2015, Burger & Meijers, 2016; Meijers & Burger,
2017). However, Stockholm is uninterested in ‘folding in’ Södermanland, placing
Södermanland in an ‘agglomeration shadow’ (Cardoso & Meijers, 2016). Unfortunately,
Södermanland has no ‘Plan B’; the only strategy is to borrow size from Stockholm. The inability
to build a regional-development strategy can be explained by limited economic and political
resources, as well as the lack of an established cooperation culture and an absence of a strong
feeling of communion, and hence having difficulties in mobilizing the needed political support
to create an institutional intensity present enough for Stockholm to notice and become interested
in the smaller region (Allen, 2011, 2016).
Contrary to Södermanland, Gotland has managed to successfully ‘borrow size’, as
described in the literature (Burger et al., 2015, Burger & Meijers, 2016; Meijers & Burger,
2017), and has been ‘folded in’ by the region it ‘reached out’ to (Allen, 2011, 2020). Gotland
is an example of what a difference an increased intensity in the power relations with and
institutional presence in a national centre can make. Gotland explicitly reaches out to and is
folded into the larger urban agglomeration through administrative inclusion in Stockholm’s
policy and planning apparatus through policy action. This is even remarked upon by
topographically neighbouring regions, which in their official referral reports remark that
Gotland needs to focus more on exchange with surrounding regions, like Karlmar (Region
Gotland, 2020, p. 50). When Stockholm ‘folds in’ Gotland in more silent, discreet ways, by
19
policy and administrative actions, it ‘borrows size’, as Burger et al. (2015), Burger and Meijers
(2016) and Meijers and Burger (2017) describe it.
While Gotland is relatively resource rich and understands how to use the EU to improve
its situation (Gotlands kommun, 2013; Region Gotland, 2020), the RUSs of Södermanland are
dead silent on this (Regionförbundet Södermanland, 2011). Competence and the capability to
solve problems are valuable resources if a region wants to break a vicious development trend.
This relates to resources and power, as discussed by Allen (2003). Resources and power are
however also essential for displaying agency. By utilizing the tools provided by the EU, Gotland
has ‘reached out’ not only nationally, but also for the EU.
However, could these topological moves (Gotland establishing good relations with
Stockholm while Södermanland does not) we can observe in the TCDI be caused by changing
values for the Stockholm region? In Figure 3, the TCDI values are indexed with 1995 as the
base year. Starting with the change of the presence/intensity in the spatial relations between
Södermanland and Stockholm, Södermanland has significantly lower values than Stockholm.
The observation for 2019 in Stockholm drops, but for Södermanland in 2019 it drops even
more. The conclusion is that the widening gap for the period after 2013 depends on lower TCDI
scores for Södermanland. Gotland outperforms Stockholm with a wide margin during the period
2015–2019. Although the TCDI value for 2019 dropped for the Stockholm region, Gotland still
performs a lot better than Stockholm. The narrowed TCDI gap between the regions for the
period 2015–2019 is explained by Gotland increasing its TCDI score.
[Figure 3 about here]
In Figure 3 it is visible that Södermanland performed well in relation to Stockholm until
2007. Between 2007 and 2013, regional competitiveness, entrepreneurship, etc. became
20
cornerstones for regional economic growth. As the commercial interests were not involved in
the planning process in Södermanland, the region started to lose out. Before 2008, Gotland
displayed a relatively poor development relative to Stockholm and Södermanland, but when the
regional-development policies started to target the involvement, Gotland improved its position.
In the RUS, the responsibility for regional development was fully delegated to the regions in
2014. This has been to the advantage of Gotland, but the opposite for Södermanland (Figure 3),
indicating the crucial role of a region’s agency in this process.
The summary of our reading of the two regions’ RUSs and the result of the TDCI display
that Gotland topologically reaches out to Stockholm and has had a beneficial development
while Södermanland does not display the same success. Södermanland reaches out to
Stockholm but is not folded in, with economic stasis as a consequence. Topologically,
Södermanland is more distant than what the topographical proximity indicates. This outcome
of growing spatial polarization however needs to be contextualized in the larger picture of
regional policy development in Sweden and the EU.
After EU membership in 1995, Sweden adjusted to the EU policies and structural funding
goals. The regions had to formulate their own challenges and how to overcome them. This
increased political influence for regions was combined with the economic resources of the EU,
which would increase the possibilities to appropriately address problems (Gruber et al., 2019).
In the regional policy introduced in 2001, the regions became key planning actors in the creation
of economic growth (Näringsdepartementet, 2001). The role of regional agency therefore
becomes a key aspect for success.
This ‘place-based’ regional-development approach, implemented after the report by
Barca (2009), stimulating cities and competition rather than cohesion and weak regions (Faludi
et al., 2015), leaves limited-resource regions with few tools to overcome negative development
(Servillo, 2019; Rauhut & Humer, 2020). Added to that, even if the EU membership enabled
21
the Swedish regions to utilize the funding and tools provided by the EU, the membership also
limited the national government to running a national regional-development policy as the EU
Cohesion Policy was the guiding principle. When the EU Cohesion Policy, in the wake of the
Barca report, abandoned cohesion and embraced competition, weak regions could not compete
(Gruber et al., 2019). The Swedish National Audit Office recently concluded that the
responsibility for the regional development is scattered between such a high number of actors
that it constitutes a fundamental problem: ‘The financing of the regional development work is
largely done with project funds over a few years’ (Riksrevisionen, 2022, p. 5). The result is a
short-sighted and jerky policy, which generates unpredictable outcomes: ‘The regions have
different capacities to handle the regional development responsibility and are often dependent
on collaboration with state authorities’ (Riksrevisionen, 2022, p. 5). These conclusions are
showed in the studied RUSs as well as the TDCI index.
This takes us back to the dialectics of the topology/topography framework and its
outcome in a power relationship topographically characterized as borrowed size or
agglomeration shadow. The higher-level properties (topological distance/proximity) are
determined on the region’s agency, and manifested through lower-level properties of being in
agglomeration shadow or borrowing size. Gotland seems more successful than Södermanland
in displaying agency and decreasing topological distance, manifested as actual borrowing size
from the Stockholm region. Borrowing size thus characterizes a situation of intense mutual
institutional presence in the relationship between Gotland and Stockholm. Simultaneously,
agglomeration shadow indicates a situation of sparse intensity in the power relationships
between Stockholm and Södermanland, regardless of the topographical proximity.
Finally, Södermanland is not in the agglomeration shadow of Stockholm due to the lack
of intensities in the power relationships between the regions alone. Södermanland reaches out
to Stockholm, which is uninterested. Topographically, Södermanland is closer to Stockholm
22
but that does not matter from a topological perspective: there is nevertheless a lack in the
intensity of institutional and functional interaction. The power-topological distance seems to
actually increase, manifested as Södermanland being further in the agglomeration shadow of
the capital city. The single-track strategy of borrowing size from the Stockholm region also
indicates that Södermanland has problems using the tools available to change its situation. In
turn, this indicates problems with agency.
Like the papers that have inspired us show (Ahlqvist, 2013; Fraser, 2017, Kjaerås, 2021,
O’Callaghan et al., 2015), depending on whether you use topographical or topological ‘glasses’,
different aspects of the inter-regional power relationships in Sweden become visible. Like in
the case of O’Callaghan et al. (2015), when a national financial meltdown shows different
geographies of national and regional crises depending on which glasses you wear, approaching
the recent and current (polarizing) regional development in Sweden with both glasses reveals a
complexity that just one pair does not show.
Concluding Remarks
This paper discusses the growing regional economic disparity in Sweden and how two regions’
power relationships to the central state have been used to change their fate. The current policy
and legal framework reproduce a power-relation system that favours the regions which already
have resources and a rich supply of different capitals. Less-favoured regions have a hard time
managing this situation as the rules of the game disfavour them. In order to break their
disadvantaged situation, they can try to ‘reach out’ to another region and borrow its size.
However, resource-poor regions (including competence) will hardly have the capacity to shape
such change, i.e. they will be unable to ‘reach out’. If they are able to reach out but have little
to offer in return, they may not be ‘folded in’, and hence the power relation prevails.
23
Gotland managed to change the power relations by reaching out to a growth pole. Hence,
it moved closer to Stockholm topologically, and as the growth pole folded it in, Gotland could
borrow its size. Södermanland tried to borrow size by reaching out to the Stockholm region but
was dismissed. Now Södermanland is increasingly deep into the agglomeration shadow of
Stockholm.
This paper extends Allen’s topological reasoning (2016) by adding the concepts
‘borrowed size’ and ‘agglomeration shadow’ to it. This addition fleshes out Allen’s original
theoretical ideas by adding a vocabulary that further distinguishes different outcomes of
changes in the power relationships between regions. Another added value of this paper is that
it illuminates that the power relations do not necessarily have to be related to direct political
and economic power, but, as in the case of Gotland, they can also be indirect (discreet,
mundane) through organizational and administrative measures. The conceptual framework
shows how regional development and disparities are connected to changes in power
relationships between regions, and that this needs to be approached, conceptualized and
analysed through different spatial ontologies.
The ontological and methodological challenge here is to find analytically sustainable and
coherent frameworks, consisting of elements with different ontological meanings. Concepts
that express topological relations need to be translated into quantifiable spatial relations, from
which intensities and changes can be measured. The relationship between topological concepts
and their operationalization into topographic/measurable manifestations need to have a
believable causal proxy. The challenge here is thus a question not only about level of analysis
(as in the case of the stratified ontology of critical realism) but of ontology. Some ontological
agility is called for, as well as a conceptual dexterity, i.e. an unorthodox manoeuvring with
concepts and theories following a trial and error – logic. The ‘stress test’ called for by Paasi et
al (2018) on this occasion thus includes a fusion of ontologies as well as translations of spatial
24
concepts that can be transported over existing ontological barriers residing in the field of
regional studies.
Some avenues for future research can be identified. Allen’s theoretical work, extended
with ‘borrowed size’ and ‘agglomeration shadow’, appears to be an interesting approach to
explore for future empirical studies. Moreover, the TCDI has the capacity to empirically assess
topological relationships in future research. A second potential topic for future research could
be using Allen’s theory in cross-border situations: when a region on one side of a national
border tries to ‘reach out’ to a region in another country to create a cross-border region. If it
becomes ‘folded in’, it may disturb national interests in one or both countries, leading to what
Allen (2016) labels ‘distortion’. Generally, combining ontological spatial concepts from
poststructuralist human geography and ontic concepts from regional planning offers interesting
possibilities that remain to be tested. However, this is a task for future research to investigate.
References
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.
Ahlqvist, T. (2013). Engineering spatial fixes: Relational spatial practices, strategic-
topological approach and the construction of a Finnish science-technology district.
Geografiska Annaler B: Human Geography, 95(1), 89–109.
Allen, J. (2003). Lost geographies of power. Blackwell.
Allen, J. (2009). Three spaces of power: Territory, networks, plus a topological twist in the
tale of domination and authority. Journal of Power, 2(2), 197–212.
Allen, J. (2011). Topological shifts: Power’s changing geographies. Dialogues in Human
Geography, 1(3), 283–298.
Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power: Beyond territory and networks. Routledge.
25
Allen, J. (2020). Power’s quiet reach and why it should exercise us. Space and Polity, 24(3),
408–413.
Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2010). Assemblages of state power: Topological shifts in the
organization of government and politics. Antipode, 42(5), 1071–1089.
Alonso, W. (1973). Urban zero population growth. Daedalus, 102(4), 191–206.
Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space, 34(3), 385–399.
Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to
meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the
request of Danuta Hubner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, Commission of the
European Communities.
Boverket. (2020). Regional utvecklingsplanering. Boverket. https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-
kunskapsbanken/planering/regionplan/utvecklingsplan.
Burger, M. J., & Meijers, E. J. (2016). Agglomeration and the rise of urban network
externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 5–16.
Burger, M. J., Meijers, E. J., Hoogerbrugge, M. M., & Tresserra, J. M. (2015). Borrowed size,
agglomeration shadows and cultural amenities in north-west Europe. European Planning
Studies, 23(6), 1090–1109.
Cardoso, R., & Meijers, E. (2016). Contrasts between first-tier and second-tier cities in
Europe: A functional perspective. European Planning Studies, 24(4), 996–1015.
DOI:10.1080/09654313.2015.1120708
Cochrane, A. (2018). Relational thinking and the region. In A. Paasi, J. Harrison & M. Jones
(Eds.), Handbook on the geographies of regions and territories (pp. 79–88). Edward Elgar.
Deleuze, G. (1993). The Fold: Leibniz and the baroque. University of Minnesota Press.
26
Doel, M. A. (1999). Poststructuralist geographies: The diabolical art of spatial science.
Edinburgh University Press.
Faludi, A., Stead, D., & Humer, A. (2015). Conclusions: Services of general interest,
territorial cohesion and competitiveness in Europe. In H. Fassmann, D. Rauhut, E.
Marques da Costa & A. Humer (Eds.), Services of general interest: European perspectives
and national insights (pp. 259–267). V&R Verlag.
Förordning. (2017:583) om regional tillväxtarbete. Näringsdepartementet.
Foss, O., Johansen, S., Johansson, M., & Svensson, B. (2004). Regionalpolitikk ved et
vegskille: Går Sverige og Norge i forskjellige retninger? In R. Amdam, & O. Bukve (Eds.),
Det regionalpolitiska regimeskiftet – tilfellet Noreg. Tapir Akademisk Forlag: Trondheim.
Fraser, A. (2017). Tactile topologies of the rural. Rural Studies 56, 198–206.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 300–316). Los Angeles: Sage.
Galaso, P. (2018). Network topologies as collective social capital in cities and regions: A
critical review of empirical studies. European Planning Studies, 26(3), 571–590.
Gibson, M. (2022). Gotländskt näringsliv. Länsstyrelsen i Gotlands län.
http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/Sv/om-lansstyrelsen/om-
lanet/Pages/gotland_naringsliv.aspx.
Gotlands kommun. (2013). Vision Gotland 2025. Regionalt utvecklingsprogram för Gotland.
https://www.gotland.se/75704.
Gruber, E., Rauhut, D., & Humer, A. (2019). Territorial cohesion under pressure? Welfare
policy and planning responses in Austrian and Swedish Peripheries. Papers in Regional
Science 98(1), 115–132. DOI:10.1111/pirs.12344
27
Harrison, J., Hoyler, M., Derudder, B., Liu, X., & Meijers, E. (2022). Governing polycentric
urban regions. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(2), 213–221.
DOI:10.1080/21622671.2022.2083011
Hoffman, L. M., & Thatcher, J. E. (2019). Urban studies and thinking topologically.
Territory, Politics, Governance, 7(2), 141–155.
Kjaerås, K. (2021). Towards a relational conception of the compact city. Urban Studies,
58(6), 1176–1192.
Lag. (2010:630) on regional utvecklingsansvar. Finansdepartementet.
Länsstyrelsen i Södermanland. (2018). Regionalt serviceprogram för Södermanlands län
2014–2020. Rapport 2018:18. Nyköping: Länsstyrelsen i Södermanlands län.
Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Environment
& Planning D: Society & Space, 19(5), 609–621.
Leyshon, A. (2021). Economic geography I: uneven development, ‘left behind places’ and
‘levelling up’ in a time of crisis. Progress in Human Geography, 46(6), 1678–1691.
Martin, L., & Secor, A. J. (2014). Towards a post-mathematical topology. Progress in Human
Geography, 38(3), 420–438.
McFarlane, C. (2015). The geographies of urban density: Topology, politics and the city.
Progress in Human Geography, 40(5), 629–648.
Meijers, E. J., & Burger, M. J. (2017). Stretching the concept of “borrowed size”. Urban
Studies, 54(1), 269–291.
Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography: A guide to relational space. Sage.
Näringsdepartementet. (2001): Regionalpolitiska utredningens slutbetänkande. SOU 2000:87.
Fritzes: Stockholm.
O’Callaghan, C., Kelly, S., Boyle, M., & Kitchin, R. (2015). Topologies and topographies of
Ireland’s neoliberal crisis. Space and Polity, 19(1), 31–46.
28
Paasi, A., Harrison, J., & Jones, M. (2018). New consolidated regional geographies. In A.
Paasi, J. Harrison & M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook on the geographies of regions and
territories (pp. 1–20). Edward Elgar.
Pain, K., Shi, S., Black, D., Blower, J., Grimmond, S, Hunt, A., Milcheva, S., Crawford, B.,
Dale, N., Doolin, S. & Manna, S. (2020). Real estate investment and urban density:
Exploring the polycentric urban region using a topological lens. Territory, Politics,
Governance, 11(2), 241–260. DOI:10.1080/21622671.2020.1837665
Partridge, M. D., Rickman, D. S., Ali, K., & Olfert, M. R. (2009). Do new economic
geography agglomeration shadows underlie current population dynamics across the urban
hierarchy? Papers in Regional Science, 88(2), 445–466.
Prince, R. (2016). The spaces in between: Mobile policy and the topographies and topologies
of the technocracy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(3), 420–437.
Prince, R. (2017). Local or global policy? Thinking about policy mobility with assemblage
and topology. Area, 49(3), 335–341.
Rauhut, D., & Costa, N. (2020). EU:s sammanhållningspolitik och regionala skillnader 2006–
2016. Terra: Maantieteellinen Aikakauskirja/Geografisk tidskrift, 132(4), 175–189.
DOI:10.30677/terra.89774
Rauhut, D., & Costa, N. (2021a). Territorial cohesion in Denmark, Finland, Norway and
Sweden: Measuring the impact 2007 and 2017. Danish Journal of Geography, 121(1), 1–
14. DOI:10.1080/00167223.2021.1920444
Rauhut, D., & Costa, N. (2021b). What regions benefit from the post-crisis Cohesion Policy?
Evidence from a Territorial Cohesion Development Index. In D. Rauhut, F. Sielker & A.
Humer (eds.), EU’s Cohesion Policy and spatial governance: Territorial, economic and
social challenges (pp. 185–198). Edward Elgar.
29
Rauhut, D., & Humer, A. (2020). EU and spatial economic growth: Trajectories in economic
thought. European Planning Studies, 28(11), 2116–2133.
DOI:10.1080/09654313.2019.1709416
Rauhut, D., & Kahila, P. (2008). The Regional Welfare Burden in the Nordic Countries.
Nordregio Working Paper 2008:6.
Regeringen. (2001). En politik för tillväxt och livskraft i hela landet. Regeringens proposition
2001/02:4.
Regeringen. (2015). En ny regional planering – ökad samordning och bättre
bostadsförsörjning. SOU2015:59. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Regeringen. (2021). Nationell strategi för hållbar regional utveckling i hela landet 2021–
2030. Regeringens skrivelse 2020/21:133.
Regeringskansliet. (2007). En nationell strategi för hållbar regional tillväxt och
attraktionskraft 2015–2020. Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet.
Regeringskansliet. (2015). En nationell strategi för regional konkurrenskraft,
entreprenörskap och sysselsättning 2007–2013. Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet.
Regionfakta. (2022). Statistik från län och regioner i Sverige. Regionfakta
https://www.regionfakta.com.
Region Gotland. (2020). Remissammanställning Vårt Gotland 2040 – förslag till regional
utvecklingsstrategi for Gotland. 2020-08-27, version 1.0. https://gotland.se/109097.
Region Gotland. (2021). Vårt Gotland 2040 – regional utvecklingsstrategi för Gotland.
https://rus.gotland.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Fullst%C3%A4ndig-
version_V%C3%A5rt-Gotland2040.pdf.
Regionförbundet Sörmland. (2011). Sörmlandsstrategin 2020. https://reglab.se/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/strategi-2013-soermlandsstrategin-2020.pdf.
30
Regionplane- och Trafikkontoret. (2002). Regional utvecklingsplan 2001 för
Stockholmsregionen. Stockholm: Stockholms läns landsting.
Regionplanenämnden. (2010) Regional utvecklingsplan för Stockholmsregionen RUFS 2010.
Stockholm: Stockholms läns landsting och Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län.
Riksrevisionen. (2022). Den regionala utvecklingspolitiken – svaga förutsättningar för ett
effektivt samlat statligt agerande. RIR 2022:8, Stockholm.
Robinson, J. (2015). ‘Arriving at’ urban policies: The topological spaces of urban policy
mobility. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 831–834.
Sassen, S. (1991). The global city. New York: Princeton University Press.
Sayer, A. (2004). Seeking the geographies of power. Economy and Society, 33(2), 255–270.
Sayer, A. (2013). Looking forward to new realist debates. Dialogues in Human Geography,
3(1), 22–25.
SCB (2022). Statistics Sweden Statistical Database. www.scb.se.
Serres, M., with Latour, B. (1995). Conversations on science, culture and time. University of
Michigan Press.
Servillo, L. (2019). Tailored polities in the shadow of the state’s hierarchy: The CLLD
implementation and a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 27(4), 678–698
DOI:10.1080/09654313.2019.1569595
Smith, R. G. (2003). World city topologies. Progress in Human Geography, 27(5), 561–582.
Stockholms Läns Landsting. (2012). Förslag till regionalt utvecklingsprogram för Sörmland –
Sörmlandsstrategin 2020. Tjänsteutlåtande, Dnr LS 1207-0964.
Tillväxtanalys. (2013). Kommunal översiktsplanering och regionala utvecklingsprogram.
Working Paper 2013:01, Östersund.
Tillväxtverket. (2015). Strategier för samverkan. Om myndigheters medverkan i det regionala
tillväxtarbetet, 2015‐2020. Working Paper 0190, Stockholm.
31
Tillväxtverket. (2021). Regionalt tillväxtarbete.
https://tillvaxtverket.se/amnesomraden/regional-kapacitet/regionalt-tillvaxtarbete.html.
Tillväxtverket. (2022). Tillstånd och trender för regional tillväxt 2022.
https://tillvaxtverket.se/tillvaxtverket/publikationer/publikationer2023/tillstandochtrenderf
orregionaltillvaxt2022.3824.html.
Van den Berghe, K., Peris, A., Meijers, E., & Jacobs, W. (2022). Friends with benefits: The
emergence of the Amsterdam–Rotterdam–Antwerp (ARA) polycentric port region.
Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(2), 301–320. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2021.2014353
32
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 2. Benchmarked TCDI scores for Stockholms län, Södermanlands län and Gotlands län 1995–2019.
Index (Stockholms län = 1). Source: Own estimations.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
SE110 Stockholms län SE214 Gotlands län
SE122 Södermanlands län
33
Figure 3. TCDI scores for Gotland, Södermanland and Stockholm regions 1995-2019. Index 1995=1. Source:
Own estimations.
Table 1. Cohesion Policy dimension and indicators.
Dimension
Indicator
Economic cohesion
GDP
in p
urchasing power standard per inhabitant
(GDP)
Employment rate for 20-64 years (EMP)
Share of population 30
-
34 years with tertiary education
(EDU)
Social cohesion
Share of population 65+
(AGE)
Share of population at risk of poverty and social exclusion (PEX)
Share of unemployed 15
-
24 years
(
YOU
)
Territorial cohesion
Km motorway per 1,000 km
2
(ROA)
Share of population with access to internet at home (INT)
Number of medical doctors/100,000 inhabitants
(MED)
Sustainability
Share of renewable energy production
(ENE)
Source: Rauhut and Costa (2021b)
Table 2 Data overview
Indicator
Data
Origin of data
GDP
NUTS3
1995
–
2011
, 2012
–
201
9
Statistics Sweden
EMP
NUTS3
1995
–
201
9
Statistics S
weden
EDU
NUTS 3
1995
–
201
9
Statistics Sweden
YOU
NUTS3
1995
–
201
9
Public Employment Service
AGE
NUTS3
1995
–
201
9
Statistics S
weden
PEX
NUTS3
1995
–
201
9
Statistics Sweden
ROA
NUTS2 1995
–
2019 (NUTS2 data extrapolated to NUTS3)
Eurostat and Statistics Sweden
INT
NUTS0 data for 1995
-
2008, extrapolated to NUTS3; NUTS2
data used for NUTS3 regions 2006-2020
Eurostat and s
venskarnaochinternet.se
MED
NUTS3
1995
–
201
9
National Board of Health and Welfare
ENE
NUTS0 2004
-
2017
Eurostat
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
SE110 Stockholms län SE122 Södermanlands län
SE214 Gotlands län
