SPATIAL DISPARITIES IN THE NORTH GREAT PLAIN REGION (HUNGARY) AND THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN REGION (TURKEY): GROWING REGIONAL CENTRE AND ITS PERIPHERY

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 55 - 62, 01.06.2010

György Csomós Erkan Polat

Öz

In this paper, we examine a comparison of regional inequalities and spatial disparities in Hungary
and Turkey not only at the interprovincial level but for different regional definitions as well. It has
raised questions about inequalities and disparities not only between interregional but inequalities
within each region. Based on the concept of Europeanization, this paper examines the extent and
direction of change in Turkey’s regional policy to date under the influence of the EU and also
Hungarian concepts of regional development policies to be a member of the EU. Thus, this study
set out in the two examples from the country’s regions and compliance with the EU's regional
development strategy, both in terms of a comparison will be sample of the regions. As set out in
two different country’s sampling, settlement network of regions will be investigated the adaptation
to and transformation within the EU's regional development strategy and in the light of European
Spatial Development Perspective’s recommendations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

regional development, strategic spatial planning, NUTS-2 region, Hungary, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Agnew, J. (2001), “How Many Europes? The European Union, Eastward Enlargement and Uneven
• Development”, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 8. No. 1, pp. 29-38. Bull, M. and Baudner, J. (2004), “Europeanization and Italian Policy for the Mezzogiorno”,
• Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 11. No. 6, 1058-1076.
• EC (European Communities) (2004) European Regional Statistics Reference Guide, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-BD-04-001/EN/KS-BD-04-001-EN.PDF (Accessed: 04.02.2010)
• Gualini, E. (2003), “Challenges to multi-level governance: contradictions and conflicts in the Europeanization of Italian regional policy”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10. No. 4, pp. 636.
• Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001), Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Rowman and Littlefield, New York and London
• Keane, M. (1999), “European Regions: Performance and Measurement”, (in: O’Shea, E. & Keane,
• M. eds., Core Issues in European Economic Integration), Oak Tree Press, Dublin, pp. 115-185. Marks, G., Hooghe, L. and Blank, K. (1996), “European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-level Governance”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34. No. 3, pp. 341-378.
• McQuaid, R.W. (2000), “Implications of EU Expansion for Peripheral Regions, Regional
• Cohesion and Competition in the Age of Globalization”, (in: Kohno, H., Nijkamp, P. and Poot, J. eds., Regional Cohesion and Competition in the Age of Globalization), Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 286-339. Moulaert, F. and Sekia, F. (2003), “Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey”, Regional Studies, Vol. 37. No. 3, pp. 289-302.
• Perroux, F. (1955), “Note sur la nation de pole de croissance”, Économie Appliquée, Vol. 8, No. 1- , pp. 307-320.
• Petrakos, G., Maier, G. and Gorzelak, G. (2000), Integration and Transition in Europe, The Economic Geography of Interaction, Routledge Studies in the European Economy, Routledge.
• Risse-Kappen, T. (1996), “Exploring the nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34. No. 1, pp. 53-80.
• Rhodes, M. (1995), “Conclusion: The Viability of Regional Strategies”, (in: Rhodes, M. ed., The Regions and the New Europe: Patterns in Core and Periphery Development), Manchester
• University Press, Manchester, pp. 329-351. Sabel, C. F. (1989), “Flexible Specialisation and the Re-emergence of Regional Economies”, (in:
• Hirst, P. and Zeitlin, J. eds., Reversing Industrial Decline? Industrial Structure and Policy in Britain and Her Competitors), St. Martin’s Press, Oxford, pp. 17-121