You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items

  • Author or Editor: Rob Atkinson x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Rob Atkinson

This chapter argues that we would do well to begin thinking about the not-for-profit sector from a radically different perspective than that which underpins the standard law and economics model of that sector. The chapter finds this perspective in neo-classical republican theory. From a republican point of view, the not-for-profit sector is not the last resort when other sectors fail: it is the source of important insights about all four sectors of the economy and their point and purpose. Moreover, the republican viewpoint notices the ways in which the not-for-profit sector seeks to shape and inform preferences, as opposed to simply satisfying them once formed. Using the example of education as a type of good provided by all four sectors of the mixed economy, and drawing on ancient and modern thought, the chapter argues for a flourishing not-for-profit sector oriented towards a vision of the common good grounded in scholarly reflection on questions of value.

You do not have access to this content

Rob Atkinson and Karsten Zimmermann

Since the early 1990s the European Commission has launched several urban initiatives that were considered to be part of Cohesion policy. Initiatives such as URBAN I and URBAN II are widely accepted as successful urban programmes that helped cities to cope with challenges such as social exclusion and regeneration of deprived areas. The authors e argue that although the notion of Integrated Sustainable Urban Development is prominent in the current Cohesion policy programmes and a predefined share of each member state’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funding must be invested in urban areas, the urban dimension has become somewhat blurred. It remains to be seen whether the new instruments that are thought to provide for better coordination of sectorial policy and more ‘focused urban spending’ are implemented by the member states.

You do not have access to this content

Karsten Zimmermann and Rob Atkinson

Since the Urban Pilot Projects in the early 1990s to the Pact of Amsterdam cities have been part of ECP and much has been written on the relationship between ECP and cities. We will briefly summarize this process, highlighting the discursive shift from an anti-poverty agenda to broader concerns about territorial cohesion and the place-based approach. The focus of the chapter will take an instrumental view of the role of cities in ECP. While cities may be an instrument of territorial cohesion the wider implications for Europe’s urban structure have not been discussed at length and there has been a tendency to focus on larger cities. By ignoring small and medium-sized cities, the EU Urban Policy has rather than enhancing territorial cohesion (and economic and social cohesion) exacerbated existing tendencies towards territorial inequalities.

You do not have access to this content

Rob Atkinson and Karsten Zimmermann

This chapter argues there has been a growing interest in spatial planning across Europe and that its roots lie in the planning systems and practices of a number of North-Western European countries, most notably France, Germany and the Netherlands. At the EU level, spatial planning became synonymous with the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), a non-binding intergovernmental document agreed between member states in 1999, reflecting the lack of any specific legal competence to justify Community actions in this sphere. This means that it is difficult to trace direct relationships between European Spatial Planning and the ESDP and particular policies and outcomes. Despite this we argue one should not underestimate its impact at European and national levels through its influence on the structural funds and its recent articulation with territorial development and the associated notion of territorial cohesion now included in the Consolidated Treaty of European Union.