PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

45
economies of scope, regarding transport investments. While somewhat doubtful
empirically, such arguments would then call for a focus on intra-regional rather than
inter-regional infrastructures, and for a redirecting of funds from Pan-European, largescale
infrastructures towards locally-targeted, regional infrastructure investments. 2
Concurrent with these observations, Van Geenhuizen and Ratti (1998:84) identify
four basic forces that are reshaping the geopolitical and socioeconomic positions of
European regions: 1) the unification of Europe (which resulted in an increased openness
of regions), 2) the shift to a new local-global network economy, 3) the (related) rapid
progress in information technology, and 4) policies for an environmentally sustainable
growth (however these might be defined). The first three factors in particular lead to an
increased competition between European regions and cities (Cheshire and Gordon 1995).
Of course not everyone has drawn the same conclusions from the new realities unfolding
around us. While everyone seems to agree that investments into physical rail and road
infrastructures will remain crucially important even in the information age, opinions
about investment priorities differ widely. This following section presents a general
overview over theories on the economic aspects of transport investments.
2 Not all scholars agree that flexible specialization is a necessary outcome, however. Capello and Gillespie
(1993), for example, use a Regulation School underpinning to investigate spatial changes in Europe. They
compare “the long-distance, regular, standardized commodity flow demanded by the (late) Fordist
production system” with several future scenarios, notably Piore and Sabel's classic “flexible specialization”
model of industrial organization and a “network firm/global-local” scenario. Interestingly, Capello and
Gillespie (1993:58) raise doubts over “the over-idealistic view that a completely different industrial and
spatial structure can be developed, with completely opposite features from those of Fordism.” They see the
most likely future scenario in their own global-local model, where so-called network firms aim at
“diversified mass production.” They conclude that “[w]ith respect to spatial organization, the outcome … is
far less dramatic than the one suggested by [Piori’s and Sable’s] ‘flexible specialization’ scenario…. [I]t
can be argued that the spatial extent of firms will remain … largely the same.” 2 The most serious drawback
with Regulation school-type Post-Fordist scholars such as Capello and Gillespie, of course, is their often
surprisingly narrow focus on the changing nature and re-organization of firms. Infrastructure decisions are
then seen as simply following the (new or old) logic of capitalism, without much room for agency in the
decision-making process.