BROCHURE_DEV_ECO_EN

88 / 132

Cross-border
economic
development 88 Cross-cutting themes in cross-border economic development
Cross-border observation in support of
economic development
Indeed, this last point regarding data is one of the major issues for
cross-border territories. The observation of economic realities and
forecasting procedures for these territories are based on systems
that differ from one country to another, both in terms of quantitative
data (statistical systems, indicators, collection methods, definitions,
data gathering periods, geographical coverage, etc.) and as regards
qualitative analysis (cooperation mechanisms, economic sectors
of interest, political/administrative/cultural systems, etc.). While
Eurostat ensures the harmonisation of statistical principles at EU
level (in terms of processes, methodology, standards, procedures,
contents, timetables, etc.), the data produced are essentially general
and produced at the level of NUTS 2 or 3, which does not allow
the degree of precision and comprehensiveness that is required to
observe cross-border economic dynamics. As a result, Eurostat
(which is a directorate general of the European Commission) would
appear to be more of a tool to help define European policies, rather
than an instrument that institutional and economic players can use
for themselves at regional or local level.
Initiatives focusing on the harmonised gathering and processing
of data at cross-border level have been on the increase since the
1990s:
Ì Ì The Greater Region has its “Statistics” working group bringing
together five statistical offices from across the region, as well as
its statistical portal and a joint geographical information system
(SIGGR).
Ì Ì The Upper Rhine has its geographical information system SIGRS-
GISOR.
Ì Ì The Jura Arc and Greater Geneva have their two cross-border
statistical observatories.
Ì Ì The French-Belgian border area has its Cross-Border Atlas.
The MOT is monitoring the evolution of these initiatives, which
are still too few and far between. For its part, it has published two
editions of its Cross-Border Cooperation Atlas (in 2001 and 2007)
and conducted a succession of studies in close cooperation with the
General Commission for Territorial Equality (CGET) and the National
Federation of Urban Planning Agencies (FNAU) on the observation of
cross-border territories with the aim systematising and coordinating
the various processes across all of France’s borders through a
Strategic Statistical Observation Committee bringing together
the European Commission, territories’ planning and development
authorities and the statistical institutes of France and neighbouring
countries.
The difficulty in updating these tools (some of which, like the
atlases, are in forms that make them hard to adapt) and the fact
that there are still problems with economic data, which are often
not circulated (or not circulated widely) because of their commercial
or competitive nature, significantly restricts institutional and
economic players’ access to comparable, relevant and reliable
common baselines to support the creation of cross-border strategic
frameworks. Moving beyond the combining of different regional
strategies and achieving greater coherence at the cross-border
level remains a challenge, which is preventing the satisfactory
consultation of neighbouring partners in the processes of adopting
and monitoring regional strategies. The issue of financing and the
provision of the funding required to launch, steer and monitor joint
strategic reflections would therefore seem to be the main factor
determining whether the current statistical and forecasting activities
are continued and whether strategic cross-border approaches are
rolled out more widely in the future.
Towards cross-border
territorial development
strategies
France’s territorial organisation (including public policy in the area of
economic development) prior to the new reforms described in the
previous chapter on governance was a collective response to the lack
of residential mobility and the inflexible nature of the productive model.
Admittedly, national intervention continues to be aimed primarily at
supporting the effectiveness of the metropolitan system133 (i.e. Paris
and the network of other metropolitan areas) which lies at the heart of
the country’s productive system, while ensuring cohesion across the
country by ensuring that the weakest territories are treated fairly. However,
the balance that has been struck thus far – involving the coupling at
national level of the productive economy (based primarily on metropolitan
areas) and the “presential economy” – is not sustainable against the
backdrop of international competition and the ageing population, and
needs to be revisited.
This is not about replacing the national model with a purely local or
regional development model; it is about “decentralising the structural
reform agenda”.
Given that the territorial reforms that are currently being carried out in
France are changing the way in which public players support economic
development, we are proposing that the cross-border dimension be
taken into account in a more strategic manner.
As we have already seen, regions and metropolitan areas are increasingly
working together when it comes to economic intervention. That could, in
certain cases, involve cross-border arrangements – notably in northern
and eastern France, which are the big losers at present, according to
L. Davezies.
The CGET in a note on the new regions134, stresses that the enlargement
of the regional boundaries should not lead to reducing the importance
of interregional relations; We can add that this also applies to the
neighbouring regions across the border. For instance, the Competitiveness
133 P. Veltz, La grande transition, Seuil, 2008.
134