Стратегический и проектный уровни приграничного сотрудничества России и Европейского союза: общее и различное
В последние десятилетия приграничное сотрудничество играет роль стабильного и взаимовыгодного инструмента партнёрства между Евросоюзом и Россией. Несмотря на некоторые политические противоречия на высшем уровне и экономические издержки от санкционной политики, приграничное сотрудничество остается важным каналом взаимодействия, который является двигателем экономического и социального прогресса в регионе Балтийского моря. Данное исследование направлено на выявление сходств и различий стратегических и проектных целей приграничного сотрудничества между Россией и ЕС на примере Программ приграничного сотрудничества «Юго-Восточная Финляндия – Россия», «Эстония – Россия» и «Латвия – Россия» за 2014-2020 годы. С связи с тем, что автор исследует социально-экономическую сферу, для анализа были отобраны социально-экономические стратегические цели и проекты в рамках программного Приоритета 1 «Развитие предпринимательства и малого и среднего бизнеса». В теоретической главе автор рассматривает комплекс подходов к понятию «приграничное сотрудничество»; особенности многоуровневого управления как теоретической базы для анализа приграничного сотрудничества; а также принципы целеполагания в стратегических документах и международных проектах. В методологической главе автор обосновывает выбор методологии и источников для анализа. В заключительной части автор рассматривает европейские, российские, совместные стратегические документы и конкретные проекты, на основании чего определяются и детально сравниваются стратегические и проектные цели. Автор приходит к выводу, что Программы приграничного сотрудничества в равной мере отражают как европейские, так и российские интересы. Они сосредоточены на поддержании мирных отношений, развитии приграничных регионов и приграничного сотрудничества как такового. Однако, Россия и ЕС сталкиваются с различными проблемами, связанными с границами. Более того, Россия и ЕС имеют несколько отличающиеся подходы в отношении моделей сотрудничества: ЕС делает упор на общее пространство, в то время как российская сторона делает акцент на добрососедстве. Несмотря на существующие различия, европейские и российские цели приграничного сотрудничества в целом схожи. Они, в свою очередь, коррелируются с целями проектов: цели формулируются в национальных концепциях и европейских документах, затем на их основе определяются задачи Программ приграничного сотрудничества и, наконец, они находят отражение в конкретных проектах. Также исследование показало, что теория многоуровневого управления объясняет специфику целей Программ приграничного сотрудничества, которые формируются с учетом интересов государственных и негосударственных акторов. Данная особенность обусловлена появлением новой системы многоуровневых связей в регионе.
1.1. Topicality
The context of the EU – Russian relations can be characterized as ambiguous. On the one hand, since the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, mutual wariness has been growing. Sanctions and counter-sanctions are weakening economic interaction; statistics show that the EU’s exports to Russia fell by 20.7 % annually in 2013-2016 (European Parliament report, 2017, p.6). On the other hand, Russian and European relations stay resilient despite some contradictions at the highest level. Both the EU and Russia cooperate intensively in the Arctic and Barents region through different regional institutions (as the Barents Euro-Arctic Council and the Arctic Council). Bilateral cooperation also is a durable channel of interaction that operates despite contemporary challenges. As it was stated in the EU – Russian review of cross-border cooperation (CBC), “The EU – Russia relationship is currently under strain, and CBC provides a valuable channel for cooperation between communities on both sides of the border during these challenging times as well as laying down the foundations for deeper regional cooperation in the future” (EEAS-DG NEAR, 2017, p. 6).
Furthermore, the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) is a place where project activities are becoming an increasingly popular tool for regional development: this sphere evolves rapidly, each year new elements of cooperative networks emerge. Following a tendency of carrying out more pragmatic foreign policy, the EU and Russia ceased to perceive common borders only as threats and started to see them as a potential for positive challenges. Using realist terminology, we would say that interactions in the BSR became more of a cooperative game instead of a zero-sum one (Sologub, 2015). The foregoing explains the practical relevance of the topic.
From a theoretical perspective, the choice of the topic is determined by the growing popularity of IR studies concerning a whole complex of interactions in the Baltic Sea Region. We believe that the debates on forms of cross-border cooperation in the BSR are extensive and that creates a basis for the new scientific inquiries. A lot of unique processes are going on there, and as Studzieniecki (2016) mentioned, the BSR is a testing ground for international cooperation and innovative forms of communication. The Baltic Sea Region is usually conceptualized in terms of dynamic, prosperous, full of potential, promising region. The formation of new cooperative institutions as the ENI CBC Programmes draws the attention of scholars who represent various IR traditions and directions (English school, Copenhagen school, constructivism, etc.). Particular programmes of CBC, barriers to such an interaction, perceptions of territoriality in CBC, functioning of Euroregions, institutional coordination dilemma and other become objects of study. Our research tests multi-level governance theoretical approach that lets us capture the dynamics of multi-level connections in the region. We hope that our research aiming at the detection of similarities and differences of strategic and project goals between Russia and the EU will bring new findings and enrich the modern debates on cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region.
1.1. Research background
1.2.1. What is the Baltic Sea Region?
“When we say “Baltic”, do we mean a place, a space, a bounded area of nation-states, a cluster of networks?” – asked rhetorically Ole Waever (1997). Jussi Jauhiainen (1999) had partly answered the question when he proposed to perceive the BSR as 1) a European mega-region, 2) a European subregion made of regions and state parts, 3) a net of various interest groups, or 4) a special community created by region-builders. Taking that into consideration, scholars come to the agreement upon the fact that the Baltic Sea Region is more than a physical territory, it is a political, socio-economic, and cultural concept (Katajala, 2013). However, the physical characteristics of the region are also important for researchers as this knowledge helps to limit the territory for the analysis. In our research, we will stick to the definition of the BSR that was formulated by Klemeshev et al. (2017). According to this approach, the BSR is set up by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Baltic States, German lands of Mecklenburg Vorpommern, and Schleswig-Holstein; Polish lands of Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, Pomeranian Voivodeship, and West Pomeranian Voivodeship; some subjects of the Russian Federation –the city of St. Petersburg, Leningrad Oblast, Pskov Oblast, Novgorod Oblast, Kaliningrad Oblast, and the Republic of Karelia.
1.2.2. Historical perspective on cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region
For a long time, the Baltic Sea Region remains a place of intensive cooperation: the Hanseatic League was a unique example of a commercial confederation of those times. However, during the Cold War, the Baltic Sea played a role as the barrier between two political blocks, and only after the dissolution of the USSR and following EU’s enlargements the idea of the BSR as an area of cooperation emerged (Reuter, 2010, p. 21-22). Due to these changes, the region was conceptualized in terms of common identity rather than “hard politics”.
In the late 1980s, the Schleswig-Holstein Prime Minister Björn Engholm came up with the New Hansa initiative aiming at regional development based on an economic revitalization via creating a network of non-hierarchic business and civil society ties. The ideas were elaborated on by Scandinavian social scientists Pertti Joenniemi and Ole Wæver in the 1990s. The representatives of the Copenhagen school actively participate in ongoing debates on regionalization in the BSR. Applying a constructivist approach to region-building and linking up to Barry Buzan’s and Ole Wæver’s concepts of security community and securitization, the Copenhagen school highlighted the post-modern features of the Baltic Sea regionalization process. The recent transitions in the BSR were mainly conceptualized by emphasizing the role of the non-hierarchical and grassroots-based features of cooperation (ibid.).
Many scholars started to view the Baltic Sea Region as an illustration of “new regionalism,” meaning a model of regional cooperation driving from below by informal interactions of non-governmental organizations and acknowledging that states cease to play the key role in integration processes (Wæver & Joenniemi,1991; Lehti, 2009).
Relations between Russia and the EU in the BSR were developed in the distinct way. As we stated earlier, in the 1940s – 1980s, the BSR represented a border between the Western and Eastern blocks of countries. Since the late 1980s – 1990s, the relations between the EU and Russia began to improve. After the EU enlargement in 2004, the European authorities questioned how to build up relations with new neighbours. At that moment, European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) emerged to create a common economic, cultural, social space based on shared interests with partners counties of the East and South that would ensure stability in the region. Despite the EU’s intention to include Russia in ENP, Russia rejected that suggestion and insisted on strategic partnership. Therefore, Russia is only eligible for ENI cross-border cooperation programmes (European Neighbourhood Policy, EEAS website).
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) came into force in 2007 substituting MEDA instrument, TACIS instrument for the Eastern neighbours, and other financial means of support. ENPI was a financial instrument for implementing the Action Plans which covered sixteen partner countries and Russia within Strategic Partnership in 2007-2013 (European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument, CES-MED website).
In year 2014, the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) has substituted the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The main principles remain the same: commitment to democracy, human rights, the rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development based on political dialogue, trade-related issues, economic and social cooperation (ibid.).
1.3. Research purpose and question
As stated above, cross-border cooperation is an important driver of economic and social progress in the Baltic Sea Region. In case when more mechanisms for such developments are available within the European community, cooperation between the EU and Russia is scarcer due to different institutional restrictions: different legal systems, different stages of economic development, different historical background, and especially the existence of the external border. To overcome such obstacles, ENI CBC practices are implemented: CBC projects within ENI CBC Programmes try to solve common issues. Nevertheless, this raises the question of whether these project local issues are relevant for general European and Russian spatial planning goals; do project goals correlate with European and Russian ones. Another question that puzzles us is whether Russian and European goals of cross-border cooperation correspond with each other since both parties can have a different perception of each other and, hence, a different understanding of cross-border cooperation goals. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to reveal the similarities and differences of strategic and project goals between Russia and the EU based on the case of certain ENI CBC Programmes.
Within the ENI CBC Programmes, we have chosen Priority 1 “Business and SME development” in order to focus on projects attempting to influence the socio-economic development of the region. Our decision to concentrate on the socio-economic sphere is based on the fact that economic ties have been damaged significantly by sanctions, coronavirus pandemic, and other challenges. Despite that, Russia remains an important trade partner for Finland and the Baltic States. Therefore, establishing business contacts and other activities within CBC projects could become new sources to support economic development.
Our selection of South-East Finland – Russia, Estonia – Russia, and Latvia – Russia CBC Programmes 2014-2020 programmes can be explained by the fact that other ENI CBC Programmes either do not fit exclusively to the territory of the BSR in a way we perceive it (Kolarctic and Karelia CBC Programmes), or do not include projects within Priority 1 “Business and SME development” (Lithuania – Russia and Poland – Russia CBC Programmes). The timeframe 2014-2020 was chosen because, firstly, it is the last finished programming period containing all reports and project information and, secondly, it helps to trace tendencies of cooperation that emerged after the 2014 Ukrainian crisis.
To tackle this issue, we formulate the main research question for our study as follows:
How the goals of “Business and SME development” Priority projects in the framework of South-East Finland – Russia, Estonia – Russia, and Latvia – Russia CBC Programmes 2014-2020 correspond with the socio-economic strategic goals of the EU and Russia?
To achieve the purpose of our research and answer the research question, we would like to formulate the following aims for the study:
• To analyze relevant academic literature devoted to the cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region;
• To identify and compare with each other the main European and Russian strategic goals of cross-border cooperation;
• To identify and compare project goals within “Business and SME development” Priority in the framework of South-East Finland – Russia, Estonia – Russia, and Latvia – Russia CBC Programmes 2014-2020;
• To determine the main similarities and differences between European and Russian strategic goals of cross-border cooperation and cross-border project goals.
The object of our research is a cross-border cooperation between the EU and Russia within ENI CBC Programmes South-East Finland – Russia, Estonia – Russia, Latvia – Russia 2014-2020. The subject of the research is the similarities and differences of strategic and project goals between Russia and the EU within these ENI CBC Programmes.
The topic is studied within the theoretical framework of multi-level governance. This concept describes how power is spreading among vertical governmental entities and various horizontal non-governmental structures and actors. Since we study goals of cross-border cooperation on strategic and project levels, we should familiarize ourselves with main stakeholders who determine the objectives of CBC in the region. In the Baltic Sea Region, multi-level governance explains the dynamics of relations because a huge variety of actors are involved in policy-making processes. In addition, this tendency diffuses on the ENI CBC Programmes and the presence of business partners, civil societies, and other players explains how goals derive not only from national powers but also from local actors.
Speaking about the novelty of the work, we believe that for the first time, the research analyzes in complexity strategic and project levels of cross-border cooperation between Russia and the EU: our work includes a detailed description, analysis, and systematization of project goals of the ENI CBC Programmes. As a result, it will be possible to indicate similarities and differences of strategic and project levels of cross-border cooperation between Russia and the EU. Moreover, this thesis studies the European and Russian strategic documents goals not in a complexity of a whole document but as distinct units of analysis that is also considered a novelty of the work. Finally, we believe that for the first time, some new sources devoted to the project activities of the Baltic Sea region are included in the scientific circulation.
1.4. Thesis structure
The thesis is composed of an introduction, theoretical, methodological, empirical parts, and conclusions. In the theoretical chapter, we intend to overview different approaches to the definition of “cross-border cooperation” as it is a central concept of our study. As multi-level governance (MLG) was chosen as the theoretical framework, it is next proceeds with the literature on MLG and an explanation of the rationale of such a theoretical choice. Moreover, a goal-setting process and its specifics for the ENI CBC are discussed. In the methodological part, we present data collection techniques and describe the methodology, in particular, previous studies relevant to our work and specific methods that help us to tackle the matter. The empirical part aims at comparing the goals of the EU’s and Russian strategic documents and goals of the ENI CBC projects in order to reveal differences and similarities and try to explain them. The empirical part is divided into two chapters. The first one includes analysis of strategic documents of the EU and Russia: goals of CBC are to be determined and compared. The second one focuses on the project activity between Russia and the EU: we extract the main goals of projects and study them. Finally, based on the findings from both empirical chapters, we compare the main aims and objectives of the EU’s and Russian documents with the aims and objectives of particular projects and formulate conclusions.
1.5. Literature review
As cross-border cooperation derives from an understanding of borders, we should say a few words about academic literature devoted to border studies. Border studies scholars are debating the questions of what a border is and what the role of borders and bordering regions in the contemporary world is. Borders are boundaries that delimit the territory of one state from another. Borders are not given; on the contrary, they emerge as a result of socio-political border-making or bordering (van Houtum & Naerssen, 2002; Scott, 2012). Within the border studies, scholars analyze borders not as fixed physical lines but as constantly evolving social construct.
Writing about the debate on region-building, we can identify two directions of bordering narrative. One group of scholars believes that the delimitation of social area is conducted step-by-step and caused by inner factors that forms a shared vision of community (Scott, 2007; Wallis, 2010). We consider that this approach is closer to our study, as it focuses on cooperation derived from a community sense. An alternative bordering narrative suggests that the delimitation of social area is characterized by adaptation to external challenges: borders exist mainly to regulate the territorial questions between global powers (Allen & Cochrane, 2007).
In respect to cross-border cooperation, Duchacek’s (1986) and Soldatos’s (1993) researches were the first works that described how territories archived economic and political aims through international cooperation. Later on, the focus of research shifted to studying local and regional dimensions of cross-border activities. In the 1990s – 2000s, border studies in the EU drew attention to cross-border policy integration and started to perceive it through multi-level governance approach (Perkmann, 1999; Lepik, 2012). In contrast to general positioning CBC in a context of constantly changing transnational networks, the European studies put emphasis on formal, structural understandings of transnational governance (Blatter, 2004). These practices had a spill-over effect, and CBC became not only a tool to create a strong community inside the EU but also an instrument to rase the EU’s global significancy and to detach the EU from others (Scott, 2011). CBC was seen as much broader than the only cost-effective solution for dealing with common problems: an important factor that caused this cooperation laid in willingness of the EU to play a stabilizing and at the same time transformative role in the post-Soviet countries.
Nowadays in modern Russian and foreign literature, researches on cross-border cooperation in the Baltic region can be divided into three main thematic groups.
The first group of works examines the Baltic region and the peculiarities of interstate contacts within. Lehti (2009), Mezhevich (2009, 2011, 2013), Korneevets (2017) study the logic of the BSR development and analyze its specific features. A lot of valuable works were written by scholars of the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University: Novikova (2014), Sergunin (2013), Khudolei, Lanko (2009), Mezhevich scrutinize particular interstate ties within the Baltic Sea Region. In the international scientific literature, the most famous works were written by Gönzle, Etzold, Kern (2011), Scott (2012, 2015), Hilmarsson (2019).
The second group of works focuses on cross-border cooperation as part of political and/or institutional cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region. For example, Scott (2013) writes about the role of the EU in promoting cross-border cooperation and including neighboring states in cooperation. Selected works concern regional institutions in the Baltic Sea Region (Aalto, Espiritu, Kilpeleinen, Lanko, 2017) as well as the achievements and shortcomings of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (Studzieniecki, 2016; Zauha et al., 2020).
The third group includes works analyzing cross-border cooperation as a part of international cooperation. Researchers study interaction in the Baltic Sea Region through the concept of economies of scale and regional integration (Hilmarsson, 2019) and the concept of path dependence in the economy (Mezhevich, 2020).
Derived from mentioned above directions, some scholars concentrate specifically on MLG configurations within the ENI CBC framework. The studies of Khasson (2013) Faludi (2012) Celata and Coletti (2015), Koch (2017), Nadalutti (2013) are devoted to the ways of how the EU views neighborhood-based policies as well as its experience of conducting transnational relations. The vertical and horizontal actor relationships in ENI CBC are subject to the system of the ENI CBC programmes, thereby, these special relations of actors determine the CBC practices ( Koch, 2017). The works of Sebentsov (2020), Daume (2018), Fritsch (2015) develop these ideas by describing the configuration of actors involved and the features of ENI CBC deriving from that.
PRIMARY SOURCES
European documents
• Committee of the Regions. (2009). The European grouping of territorial co-operation (EGTC). State of play and prospects. Brussels: EU publications. Retrieved from https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/EGTC-state-of-play/EGTC-state_of_play_and_prospects_EN.pdf
• European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Action plan, 2017, EC, p.36-61 Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/baltic/action_20032017_en.pdf
• EEAS-DG NEAR. (2017). European Neighbourhood Instrument Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2014–2020. Mid-term review (2017). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhoodenlargement/sites/near/files/180611_eni_cbc_-_mid-term_review.pdf
• CEC. (2014). Regulation (EU) No 232/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a European neighbourhood instrument (L77). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0232
• European Commission. (2014). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014 of 18 August 2014 laying down specific provisions for the implementation of cross-border cooperation programmes financed under Regulation (EU) No 232/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a European Neighbourhood Instrument. Retrieved from https://www.sefrcbc.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Implementing-Regulation-EU-No-897_2014.pdf
• European Council. (2014). Programming of the European neighbourhood instrument (ENI) – 2014– 2020. Programming document for EU support to ENI cross-border cooperation (2014–2020). Retrieved from http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/financing-the-enp/cbc_2014– 2020_programming_document_en.pdf
• European Council. (2013). Article 5 (“Partnership and multi-level governance”) of the regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri= CELEX_32013R1303&from=EN
• European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, Concile of Europe, European Treaty Series – No. 106, Madrid, 21.V.1980. https://rm.coe.int/1680078b0c
Russian documents
• Federal Law “On the Basics of Cross-Border Cooperation” dated July 26, 2017 N 179-FZ. https://docs.cntd.ru/document/436752111 In Russ.
• On approval of the Concept of cross-border cooperation in the Russian Federation. Approved by order of the the Government of the Russian Federation, dated February 9, 2001 N 196-r. https://docs.cntd.ru/document/901780926 In Russ.
• On approval of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 30, 2016 No. 640. http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/41451
• On approval of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 18, 2013. https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/official_documents/-/asset_publisher/CptICkB6BZ29/content/id/122186
• The Strategy for the Social and Economic Development of the North-West Region of the Russian Federation until 2020. Approved by order of the Government Russian Federation of November 18, 2011 N 2074-p. http://docs.cntd.ru/document/902317621 In Russ.
Joint documents
• Joint Operational Programme Estonia – Russia CBC Programme 2014-2020 https://www.estoniarussia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Estonia_Russia_CBC_JOP_FINAL_16012017.pdf
• Joint Operational Programme Latvia – Russia CBC Programme 2014-2020 https://latruscbc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/last-3rd-version-LV-RU-CBC-Programme.pdf
• Joint Operational Programme South-East Finland – Russia CBC Programme 2014-2020 https://www.sefrcbc.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/JOP_EN_amended_Oct-2020.pdf
Internet resources
• Cross-border cooperation programs Russia – EU. Official site of Ministry of Economic Development Russian Federation. URL: Retrieved from http://old.economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/mps/programs/index
• European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument, CES-MED web-site. Retrieved from https://www.ces-med.eu/project/partners/enpi
• European Neighbourhood Policy, EEAS web-site. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-network/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp/330/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp_en
• Finnish municipalities and regions, 2020. The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Retrieved from https://www.localfinland.fi/finnish-municipalities-and-regions
• Funded projects. CBC 2014-2020 South-East Finland – Russia. Retrieved from https://www.sefrcbc.fi/funded-projects-2/
• Goal. Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/definition/goal
• List of projects. CBC 2014-2020 Latvia – Russia. Retrieved from https://latruscbc.eu/projects/
• Local governments in Estonia. the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia. Retrieved from https://www.rahandusministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/KOV_haldusref_maavalitsus/KOV/eesti_kov_trykis_inglise_keel_web.pdf
• News. South-East Finland – Russia CBC website. Retrieved from https://www.sefrcbc.fi/news/
• Project library. INTERREG. Retrieved from https://projects.interreg-baltic.eu/
• Project. Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/project
• Supported projects. CBC 2014-2020 Estonia – Russia. Retrieved from https://www.estoniarussia.eu/supported-projects/
• Trade between Russia, Finland, Estonia and Latvia in 2020. Russian-trade.com. Retrieved from https://russian-trade.com/reports-and-reviews/2020-02/ In Russ.
Projects’ websites
• Bringing Together. Retrieved from https://en.bringingtogether.ru/about/
• Cata3Pult. Retrieved from https://www.ecoprofi.info/en/cata3pult
• FarmerCraft. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/FarmerCraft-105061664912426/
• Green ReMark. Retrieved from http://greenremark.com/
• INCROBB “Inclusive cross-border business networking of tomorrow”. Retrieved from https://gifu.spbstu.ru/incrobb/
• Narva-Slantsy Leisure Cluster. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/106930270912276/posts/184947306443905/
• SME ACCESS. Retrieved from https://setomaa.kovtp.ee/sme-access
• Startup Connect. Retrieved from http://startupconnect.info/index.php?option=com_jabuilder&view=page&id=4&Itemid=110
• Twin campus. Retrieved from http://www.twincampus.info/
SECONDARY SOURCES
• Aalto P., Espiritu, A.A., Kilpeläinen, S., Lanko, D.A. (2017). The Coordination of Policy Priorities among Regional Institutions from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic: the Institutions – Coordination Dilemma. Journal of Baltic Studies 48(2): 135-160
• Allen J. & Cochrane C. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41 (9), 1161–1175
• Bache I. & Flinders M. (2004). Themes and Issues in Multi-level Governance, in Bache, I. & Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-level governance. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1-11, 195-206
• Bellamy R. (2016). A European Republic of Sovereign States: Sovereignty, Republicanism and The Eu. European Journal of Political Thought
• Blatter J. (2004). From spaces of places’ to ‘spaces of flows’? Territorial and functional governance in cross-border regions in Europe and North America. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 530–48
• Boman J. and Eiki B. (2007). Identity and institutions shaping cross-border cooperation at the margins of the European Union. Regional and Federal Studies 17, 2, 195–215
• Borowicz A. & Pachocka M. (2019). Cross-Border Cooperation Projects under INTERREG in the EU 15 Member States in 2000 – 2020, 27-28. 65-83. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339054659_Cross-border_Cooperation_Projects_under_INTERREG_in_the_EU-15_Member_States_in_2000-2020
• Brack N., Coman R., & Crespy A. (2019). Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity. Journal of European Integration, 41(7), 817-832
• Buhringer G. (1990). Multiple Bewertungskiterien innerhalb des Modells “Pscycholsoziales Anschlussprogramm”. In Koch & Wittmann, 141-156
• Bulatova O. V. (2010). Structural and level organization of management system of economy of the sub-regional structures. Business in Law, 1, 258-260. In Russ.
• Burtceva E. (2014). Barriers to the Implementation of the EU-Russia Cross-Border Cooperation Programs (Cases of ENPI Programs “South-East Finland – Russia” and “Estonia-Latvia-Russia”). Working Papers WP 2014-03, Centre for German and European Studies (CGES)
• Caramani D. (Ed.). (2017). Comparative politics. Oxford University Press
• Celata F. and Coletti R. (2015). Beyond fortress ‘EU’ rope? Bordering and cross-bordering along the European external frontiers. In: Celata F and Coletti R (eds) Neighbourhood Policy and the Construction of the European External Borders. 1st ed. Springer: GeoJournal Library, pp. 1−25
• Cherkasov A.I. (2016). Local government in the multilevel government system of the European Union. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, (2 (54)), 149-174. Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mestnoe-upravlenie-v-sisteme-mnogourovnevogo-pravleniya-evropeyskogo-soyuza
• Cornett A., Folke S. (2002). Trade and foreign direct investment as measures of spatial integration in the Baltic Sea Region. Goegraphia Polonica, 75(2), 33-55
• Daume S. (2018). Cross-border cooperation in rural territories in context of the EU funds: case of Latvia-Estonia-Russia border area. The International Conference: Economic science for rural development, No 48. Jelgava, LLU ESAF, 62-69. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.spbu.ru:4630/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=3ebaaecc-2362-44a7-a837-843b901accc9%40sessionmgr4007#
• De Sousa L. (2013). Understanding European Cross-border Cooperation: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of European Integration, 35:6, 669-687. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.711827
• Dolizde T. (2015). EU sanctions policy towards Russia: The sanctioner-sanctionee’s game of thrones. CEPS Working Document No. 402. Retrieved from http://www. ceps.eu/system/files/WD%20402%20TD%20Sanctions.pdf
• Dubrovina O.YU., Plotnikova O.V. (2016). International relations of regions of states: characteristics and features. M.: Norma; INFRA-M. 192 s
• Enderlein H., Wälti, S., & Zürn, M. (2010). Handbook on multi-level governance. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar
• Etzold T., Gänzle S. (2011/2012). Briefing Paper For the 2011/12 German Presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Creating a Coherent Framework for Baltic Sea Cooperation https://polskawue.gov.pl/files/polska_w_ue/Polska_a_polityki_UE/Strategia_Morza_Baltyckiego/SWP_Coherent_Framework.pdf
• European Parliament report. Russia’s and the EU’s sanctions: economic and trade effects, compliance and the way forward (2017). Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/603847/EXPO_STU(2017)603847_EN.pdf
• Faludi A. (2012). Multi-level (territorial) governance: three criticisms. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2): 197–211
• Frensch R. (1995). Regionalepolitikverflechtung und administrative Kooperationskultur in Europa: zur Evaluation staadsgrenzenuberschreitender Kooperation. Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss.
• Fritsch M. & Németh, S. & Piipponen M. & Yarovoy G. (2015). Whose partnership? Regional participatory arrangements in CBC programming on the Finnish–Russian border. European Planning Studies. 23. 1-18
• Gebhard C. (2009). Unravelling the Baltic Sea Conundrum: Regionalism and European Integration Revisited. Wien: Nomos
• Geddes A. (2007). Baltic Partnerships: Integration, Growth and Local Governance in the Baltic Sea Region. Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/baltic-partnerships_9789264029293-en
• Haukkala H. (2010). The EU-Russia strategic partnership: the limits of post-sovereignty in international relations. Routledge
• Hellstern G-M. & Wolllamann H. (1984). Evaluierung und Erfolgskontrolle auf der kommunalen Ebene. Ein Uberblick. In Dies (Hg.), 10-57
• Hermann M. G. (2008). Content analysis. Qualitative methods in international relations, 151-167. Palgrave Macmillan, London
• Hooghe L. & Marks G. (2001). Multi-Level Governance in the European Union, in Hooghe, L., Marks, G. (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 1-32
• Houtum Henk van & van Naerssen T. (2002). Bordering, ordering, and othering. Journal of Economic and Social Geography. 93(2), 125-136. Houtum, H. van (2002). Borders of comfort, spatial economic bordering processes in the European Union. Regional and Federal Studies, 12(4), 37-58
• Izotov D. &Yun S. (2011). Cross-border cooperation as an object of scientific research. Ecumene. Regional studies, №4 (19). Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/prigranichnoe-sotrudnichestvo-kak-obekt-issledovaniya
• Jauhiainen J. (1999). A Geopolitical View of the Baltic Sea Region. in H. Haukkala, ed., Dynamic Aspects of the Northern Dimension. University of Turku, 47-68
• Kantowsky D. (1977). Evaluierungsforschung und -praxis in der Entwicklungshillfe. Zurich
• Katajala K. (2013). Bordering the Baltic. Scandinavian boundary drawing processes, 1900–2000. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 28(1), 151-152
• Kaul I. (1977). Systematische Evaluierung als Instrument zielgruppenorrientierter Entwicklingsplanung. Zum gegenwartigen Stand der Diskussion im UN-Bereich. In Kantowsky, 145-174
• Kern K. Gänzle S. (2013). Towards Cruising Speed? Assessing the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. European Policy Analysis. http://www.sieps.se/sites/default/files/2013_17epa.pdf
• Khasson V. (2013). Cross-border cooperation over the Eastern EU border: between assistance and partnership under the European neighbourhood and partnership instrument. East European Politics 29(3): 328–343
• Khudoley K.K., Lanko D.A. (2009). St. Petersburg in the Baltic Region. Baltic Region, No. 1. URL: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sankt-peterburg-v-baltiyskom-regione
• Klemeshev A. P., Korneevets V. S., Palmowski T., Studzieniecki Т., & Fedorov, G. M. (2017). Approaches to the definition of the Baltic sea region. Baltic Region, 9(4), 4-20
• Koch K. (2017). The role of territoriality in the European Union multi-level governmental cooperation framework of Finnish–Russian cross-border cooperation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320392543_The_role_of_territoriality_in_the_European_Union_multi-level_governmental_cooperation_framework_of_Finnish-Russian_cross-border_cooperation
• Krippendorff K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403-407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226
• Kuznetsov B. et al. (2019). EU-Russia cross-border cooperation. From fostering interdependence to managing vulnerabilities, 222
• Laine J. (2015). New Threats, Challenges, and Finnish-Russian Cross-Border Security Cooperation: A Finnish Perspective. Eurolimes. N 20, 125–142
• Laine J. (2016). European civic neighbourhood: towards a bottom-up agenda across borders. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 108(2): 220–233
• Lavenex S. and Schimmelfenning F. (2009). EU rules beyond EU borders: theorizing external governance in European politics. Journal of European Policy 16(6), 791–812
• Lehti M. (2009). Baltic Region in Becoming: from the Council of the Baltic Sea States to the EU‘s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Area. Lithuanian foreign policy review, (22), 9-27
• Lepik K. (2012). Cross-border cooperation institutional organisation. Saarbrücken: Lampert Publishing
• Lichbach M. I. & Zuckerman A. S. (1997). Research traditions and theory in comparative politics: An introduction. Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure, 3-16
• Mälly M. (2018). International Cooperation Organizations of Regional Governments (ICORGs) in the Multi-Level Governance (MLG) System of the Baltic Sea Macro-Region: A Q Methodological Study. Retrieved from https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/104102/978-952-03-0793-6.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Marks G. (1993), Structural Policy and Multi-Level Governance in the EC, in Cafruny, A. and Rosenthal, G. (eds.), The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debate and Beyond, (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner), 391-411
• Medvedev S. (2008). Discourses of alienation: “sovereignty” and “europeization” in relationship to Russia and the EU. World Economy and International Relations, (10), 23-33
• Mezhevich N.M., & Zhuk N.P. (2013). A method for assessing cross-border specialization of interregional interactions of border regions and the results of a pilot assessment. Baltic region, (1), 38-52. In Russ.
• Mikhel E.A., & Krutova O.S. (2011). Migration Processes in the Mirror of Transformation: Border Regions of Russia. Economic and Social Change: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 14 (2), 86-96. In Russ.
• Nadalutti E. (2013). Does the ‘European grouping of territorial co-operation’ promote multi-level governance within the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4): 756–771
• Naryshkin A. A. The development of foreign economic relations between Finland and Russia in modern conditions [Razvitie vneshneekonomicheskikh svyazei mezhdu Rossiei i Finlyandiei v sovremennykh usloviyakh]. Problems of modern economy [Problemy sovremennoi ekonomiki]. 2012. N 1. P. 335–338. In Russ.
• Neumann I. B. (1994). A Region-building Approach to Northern Europe. Review of International Studies, № 20.1., 53-74
• Nienaber B., & Wille C. (2020). Cross-border cooperation in Europe: a relational perspective. European Planning Studies, 28(1), 1-7
• Novikova I.N. (2014). From common interests to common policy. Baltic Region, No. 1. S.164-166
• Osipov V. S. (2016). Project-Functional Structure of Management for Public Administration. Public administration issues, 3, 219-230. In Russ.
• Peric A. & D’hondt F. (2020). Squandering the territorial capital in the Balkans? Urban megaprojects between global trends and local incentives. URBAN DESIGN International, 1-19, DOI: 10.1057/s41289-020-00146-2
• Perkmann M. (1999). Building governance institutions across European borders. Regional Studies, 33(7), 657–666
• Perkmann M. (2007). Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: a comparative study of European cross-border regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6), 861-879
• Perry B. (2007). The Multi-level Governance of Science Policy in England, Regional Studies, 41:8, 1051-1067
• Peters B. G. & Pierre J. (2004). Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain. Multi-level Governance, edited by Ian Bache, and Matthew Flinders, 75– 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Popescu G. (2012). Producing global border spaces. In: Popescu G (ed.) Bordering and Ordering the Twenty First Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 67–77
• Rossi P. & Freemann H. & Hofmann G. (1988). Programm-Evaluation. Einfuhrung in die Methoden angewandter Sozialforschung. Stuttgart
• Sapryka V.A. (2010). Topical issues of methodology for managing socio-economic projects and programs of interregional cooperation in the conditions of the border region. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://dspace.bsu.edu.ru/bitstream/123456789/3610/1/Sapryka%20V_A_Actual.pdf
• Schönlau J. (2010). The Committee of the Regions. The RECON models from a subnational perspective RECON. Online Working Paper 2010/10. Retrieved from www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers.htm
• Scott J. W. (2012). European politics of borders, border symbolism and cross-border cooperation. A companion to border studies, 83-99
• Scott J. W. (2015). Bordering, border politics and cross-border cooperation in Europe. In Neighbourhood policy and the construction of the European external borders, 27-44, Springer, Cham
• Scriven M. (1972). Die Methodologie der Evaluation. In Wulf, 60-91
• Sebentsov A. B. (2018). Institutional dimension of cross-border cooperation in the Russian border area. Regional studies. No. 3 (61), 66-75
• Sebentsov A.B. (2020). Cross-border cooperation on the EU-Russian borders: results of the program approach. Geography, environment, sustainability. 13(1):74-83. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2019-136 https://ges.rgo.ru/jour/article/view/1030
• Sergunin A. (2013). Russia and the European Union in the Baltic region: a thorny path to partnership. Balt. reg ..,No. 4. S.53-66
• Soldatos P. (1993). Cascading subnational paradiplomacy in an interdependent and transnational World. In: D. M. Brown & E. H. Fry (Eds), States and Provinces in the 21 International Economy, (pp. 45-64). Berkeley: UC Berkeley/Institute of Governmental Studies Press
• Sologub A. (2015). The role of project activities in the socio-political construction of the Baltic Sea region: dissertation … candidate of political sciencesб St. Petersburg, 209 p.
• Studzieniecki T. (2016). The development of cross-border cooperation in an EU macroregion–a case study of the Baltic Sea Region. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 235-241
• Studzieniecki T. (2016). The development of cross-border cooperation in an EU macroregion–a case study of the Baltic Sea Region. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 235-241
• Tarasov S. & Mezhevich N. (2009). Cross-border cooperation as an innovative strategy for managing the socio-economic development of the territory. Economics and Management, No. 2 S5. Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/prigranichnoe-sotrudnichestvo-kak-innovatsionnaya-strategiya-upravleniya-sotsialno-ekonomicheskim-razvitiem-territorii
• Todd H. & Christian L. (2018). Determinants of Cross-Border Cooperation. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 33:3, 317-328. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08865655.2018.1482776
• Waever O. (1997). The Baltic Sea: A Region After Post-Modernity? in P. Joermiemi, ed., NeoNationalism or Regionality. The Restructuring of Political Space Around the Baltic Rim. NordREFO, Stockholm, 293-342
• Waever O., & Joenniemi P. (1991). Region in the Making—A Blueprint for Baltic Sea Politics. The Baltic Sea Region: Conflict or Co-operation, 13-60
• Wallace W. (1999). The Sharing of Sovereignty: The European Paradox. Political Studies 47 (3): 503–521
• Wallis A. D. (2010). New regionalism. In R. Hutchinson (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Urban Studies, (pp. 546–548). London:Sage
• White M. D. & Marsh E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library trends, 55(1), 22-45
• Windhoff-Heritier A. (1987). Policy-Analyse. Frankfurt. New York.
• Yakovenko G.V., Boronnikov, D.A. & Yakovenko A.G. (2012). Analysis of the regulatory framework for cross-border cooperation between Russian regions and adjacent territories. Bulletin of the Moscow State Technical University MAMI, 3 (2), 233-238. In Russ.
• Zarubina L. A., & Kudryashova E. V. (2019). Cross-border cooperation programs as resources for the socio-economic development of the Barents region on the example of the Kolarctic program). Modern Europe, (4 (89)), 85-97. In Russ.
• Zaucha J., Böhme K., Pyć D., Neumann L., & Aziewicz D. (2020). EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region after 2020. A nutshell of beauty and possibilities. Europa XXI, 38
• Zhabrev A.A., Mezhevich N.M., & Leontieva A.N. (2011). Development of cross-border cooperation is the goal and set of tasks for the strategic development of the North-West of the Russian Federation. Pskov regionalological journal, (12), 3-9. In Russ.
Последние выполненные заказы
Хочешь уникальную работу?
Больше 3 000 экспертов уже готовы начать работу над твоим проектом!
4.8 (17 отзывов)
5 (154 отзыва)
4.2 (13 отзывов)
5 (9 отзывов)
0 (13 отзывов)
5 (18 отзывов)
5 (428 отзывов)
4.4 (59 отзывов)
4.8 (37 отзывов)
