Geografie 2023, 128, 153-177
https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie.2023.005
Institutional thickness of a shrinkage region with discontinuous development in a border periphery in Czechia
Jan Svoboda
, Marek Komárek, Pavel Chromý
, Marek Komárek, Pavel Chromý
Charles University, Faculty of Science, Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Prague, Czechia
Received February 2022
Accepted July 2022
References
1. AMIN, A., THRIFT, N. (1994): Living in the Global. In: Amin, A., Thrift, N. (eds.): Globalization, institutions and regional development in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1−22.
2. BAŃSKI, J. (2009): Rural Areas of Economic Success in Poland – Diagnosis and Conditioning. In: Bański, J., Kulikowski, R., Kowalski, M., Zgliński, W. (eds.): Socio-economic Disparities and the Role of Local Development. Polish Geographical Society, Warsaw, 69−88.
3. BEER, A., LESTER, L. (2015): Institutional thickness and institutional effectiveness: Developing regional indices for policy and practice in Australia. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2, 1, 205−228.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1013150>
4. BERNARD, J., ILLNER, M., KOSTELECKÝ, T., VOBECKÁ, J. (2011): Samospráva venkovských obcí a místní rozvoj. Sociologické nakladatelství SLON, Praha.
5. BEUGELSDIJK, S., VAN SCHAIK, T. (2005): Social capital and growth in European regions: An empirical test. European Journal of Political Economy, 21, 2, 301−324.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2004.07.004>
6. BLAŽEK, J., UHLÍŘ, D. (2020): Teorie regionálního rozvoje: nástin, kritika, implikace. 3. vydání, Karolinum, Praha.
7. BOSCHMA, R.A. (2005): Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 1, 61−74.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887>
8. BOSCHMA, R.A. (2017): Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: a research agenda. Regional Studies, 51, 3, 351−364.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767>
9. BUBENÍČEK, V., ČMEJREK, J., ČOPÍK, J. (2010): Demokracie v lokálním politickém prostoru. Grada, Praha.
10. BUŠTÍKOVÁ, L. (1996): Analýza sociálních sítí. Sociologický časopis, 35, 2, 193−206.
<https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.1999.35.2.10>
11. CHROMÝ, P., JANČÁK, V., MARADA, M., HAVLÍČEK, T. (2011): Venkov – žitý prostor: Regionální diferenciace percepce venkova představiteli venkovských obcí v Česku. Geografie, 116, 1, 23−45.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2011116010023>
12. CHROMÝ, P., SKÁLA, J. (2010): Kulturněgeografické aspekty rozvoje příhraničních periferií: analýza vybraných složek územní identity obyvatelstva Sušicka. Geografie, 115, 2, 223−246.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2010115020223>
13. COULSON, A., FERRARIO, C. (2007): “Institutional thickness”: Local governance and economic development in Birmingham, England. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31, 3, 591−615.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00739.x>
14. DÖRINGER, S. (2020): Governance entrepreneurship in regional economic development: individual agency in Austria. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7, 1, 550−567.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1842801>
15. FAROLE, T., RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A., STORPER, M. (2011): Cohesion policy in the European Union: Growth, geography, institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49, 5, 1089−1111.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–5965.2010.02161.x>
16. FIALOVÁ, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2022): (In)visible agents in regional development: Active individuals and their networks as a driver of regional product labelling initiatives. Acta geographica Slovenica, 62, 2, 101−117.
<https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.10518>
17. FRIEDMANN, J. (1973): A theory of polarized development. In: Friedmann, J. (ed.): Urbanization, planning, and national development. SAGE, Beverly Hills, 41−67.
18. FUKUYAMA, F. (1995): Trust: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, New York.
19. GRANOVETTER, M. (1973): Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6, 1360−1380.
<https://doi.org/10.1086/225469>
20. GRANOVETTER, M. (1985): Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3, 481−510.
<https://doi.org/10.1086/228311>
21. HAMPL, M. (2003): Diferenciace a zvraty regionálního vývoje Karlovarska: unikátní příběh nebo obecný vzor? Geografie, 108, 3, 174−190.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2003108030173>
22. HAMPL, M., DOSTÁL, P., DRBOHLAV, D. (2007): Social and cultural geography in the Czech Republic: Under pressures of globalization and post-totalitarian transformation. Social and Cultural Geography, 8, 3, 475−493.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360701489029>
23. HAMPL, M., MÜLLER, J. (1998): Jsou obce v České republice příliš malé? Geografie, 103, 1, 1−12.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie1998103010001>
24. , T., CHROMÝ, P., JANČÁK, V., MARADA, M. (2008): Innere und äussere Peripherie am Beispiel Tschechiens. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 150, 299−316.
25. HEERINGA, I. (2020): Regional shrinkage and planning policy change in Europe: the case of Asturias. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7, 1, 101−107.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1741435>
26. HENRY, N., PINCH, S. (2001): Neo-Marshallian Nodes, Institutional Thickness, and Britain’s “Motor Sport Valley”: Thick or Thin? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33, 7, 1169−1183.
<https://doi.org/10.1068/a32184>
27. JANČÁK, V. (2001): Příspěvek ke geografickému výzkumu periferních oblastí na mikroregionální úrovni. Geografie, 106, 1, 26−35.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie200116010026>
28. JANČÁK, V., CHROMÝ, P., MARADA, M., HAVLÍČEK, T., VONDRÁČKOVÁ, P. (2010): Sociální kapitál jako faktor rozvoje periferních oblastí: Analýza vybraných složek sociálního kapitálu v typově odlišných periferiích Česka. Geografie, 115, 2, 207−222.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2010115020207>
29. JANČÁK, V., HAVLÍČEK, T., CHROMÝ, P., MARADA, M. (2008): Regional differentiation of selected conditions for the development of human and social capital in Czechia. Geografie, 113, 3, 269−284.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2008113030269>
30. KOMÁREK, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2020): The institutional thickness of an inner periphery in the cross-border region between Central Bohemia and Eastern Bohemia. Geografie, 125, 4, 20−44.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2020125040423>
31. KUČERA, Z., CHROMÝ, P. (2012): Depopulation, resettlement and landscape changes in the peripheries of the Czech borderland. In: Paniagua, A., Bryant, R., Kizos, T. (eds.): The Political Ecology of Depopulation: Inequality, Landscape, and People. Rolde Foundation, CEDDAR, Zaragoza, 191−213.
32. , Z., KUČEROVÁ, S. (2012): Historical geography of persistence, destruction and creation: the case of rural landscape transformations in Czechia’s resettled borderland. Historická geografie, 38, 1, 165−184.
33. KUČEROVÁ, S. (2011): Education towards obtaining various forms of capital. AUC Geographica, 46, 1, 23−33.
<https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2015.39>
34. KÜHN, M. (2010): Strategic Planning – Approaches to Coping with the Crisis of Shrinking Cities. In: RSA Annual International Conference 2010.
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12785-4_16>
35. KÜHN, M. (2015): Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23, 2, 367−378.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.862518>
36. KULDOVÁ, S. (2005): Příspěvek ke kultuněgeografickému výzkumu: možnosti hodnocení kulturních aspektů pomocí statistických metod. Geografie, 110, 4, 300−314.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2005110040300>
37. , R. (1932): Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1−55.
38. LIN, N. (2008): A Network Theory of Social Capital. In: Castiglione, D., Van Deth, J. W., Wolleb, G. (eds.): The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 50−69.
<https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789907285.00009>
39. MAJEROVÁ, V., KOSTELECKÝ, T., SÝKORA, L. (2011): Sociální kapitál a rozvoj regionu. Příklad Kraje Vysočina. Grada, Praha, 224.
40. MARADA, M. (2001): Vymezení periferních oblastí Česka a studium jejich znaků pomocí statistické analýzy. Geografie, 106, 1, 12−25.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2001106010012>
41. MARADA, M., CHROMÝ, P., JANČÁK, V., HAVLÍČEK, T., PILEČEK, J. (2019): Spatial Differentiation of Social Capital: A Case Study of Peripheral and Rural Microregions in Czechia. In: Leimgruber, W., Chang-yi, D.CH. (eds.): Rural Areas Between Regional Needs and Global Challenges. Transformation in Rural Space. Perspectives on Geographical Marginality, Springer, Cham, 4, 31−52.
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04393-3_3>
42. MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ, C., KUBO, N., NOYA, A., WEYMAN, T. (2012): Demographic Change and Local Development: Shrinkage, Regeneration and Social Dynamics. Paris.
<https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264180468-en>
43. MOURITZEN, P.E., SVARA, J.H. (2002): Leadership at the apex: politicians and administrators in Western local governments. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
44. , J. (1988): Nové pohledy na regeneraci našich měst a osídlení. Územní plánování a urbanismus, 15, 2, 67−72.
45. MUSIL, J., MÜLLER, J. (2008): Vnitřní periferie v České republice jako mechanismus sociální exkluze. Sociologický časopis, 44, 2, 321−348.
<https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2008.44.2.05>
46. NELSON, R.R. (1998): The agenda for growth theory: a different point of view. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22, 4, 497−520.
<https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a013731>
47. NORTH, D.C. (1990): Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
<https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678>
48. OECD (2022): Shrinking Smartly in Estonia: Preparing Regions for Demographic Change. OECD Publishing, Paris.
49. OSOBA, P. (2017): Formování symbolického tvaru regionu a odmítnutí názvu Nové Sudety. Geografie, 122, 3, 310−334.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2017122030310>
50. PILEČEK, J., CHROMÝ, P., JANČÁK, V. (2013): Social Capital and Local Socio-economic Development: The Case of Czech Peripheries. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104, 5, 604−620.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12053>
51. PUTNAM, R.D. (2000): Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York, 384.
<https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990>
52. RACO, M. (1998): Assessing “institutional thickness” in the local context: a comparison Cardiff and Sheffield. Evrironment and Planning A, 30, 6, 975−996.
<https://doi.org/10.1068/a300975>
53. RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2013): Do Institutions Matter for Regional Development? Regional Studies, 47, 7, 1034−1047.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.748978>
54. SEPP, V., VEEMAA, J. (2017): Shrinking regions and innovative solutions: entrepreneurship, employment and the accessibility of services. Department of Regional Development, Tartu.
55. ŠERÝ, M., KLEMENTOVÁ, V. (2018): The regional identity of the inhabitants of regions which have experienced an interrupted continuity in their socio-historical development. A case study of Czech regions that were resettled after world war II. Geografie, 123, 4, 437−459.
<https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2018123040437>
56. ŠIMON, M. (2017): Multi-scalar geographies of polarisation and peripheralisation: A case study of Czechia. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 37, 125−137.
<https://doi.org/10.1515/bog-2017-0029>
57. SOTARAUTA, M. (2005): Shared Leadership and Dynamic Capabilities in Regional Development. In: Sagan, I., Halkier, H. (eds.): Regionalism Contested: Institution, Society and Governance. Urban and Regional Planning and Development Series. Ashgate, Cornwall, 53−72.
58. SOTARAUTA, M. (2010): Regional development and regional networks: The role of regional development officers in Finland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17, 4, 387−400.
<https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776409352581>
59. , M., SOPANEN, S., KOLEHMAINEN, J., KURIKKA, H. (2022): Place Leadership as a Mobilisation of Assets Town of Salo, Nokia and Microsoft as a case in point. Tampere University Sente Working Papers, 49, 1−18.
60. SPURNÁ, P. (2008): Prostorová autokorelace – všudypřítomný jev při analýze prostorových dat? Sociologický časopis, 44, 4, 767−787.
<https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2008.44.4.08>
61. SÝKORA, L., MATOUŠEK, R. (2009): Sociální kapitál a teritorialita sociálních sítí. In: Poštolka, V., Lipský, Z., Popková, K., Šmída, J. (eds.): Sborník příspěvků z výroční konference ČGS. TU Liberec, Liberec, 50−56.
62. VAJDOVÁ, Z., BERNARD, J., STACHOVÁ, J., ČERMÁK, D. (2010): Síť institucionálních aktérů rozvoje malého města. Sociologický časopis, 46, 2, 281−299.
<https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2010.46.2.05>
63. , M. (2001): The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 1, 1−35.
64. ZUKAUSKAITE, E., PLECHERO, M., TRIPPL, M. (2017): Institutional Thickness Revisited. Economic Geography, 93, 4, 325−345.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1331703>
