THE CASE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION: PLACE‐BASED VERSUS PLACE‐NEUTRAL APPROACHES*

TLDR

The paper reviews how debates over place‑neutral versus place‑based economic development policies have evolved, noting that globalization and new responses have challenged earlier arguments and prompting a shift toward more inclusive, diversity‑aware strategies highlighted by recent major reports. The study argues that development interventions should prioritize efficiency and social inclusion over territorial convergence, using the developing world and EU as examples. The authors illustrate this argument by analyzing case studies from the developing world and the European Union, demonstrating how strategies that account for economic, social, political, and institutional diversity can maximize local and aggregate development potential.

Abstract

ABSTRACT The paper examines the debates regarding place‐neutral versus place‐based policies for economic development. The analysis is set in the context of how development policy thinking on the part of both scholars and international organizations has evolved over several decades. Many of the previously accepted arguments have been called into question by the impacts of globalization and a new response to these issues has emerged, a response both to these global changes and also to nonspatial development approaches. The debates are highlighted in the context of a series of major reports recently published on the topic. The cases of the developing world and the European Union are used as examples of how in this changing context development intervention should increasingly focus on efficiency and social inclusion at the expense of an emphasis on territorial convergence and how strategies should consider economic, social, political, and institutional diversity in order to maximize both the local and the aggregate potential for economic development.