The aim of this thesis was to study the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) Programme and the North Sea Region (NSR) Programme within the Transnational Interreg IV B Programme for the period 2007-2013, by making a comparison between Sweden and Denmark. The thesis looked at the level of involvement of both National Planning Authorities in the designing process of the programmes and projects, and investigated whether the Interreg programmes influence the authorities in their work with future policy-making, and the national spatial planning policies in general. The ambition of the thesis was also to clarify the links between the Interreg Programmes, the ESDP document, the Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union and the Territorial Agenda, and how these documents have influenced the EU Territorial Cohesion debate and the creation of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy. The reason was to better understand the role of the National Planning Authorities in the implementation of the transnational programmes and their work towards territorial cohesion. The methods used for the thesis consisted of secondary research and analysis of the intergovernmental “Territorial Documents”, the Interreg programmes and their specific projects, and not least, the study of books, articles, and other documents and sources of interest for this topic. Interviews were made with people working at Swedish “Boverket”, Danish “By- og Landskabsstyrelsen” (BLST) and “Danske Regioner” (Danish Regions). Some of the main findings have been the different approaches among the Planning Authorities towards their potential leadership in the Interreg projects, the little time dedicated to the Interreg work in general at Swedish Boverket, and Boverket’s scarce intervention in the development-process of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy. On the Danish side there is very little priority given to the diffusion and transfer of knowledge, while in Sweden on the other hand, this is one of the main issues for all the authorities involved. The conclusion is that, even if Sweden and Denmark are close neighbours and are collaborating in many fields, there are some substantial differences in attitude and action towards their role as participators of the Transnational Interreg projects, differences which, if emphasised, could be useful knowledge for both parts in order to develop their own Interreg-work, responding to the growing interest of the EU in territorial concerns. / m.bengtsson@tiscali.it

Submitted by SBI Biblioteca Digital (sbi.bibliotecadigital@puc-campinas.edu.br) on 2017-03-24T17:26:42Z No. of bitstreams: 1 HENRIQUE REZENDE DE CASTRO.pdf: 3998674 bytes, checksum: 512f0552445e945597fd7f2a5cfde508 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-24T17:26:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 HENRIQUE REZENDE DE CASTRO.pdf: 3998674 bytes, checksum: 512f0552445e945597fd7f2a5cfde508 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-02-08 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Metropolitan territories constitute, in the world urban system, fundamental support for the capitalist mode of production and accumulation. Metropolitan management, whose main agent is the State, appears as an important tool to exercise control over the land use planning of such territories, since the state political institutions - government and public administration - would operate under permanent pressure of the interests of capital. Based on this premise, it is assumed that a highly coercive management model would prevail in the sense of centralizing decision by the state apparatus and imposing an agenda of public policies that would favor the production and appropriation of the territory by economic agents. In order to make possible a classification of the existing types of metropolitan management, an analysis instrument was created based on a referential frame with the different types according to the characteristics of the political process of the management. Two case studies were then selected for application of the proposed methodology: the management of the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon, in Portugal, and the metropolitan regions of the state of S?o Paulo, both chosen for the particularities they present in different contexts and for the possibility of comparing the types found. Based on these cases, the aim was to demonstrate the tendency to prevail the coercive model in the contemporary metropolitan management, to the detriment of a territorial cohesion model, which would operate towards a more democratic management, with an agenda based on the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities, which are expressed more severely in the metropolitan territories. / Os territ?rios metropolitanos constituem, no sistema urbano mundial, suporte fundamental para o modo de produ??o e de acumula??o capitalista. A gest?o metropolitana, cujo principal agente ? o Estado, surge como importante ferramenta para exercer o controle sobre o ordenamento de tais territ?rios, uma vez que as institui??es pol?ticas estatais ? governo e administra??o p?blica ? operariam sob permanente press?o dos interesses do capital. Com base nessa premissa, sup?e-se que prevaleceria atualmente um modelo de gest?o marcadamente coercitivo, no sentido da centraliza??o decis?ria pelo aparelho estatal e na imposi??o de uma agenda de pol?ticas p?blicas que favoreceriam prioritariamente a produ??o e a apropria??o do territ?rio pelos agentes econ?micos. De modo a viabilizar uma classifica??o dos tipos existentes de gest?o metropolitana, criou-se um instrumento de an?lise baseado em um quadro referencial com os diferentes tipos segundo as caracter?sticas do processo pol?tico da gest?o. Foram ent?o selecionados dois estudos de caso para aplica??o da metodologia proposta: a gest?o da ?rea Metropolitana de Lisboa, em Portugal, e das regi?es metropolitanas do estado de S?o Paulo, ambos escolhidos pelas particularidades que apresentam em contextos diferentes e pela possibilidade de compara??o dos tipos de gest?o encontrados. Com base nesses casos, procurou-se ent?o demonstrar a tend?ncia de prevalecer o modelo coercitivo na gest?o metropolitana contempor?nea, em detrimento de um modelo de coes?o territorial, que operaria no sentido de uma gest?o mais democr?tica, com uma agenda pautada pela diminui??o das desigualdades socioecon?micas, que se expressam com maior gravidade nos territ?rios metropolitanos.

Negli ultimi decenni si segnalano due linee di tendenza in Europa: il ravvicinamento delle normative che interessano gli Enti territoriali minori (Comuni, Province e Città metropolitane), con una valorizzazione di tali realtà (ad eccezione della fase successiva alla recente crisi economica) ed un processo di progressivo spostamento delle decisioni dagli Stati membri all’Unione europea. È interessante comprendere, e lo si è fatto nel presente lavoro, come i due fenomeni si correlino ed in particolare, quanto influisca l’Unione europea sulle articolazioni interne degli Stati membri. La ricerca si concentra quindi sull’evoluzione della disciplina degli Enti territoriali minori non solo in Italia, ma anche negli altri Stati membri dell’Unione europea, al fine di apprezzarne le differenze e per evidenziare le linee di tendenza che accomunano i diversi ordinamenti (anche alla luce delle più recenti riforme). Quanto alla disciplina dell’Unione europea un’attenzione particolare viene dedicata, oltre che ai principi generali espressi nelle fonti primarie, anche all’analisi di specifiche politiche che prendono in considerazione la posizione dei livelli locali (ed in primo luogo le politiche di coesione economica, sociale e territoriale). Si è potuto così confrontare i dati per comprendere se ed in quale misura le riforme che hanno interessato gli Enti territoriali minori siano state indotte dalla normativa, dalle politiche e dalle azioni dell’Unione europea. Si è cercato infine di delineare il possibile e futuro ruolo degli Enti territoriali minori nell’architettura europea, in un’ottica di possibile federalismo multilivello. / During last decades, two trends have been underlined in Europe: laws on local authorities (municipalities, provinces and metropolitan areas) are getting less differing, enhancing the role of these entities (except for the phase following latest economic crisis) and we see a progressive transfer of decision-making powers from National States to European Union. It’s interesting – as it was done in this study – to understand how the two trends are connected and, particularly, how the European Union influences local authorities of member States. In order to appreciate differences and underline trends who associate different systems (also in the light of recent reforms), the analysis is focused on the evolution of legislation about local authorities, not only in Italy, but also in other States of European Union, Then, turning to European Union legislation, particular attention is dedicated not only to general principles listed into primary law, but also to the analysis of specific policies endowed with consideration for the role of local levels (primarily the policies about economic, social and territorial cohesion). In this way, a data comparison was made possible to understand whether the reforms interesting local authorities in recent past has been generated by legislation, by policies and actions of European Union, and to what extent. Finally, an attempt to outline the possible and future role of local Authorities into European architecture has been made, in a potential multi-level federalism perspective.

La cohésion territoriale a fait son apparition dans le droit de l’Union à l’ex article 16 TCE aux côtés des SIEG. Elle a connu une consécration dans le droit primaire de l’Union avec son érection au rang d’objectif de l’Union européenne en devenant la troisième dimension de la politique de cohésion aux côtés de la cohésion économique et sociale. Cette nouvelle place dans le droit primaire n’est pas sans poser des questions sur la normativité de ce nouvel objectif et plus largement de sa place dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union. La principale difficulté réside aujourd’hui dans sa définition et ses modalités d’expression et d’intervention. Le Livre vert de la Commission européenne de 2008 consacré à la cohésion territoriale a eu le mérite de mettre l’objectif en perspective en lui donnant une concrétisation à travers essentiellement la politique régionale, mais également plus largement par la nécessaire coordination des politiques à impact territorial. Cette thèse a pour objectif de mettre en lumière les expressions de la cohésion territoriale, appelée à se développer avec la mise en œuvre du traité de Lisbonne. La cohésion territoriale peut également se fonder sur de nombreux autres principes juridiques, à l’image du principe de subsidiarité, pour se doter d’une normativité dans le droit matériel de l’Union, du travail législatif et réglementaire à la mise en œuvre des politiques sectorielles sur le territoire de l’Union. La cohésion territoriale peut enfin s’appuyer sur le droit institutionnel de l’Union et sur le rôle croissant des collectivités infraétatiques pour faire entendre la voie d’une solidarité territoriale dans le modèle d’intégration européenne. / The territorial cohesion appeared in the European Union law at the ex article 16 TCE beside the SIEG. It knew a consecration in the primary european Union law with its erection to the rank of objective of the European Union, becoming the third dimension of the cohesion policy beside the economic and social cohesion. This new place in the primary law is not without asking questions on the normativity of this new objective and more widely its place in the legal order of the european Union. The main difficulty is based on its definition and its modalities of expression and intervention today. The green Book of the European Commission of 2008 dedicated to the territorial cohesion had the merit to put the objective in perspective by giving it a realization through essentially the regional policy, but also more widely by the necessary coordination of the policies with territorial impact. This thesis has for objective to put in light the expressions of the territorial cohesion, called to develop with the application of the treaty of Lisbon. The territorial cohesion can also base itself on the other legal principles, just like the principle of subsidiarity, to build a normativity in the European Union material law, from the legislative and statutory work to the application of the sector-based policies on the European Union territory. The territorial cohesion can finally lean on the european Union institutional law and on the increasing role of the local gouvernment to make the way of a territorial solidarity taken in consideration in the model of the European integration.