Call for Papers

[The original theme and related call for papers for the CJRES 2020 annual conference (now cancelled) and this special issue were formulated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the light of what has happened since, we believe that the theme and topics proposed at the time still stand; they actually assume further relevance in the new context, which is bound to exacerbate social and spatial inequalities. ‘Bringing back policy on the urban and regional policy agenda’ is thus both an added imperative and an opportunity to creatively re-think spatial policy options in light of the new challenges.

In conclusion, the call for papers for the CJRES special issue on ‘Spatial Policy in Times of Crisis’ stands as it was written last November. We have only added a couple of paragraphs to better contextualise it in the present state of things. Contributors who have already submitted an abstract do not need to re-submit. We expect that those eventually selected by the organising committee will factor in the new context and the added challenges when writing their full paper].

"Spatial Policy in Times of Crisis"

Editors: Ron Martin, Flavia Martinelli, Mia Gray, and Judith Clifton

Almost twenty years have passed since Martin’s article on ‘Geography and public policy: the case of the missing agenda’ (2001), in which he called for a ‘policy turn’. Since then, although the conceptual and empirical bases of urban and regional studies have expanded apace, and geographers and regional studies scholars have become more concerned about their policy impact, policy research in these fields remains underdeveloped. Meanwhile, from the World Bank to the OECD, to the European Commission, to national governments, to individual regional and city authorities, policy bodies are increasingly recognising that ‘geography matters’ for economic prosperity, social welfare and individual wellbeing, even if these various bodies have different interpretations of exactly how it matters and how far and in what ways it should inform policy. We may not always agree with how such bodies interpret or use ‘geography’ or ‘place’ in their deliberations and pronouncements, but the crux of the matter is that geography and place are firmly at the heart of the policy agenda. If, then, there is a growing demand for our theoretical and explanatory insights, the nature of those insights and how best to supply them surely matters. This is even more the case at the present time, as global public bads (as well as global public goods) are exhibiting strongly uneven impacts around the world. For example, the direct consequences of the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic are affecting the population’s health in highly uneven ways—and, as a consequence of this, the ensuing economic, financial, welfare, employment and political fallout will likely also take a highly uneven pattern.

In the field of urban and regional studies there still is a strong separation and even imbalance between, on the one hand, theory-driven, more or less critical, analyses and interpretations of urban and regional change, often with an important – but typically only implicit – normative dimension, and, on the other hand, research on policy approaches, tools and impacts, which seems to remain confined to rather technical and often ex-post evaluation exercises. More importantly, there seems to be very little – and rather unsystematic – interaction between scientific research and policy-making, between universities and policy organisations, between findings and prescriptions.

There is also a certain degree of mutual distrust between the two communities, although it varies by discipline. Policy makers often perceive scientific research as too theoretical, critical or distant from the reality of policy-making and of little operational relevance; in contrast, academic researchers generally consider the policy world to be too technocratic and practice-oriented. The upshot is that there is no discernible coherent policy research agenda within the discipline, while policy-making organisations, at all territorial scales, tend to dialogue with a restricted circle of policy-focused economists, business administrators, political scientists, not necessarily committed to address urban and regional inequalities as a top priority.  The situation is not helped by a widespread public distrust of the political establishment, on the one hand, and growing scepticism about ‘experts’ by many politicians, on the other.

This state of affairs is particularly disappointing, since urban and regional studies is often concerned with exposing and seeking to account for social and territorial inequalities. There ought to be in the field a strong ethical or axiological disposition to work for redressing such inequalities, a moral duty to engage in public policy for the betterment of society and the environment. In other words, the improvement of collective welfare ought to be a priority for the discipline. This is even more of an imperative now, when pre-existing spatial disparities in socio-economic welfare, environmental conditions, and access to resources may intensify even further, promising a more uncertain and divided world, where the tension between solidarity and competition will be inevitably heightened. The right policy approach – one that takes on board the spatial impacts of the pandemic in an already socially and spatially divided world and identifies ways to redress them – is now inescapable.

We need, more than ever, to bring public policy explicitly to the fore and to make a case for a progressive urban and regional studies agenda fit for the 21st Century and the present jeopardy. We need to reconcile theory with policy, via theory-informed, firmly evidence-based, but strongly policy-committed analyses. We need to bridge the breach between research and policy-making and promote a systematic dialogue between the scientific community, the policy-making institutions, and the policy implementing actors, at all administrative scales.

Furthermore, we need to expand the organisations we think of as making ‘public policy’ – this not only includes governmental and quasi-governmental institutions, but also such bodies as trade unions, NGOs charitable foundations, and social groups and movements. As academics, our policy framework should embrace the policy concerns and policy work undertaken by these other actors. 

There is, then, a strong case that urban and regional studies should do more to:

• Analyse, expose and explain urban and regional inequalities in all their manifestations;
• Critically examine existing policy approaches, tools and practices, unveiling their ideological underpinnings and evaluating their intended goals and unintended consequences;
• Based on findings, propose creative strategies to reduce territorial inequalities, even if this means challenging established policy paradigms;
• Pursue a systematic dialogue with policy institutions and implementing actors, at different administrative levels, in order to exchange knowledge and: a) gain a better understanding of existing policy implementation shortcomings (and strengths); b) formulate better policy strategies.

All of these imperatives have taken on added urgency and importance given the impact of the COVID-19 on social and spatial inequalities.

With these considerations explicitly in mind, the aim of this CJRES Special Issue is to explore and mobilise a critical and pragmatic discussion on public policy – its mission, its domains of action, its toolkit – within the urban and regional studies community, taking into consideration also the new major challenges facing society today. To that end, we envisage the following themes and topics, among others:

• The ethical dimension of urban and regional studies and the need for more policy-committed research
• Forms of policy-orientated research
• The case for spatial policy-making; both place-based policy and the territorialisation of national policies
• Alternative strategies for socially inclusive and economically sustainable urban and regional development
• The spatially and socially just transition to a low-carbon economy
• The urban and regional policy governance conundrum: local vs centralised institutions
• The labour market: urban and regional policy for better jobs
• Public services for more competitive and inclusive places
• Housing: the forgotten agenda
• Well-being without growth

Authors interested in publishing in the Special Issue should submit an Abstract of about 400 words to Francis Knights by 1 June 2020, and full Papers invited from among those will need to be received by 1 November 2020 for publication in March 2022. Submissions will be subject to the journal’s normal peer review process. Details of Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society publication process, evaluation criteria and house style are available here.