Place-based policies are gaining momentum, including to address challenges that will rise strongly in the future, notably climate neutrality goals by 2050 and demographic change. They are critical to ensure social cohesion. Governments structure their place-based policies differently, though common trends have emerged, including more bottom-up approaches. Harnessing the potential of place-based policies to help address key socio-economic challenges requires a stronger forward-looking approach, along with strong local democracy, leadership and capacity, more and better policy evaluation, as well as extending the place-based approach to a broader range of sectoral policies.
Place‑Based Policies for the Future
Abstract
Governments are pursuing similar objectives, but policies are structured differently across countries, as the examples below illustrate.1 Many countries are embracing more bottom-up, multi‑governance, and broader thematic approaches. At the same time, they are expanding the role of place-based policies to combat increased economic disparities and improve social cohesion. Nonetheless, these initiatives are pursued differently across countries. The European Union (EU) uses a well-defined place-based approach in its Cohesion Policy to address regional disparities through resource redistribution, investment, and governance mechanisms. The United States (US) has not defined an all‑encompassing specific cohesion program but has increasingly integrated a place-based approach in industrial policies, including in the CHIPS and Science Act. The EU, US, Colombia and Japan have taken steps to incorporate demographic and environmental challenge. They are beginning to use the potential of place-based policies for a more a forward-looking approach to global policy challenges.
The European Union
General overview of place-based policies
The EU’s Cohesion Policy is the primary instrument of the European Union's policy framework for reducing regional disparities. Cohesion policy introduces a strong place-based approach to the implementation of EU policy, mainly through the spatial allocation of resources to combat disparities, the vertical redistribution of resources from the EU to national and sub-national levels and the governance mechanisms put in place (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). While cohesion policy has taken on a more 'thematic' approach in recent decades, many stakeholders wish to strengthen the original spirit of the policy by reintroducing a greater geographical focus after 2027 (Box 7.1).
Regional and local authorities are involved through partnership and shared management. EU member countries determine the allocation of the vertically redistributed resources they receive and the thematic policy mix within EU-determined programs, subject to ensuring that resources are concentrated on transition and less developed regions. They have the option to delegate certain responsibilities to subnational entities (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). The chosen degree of decentralisation often depends on the policy competence in question. For example, investment programmes for SMEs, the low carbon economy and social inclusion tend to be implemented through regional programmes. For the period 2021-2027, 40-45% of the Cohesion Policy funds are allocated through regional programmes.
From the Single European Act to the Lisbon Treaty territorial cohesion has become a heightened priority
While the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was first established in 1975, it was the 1986 Single European Act that put in place a strong territorial agenda with an explicit focus on reducing economic and social disparities across territories. Specifically, it set out to do this through public investment that looked to level the playing field in terms of development and sustainable infrastructure. It did this principally through Structural Funds including the ERDF but also the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) with a specific emphasis on rural development. Through the 1990s many milestones were reached, such as the introduction of the Cohesion Fund (introduced by the Maastricht treaty in 1993, which also introduced the principle of subsidiarity), the inauguration of the Committee of the Regions, which represents the subnational political regions in the EU, and the doubling of the budget for structural and cohesion funds. By the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, territorial cohesion has become a cornerstone of European Policy with a more specific emphasis on place-based initiatives and coordination. This has been manifested in the various inter-regional programs that have since spawned, notably the Interreg program now with a EUR 10 billion annual budget and an emphasis on transnational, outermost and cross-border regional co-operation.
Originally focused on less developed regions, distressed industrial areas and rural areas, Cohesion Policy has evolved to cover all types of regions
The allocation of Cohesion funds has evolved over time. From the start, less developed regions received the highest share of cohesion funds’ allocations, and it has remained so throughout all periods. The concentration of structural funds on less developed regions increased as the EU expanded to include ten new member countries. In these new countries, nearly all regions met the criteria for being classified as less developed. In the 2007 enlargement, when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, the regional difference across the Union grew much wider - the richest region (Inner London) had a per-capita income of 290% of the EU-27’s average, while the poorest (North-East Romania) stood at 23%. By the 2007-2013 period, the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty and Gothenburg agenda inspired a new, broader approach of the Cohesion Policy, shifting to a more thematic approach differentiated according to the level of development of the regions. Since then, Cohesion Policy covers the whole EU territory, while keeping its focus on less developed regions: in the 2021-2027 period, less developed regions account for 20% of the population but receive more than 700% of the ‘Investment for jobs and growth’ objective1. This is broken down into less developed, transition and more developed regions. The 8th Cohesion Report highlights that the growth trajectory of many middle and high-income regions is at risk and emphasises proactive policies that consider all types of places.
1. Excluding the special allocation for EU outermost regions and Northern sparsely populated areas, and technical assistance
Source: Lindblad, S. (2023[2]), Territorial Cohesion – The Story, https://territorialagenda.eu/wp-content/uploads/Territorial-Cohesion-The-Story-draft-30-June-2023.pdf.; Berkowitz, P. et al. (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). “How place based is Cohesion Policy?”.
Cohesion Policy accounts for a large share of the EU budget. The EU budget, financed by the member states’ own resources and national contributions, is redistributive, as less developed countries receive more support from cohesion policy. Even so, the policy creates significant positive spill-overs for high‑income regions in part because it increases demand for goods and services produced by high‑income countries (Crucitti et al., 2023[3]). Demand encompasses both consumption and investment. In regions where access to the capital market and therefore investment is low, Cohesion Policy may do so in part by relieving market failures that are more binding in poor regions, notably lower access to financial markets.
The EU is experiencing a modest upward convergence in terms of GDP per capita (Figure 7.1). All regions are growing, and the least developed regions are growing faster (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). Over the last 20 years, GDP per capita in eastern Europe has increased from 50% of the EU average in 2004 to nearly 80 % in 2021 (European Commission, 2024[4]). Many countries have converged thanks, in part, to targeted public investment or fiscal equalisation (e.g. Germany), although others have experienced convergence due to lower growth in the leading region (e.g. Portugal). The positive impact of Cohesion Policy on convergence has increased over time, with more impact in recent programming periods, partly attributed to policy learning mechanisms (Pinho, Varum and Antunes, 2014[5]).
GDP per capita (PPS), in less, transition and more developed NUTs 2 regions, 2012- 2023, relative to EU.
Source: REGIO calculations based on Berkowitz, P. et al., (2023[1]) “How place based is Cohesion Policy?”; Eurostat (2025[6]), Regional gross domestic product (PPS per inhabitant) by NUTS 2 region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tgs00005/default/table?lang=en&category=t_reg.t_reg_eco (accessed on April 2025).
Some EU regions are caught in development traps (see Chapter 2). These regions are defined by their slow development in terms of income, productivity, and employment growth compared to other regions in their country or across the EU, and compared to their own past trajectory (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). This phenomenon mainly affects middle-income regions, but high and low-income regions are also often affected (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). Many regions are ‘at risk of being trapped’, regardless of their type of region (Diemer et al., 2022[7]). Some were formerly prosperous but have moved into a prolonged period of relative economic decline. This is attracting significant attention due to links with “the politics of discontent” (Rodríguez-Pose, 2018[8]). The evidence also suggests that many regions in a development trap retain potential for higher levels of growth. Appropriate policy action to help them improve productivity and employment growth could have significant positive spill-over effects on other regions, boosting the EU’s overall competitiveness. Poor governance, low institutional quality, lack of innovation, and insufficient investment in human capital in affected regions can be critical barriers that prevent regions from escaping these traps (see Chapter 2). Place-based policies that consider the unique challenges of each region, address their institutional weaknesses and foster local capacity help break out of these traps and achieving balanced regional development (Rodríguez-Pose and Ketterer, 2019[9]; Rodríguez-Pose, Dijkstra and Poelman, 2024[10]; Rodriguez-Pose and Cataldo, 2015[11]).
Partnerships with local stakeholders are at the heart of Cohesion Policy, but capacity issues pose major difficulties. Reducing regional disparities is not just about transferring money from richer to poorer regions. The Cohesion Policy also intends to transform stakeholders’ and decision-makers’ behaviour, even if it takes time. For local stakeholders to get involved, partnership organisations must exist and be willing to participate. Networks and partnerships can encourage people to work together and improve regional development.
Integrating future challenges
Over the last decade, the EU's Cohesion Policy has developed a range of mechanisms to govern place‑based policies. This evolution involves increased subnational partnerships to deliver strategies based on their specific needs, covering areas such as innovation, SMEs, the low carbon economy, social inclusion, and infrastructure. Several new instruments serve this approach, including Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), Community-led Local Development (CLLD), and the Just Transition Fund (JTF) (Berkowitz et al., 2023[1]). Notably, the JTF is a key instrument focusing on places most affected by phasing out of fossil fuels and the restructuring of carbon intensive industries.
The United States
The United States (US) does not have an explicit policy targeting regional disparities but has traditionally used local interventions to develop the national economy and respond to shocks, including in metropolitan areas (Box 7.2). Compared to the EU, place-based policies in the US have adopted a more industrial approach that involve fewer regions. While these programmes have contributed to reducing regional inequalities in GDP per capita, there is a distinct divergence between regions, with minimal shifts observed in regional rankings.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Started in 1930, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is one of the largest programmes to support development of lagging regions in the US (Glasmeier, 2023[12]). It made large investment in public transport infrastructure, electricity and flood control systems. (Kline and Moretti, 2014[13]) (Kline and Moretti, 2014[13]) find that in the first 30 years of TVA, the magnitude of transfers was substantial, and this had positive employment effects in both agriculture and manufacturing. Once the TVA became a fiscally self-sustaining entity, the positive employment effect in agriculture disappeared, while manufacturing continued to generate employment in the treated counties (Suedekum, 2021[14]). The programme has also seen a change in its targeting approach within the Tennessee Valley. Initially, the focus was on peripheral regions, which were not the poorest.
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is an example of a longstanding place-based program funded by the central government but coordinated and delivered by a network of subnational governments including 13 states and over 400 counties (Glasmeier, 2023[12]). The ARC uses an economic classification system to monitor the development level and needs of the counties as either Distressed, At Risk, Transitional, Competitive, and Attainment. The classification corresponds to the counties’ position within the US national ranking of counties’ economic development. The Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE) encourages counties and states to think beyond borders and work on multi-state programs. The program, launched in January 2023, has funded 13 projects focussed on broadband development, workforce education and low-emission manufacturing. Over the long term, the program has proven successful. Counties that received investments experienced an average growth rate that was 4.2% higher than those that did not benefit from the program (Sayago-Gomez et al., 2018[15]).
Atlanta
In Atlanta, Georgia, multi-jurisdictional approaches are also being adopted with involvement of Georgia state. Atlanta serves as a hub for various activities. The state orchestrates place-based development by coordinating initiatives for job growth, diversity, and resident well-being. The state's largest utility company manages place-based development through dispersed development service organisations. The ARC contributes resources to improve the business conditions around Atlanta, supporting economically distressed communities. Despite potential confusion from overlapping layers, this multi-jurisdictional approach allows for efficient local resource use and deployment, such as in the recruitment of personnel. In combination with available land, this approach makes Atlanta conducive to new development projects, particularly in manufacturing.
Integrating future challenges
The most recent initiatives include a stronger sectoral and forward-looking focus. For instance, the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is driving investment across the United States, with over 40,000 projects already announced. These projects prioritise connecting communities with each other as well to vital resources, such as high-speed internet and infrastructure upgrades, including improved drinking water and sewer systems. Additionally, the Act mandates each state to develop a plan for establishing an electric vehicle recharging network. The Chip and Sciences Act and the Inflation Reduction Act include structural reforms as well as funding programmes specifically targeting sectors with a strong place-based policy component (Westwood, Anderson and Austin, 2023[16]). Moreover, the Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) programme provides diversified support to regions facing economic challenges, including strategic grants for Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) and implementation grants to carry out CEDS activities such as infrastructure improvements. Finally, the Recompete pilot programme will invest $200 million in interventions to stimulate economic activity in geographically diverse areas facing persistent challenges.
Colombia
The National Planning Department (NPD) launched a decentralisation mission with specific objectives in the National Development Plan (NDP) 2022-2026 “Colombia, World Power of Life”. It focuses on social issues, climate action, and “Total peace”. President Gustavo Petro's administration emphasises a bottom-up approach, deriving from extensive national dialogues with communities, territories, and sectors. These include the redistribution of responsibilities across government levels, resources, and the modernisation of public institutions. This modernisation seeks to cultivate an open central government, encourage citizen participation, and address indigenous territories. This model promotes economic and social convergence by understanding the unique characteristics of individual territories and their contexts and acknowledging spatial disparities. To this end it bolsters the capacity of local governments. It also explores opportunities to enhance well-being in territories grappling with economic and social challenges (Quartucci, 2023[17]).
Integrating future challenges
One of the focal points in the new NDP involves Territorial Planning around water and ecosystems. This aims to revitalise rural areas and enhance the country's productivity while ensuring principles of social and environmental justice. A territorial approach with effective institutions around water use is essential for sustaining human activity. Prioritising the respect for water, its natural cycles, and its ecosystems represents the initial stride to establish an environmentally sustainable economic production model, free from oil or coal, both of which are produced with significant adverse environmental and health outcomes on deprived local populations (Quartucci, 2023[17]).
Japan
Despite strong government commitment to place-based policies and multi-level governance the central towns of rural districts are experiencing economic decline due to aging and emigration, coupled with stagnation in key industries. A local approach is seen as key to achieve improvements in these towns and communities in addition to the sectoral support mechanisms the Japanese government provides.
An illustrative example is the Urban and Spatial Measure Law from 2002. It allows municipalities to formulate plans for districts where they deem urban renewal necessary. In a broader regional perspective, prefectures have prepared infrastructure development plans for the allocation of assets over large areas to revitalise their regions with participation of the region’s population. These plans build on Japan’s long-standing Law on Infrastructure Development for the Revitalisation of Large Regions.
Integrating future challenges
In response to population decline, Japan introduced new place-based policies, notably through the implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), in 2015. The NSS is designed to sustain a settlement pattern conducive to agglomeration economies, adapting to depopulation while keeping places sufficiently attractive to prevent the abandonment of significant portions of the country. It outlines various measures, such as the implementation of multi-functional 'small station' initiatives to enhance bundled service accessibility in rural regions and the establishment of stronger connections between neighbouring towns to promote agglomeration economies (OECD, 2016[18]).
Korea
The National Territorial Plans have been the primary government initiative for territorial development since 1972. They have created more room for bottom-up initiatives in recent years. The 5th Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (CNTP, 2020-2040) posits that the future direction for territorial development should not only rely on a nationwide development axis defined by the central government. Instead, it emphasises fostering solidarity and collaboration among regions, as well as between regions and the central government, to collectively address challenges such as depopulation, climate change, and technological innovation. For the first time it incorporates multiregional projects proposed by regional governments.
The first “Comprehensive Plan for Local Era” (CPLE, 2023-2027) has reinforced emphasis on a place-based approach. It recognises that effective regional development requires greater resources and authority for regional governments, merging previous initiatives to foster decentralisation. The CPLE was formulated in alignment with the “Individual Plans for Local Era” put forth by regional governments. The Special Act on Decentralisation of Local Autonomy and Balanced Regional Development (2023) provided the legal foundation.
Integrating future challenges
The first “Basic Plan for Response to Depopulated Areas” (2023-2027) addresses rapid depopulation in numerous regions. Its implementation is guided by the Special Act on Support for Depopulation Regions (2023). This plan emphasises the role of municipalities in the implementation of place-based policies. The Ministry of Interior and Safety identified 89 municipalities as being part of depopulating regions. These municipalities are asked to develop their response plans. Subsequently, related regional governments are also mandated to formulate their response plans in alignment with the municipal strategies. The first “Basic Plan for Response to Depopulated Areas” incorporates the response plans of municipalities and regional governments. Additionally, municipalities have the opportunity to apply for the Local Extinction Response Fund (2022-2031) provided by the central government. Funds are allocated based on proposals submitted by municipalities, addressing the specific situations in their regions.
As this report shows, place-based policies are critically important for tackling key socio-economic challenges today and in the future. These include inequality in economic outcomes and opportunities, the huge and fast transformations required to reach climate neutrality by 2050, the digital transition and demographic change. They also include an evolving global landscape and repeated shocks that are refocusing governments’ attention on international competitiveness and resilience.
The report has highlighted the key features in the evolution of place-based policies that will help discern how place-based policies need to evolve to address these challenges:
Recognition of place-based policies in economic research and among policy makers has risen, calling for an increased understanding (Chapter 1). Spatial disparities are strong and persistent in OECD countries, in part reflecting the unwillingness of many people to move to more prosperous places, but also reflecting costs of agglomeration from over-concentrated policies. They also reflect the productivity advantages of well-connected, dense metropolitan areas. Regional decline can be often self-reinforcing, rather than self-correcting (Chapter 2). Well-designed support for lagging regions can support economic development and reduce risks of social tensions, limiting the “geography of discontent” through positive spillovers for leading regions (Rodríguez-Pose, 2018[8]; Rodríguez-Pose, Dijkstra and Poelman, 2024[10]). Addressing economic inequalities is also key to advance on the global environmental and demographic challenges. Low-income communities are often the most vulnerable to demographic change and to adverse environmental impacts.
Enhancing a forward-looking approach is critical in the light of future challenges and opportunities. Place‑based policies are increasingly proactively addressing policy challenges rather than only reactively (Chapter 2). Place-based policies have also moved towards encompassing a broader range of policies, combining the diffusion of technology and institutional improvements with infrastructure investment. Innovation‑based development needs to be based on a comprehensive consideration of major global risks and the spatial challenges they pose and cannot be merely market-driven (Trippl, Fastenrath and Isaksen, 2023[19]). This will help provide substitutes for consumption and production modes that are consistent with meeting global challenges and enable local populations to transform their activities.
Effective place-based policies must be designed and implemented according to four key priorities (Chapter 3). Effective place-based policies: have clear objectives that target regional and local development potential based on an understanding of local context and assets; are coherent with other policymaking frameworks to ensure integrated policymaking; focus on efficient implementation by acting at the relevant scale, leveraging appropriate instruments and continual learning processes; and, reinforce multi‑level governance frameworks to support policy design and implementation.
Global challenges, such as the growing demographic and environmental crises require place‑based policies to tackle them effectively (Chapter 4). Effective approaches recognise that local and global challenges are intertwined. The systemic nature of these challenges and their asymmetric impact makes a place‑based approach particularly useful. Place-based approaches can address multiple, interacting layers of market failures to which the spatially blind pricing of individual externalities alone cannot do justice. These systemic externalities vary across places and dealing with them in a place-based manner brings local co-benefits that often exceed the costs of action (OECD, 2021[20]) even before taking into account the longer term gains of a more territorially balance economic landscape. There is potential for place‑based policies to boost needed transformations and to support social cohesion in the process.
Since the scope for place-based policies has grown, so has the need for place-based policy evaluation to find out what works and what works best. Evaluating place-based policies is often more complex than the evaluation of other policies (Chapter 5). Challenges include the risk of incomplete evaluations, difficulties in identifying causal effects, and weak incentives for policy makers to support evaluation. This report suggests the incorporation of evaluation already in the policy design phase and the use of various tools like randomised control trials, or statistical tools that mimic them. Collaboration between researchers, policy makers, and local partners, while ensuring independence and adequate resources, can enhance evaluation. Furthermore, where systematic evaluations exist, they too often focus on GDP. New metrics are needed, encompassing individual and collective wellbeing and environmental impacts.
An ambitious agenda for place-based policies requires reinforcing muti-level government, which is essential for effectiveness (Chapter 6). Local institutions can be unable to drive transformative local economic development and escape development traps on their own, creating a key role for place-based policies. Given the diverse actors involved, coordination across and among levels of government, and with communities and the private sector, is essential for successful place-based policies. Policy design and implementation needs to be supported by strategic planning, and fiscal and administrative capacity in relevant institutions. Effective place-based policies are also often supported by place-based leadership and inclusive stakeholder engagement processes, which can help build trust and ensure policy effectiveness as local governments often have a good understanding of local needs and higher citizen trust. Experimental policy approaches and digital tools can support more innovative approaches to local involvement and effectiveness.
References
[1] Berkowitz, P. et al. (2023), “How place based is Cohesion Policy?”, REGIO Working Paper, https://www.oecd.org/regional/place-based-policies-for-the-future.htm (accessed on 25 October 2023).
[3] Crucitti, F. et al. (2023), “Where does the EU cohesion policy produce its benefits? A model analysis of the international spillovers generated by the policy”, Economic Systems, Vol. 47/3, p. 101076, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2023.101076.
[7] Diemer, A. et al. (2022), “The Regional Development Trap in Europe”, Economic Geography, Vol. 98/5, pp. 487-509, https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2022.2080655.
[4] European Commission (2024), Ninth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/cohesion-report_en (accessed on 6 June 2024).
[6] Eurostat (2025), Regional gross domestic product (PPS per inhabitant) by NUTS 2 region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tgs00005/default/table?lang=en&category=t_reg.t_reg_eco (accessed on April 2025).
[12] Glasmeier, A. (2023), “Placed-Based Development: A New Frontier or A Perpetual Back Water”.
[13] Kline, P. and E. Moretti (2014), “Local Economic Development, Agglomeration Economies, and the Big Push: 100 Years of Evidence from the Tennessee Valley Authority”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 129/1, pp. 275-331, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt034.
[2] Lindblad, S. (2023), Territorial Cohesion – The Story, https://territorialagenda.eu/wp-content/uploads/Territorial-Cohesion-The-Story-draft-30-June-2023.pdf.
[20] OECD (2021), OECD Regional Outlook 2021: Addressing COVID-19 and Moving to Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/17017efe-en.
[18] OECD (2016), OECD Territorial Reviews: Japan 2016, OECD Territorial Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264250543-en.
[5] Pinho, C., C. Varum and M. Antunes (2014), “Structural Funds and European Regional Growth: Comparison of Effects among Different Programming Periods”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 23/7, pp. 1302-1326, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.928674.
[17] Quartucci, S. (2023), “Colombia Introduces National Development Plan”, Latina Republic.
[8] Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018), “The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it)”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 11/1, pp. 189-209, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024.
[11] Rodriguez-Pose, A. and M. Cataldo (2015), “Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 15/4, pp. 673-706, https://doi.org/10.1093/JEG/LBU023.
[10] Rodríguez-Pose, A., L. Dijkstra and H. Poelman (2024), “The Geography of EU Discontent and the Regional Development Trap”, Economic Geography, Vol. 100/3, pp. 213-245, https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2024.2337657.
[9] Rodríguez-Pose, A. and T. Ketterer (2019), “Institutional change and the development of lagging regions in Europe”, Regional Studies, Vol. 54/7, pp. 974-986, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1608356.
[15] Sayago-Gomez, J. et al. (2018), “Impact Evaluation of Investments in the Appalachian Region: A Reappraisal”, International Regional Science Review, Vol. 41/6, pp. 601-629, https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017617713822.
[14] Suedekum, J. (2021), Productivity Policy for Places – Inclusive Productivity, Background paper for the OECD-EC High-Level Expert Workshop series, http://www.oecd.org.
[19] Trippl, M., S. Fastenrath and A. Isaksen (2023), “Rethinking regional economic resilience: Preconditions and processes shaping transformative resilience”, European Urban and Regional Studies, p. 096977642311723, https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764231172326.
[16] Westwood, A., J. Anderson and J. Austin (2023), “IRA, ARP, IIJA & Chips - Letters from America”, IPPR Progressive Review, https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12363.
← 1. This chapter was informed by the sixth workshop in the series on Place-Based Policies for the Future that was held on 7 July 2023 with invited experts. Papers for the seminar were prepared by Professor Amy Glasmeier (Placed-Based Development: An Inexact Science and a Possible Renewed Frontier) and Peter Berkowitz, Pasquale D’Apice, Hélène Lauerière, Tillmann Heidelk, Enrico Pesaresi, Philippe Monfort, John Walsh from the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy (How place based is Cohesion Policy?)