A territorially fluid, process-based, diverse, collaborative, and open mode of governance: see Smith (2007) Regional Studies Association, Lisbon; Wallis (2002) Munimet; I. Sagan and H. Halkier, eds (2005); and Rossi (2004) Int. J. Urb. Reg. Res. 28, 2).
E. LeSage and L. Stefanick (2004) provide a useful summary table:
New regionalism | Old regionalism |
|---|
Governance | Government |
Process | Structure |
Open | Closed |
Collaboration | Coordination |
Trust | Accountability |
Empowerment | Power |
Lovering (1999) Int. J. Urb. & Reg. Res. 23, 3 differentiates between the ‘new regionalism in thought’—‘that sub-set of ideas in policy related economic geography which converge on the claim that “the region” is displacing the nation-state as the “crucible” of economic development’—and the ‘new regionalism in practice’—an economic analysis ‘overwhelmingly dominated by a “productivist” and micro-economic focus. That is, it treats regional economic activity as if the driving influences on the regional economy as a whole can be understood by looking at only one type of regional economic actor.’ For other criticisms of new regionalism, see Bull (1999) 3rd World Qly. 20; Rossi (2004) New Int. J. Urb. & Reg. Res. 28, 2; and Sandstrom (2001) J. of Urban Affairs 23, 5 (2001).