This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Multi-level territorial governance has entered European planning discourse, but is the term “territorial” actually redundant? After all, multi-level governance is already thought to refer to the interaction between nested territorial administrations. So could multi-level governance be criticised for giving more attention to the roles and positions of lower-levels in a multi-level polity rather than invoking a comprehensive concept of governance implicating non-governmental actors in policy making? And does the multi-level governance literature ignore the underlying metageography? Whether territories are accordingly fixed jurisdictions or malleable social constructs has implications for planning and beyond.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andreas Faludi (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: