B) Fragmentation

General discussion

The previous discussion of distance and the abstraction effect has a counterbalance in certain regions with specific characteristics of space, places and territory. This alternative effect applies specifically to archipelagos because of the natural features that distinguish these kinds of regions. Although islands can be understood as the best example of periphery, they have been studied only to some extent in the field of comparative politics (Royle 2001: 42), with the issue of non-sovereignty and island jurisdiction as the most develop themes (Baldacchino and Milne 2009; Baldacchino 2010; Hepburn and Baldacchino 2013). This variable is theorised in this investigation because most of the outer-

87

peripheries to be found are archipelagos. Archipelagos such as Hawaii or the Canary Islands are examples of how fragmentation affects the articulation of the region. Following Hepburn and Elias´s (2011: 862) argument, fragmentation is understood, in relation to the periphery, as follows. Fragmentation, or insularity, stands in the very far end of the centre-periphery continuum, meaning that, because of the very nature of islands, “the experience of peripherality and isolation is enhanced to the greatest extent in the island context”. This specific nature of islands affects all the aspects of the political articulation of archipelagos and the dynamics that this encompasses (Baldacchino 2004: 272-275). Fragmentation, via identifying the islands as the territories where the loyalties of the local populations rest, may undermine the effect of distance and the articulation of a strong regional discourse. This factor is outlined according to three key elements: the psychological effect of fragmentation, the spatial, and the political dimensions. Working against fragmentation could trigger the reaction of the local population, preventing the articulation of a strong regional project. In order to avoid this reaction, parties are expected to necessarily adapt to fragmentation by, although having pro-periphery positions, also favouring the local level. This would inevitably undermine their pro-periphery positions

- The psychological effect of fragmentation

Regions seems to be the most used units of observation in the literature, as if this was the granted scale on which the centre-periphery analysis should be focused. This is, that, as Paasi (2002: 138) puts it, regions are taken for granted and there is no further fragmentation of the region into smaller units of identification. The literature has placed little emphasis on smaller units that may have major effects and that are not taken into account. This should not be taken as monolithic. Regions, especially archipelagos, are also subdivided into smaller units (islands) that the local population see as their bounded territories. The fragmentation of archipelagos into islands may counterbalance the effect of distance, abstraction, and place attachment, weakening identification with the region. Hay (2003: 203) argues in this respect that the “water boundary is conducive to psychological distinctiveness, because it promotes clearer, ‘bounded’ identities.”.

88

In archipelagos, the islands become the units of identification for the space, place, and territory. Islands are compacted natural units, which deepens the notions of location and identity (Baldacchino 2004: 272). In these regions, the local population, affected by this psychological effect of fragmentation, may identify with their own islands more than with the region. Hache (1998: 47) further develops how insularity is used to articulate a distinctive island-based identity. Not only does the local population identify with its own island, but it also considers this island-based identity to be threaten by any other identity that tries to assimilate it. A regional identity might be seen as a threat if it negates the existence and importance of these island-based identities. This psychological effect is better understood via the two dimensions outlined below.

- Fragmentation as a spatial dimension

The fragmentation of the unit "archipelago outer-periphery" also has to be considered when observing the articulation of a regional project. This means that islands are perfectly delimited units of land which are perceived by the communities not only as space, but also as place and territory at the same time. In other words, the three dimensions coincide inside the same borders that water encircles. The local populations in archipelagos tend to identify more with their islands than with the region, determined by the insular characteristics of the territory to which they are attached to (Baldacchino 2004: 272). Communities in islands are inherently related to their delimited natural spaces and separated from the exterior by this specific natural characteristic. The island is identified as the condition of its own character, and therefore, it is the unit upon which the local loyalties relay. It is, as Goldman states (2008: 28), "...literally the space of the people and their place in the world is shaped by the relationship between the land and the surrounding waters.". It can be said that islands have the power to

subdivide the archipelago into smaller units. These island-based loyalties tend to

89

Figure 3.6. Comparison between contiguous and fragmented regions.

Although in contiguous territorial states, such as Germany or Poland, regions may be the best possible unit of observation to explain the centre- periphery cleavage, in other states, such as those that have archipelago outer- peripheries, this may not be necessarily the case. The argument behind this can be summarised using Penrose’s words (2002: 280) “…islands are frequently viewed as discrete geographical entities because the boundaries of the land are clearly marked by water.”. Islands individually and not the archipelago are the natural feature that the local population uses to fulfil the place attachment requirements. The distance that separates each island of the archipelago acts in the same way as the distance that separates the archipelago from the mainland regions, reinforcing the island-based identification. Even if there is a relatively short distance between islands, the sea still retains its psychological effect of natural barrier, perfectly bounding the island-based territories.

- Fragmentation as a political-administrative dimension

If distance and the abstraction level is a factor that increase the importance of the region as the preferred unit of identification for the peripheral populations, fragmentation, via this political-administrative dimension, is a factor that counterbalances this effect, blurring the region as a whole. It can be said that the above Construal Level Theory can be further applied to sub-regional units.

MAINLAND VS. ARCHIPELAGOS OUTER-PERIPHERIES Country Country (Nationwide) Region Region (Archipelago) Province/Municipality Local (Islands)

90

Having these sub-regional units of identification is a factor that works against the region as the main source of latent emotional power for the local population to identify with. The identification with these sub-regional ruling bodies increases as the abstraction level also increases. The more abstract the centre becomes, the more important local ruling bodies become for the local population to fulfil its attachment feelings. As one moves away from the centre, the political- administrative dimension of fragmentation increases its negative effect as the local population increments its identification with the local ruling bodies. All parties are expected to be affected with the same intensity. This position can be labelled as pro-subregional. This dimension can affect both archipelago and continuous regions.

It has to be pointed out that fragmentation is expected to have deeper effects if both dimensions coincide, like in archipelagos. In this sense, the recognition and acknowledgement by parties of the importance of these island- based loyalties (spatial dimension) and island-based ruling bodies (political- administrative dimension) for the local population may prevent the articulation of a strong regional discourse. Not only does the local population strongly identify with the island, but also with the local body that rules it. In other words, this focuses on the political agency factor that spatial fragmentation favours (Giampapa 2004: 193). This means that the island-based political community unifies under the local body that rules the island. This undermines the capacity of a regional project to be articulated with a strong regional base. Local bodies such as Provincial Councils15 _{in continuous regions can be assimilated to the local}

island-based ruling bodies, but the degree of importance for the local population is higher in the case of the latter due to the perfect match between the islands and the jurisdiction that these island-based local bodies can exercise. The boundaries coincide, reinforcing the link between the territory and the political- administrative body that governs it. If only one dimension (spatial or political- administrative) is present, the negative effect is also expected, as theorised, but with a lower degree of impact than when the two are combined.

15 _{Provincial Councils in Spain represents the administrative and governmental level between}

the regions and the local bodies such as municipalities. Some regions have a territorial division called province, but no actual council, such as the Canary and Balearic Islands.

91

Focusing on the above theorisation, the general hypothesis that can be formulated to understand how fragmentation affects party completion on the centre-periphery cleavage is the following:

H2-fragmentation undermines the pro-periphery positions of parties

Fragmentation applied to the different regions of Spain

The above theoretical discussion can be applied to the different regions of Spain in the following way. Because all regions are affected by political- administrative fragmentation, the focus is put on the first dimension. In the archipelago regions of the Balearic and the Canary Island, spatial fragmentation is expected to undermine the articulation of a strong regional discourse by parties. This first stage tries to observe if the spatial dimension of fragmentation in isolation has the theorised effect. The acknowledgement of island-based loyalties and identities is predicted to negatively affect the pro-periphery positions of parties. Increasing the importance of the region with more pro-periphery positions is perceived as going to the detriment of these island-based loyalties and identities. This is hypothesised to have the following adverse effects:

H2.A-fragmentation undermines the emphasis of parties on the regional level

H2.B-fragmentation reduces the calls from parties for more competences for the

regions

H2.C-fragmentation favours a less positive attitude of parties towards

multiculturalism

Fragmentation applied to Castilla-La Mancha, Andalusia, and the Canary Islands

In the case of these three regions, the analysis is expected to be useful to observe, on one hand, the increasing negative impact of political-administrative fragmentation as distance from the centre increases, and on the other hand, if the combination of both dimensions of fragmentation has the profound effect above theorised in comparison to the presence of only one due to the perfect match between the boundaries of the islands and the jurisdiction of the local island-based bodies.

92

First, the effect of political-administrative fragmentation is expected to increase as one moves away from the centre. The higher the distance from the centre, the more abstract its ruling bodies become for the local population in the peripheries, and therefore, the more important the local bodies of the peripheries become to fulfil its attachment feelings. For example, the Provincial Councils in Andalusia have had a major role in the region, both in history (Girón Reguera 2004; Romero and López 2005) and in the current democratic period (Yerga Cobos 2010). In comparison, the importance of the same local bodies in Castilla- La Mancha is less, although also present in history (Pillet Capdepón 2015). This is where the Construal Level Theory explained above can be further applied to this factor in order to explain this variation. The distance from the centre is higher in Andalusia than in Castilla-La Mancha, and therefore, the more important these local ruling bodies are for the local population in the former region as the abstraction level increases when one moves away from the centre. This effect is expected to be even deeper in the Canary Islands. This is based on the fact that because the distance that separates this region from the centre is even greater, the abstraction level is expected to be also higher. Overall, political-administrative fragmentation is expected to deepen its effect as one moves from Castilla-La Mancha to Andalusia, and finally to the Canary Islands due to the increase in importance of the local bodies for the local populations.

Added to this increase in the impact of political-administrative fragmentation as distance from the centre increments, the region of the Canary Islands is expected to be even more affected by fragmentation due to the combination of both dimensions of this factor via the Cabildos16 _{(García Rojas}

and Alvardíaz García-Portillo 2005). The Cabildos represent the perfect match between the spatial and political-administrative dimensions of fragmentation. The islands found in the Canary Islands are well distinct bounded territories, which undermine the possible image of the region as a whole, being this more abstract for the local population. This does not happen in continuous regions due to the lack of spatial fragmentation. This combination reinforces the importance of the

Cabildos in the Canary Islands, where they are a key element of the political life

16 _{Cabildos are the insular-based governments of the islands in the regions of the Canary and}

93

of the islands (Ramírez Muñóz 1996: 278-280). The loyalties are stronger in these well-bounded insular territories, leading to what is known as insularismo (Hernández Bravo 1989) or insular dimension (Hernández Bravo 2004), which refers to the political loyalties between the local population and the islands (Hernández Bravo 1989). Figure 3.7 summarises the strength of the loyalties is the Canary Islands.

Figure 3.7. The three levels of identification and loyalties in the Canary Islands.

With the above expectation, the hypotheses are the following:

H2.D-fragmentation undermines the articulation of a strong regional level by

parties due to the acknowledgement of the importance of the local level,

Spain nationwide

Local/Island Level Region/Archipelago Level Nationwide/Country Level

Degree of strength of the loyalties of the population in the Canary Islands

94

increasing its effects as one moves from Castilla-La Mancha to Andalusia, and finally to the Canary Islands

H2.E-fragmentation weakens the ability of parties to articulate a differentiated

constitutional status of the region due to the acknowledgement of the importance of the local level, increasing its effects as one moves from Castilla-

La Mancha to Andalusia, and finally to the Canary Islands

H2.F-fragmentation reduces the ability of parties to call for more competences

for the region due to the acknowledgement of the importance of the local level, increasing its effects as one moves from Castilla-La Mancha to Andalusia, and

finally to the Canary Islands

H2.G-fragmentation erodes the ability of parties to articulate a strong regional

identity due to the acknowledgement of the importance of the local level, increasing its effects as one moves from Castilla-La Mancha to Andalusia, and

finally to the Canary Islands