Social-Constructivism: CBC as a co-evolutionary process

The social-constructivist approach gives an answer to this question by trying to study the inner social and political co-evolution among all parts involved in the cross-border activities. So, good governance and a solid CBC structure or Euroregion do not depend on the institutional capacity of the organization or on the will and interests of single actors, e.g. states; individuals; EU; multinational companies, etc., rather it is an ongoing complex process shaped by all these actors in their daily cooperation. In this vein Gualini (2003) affirms that “Cross-border governance is an institutional construct resulting from complex processes of co-evolution”. During the phase of institutionalization, cross-border governance settings “face a struggle that highlights the dialectics between path-dependency and path-shaping, between institution building and institutional design” (Gualini 2003). For the author, this co-evolution of the cross-border governance includes three different dimensions: political-economic, institutional and symbolic-cognitive. The first dimension is due to the re-framing of the meaning of

borders. In a prospectively borderless Europe conceived as “networks of regions,” CBC structures and Euroregions are put at the centre of the current political-economic challenge. The second dimension derives from a combination of institutional design and institution building, while the third is seen as a process of territorial identity-formation, inventing communities and projecting spaces (ibidem). Similarly, Jennifer Yoder, when examining the Euroregion Pro Europa Viadrina between Poland and Germany, assess Euroregional entities under three aspects, or as she calls them, three types of bridges:

“Reconciliation: Building Cultural Bridges”, “Regional Development: Building Economic Bridges”, “European Integration: Building Institutional and Normative Bridges” (Yoder 2003). More specifically, the Euroregion has cultural, economical and institutional impacts on the border area. By promoting numerous small-scale projects, the Euroregion brings people together, enhances the environment in terms of economic development and promotes mutual understanding at the elite level through contacts between the administrative bodies on both sides of the border.

Grix and Knowles (2002) have also studied the Euroregion Pro Europa Viadrina pointing out the relevance of CBC and Euroregions in terms of “social capital”. They assert that Euroregions can be perceived as a “bridging organization that could maximize the levels of social capital available to the inhabitants of the German–Polish border region, thereby facilitating the creation of relations of trust between both countries” (Grix 2001; Grix and Knowles 2002). Even if the constant CBC tends to develop higher trust among the people, the authors identify two main problems affecting the specific border area: a) no attitudes of citizens to cooperate with each other and to believe in the public sphere; b) no leaders capable of taking the initiative in a dynamic way (ibidem). Starting from a different perspective, Malecki (2012) also debates on the concept of “social capital” as a fundamental element for a border area, capable of fostering innovation and positive economic growth. For the author social capital, which is based on trust and good social relations described also as the “glue” or “lubricant”

because it helps facilitate exchanges within a group of people, refers to a culture of interaction among people, with productive economic outcomes. In this respect, tying this idea to the above assumption of Grix and Knowles on CBC as a stimulus of proximity and trust among people, CBC could also be considered the promoter of the

“regional social capital” in terms of innovation, knowledge-transfer and positive economic outcomes.

Hence, cooperation between the border areas in the daily life assumes a central role in the analysis of social-constructivists. The contact and the proximity between populations favour a positive attitude and trust among the involved parts (Grix &

Knowles 2002; Bray 2002; Mirwaldt 2010). This could be confirmed in all of the borderlands except for the areas where the historical heritage is negative, declares Mirwaldt (2010). Mirwaldt, while studying the case of the Czech-Bavarian borderland case where a German minority resides, proves that Bavarian borderlanders’ attitudes towards Czechs would look even less favourable than the average Germans’ attitudes.

Contrary to Mirwaldt’s view is the research of Malloy who demonstrates the relevance of minorities as a “building capacity” of cross-border areas even after a past of bloodsheds (Malloy 2007; 2010a; 2010b). Both the Danish and German minorities, symbol of historical wars and disputes between Denmark and Germany, represent today important props of CBC. Specifically, the minorities of the Danish-German borderland are contributing to the CBC in several fields: Political cooperation; Cultural cooperation; Cooperation in the area of Education; Economic cooperation; European cooperation (Malloy 2007).

Other scholars have shown that there are further actors or sectors which can play a key role in terms of “building capacity” on the cross-border development course. Thus, for Ateljevic (2008a; 2008b) active cooperation, which can promote a CBC institutionalization, starts from NGOs and civic society, for Brie (2009) from the media, for Scott (2000b) and Häkli (2001) from institutions and common projects, for Pollak (2006) from the educational institutions. All these actors working on CBC, in time, through a co-evolutionary process, are changing the physical, mental and identity perspective of borderlands, shaping a new institutional territorialisation of spaces and power, because “what form of boundary the frontier assumes in individual inhabitants’

consciousness depends on their personal notions of identity” (Bray 2002).