Rethinking Regional Development in Polarised Times: Towards new Regional Futures?

Editors: Emil Evenhuis, Stefania Fiorentino, Huiwen Gong, Ron Martin, Johan Miörner and Christian Schulz.

The world is facing a number of historic challenges, such as climate change and environmental degradation, geopolitical shifts and global tensions, persistent inequalities, disruptive technological developments, etc. (see Garretsen et al., 2025). At the same time, the world appears to have become increasingly prone to crises and shocks over recent decades (e.g., the global financial crisis, the COVID-pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine, the energy crisis, conflict in the Middle East, and frequent natural catastrophes and extreme weather events). Hence current times are marked by great uncertainty, unpredictability, and anxiety.

This disruptive era  – what some have called a ‘polycrisis’ (Lawrence et al, 2022; Tooze, 2022) – has prompted a stark clash between very different ways of how to shape the future and how best to confront and overcome the challenges we face. The very notions of ‘progress’ and ‘development’ are being questioned at a fundamental level (cf. Pike et al., 2007). Many groups, and places, are experiencing a sense of ’futurelessness’ (Tutton, 2022), marked by feelings of hopelessness, resentment and mistrust (cf. Harvey, 2000). They are questioning the idea of development all together, at least as a common and collaborative undertaking. Others are retreating into nostalgia, even calling for a return to an idealised past, whilst regarding any type of ‘progressivism’ as an existential threat (e.g., Elgenius and Rydgren, 2022; Reckwitz, 2024). Such feelings of futurelessness, exclusion and nostalgia are implicated in the rise of various forms of populism, nationalism and authoritarianism in many countries across the world (Rodríquez-Pose et al., 2024), which – counterproductively – further fuel uncertainties and anxieties (e.g. by driving the erosion of the prevailing world order, contributing to geopolitical and geoeconomic tensions, and leading to inadequate responses to crises and shocks).

Yet, at the same time, there are significant efforts to rethink and reshape notions of ‘development’ in the light of our current predicament. Some continue to link the notion of development to that of economic prosperity and technological innovations, but stress the need to combine this with a (much) greater concern for inclusiveness and sustainability (Hansen, 2021). Hence the emergence of such concepts as Inclusive Growth or Green Growth (see Martin, 2021; Evenhuis et al., 2021). Another response has been, to develop and enact alternative conceptions and models of development, such as Post-growth, Well-being Economy, Circular Economy, Proximity Economy, New Municipalism, Foundational Economy, or Degrowth (e. g. Jackson, 2021; Fioramonti, 2017; Raworth, 2017; Davies et al., 2024; Hausemer et al., 2024; Thompson, 2021; Foundational Economy Collective, 2018; Hickel, 2020; Demaria et al., 2019). These (optimistic or pessimistic) imaginaries of regional futures and the emerging alternative frameworks for ‘development’ can shape the direction that regions across the world may actually take (see Gong, 2024). However, a lot remains to be discussed on their applications and implications.

The aim of this themed issue of the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, is to explore ‘the battle for the future’ at this current conjuncture, if and how progressive and forward-looking views of development can be reclaimed, and what these would or should look like. We want to do so with a particular focus on the regional and geographical aspects.

Clearly the megatrends, processes and crises are experienced unevenly across different regions in different parts of the word. While in some regions the future may look rather bleak (as encapsulated in such concepts as the ‘regional development trap’ (Diemer et al., 2022), or ‘left behind’ (Martin et al., 2021; Fiorentino et al., 2024), in other regions new opportunities may actually be opening up as a result of the many shifts in the world. Furthermore, regions and cities can be important sites to generate and enact new imaginaries and visions of the future, as certain capacities and powers concerning economic development and spatial planning reside at this level (e.g. Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020). On the other hand, much depends on how much policy and financial autonomy exists at subnational levels. And while place-based policy may be necessary to forge alternative local models of socio-economic development, central-state policies need to be supportive of and consistent with such locally-based initiatives.

Moreover, the key premises as well as implications of these conceptions and alternative models of development (in terms of geographies, politics and practical operations), remain rather ill-defined, fuzzy and at times naïve (Schulz and Bailey, 2014). This applies in particular to their geographical aspects. It is (often implicitly) assumed that the regional or urban level is the main level to organise democratic control, mutual solidarity, environmental sustainability, or sensitivity to differences in needs and conditions. But what does that imply exactly, what does that mean for the relations between regions and cities, and how could this be enacted in the current geopolitical context?

Against this background, we invite papers – conceptual, empirical or methodological – that address questions such as (but not limited to):

• What should/could forward-looking alternative conceptions of development for regions and cities look like, given the many challenges regions and cities face? Are conceptions such as Inclusive Growth, Post-growth, Foundational Economy, Circular Economy, etc. adequate, or should they be combined and/or enhanced (and how)? How could such ‘progressive’ / alternative conceptions gain large appeal? 
• How are the models for alternative development paths positioned in relation to other existing and more traditional ’competitive’ (and growth-led) economic models?
• How do imaginaries and visions of regional and urban futures actually come about? What kinds of futures get traction or are being marginalized in processes of politics and contestation, and why?
• How do structural inequalities and power relations influence possibilities to implement ‘progressive’ or alternative visions and models for future development in cities and regions?
• What are examples - in different parts of the world - of the implementation of (elements of) ‘progressive’ and alternative conceptions of development in cities and regions currently or in the past, and what can we learn from these examples?
• What does the current conjuncture and the debates around alternative futures imply for existing theories and frameworks of understanding urban and regional development?
• What methods and techniques (such as foresight, scenario-building, storytelling, and research-by-design) can be used to articulate and evaluate alternative visions and conceptions of future development in actual regions and cities?

Submissions

Authors interested in publishing in the Special Issue should email an Abstract proposal of about 400 words to the CJRES Editorial Office ([email protected]) by 1st July 2025, and full Papers invited from among those submissions will need to be received by 1 November 2025 for review and possible publication in the March 2027 issue. Submissions will be subject to the journal’s normal peer review process. Details of Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society’s publication process, evaluation criteria and house style are available at https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/cjres/pages/General_Instructions.

References

• Davies, A. R., Evenhuis, E., Willams, J., Avoyan, E. & Tyler, P. (2024), Critical geographies of the circular economy, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,17(3): 431–442, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsae028
• Demaria, F., Kallis, G. & Bakker, K. (2019), Geographies of degrowth: Nowtopias, resurgences and the decolonization of imaginaries and places. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2(3): 431-450, https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619869689
• Diemer, A., Iammarino, S. & Rodríguez-Pose, A.. (2022), The regional development trap in Europe. Economic Geography, 98(5): 487–509.
• Elgenius, G. & Rydgren, J. (2022), Nationalism and the Politics of Nostalgia 1. Sociological Forum, 37: 1230-1243.
• Evenhuis, E., Lee, N., Martin, R. & Tyler, P. (2021), Rethinking the political economy of place: challenges of productivity and inclusion. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,14(1): 3-24.
• Fioramonti, L. (2017), Wellbeing Economy. Success in a world without growth. Russell Martin, Johannesburg.
• Fiorentino, S., Glasmeier, A.K., Lobao, L. Martin, R. & Tyler, P. (2024), Left behind places’: What can be done about them?, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(2): 259-274.
• The Foundational Economy Collective (2018), Foundational Economy, The infrastructure of Everyday Life. Manchester University Press: Manchester.
• Garretsen, H., Kitson, M. & Yang, C. (2025), Global forces and local impacts: megatrends in regional development, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 18(1): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsae047
• Gong, H. (2024), Futures should matter (more): Toward a forward-looking perspective in economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 48(3): 292-315.
• Grillitsch, M. & Sotarauta, M. (2020), Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces. Progress in Human Geography, 44(4): 704–723.
• Jackson, T. (2021), Post Growth: Life after Capitalism. Polity: Cambridge.
• Hansen, T. (2021), The foundational economy and regional development. Regional Studies, 56(6): 1033–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1939860
• Harvey, D. (2000), Spaces of Hope. University of California Press: Berkeley.
• Hausemer, P., Gorman, N., Squillante, F., Spūle, S., Mader Furtado, M., Marinovic, P., Hagemann, K., Tricarico, L., Gomes, A., Fiorentino, S. (2024), Scoping the socio-economic performance of the EU proximity economy – Final report. Prepared for the European Commission, European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency. Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/1010
• Hickel, J. (2020), Less is More: How degrowth will save the world. William Heinemann: London.
• Lawrence, M., Homer-Dixon, T., Janzwood, S., Rockstöm, J., Renn, O. & Donges, J.F. (2024),) Global polycrisis: the causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement. Global Sustainability, 7(e6): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.1
• Martin, R. (2021), Rebuilding the economy from the Covid crisis: time to rethink regional studies? Regional Studies, Regional Science, 8(1): 143-161.
• Martin, R., Gardiner, B., Pike, A., Sunley, P. & Tyler, P. (2021), Levelling up Left behind Places: The Scale and Nature of the Economic and Policy Challenge. Routledge: London.
• Pike, A., Rodríquez-Pose, A. & Tomaney, J. (2007), What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom? Regional Studies, 41(9): 1253-–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543355
• Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Penguin Random House: London. 
• Reckwitz, A. (2024) Verlust: Ein Grundproblem der Moderne (‘Loss: A Modern Predicament’). Suhrkamp Verlag: Berlin.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., Dijkstra, L. & Poelman, H. (2024), The geography of EU discontent and the regional development trap. Economic Geography, 100(3): 213-245.
• Schulz, C., & Bailey, I. (2014), The green economy and post‐growth regimes: opportunities and challenges for economic geography. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(3): 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12051
• Thompson, M. (2021), What’s so new about New Municipalism? Progress in Human Geography, 45(2): 317-342.
• Tooze, A. (2022), Welcome to the world of the polycrisis. The Financial Times, 28th October 2022. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/498398e7-11b1-494b-9cd3-6d669dc3de33
• Tutton, R. (2022), The sociology of futurelessness. Sociology, 57(2): 438-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385221122420