The Regional Concept, Public Policy and Policy Spaces: The ARC and TVA
This paper examines two policy spaces–the ARC and TVA–and their spatialized politics. The research observes that the regional concept informs public policy and can contribute to the formation of stable policy initiatives. Using the subsystem framework to understand the political viability of policy regimes, the authors conclude policy geographies that appeal to traditional definitions of regions are more stable over time. In contrast, geographies that fail to reflect pre-existing representations of space are engaged in more competitive subsystem politics. The paper demonstrates that the spatial practices of policy regions and their directional politics influence the political viability of programs. The paper concludes that policy spaces should institutionalize pre-existing geographies–not manufacture new ones.
[1] Paasi, A., 2000. Re-constructing regions and regional identity.
Katholieker Universiteit Nijmegen, Nethur Lecture, July 11.
[2] MacLeod, G. and M. Goodwin. 1999. Space, scale, and state strategy:
rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human
Geography, 23: 503-527
[3] Paasi, A., 2003. Region and place: regional identity in question. Progress
in Human Geography, 27: 475-785.
[4] MacLeod, G., 2001. New regionalism reconsidered: Globalization and
the remaking political economic space. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 25, pp. 804-825.
[5] Gatrell, J. and J. Worsham. 2002. Policy Spaces: Applying Lefebvrian
Politics in Neo-Institutional Spaces. Space and Polity, 6: 324-342.
[6] Gatrell, J. and L. Fintor. 1998. Spatial niches, policy subsystems, and
agenda setting: the case of the ARC. Political Geography, 17: 883-897.
[7] Keating, M., 1997. The invention of regions: political restructuring and
territorial government in Europe. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 15:383-398.
[8] Cox, K., 1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the
politics of scale; or looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17: 1-
24.
[9] Gilbert, A., 1988. The new regional geography in English and Frenchspeaking
countries. Progress in Human Geography, 12: 208-228.
[10] Pudup, M., 2000. Review: Allen, Massey, and Cochrane-s Rethinking
the Region. Annals of the Associations of American Geographers 90:
404-442.
[11] Pudup, M., 1988. Arguments within regional geography. Progress in
Human Geography, 12: 360-390.
[12] Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
[13] Merrifield, A., 1993. Place and space: a Lefebvrian reconciliation.
Trans. Br. Inst. Geogr., 18: 516-531.
[14] McCool, D., 1998. The subsystem family of concepts: A critique and a
proposal. Political Research Quarterly, 51: 551-570.
[15] Eisner, M., J. Worsham, and E. Ringquist, 1999. Contemporary
Regulatory Policy. Boulder: Reinner.
[16] Thurber, J., 1991. Dynamics of policy subsystems in American politics.
In Interest Group Politics, ed. A. Cigler and B. Loomis. Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
[17] Baumgartner, F. and B. Jones, 1993. Agendas and Instability in
American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[18] McCool, D., 1990. Political viability of subgovernments. Political
Science Quarterly, 105: 270-293.
[19] Heclo, H., 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In The
New American Political System ed. King. American Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC.
[20] Stein, R. and K. Bickers, 1995. Perpetuating the Pork Barrel.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. GRPA: Annual Performance Report,
FY01. http://www.tva.gov.
[22] Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. TVA: A Short History.
http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/history.htm.
[23] Congressional Record: 81st-106th Congresses. Washington, DC: GPO.
{also available on-line at Thomas.loc.gov}.
[24] Chattanooga Times Editorial Staff. 1997. Editorial: TVA stumbles on
Little Cedar. The Chattanooga Times, September 10, A8.
[25] Nashville Tennessean. 1999. TVA brought power, controversy to valley.
Nashville Tennessean, September 13. http://tennessean.com
[26] Batteau, A., 1990. The Invention of Appalachia: The anthropology of
form & meaning. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.
[27] Salstrom, P., 1994. Appalachia-s Path to Dependency. Lexington:
University of Kentucky Press.
[28] Laing, C., 1999. Spatial investments strategies of federal assistance to
Appalachia. Southeastern Geographer 39:99-113.
[29] Moore, T., 1990. Development and change in Appalachian Kentucky-s
economy: 1870-1890. Southeastern Geographer, 30: 121-139.
[30] Moore, T., 1994. Core-periphery models, regional planning theory, and
Appalachian development. The Professional Geographer 46:316-331.
[31] Raitz, K. and R. Ulack, 1984. Appalachia: A Regional Geography.
London: Westview.
[32] Whisnant, D., 1994. Modernizing the Mountaineer: People, Power and
Planning in Appalachia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
[33] Olivetti, A., and R. Klase. 1997. The structural dynamics of committee
jurisdictions in immigration policy, Presented at the Midwest Political
Science Conference, Chicago, IL.
[34] Jones, B., F. Baumgartner, and J. Talbert. 1993. The destruction of
policy monopolies in congress. American Political Science Review, 87:
657-671.
[35] Staeheli, L., J. Kodras and C. Flint. 1997. State Devolution in America.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[36] Agnew, J., 1999. Regions on the mind does not equal regions of the
mind. Progress in Human Geography 23: 91-96.
[37] Johnson, M. 1994. Public policy and industrial location in the lower
Mississippi Delta in an era of restructuring, Southeastern Geographer,
34:17-39.
[1] Paasi, A., 2000. Re-constructing regions and regional identity.
Katholieker Universiteit Nijmegen, Nethur Lecture, July 11.
[2] MacLeod, G. and M. Goodwin. 1999. Space, scale, and state strategy:
rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human
Geography, 23: 503-527
[3] Paasi, A., 2003. Region and place: regional identity in question. Progress
in Human Geography, 27: 475-785.
[4] MacLeod, G., 2001. New regionalism reconsidered: Globalization and
the remaking political economic space. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 25, pp. 804-825.
[5] Gatrell, J. and J. Worsham. 2002. Policy Spaces: Applying Lefebvrian
Politics in Neo-Institutional Spaces. Space and Polity, 6: 324-342.
[6] Gatrell, J. and L. Fintor. 1998. Spatial niches, policy subsystems, and
agenda setting: the case of the ARC. Political Geography, 17: 883-897.
[7] Keating, M., 1997. The invention of regions: political restructuring and
territorial government in Europe. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 15:383-398.
[8] Cox, K., 1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the
politics of scale; or looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17: 1-
24.
[9] Gilbert, A., 1988. The new regional geography in English and Frenchspeaking
countries. Progress in Human Geography, 12: 208-228.
[10] Pudup, M., 2000. Review: Allen, Massey, and Cochrane-s Rethinking
the Region. Annals of the Associations of American Geographers 90:
404-442.
[11] Pudup, M., 1988. Arguments within regional geography. Progress in
Human Geography, 12: 360-390.
[12] Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
[13] Merrifield, A., 1993. Place and space: a Lefebvrian reconciliation.
Trans. Br. Inst. Geogr., 18: 516-531.
[14] McCool, D., 1998. The subsystem family of concepts: A critique and a
proposal. Political Research Quarterly, 51: 551-570.
[15] Eisner, M., J. Worsham, and E. Ringquist, 1999. Contemporary
Regulatory Policy. Boulder: Reinner.
[16] Thurber, J., 1991. Dynamics of policy subsystems in American politics.
In Interest Group Politics, ed. A. Cigler and B. Loomis. Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
[17] Baumgartner, F. and B. Jones, 1993. Agendas and Instability in
American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[18] McCool, D., 1990. Political viability of subgovernments. Political
Science Quarterly, 105: 270-293.
[19] Heclo, H., 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In The
New American Political System ed. King. American Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC.
[20] Stein, R. and K. Bickers, 1995. Perpetuating the Pork Barrel.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. GRPA: Annual Performance Report,
FY01. http://www.tva.gov.
[22] Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. TVA: A Short History.
http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/history.htm.
[23] Congressional Record: 81st-106th Congresses. Washington, DC: GPO.
{also available on-line at Thomas.loc.gov}.
[24] Chattanooga Times Editorial Staff. 1997. Editorial: TVA stumbles on
Little Cedar. The Chattanooga Times, September 10, A8.
[25] Nashville Tennessean. 1999. TVA brought power, controversy to valley.
Nashville Tennessean, September 13. http://tennessean.com
[26] Batteau, A., 1990. The Invention of Appalachia: The anthropology of
form & meaning. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.
[27] Salstrom, P., 1994. Appalachia-s Path to Dependency. Lexington:
University of Kentucky Press.
[28] Laing, C., 1999. Spatial investments strategies of federal assistance to
Appalachia. Southeastern Geographer 39:99-113.
[29] Moore, T., 1990. Development and change in Appalachian Kentucky-s
economy: 1870-1890. Southeastern Geographer, 30: 121-139.
[30] Moore, T., 1994. Core-periphery models, regional planning theory, and
Appalachian development. The Professional Geographer 46:316-331.
[31] Raitz, K. and R. Ulack, 1984. Appalachia: A Regional Geography.
London: Westview.
[32] Whisnant, D., 1994. Modernizing the Mountaineer: People, Power and
Planning in Appalachia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
[33] Olivetti, A., and R. Klase. 1997. The structural dynamics of committee
jurisdictions in immigration policy, Presented at the Midwest Political
Science Conference, Chicago, IL.
[34] Jones, B., F. Baumgartner, and J. Talbert. 1993. The destruction of
policy monopolies in congress. American Political Science Review, 87:
657-671.
[35] Staeheli, L., J. Kodras and C. Flint. 1997. State Devolution in America.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[36] Agnew, J., 1999. Regions on the mind does not equal regions of the
mind. Progress in Human Geography 23: 91-96.
[37] Johnson, M. 1994. Public policy and industrial location in the lower
Mississippi Delta in an era of restructuring, Southeastern Geographer,
34:17-39.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:51856", author = "Jay D. Gatrell and Robert Q. Hanham and Jeff Worsham and Maureen McDorman", title = "The Regional Concept, Public Policy and Policy Spaces: The ARC and TVA", abstract = "This paper examines two policy spaces–the ARC and TVA–and their spatialized politics. The research observes that the regional concept informs public policy and can contribute to the formation of stable policy initiatives. Using the subsystem framework to understand the political viability of policy regimes, the authors conclude policy geographies that appeal to traditional definitions of regions are more stable over time. In contrast, geographies that fail to reflect pre-existing representations of space are engaged in more competitive subsystem politics. The paper demonstrates that the spatial practices of policy regions and their directional politics influence the political viability of programs. The paper concludes that policy spaces should institutionalize pre-existing geographies–not manufacture new ones.
", keywords = "Agenda setting, politics, region.", volume = "3", number = "7", pages = "1401-10", }
