Phase 4: Young Planners Working Group. The Oslo Region and the Scandinavian Corridor, Implementing SWOT Analyses

1. IntroductionIn the previous phases of this project we have made an effort to distinguish the different spheres of housing, labour, economy and mobility. Although these spheres in reality are highly integrated, we have found that separating them has enabled us to look more closely on each of them and more clearly see how they relate to the others. In phase four we find the time right to reunite these spheres and make a synthesis of the findings from the different SWOT-analyses from phase 3. We will, however, continue to distinguish between the two different geographical scales and we treat them separately in this text.

Beginning with the Oslo region, we summarise our findings from phase 3 in a shorter integrated SWOT analysis. Then we address the Oslo region with a list of possible actions. These actions are possible responses to the outcome of the SWOT-analyses, and some of them are coloured by specific ideological ways of thinking about economy, urban development and regional planning. In order to draw some lines from the list we begin with defining the common ground that is not specific to ideological orientation. After this we elaborate on two different political approaches; the welfare state approach, and the market liberalist approach. Our suggestions are based on moderate left wing and moderate right wing politics, which are the two plausible options in Norwegian politics in the near future.

Moving to the Scandinavian corridor we summarize phase three in a short SWOT-analysis and follow up with a list of possible actions. As the project of connecting the Scandinavian economy closer together spans across ideological borders we decided to distinguish the strategies with the level of willingness to invest. Therefore we developed one strategy for moderate- and another for radical action.

Index:1 Introduction2.1 SWOT-analysis of the Oslo region2.2 Inventory: List of possible Actions in the Oslo region.2.3 Common ground: planning efforts across political boundaries2.3 The welfare state approach2.5 The market liberalist approach3.1 SWOT-analysis of the Scandinavian region3.2 Inventory: List of possible Actions in the Scandinavian Corridor3.3 A moderate strategy3.4 A radical strategy4 From the Oslo Region to a larger Scandinavian Region

1

2.1 SWOT-analysis of the Oslo region

STRENGTHS Strong welfare state Low unemployment rate Short internal distances in the region Some inter-municipal integration of

public transport modes The counties Oslo and Akershus

together own the company Ruter, making local public transit easier

Concentration of knowledge based industry in the Oslo region

The region has a diverse economy Oslo is one of Norway’s most

attractive places to live and it attracts high-skilled workers

OPPORTUNITIES Inter-municipal planning for

increased housing supply Development in the suburbs Densification Better infrastructure may open up for

new residential areas Relieve pressure on the rental market

by strengthen social policies Public awareness of the problems to

find solutions quicker Expand intercity railway across

municipalities Make public transportation a national

responsibility Low degree of unemployment gives

opportunities to attract highly skilled surplus labour from other countries

Access to investment capital due to a stable economic situation

WEAKNESSES Pressure on the housing market and

expensive rental housing Shortage of available land for

building new homes in the capital Lack of regional planning and inter-

municipal cooperation Heterogeneous population with

different needs Resistance to densification Public transportation is almost at

saturation point in the rush hours Low population density in parts of the

region gives low incentives for developing public transport

Remote location compared to other European capitals

Low level of influence to the EU due to limited membership

The Norwegian cluster is small in a global comparison

THREATS Strong population growth Lack of public housing may cause

segregation and marginalization Requirement of universal design in

new building is expensive Urban sprawl and car dependency

may cause air pollution and environmental damages

Disagreement between local and national governments over financing the infrastructure

Need for an appropriate policy response to population growth and changing demands

Conflicting interests in transportation modes makes future planning and investments difficult

Varying political will for investing in public transport

Ruter’s monopoly may limit development outside the two central counties

2.2 Inventory: List of possible Actions in the Oslo Region

2

Firm protection of a wide spanning welfare state, keeping as many as possible employed.

Develop areas that as of now are set aside for farming or wildlife.

Reduce the 100 per cent coverage requirement for universal design in small dwellings

Find land that in area plans can be regulated to industrial activity and business

Ensure efficient public transit to areas that are suited for densification or new dwellings and businesses

Increase the support for Intelligent Transportation Systems, enabling more efficient and sustainable freight and mobility solutions

Make the city denser Prioritise buses in traffic Speed up the processes of expanding

track based transit in the city (metro, tram)

Open up for construction of taller buildings

Encourage building of dwellings in neighbouring municipalities

Expand the company Ruter to larger parts of the region

Synchronise dwelling plans for neighbouring municipalities

Connect the planning groups of dwellings with the planning groups of infrastructure.

Reduce the administrative borders by joining municipalities. Fewer administrations.

Change the election system to make every vote count the same, as of now the votes from the districts count more

Make flexible cooperating platforms stronger in the larger regions, not

forced by existing administrative borders

Ensure access in planning forums for private businesses in order to stimulate the foundation for capital accumulation

Make regional plans part of the local democracy and public debate.

Careful planning efforts using experience and scientific knowledge to avoid building segregation traps

Make mixed housing the norm; dwellings of different size in new buildings, encouraging a diverse composition of inhabitants

Continue the market steered housing policy

Separate tenancy benefits for temporary migrant workers

Create a price ceiling for letting to hinder exploitation of the disadvantaged

Reduce the tax benefits for mortgages on second homes or very expensive properties

Financially encourage businesses to build rental housing for employees, e.g. tax benefits in building loans

Even out densification efforts Let the market forces and NIMBY

decide where to densify Reward municipalities for dense and

sustainable development plans. Reward the developers for dense and

sustainable building, based on public transit access, building materials, energy use etc.

Strengthen the field of architecture to innovate combinations of density and liveability

Arrange architectural competitions to stimulate development of sustainable building techniques

3

The existing structure of home ownership as the norm is taken for granted; make this a democratic issue by initiating a wide public debate

Unpopular dwellings can be revitalised through expanded accessibility: New tramlines etc.

Escalate building of student dwellings to take pressure off the rental market.

Make a U-turn in public housing policy and offer more people to let from the government.

Make it attractive to contractors to build housing for disadvantaged groups.

Build without sufficient car-parking options, but with plenty of sustainable options.

Making the Oslo region a more attractive area for business by:

- introducing subsidies for new businesses

- tax reductions for research and development activity in firms

- create more incentives for regional development

- create residential areas that attract the creative class

Make a comprehensive national strategy on innovation politics and include it in national and transnational plans for the Scandinavian region

Encourage the creation of business outside the established clusters

International marketing of existing clusters to attract more companies to cooperate with in innovation activity

Focus on developing different types of businesses and industries to create heterogeneity in the business sectors; the Oslo-region today has a homogenous business environment

with focus on knowledge intensive businesses.

Create a regional advantage by promoting pro-active collaboration between public institutions and private business actors

Strengthen the collaboration and competition between firms in the region

- by developing infrastructure that permits personal contact and face-to-face interaction

- by continuing public private partnership, ensuring integration of businesses

Secure education of skilled workers by stimulating collaboration between education institutions and businesses

Create common projects between education institutions across regions and national borders to strengthen collaboration and development of students

Subsidise the construction of sustainable houses, with an emphasis not only on access to public transit, but also to choice of building materials, construction techniques and green roofs.

Give extra rewards for innovations that provides more environmentally sustainable products or processes to different types of industry

Reduce the convenience in making bad environmental choices through increasing prices or make the unfavourable option slower or less functional

Develop plenty of travel options and rely on each individual to make an environmentally friendly choice

2.3 Common Ground: Planning Efforts across Political Boundaries

4

The list of possible actions above mentions many options that are not internally coherent in the same policy. Therefore we have sorted out the most strategic, realistic and perhaps the most innovative suggestions into two coherent strategies of opposing political character. However, several of the possible actions are not politically contingent, therefore we have also added a short piece on the common planning efforts that will be necessary or useful to handle the projected population growth and also the environmental requirements that will follow.

Mobility is one part of development in the Oslo region that opposing political forces can agree upon. The future development relies on increased public transit, as there is just not enough space in a dense urban environment to have room for personal vehicles for all. The freight policy, that in the future ought to be more rail-based than today, may provide common ground. Investments in ITS-systems that optimize the time and effort spent on distribution can reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

The promotion of architectural innovation through competitions can stimulate the construction of sustainable buildings and urban spaces. Stimulating the accessible design and knowledge on possible construction techniques in order to create liveable urban spaces, green structures and energy efficient buildings are in the interest of all.

Stimulating knowledge intensive businesses, and also create a diverse foundation for economic activity, is in the interest of the national government, regardless of political orientation. Attracting businesses is often a case of showing the companies what benefits they can achieve if they establish or relocate the firm in a specific region. The benefits can for example be access to a cluster with positive externalities and knowledge spillovers, closer distance to suppliers, possibility to attract skilled labour and more. The arrangements for taxes and subsidies, on the other hand, are questions that the political forces will disagree over. Research on innovation shows that collaboration between economic actors will be more effective when it isn’t constrained by regional or national borders. By opening up for more transnational collaboration and competition the business climate can be better stimulated. Strengthening the region both on a national and international level, like we suggest in this paper, can be part of that business strategy with the aim to create an innovative market and attract foreign investment.

The labour market, the state of the economy, the business environment and the infrastructure are all factors that are interrelated. A well-functioning infrastructure and affordable housing is a part of a healthy economy. Spanning all of these fields is the more and more certain science on climate change, demonstrating that human actions influence the state of the global environment, meaning that if we want growth and goods also for future generations we will need to manage our resources and conduct our activities in an environmentally responsible way.

2.3 The Welfare State ApproachThe welfare state approach is the policy that was dominating in Norway after WW2 but it is on the retreat in competition with market liberalism. The aim of the policy is to spend government money and attention on evening out difference between people, and focussing on making security nets to catch people before they suffer social exclusion and financial despair. In its modern form this policy does not work against the market forces, but try to intervene with them and play ball with “the invisible hand”. The welfare state policy is oriented to a very active government and thus requires more planning efforts.

5

A new wave of welfare thinking should challenge the norm of house ownership and initiate a wide public debate on this topic. In fact, it can be argued that the existing policy, originally intended to enable the middle classes to own their own house and thus build up private capital, is now creating a class difference between the older and younger generations. As of now, house owners get a substantial tax relief, also for second and third homes, whereas a whole generation of young people struggle to get access to the market, paying a lot more as tenants without the prospects of tax relief. An alternative would be to offer tax reliefs to tenants and only to homeowners for a limited amount of years. Another suggestion is to not offer tax benefits for mortgages for very expensive properties and second homes.

As for the public housing policy, the government could provide tenancy for more than just the most marginalized and reverse the trend of reducing the offer. Another more moderate option is to increase the building of student housing as this would take pressure of the private rental market. Along the same line of moderate thinking the government could make benefit programmes that encourage employers to invest in rental housing for short-term foreign employees. This is for example done at the University of Oslo as a means to attract guest lecturers and foreign professor exchanges. This action doesn’t require government administration of the housing like a new segment in public housing would. Easing the rental market in these three ways could make Oslo a more attractive place to internationally oriented labour, and in the case of employer owned housing; particularly high-skilled temporary labour. A requirement for this to be able to ease the private market is that the employers own the dwellings to be let, instead of sub letting on behalf of their employees, which is todays practice. In order to optimize conditions for the environment the offer of tax reduction or other subsidies could be limited to employer owned dwellings close to the workplace.

The housing market reveals patterns of inequality. With such a marginal public housing sector the poorest are the ones that have the highest housing costs. Legislation that prevents landlords from exploiting the tenants could be enforced, for example limits to profit from letting. Deciding how to enforce this can be really challenging due to the many ways of calculating profit; balancing factors of housing price, average price rates in the area, the quality of the dwelling, the loan the landlord may have and the interest on that loan.

In a welfare state policy it is more rational for the government to wish for publicly owned transit companies. This can secure that prices are kept reasonably low and that prioritisations of the routes and expansions are in accordance with social policy, not just profitability. The example of climate change and action to mitigate can be used to illustrate the need for public leadership and prioritisation. Profitability as the sole driving force is insufficient to perform certain necessary tasks, particularly when the tasks are undesirable to the individual but crucial for society. A person is often faced with a situation like this; ‘it is convenient for me to drive a car, but I know it’s not good for the environment’. One solution to the personal dilemma is to somewhat reduce the freedom of the individual; making it less convenient to drive a car, for instance through establishing toll roads and taxing car fuel in correlation with percentage of fossil fuel and efficiency. On the other hand these potentially unpopular policy choices cannot come without making the green options more available, for example building bicycle lanes, reducing bus fares, intensifying the public transit routes etc. With a high level of public spending, and ownership, performing calculated rewards and restrictions on behalf of the environment is easier. And in the opposite political climate one must rely on very different tools to achieve this.

2.5 The Market Liberalist Approach

6

There is an ideological battle between the welfare state approach and the market liberalist approach in regards to the perceived efficiency of, and the necessity for, bureaucracy. The latter is an approach that calls for reduced planning efforts, and encourages privatisation of such efforts. The idea is that the market forces are fit to replace public bureaucratic bodies and perform the same functions without government spending. We will not take this ideological idea to its full capacity in this suggested strategy for two reasons: Firstly, it would be to try and abolish our own discipline, which is against what we stand for; and secondly, there is no reasonably large political force in the Norwegian right wing that works to achieve the total abolishment of the bureaucracy or public planning. Therefore our approach seeks to form a strategy that we consider likely to appeal for a potential right wing government’s wish.

In the market liberalist approach there is a stronger orientation towards functional regions. One way of reducing the constraints on development that is created by administrative borders is to join municipalities. This will reduce the number of regional administrations and as a result also lower the costs of administration. By separating between different regions at a larger scale it is possible to increase the efficiency in the distribution of funding. There is an expressed wish among the right wing in Norway to abolish the county level as a governing level, as well as the above mentioned merging of municipalities. It is argued that it is costly, inefficient, and unnecessary to keep so many administrative units in a time of well-developed information and communication technologies. If a future right wing government executes this policy that means that the responsibility of regional planning is left to inter-municipal networks, perhaps private organisations and businesses, and the different governmental bodies that operate on a state or regional level.

The aim of reducing government spending is associated with the idea of reducing taxes for firms and business owners, as well as individuals. This can stimulate business establishment and in an international context promote one country over another as a desired place to localise business. On a global market the tax conditions are important to attract foreign investment. In urban planning a closely connected idea has developed over the past decades, influencing prioritisation in urban development. Entrepreneurial policy is a way of thinking that suggests that a so-called global elites are mobile on the international labour market, particularly in certain knowledge intensive businesses, for instance law and revision. In order to attract this global elite, one must provide an urban environment that suits this group. A supporting idea for this is to permit the market forces to steer the housing policy, which is a continuation of the housing policy from the 80’s. This creates a differentiated housing market that ensures that certain areas are very attractive to this elite. A presumption in this way of thinking is that the market forces also will promote greener building techniques. Some voices argue that the new wave of environmental consciousness is an intellectual and elite phenomenon, in which case it will ensure an increased demand for energy efficient housing among the rich.

Another central idea in this policy is that a business friendly environment with low taxes gives private actors incentives to make small businesses for profit. The demand for tenancy will find a response in the market as entrepreneurs find that it can be profitable. Therefore a free market can give just as good options for students and other groups that seek tenancy.

To create the best possible foundation for developing a strong business milieu and thereby strengthen the possibilities for an economic development in the region, it may be most rewarding to focus on one area at the time. This contradicts the Norwegian district policies, which focuses on distribution of resources to the peripheral areas. Through the market liberalist approach the supply will be determined by the demand, and one can assume that the

7

demand will be bigger in an area where the business sector already is developed. The knowledge spillover from the cluster is predictable and will have a trickle-down effect to more peripheral areas.

3.1 SWOT-analysis of the Scandinavian region

STRENGTHS Possibility to build a high-speed

railroad that will reduce travel time between Oslo and Copenhagen

Transportation on railway is by many considered as a better mode of travelling

A transnational railway means a split of the cost which makes it a smaller investment for each country

The Øresund Region has shown that a transnational collaboration is possible

Common culture, history and socio-political conditions is good fundament for collaboration

The business milieu in the Scandinavian is relatively homogenous

OPPORTUNITIES A Scandinavian cooperation and

increased connectivity will be beneficial for all three countries

A high speed railway could bring Oslo closer to Copenhagen and the rest of Europe, which opens up new markets for trade and investments, as well as access to surplus labour from Europe

The region contains a wide spectre of businesses, education and research institutes which provides a potential for developing clusters

An integration of labour and housing markets across the national borders could help evening out the differences between the countries

High-speed railway can make the transport of commodities to Europe more effective, secure and sustainable

WEAKNESSES Asymmetric organization of the

regulating infrastructure bodies in the countries involved

Dissonance between the national priorities in regard to public transport: Sweden wants to extend intercity while Norway wants high-speed trains

This project requires new ways of collaboration and planning across national differences

It might be difficult to make a binding agreement

The planning system in the three countries got differences in the power in each level of governance

Increased mobility of professional can lead to increased pressure on the housing market in the Oslo region

THREATS It is expensive to build a high-speed

railway In Norway there is a strong political

resistance due to the cost Need for private investors Impacts on the environment where

the railway is built, mainly in Sweden Possible that the support from EU

will be lower than in the case of the Øresund region since Norway in not a member of the EU

It might be difficult to establish a strong political commitment to the project in all three countries, due to the long-standing commitment of social distribution

The Norwegian focus on the district counties may give resistance to projects that focus on centralization in the capital region

In phase 3 our SWOT-analyses of ‘the Scandinavian 8 million city’ were divided into two parts; one concerning mobility; and another economic development and labour market

8

integration. A summary of this work is in the table above as a background for discussing possible actions aiming at a more integrated Scandinavian region. An integrated Scandinavian region is a huge project that will take decades to realize. To achieve these visions a process must be started, where all three countries work towards a common goal. Based on the assumption, that a strategy towards an integrated Scandinavian region would be supported both from the political left and right, we have chosen not to make the same political divide as for the Oslo region above. Instead we have chosen to present two different strategies; a radical and a moderate, which can be seen as representing two possible political directions. The radical strategy will focus on implementing high-speed trains, whereas the moderate leans towards economic and labour market integration without the foundation of this big investment.

3.2 Inventory: List of Possible Actions towards a more Integrated Scandinavian RegionWe have formulated the following inventory list of possible actions in the Scandinavian region, divided according to the two strategies.

Actions - both strategies: Make COINCO North (Corridor of

Innovation and Cooperation) a leading investigator and organizer

Strengthen the collaboration in the Nordic council so that a common set of political aims and guidelines can be developed

Attract funding from the EU Make collaboration more attractive

than separation Upgrade and improve the general

standard on the existing intercity connections

Build double rail tracks at the entire distance between Oslo and Copenhagen, particularly the distance between Oslo and the Swedish border

Work political towards a more integrated labour market - shared rules for working permit, taxes etc. Make it easier to work and live in two different countries.

Make the citizens of the region more oriented towards the transnational level - work on creating personal identities as citizens of the 8 million city.

Actions - the radical strategy:• Promote the high-speed railway on a

regional, national and international scale, to make it attractive for external investors to invest. A ‘green’ investment with a lot of economical potential.  

• Work on making a binding agreement, where agreements on financing, time horizon and contracts must be made.

• Build tracks at the entire distance for high speed trains

• Convince the majority of the population outside of the Oslo region

that the investment will benefit the country as a whole by stimulating the economy and connect Norway closer to the European economy.

• Make Denmark and Sweden see the potential in a closer connection to the currently strong Norwegian economy

• High-speed trains to Stockholm - making it a region of 12 million people

• Collaborate with the STRING-partners integrating the Øresund Region and the Hamburg region.

9

Our starting point will be the moderate strategy. The radical strategy shares the same foundation as the moderate, but goes further by implementing high-speed trains. The more radical actions will therefore be presented after this section.

3.3 A Moderate StrategyIn the first steps of action, the EU-funded organisation COINCO North (Corridor of Innovation and Cooperation) and the political organ of The Nordic council will play important roles in paving the way for future developments. COINCO North is currently working on analysing the market potential and the costs involved in building a high-speed railway connection. Besides exploring costs and benefits, the most important role for the organisation will be to coordinate the decisions made in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The EU just granted COINCO North 2,9 million euros, which makes it possible to continue the strategic investigation that has been started.

The project of a Scandinavian corridor is heavily dependent on a political commitment in all three countries, and it must be made sure that all are willing to work towards these goals. The indications that the first investigations will give are very important in creating a positive political climate. The Nordic council could therefore play a key role in this respect. The Nordic council was formed in 1952 and consists of members from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The Nordic council is the official inter-parliamentary body in the Nordic region and is a forum for political discussion concerning the region. Some of the council areas of cooperation can be directly linked to key themes of the Scandinavian region such as: innovation, creative industries, labour and employment, energy, education and research, and moving and commuting. The Nordic council is therefore a political organ that will be important in working towards a political agreement.  Upgrading of the existing intercity links will be an important first improvement of the physical structures. A common binding agreement must be made, where all three countries commits to upgrade the existing intercity links to modern standards. First attention must be on the ‘bottlenecks’, which must be prioritised. In this initial phase special attention must be given to the intercity connections from Oslo to Halden, where there has not yet been built double railway tracks. The intercity connections must be more efficient than today, to reduce the travel time by train, and make larger shares of transportation of goods by freight trains possible. Improvement of the intercity connections is crucial to both strategies, but because the moderate strategy does not consist of separate high-speed tracks, these improvements will be even more crucial here. Without high-speed trains, commuting and travel by train from Oslo to Copenhagen, will hardly be a realistic alternative to air travel. Instead more efficient trains on the existing links should be an alternative to driving on shorter distances along the corridor. The train links are therefore still crucial to integration and cohesion.

After the initial phase of investigation, analysing and upgrading of existing railway tracks nationally, a binding agreement of more integrated political goals must be made. Here the politicians of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, must be able to convince national districts outside of the 8 million region benefits it will bring. It must be made clear how a closer collaboration in the region will improve the economical competitiveness by attracting external labour, knowledge and investors.

10

An important political aspect will be to make an integrated labour market. It must be made easier to work and live in two different countries. This means developing shared rules for taxes, pensions etc. Today the welfare states of Norway, Sweden and Denmark have different rules and ways of doing social support, and no coordinating tools to give an overview of granted social benefits, which makes it possible to cheat. The three different agencies of social support must work closer together, making it harder, preferably impossible, to get social support from two countries at the same time. Shared rules would make the system easier to navigate to the region's workforce and thereby remove a potential barrier to working in the neighbouring countries.

As we pointed out in the SWOT-analysis one of the strengths that needs to be exploited is the common cultural background and the similar languages. This can be a useful tool in trying to orientate the citizens of the region more towards the transnational Scandinavian level. The Nordic council and COINCO North should through both reports and popular publications try to attract attention to this. The Øresund connection has made Copenhagen feel much closer to Malmö and Sweden, even though few would say that they are citizens of the Øresund Region, it has opened up for a larger degree of cultural interaction, and it has become easier to live in one country and work in the other. Over time this higher degree of cultural interaction will perhaps make collaboration more natural and easier.

3.4 A Radical StrategyThe actions presented in the moderate strategy are not in opposition to the actions of the radical strategy. The radical strategy goes further in the vision of an integrated region in several aspects, but the main difference is of course the implementation of high-speed trains along the corridor.

Upgrading of the existing intercity links is a big investment, but it is definitely within the limits of each of Norway, Sweden and Denmark’s national budgets. Building new high-speed tracks on the Oslo-Gothenburg-Copenhagen corridor is a much larger investment, that will need external as well as internal investments. To attract international capital to the project of a high-speed railway, the market potential and the environmental benefits needs to be promoted both nationally and internationally. The first elucidations, made by Atkins Ltd. commissioned by COINCO North, have made a forecast of annual passenger demand in 2024, 2043 and 2060. This shows a great potential for high-speed railway services, and underlines the importance of connecting Stockholm to the region as well:

Annual passenger demand in 2024 - the Scandinavian corridor:Oslo-Copenhagen: c.9.5 million  Oslo-Stockholm: c. 13.1 millionStockholm-Copenhagen: c.18.4 million

Atkins forecasts an increase by 30%-35% by 2043 and 50%-60% by 2060 compared to 2024 (Atkins 2012: 55). In the same report, Atkins conclude that high-speed railway services will be a real alternative to flight-services, taking 60-80 per cent of the market share on the major city-city journeys. These numbers should be promoted internationally, to make the long-term benefits of the railway clear. Chinese investors have shown interest in the project, and this could be an important step.

But not just the market potential directly linked to the train services should be promoted. Just as important is the promotion of the possibilities within education, research and innovation

11

that lies within the region. As we have pointed out in the other phases, the region consists of a range of universities, research departments and international companies, that all would benefit from closer regional collaboration.

Direct connections between the biggest port in Scandinavia (Gothenburg) and the biggest airport (Copenhagen Airport Kastrup) would also strengthen international competitiveness.

The potential for financial gain is not just related to numbers of travellers. A range of actors would benefit from the increased possibilities a high-speed railway would provide, sometimes in an unpredictable way. This makes it hard to calculate the actual economic potential in the project. Political pessimists and optimists are therefore likely to have very different understandings of the benefits.

The financial crisis in Europe might make it hard to attract political commitment to big investments, such as a high-speed railway connection. This might weaken the prospects of financial commitment from the governments. But so far the crisis has not hit Scandinavia as hard as other parts of Europe and perhaps the crisis could even be turned to favour the project, if it is being realised nationally, that an integrated region would be less economically vulnerable than three loosely connected regions. Further, if funding from the EU can be granted to investments in physical improvements, it would decrease the national investments, and make it easier to form a financial agreement.   A possible threat, that needs to be dealt with, is the strong Norwegian commitment to district politics. The Norwegian history of subsidising the rural areas and less populated regions will be a barrier to the work towards a Scandinavian region. The fact that the investments will be made in the Oslo region and south-eastern parts of Norway will be considered controversial in a Norwegian context and may make financial commitment from state budgets difficult. Thus low-cost efforts are likely to be favoured by strong political forces in Norway. The paradox here is that one can say that Norway has perhaps the most to earn from the 8 million project as the country doesn’t have an EU membership and therefore have some unrealised financial potential in relation to the rest of Europe, at the same time, the opposition to the project is likely to come from within Norway.

It is important to underline the project’s aim of fulfilling international climate obligations by making freight and travel greener. This will be an important rationale for the investment. By connecting economical development to sustainability, the project would probably be more attractive across the political spectrum and in the population.

A binding agreement of building high-speed trains must of course be made. Here there must be made agreements on financing of the project, the time horizon, and which companies who should get the contracts. Many jobs would be created during the period of planning and building. The building of the high-speed railway can therefore influence the economy in a positive way, if local companies and labour are being used.

When a future high-speed connection is built, this will move travel from the existing links, and clear space to make it a corridor of transportation of goods. This will improve the capacity of freight by train, making it cheaper and more efficient, thus it will be a better and greener alternative to todays road based transportation. Improvement of the intercity connection should therefore not be seen as an opposition to the high-speed railway, instead they should be seen as complimentary. As well, there will be a need to strengthen local links

12

along the existing tracks; a high-speed train cannot stop too often in order to maintain its efficient routes. The local trains provide a high level of availability along the corridor, ensuring local mobility and the opportunity to travel to the central stations for a transfer to the high-speed train.  A final and important action will be to connect the Scandinavian corridor, to the wider European railway network. The building of the Femern Tunnel between Denmark and Germany is currently in progress. This opens up for new collaboration, and therefore the so-called STRING-partners (The regions of Skåne, Copenhagen, Sjælland (Zealand), Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg) are currently working on how to benefit from the closer connection between the Øresund Region and the Hamburg Region. The visions and the actions discussed by the STRING-partners are comparable to those of the Scandinavian corridor. The actions that are proposed are for example upgrading of the existing railway connections. The two regional visions therefore have the potential of complementing one another. A future Scandinavian corridor would therefore not just bring Scandinavia closer together, but also connect it to the rest of Europe.  

4. Concluding Remarks: From the Oslo Region to a larger Scandinavian RegionDifferent local areas have varying strengths and challenges. To be able to utilize every opportunity, to increase the regional comparative advantages, it is most convenient to collaborate with similar areas that face other types of challenges. When it comes to the Oslo region the current most important challenge is housing issues. The expected population growth is putting extreme pressure on to an already challenging situation in terms of housing, especially in the rental market. The situation is compounded by a need for developing the infrastructure. Focussing more on public transport would be beneficial in terms of the efficiency in movement of commuters, as well as reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Based on innovation theory, which states that innovation is more likely to occur when the cluster get inputs from outside the region, creating closer connections to the other Scandinavian countries and Europe seems like a reasonable strategy. Collaboration is considered easier if the participants have some sort of proximity, as the case is in the Scandinavian region where the countries share a common history, institutional system and linguistic understanding. These circumstances increase the potential for close collaboration.

One of the threats towards this entire project of a united Scandinavian region is that Sweden and Denmark don’t want to participate, as they may not see their benefits of collaborating with Norway. This means that Norway is dependent on developing and promoting its regional advantages at an international scale to increase the attractiveness. One of the Norwegian benefits is a lower unemployment rate than Sweden. Making Norwegian jobs more available for Swedish citizens by developing infrastructure that reduces travel time may be one strategy that can make collaboration beneficial for both countries. Both parties will build on each other’s strengths and mitigate each other’s weaknesses, and in doing so build up resilience. The well-developed knowledge based industry may provide a potential job market for highly educated Danish citizens. Of key importance in the Scandinavian project is the participant’s recognition of their own challenges and comprehension of the benefits of thinking about the Scandinavian region as a whole.

The choice between the two political strategies in the Oslo region can be abstracted to the ideological level of what the identity of Oslo is and what kind of actions will attract the right people to Oslo. It is the assumption that global business people will appreciate a vibrant urban

13

environment with proximity to nature and a housing policy that provides them with luxurious surroundings. A free market strategy is likely to create these spaces within the city, though arguably at the expense of some other groups. The other alternative is to show off Oslo as a place that is adapted to as many people as possible. A socially just urban development can give unexpected investments and positive attention internationally too, Vancouver being a popular reference to this.

There is not one single strategy that can lead to a united Scandinavian region, or a successful Oslo region but a variety of actions can be taken in order to promote a collaboration between the three countries. Which actions that are chosen is sometimes a question that relates to the basic political view of the government. The effect of the implementation of actions depends on the combination of the actions, as well as the context they are surrounded by, and it is therefore something that cannot be fully predicted. There are a lot of threats to this project, regarded to economic questions and the national governments willingness to take decisions about the development of infrastructure.

Simon Friis MortensenElin Seim MæselMari Svolsbru

Master students at the Department of Sociology and Human GeographyUniversity of Oslo

14