Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.2002, Qupperneq 49

TÝDNINGURIN AV TVØRTJOÐA SAMSTARVI í NORÐURATLANTSØKINUM
47
hand, these efforts have not yet been pow-
erful enough to build Nordic instilutions
that are visible and which carry some
weight in an international context.
In the 1990s, Nordic cooperation in-
creasingly has been directed towards par-
ticipation in the EU context. This work may
be decisive, especially for the Nordic At-
lantic regions dependent on fisheries and
non-EU members, but the obvious trend of
division of the Nordic countries into:
- a Baltic region which is part of the EU
and oriented towards trade and coopera-
tion with East-Central Europe
versus
— a Nordic Atlantic region which is not a
part of the EU and possibly oriented to-
wards trade and cooperation with North
Russia and North America
once again illustrates that Nordic coopera-
tion has more to do with a shared culture
than with common economic and geopolit-
ical interests.
The discussion above has focused main-
ly on regionalisation at the fisheries sector-
specific meso level. The possibilities for re-
gionalisation outlined above are in large
part concerned with national/Nordic and
regional institutional political players,
more than with regionalisation at the mi-
cro- firm or network level. This may have
something to do with scale, as regional co-
operation on fisheries in the Barents and
West Nordic Regions is obviously imple-
mented on a larger scale than any possible
regionalisation initiatives would be in pros-
perous ‘industrial districts’. This will be
discussed further in the following section.
Regional cooperation in resource man-
agement, price policy and science and tech-
nology can all be approached from both a
state-centric regionalist angle, and from a
more civic and economic view of regional-
isation. But to implement such cooperation,
from a more civic and economic angel,
there is a need for competent political en-
trepreneurs at the regional level, and for a
certain degree of delegation of control, and
responsible management, of resources to
the Murmansk Region, Northern Norway
and the Faroe Islands/Greenland by the po-
litical centres of Moscow, Oslo and Copen-
hagen. From a fisheries perspective, in or-
der to be a success, Northern self-govern-
ment or regional autonomy might presup-
pose the existence of regionalisation initia-
tives and vice versa. In this respect, the
BEAR and NORA initatives might make
progress, especially if combined.
c. Regionalisation as a process
of localised learning
Regionalisation functioning as a network
and a form of business cooperation has to
be based on a certain balance between
functional and tenitorial integration. With
regard to the regionalisation of larger re-
gions, functional integration concerns both
external relations towards the world mar-
ket/international division of labour and in-
ternal relations regarding a regional divi-
sion of labour. However, the regional divi-
sion of labour should not be a clean exter-
nal pattern of exchange, for example pro-
ducing wines in exchange for textiles, as
found in classical and neo-classical trade