authority by area and by function had already puzzled the founding fathers of
political theory and public administration (Fesler 1949 ). The question still remains
open today: Is it possible to deWne an acceptable level and size of territory for
administering policies?
Common sense deWnes territory as a geographical factor. Nature and topography
may condition economic activity, social interaction, and political jurisdiction. But
physical features do not constitute the whole meaning of territory as a fundamental
feature in politics, policy-making, and polity.
Social sciences deWne space as a dependent variable (Gottmann 1980 ). Territory
is associated with the spatial limits within which a governmental institution has
authority and legitimacy, and representation and participation are structured.
Political institutions constitute jurisdictions for public policy and for represen-
tation. But territorial politics should never be restricted to the description of legal
texts and the levels that are formalized—the local or municipal, the regional, the
state or national, the supranational or international. Space and its management are
deWned and redeWned not only by lawyers and administrators but also by social
contest and by changing identities and solidarities.
2 Contemporary Issues
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Territory had been closely associated with the emergence and the triumph of the
nation state throughout Europe. But, at the end of the nineteenth century, it started
to be considered as a legacy of traditional society. Its decline was predicted. The
reason was that massive urbanization, a new social division of labor, and
the expansion of economic markets would require more functional approaches
(Durkheim 1964 ). DiVerentiated localisms would be merged into a uniWed national
system. Territorial roots and identities would be substituted by functional and
economic cleavages (Paddison 1983 ).
Territorial politics was considered as belonging to the past. The reason was partly
due to a theoretical confusion. The economy became internationally integrated.
Distance was shortened in terms of time of transportation. Cultural standardiza-
tion and mass markets spread around the globe. Modernization was considered as
incompatible with territory.
Territorial issues, far from declining, have come back on the political agenda.
Subnational levels of government absorb a greater share of governmental growth
than the center (Sharpe 1988 ). Public monies are in shortage, the exploding costs of
282 jean-claude thoenig