rc CL Vol6no 1 year20 1 3 Divided we stand: Social integration in the middle Bojan RADEJ , Mojca GOLOBIČ o Creative Commons, 2.5 Ljubljana, june 2013, rev. from december 2011 Slovenian Evaluation Society Tabor 7, Ljubljana, Slovenia info@sdeval.si, http://www.sdeval.si CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 316.4(0.034.2) RADEJ, Bojan Divided we stand [Elektronski vir] : social integration in the middle / Bojan Radej, Mojca Golobič. - El. knjiga. - Ljubljana : Slovenian Evaluation Society, 2013. - (Working paper / Slovenian Evaluation Society ; vol. 6, no. 1) Način dostopa (URL): http://www.sdeval.si/Publikacije-za-komisijo-za-vrednotenje/Beyond-New-Public-Management-doctrine-in-policy-impact-evaluation.html ISBN 978-961-93348-1-2 (pdf) 1. Golobič, Mojca 267893760 Slovenian Evaluation Society, Working paper, vol. 6, no. 1 (June 2013) Bojan Radej* Mojca Golobič** * Bojan Radej, Independent Social Researcher, Ljubljana & Slovenian Evaluation Society, Bojan.Radej@siol.net (Correspondence address) ** Mojca Golobič, Biotechnical faculty - University of Ljubljana, Department for Spatial Architecture; Ljubljana, Slovenia Acknowledgment: The experimental part of this paper has been accomplieshed as a research project financed by the Slovene Ministry for environment in the frame of "Target Research Programme" Competitiveness of Slovenia 2006-2013 (theme 5.2.8: Monitoring and territorial impact assessment of sector policies). Proposal for citation: Radej B., M. Golobič. Divided we stand: Social integration in the middle. Ljubljana: Slovenian Evaluation Society, Working paper vol. 6, no. 1 (June 2013), 26 pp., http://www.sdeval.si/Publikacije-za-komisijo-za-vrednotenje/Beyond-New-Public-Management-doctrine-in-policy-impact-evaluation.html Language versions: This paper is broadened, adapted and corrected version of the paper, published in Slovenian language in SDE/WP Vol.5, no. 2 (2012) which can be found at: http://www.sdeval.si/Komisija-za-vrednotenje-dejavnosti/Vec-nivojski-vidik-druzbene-kompleksnosti.html Ljubljana, June 2013 Bojan Radej,* Mojca Golobič** Divided we stand: Social integration in the middle * Slovenian Evaluation Society; Ljubljana, corresponding author, boian.radei@siol.net ** University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty - Department for Spatial Architecture; Ljubljana, Slovenia June 2013 Abstract: For Durkheim, the society integrates as dual, separately in a mechanical and in organic way. The first individuals in their interactions habituate new local rules which integrate society in its specific issues in a bottom-up direction. When new rules are institutionalised and enforced for all, they feed back as mechanical restriction of behaviours from the top-down. Micro to macro structuration is seen as a circular process and does not err in descriptions of integration process that is also circular in nature. However, it fails to explain what integrates society constituted on irresolvable oppositions, and so how translate integration efforts into the integration outcome. To fill this gap, integration is reorganised from dual to triadic concept first and so adjusted to fit a meso, instead of conventional micro or macro frame. The case is illustrated with evaluation study. Three measures of integration are derived. A strong balance is a measure of the mechanical integration between primary oppositions involved in the evaluated issue. Cohesion is a correlative measure of cooperative achievements. The third is a weak balance which measures mutuality of relations, assessing if they weave social ties in an emancipatory way. Circular interpretation is thus not rejected here. It is only reframed in a triadic concept having in its centre a meso category which is soft in its logic, intermediary in its function, but radical in transformative consequences. Keywords: Society, Integration, Balance, Cohesion, Meso level. Divided we stand Integration is a fundamental process in the evolution of every system which bonds its divergent elements together creating a functional whole (Comtois, 1986). It refers to a process by which components "stick" together to form an effective or meaningful whole (Chan et al, 2006). Social integration is a specific type of integration and is one among central concerns of sociology for Smith (1759), Durkheim and Ratzel (1897) as well as more contemporary authors like Giddens (1989), Habermas (1984), and Bourdieu (1977). However, the mechanism of integration is anything but explained in classical social sciences (including economy). Integration is not an easily understandable concept because of its contradictory demands. On one hand, it is meant as a negative imperative for unification among components. Its social forces are political and bureaucratic. On the other hand, social integration is about positive preservation of diversity at both local and individual levels. This is seen as positive or organic aspect of social integration (Durkheim), emerging through voluntary interactions, such as cultural (Delanty, 2000), transactional (Hayek, 1992) or evolutionary (Schumpeter, 1912). Two opposing aspects of social integration are rarely in balance. Comtois defines integration as a process by which a combination of centrality and marginality forms the basic contradiction of the dialectical struggle (Comtois, 1986) between them. Integration is seen as a struggle between a posteriori knowledge, which is empirically obtained through direct interactions, and a priori knowledge, which depends on intellectual process or "pure reason" that is known only through propositions and so only categorically (Howell, 2012). So integrative aspirations do not always and automatically transform into shared efforts with integrative effects; they may instead function as ideologically segregated agonisms which transform joint initiatives into battles for status and prestige. Following this, Habermas (1984) argues, like Parsons (1951) before him, that the contemporary society needs integrated understanding of itself, but at the same time believes, like neomarxsists (Adorno, Gramsci, Marcuse, Althussser), that its integrative function is disabled from the inside. For example, with the global trend of neoliberalism, such as mediazation of culture (Thompson, 1995), negative integration exceeds positive one, invoking a structural colonisation of the life-world (Lebenswelt, Husserl, 1970) of society. Yet, social integration is not achievable in a non-integrative way, when one pole of polarity, organic or mechanical, prevails. This raises serious obstacles to our integrative capacities, particularly in the present context when society is becoming increasingly divided and complex. To examine the social integration problem also in practice, we have chosen a concrete example in the field of spatial development. In this area, the concept of integration has been studied and practiced already for decades. Topics such as polycentric spatial balance, spatial integration and territorial cohesion have been already well established both theoretically and normatively. Specifically, the concept of territorial cohesion takes a central place in European spatial instruments ESPON and INTERREG and is also at the heart of the Council of Europe's pan-European perspective (De Boe et al., 1999). The concept of territorial cohesion is not new to European political discourse; it has been around since 1990's with the Council of Europe's pan-European perspective (De Boe et al., 1999), and is again emphasised by the EU's Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion (2010) and the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. The aspiration of spatial integration is comprised in the norm that EU citizens should not be at a disadvantage because of their place of residence or work (CEC, 2004). Striving for greater cohesion includes the imperative for transformation of territorial structures and patterns - such as between the centre and the periphery. Obviously, this relates to the mechanical aspect of integration. On the organic side, the cohesion is concerned with how different government sectors and their actions affect spatial development, for example, with the impact of energy infrastructure (Schenk, 2006). In Europe, the dominant political concept of territorial cohesion is a result of the evolution of two principally incompatible approaches: one German (Raumplannung) and one French (Amenagement du Territoire; Faludi, 2004). The first one understands the concept in terms of polycentrism, and seeks to balance the confronted territorial aspirations of protagonists. This perception is a logical extension of the German state's decentralized structure. This is an example of the mechanical integration perspective. The opposite is the French concept, designed for the centralized state that manages its fundamental internal contradictions hierarchically. It pursues integration by emphasising cohesive bonds between territorial subunits. The philosophy of the first approach is based on the categorical demands for maintaining strong balance between the core territorial oppositions. The philosophy of the second approach rests on the idea of similarity between parts and whole, and their central coincidence. Distinction between these two concepts is theoretically justified, but it may also be explained as a matter of principle and even of national prestige (Cole, 1998, in Faludi). The standard concept of social integration is set in binary form. We hypothesise, following Habermas and others, that the dual integration concept suppresses possibilities for integration in the premise because it is too narrow. Integration requires some form of connection between differences, while dualism demands their antagonistic separateness. This suggests the need to translate the standard binary concept into triadic setting as a departure for the exploration of a radically different integration approach, in which we can stand divided or fall united, as Schwartz and Thompson (1990) would have it.1 The distinction between two and three-part definition of social integration is conceptual as it requires different form of logical thinking about the nature of truth (see Peirce, 1931 for more). The issue is illuminated through an evaluation case study of the National Energy Program's (2004) impacts on Slovenian territorial cohesion (Golobič et al., 2008; Golobič, Marot, 2011). The study the first estimates both the mechanic and organic aspect of integration, but it also develops the third, intermediate measure of integration - "weak balance", which is double embedded in polar opposites of integration process. This mesoscopic concept is more suitable for a description of integration process because it is more consistent with its plural nature. It also reveals abundant unused potentials for enhanced social integration. Concept Social systems integrate members and structural arrangements that they form (Putnam, 1993). Integration as a concept applies to bonds that are mutually fruitful as well as to asymmetrical ones, which fabricate winners and losers. The idea of integration through asymmetric links may be counterintuitive, but it is necessary considering that losers themselves often support social practices which produce predictable negative outcomes for them. They are often willing to accept certain interactions that are contrary to their will, such as taking risk or trusting foreigners, merely to protect their structural relation to other social groups (Hayek, 1992). In line with this, researcher needs to separate integration concept from morality and ethics 1 We are grateful to prof. Gert Jan van der Wilt for reminding us on this book. (Jensen, 2009). Integration is meant neither as a social good nor a social evil, but rather as the interplay between the two (Duhaime et al, 2004). Philosophically, the most important is precisely the nonmoralistic concept of integration, because it is generally free of value dilemmas and prejudices contained in absolute valuations (Cox et al., 2012). The unity of society can only be analyzed from the perspective of social connections, which are the result of relative relations (Simmel, in De Boe et al., 1999). In this value-neutral context integration is not a goal in itself, but only a means for general value based objectives of protagonists of integration (Delanty, 2000). Already in his Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith (1759 in Turner, 2006) was concerned with the question how highly differentiated social systems were to become integrated. Classical sociological foundations of social integration were laid down by Durkheim almost 140 years later (1897). He believes that the precondition for integration is a common set of core values and assumptions about the nature of societal challenges. In Parsons view, individuals internalize core values which is likely to correct any potential antagonism between individual and society (in Ritzer, Smart, 2003). However, this does not imply that societies become integrated directly on the basis of shared values. Durkheim distinguished between mechanic and organic integration. The former refers to emergence of a stable pattern of behaviour which translates into the structures of a system (Macionis, 1995). The mechanical integration sees the society in a macro perspective and is focused on structural analysis. It covers a systemic aspect of the social order (Perkmann, 1998), which determines the relationship between the society and the system. This is negative type of social integration because it requires unification such as with the same language, religion or central norms (Comtois, 1986). Mechanic integration serves as an indicator of internal system's homogeneity. It is typical for primal and poorly structured communities (Schnurr, Holtz, 1998). A systemic or structural integration is externalistic for Habermas (1987, Mouzelis). In modern, highly structured society, it concerns external relations between subsystems which arose from the fundamental value oppositions in a given society. When only one aspect of these confrontations is ignored or repressed, the entire system disintegrates. It follows that in modern society, the main aim of mechanical integration at the level of the surface macro structure (Dopfer, 2011) is the provision of strong balance between primary system contradictions, such as between socio-cultural, physical and economic domain of a given territory (see below). As a balancing relationship, this aspect of integration is observed in horizontal direction. It ensures maintenance of pre-defined relationships (Bailey, 2002), and therefore also performs as conservative aspect of integration. On the other hand, Durkheim saw the organic integration as an outcome of functional bonds among diverse and motivated individuals participating mostly in order to achieve interim goals. It is internalistic (Habermas, 1987, in Mouzelis) because it evolves from self-constrained behaviours. Bonds which organic interactions produce are local, weak (De Boe et al., 1999) and temporary, so the system as a whole perceives them as ephemeral and only of secondary importance. Organic integration connects society by cohesive bonds (Calhoun, 1992) from below and so in vertical direction. The standard explanation of vertical integration is hierarchical where integration is imposed from the top (e.g., George Kirkpatrick, 2003; Lafferty, Meadowcraft, 2000 GHK, 2002). Even from the perspective of classical distinction between mechanic and organic integration, this is not so. Vertical integration describes the degree of connectedness at a higher level, resulting from synergies achieved at a lower level of society - a process called emergence (Turner, Boyns, 2006). In this evolutionary perspective, vertical integration is not produced through the system's structure, but is born from collaboration on elementary level. Classic Durkheimian approach is dualist and constructed with two incompatible mechanisms of integration (Lawrence, 2000, in Connelly, Richardson). Mechanical forces of integration push society towards unification, while organic cohesion drifts its members towards greater diversity. Despite their incompatibility, the two aspects of integration are mutually dependent for they can only produce an integrative result together (De Boe et al., 1999). Organic integration without structural balance would not have sufficient support needed to organise and translate their members' aspirations into effective collective action (Giddens, 1989). Conversely, a system that only achieves the balance between constitutive components, without enhancing their vertical cohesion, remains rigid and threatened by low stability. Habermas (1984) says that the question of how to connect contradicting integration strategies is fundamental for sociological theory. Standard sociology applies circular explanation that relies on symmetric logic of reciprocal causality, where A affects B and B also affects A. Circular logic is specific for the system theory (see Holling, 1973), where it serves to explain system changes by cumulative (Veblen, 1898) and bidirectional causality with "forward" and "feedback" links. According to such interpretation, structure of the system restricts and directs individuals' behaviours, but at the same time individuals act together, gradually inducing system changes which promote their aspirations. Then organic integration is a framework for mechanical integration, which is itself a framework for organic integration. This implies that dual poles of classical integration mechanism are actually double embedded in each other (Granovetter, 1985) so their binary separation in classical concept is oversimplification. Heidegger (1927) has introduced the term "hermeneutic circle" as a concept for relating the whole to a part, and a part to the whole. The central principle of hermeneutics is that it is only possible to grasp the meaning of an action or statement within the context of the discourse or world-view from which it originates. In line with this term, Giddens (1989) develops a structuration theory, where he emphasises a duality of structure. The structure is restrictively imposed on the society from above. However, members retain their capacity to impact the structure such as by refusal and subversion (see Radej, 2013). Giddens called this two-sided connectedness of opposites "double hermeneutics of structure and action". A similar circular two-part explanation of the social integration can be found in Bourdieu's theory of habitus and field (1977, in Wacquant, 1997). Habitus contains the mutual permeation of individual subjectivity and objectivity of the system. Individuals absorb the structure of the outside social world and simultaneously transform it by acting upon it in order to improve their own positions in the habitus. Circular explanation is nevertheless unsuitable in situations when one pole of integration (mechanic or organic) dominates. This is particularly the case when a society undergoes transformation, or when it is far from its global equilibrium unable to function impartially from the perspective of each of its constituents. Circular explanation of binary concepts is additionally problematic because it observes mutual permeation as a process directly connecting polar opposites. Such as the result of a spillover effect (Zedeck, 1992) induced by a judgement obtained in a cross-domain perspective (Loh, 2006). Permeation is explained by Engels with the second (or unity) law of dialectics (Engels, 1883), as achieved by means of interpenetration of opposites. It refers to the extent to which a boundary allows penetration of one domain to another (Desrochers, Sargent, 2003). As there are no sharp divisions between opposites, but rather borderline cases, these can be better understood as a third hybrid category of integration. In this way double embeddedness of polar mechanisms of integration is meant indirectly via some intermediating third category. A practical example of territorial cohesion illustrates the extended, three-part integration logic. Experiment Ratzel (1897) has been the first to follow Durkheim (Ulied, 1999) and define territorial integration as a dual process. He linked the analysis of spatial structures with analysis of spatial relationships - the first determining the interaction potential between territories, the second elucidating effectiveness of interactions. De Boe et al. (1999) defined territorial cohesion, which is for them a synonym for integration (but we separate these two concepts),2 the same as Ratzel. On one hand, territorial cohesion is a result of connections emerging from concrete relations; on the other hand, it is also a structure, which is uniformly imposed to these relations. The first aspect is relevant for the organic integration, the second - obviously - for the mechanical integration. The concept of territorial cohesion has been widely used in Europe in connection with 2 Cohesion is integrative only in vertical direction, while integration in vertical and in horisontal direction. EU's political projects (COM/2005/0299). Main documents have different approach to this concept. Some see it as a synonym for integration (COM/98/333), some equate it with balance (COM/2004/394; Interim Territorial Cohesion Report, 2004; Community Strategic Guidelines, 2005; Territorial Agenda Background Document, 2011), while a Cohesion report (C0M/2004/0107) defines it as covering both aspects - balance and integration. Ambiguity could hardly be higher. Researchers of territorial cohesion have developed more precise definitions with the more specific aim to measure integration and analyse it empirically. Under the umbrella of the European project ESPON, a specific evaluation tool called "territorial impact assessment" has been developed for studying territorial cohesion. For Camagni (2007) the territorial cohesion (TC) can be conceptualised by a Venn diagram as compounded of three overlapping categories: territorial quality, Tq, territorial efficiency Te, and territorial identity, Ti (Scheme 1). The first is defined as an intersection between the socio-cultural (S) and physical (P) subsystems of the territory and covers the quality of living and working environment and access to services and knowledge. Areas with a high Tq will continue to attract residents, while other areas will be threatened with depopulation. The second component, Te results from the intersection between economic (E) and P. It refers to resource efficiency, economic competitiveness and attractiveness of the territory and its accessibility. Finally, Ti is obtained on the intersection between social (S) and E of given territory and refers to the presence of social capital, local knowledge and competitive advantage. These three territorial subsystems contradict each other in their principal territorial concerns. They are incommensurable, but are nevertheless equally important in the provision of TC (O'Neill, 1993). As a consequence, three subsystems are integral components of TC in such a way that each aspect is intrinsic so that a change in one cannot be compensated by the opposite change in one of the others. Mechanical integration on the level of three territorial subsystems is achieved with the strong balance (R) between E, S and P - as tree integral aspect of spatial development. Intersections between subsystems produce Tq, Te and Ti. These describe system's organic integration. It results from indirect and relative relationship between E, S and P, and measures extent of their overlap. Tq, Te and Ti as three overlapping hybrid categories are not incommensurable in strong terms, to prohibit any territorial compromise but only in weak terms, because of only partial overlaps in matters which are not of principal importance but secondary (Radej, 2011) to the protagonists of spatial development and energy sector development. Intersectional concept of TC is illustrated with evaluation of the National Energy Program's (2004; NEP) impacts on the territorial cohesion of Slovenia (Golobič et al., 2008; Golobič, Marot, 2011). From the perspective of TC, energy sector is increasingly important (Schenk, 2006). Conflicts between the two are due to spatial constraints imposed on operation and re/construction of energy facilities. Also, patterns of energy production and consumption are spatially unequally distributed (DG Regio, 2004). Despite its low energy self-sufficiency, Slovenia operates as a relatively large trader on the energy markets in the region, imposing considerable territorial demands for additional infrastructure. Climate change also spatially differentiates its effects: mountain areas, for example, are threatened with excessive inflow of waters, while inland areas may suffer drought (Faludi, 2004). Energy prices reflect these imbalances, as well as external trade policy and fiscal policy, which together produce additional territorially differentiated effects - for example, by changing patterns of mobility (BCI 2006 in PBL) or spatial agglomeration in social inequality. Despite these sharp conflicts between energy sector and spatial development, there are also abundant possibilities for organic interactions between them. Let us assume energy efficiency which, on one hand, increases supply of energy services to the users, and thus expands volume of business for energy sector. On the other hand, it lowers the energy bill, which is socially favourable. Finally, reduction in demand for additional energy facilities decreases territorial demands of energy sector. Intersecting and non-intersecting impacts of energy policy on TC are methodological counterparts of organic and mechanical relationships of integration in Durkheim's and Ratzel's definition. This link between theoretical end empirical concepts finally gives a framework for the illustration of the previously addressed theoretical dilemma of social integration. Data preparation and evaluation design NEP has been evaluated, measure by measure, against selected set of evaluation criteria for positive, negative or neutral (absent) impacts. Vector of all NEP's measures and vector of all evaluation criteria are organised orthogonally to compose a classic Leopold evaluation matrix (1971). Matrical approach is considered the most suitable for assessment of the territorial impacts of energy policy (DG Regio, 2004), because it separates direct from indirect impacts or primary (intended) from secondary (unintended) impacts. The indirect impacts are "hybrid" in nature and as such in some way inconsistent, because they diverge from a measure's primary scope - as in the case of environmental side-effects of economic measures. Given intersectional definition of territorial cohesion (or any other complex phenomenon) it is necessary for evaluation to understand also these inconsistent situations. The basis for the evaluation of the NEP's impacts has been the evaluation matrix consisting of NEP's 26 measures (in rows) and 12 criteria of spatial development (in columns of evaluation matrix; for selection process see Golobič, Marot, 2011). Practical assessment of the impacts took place with the input module of the Urban Planning Institute of RS (http://tia.uirs.si/). Interdisciplinary group of experts (geography, sociology, regional and landscape planning, chemistry, environmental science, macroeconomics, and energy) took part in the assessment of impacts. Experts based their assessments on the information obtained in previous analysis of the spatial and energy situation (Golobič et al., 2008). Assessment of impacts was conducted in two phases. In the second step experts tried to align their most divergent assessments. The remaining disagreements reflect legitimate, disciplinary or value differences among experts. Detailed results of assessment are not shown here (see Golobič, Marot, 2011), because we are only interested in aggregates, which enable proceeding with previously discussed problems of social integration. In the synthesis of detailed results from the Leopold matrix, evaluators applied a two-part mesoscopic procedure (see Radej, 2011). Assessments are first partially aggregated to obtain a square (Leontief's) input-output matrix, which shows the impact of three groups of NEP measures (E, S and P) on the three groups of territorial evaluation criteria (E, S, and P). Partial aggregates lead to the second step of synthesis consisting of the correlation between non-diagonally positioned fields of the square matrix. Correlation is a procedure in relational statistics which measures the strength of relationship between variables, or technically, assesses how much of the variation in one variable could be accounted for by variations in the others (Pearson, 1938). Correlation is appropriate for holistic explanation of non-linear relations, and as such replaces narrower mechanism of causality which is applicable only for study of linear relations between social phenomena. Correlation result can not be expressed as a scalar value because correlation in this case operates with incommensurable variables. Result should be read separately for each of its two ingredients. Mathematically, the correlation is a relation between two factors. Covariance, cov(X,Y)=(Xi - X)^(Yi - Y) explains total fluctuation of variables - whether individual observed cases (Xi , Yi ) of each variable (X, Y) deviate from the average of each variable in the same direction (above or below) for all the observed cases. It measures the intensity of connection in differentiated relations; in what follows, we apply it as a measure of cohesion and mark it by "k". The second correlation factor is obtained as the product of standard deviations (o) of the two variables (0x0y). It explains how much individual observed cases in the given variable differ from variable's average. It is a measure of statistical dispersion: the lower the standard deviation, the more balanced and consistent observation will tend to be. What is obtained we call a weak balance or "r". Study of integration processes requires researching two types of balance, a mechanical or strong one (R) and a partial or weak balance (r) between E, S, and P's overlaps. Introduction of r in interpretation of correlation results give insights in the nature of social cohesion. It is important to distinguish between situations when cohesion is achieved in an interaction involving a selfish agent or, alternatively, in a mutually emancipating and empowering interaction for both parties involved. In the first case, the cohesive result is achieved as a one-sided effort in a win-lose fashion, like on conventional market or in altruism. In the second case integration derives from mutually beneficial synergies (win-win). Cohesive society is made possible, as Ferguson (2003) puts it, through sharing (k) and reciprocal functional relations among groups (r). Formally: cor(X,Y) = [cov(X,Y) / (ox-oy)] = k / r. When both aspects of integration are taken into account, mechanic and organic, three measures of integration are obtained, as presented in Scheme 1 on the case of definition of territorial cohesion. Cohesion is studied by k and r, while evaluation of overall integration requires also estimating R. Scheme 1: Links between 2 aspects and 3 measures of integration, in the case of TC Source: Intersectional schematisation of TC with Venn diagram is borrowed from Camagni, 2007. Scheme 1 now presents the framework design for triadic evaluation of integration process which is needed to resolve integration problem in its binary setting. Results and findings The synthesis evaluation results are presented in Table 1. It is divided into three vertical sections. Section A contains the original square matrix of three primary territorial sub-systems (E, S, P). Section B then analyzes the results obtained on the diagonal matrix fields, which are the basis for conclusion about the NEP's impacts on mechanical aspect of integration between energy sector and spatial development. Finally, section C presents intersectional findings Tq, Te, and Ti. Section C is divided in subsections C/c and C/d to take appropriately into account the difference between k and r. Section B reveals that the NEP impacts three main territorial subsystems unevenly. Impacts on S are estimated as absent (score 0 out of 2, SOS). The effect of economic measures on the economic aspects of territory (ERE) is only of moderate intensity (score 1), which is inconsistent, considering that the NEP prioritised economic to non-economic goals. Only NEP's measures primarily attributed to the P have a very positive territorial impact (score 2; POP). These are actually guaranteed, because they importantly depend on the formal procedures of spatial planning (Golobič et al., 2008). On the whole, therefore, mechanical integration of energy policy is absent (R = 0) amid discriminatory NEP's effects on S. S is one of integral aspects of the spatial development so that overall contribution of NEP to mechanical integration on the primary level of evaluation must be assessed as absent.3 A miserable score on the mechanical integration is ironic given that the program is imposed in a systemic perspective from the top down. Representatives of civil society organisations criticised the program in a parliamentary public hearing before its adoption for not being "organic" (in our terms), because of favouring the large players of the energy market (Radej, 2008) by neglecting the negative side effects of energy policy on the territorial needs of wider society. The absence of mechanical integration at the outset worsens conditions for enhancement of organic integration. Despite this, the impact of the NEP is more favourable in organic then in mechanical integration. As shown in subsection C/c in Table 1, the NEP's impact on Tq is medium strong. The intersection SOP is strongly positive (2), while PR S contributes less convincingly to TC (1). This imbalance is associated with the regulatory model, which is favouring physical territorial structures and is thus less socially sensitive (Golobič et al., 2008). Overlap between S and P is thus only medium strong. 2' We distingish between two situations: when assessed integration equals 0 (integartion is „absent") or when it is assessed as negative (^disintegration"). Table 1: Mechanic and organic integration between energy policy and territorial domains A Square matrix B Mechanical integration C Organic integration Eval. domains E S P Inter- Va- R TC's com- Inter- Value above Value below k* ** r section lue ponents section Diagonal a b c = a + b d = I a-b I E 1 0 0 EOE 1 Medium strong Ti EOS, SOE 0 1 Very weak Minor, negative, S discriminated S 1 0 2 SOS 0 Absent T SOP, POS 2 1 Medium strong Minor, negative, S discriminated P 2 1 2 POP 2 High Te EOP, POE 0 2 Weak Medium, negative, F very discriminated Source: Radej et al, 2012. Legends: * Cohesion can be "Strong" (when achieved correlation scores are at maximum, 2, 2); "Medium strong" (2, 1 or 1, 2); "Weak' (1, 1; 2, 0 or 0, 2); "Very weak" (1, 0 or 0, 1), "Not cohesive" (0, 0). ** Weak imbalance can be "Absent" (when (I a-b I = 0), "Minor" (1); "Medium" - when the difference is 2, High (3 or 4; only possible when some of the aggregate impacts are negative; not relevant in our case). The second component, Ti is assessed as the NEP's weakest contribution. The impact EOS will be practically nullified (score 0) through the neutralization of the positive by negative impacts. The impact of S on E is weakly positive (1), while the inverse relation, EOS, falls even behind this discouraging result. Poor results on Ti are consistent with the previous observation that energy sector increases regional disparities (Golobič et al., 2008). The relationship is weakly imbalanced against S. The social aspect is thus neglected in the energy policies both in non-intersectional and in intersectional evaluation. Energy policy is asocial both in mechanical (strong) and in the organic (weak) sense. The NEP's impact on territorial efficiency Te, as the last TC's component, is weak. Besides, it is also considerably (medium strong) imbalanced in a weak sense (r). This is because E takes very poor notice of P. The opposite impact POE is medium to strongly positive. Energy policy is also in this respect built on the imbalance - now at the expense of F. Although the program prioritises improvement in efficiency as its key objective, its examined impacts are inconsistent - it enhances only economic efficiency that can be achieved directly, without affecting territorial efficiency that emerges only trough intersections. Intersectional results from sections C of Table 1 are summarized in a scheme developed by Delhey (2004; Table 2). He also started with a square matrix, where rows distinguish situations with high, medium or neutral r. The columns differentiate high, medium or low (absent) k. In this way Delhey constructed nine situations. The ideal cohesive situation (2, 2) shows high organic integration, where r and k are both maximised. In contrast (0, 0) describes rather hypothetical situation, where both r and k are effectively absent (meaning that organic integration and overall cohesion also is absent). The most fragile case is (2, 0), with a high level of weak balance, but absent weak cohesion - such as when high mutual respect and tolerance for the other covers up for actual disconnectedness and indifference among partners who can not afford to depart for some reason. Table 2: Organic integration profile of the NEP Cohesion (k) Weak balance: (r^p^-^^ High (2) Medium (1) Low (0) High (2) - - - Medium (1) Tq - Ti Low (0) Te - - Source: Adapted to Delhey, 2004; data from Table 1, sections C/c and C/d. Finally, situation in the field (0, 2) displays a low level of reciprocity of interactions, but a high level of cohesion. The most notorious example of such situation is deregulated market that operates by the rule of winners and losers. The market rewards success and penalizes failure; this economic mechanism spontaneously extends into a spontaneously structured social order (Hayek, 1992). However, the prerequisite for extension of Hayekian order is an asymmetric relationship between members of society. The market model has been shown to use remarkably little new information (knowledge) when functioning at equilibrium (Kirman, 2009). If a given economic transaction connects two equally well informed and powerful agents, their transaction will take place in the vicinity of market equilibrium and be reciprocally rewarding for both involved transactors. Reciprocal transaction is not contributing to the extension but to reproduction of social order (structuration). In the opposite case, when market transaction is asymmetric in its effects, e.g. among an uninformed or powerless buyer and an informed or powerful seller, then the potential for learning which extends into demands for systemic change is large. Victims may demand protection or winners opt for prolonged privileges. So it is absence of weak balance which explains why (the present form of) market leads to cohesion without social integration. Lack of mutually shared results on the market is an indicator of massively tolerated carelessness in legal market transactions which do not involve the exchange of valued behaviours (Scott, 2000), such as recognition and approval (Molm, 2003) for all involved but only for the dominant agent. Imbalance in weak terms materialises with every imposition of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and institutional procedures that operate systematically and consistently to the benefit of certain persons and groups at the expense of others (Bachrach, Baratz, in Gordon, 2008) in particular along gender, ethnicity, age, class distinctions in relation to their specific environmental, economic or social aspirations. High k in the same instance witnesses that, probably for some higher reason, losers are forced to endure in transactions with predictable unfair outcome for them. The reason is simple: victims are exposed to regimes of domination. Because of their generalised character, these regimes are something that one cannot just 'opt out of' under normal circumstances (Gordon, 2008). Their systematically asymmetrical social arrangements can not be substituted or at least complemented for any more symmetrical alternative. It is thus rational for victims in the dominant type of interactions to prefer negative outcome to social exclusion. Back to presentation of the case study results! Two of three components of territorial cohesion, Tq and Te fall under negative diagonal of matrix. This confirms again that NEP produces TC with mostly unilateral contributions. Although the NEP is a systemic document, its contribution to mechanical integration is absent (R = 0). Although the NEP was designed to meet economic interests, the best impact it produces is not E but P. Similarly, its focus on improved efficiency is achieved inconsistently - only in economic terms, but not also in territorial ones. Thus, the program is not persuasive even in what would be its stronger aspect. Energy policy is confronting its integral components and this narrows the sector's future capabilities. Negative consequences of poor integration achievements will, after all, fall not only on victims, but - at the structural level - will also essentially hurt the systemic interest of energy sector itself. Consequences of one-sidedness can not be escaped. In mesoscopic framing, one-sided imposition of dominant will is self-defeating. As society has become complex, unilateral operation is no longer a safe strategy, not even for those systemic agents who are powerful enough to impose their wish onto broader community. The experiment confirms what was initially predicted, i.e. that evaluator needs to distinguish whether a given cohesive achievement is accomplished asymmetrically or in a balanced way. Despite this, r is entirely missing from binary schematisation of social integration. However, when the concept of social integration is reconceptualised from dual to triadic setting, r obtains a central role in explaining the overall process. Social integration in the middle The central classical preconditions for high social integration are met today better then ever before. On the mechanical side (M), high level of institutionalisation of the system's structures is already achieved and the government is also, at least nominally, committed to improving provision of public services for diversified members' needs. Organic integration (O), on the other hand, would be markedly enhanced by globalisation, accessible information technology and advanced communication culture - they all multiply the opportunities of social relation independently from the official structures. Finally, extensive public participation in provision of public goods and toward results oriented democratic models of governance both secure strong forward and feedback loops between organic and mechanical spheres of social integration. Despite that, Western(ised) societies continue to disintegrate. Mechanical aspect of social integration is structural and so "over socialised" (Granovetter, 1985). Beside, power structures are contaminated with systemic corruption and elitism. On the organic side, integration remains "under socialised" (Ibid.) as market, information and communication as its drivers remain unstructured and produce diversity without the difference, opportunities without the choice. Beside, links between integration poles remain formalistic and insincere. A reason for continued social disintegration is binary logic in its classical setting, which disables possibility of integration from within. Individuals integrate only as parts of the whole - in an organic and partial way, while the structure of the system only integrates as a whole -i.e. mechanically. As long as parts and the whole are integrated separately, as required by their vertical incommensurability, the integration effort leads back and moreover, it divides society exactly along those same separating lines which call for social integration in the first place. Approach to social integration shall be changed. One of possibilities is introduction of triadic meso logic because of its three outstanding characteristics: it is not binary but plural; it attaches equal importance to primary and to secondary mechanisms of social integration; it places explanatory focus on intermediate evaluation category which is double embedded in polar opposites of integration forces. The case study's findings suggest that mechanical integration shall provide for strong balance (R) between the primary value oppositions, from which a given complex social phenomenon is evaluated. However, R is alone far too rough relation for managing subtle integration mechanisms of everyday life. Unused mechanic integrative potential lies in low r. Absent r due to lack of mutuality in organic interactions is not critical for the system and may easily be tolerated as a legitimate sacrifice serving higher systemic purpose, at least for some time. One of the most authoritative justifications for depressed r is neoliberal argument. It admits that higher economic efficiency causes poorer nature environment and lower social equality but also claims that it can fully offset them for negative "external" impacts and still produce a positive net profit. This narrow logic is internally fragile because it is incomplete and self-defeating, as confirmed in everyday life and also by the experimental case. Despite this, neoliberal argument is dominant presently because it has been authoritatively imposed from above. In such a case, for systematic losers in organic interactions, defeat on the market is normally preferable to exclusion from hegemonic mechanism of social exchange. Welfare state is another example of a systematic source of low r when it includes its members by exclusion (Wallerstein, 1989), which means that it limits access to services to all who refuse to give up part of their autonomy in return. The transformation of the classical integration schema from two-part to three-part widely opens a possibility to enhance the mechanical integration indirectly, enforcing r and so reviving integrative social function from the inside - through reconstructed sense of fairness which extends itself beyond repressive norms of formal justice (May, 2006). The most mechanically integrative (M) are accordingly those structural interventions that, along with realisation of their primary aspirations, also optimize the conditions for higher level of reciprocity of relations in organic exchanges. This would for example call for universal provision of public goods or any other condition that equalises for all differentiated chances to act (Eder, 1992). Historical examples of increasing r via R are the abolition of slavery, introduction of universal voting rights, or imposition of ecological standards for businesses. In the future, r will be enhanced, hopefully, by decrease in political corruption. In the case of Slovenian energy policy, the shift to more subtle provision of territorial cohesion could be achieved by adopting principles of sustainable energy development in synergy to spatial development. The possibility for direct provision of k is also rather limited, as has been already well elaborated with liberal argument: nobody from above can directly intervene in the organic interactions without essentially jeopardising their unique spontaneity and creativity. On the one hand, interactions need to remain unrestrained in order to preserve their creativity. On the other, as long as the organic links are not mutually fulfilling, their achievements remain socially alienated and so they can not weave social ties in an emancipatory and empowering way for all involved. This suggests that organic interactions to be integrative can not remain entirely unrestrained like on the neoliberal market. Conclusion is again that high k needs to be accompanied by high r as a precondition for organic interactions to produce socially integrative effect. Demand for enhanced r in organic interactions translates in an integrative imperative to construct local meanings in a context with increasingly wide scope, such as when augmenting global responsibility of individuals or narrower communities in their local actions. Citizenship becomes increasingly cosmopolitan - founded on global responsibility of individuals and narrower communities which correlates universal concern and the respect for legitimate difference (Appiah, 2006). Individuals as cosmopolitan citizens overcome their localistic bias and ignorance for multiplicity of social world simply by taking broad and self-reflected view of their personal and localised affairs (Calhoun, 2006). Justification for imperative for mutuality in relations is not (only) ethical (cf. Durkheim, 1893), but mainly rational because it is improving agent's capacities for collective achievements. Everybody is aspiring that his or her vision of society fulfils but this can not be achieved without cooperation of others, so members of society shall be connected on this common aspiration (Vaneigem, 1997). "No man," says Michael Bakunin, "can recognize his own human worth, nor in consequence realize his full development, if he does not recognize the worth of his fellow men, and in co-operation with them, realize his own development through them" (in Malatesta, 2012). The enhancement of r can be seen as an indicator of creative capability of protagonists in organic relationship to re/create common goods without any external or authoritative impositions. High r shows that deviations of organic spontaneity from what is assumed as important by the community are small. Local interactions are accomplished in a way which is recognized as desirable from the perspective of the overall society. With progressing r, the society becomes increasingly self-managed. "Dissipative" - non-hierarchical self-organising (Prigogine, Nicolis, 1977) invokes mesoscopic structuration between mechanical and organic outcomes of integration. Structuration is now linked to innovation and evolution of new "social species" as new forms of sociality that can transform social practices and bring about a new (mesoscopic) representation of social life (Touraine, 1992). As a result of meso transformations on the organic and on the mechanical side of integration, the instrumental function of the state in the field of ensuring social integration naturally fades into passivity. Only now structural arrangements can be reproduced without reference to R, which always triggers powerful contradictions, if not also totalitarian temptations. The paper has started with the classical two-part account of social integration. Conventional theory explains integration as a linear sequence (O - M - O...). Structuration theory decomposes Durkheimian sequence into two interlinked causalities (O - M, M - O) of the double hermeneutic model. This alone can not resolve the integration problem, but only reiterates it in circular presentation. Circular description of binary concepts encompasses two extremes, which are for Schopenhaur (in Howell, 2012) "one and the same thing considered from two opposite points of view". We disagreed - it is not one and the same thing, but many things, and radically differentiated; they are not separated into antagonistic polarities but subtly linked with meso category which is double embedded. Circular explanation of integration mechanism loses a valuable point when translates binary (black and white) issue into monistic (grey), instead of into plural setting (multiple colours). Separateness between M and O overlooks connectedness between the poles with weak ties. This is why integration problem can not be satisfactorily explained classically. One the first needs to apply an intermediating category, such as r, to break down classical reductionism and schematize integration with hybrid concept in its centre. Hybrid concepts are soft in their logic, intermediary in their function, but radical in their deconstructivist resolution of binary opposites. Triadic methodology thus reformulates integration process as a circular sequence in a mesoscopic way between R - r - k. The interpretation by circular hermeneutics is not rejected here because meso builds on the notion of circularity (Dopfer, 2011). Structuration can be easily reinterpreted as mesoscopic phenomenon (Elsner, 2009). In meso perspective social integration is seen as a subtle process of double embedding without which integration efforts fail to produce integrative effect. The case study confirmed on its own that NEP's impacts on TC do not match on organic and mechanical perspective and it is precisely r which explains why this is consistent outcome on the intersection between two or more non-integrated social matters. Acknowledgment: The experimental part of this paper has been accomplished as a research project financed by the Slovene Ministry for environment in the frame of "Target Research Programme" Competitiveness of Slovenia 2006-2013 (theme 5.2.8: Monitoring and territorial impact assessment of sector policies). Bibliography ABRAMS D., M.A. HOGG (eds). 1999. Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford,: Blackwell, in LOH, 2006. Appiah K. A. 2006. Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a World of Strangers, London: Penguin Books ASHFORTH B. E., G. E. KREINER, M. FUGATE. All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25/3(2000):472-91. Bailey K.D. Systems Theory, in Handbook of Sociological Theory, J.H. Turner (ed.). Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002. BOURDIEU P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press. Calhoun C. 1992. The Infrastructure of Modernity, in Haferkamp, Smelser. Camagni R. 2007. The rationale for territorial cohesion and the place of territorial development policies in the European Model of Society, in A. Faludi (ed.), Territorial Cohesion and the European Model of Society, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cec - Commission of the European Communities. 2004. A New Partnership for Cohesion; Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Luxembourg. CHAN J., H.-P. TO, E.CHAN. Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing A Definition And Analytical Framework For Empirical Research. Springer: Social Indicators Research 75(2006): 273-302. COHESION POLICY: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013. Brussel, C0M(2005)0299. COMMISSION OF the EUROPEAN communities. Investing in Europe's Future. Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. COMTOIS C. Spatial Integration and Geographic Modernization: Review of Theories and Synthesis. Erudit: Cahiers de geographie du Quebec, 30/79(1986):41-51. CONNELLY S. T. Richardson. 2004. Exclusion: The necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47/1(2004):3-17. COX D., M. La Caze, M. Levine. 2012. »Integrity«, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in E.N. Zalta (ed.). DE Boe PH., C. GRASLAND, A. Healy. 1999. Spatial integration. A paper presented by the coordinating workgroup 1.4: Belgium, France, Portugal, United Kingdom, Study programme on European spatial planning Strand 1.4. Delanty D. Social integration and Europeanization: the myth of cultural cohesion. Yearbook Of European Studies 14 (2000):221-38 Delhey J. 2004. European social integration: from convergence of countries to transnational relations between peoples, Discussion papers, No. SP I 2004-201. DESROCHERS S., L. Sargent. 2003. Boundary/Border Theory and Work-Family Integration, A Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia Entry. Chestnut Hill: Boston College. DG REGIO. 2004. Interim territorial cohesion report (Preliminary results of ESPON and EU Commission studies). Dopfer K. 2011. The origins of meso economics: Schumpeter's legacy and beyond. Springer: Journal of Evolutionary Economics, web edition. DUHAIME G., E.Searles, P.J. Usher, H.Myers, P. Frechette. Social Cohesion And Living Conditions In The Canadian Arctic: From Theory To Measurement. Kluwer: Social Indicators Research 66(2004):295-317. DURKHEIM E. 1897. Le Suicide: etude de sociologie. Paris: Alcan. EATIA. 2011. ESPON and Territorial Impact Assessment. Interim Report. EDER K. Contradictions and Social Evolution: A Theory of the Social Evolution of Modernity, in Haferkamp, Smelser. ELSNER W. The process and a simple logic of 'meso'. Emergence and the co-evolution of institutions and group size. Springer: Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20/3(2009):445-77. FALUDI A.Territorial Cohesion: Old (French) Wine in New Bottles? Urban Studies, 41/7(2004):1349-65. Ferguson H. Phenomenology and Social Theory, in Ritzer, Smart, 2003. GANE M. Durkheim's Project for a Sociological Science, in Ritzer, Smart, 2003. GEORGE C., C. Kirkpatrick. 2003. Methodology for Assessing the Effectiveness of National Sustainable Development Strategies, Impact assessment research centre working paper series Paper No: 1 A IARC Administrator, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. GHK, PSI, IEEP, CE, National Evaluators. 2002. The Contribution of the Structural Funds to Sustainable Development: A Synthesis Report to DG Regio. Giddens A. 1989. Nova pravila sociološke metode. Ljubljana: ŠKUC, Filozofska fakulteta, Studia Humanitatis, prev. Z. Gorenc. GOLOBIČ M., N. Marot. 2011. Territorial impact assessment: Integrating territorial aspects in sectoral policies, Evaluation and Program Planning 34(2011):163-73. GOLOBIČ, M., Marot, N., Radej, B., Tomšič, M. G., Kontič, B., Gulič, A. 2008. Spremljanje in presoja prostorskih vplivov sektorskih politik. Ljubljana: UIRS. GORDON U. 2008. Anarchy Alive! Anti-authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory. London, Pluto Press. GRANOVETTER M. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(1985):481-510. Habermas J. 1984. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. HAFERKAMP H., N.J. Smelser (eds). 1992. Social Change and Modernity, Berkeley; University of California Press. Hayek F.A. 1992. Usodna domišljavost: Napake socializma (The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, The University of Chicago Press. 1991). Ljubljana: KRT, št. 69. HOLLING C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 4(1973):1-23. HOWELL E. 2012. An introduction to the philosophy of methodology. London: Sage. Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas - a stocktaking of the Cardiff process, C0M(2004)394 final. JENSEN M.C. 2009. Integrity: Without It Nothing Works, interview with Karen Christensen, The Magazine of the Rotman School of Management, Autumn 2009, Harvard NOM research paper št. 10-042. KIRMAN A. 2009. The Economic Crisis is a Crisis for Economic Theory, Paper presented at the CESifo Economic Studies Conference on "What's wrong with modern macroeconomics?". Munich 6-7. Nov. LAFFERTY W.M., J. Meadowcraft. 2000. Implementing Sustainable Development, New York: Oxford University Press. Loh M.I. 2006. Consequences of Boundary Permeability on Organisational Outcomes: Investigating the Moderating Role of Culture and Self Construal. PhD Thesis, School of Psychology, University of Queensland. MACIONIS J. 1995. Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. MALATESTA E. 2012 (1891). Anarchy. Republication. MANUEL-NAVARRETE D. 2001. Approaches and Implications of using Complexity Theory for dealing with Social Systems. Department of Geography. University of Waterloo May C. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Services Research 6(2006):86 MOLM L.D. 2003. Theories of Social Exchange and Exchange Networks, in Ritzer, Smart. Mouzelis N. Social and System Integration: Lockwood, Habermas, Giddens. Sociology 31(1997):111-19. NEP - Resolucija o nacionalnem energetskem programu. 2004. Ur.l. RS, št. 57/2004. O'NEILL J. 1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World. London: Routledge. PARTNERSHIP for integration - A Strategy for integrating Environment into European Union Policies, COM(98) PERKMANN M. Social integration and system integration: reconsidering the classical distinction. Sociology 32/3(1998):491-507. PRIGOGINE I., G. NICOLIS. 1977. Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems. Wiley. Putnam R. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. RADEJ B. With Exclusion to the Community. Forthcomming in Working Papers of Slovenian Evaluation Society vol.6, no. 2 (August 2013), Ljubljana. RADEJ B. 2008. Sinteza vplivov nacionalnega energetskega programa na prostorsko kohezijo Slovenije. Ljubljana: Slovensko društvo evalvatorjev, Delovni zvezki SDE; let. 1/2(2008). RADEJ B., M. Golobič, M. Macur. 2012. "Kompleksna družba v radikalni sredini". Ljubljana: Oddelek za krajinsko arhitekturo BF/UL, predgovor S. Dragoš, 240 pp. RATZEL F. 1897. Politische Geographie oder die Geographie der Staaten, des Verkehrs und des Krieges. Munchen: Verlag von R. Oldenbourg. RITTEL, H., Webber, M. 1973. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning". Amsterdam: Elsevier, Policy Sciences, 4(1973):155-69. RITZER G., B. SMART (ed.). 2003. Handbook of Social Theory. Sage. SANDERS PEIRCE C. 1931. The Collected Papers Vol. I.: Principles of Philosophy. Harvard University Press SCHENK N.J. 2006. Modelling energy systems: a methodological exploration of integrated resource management. Groningen: University of Groningen, PhD Dissertation. SCHNURR J., S. HOLTZ. 1998. The cornerstone of development. Integrating Environmental, Social, and Economic Policies. Ottawa: IDRC. SCHOPENHAUR A. 1966. The Wold as Will and Representation; transl. by E.F.J. Payne, New York: Dover Publications. SCHUMPETER J.A. 1912/1926. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig, in Dopfer, 2011. SCHWARTZ M., M. THOMPSON. 1990. Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Scott J. 2000. Rational choice theory, in Browning G., Halcli A., F. Webster (eds.). Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. London, SAGE Publications TERRITORIAL Agenda OF the European UNION 2020. Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19. May 2011, Godollo, Hungary THOMPSON J.B. 1995. The Media and Modernity: A Social Story of the Media. Stanford: Stanford University Press. TOURAINE A. 1992. Two Interpretations of Contemporary Social Change, in Haferkamp, Smelser. TURNER J.H. 2006. Sociological Theory Today, in Turner. TURNER J.T., D.E. Boyns. 2006. The Return of Grand Theory, in Turner. TURNER J.H. (ed.). 2006. Handbook of Sociological Theory. Springer. ULIED A. 1999. Distance still matters?: Geographical Position and Spatial Integration in Europe. Mcrit.sl. VANEIGEM R. Gospodarji brez sužnjev. Ljubljana, ČKZ, 25/182(1997). VEBLEN T.B. Why is economics not an evolutionary science. Quarterly Journal of Economics 12/4(1898):379-97. WACQUANT L. 1997. Reading Bourdieu's »Capital«, foreword to Engl. transl. of The State Nobility, Cambridge, Polity Press. WALLERSTEIN I. 1989. The Modern World-System. III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840s. San Diego: Academic Press. ZEDECK, S. 1992. Work, Families, and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Naslov: »Divided we stand: Social integration in the middle« Podatki o avtorju: Radej Bojan, Mojca Golobič Podatki o izdaji ali natisu: 1. Izdaja Kraj in založba: Ljubljana: Slovensko društvo evalvatorjev / Slovenian Evaluation Society Leto izida: 2013 (Vol. VI, No. 2) Naslov knjižne zbirke: Delovni zvezek SDE/ Working paper SES Podatke o nosilcu avtorskih pravic: SDE, Ustvarjalna gmajna 2.5/Creative Commons 2.5, Slovenija Podatek o nakladi (število natisnjenih izvodov): Elektronska publikacija Mednarodne identifikatorje (ISBN, ISMN, ISSN): ISBN 978-961-92453 Maloprodajno ceno publikacije: Publikacija je brezplačna/Free. __________________About the SES's Working papers series______ Publishes scientific and technical papers on evaluation of public policies and from related disciplines. Papers are reviewed and bibliographic catalogued (CIP). Freely accessible on the internet. Already published in SES/WP: Volume 1 (2008), no: Excercising Aggregation (In Slovenian; B. Radej, 23 pp) 1 Synthesis of Territorial Impact Assessment for Slovene Energy Programme (In Slovenian; B. Radej, 43 pp) 2 Meso-Matrical Synthesis of the Incommensurable (B. Radej, 21 pp) 3 Volume 2 (2009), no: Anti-systemic movement in unity and diversity (B. Radej, 12 pp) 1 Meso-matrical Impact Assessment - peer to peer discussion of the working paper 3/2008(B. Radej, 30 pp) 2 Turistic regionalisation in Slovenia (in Slovenian, J. Kos Grabar, 29 pp) 3 Impact assessment of government proposals (In Slovenian; B. Radej, 18 pp) 4 Performance Based Budgeting (In Slovenian; B. Radej, 33 pp) 5 Volume 3 (2010), no: Beyond »New Public Management« doctrine in policy impact evaluation (B.Radej, M.Golobič, M.Istenič,25 pp) 1 Basics of impact evaluation for occassional and random users (In Slovenian; B. Radej) 2 Volume 4 (2011), no: Intersectional prioretisation of social needs (In Slovenian; B. Radej, Z. Kovač, L. Jurančič Šribar, 45 pp) 1 Primary and secondary perspective in policy evaluation« (In Slovenian; B. Radej, 30 pp) 2 Aggregation problem in evaluations of complex matters (In Slovenian; B. Radej, 41 pp) 3 Movement 99%: With exclusion to the community (In Slovenian; B.Radej, 42 pp) 4 Volume 5 (2012), no: Excelence squared: self-assessment in public administration with CAF (In Slovenian; B.Radej, M.Macur, 41 pp) 1 Partial whole: example of terrotirial cohesion (In Slovenian; B.Radej, M.Golobič, 31 pp) 2 Volume 6 (2013), no: Divided we stand: Social integration in the middle (B.Radej, M.Golobič, 26 pp) 1 With Exclusion to the Community (B.Radej, forthcomming in July 2013) 2 ________________________About the authors______ Mojca Golobič. Full professor in spatial, participative & planning, landscape conservation at the University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty. Fulbright visiting lecturer at Harvard Graduate School of Design (2003-04) and visiting lecturer at Universities of New Hampshire, Durham, University of Oregon, Eugene and University of Washington, Seattle in USA (2004), and Jelgava University in Latvia. Bojan Radej is a methodologist in social research. Master degree in macroeconomics, University of Ljubljana -Faculty of Economics (1993). Professional Experience Record: Governmental Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (1987-04; under-secretary to the government), areas of work: sustainable development (199804), chief manager of the modelling department (1993-5); initiator and the first editor of Slovenian Economic Mirror (1995-8); Co-Editor of IB journal (2001-04). Member of Slovenian Evaluation Society. SDE operation is nonfinacially supported by IER - Institut for economic research, Ljubljana, http://www.ier.si/