This paper develops a typology of European regions according to their role in knowledge exchange networks. Knowledge flows are critical economic assets, but it is essential to qualify as well as to quantify them to understand how they reflect regional inequalities and regional roles in networks. Using Horizon 2020 partnership data, we perform a cluster analysis of European NUTS-2 regions using multiple flow indicators and derive five types of engagement in knowledge flows. We then explore the resulting regional ‘flow profiles’ and clarify the drivers and barriers to becoming a high-performing knowledge region, providing valuable insights for regional policymakers and planners.

This paper addresses the governance of the ‘live-work mix’. This concept refers to the renewed intertwining of living and working activities in new housing and urban development in the context of welfare state restructuring, development of the knowledge economy and globalisation. Implementing live-work goals can be difficult because a consensus between public and private actors is usually needed to develop such projects. In this paper, we examine the actors and instruments that assist in the implementation of live-work goals in targeted areas. We survey live-work development by analysing three illustrative projects in Brussels and Amsterdam, cities with comparable strategies but distinct planning systems. Our results indicate that state support is essential to enhance live-work mix, especially because the market remains reluctant to mix functions and focuses primarily on housing development. Flexible and tailor-made instruments are used, sometimes co-authored by public and private actors, to reach consensus. These instruments illustrate variants of strategic planning. Despite a shared interest in attracting target groups to redevelopment areas, the consensus-building process is affected by discrepancies in the nature of live-work mix.

This research addresses the shared housing market, that is, large-scale developments targeting students and ‘young professionals’, equipped with shared spaces and services for the residents. This housing segment has emerged in response to young adults’ demand for flexible and affordable housing. It has developed in cities that concentrate students and young single professionals, plan densification strategies and face housing commodification. We specifically explore the production side of this market, through the comparison of two projects in Amsterdam. Our objective is to understand the institutional context in which these projects were developed and their outcomes. Consequently, the research questions are: which actors develop these projects, what instruments do they use, and what are the outcomes in a commodifying housing market? From our analysis, the actors need to collaborate on shared housing developments and receive support from local governments, through the strategic use of planning instruments and tenure regulations. However, the shared facilities seem to merely serve to commercialize small housing production, while housing affordability and accessibility are threatened. We, thus, recommend local and national authorities to regulate the provision of shared spaces and suggest further research on the effects of the shared housing market in cities facing housing commodification.