The development of border regions still largely depends on consensus-building processes. This implies that decisions taken within border-regional committees require approval and effective implementation by domestic authorities in the respective political and administrative centers and capitals (Brunet-Jailly, 2022). Furthermore, political decisions on one side of the border must be carefully aligned to the situation, taking into account differing legal frameworks, administrative procedures, and policy priorities. As such, cross-border initiatives are frequently shaped by coordination challenges that arise from the coexistence of distinct national systems.

While the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) allows for the establishment of a legal personality for cross-border institutions, thereby strengthening their formal capacity to act (Evrard, 2016), political mandates and decision-making authorities largely remain embedded within domestic spheres of the multi-level governance system (Crossey and Weber, 2024; Chilla, 2023). Consequently, cross-border institutions often operate within a framework of shared but fragmented competencies, where their effectiveness depends on the willingness of national, regional, and local actors to cooperate and coordinate. Hence, personal relations and trust-building are key to political processes along and across the border (Cejas and Masana, 2026).

Against this backdrop, governance schemes in cross-border cooperation become a key analytical and practical concept. Governance can be understood as a mode of coordination that encompasses horizontal (sectoral), vertical (multi-level), and spatial dimensions (Medeiros et al., 2024). It captures the interaction between a wide range of actors, including public authorities, economic stakeholders, and civil society organizations, across different territorial levels. While (regional) governance may be better described as a strand of debate rather than a clearly delimited conceptual framework (Willi et al., 2018; MacLeod and Goddwin, 1999), it nevertheless provides a useful lens for analyzing and operationalizing policy processes that extend beyond purely formal institutional arrangements. In particular, it highlights the importance of informal practices, negotiation processes, and network-based coordination mechanisms. ETC in general and Interreg programs in particular are invaluable within the debate on multi-level governance. Early contributions to this field, such as those by Hooghe and Marks (2003), were strongly grounded in observations of emerging cooperation formats within the European Union (EU; see also Benz, 2021). The increasing involvement of regional and local actors in EU policy processes has introduced complex political dynamics, including shifts in authority, the emergence of new actor constellations, and the need for coordination across administrative levels. In this context, the formation and stabilization of cross-border networks are key characteristics of governance schemes (Noferini et al., 2020), often facilitated and sustained through Interreg funding schemes. Funding allocation is not simply a simple administrative pattern but rather the outcome of interactions and negotiations between multiple actors operating under different institutional rules. The European Commission defines the regulatory framework and strategic priorities, while program-level institutions, managing authorities, and monitoring committees are central in translating these into funding decisions. Regional and local actors influence this process through project development, partnership formation, and agenda setting (De Sousa, 2013). These networks enable the exchange of knowledge, the development of shared strategies, and the strengthening of mutual trust among actors.

Cross-border governance schemes can, generally speaking, be highly functional, such as in their contribution to building trust between partners, facilitating information flows, and providing access to diverse forms of expertise (Järv et al., 2026; Hippe et al., 2024). Through repeated interaction and joint project implementation, actors may develop shared understandings and problem-solving capacities that would be difficult to achieve within purely national frameworks. However, despite these strengths, cross-border governance typically exhibits only limited capacity for resolving fundamental conflicts, particularly when these are rooted in divergent national interests, legal constraints, or political priorities (Thomann et al., 2019). Cross-border cooperation requires addressing fragmented territorial development systems, governance structures, and development priorities to achieve more integrated territorial development (Pallagst et al., 2022).

The specific characteristics and effectiveness of cross-border governance schemes are strongly influenced by the administrative cultures on either side of the border, as well as by existing institutional path dependencies (Knieling and Othengrafen, 2018). Differences in planning traditions, decision-making styles, legal systems, and centralization levels can significantly shape how cooperation is organized and implemented. In addition to the scope and intensity of cooperation, these contextual factors also determine the extent to which governance settings can evolve over time. Furthermore, funding flows can also be understood from the perspective of path dependency. Previous experiences with European funding, established administrative capacities, and existing cooperation networks influence future access to resources. Regions with stronger institutional capacities and longer histories of participation are often better positioned to successfully apply for and manage EU funds. Thus, funding allocation reflects current policy priorities, historical trajectories, and accumulated institutional knowledge, and cross-border governance should be understood as a context-sensitive and dynamic process (Caesar, 2017).

Over 3 decades of Interreg experience have generated a substantial body of academic literature on the program's outcomes and characteristics (Reitel et al., 2018). There is broad consensus that Interreg funding is crucial to facilitating cooperation, networking, and trust-building, as well as in supporting the development of concrete, place-based solutions (Frątczak-Müller and Mielczarek-Żejmo, 2020). However, as with governance schemes more generally, Interreg programs are an important precondition for successful development processes, while their capacity to resolve concrete conflicts remains limited (Medeiros et al., 2024; Colomb, 2018).

The actor networks established through cross-border cooperation can be understood as “territorial development assets” (Berzi, 2017:1584), with network capacity representing a critical factor for effective cross-border interaction (Nienaber and Wille, 2020). The success of cross-border cooperation varies significantly between regions, depending on the combination of enabling conditions – particularly economic factors, political leadership, cultural and identity-related aspects, state traditions, and geographical contexts (De Sousa, 2013). Moreover, cross-border barriers are multifaceted: physical, institutional, and socio-cultural obstacles may hinder cooperation in diverse and context-specific ways (Capello et al., 2018).

A core principle of Interreg cooperation is mutual learning from good practices. This “best-practice” approach assumes that innovation and diffusion processes can extend across borders (Knippschild and Vock, 2017). Stakeholder participation is widely regarded to be a key success factor throughout all phases of the policy cycle (Borges et al., 2021). Moreover, different forms of proximity (e.g., spatial, cultural, technological) can significantly enhance cooperation outcomes (Makkonen et al., 2018).

Interreg-based cooperation requires coordination between actors at the supranational, national, regional, and local levels. During the programming phase, Interreg programs are developed through negotiated processes involving member states, regional authorities, and relevant stakeholders. These processes translate EU cohesion policy into territorially specific strategies. Governance arrangements vary by country, with federal and centralized systems allocating responsibilities for program design, implementation, and monitoring differently. This is especially pronounced when comparing transnational and cross-border responsibilities. While central governments often retain strategic and regulatory responsibilities, regional authorities are becoming increasingly decisive in managing cross-border cooperation and adapting interventions in local contexts. This distribution of competencies reflects the tension between European-level coordination and territorially embedded decision-making, central to the Interreg governance model (Caesar and Pallagst, 2022).

Thematically, Interreg has addressed a wide range of policy areas, with the thematic scope of its cooperation varying considerably across programs and regions, thereby reflecting differences in institutional settings, policy priorities, and cross-border challenges (Noferini et al., 2020). This variation can be conceptualized by distinguishing between “hard” and “soft” policy approaches. Soft policies are typically characterized by informal, non-binding, and non-hierarchical modes of coordination. They rely on dialogue, mutual learning, and consensus-building rather than legally enforceable rules or statutory planning instruments. In this respect, they differ markedly from traditional planning approaches, which are embedded in hierarchical governance structures and supported by binding regulations and clearly defined competencies (Kazmarek, 2018).

Soft policy instruments include strategic frameworks, action plans, networks, and platforms for exchange that aim to align actors' interests without imposing legal obligations. Beyond their procedural features, the distinction between hard and soft policies can also be interpreted in terms of political dynamics and levels of contestation (Capello et al., 2018). Soft approaches are often preferred in politically sensitive contexts or where competencies are fragmented across administrative levels and national borders. In such cases, actors may deliberately opt for less binding arrangements to avoid, mitigate, or manage conflict and opposition (Allmendinger et al., 2015). Figure 1 illustrates these dimensions by positioning policies along a spectrum ranging from relatively hard to relatively soft approaches.

The specific context of the Alpine area is characterized by its topography and the high number of national borders as it encompasses the eight nation states of Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Slovenia, and Switzerland (Chilla and Lambracht, 2023). While the natural environment does not in itself determine cooperation projects or their dynamics, the spatial context is explicitly addressed through place-based approaches (Giordano and Greco, 2024). Territorial settings thus need to be carefully considered in terms of both the challenges and assets they pose and offer.

More concretely, key issues such as climate change, demographic shifts, and accessibility are closely intertwined with the region's natural characteristics and constitute central themes of cooperation (Lambracht and Chilla, 2025). As the Alpine region represents a meeting point of multiple nation states with diverse political cultures and statistical systems, European funding programs are required to align their strategies, calls for projects, and projects with specific priorities within the broader framework of EU territorial cooperation objectives. These efforts are complemented by national development strategies. However, across the multi-level system or between neighboring countries, thematic competition – and, thus, tensions – might arise.

Nevertheless, the historical and cultural foundations of cooperation – particularly in such regions as Lake Constance or the Tyrol–South Tyrol – reveal long-standing traditions and shared identities that can foster effective governance schemes. This heritage supports active cross-border initiatives and demonstrates that collaboration, in addition to being a contemporary policy objective, is also deeply rooted in a common cultural context. The evolution of these partnerships highlights the potential for resilient cooperative frameworks capable of adapting to changing socioeconomic conditions.

We take the example of the Alpine region with its nine Interreg cross-border programs and the transnational Interreg Alpine Space Programme (ASP), thus referring to 10 territorial cooperation programs in total. In doing so, we aim to understand what explains implementation patterns as a particular form of regional governance. We operationalize regional governance and spatial development perspectives within a quantitative research design. The cooperation patterns are examined though different configurations, such as thematic priorities, financial resource allocation, and spatial distribution. Comparing Interreg A and B programs captures differences between cross-border and transnational governance settings and their respective capacities to address territorial challenges.

This operationalization provides insights into the strategic orientation, geographical distribution, and relevance of cooperation programs in terms of financial design, even if it does not capture the relational and process-oriented dimensions of regional governance, including aspects such as trust-building, institutional learning, negotiation processes, and the quality of cooperation between actors. Consequently, we seek not to explain underlying mechanisms of cooperation dynamics but rather to identify the formal implementation patterns and structural characteristics shaping the governance potential of the Interreg programs in the Alpine area.

This empirical work is based on Interreg data from the open-source KEEP database, which includes budgets, external funding shares, the location of cooperation partners (lead or project partners), and the thematic topics and priorities of European funding programs. The information can be downloaded as tables (e.g., Excel spreadsheets), diagrams, or maps. Some of these provide basic institutional mappings (KEEP, 2026a). We focused our analysis on Interreg V-A and V-B data while excluding Interreg small-project funds and other programs (e.g., INTERACT, ENI). The Interreg V period was formally implemented from 2014 to 2020, even if project-closing activities stretched to the following years. According to the KEEP representativeness section, this stretch has the highest representativeness compared to older periods (KEEP, 2026b). Moreover, it is the most recent closed period as Interreg VI is still active, meaning that its statistics are incomplete.

We included the following Interreg V-A programs located in the Alpine region: ALCOTRA, Alpenrhein–Bodensee–Hochrhein, Austria–Germany, France–Switzerland, Italy–Austria, Italy–Slovenia, Italy–Switzerland, and Slovenia–Austria. We also include the Interreg V-B ASP. Several EU cooperation programs partly cover the European Alps region, including five further Interreg V-B programs. However, only the ASP covers the entire area and spatially impacts the region as a whole. Additionally, the ASP is closely linked to the EU macroregional strategy for the Alpine region (EUSALP), which covers the same area except for Alsace in France. All of our data refer to the status of the KEEP database as of December 2025. Table 1 gives an overview of the analyzed Interreg programs, including their type; launch; number of years in program participation until 2026; participating countries; number of projects in period V; and number of EGTCs in the territorial area of jurisdiction, located directly within the respective Interreg A program area (European Committee of the Regions, 2024).

We based the data interpretation on different institutional mapping tools. Institutional mapping is becoming increasingly important as it records and visualizes institutional information, encompassing both “hard” (e.g., legal provisions) and “soft” institutions (e.g., informal networks; Pupier, 2020; Purkarthofer, 2016). Key components include the spatial dimension, the institutional–political dimension (mandates, resources, issues), and didactically accessible technical visualization (Chilla and Lambracht, 2023). In particular, the information regarding the coordinates of the project partners allows for a wide range of cartographic analyses and visualizations using GIS programs. For our mappings, we used the ESRI ArcGIS Pro software.

Our results are based on three institutional mapping approaches: first, we visualize a density map (Fig. 2) including point density information. Second, traditional statistical bar charts (Figs. 3 and 4) illustrate the financial structure of the different programs, as well as the thematic prioritization in the two different cooperation types (Interreg A vs. Interreg B). Third, we present a comparative institutional mapping (Fig. 5), which includes the spatial extent of the Interreg V-A program areas, containing information regarding their five most frequently mentioned thematic assignments, as well as their available budgets.

In so doing, we used the following statistical methods of exploratory data analysis and data structuring (Zimmermann-Janschitz, 2014), resulting in two key graphic results:

For Fig. 2 (density mapping), a raster shapefile was created using the Point Density tool in ESRI ArcGIS Pro. Based on the point data imported into the geographic information system (GIS), the tool calculates the density of points within a specified neighborhood around each raster cell, thereby producing a continuous surface that represents the numbers of points per unit area and allowing spatial clusters and hotspots to be identified. Furthermore, it enables the analysis and visualization of geographic patterns that may not be apparent from the original data alone (Bertram et al., 2026).

Figure 2 shows the density of the project partners' locations within the region, where the density differs between low (light purple) and high (deep purple).

The map reveals differences in the spatial distribution of project partners in the Alpine area, particularly between the different border regions. Indeed, along the French–German border, project partners are evenly distributed across the border region, with a comparatively high density of cooperation in comparison to the whole Alpine area. Conversely, the program areas situated along the Austrian borders demonstrate a higher concentration of project partners in prominent urban corridors and centers, including Salzburg, Innsbruck, and the Villach–Klagenfurt–Graz area. The rural border sections and territories that are farther away from the border exhibit lower partner densities.

Generally speaking, the distribution of project partners shows a concentration in highly urbanized and economically integrated regions. The Upper Rhine region exemplifies this as it is a densely urbanized corridor on the one side and can, on the other, build on the comparably longstanding cross-border collaboration between France and Germany. A similar phenomenon can be observed in other metropolitan corridors, including the Geneva–Annecy region between France and Switzerland; the Alpine Rhine axis between Germany, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland; the northern Italian metropolitan areas around Milan and Turin; and the Slovenian capital Ljubljana. The urban areas appear to function as important centers for cross-border cooperation, benefiting from high accessibility, institutional capacity, and dense economic networks (Lambracht and Bertram, 2027; Bertram et al., 2025). This is particularly interesting as not all of them are close to the border. In contrast, the inner- and peri-Alpine regions, characterized by challenging topography, lower population densities, and lower transport connectivity, show lower concentrations of project partners (Lambracht and Chilla, 2025). This spatial pattern suggests a close interlinkage between the intensity of cooperation and the presence of metropolitan structures and functional urban regions, while more rural and remote mountainous regions show a lower level of participation.

The program implementation is characterized by differences in the number of projects per program area, the overall budget, and the co-funding shares. Figure 3 provides an overview of all cooperation programs for these numbers. The EU funding share is shown in blue, while the proportion of other funding (e.g., public or private, including co-funding) is shown in green.

The transnational Interreg V-B ASP includes a smaller number of projects compared to most of the V-A programs. Despite its larger territorial scope, the ASP only covers 64 projects, whereas Interreg V-A programs average approximately 102, out of 920 projects in total. The number of projects in each cross-border program area varies substantially. For instance, the France–Italy program area encompasses 159 projects, whereas the Slovenia–Austria program area comprises only 52. Furthermore, the average funding allocated to each project in Interreg V-B is higher compared to the cross-border programs. This can be explained by the divergent objectives and governance structure characteristics of the two funding streams. While Interreg V-A is designed to support locally embedded projects that address specific, cross-border challenges within neighboring border regions, the transnational ASP emphasizes strategic cooperation across the entire Alpine region. Consequently, ASP projects generally involve larger international partnerships, more complex governance settings, and broader thematic objectives. This implies higher financial resources per project in the ASP.

These differences also reflect the spatial structures of the program areas. Cross-border cooperation is closely linked to the intensity of functional interactions along shared borders, where local actors can develop comparably smaller projects to address everyday cross-border challenges. In contrast, transnational cooperation is less dependent on geographical proximity and instead connects institutions across larger distances to address common challenges such as climate change mitigation or to establish circular value chains, support innovation, or improve governance in the Alpine region. Consequently, the implementation of a smaller but more substantial number of projects tries to address the program's comprehensive scope. The figure further indicates that three of the cross-border program areas account for substantially higher numbers of projects and larger overall program budgets compared to the other six programs, indicating differences in cooperation intensity between the border regions (namely ALCOTRA, France–Switzerland, and Upper Rhine).

Program areas with Swiss (i.e., non-EU) participation show a higher proportion of co-funding. As Switzerland is ineligible for European funding resources (e.g., European Regional Development Fund, ERDF), Swiss partners must finance their participation primarily through national and regional public funding, such as contributions from cantons or federal authorities. In contrast, the Interreg V-A programs involving Slovenia have the smallest number of projects but the highest proportion of EU funding within their overall budgets. This reflects the comparatively greater importance of ERDF support for project implementation in these program areas.

Important differences between transnational and cross-border programs can be identified when exploring the thematic dimension of different funding strands more closely. It is possible to quantify the thematic project assignments and to provide a graphical overview of the dynamics for both Interreg V-B and V-A.

Figure 4 provides an overview of the thematic topics for all Interreg V-B (red, broader columns) and Interreg V-A (blue, broader columns) projects, regardless of their program affiliation. The KEEP database allows up to three thematic assignments for each project, meaning that double assignments apply in 56 % of all cases, and triple assignments apply in 6 % of all cases. The total budget volume per topic is shown as thin orange (Interreg V-B) or light-blue (Interreg V-A) columns.

Figure 4 visualizes a total of 42 thematic assignments, thereby providing a multifaceted picture of the relevant themes in cross-border and transnational cooperation. The thematic priorities follow the same categorization for both forms of cooperation. Nevertheless, in the transnational ASP, the projects in the program period were only assigned to 31 thematic priorities. The figure shows, that for the Interreg V-A programs, the top five themes are

tourism,

For the Interreg V-B ASP, the top five themes are

regional planning and development,

This overview shows that different issues are addressed depending on the level of governance. This can be linked to the respective areas of responsibility at the regional or local level. Topics such as tourism, cultural heritage, and the arts align with the political focus of local authorities. This thematic focus can be regarded to be rather “soft” as it allows for consensus-based activities without high investments (e.g., cross-border thematic routes for tourism and partnership support for cultural heritage associations on either side of the border). More “difficult” topics – in the sense of transnational coordination and negotiation processes – have less prominent roles. For example, topics such as transport infrastructure are much harder to address due to (a) limited mandates at the regional level and, (b) in connection with that, the limited available budgets, as well as (c) the sensitivity of the topics. The Brenner Corridor is a prime example of these constraints. Its development requires coordination across multiple levels of government; substantial financial resources beyond the scope of regional authorities; and negotiation of politically sensitive interests between Austria, Germany, and Italy (Hippe et al., 2026b). Nevertheless, the figure shows that these topics are certainly addressed, albeit in fewer projects but with higher budgets per project. In contrast, projects dealing with topics such as education, cooperation, inclusion, and common identity have comparatively lower project budgets than, for example, climate change and digitalization. Generally speaking, these priorities include both soft and hard topics. While regional planning (more than development) tends to address “harder” issues, awareness-raising in innovation is a typically soft topic.

When comparing the two forms of cooperation, it becomes clear that the two overarching categories “environment, climate, and energy” and “economy, innovation, and digitalization” are addressed primarily in the context of transnational cooperation. In contrast, cross-border programs take the lead regarding “culture, tourism, and identity” and “society, education, and quality of life”. No clear pattern emerges for the topics of “governance” and “space, infrastructure, and mobility”. The topics of governance, spatial planning and development, and transportation appear to play a greater role in Interreg B due to the size and heterogeneity of the region. Moreover, the thematic overlap with the EUSALP must be considered here. In contrast, specific topics such as infrastructure or urban development seem to be anchored in Interreg A cooperation.

Figure 5 shows the nine Interreg V-A program perimeters in different colors and differentiates the five main themes for each program area. Overlapping of perimeters is visualized by different types of hatches. The comparative perspective can be summarized as follows: first, in several program areas, “tourism” is amongst the top three thematic priorities. Second, other softer topics, such as “cultural heritage and arts” or “education and training”, but also environmental topics like “climate change and biodiversity” seem to be majorly important in regional and local cross-border cooperation. Third, the Swiss borders in particular show a higher priority in the field of “health and social services” than the other border regions.

Each border region must be reflected against its regional context. The Interreg V-A programs vary across the Alpine border regions and largely reflect their specific territorial characteristics, cooperation history, and socioeconomic context. For the different border regions, the following specificities can be highlighted:

Austria–Germany. Cooperation focuses on tourism and institutional cooperation in particular. Economic, ecological, and social topics are also relevant. Despite language and cultural similarities, the overall intensity of cooperation seems to be comparatively modest. The prominence of topics such as “education and training” and “clustering and economic cooperation” seems to be associated with the Salzburg metropolitan area, which comprises universities and has a high density of economic actors.

These results reveal considerable variation in thematic priorities across the Alpine Interreg V-A program areas that should be reflected in combination with the density map (Fig. 2) and the charts including the budget information (Fig. 3). While tourism emerges as a common topic in the cross-border programs, other themes differ according to regional characteristics. Metropolitan and economically integrated regions show stronger emphases on education, research, innovation, and health, whereas more rural and mountainous areas focus on environmental management, risk prevention, and cultural heritage. Furthermore, differences in project numbers and funding intensity imply differences in the cooperation governance across the Alpine region(s).