ABSTRACT
In recent years Latvian policy-making has changed the perception as to how municipalities
are grouped for the purpose of regional development policy-making. In 2008-2009,
specific territories were identified according to urban-rural connectivities: (1) larger
cities and rural areas in close proximity, (2) territories (corridors) of flows (transport of
people, goods, energy, capital and information) and (3) places with specific particularities
(development potentials) that contribute to intensification of urban-rural interactions
(areas with strong branding potential, natural and cultural amenities, natural resources,
areas of not-wanted land uses and administrative and functional boundaries) (Ku¯le,
2010). Such analytical grouping of territories were used to describe municipalities or
their parts in order to reveal existing practises of urban-rural interactions, as well as to
propose future policies on how to support activities that can stimulate growth. How
such policies will be designed and implemented depends upon governance structures,
including the existing administrative structure of Latvia. As a result of amalgamation,
the number of local municipalities decreased from 522 to 119, and five planning
regions (Figure 1) were established as the result of the territorial reform of 1998-2010.
Latvian municipalities are treated equally in accordance with the Law on self-government
(1994), with no reference as to their urban or rural character. In 2009, the legal definition
