Portugal’s Territorial Cohesion and the So-Called “Territorial Failure”

The so-called “territorial failure” is not a recent idea. It has a history, it sits within a constitutional framework, and it has been interpreted in different ways over decades. The absence of political-administrative regions is often presented as the heart of that failure, as though introducing another institutional tier would, on its own, be enough to correct deep-rooted and enduring imbalances.

Beyond the “territorial failure” narrative

That reading does not go far enough.

Portugal’s shortcomings are not limited to what it failed to establish in the past. More importantly, they stem from the choices it continues to make today. It is at that level that the debate becomes more demanding-and less comfortable.

Territorial cohesion does not rest solely on institutional design. It relies on practical decisions, consistent public policies and, above all, the ability to recognise and activate the real assets of each place. When those decisions disregard lived territory-when they downplay institutions that operate there every day and, directly or indirectly, intensify the concentration of resources-the issue stops being historical and becomes immediate.

PROT-C and strategic territorial planning

This is precisely where instruments such as the Regional Spatial Planning Programme for the Centre (PROT-C) ought to play a decisive role. They should not be treated as box-ticking planning exercises, but as genuinely strategic mechanisms for organising territory. When that does not happen-when the territorial diagnosis is incomplete or unbalanced-the outcome is not merely a flawed document. It becomes yet another missed opportunity.

Territory is not built only through strong centres. It is built through intelligent networks, differentiated functions and the capacity to connect and coordinate. Ignoring that reality is to prolong an outdated approach, rooted in a centrality-based logic that no longer meets contemporary challenges.

Higher education institutions in low-density territories

Higher education institutions located in low-density areas illustrate this frequently undervalued reality clearly. They are not simply educational facilities. They are platforms for knowledge, innovation and connection to the economic and social fabric. Their impact extends well beyond the physical boundaries of their campuses and reaches into wider territorial networks-often invisible to those making decisions from distant centres.

When those institutions are left out of, or pushed to the margins within, planning instruments, the problem is not merely technical. It reflects a political choice with tangible consequences. Because in those territories, an institutional presence can determine the difference between stagnation and momentum, between losing talent and keeping it, between decline and the possibility of a future.

The persistence of territorial asymmetries in Portugal is not only the result of past failings. It is the product of continued decisions that, even now, do not incorporate a rigorous, integrated and up-to-date reading of territory.

The issue is not only what was left undone. It is, above all, what still remains to be put right.