Resilience has become a buzzword in recent years. Not surprisingly, it has also been applied in the field of regional science, where resilience refers to how regions can develop capabilities to withstand and cope with various shocks. This focus has grown increasingly important in light of current economic, social, and environmental crises. Consequently, research has been directed towards understanding determinants of regional resilience and identifying measures that can enhance it.There are numerous definitions of regional resilience, each emphasizing different aspects. These diverse definitions have resulted in different approaches to operationalizing and measuring resilience, as well as diverse suggestions for instruments to build regional resilience. A key aspect emphasized in recent approaches is the role of public policy. Economic policies are frequently seen as crucial drivers of regional resilience, and diverse policies have been applied in this context, such as enhancing the innovation potential of regions. While there is a substantial body of literature on the role of economic policy in regional resilience, other areas of public policy are often underexplored. Interestingly, despite the extensive body of academic literature on the role of public social infrastructure, a notable gap exists in explicitly examining and discussing the relationship between regional resilience and public social infrastructure. Public social infrastructure, encompassing social goods and services, such as education, healthcare, and social protection, has the potential to improve individuals’ intangible capital (such as human and social capital), general well-being (e.g., through improved health), and monetary resources (e.g., through financial transfers). Given these extensive benefits of social infrastructure, this dissertation argues for its high relevance for regional resilience. A second gap in the literature concerns the implications of spatial dynamics, which many studies on regional resilience have not explicitly addressed. Yet recent perspectives emphasize the inherently spatial nature of regional resilience. In this context, it is essential to consider the interdependence of regions driven by the movement of people, goods, and services, along with the resulting interactions and relationships, when exploring strategies for building resilience.This dissertation addresses these two gaps in the literature. To do so, it develops a conceptual framework that differentiates between types, determinants, and degrees of regional resilience. Specifically, it investigates the impact of public social infrastructure expenditure as a determinant of three types of regional resilience (economic, social, and fiscal) across three empirical papers. Additionally, this dissertation analyzes space as a crucial determinant of regional resilience across these three studies. These studies employ quantitative modeling approaches that account for spatial dynamics and interdependencies, providing a more precise understanding of the interconnected nature of regional resilience. Building on these findings, the dissertation discusses how different degrees of regional resilience - resistance, recovery, re-orientation, and renewal - can be achieved, depending on the socioeconomic and political context. It further examines how these insights can inform policy discussions on enhancing regional resilience while also addressing regional inequalities. To this end, two additional studies focus on how social infrastructure should be implemented to promote equitable and sustainable regional resilience. Ultimately, this dissertation argues that prioritizing renewal as the highest form of resilience is key to addressing structural inequalities between regions.The findings of this dissertation emphasize three key points. First, social infrastructure expenditure can enhance regional resilience in various ways, such as increasing a region’s economic growth, reducing local income inequality, and improving the fiscal health of local governments. Second, incorporating spatial effects into the modeling approaches reveals significant interconnections between regions, which create spatial dependencies in regional resilience. This implies that regional resilience may depend not only on a region’s own capabilities but also on those of surrounding regions. The presence of spatial dependencies may create a feedback loop, making it progressively harder for regions lacking resilience to catch up with more resilient regions. Third, these results have important implications for policymakers. Accordingly, the results suggest that reducing social infrastructure expenditure may not be ideal, even during times of crisis, as such infrastructure can enhance multiple dimensions of resilience. Correspondingly, resilience planning should focus on the social, environmental, and spatial dimensions of regional resilience to promote equal regional capabilities. In this context, addressing the accessibility of social infrastructure, prioritizing regions with particularly low social infrastructure investments, and considering broader social and environmental issues are essential when using social infrastructure as a tool to enhance regional resilience.
