Cohesion and Regional Policies in the European Union

  • Robert Leonardi

Abstract

In 2004 the European Union’s cohesion policy entered into its fifteenth year of existence. Since its inception in 1989, the policy has covered a significant part of the European Union (EU) member states’ territory and population. What distinguishes the EU’s cohesion policy from regional development policies undertaken by national governments in Europe and the regional policy implemented by the Community before 1989 is that it represents a revolutionary change in the way development policies are conceived and carried out. While previous regional policy concentrated extensively on the role of the national administrative system or specialized development agencies in the implementation of projects, the present approach is characterized by an extensive involvement of different administrative levels and socio-economic groups in the formulation and implementation of the policy. The other elements that distinguish EU cohesion policy are the planning and implementation components that have been part of the policy from the very beginning, such as, quantified objectives (reducing regional disparities, restructuring regional economies, creating jobs, and stimulating private investment), a legal European framework,1 a specific policy structure (multi-annual planning documents and operational programmes), multi-annual budgets, five specific financial instruments (four Structural Funds2 and the Cohesion Fund) and a multi-level and multi-subject form of interaction in the formulation of decisions and implementation of programmes and projects.

Keywords

Europe Turkey Peri Allo OECD 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The legal basis for the cohesion policy is provided by the contents of the Treaties, and the formal rules and procedures for the conduct of the policy are stipulated in the Regulations governing the four Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. See European Commission, Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund 1994–99: Regulations and commentary, Luxembourg, 1996 and Structural Actions 2000–2006: Commentary and Regulations, Luxembourg, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    For a description of the ERDF’s first three years of activity, see European Commission, The Regional Development Programmes, Brussels, May 1979. The report provides a summary of the general activities undertaken by each member state. For an account of each country’s strategy see the detailed, sector-by-sector review provided by the country reports. Two of the most interesting are the ones covering the regional development programme for the Mezzogiorno (1977–1980) and Ireland. For a discussion of the rationale for regional policy in the 1970s and 1980s see John Carney, Rad Hudson and Jim Lewis (eds), Regions in Crisis, London: Croom Helm, 1980;Google Scholar
  3. and Brian Ashcroft, The Evaluation of Regional Policy in Europe: A Survey and Critique, Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    The initiation of the cohesion policy did not mean that national regional policies were abandoned. Instead, national governments continued to fund their own policy while the Commission set out to activate a separate and distinct regional policy at the supranational level. See Fiona Wishlade “EU Cohesion Policy: Facts, Figures, and Issues” in Liesbet Hooghe, Cohesion Policy and European Integration, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 27–58.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    See Norbert Vanhove, Regional Policy: A European Approach, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999;Google Scholar
  6. Jorgen Mortensen (ed.) Improving Economic and Social Cohesion in the European Community, London: Macmillan, 1994;Google Scholar
  7. Iain Begg and David Mayes, A New Strategy for Social and Economic Cohesion After 1992, European Parliament, Regional policy and transport series 19, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See Andres Rodriguez-Pose, Dynamics of Regional Growth in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998;Google Scholar
  9. Andres Rodriguez-Pose, The European Union: Economy, Society and Polity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002;Google Scholar
  10. Ronald Hall, Alasdair Smith, and Loukas Tsoukalis (eds), Competitiveness and Cohesion in EU Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001,Google Scholar
  11. and Christos C. Paraskevopoulos, Ricardo Grinspun and Theodore Georgakopoulos (eds), Economic Integration and Public Policy in the European Union, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    See Lisbet Hooghe (ed.), Cohesion Policies in the European Union, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996;Google Scholar
  13. Achille Hannequart (ed.) Economic and Social Cohesion in Europe, London: Routledge, 1992;Google Scholar
  14. Paul Furlong and Andrew Cox (eds), The European Union at the Crossroads, London: Earlsgate Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. and Michael Keating and John Laughlin (eds), The Political Economy of Regionalism, London: Frank Cass, 1997;Google Scholar
  16. and Christos J. Paraskevopoulos, Interpreting Convergence in the European Union, London: Palgrave, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 10.
    See David Allen, “Cohesion and Structural Adjustment” in Helen Wallace and William Wallace (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 209–233 and Mark Pollack, “Regional Actors in an Intergovernmental Play: The Making and Implementation of EC Structural Policy” in C. Rhodes and S. Mazey (eds) The State of the European Union, Vol. 3, London, Longman, pp. 361–390.Google Scholar
  18. 11.
    Stuart Nagel, Public Policy: Goals, Means and Methods, New York: University Press of America, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    The importance of the territorial dimension is highlighted by Raffaella Nanetti in the chapter “EU Cohesion and Territorial Restructuring in the Member States” in Liesbet Hooghe (ed.), Cohesion Policies in the European Union, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 59–88.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Maria-Angeles Diez, “Evaluating New Regional Policies: Reviewing the Theory and Practice”, Evaluation, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2000, pp. 285–305.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    Ireland insisted in 1988 in being treated as a NUTS 2 region not for the purposes of qualifying the whole country for entry into the cohesion policy (it already had secured that goal given its low GDP per capita scores in the 1985–88 period), but to make certain that the national ministries could operate as the policy management authorities and thus not requiring a devolution of the responsibility to sub-national level bodies. In Ireland the sub-national territorial entities constituted NUTS 3 rather than NUTS 2 levels. See Brigid Laffan, “Ireland: A Region Without Regions — The Odd Man Out?” in Liesbet Hooghe (ed.), Cohesion Policies in the European Union, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 320–341.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    Mike Manning, “The Politics of Structural Funding: Arenas and Agendas” in Fergus Carr and Andrew Massey (eds) Public Policy in the New Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999, pp. 67–102.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    In our opinion the definition of governance (“the capacity of political institutions to articulate, through public policies and democratic representation, conflicting trends within the political process”) provided by Richard Balme in his chapter “Regional Policy and European Governance” in Michael Keating and John Loughlin (eds), The Political Economy of Regionalism, London: Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 63–76, is restrictive in that it focuses too much on the role of political institutions and emphasizes the resolution of political conflicts rather than on the participation of a broad range of actors in policy-making and implementation.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    The importance of the implementation side of public policy is highlighted by Michael Hill and Peter Hupe in Implementing Public Policy, London: Sage, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    Social policies (i.e., the amelioration of differences between social classes) have significantly remained outside of the remit attributed to the European Commission unless these differences are territorially aggregated. This is one of the thrusts of the cohesion policy: to tackle the causes of territorial social differences in terms of regional concentrations of underdevelopment or poverty. Within the Urban Community Initiative the territorial concentration on pockets of poverty in large urban area have become a legitimate focus for policy interventions, but the objective of the policy is to alleviate the physical manifestations of poverty (e.g., derelict buildings, lack of basic services, provision of economic opportunity, vocational education, etc.) rather than to raise the consumption levels of families living in poverty through financial transfers. The nation-states have jeleously guarded their preeminence in the field of social policies which cut across class lines, such as those dealing with income transfers, pensions, community social services, health, and general education. See Maria Tofarides, The Urban Policy of the European Union, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    For an extensive discussion of multi-level governance in the European Union see Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. An interesting approach to multilevel governance in the EU is offered by the Committee of the Regions in its publication, The regional and local dimensions in establishing new forms of Governance in Europe, Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications, 2002. The Committee of Regions offers the view that the EU represents a “system of governance without government”.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    Lisbet Hooghe and Gary Marks “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance”, American Political Science Review, Volume 97, No. 2, May 2003, pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    For a discussion of the encroaching federalization of EU multi-level interactions, see Vivien A. Schmidt, “European ‘Federalism’ and its Encroachments on National Institutions”, Publius, Volume 29, No. 1, Winter 1999, pp. 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 34.
    Claudio M. Radaelli “The Europeanization of Public Policy” in K. Featherstone and C. Radealli (eds) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 35.
    See Ian Bache, The Politics of European Union Regional Policy, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998Google Scholar
  31. and Chris Rumford, European Cohesion? Contradictions in EU Integration, London: Macmillan Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    For a detailed analysis of the literature and discussions that took place during the 1980s on the impact of the Single Market see Robert Leonardi, Convergence, Cohesion and Integration in the European Union, London: Macmillan, 1995, pp. 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 37.
    See Andrew Movravcsik, The Choice for Europe, Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    For a discussion of the period between 1986 and 1992 and the role of the IMPs in preparing the ground for the cohesion policy see Robert Leonardi (ed.), The Regions and the European Community: The Regional Response to the Single Market in the Underdeveloped Areas, London: Frank Cass, 1993.Google Scholar
  35. 45.
    We would disagree with the conclusion reported by Lisbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, op. cit., 2001, pp. 105–118 that in the second cycle, 1994–1999, there was a substantial weakening of the Commission’s position in running cohesion policy vis-à-vis the resurgence of national government intervention. The justification of this position is usually based on the decline in the amount of funds allocated to Community Initiatives vis-à-vis CSF allocations. Such an argument places the emphasis on the responsibility for the management of financial resources rather than on the control of the “rules of the game” and “purse”. During the second CSF cycle those rules were tightened to give the Commission more oversight on expenditures and evaluation. Also, this argument ignores the role of Community Initiatives as experimental programmes. Once the experiment takes place and it has shown to be effective, the tendency is to bring the new approach directly into the management of the CSFs or other programmes. Such has been the case with, for example, URBAN, LEADER, and INTERREG. The source of this misunderstanding may be attributed to the inability to distinguish the designation of areas qualifying for Objective 1 and 2 which was carried out using the criteria supplied by the Commission and the areas qualifying for regional subsidies (referred in the literature as “state aids”) by the member states that was based on national criteria. Yes, the European Commission has tried in the past to coordinate these two designations, but it has not always been successful. But this lack of complete accord on state aids cannot be taken as the equivalent to the weakening of the Commission’s role in determining the selection of areas to be covered by the EU’s cohesion policy. For a detailed discussion of the Community-member state conflict over the designation of state aids areas, see F.G. Wishlade, “Achieving Cohesion in the European Community: Approaches to Area Designation”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1994, pp. 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 49.
    N. Rees, B. Quinn, and B. Connaughton, “Ireland’s Pragmatic Adaptation to Regionalisation: The Mid West Region”, Regional and Federal Studies, August 2004.Google Scholar
  37. 50.
    This is one of the radical proposals that has been inserted in the allocation of funds during the next phase of the cohesion policy. See European Commission, Inforegio, July 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert Leonardi 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Leonardi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations