2024-03-28T11:20:15Zhttp://aei.pitt.edu/cgi/oai2
oai:aei.pitt.edu:31
2011-02-15T22:14:42Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Reform of the Structural Funds after 1999. European Policy Papers #5
Begg, Iain
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
[Introduction]. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) makes it clear that cohesion is one of the fundamental principles the EU seeks to respect. Cohesion, however, is not an easy concept to pin down, although it is linked (in Article 130A of the TEU) to disparities between regions. In practice, what constitutes cohesion is a political rather than an economic judgement; disparities tolerable today may be unacceptable in five or ten years' time. The principal instruments that the EU has to advance cohesion are the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the lending effected by the European Investment Bank (EIB). Member State policies also play an important role in assuring cohesion, both by institutionalized inter-regional income transfers and by explicit programs aimed at the economic development of less-favored regions.
1997-07
Policy Paper
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/31/1/reform_of_struct_funds.pdf
Begg, Iain (1997) Reform of the Structural Funds after 1999. European Policy Papers #5. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/31/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:546
2011-02-15T22:15:43Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303138:656C6D656D706C6F796D656E74756E656D706C6F796D656E74
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Incremental Synergies or Growing Fragmentation between the Luxembourg Process and EU Cohesion Policy? EIPA Working Paper: 2002/W/1
Hartwig, Ines
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
employment/unemployment
decision making/policy-making
[Fron the Introduction]. As stated by both the Council and the European Commission, the European Union's actions concerning employment follow two main tracks: on the one hand, there is the European Employment Strategy (EES), embodied in the employment title which was incorporated into the Community Treaty at Amsterdam in 1997 and developed further at the Extraordinary European Council in Luxembourg later in the same year. On the other hand, many Community actions to assist employment are taken in the framework of the Structural Funds. However, there are quite some differences between these two instruments. Whereas for the EES there is direct and explicit link to support employment, the involvement of the Structural Funds in the EU’s support of employment is much less explicit. This is not only due to the fact that the Structural Funds are much broader in scope and not only limited to support employment. It is also due to differences between these two instruments which are more fundamental in nature. The European Employment Strategy as such - that is, the so-called "Luxembourg Process" - is one of the main fields in which the "open method of coordination" is used, based upon policy coordination and benchmarking rather than legally-binding acts. This "third way" in EU governance is used when harmonisation is unworkable but mutual recognition and the resulting regulatory competition may be too risky.
2002
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/546/1/EIPA_WorkingPaper_Dec20021.pdf
Hartwig, Ines (2002) Incremental Synergies or Growing Fragmentation between the Luxembourg Process and EU Cohesion Policy? EIPA Working Paper: 2002/W/1. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/546/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:777
2011-02-15T22:16:15Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:627564676574706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D61727469636C65
Agenda 2000: A Blueprint for Successful EU Enlargement?
Soveroski, Marie
cohesion policy
enlargement
budgets & financing
Agenda 2000
agriculture policy
[From the Introduction]. The signing of the Joint Declaration on the Establishment of Official Relations between the EEC and COMECON, in June 1988, permitted the opening up of bilateral relations between the EEC and the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs). Trade and Co-operation Agreements were signed with the CEECs, in fairly rapid succession, shortly thereafter. However, developments continued to be fast-paced and far-reaching – dramatically embodied by the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 – and many of these agreements were superseded, even before coming into force, by the Europe Agreements, which followed. The European Community, and now the European Union, has struggled to keep up with these developments, and to respond in a way that would foster the transitions taking place and further the process of European integration, while keeping in mind concerns of the Union and its Member States. In the less than ten years which followed the opening up of relations, all ten CEECs have submitted applications for EU membership. On 15 July 1997 the Commission issued Agenda 2000, which included its opinions on these applications, as well as its view on the impact of enlargement on such areas as the EU budget, economic and social cohesion, and agricultural policy. This long-awaited avis was expected to indicate how both the Union and the applicant states should prepare for, and successfully undertake, enlargement, but does it fulfil this expectation?
1998
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/777/1/scop98_1_4.pdf
Soveroski, Marie (1998) Agenda 2000: A Blueprint for Successful EU Enlargement? EIPASCOPE, 1998 (1). pp. 1-4.
http://aei.pitt.edu/777/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:813
2011-02-15T22:16:22Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D61727469636C65
Cohesion Policy in an Ever Larger Union
Bollen, Frank
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
Agenda 2000
enlargement
[Introduction]. Cohesion policy has gradually been introduced into the set of Community activities and, since the Maastricht Treaty, strengthening economic and social cohesion, has formally been defined as one of the objectives of the European Union. However, achieving this objective has also become more difficult over time as the Union expanded. The forthcoming eastward expansion of the Union further complicates the issue since it will involve a large number of relatively poor and agricultural countries.... It will be questioned whether the cohesion policy in an enlarged Union can remain an important facilitator of European integration.
1997
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/813/1/scop97_3_4.pdf
Bollen, Frank (1997) Cohesion Policy in an Ever Larger Union. EIPASCOPE, 1997 (3). pp. 1-5.
http://aei.pitt.edu/813/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:1436
2011-02-15T22:18:35Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303232
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303039
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D696D6D6967726174696F6E706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Lessons of European Integration for the Americas
Anderson, Sarah
Canavagh, John.
regional policy/structural funds
regionalism, international
cohesion policy
development
EU-Latin America
general
EU-US
immigration policy
agriculture policy
environmental policy (including international arena)
As criticism mounts in the Americas over what many perceive to be an overly narrow approach to integration, there is growing interest among political leaders and citizen groups to learn more from the most advanced regional integration project in the world: the European Union. This report draws lessons from the European experience that may be relevant for the debate over the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas in five issue areas: development funds, migration, agriculture, social and environmental standards, and public participation.
2004-02
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/msword
http://aei.pitt.edu/1436/1/Lessons_of_European_Integration_for_the_Americas.doc
text/html
http://aei.pitt.edu/1436/2/eulessons/EUlessons.pdf
Anderson, Sarah and Canavagh, John. (2004) Lessons of European Integration for the Americas. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/1436/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2238
2011-02-15T22:21:50Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365:70616666676F7665726E616E63657375626E6174696F6E616C726567696F6E616C2F7465727269746F7269616C
7375626A656374733D46:46303236
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666707569657075
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6575726F7065616E69736174696F6E6575726F7065616E697A6174696F6E6E6174696F6E616C6964656E74697479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
“Implementing Unity: Economic and Social Cohesion in France and Britain: Two Case Studies”
Carmichael, Laurence.
regional policy/structural funds
europeanisation/europeanization & European identity
cohesion policy
France
political union & integration/European Political Union
general
subnational/regional/territorial
U.K.
Territorial implementation of EU policies is a crucial stage of EU policy process. Its examination uncovers two main dimensions of the integration cycle which make the new EU governance: Europeanisation and convergence. Each dimension offers clues as to the nature and limit of integration. This paper presents two case studies in which the above approach is tested. It examines the impact of EU structural policy on two training networks in France and the UK. It evaluates the impact of ESF on politico-administrative structures and defines domestic factors preventing policy harmonisation. The conclusion outlines bottom-up dynamics, the third major dimension of integration, and argues for a development of a more integrated EU approach to training.
1999
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2238/1/002646_1.pdf
Carmichael, Laurence. (1999) “Implementing Unity: Economic and Social Cohesion in France and Britain: Two Case Studies”. In: UNSPECIFIED, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2238/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2671
2011-02-15T22:23:27Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365:70616666676F7665726E616E63657375626E6174696F6E616C726567696F6E616C2F7465727269746F7269616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Regional or local? The EU's future partners in cohesion policy"
McAleavey, Paul
Rynck, Stefan.
cohesion policy
subnational/regional/territorial
We argue that policy responses have been organised in primarily regional terms in recent years, but that a new concern for sub-regional policy responses is increasingly apparent. In taking the content of EU cohesion policy as our starting point, we find that a new focus at the micro-level is being promoted by the European Commission as a result of its policy aim to increase targeting, this in turn being viewed as a mechanism to respond more effectively to real disparities as they are currently experienced by EU citizens. By entering the debate through an analysis of the content of EU cohesion policy, we are then able to speculate on the future shape of territorial political mobilisation around this policy area and suggest an enhanced role for local-level actors.
1997
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2671/1/002779_1.PDF
McAleavey, Paul and Rynck, Stefan. (1997) "Regional or local? The EU's future partners in cohesion policy". In: UNSPECIFIED, Seattle, WA. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2671/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:3158
2011-02-15T22:25:47Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365:70616666676F7665726E616E63657375626E6174696F6E616C726567696F6E616C2F7465727269746F7269616C
7375626A656374733D46:46303236
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6575726F7065616E69736174696F6E6575726F7065616E697A6174696F6E6E6174696F6E616C6964656E74697479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Europeanization and Britain: Towards Multi-Level Governance?"
Bache, Ian.
governance: EU & national level
U.K.
europeanisation/europeanization & European identity
cohesion policy
subnational/regional/territorial
[From the Introduction]. This paper explores the relationship between Europeanization and multi-level governance. In particular, it assesses the extent to which Europeanization has promoted multi-level governance within Britain. In doing so, the paper draws on contributions to a UACES study group and ESRC seminar series on The Europeanization of British Politics and Policy-Making. This project focuses on Europeanization in relation to the dimensions of polity, politics and policy and addresses a range of questions relating to the domestic effects of EU membership (Bache and Jordan, forthcoming). However, this paper focuses on the specific issue of multi-level governance and draws on just three of the contributions to the project, in addition to the author’s own research and other materials. In each of these cases, the domestic effect of EU cohesion policy is prominent... The paper proceeds in the following way. The next two sections, on Europeanization and multi-level governance, set the conceptual context. The fourth section briefly outlines EU cohesion policy, which is a key aspect of the case studies. The fifth section considers the findings on this topic from the study group discussed above, along with other research. The paper concludes by reflecting on the Europeanization effects on multi-level governance in Britain.
2005
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
text/plain
http://aei.pitt.edu/3158/1/Bache.txt
application/msword
http://aei.pitt.edu/3158/2/Bache.doc
Bache, Ian. (2005) "Europeanization and Britain: Towards Multi-Level Governance?". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/3158/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:3182
2011-02-15T22:25:50Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303331
7375626A656374733D46:46303330
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303035
7375626A656374733D46:46303039
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Competitiveness Strategies, Resource Struggles and National Interest In the New Europe"
Ellison, David L.
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
Cyprus
EU-Central and Eastern Europe
Malta
Hungary
The New Member States face considerable challenges as members of the New Europe. This paper analyzes the economic development interests of these countries both in the context of their pre-membership strategies and of the evolving EU policy framework. While previous strategies involved the extensive use of investment promotion schemes and innovative forms of corporate taxation, EU membership constrains these practices in significant ways. Based primarily on the case of Hungary, this paper questions the advantages of EU membership for these states and further questions the ability of the EU policy framework to appropriately address their development needs. In many respects, the advantages of the enlargement appear better suited to appease Western interests in reducing the degree of competition over resources. As such, this paper predicts a persistent division of interests in the New Europe along what one might call a developmental divide, with less advanced states promoting more interventionist strategies and advanced states ultimately promoting a re-nationalization of EU redistributional spending.
2005
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/3182/1/Competition_in_the_New_Europe_EUSA_2005.pdf
Ellison, David L. (2005) "Competitiveness Strategies, Resource Struggles and National Interest In the New Europe". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/3182/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:5931
2011-02-15T22:39:30Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:4167656E646132303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D61727469636C65
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
Hartwig, Ines.
cohesion policy
enlargement
Agenda 2007
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.
2004
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/5931/1/Scop04_2_1(2).pdf
Hartwig, Ines. (2004) Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution? EIPAScope, 2004 (2). pp. 3-8.
http://aei.pitt.edu/5931/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:5932
2011-02-15T22:39:30Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D61727469636C65
State Aid: Is Cohesion at the National Level Successful?
Nicolaides, Phedon
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
The entry of ten new countries in the EU has raised a number of questions about the type cohesion policies that the EU will need in the future and the kind of regional state aid that the EU should allow Member States to grant in the future. This paper examines the impact of regional state aid on regional disparities. It finds that the effect of state aid on regional cohesion is ambiguous, partly because state aid is not proportionally granted to the most needy regions. In the context of the forthcoming debate on reform of structural funds and regional policy it follows that Member States should limit the geographic coverage of regional aid and should take into account the possible negative effects of other types of state aid on regional development or cohesion.
2004
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/5932/1/Scop04_2_2(2).pdf
Nicolaides, Phedon (2004) State Aid: Is Cohesion at the National Level Successful? EIPAScope, 2004 (2). pp. 9-19.
http://aei.pitt.edu/5932/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:6386
2016-01-30T17:42:36Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D61727469636C65
Cohésion économique et sociale: rêve ou nécessité communautaire? = Economic and social cohesion: dream or community necessity? EIPAScope 1992(3):pp. 14-18
Ibañez, Alberto Gil.
cohesion policy
general
Not available.
1992
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/6386/1/Scop92_3_3.pdf
Ibañez, Alberto Gil. (1992) Cohésion économique et sociale: rêve ou nécessité communautaire? = Economic and social cohesion: dream or community necessity? EIPAScope 1992(3):pp. 14-18. pp. 14-18.
http://aei.pitt.edu/6386/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7101
2011-02-15T22:46:21Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:656661454D55454D536575726F
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The emergent European market and economic and social cohesion"
Begg, Iain.
cohesion policy
EMU/EMS/euro
There is a growing recognition that even though an acceleration of economic integration in the EC will yield overall gains for the Community economy, there are bound to be losers as well as winners. Regional disparities in income and unemployment are substantial in the EC (and more pronounced than in the US), and may be exacerbated by economic and monetary union. This paper assesses the problems the EC will face in meeting the commitment to promote 'economic and social cohesion' set out as a fundamental principle in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. It analyses the likely impact of EMU on cohesion and considers the policy implications and options.
1993
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7101/1/002146_1.PDF
Begg, Iain. (1993) "The emergent European market and economic and social cohesion". In: UNSPECIFIED, Washington, DC. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7101/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7108
2011-02-15T22:46:24Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4430303349474331393931
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:656661454D55454D536575726F
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666707569657075
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The implications of economic and social cohesion on the Community's institutional architecture after the creation of the single market: the role of transregional networks"
Leonardi, Robert.
IGC 1991
cohesion policy
political union & integration/European Political Union
EMU/EMS/euro
[From the Introduction]. During the last three decades, students of the European Community have become familiar with one of the axioms of the social sciences: the interrelationship between politics and economics. Social science has historically acknowledged that economic changes do have an impact on political institution, and economists do study the economic impacts of political institutions (Norton, 1991). However, Political Scientists have been reluctant to openly acknowledge that the current move toward the creation of a single market after December 31, 1992 might have a significant impact on the institutional architecture of the European Community as suggested by the topics being discussed in the two intergovernmental conferences (IGCs) of 1991: economic and monetary union and political reform. The theoretical assumption made by the organizers of the IGCs is that: attempts to change markets and the structures and rules of economic interaction will have an impact on institutions; or even more forcefully, it is argued by some in the European Parliament and Commission that for real changes to be made in the management of a larger market the Community needs to create new political institutions or significantly strengthen the existing ones that provide a democratic base to the legislative process (PE 148.864/fin). We are not suggesting that economics causes politics, but the two are intimately connected as was well illustrated by the repercussions of the Single European Act which in one stroke completely changed the dynamic of European integration.
1991
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7108/1/002155_1.pdf
Leonardi, Robert. (1991) "The implications of economic and social cohesion on the Community's institutional architecture after the creation of the single market: the role of transregional networks". In: UNSPECIFIED, Fairfax, Virginia. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7108/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7256
2011-02-15T22:47:13Z
7374617475733D696E7072657373
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303439
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:65666167656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D45:494C4F
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303035
7375626A656374733D45:45303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303138:656C6D656D706C6F796D656E74756E656D706C6F796D656E74
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303034
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D45:45303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D696D6D6967726174696F6E706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D70726F63656564696E6773
Europe: Space of Freedom and Security. MIGRATION AND MOBILITY: ASSETS AND CHALLENGES FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Proceedings of the international colloquium to celebrate Europe Day, held on 4–5 May 2006 in Timisoara, Romania
OECD
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
regionalism, international
development
EU-Central and Eastern Europe
employment/unemployment
general
founding Treaties
immigration policy
ILO
Council of Europe
UN
education policy/vocational training
general
The Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence and the School of High Comparative European Studies (SISEC), both within the West University of Timisoara, Romania, jointly proposed the launching of the scientific debate on the migration and mobility within the Romanian universities, the academic life and among the policies and decision makers in Romania. The International Colloquium "Migration and Mobility: Assets and Challenges for the Enlargement of the European Union" proposed for 4-5 of May 2006 was part of the SISEC bi-annual project EUROPE: SPACE OF FREEDOM AND SECURITY, dedicated to study of European Affairs, with focus on migration and mobility, in the framework of the European Year of Workers’ Mobility 2006. We invited both renowned experts on migration and mobility, and PhD students interested in this respect. The countries with researchers invited to be part in this event were: Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, India, Italy, Kosovo, Moldova, Romania, The Netherlands and the United States of America.
Editura Universitatii de Vest
Silasi, Grigore
Simina, Ovidiu Laurian.
2006
Conference Proceedings
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7256/1/SISEC_2006_Brosura.pdf
UNSPECIFIED (2006) Europe: Space of Freedom and Security. MIGRATION AND MOBILITY: ASSETS AND CHALLENGES FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Proceedings of the international colloquium to celebrate Europe Day, held on 4–5 May 2006 in Timisoara, Romania. [Conference Proceedings] (In Press)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7256/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8114
2011-02-15T22:52:12Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303233
7375626A656374733D46:46303138
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Spain and Portugal: Is Regional and National Inequality Increasing? Working Paper Series, Vol. 3 No. 11, December 2003
Gomis-Porqueras, Pere
Garcilazo, Enrique.
Portugal
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
Spain
There has been a long standing tradition within Europe that has been driven by political and economic considerations to reduce inequality and achieve convergence within Member States. To implement the “structural adjustment polices”, the attention of the Community officials has been devoted to a relatively small number of “development indicators”: (i) transportation, telecommunication and water supply, (ii) highly qualified labor force and high school attendance rate, (iii) the financial system and (iv) research and development activities. (2) The objective of this paper is to determine the effectiveness of the assistance funds in reducing economic inequality in the Iberian Peninsula. More specifically, to empirically capture how different regions in Spain and Portugal have been affected by the Structural and Cohesion Funds within the industrial and labor market context. This study will attempt to answer the following questions: (i) have these funds reduced economic disparities among and within the different regions of the Iberian Peninsula? and (ii) what sectors of the economy in the Iberian Peninsula have benefited the most? The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 summarizes the findings on the importance of the structural funds on economic convergence. Section 3 describes the empirical approach that was employed in this paper as well as the findings. Section 4 discusses the challenges that the Commission faces when allocating the funds and section 5 offers some potential solutions to these problems. Finally, section 6 offers some conclusions.
2003-12
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8114/1/gomis.pdf
Gomis-Porqueras, Pere and Garcilazo, Enrique. (2003) EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Spain and Portugal: Is Regional and National Inequality Increasing? Working Paper Series, Vol. 3 No. 11, December 2003. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8114/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8320
2011-02-15T22:53:20Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:627564676574706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Is Structural Spending on a Solid Foundation? Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/02, February 2008
Santos, Indhira.
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
budgets & financing
Summary. The European Union’s budget review, launched last year, is an opportunity critically to examine EU policies and instruments. Structural Funds are at the heart of the EU cohesion effort, and absorb almost one third of the EU’s budget. Their declared aims are economic growth and regional convergence, but these goals do not always complement each other. Allocation of Structural Funds is not efficient from a pure growth standpoint and, although with enlargement cross-country transfers have increased significantly, on average almost twice as much redistribution still occurs within regions as opposed to between regions.
2008-02
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8320/1/pb2008%2D02.pdf
Santos, Indhira. (2008) Is Structural Spending on a Solid Foundation? Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/02, February 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8320/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11021
2011-02-15T23:12:09Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
The 2007-2013 European Cohesion Policy. A New Strategic Approach by the Commission? ZEI Discussion Paper. No. 190, 2008
Schröder, Sonja.
cohesion policy
European Commission
[From the Introduction]. ...this paper takes a closer look at the content of the new framework programme, trying to find out whether the European Commission has adopted a new strategic approach compared to the previous period. Since most of the literature devoted to this subject is restricted to a mere description of new features, this paper goes one step further trying to shed light on the reasons explaining the attempt of the Commission to keep some elements while changing others. Besides, special attention is given to the situation after eastward enlargment in 2004. In order to address these issues, the paper starts by outlining its main research questions and methodological framework, while also presenting some background information on EU cohesion policy. In the following chapters, the four main principles concentration, programming, additionality and partnership are examined for the periods 2000-06 and 2007-13 as described below. Finally, some concluding remarks will bring the paper to a close.
2008
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11021/1/dp_c190_Schroeder.pdf
Schröder, Sonja. (2008) The 2007-2013 European Cohesion Policy. A New Strategic Approach by the Commission? ZEI Discussion Paper. No. 190, 2008. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11021/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11071
2011-02-15T23:12:29Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:643030314C6973626F6E6167656E6461
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D61727469636C65
Matching the Also Assessment Model with the New European Territorial Cooperation Objective 2007-2013
Heichlinger, Alexander
Comellas, Núria Suero.
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
Lisbon StrategyAgenda/Partnership for Growth and Employment
No abstract.
2007-02
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11071/1/20071106124124_alhSCOPE2007%2D2_internet%2D6.pdf
Heichlinger, Alexander and Comellas, Núria Suero. (2007) Matching the Also Assessment Model with the New European Territorial Cooperation Objective 2007-2013. EIPAScope, 2007 (2). pp. 1-7.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11071/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11073
2015-04-02T21:59:31Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:627564676574706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:643030314C6973626F6E6167656E6461
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
La Politica di Coesione dell’Unione Europea: tendenze ad una ri-nazionalizzazione nei negoziati per il 2007-2013. = The Cohesion Policy of the European Union: trends in a re-nationalization in the negotiations for 2007-2013. JMWP No. 60.06, 2006
Scavo, Andrea.
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
Lisbon StrategyAgenda/Partnership for Growth and Employment
budgets & financing
No abstract.
2006-07
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11073/1/jmwp60.pdf
Scavo, Andrea. (2006) La Politica di Coesione dell’Unione Europea: tendenze ad una ri-nazionalizzazione nei negoziati per il 2007-2013. = The Cohesion Policy of the European Union: trends in a re-nationalization in the negotiations for 2007-2013. JMWP No. 60.06, 2006. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11073/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11173
2011-02-15T23:13:07Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:627564676574706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
EU cohesion policy - some fundamental questions. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2009/07, May 2009
Santos, Indhira.
cohesion policy
budgets & financing
Indhira Santos analyses the impact of the European Union’s cohesion policy both in terms of economic efficiency and redistribution to needy areas of the EU. She illustrates with data the confusion created by the multiple objectives of current EU cohesion policy and by the political horse-trading over levels of aid granted to different member states and regions. Finally, she shows how a significant part of EU structural funds involves – in net economic terms – simply transferring funds between individuals within one and the same region.
2009-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11173/1/pc_cohesion_policy_300509.pdf
Santos, Indhira. (2009) EU cohesion policy - some fundamental questions. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2009/07, May 2009. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11173/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11926
2011-02-15T23:17:20Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303232
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D626F6F6B
La cohesión social en el marco del diálogo político Unión Europea-América Latina: visiones y perspectivas desde Europa. = Social cohesion in the political dialogue EU-Latin America: Visions and Perspectives from Europe
Sanahuja, José Antonio José Antonio
cohesion policy
EU-Latin America
general
José Antonio Sanahuja
José Antonio Sanahuja, José Antonio José Antonio
2009
Book
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11926/1/BID%2DCE_Sanahuja.pdf
Sanahuja, José Antonio José Antonio (2009) La cohesión social en el marco del diálogo político Unión Europea-América Latina: visiones y perspectivas desde Europa. = Social cohesion in the political dialogue EU-Latin America: Visions and Perspectives from Europe. José Antonio Sanahuja, pp. 65-100.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11926/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:13689
2011-02-15T23:28:36Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Dalla politica sociale europea alla politica europea di coesione economica e sociale. Considerazioni critiche sugli sviluppi del modello sociale europeo nella stagione del metodo aperto di coordinamento. = European social policy and European economic and social cohesion. Critical considerations on the development of a European social model in the era of the open method of coordination. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 51/2007
Ales, Edoardo.
cohesion policy
general
decision making/policy-making
No abstract.
2007
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/13689/1/ales_n51%2D2007int.pdf
Ales, Edoardo. (2007) Dalla politica sociale europea alla politica europea di coesione economica e sociale. Considerazioni critiche sugli sviluppi del modello sociale europeo nella stagione del metodo aperto di coordinamento. = European social policy and European economic and social cohesion. Critical considerations on the development of a European social model in the era of the open method of coordination. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 51/2007. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/13689/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15764
2018-02-12T16:10:26Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
A European fund for economic revival in crisis countries. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2011/01, February 2011
Marzinotto, Benedicta.
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
This Policy Contribution by Benedicta Marzinotto looks at the large amounts of usable Structural and Cohesion Funds available in some EU countries, and suggests that given that the Southern part of the euro area is struggling and badly needs policy instruments for economic revival, these funds should be put to good use within the framework of a temporary 2011-2013 European Fund for Economic Revival (EFER).
2011-02
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15764/1/110207_BM_A_European_fund_for_economic_revival_in_crisis_countries.pdf
http://www.bruegel.org/publications/show/category/policy-contributions.html
Marzinotto, Benedicta. (2011) A European fund for economic revival in crisis countries. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2011/01, February 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15764/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:29758
2011-02-23T15:24:48Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D61727469636C65
The response of cohesion policy to the economic crisis.
Smail., Robin
cohesion policy
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
The global economic crisis has had a major impact on the economies of EU Member States and
on the livelihoods of millions of households. GDP has declined, many businesses are struggling,
unemployment has risen sharply. The EU responded with the European Economic Recovery Plan,
which encouraged Member States to provide a fiscal stimulus to their economies. As a result of
this, the bail-out of the banks, and the impact of the recession, public sector budget deficits and
public debt levels have risen dramatically. Cohesion Policy – designed to help the disadvantaged
regions and communities of the EU – has made an important contribution to the Recovery Plan.
A range of measures has been taken through a series of amending regulations. The objective has
been to simplify and clarify the Structural Fund regulations, to protect project implementation
and to accelerate spending on the ground. Cohesion Policy has shown itself to be responsive and
flexible. Unlike so many areas of public expenditure, it focuses on investment and is designed to
provide a positive socio-economic return for communities and economies.
2010
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/29758/1/20101022102008_Eipascope_2010_2_Article4.pdf
http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/20101022102008_Eipascope_2010_2_Article4.pdf
Smail., Robin (2010) The response of cohesion policy to the economic crisis. EIPAScope, 2010 (2). ISSN 1025-6253
http://aei.pitt.edu/29758/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33457
2019-12-10T21:29:23Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Explaining the EU's Policy Portfolio: Applying a Federal Integration Approach to EU Cohesion Policy. Bruges Political Research Paper No. 20, December 2011
Buonanno, Laurie
Nugent, Neill
cohesion policy
This paper engages with the debate about why the nature of the EU's policy portfolio is as it is. It does so by taking cohesion policy and asking the question, why has it come to occupy so important a position in the EU‟s policy portfolio? It is argued that the two most common conceptually-based approaches applied to cohesion policy – intergovernmentalism and multilevel governance – do not adequately explain either the timing or the dynamic of cohesion policy. A model that combines economic integration approaches and federal approaches is developed in the paper to provide a basis for a new explanatory framework for the prominent position of cohesion in the portfolio. We suggest that our approach – which we call a federal integration approach – has the potential to be applied to other policy areas.
2011-12
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33457/1/wp20_Nugent.pdf
http://www.coleurop.be/file/content/studyprogrammes/pol/docs/wp20%20Nugent.pdf
Buonanno, Laurie and Nugent, Neill (2011) Explaining the EU's Policy Portfolio: Applying a Federal Integration Approach to EU Cohesion Policy. Bruges Political Research Paper No. 20, December 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/33457/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:37020
2012-10-22T14:23:35Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The growth effects of EU cohesion policy: a meta-analysis. Bruegel Working Paper 2012/14, October 2012
Marzinotto, Benedicta.
cohesion policy
We run a standard income convergence analysis for the last decade and confirm an already established finding in the growth economics literature. EU countries are converging. Regions in Europe are also converging. But, within countries, regional disparities are on the rise.
At the same time, there is probably no reason for EU Cohesion Policy to be concerned with what happens inside countries. Ultimately, our data shows that national governments redistribute well across regions, whether they are fiscally centralised or decentralised.
It is difficult to establish if Structural and Cohesion Funds play any role in recent growth convergence patterns in Europe. Generally, macroeconomic simulations produce better results than empirical tests. It is thus possible that Structural Funds do not fully realise their potential either because they are not efficiently allocated or are badly managed or are used for the wrong investments, or a combination of all three.
The approach to assess the effectiveness of EU funds should be consistent with the rationale behind the post-1988 EU Cohesion Policy. Standard income convergence analysis is certainly not sufficient and should be accompanied by an assessment of the changes in the efficiency of the capital stock in the recipient countries or regions as well as by a more qualitative assessment.
EU funds for competitiveness and employment should be allocated by looking at each region’s capital efficiency to maximise growth generating effects or on a pure competitive.
2012-10
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/37020/1/The_growth_effects_of_EU_cohesion_policy__a_meta%2Danalysis_(English).pdf
http://www.bruegel.org/publications/publication-detail/publication/754-the-growth-effects-of-eu-cohesion-policy-a-meta-analysis/
Marzinotto, Benedicta. (2012) The growth effects of EU cohesion policy: a meta-analysis. Bruegel Working Paper 2012/14, October 2012. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/37020/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:58259
2018-01-02T19:49:31Z
oai:aei.pitt.edu:58409
2014-12-15T21:24:04Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303231
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D6F74686572
Struggling with an Opportunity: The first 10 years with the EU for Central Europe and the Baltics - A few lessons. CEPS Essay No. 12, 2 May 2014
Mizsei, Kálmán
Kullmann, Ádám
cohesion policy
regional policy/structural funds
EU-Central and Eastern Europe
EU-Baltics
In 2004, ten new members joined the European Union, radically reshaping its geography and governance characteristics. Earlier expectations predicted a more gradual process of accession – like a more gradual earlier evolution had been expected for the new European currency that had been adopted in 1999 by no less than 11 members. But these were the times of euro-enthusiasm.
In their new CEPS Essay, Kálmán Mizsei and Ádám Kullmann offer some interesting and instructive insights from the experience in the newest member states following their accession 10 years ago for improving the effectiveness with which the EU structural and cohesion funds are spent.
2014-05
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/58409/1/Essay_No_12_NMS_at_10.pdf
http://www.ceps.eu/book/struggling-opportunity-first-10-years-eu-central-europe-and-baltics
Mizsei, Kálmán and Kullmann, Ádám (2014) Struggling with an Opportunity: The first 10 years with the EU for Central Europe and the Baltics - A few lessons. CEPS Essay No. 12, 2 May 2014. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/58409/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:63518
2015-04-23T15:06:19Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Linking Cohesion Policy to European Economic Governance: an Idea Up for Improvement. European Policy Brief No. 3, September 2011
Verhelst, Stijn
cohesion policy
economic and financial affairs
The idea of linking cohesion policy to EU economic governance has received the support of several EU institutions. The nature of such link is still to be agreed upon and is likely to lead to intense discussions. This Policy Brief argues that while the Commission’s envisaged proposal has its merits, it would nevertheless result in a partial and inconsistent link between the cohesion policy and EU economic governance. A more flexible and coherent approach is proposed.
2011-09
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/63518/1/EPB3.pdf
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/publication_article/linking-cohesion-policy-to-european-economic-governance-an-idea-up-for-improvement/
Verhelst, Stijn (2011) Linking Cohesion Policy to European Economic Governance: an Idea Up for Improvement. European Policy Brief No. 3, September 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/63518/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:63536
2015-04-23T16:07:33Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Macroeconomic Conditionality in Cohesion Policy: Added Value or Unnecessary Burden? European Policy Brief No. 13, November 2012
Tokarski, Paweł
Verhelst, Stijn
cohesion policy
Macroeconomic conditionality has become one of the major elements in discussions on the future of EU cohesion policy. Such conditional-ity would make the cohesion budget dependent on EU economic governance rules. This would have advantages for economic governance and, to a lesser extent, the efficiency of cohesion policy and the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations. Yet, conditionality also risks entailing serious disadvantages for the end beneficiaries and cohesion policy itself. If the EU decides to put macroeconomic conditionality in place, it needs to reconsider the design and agree on an ample cohesion budget.
2012-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/63536/1/EPB13.pdf
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/publication_article/macroeconomic-conditionality-in-cohesion-policy-added-value-or-unnecessary-burden/
Tokarski, Paweł and Verhelst, Stijn (2012) Macroeconomic Conditionality in Cohesion Policy: Added Value or Unnecessary Burden? European Policy Brief No. 13, November 2012. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/63536/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:63609
2015-04-23T15:40:43Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The History and Challenges of Cohesion Policies. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 14 No. 2, February 2014
Dudek, Carolyn Marie
cohesion policy
regional policy/structural funds
From Introduction.
Regional economic disequilibria was viewed as both an obstacle to and result of integration (European Commission 1965; European Commission 1962; European Commission 1969). Even within the Treaty of Rome, the Community tried to establish mechanisms to alleviate regional inequality. However, it was not until 1975 that the main mechanism of regional policy was established as a result of British and Irish enlargement: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Since then, cohesion policy has become a significant EU expenditure accounting for €347bn, or 35.7% of the total EU budget for 2007-13(European Commission Regional Policy-Info Regio 2012). It has also become a key policy linked to enlargement.
The underlying principle of cohesion policy assumes that the market alone cannot solve development problems and therefore government intervention is needed. This notion is in direct contrast to the underlying principle of EU competition policy, which asserts that the free market can solve economic development problems (Meadows, interview by author, 2003). The logic underlying cohesion policy is not only counter to EU competition policy, but also regulatory policies. Unlike other EU policies, cohesion policy is not a sectoral policy, but rather territorial in nature (Leonardi, 2006). Thus at times EU regulatory policy has also unintentionally worked counter to the goals of regional policy, sometimes disadvantaging poorer regions (Dudek, 2005).
As the Community has sought to ameliorate regional disparities, it meant that all levels of government: local, regional, national and supranational would need to be involved, however, member states have different territorial governance and European regional development programs have to varying degrees impacted the relationship and policy responsibility of different levels of government (Leonardi, 2006; Bachtler and Michie 1993; Marks, 1993). The very nature of regional development policy has provoked a re-examination of subsidiarity, or which level of government is the lowest and most appropriate level. The discussion of policy formulation and implementation at the lowest level possible also addresses the issue of the democratic deficit. Some argue that the closer government is to the people the more responsive and representative it is. Democracy, however, also implies that public funds are used in a transparent way and for public rather than private good. Yet, as we examine the history and current situation of EU regional funds we find that corruption and misuse still abound. Thus, to understand the history of regional policy it is imperative to look at the major transformations of the policy, how regional policy has impacted subsidiarity and the quality of democracy, become an important instrument of enlargement and contradicted or conflicted with other EU policies.
2014-02
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/63609/1/Dudek_Cohesion_Policy.pdf
http://www.as.miami.edu/eucenter/publications/papers/
Dudek, Carolyn Marie (2014) The History and Challenges of Cohesion Policies. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 14 No. 2, February 2014. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/63609/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:87680
2018-09-24T18:18:49Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303233
7375626A656374733D46:46303038
7375626A656374733D46:46303138
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Lessons from 20 Years of Cohesion. ESRI WP159. September 2004
Fitz Gerald, John
cohesion policy
Greece
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Over the last twenty years the four poorest states in the EU 15 have experienced very significant benefits as a consequence of their membership of the EU. Ireland became a member of the then EEC as early as 1973, whereas Greece became a member in 1980 and Spain and Portugal in the middle of the 1980s. These four “cohesion” states have pursued rather different policies over the past twenty years and have undergone rather different experiences of integration into the EU economy. For three of the four countries the last twenty years have seen a significant convergence in living standards towards the EU average. For Ireland the period of convergence in the 1990s was quite dramatic in terms of its speed. However, the progress in Spain and Portugal was also notable over the same period. It is only in the case of Greece that the progress has been less marked over the same period.
2004
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/87680/1/WP159.pdf
Fitz Gerald, John (2004) Lessons from 20 Years of Cohesion. ESRI WP159. September 2004. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/87680/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:87763
2017-05-31T13:57:59Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Achieving social triple A: What role for EU cohesion policy1? EPC Policy Brief, 31 May 2017
Dhéret, Claire
cohesion policy
Cohesion policy is considered to be one of the EU’s key instruments to strive for inclusive growth. At the same time, the impact of the economic crisis and years of austerity have put the social dimension of EU policy back on the agenda. The 2015 Five Presidents’ Report called for a ‘social triple A for Europe’, while the Commission recently presented the European Pillar of Social Rights, aiming to “serve as a compass for the renewed convergence within the euro area”. With the discussions on the EU budget and cohesion policy on the way, it is now high time to consider whether EU cohesion policy has the right tools to be a driver for social progress and deliver on the EU’s social objectives. In this Policy Brief, Claire Dhéret highlights the limitations of cohesion policy’s current functioning in addressing the new geographical divides emerging across the EU and argues that more prominence needs to be put on qualitative and human capital investment in the future. To that end, cohesion policy post 2020 will require some fundamental policy-readjustments, which also need to be embedded in a strong governance framework.
2017-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/87763/1/pub_7715_achievingsocialtriplea.pdf
http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=3&pub_id=7715
Dhéret, Claire (2017) Achieving social triple A: What role for EU cohesion policy1? EPC Policy Brief, 31 May 2017. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/87763/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:88469
2017-08-21T19:22:27Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303238
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
Social Costs of the Inefficient Management of the EU Funds for Bulgaria
Nozharov, Shteryo
cohesion policy
regional policy/structural funds
Bulgaria
The study identifies and defines the social costs of the inefficient management of EU funds for Bulgaria. It is analyzed the last due programme period (2007-2015) and its prolongation. As methodology of the research the V4 BM model of Al-Debei and Avison (2010) which has not been used for analysis of EU funds management for cohesion policy in the public sector, is applied. In this way its potential for application in this field is tested. The concept of the study could be successfully used for analysis of the social costs of inefficient management of EU funds in other member-states.
2016
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/88469/1/SSRN%2Did2999382.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2999382
Nozharov, Shteryo (2016) Social Costs of the Inefficient Management of the EU Funds for Bulgaria. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/88469/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:88844
2017-08-22T13:52:28Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Smart specialisation: championing the EU’s economic growth and investment agenda? EPC Commentary, 20 July 2017
Hunter, Alison
cohesion policy
Introduced as an ex ante conditionality in the 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy, Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) require regions to develop smart priorities and direct investment efforts towards growth-oriented innovation. In the space of only four years, S3 has become widely regarded as a success story across the Cohesion Policy community, as a place-based driver of EU competitiveness. For some regions, it has offered scope to deepen existing practices. For others, S3 has introduced new approaches to achieving innovation-oriented growth. There is, however, quite some distance to cover if S3 is to accelerate its support role in delivering EU growth and investment. This would require redefining the role of S3 and re-positioning this in the post-2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF).
2017-07
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/88844/1/pub_7861_smartspecialisation.pdf
http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7861
Hunter, Alison (2017) Smart specialisation: championing the EU’s economic growth and investment agenda? EPC Commentary, 20 July 2017. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/88844/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:91832
2018-01-02T18:54:19Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D6F74686572
Can the EU structural funds reconcile growth, solidarity and stability objectives? A study on the role of conditionalities in spurring structural reforms
and reducing macroeconomic imbalances. EPC Issue Paper
No. 83, October 2017
Huguenot-Noël , Robin
Hunter, Alison
Zuleeg, Fabian
cohesion policy
regional policy/structural funds
The European Union (EU) is facing all-encompassing challenges that have the potential to undermine
the future development of the EU project. They include migration, security, rising Euroscepticism or
the fight against climate change. Each of them carry both significant financial and political implications.
To address these challenges, a growing number of voices call for a realignment of budget priorities at
the European level. Ahead of the upcoming negotiations on the post-2020 Multiannual Financial
Framework (MFF), some are calling for a reduction of the share of Cohesion Policy and other
‘traditional’ policies (such as the Common Agricultural Policy) in the EU’s funding strategy.
Furthermore, 27 member states need to prepare for the implications of Brexit on the EU budget in a
context of heightened pressure for fiscal consolidation.1
2017-10
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/91832/1/pub_7998_cohesionpolicyissuepaper.pdf
http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=2&pub_id=7998
Huguenot-Noël , Robin and Hunter, Alison and Zuleeg, Fabian (2017) Can the EU structural funds reconcile growth, solidarity and stability objectives? A study on the role of conditionalities in spurring structural reforms and reducing macroeconomic imbalances. EPC Issue Paper No. 83, October 2017. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/91832/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:93663
2018-04-18T16:13:34Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
The EU Cohesion policy in context: regional
growth and the influence of agricultural and
rural development policies. LEQS Discussion Paper No. 85/2014 December 2014
Crescenzi, Riccardo
Giua, Mara
agriculture policy
cohesion policy
This paper looks at the Cohesion Policy of the European Union (EU) and investigates how the
EU agricultural and rural development policies shape its influence on regional growth. The
analysis of the drivers of regional growth shows that the EU Regional Policy has a positive
and significant influence on economic growth in all regions. However, its impact is stronger
in the most socio-economically advanced areas and is maximised when its expenditure is
complemented by Rural Development and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds. The
top-down funding of the CAP seems to be able to concentrate some benefits in the most
deprived areas. Conversely only the most dynamics rural areas are capable of leveraging on
the bottom-up measures of the EU Rural Development Policy. This suggests that EU policy
makers in all fields should constantly look for the best mix of bottom-up and top-down
measures in order to tackle structural disadvantage.
2014-12
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/93663/1/LEQSPaper85.pdf
http://www.lse.ac.uk/european-institute/research/leqs-discussion-paper-series/papers
Crescenzi, Riccardo and Giua, Mara (2014) The EU Cohesion policy in context: regional growth and the influence of agricultural and rural development policies. LEQS Discussion Paper No. 85/2014 December 2014. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/93663/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:100995
2019-12-03T20:42:57Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
How to improve European
Union cohesion policy for
the next decade. Policy Contribution
Issue n˚8 | May 2019. Bruegel
Darvas, Zsolt
Mazza, Jan
Midoes, Catarina
cohesion policy
The academic literature on the effectiveness of the European Union’s cohesion policy
is inconclusive: some studies find positive long-term impacts, others find positive but only
short-term impacts, while others find no or even negative impacts. This range of results arises
from major complicating factors, related to complex local environments, the diversity of
policy interventions beyond cohesion policy, varying time frames, cross-regional spillover
effects, lack of appropriate data for the analysis and various econometric problems and
related estimation biases.
We adopted a novel methodology that first estimated ‘unexplained economic growth’
by controlling for the influence of various region-specific factors, and then analysed its
relationship with about two dozen characteristics specific to projects carried out in various
regions in the context of EU cohesion policy. We found that the best-performing regions have
on average projects with longer durations, fewer priorities, more inter-regional focus, lower
national co-financing, more national (as opposed to regional and local) management, a
higher proportion of private or non-profit participants among the beneficiaries (as opposed
to public-sector beneficiaries) and a higher level of funding from the Cohesion Fund. No clear
patterns emerged concerning the sector of intervention.
Interviews with stakeholders suggested that cohesion policy is the most evaluated of
all EU policies and generates European value added. In some countries, local stakeholders
have different attitudes towards cohesion and national funds, which sometimes leads to
less-careful management of EU funds. The Performance Framework is seen as creating an
additional layer of administrative burden, without a clear connection to results or the quality
of interventions. Beyond the crucial role of administrative capacity and institutional quality,
there are no clear-cut characteristics that contribute to the success of cohesion programmes.
Cohesion policy reform should focus on addressing the underlying problems,
involving more strategic planning, fostering simplification but with stricter controls when
the corruption risk is high, increasing the interregional focus and exploring synergies with
other EU and national programmes. Focused and longer-term strategic programmes do not
require high levels of flexibility. The national co-financing rate should be set on the basis of
fiscal constraints, the additionality principle and corruption risk. The importance of a locally led perspective should be reconciled with our finding that centralised management works
better. Thematic concentration along with fewer EU goals is well justified for more-developed
regions, but not for less-developed regions. A strengthened link with the European Semester
should be avoided. Transparency over data, design and implementation of projects should be
increased.
2019-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/100995/1/WP%2D2019%2D07.pdf
https://bruegel.org/2019/05/how-to-improve-european-union-cohesion-policy-for-the-next-decade/
Darvas, Zsolt and Mazza, Jan and Midoes, Catarina (2019) How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the next decade. Policy Contribution Issue n˚8 | May 2019. Bruegel. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/100995/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:102402
2020-03-20T17:02:12Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303236
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
An assessment of EU Cohesion Policy in the
UK regions: direct effects and the dividend of
targeting. LEQS Discussion Paper No. 135/2018
June 2018
Di Cataldo, Marco
Monastiriotis, Vassilis
cohesion policy
regional policy/structural funds
U.K.
With the prospective exit of the UK from the European Union, a crucial question is whether EU
Structural Funds have been beneficial for the country and which aspects of Cohesion Policy should
be maintained if EU funds are to be replaced. This paper addresses this question through a twofold
investigation, assessing not only whether but also how EU funds have contributed to regional growth
in the UK over three programming periods from 1994 to 2013. We document a significant and robust
effect of Cohesion Policy in the UK, with higher proportions of Structural Funds associated to higher
economic growth both on the whole and particularly in the less developed regions of the country. In
addition, we show that the strategic orientation of investments also plays a distinct role for regional
growth. While concentration of investments on specific pillars seems to have no direct growth effects,
unless regions can rely on pre-existing competitive advantages in key development areas, we unveil
clear evidence that targeting investments on specific areas of relative regional need has a significant
and autonomous effect on growth. These findings have important implications for the design of
regional policy interventions in Britain after Brexit.
2018-06
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/102402/1/LEQSPaper135.pdf
Di Cataldo, Marco and Monastiriotis, Vassilis (2018) An assessment of EU Cohesion Policy in the UK regions: direct effects and the dividend of targeting. LEQS Discussion Paper No. 135/2018 June 2018. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/102402/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:103400
2021-05-19T13:01:34Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666707569657075
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
European Union diplomats: an emerging epistemic community? College of Europe Policy Paper December 2019.
Canali, Sara
cohesion policy
Lisbon Treaty
institutional development/policy
political union & integration/European Political Union
The Lisbon Treaty introduced far-reaching changes in the field of European Union (EU) external action, including institutional reforms such as the de facto creation of an EU diplomatic service and new policy-making instruments. Yet, ten years later, some scholars and policy-makers alike still seem to believe that EU diplomats are mere coordinators of member states’ positions.
What does the notion of ‘EU diplomat’ as a hybrid figure mediating between national diplomacy and the EU’s post-Westphalian diplomatic engagement stand for? This policy brief argues that we are witnessing the emergence of a novel epistemic community, that is, a unique network of EU professionals with specific expertise and competences.
In order to continue shaping its own diplomatic culture and epistemic community, the EU should invest more in training, contributing to the following key goals: the promotion of ‘layered’ knowledge, a shared working culture among EU officials, joint ownership of EU external action between EU and member state diplomats, reinforced socialisation and the further development of an esprit de corps.
2019-12
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/103400/1/canali_cepob_8%2D19_0.pdf
Canali, Sara (2019) European Union diplomats: an emerging epistemic community? College of Europe Policy Paper December 2019. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/103400/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:103712
2021-11-10T20:44:03Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D6F74686572
Helping to spend it wisely: REACT-EU and the challenges of good projects. EIPA briefing October 2020.
Lopriore, Marco
cohesion policy
European Council
Cohesion Policy has been one of the key instruments used by the EU to help deal with the economic impact of the pandemic. In April, the EU adopted the Corona Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+). These initiatives help Member States with much-needed liquidity to ease pressure on central and regional budgets in sectors such as tourism, health and SME. They also provide for greater flexibility and simplification in disbursing Cohesion funds under current rules.
In July, in the context of discussion of the next MFF 2021-2027, the European Council approved the REACT-EU resources (Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe). This initiative adds a further €47.5 billion to the 2021-2027 cohesion envelope. The REACT-EU funding will be distributed among Member States, taking into account their relative prosperity and the extent of the effects of the current crisis on their economies and societies, including on youth unemployment.
Member States will be able to rely on existing key management structures in order not to delay implementation further. REACT-EU funding will be integrated the current operational programmes for 2014-2020, although most countries will amend their programmes by introducing at least one new dedicated priority axis, and some may choose to set up at national level a new programme altogether.
2020-10
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/103712/1/EIPA_Briefing%2DHelping%2Dto%2Dspend%2Dit%2Dwisely%2DOct%2D2020.pdf
Lopriore, Marco (2020) Helping to spend it wisely: REACT-EU and the challenges of good projects. EIPA briefing October 2020. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/103712/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:103741
2021-12-02T19:28:41Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6566616469676974616C65636F6E6F6D79
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
How to get European businesses to digitalise. EPC Policy Brief July 2021.
Mollet, Frederico
cohesion policy
digital economy
Europe’s underperforming tech sector and reliance on foreign technologies has long alarmed its policymakers. But a significant – and often overlooked – factor in the EU’s economic underperformance over the last two decades is its slow business digitalisation. EU industry, especially SMEs, struggles with the prosaic challenge of integrating digital technologies into its business models and operations. The preoccupation tends to be on how to foster new digital start-ups. But what about the digitalisation of existing firms?
The EU budget and recovery fund are armed with a range of new EU funding streams and programmes to tackle this challenge. With its 2030 targets and new policy framework, the EU aims to catch up with the previous generation of digital technologies and ensure that it does not miss out on the next wave of transformational change. Otherwise, Europe will fall behind its economic competitors even further.
But there are still some gaps in the EU’s game plan for business digitalisation. Frederico Mollet outlines several areas where the new policy framework can be optimised, and new initiatives would be worthwhile:
Additional funding should be mobilised from Cohesion Policy funds. Business digitalisation is a critical factor in regional convergence, and so an increased funding share would be in line with the policy’s main objectives.
The Commission should use its coordinating and convening powers to get banks to commit to a best practice code, to assess digitalisation loans and improve their staff’s digital knowledge.
Public authorities should leverage private partners. Many firms lack the awareness and information necessary to digitalise, but a number of ‘access points’ and private sector networks (e.g. finance providers, B2B businesses, supply chain networks) can reach them.
The EU should consider complementing the design and implementation of European Digital Innovation Hubs and transition pathways – its main programmes for supporting business digitalisation directly – with 5 additional components.
Taken together, these recommendations will bolster the funding available for business digitalisation, tackle some of the critical barriers to finance, and optimise the delivery of the Commission’s programmes.
2021-07
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/103741/1/Business_digitalisation_PB.pdf
Mollet, Frederico (2021) How to get European businesses to digitalise. EPC Policy Brief July 2021. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/103741/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:103764
2021-12-13T19:17:49Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C6166666169727367726F777468
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6566616469676974616C65636F6E6F6D79
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
National Recovery and Resilience Plans: Empowering the green and digital transitions? EPC Discussion Paper April 2021.
Pilati, Marta
cohesion policy
environmental policy (including international arena)
economic growth
digital economy
If designed well, national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) could encourage comprehensive reform and the long-term investment needed to make the twin green and digital transitions a success while ensuring social and territorial cohesion across Europe.
The COVID-19 crisis has worsened inequalities between European countries, regions and social groups. The twin transition to a more sustainable and digital society, although necessary to avoid the drastic effects of climate change and simultaneously ensure economic prosperity, will likely have bigger consequences for already vulnerable groups.
For the EU to 'build back better', the national recovery plans have to reflect this reality. They are highly visible in national political debates, indicating strong national political ownership of the content. However, the process often appears untransparent, managed by the government behind closed doors and with limited input from stakeholders.
The tight framework imposed by the European Commission has helped create coherence between the national RRPs. But this only applies in broad terms, as details are often lacking or fragmented. Links to other EU programmes or cross-border projects are limited. And although the RRPs recognise the expected impact on social, economic and territorial cohesion, there's little effort going into thorough impact assessments.
Therefore, EU member states and the European Commission should improve the content of the national recovery plans by enhancing cross-references and links between measures, exploiting complementarities with other EU funding sources, and strengthening the reform components.
The Commission, in particular, should strengthen the EU dimension by highlighting potential cross-country synergies between RRPs. A flexible framework for cooperation between European governments can broker the first steps to reduce the complexity and risks linked to cross-border projects. To mainstream support for socio-economic and territorial cohesion, the Commission should impose ex-ante territorial and social impact assessments. These assessments should not only focus on economic growth but also the well-being of citizens.
Finally, when it comes to implementation, the Commission should request member states to provide as many details as possible on the measures suggested in their plans and ask for intermediate and ex-post assessments. In turn, national governments should improve the transparency of the implementation phase of their respective RRPs
2021-04
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/103764/1/National_RRPs_DiscussionPaper.pdf
Pilati, Marta (2021) National Recovery and Resilience Plans: Empowering the green and digital transitions? EPC Discussion Paper April 2021. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/103764/