布鲁盖尔-How-to-improve-European-Union-cohesion-policy-for-the-next-decade_21页_9mb

Summary of "How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the next decade"

Core Content

The document presents an analysis of the European Union's cohesion policy, aiming to identify factors that contribute to its effectiveness and suggest reforms for the next decade. The authors, Zsolt Darvas, Jan Mazza, and Catarina Midos, employed a novel empirical methodology and conducted interviews with stakeholders to evaluate the policy's impact and design.

Main Viewpoints

1. Effectiveness of Cohesion Policy is Inconclusive

• The academic literature on the effectiveness of cohesion policy is mixed, with some studies showing positive long-term impacts, others showing short-term effects, and some finding no or even negative impacts.
• The lack of consensus is due to methodological differences, varying datasets, and the complexity of local environments.

2. Cohesion Policy Aims to Foster Regional Convergence

• A key objective of cohesion policy is to reduce disparities between regions and promote economic convergence.
• Most cohesion funding targets less-developed regions, aiming to support their development and convergence with more advanced regions.

3. Cohesion Policy is the Most Evaluated EU Policy

• Stakeholders highlighted that cohesion policy is the most evaluated policy within the EU, with continuous improvements based on evaluations.
• In contrast, policies like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) are subject to less evaluation.

4. EU Value Added is Recognised

• Interviewees generally acknowledged the value added by cohesion policy at the European level, especially in less-developed regions.
• It supports projects that would not otherwise happen or be delayed, contributing to social inclusion, environmental protection, and EU priorities such as smart, social, and green development.

5. Project Characteristics Influence Performance

• The authors identified several project characteristics associated with better economic performance:
  • Longer project duration is positively correlated with unexplained economic growth.
  • Fewer programme priorities are linked to better outcomes.
  • Inter-regional focus is positively associated with growth.
  • Lower national co-financing rates correlate with higher growth.
  • National-level management is more effective than regional or local management.
  • Private or non-profit beneficiaries are more common in successful regions.
  • Higher funding from the Cohesion Fund is significant in explaining growth.

6. Sector of Intervention is Less Relevant

• No clear patterns were found between the sector of intervention and economic growth.
• This suggests that the success of cohesion projects is more influenced by regional characteristics than by the specific sector they target.

7. Challenges in Implementation and Evaluation

• The Performance Framework is seen as creating unnecessary administrative burdens without clear results.
• Some regions experience poor implementation quality, especially during the 2007-2013 period.
• There are concerns about the management of EU funds, with some local stakeholders showing less careful handling compared to national ones.

8. Reforms and Recommendations

• Strategic planning and simplification are recommended, with strict controls in areas with high corruption risk.
• Inter-regional focus and synergies with other EU and national programmes should be strengthened.
• National co-financing rates should be set based on fiscal constraints, additionality principle, and corruption risk.
• A locally-led perspective should be balanced with centralised management, which proved more effective in some cases.
• Transparency in data, design, and implementation of projects should be increased.

Key Information

• Total Cohesion Policy Funding (2014-2020 MFF): €367 billion (34% of EU budget).
• Proposed Cohesion Policy Funding (2021-2027 MFF): 30% of total budget.
• Fund Distribution (2014-2020 MFF): ERDF (55%), ESF (23%), Cohesion Fund (20%), Youth Employment Initiative (1%).
• Data Sources Used:
  • 4P dataset: Contains up to four projects per NUTS-2 region.
  • Interregional dataset: Includes 10,089 projects from the 2007-2013 period, representing 94% of ERDF-funded interregional projects.
• Unexplained Economic Growth: Identified as the residual from a regression model that controls for regional fundamentals, and found to be positively associated with certain project characteristics.

Conclusion

The study highlights the importance of strategic project design, centralised management, and inter-regional cooperation in enhancing the effectiveness of cohesion policy. It also underscores the need for greater transparency and a focus on reducing national co-financing rates, especially in regions with high corruption risk. The authors argue that while cohesion policy has potential, its success depends on a combination of institutional quality, governance, and strategic alignment with regional needs.