Suchergebnisse

In this paper, we empirically test the effects of the EU's 'cohesion policy' on the performance of 273,500 European manufacturing firms after combining regional policy data at NUTS 2 level with firm-level data. In a framework of heterogeneous firms and different absorptive capacity of regions, we show that the financing of 'cohesion policy' by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aimed at direct investments in R&D correlates with an improvement of firms' productivity in a region. Conversely, funding aimed at overall Business Support correlates with negative productivity growth rates. In both cases, we registered an asymmetric impact along the firms' productivity distribution, where a stronger impact can be detected in the first quartile, i.e. less efficient firms in a region. We finally argue that considering the heterogeneity of firms allows a better assessment of the impact of 'cohesion policy' measures.

This Policy Paper addresses a paradox in cohesion policy. Despite being one of the most evaluated EU policies, a culture of transparent, independent, and effective auditing has not emerged. The question needs to be asked why evaluations do not lead to change in outputs and the required improvements. Evidently there are (national) interests that block reforms. Yet, this does not provide a sufficient explanation as in other EU policy areas comparable difficulties existed before new structures were implemented and the issues were solved.

In this paper, we empirically test the effects of the EU 'cohesion policy' on the performance of about 500,000 European manufacturing firms after combining regional policy data at NUTS- 2 level with firm-level data. In a framework of heterogeneous firms and different absorptive capacity of regions, we show that financing of 'cohesion policy' by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aimed at direct investments in R&D correlates with improvement of firms' productivity in a region. Conversely, funding designed at overall Business Support correlates with negative productivity growth rates. In both cases, we registered an asymmetric impact along the firms' productivity distribution, where a stronger impact can be detected in the first quartile, i.e. less efficient firms in a region. We finally argue that considering the heterogeneity of firms allows a better assessment of the impact of 'cohesion policy' measures.

This new text introduces the history, evolution and contemporary state of one of the European Union's most important, expensive and controversial policies. It examines the role that cohesion policy plays in European integration, as well as in economic development across regions, and analyzes the key debates and issues at stake.

The Barca Report advocates for developmental policies to be 'place-based': integrated as far as they affect 'places'. The debate on territorial cohesion is equally concerned with integrating relevant policies and actions. This requires well-established democratic institutions and adequate responses to the demands of technical systems and of markets. Following Lisbeth Hooghe and Gary Marks, the respective arrangements are described as Governance Type I and Type II. All levels of government, including that of the EU, partake in both types, but relations between them are problematic, particularly in the context of Europe 2020: Will this EU strategy be mainly a matter for Directorate-Generals and their various clients pursuing their policies (Governance Type II), or will Cohesion policy, with its more integrated and decentralised approach, involving many levels of government and stakeholders (Governance Type I) form platforms for integrating them? This paper presents four scenarios; each based on a combination of strong/weak Governance Type I and Type II, which are labelled as the 'Anglo-Saxon', 'Saint-Simonian', 'Rhineland' and the 'European' Scenarios. The authors prefer the latter, but the best one can hope for in the short term is for this option not to fall by the wayside. ; The paper is published by the European Journal of Spatial Development (EJSD). The previous version of the journal was host by Nordregio.

AbstractIn this study we empirically tested the effect of the EU cohesion policy using a unique dataset of 273,500 European manufacturing firms, combining regional policy data at the UN Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics‐2 level with total factor productivity (TFP) at firm‐level. In a framework of heterogeneous firms and regions' different absorptive capacity, we show that financing by the European regional development fund aimed at direct investments in R&D is associated with the improvement of firms' productivity in a region, while funding designed to support overall business is not. The positive association with research, technology and development spending is stronger in the first quartile of the TFP distributions, for the firms that are the least efficient in a region. This appears to be in line with the priority of the policy, which aims at improving firms' competitiveness, especially that of small and medium enterprises. We finally argue that considering the heterogeneous distribution of firms' inefficiencies in a region is crucial to designing a better cohesion policy and to avoid a misallocation of resources it is better than looking at regional aggregates.

This paper asks whether we can, from an economic point of view, justify the EU Cohesion Policy. To this end, our research - using structural equation modelling, macro-economic modelling and regional inputoutput analysis - found a) positive dynamic effects of Cohesion Policy on regional growth, b) small static effects on output if parts of the Cohesion Policy funds are reallocated to the strongest EU economies and c) strong demand spillovers from the less-developed to the more-developed regions. For us, the dynamic Cohesion Policy gains in growth outweigh the static allocation inefficiency. Additionally, the spillovers from the less-developed regions mitigate potential losses in the more-developed regions. Therefore, our answer to the question 'Can we justify EU Cohesion Policy from an economic point of view?' is 'Yes, we can.'

In the chapter 2, the reader is given insight into the main features of Cohesion Policy, EU Structural funds and the financial engineering instruments: regulatory framework and operational features under the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programming periods. The chapter explain advantages as well as the disadvantages in using financial instruments and the new EU regulatory framework (Horizon 2014-2020); the aims and differences with respect to the previous regulatory framework are also highlighted. Then it examines Credit access and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) seeking to trace a future path for microcredit instruments in Horizon 2014-2020.

The book offers though-provoking insights on the performance and effectiveness of EU cohesion policy in Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe by highlighting the key achievement and identifying the main shortcomings. One of the most important advantages of the book is that it covers many distinct actions of this policy, the authors also, based on wide-ranging analysis, formulate policy recommendations for the future.

"Cohesion Policy and European Union Politics" published on by Oxford University Press.