No abstract

Based on the preaccession and postaccession experience of the new member states, it has been suggested that EU Cohesion policy will similarly lead to changes in territorial relations within Central and Eastern European countries (Grabbe, 2003; Keating, 2003). Specifically, it is anticipated that Structural and Cohesion Funds will promote the greater involvement of regional-level institutions in economic development, with the potential for wider changes in regional governance structures and policy practice (Ferry, 2003a; Hooghe, 1996). Recent policy developments would appear to support this thesis. In the run-up to EU accession, the Phare programme was used to provide direct support for subnational institutions in the new member states to assist them to prepare for Structural Funds. During the first Structural Funds programme period (2004^06) several accession countries implemented joint Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs), with the prospect of further decentralisation of programme management and delivery responsibilities in the 2007^13 period. As under the regulatory reforms of 1988, 1993, and 1999, the 2006 European Council regulations governing EU Cohesion policy for 2007^13 emphasise the importance of involving regional and local authorities in the design and delivery of Structural Funds programmes (Council of the European Union, 2006). Indeed, the European Commission has argued that the Cohesion policy goal (of promoting growth, jobs, and competitiveness) in the 2007^13 period``will only work if it is owned by all stakeholdersöat EU, national, regional and local levels'' (Hu« bner, 2006, page 2).

No abstract

This article re-assesses the multi-level governance debate and specifically the 'renationalization thesis', with respect to EU cohesion policy. It focuses on two of the principles of decision-making under the structural funds: concentration (decisions on where the money is spent) and programming (decisions on how it is spent). The analysis takes a longitudinal approach, examining each of the policy phases from 1988 until the recent debate on the 2007-13 period. The article concludes that the role of national governments (relative to the European Commission) in key decisions on the implementation of cohesion policy has been exaggerated in the literature and that important arguments underpinning the 'renationalization thesis' are flawed. Copyright (c) 2007 The Author(s); Journal compilation (c) 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Since 1988, when the current EU Cohesion Policy was introduced, it has played an influential role in setting priorities for policies aimed at dealing with the effects of European economic integration on regional and social disparities. Although, latterly, the amount of money spent in the UK through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) has declined, EU programmes have had a disproportionate effect on the design and implementation of UK policies shaping regional and local economic and social development. This paper starts by recalling how EU Cohesion Policy has functioned in the UK, then considers how Brexit may affect regional and social development and the need for a corresponding policy response, focusing on the sorts of policies currently supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The paper shows that filling the policy vacuum will be far from straightforward because complementary national policies and institutional frameworks have lacked consistency or coherence. It concludes by examining the wider policy issues arising from rethinking domestic policy outside the ESIF framework. The sub-national level, in particular, will need a fresh approach following Brexit.