Cohesion policy after Brexit: the economic, social and institutional challenges

Abstract

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.

Between disruptions and connections: “New” European Union migrants in the United Kingdom before and after the Brexit

“…Although it is too early to predict any deeper spatial impact of Brexit on places where “new” EU migrants are more concentrated, the potential loss of EU Structural Funds for the United Kingdom may add additional economic uncertainties for CEE migrants, and indeed for the alienated “native” working classes in these disadvantaged regions, the victims of the Conservative government's politics of austerity, who were one of the main groups voting for Brexit (Morgan, ). In the meantime, the possible combination of blocked migration to Britain and enlarged return flows of CEE migrants may require new employment‐related regional policies for areas and countries affected by these “reversed” migration trends (Bachtler & Begg, , ; Di Cataldo, ).…”

Assessing the Past and Future Development of EU and UK Social Policy

“…The many interviews across the socio-economic and political spectrum in the UK two years before the referendum (HMG, 2014a-d), and the innumerable debates, hearings and blogs during and following the referendum campaign showed that opinion within the UK remained deeply divided, both horizontally and vertically, concerning the most effective balance between EU and member state competence, and between economic and social objectives (see also Bachtler and Begg, 2017). These divisions add to the difficulty of predicting to what extent social legislation implemented since the UK joined the EEC will be removed or amended, and whether the remaining EU member states will seek to develop binding social legislation.…”

Did EU regional spending affect the Brexit referendum?

“…A second question, related to communication and awareness, centres on how well 'embedded' EU regional spending has been in the UK. This is especially the case in England, where, following the abolition of regional development agencies in 2010, the subnational institutional landscape has been in a state of flux, preventing a long-term and coherent approach to EU regional policy being developed (Bachtler & Begg, 2017). The management of EU regional spending has also become centralized.…”

“…There has already been some discussion on post-Brexit Cohesion Policy and regional funding (e.g., Bachtler & Begg, 2017;Bell, 2017;Di Cataldo, 2017;Huggins, 2018; Sykes & Schulze Bäing, 2017). However, analysis into the role of EU regional spending in influencing the referendum outcome is lacking.…”