EU Cohesion Policy and the Role of the Regions: Investigating the Influence of Structural Funds in the New Member States

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).

The Institutional Pre-Conditions for Regional Labour Market Policy Making in the EU: Case Studies and Policy Conclusions

“…Thus, in contrast to a large number of studies (e.g. Regalia 2007, Bachtler and McMaster 2008, Chardas 2012) that have focused on the interaction of local initiatives with higher tier levels of governance such as the EU or the national level, our concern is with how a classical type I organisation interacts with the development of type II organisations such as Pacts/LEIs in a particular region.…”

“…In these, actors in various policy fields interact in a partnership based approach in the provision of public services as a mechanism for horizontal co-ordination within regions (Eberts 2009). Again as pointed out by the OECD (2004), this trend has taken different forms, such as regional policy platforms, area based partnerships or open governments acting as agents of change in different countries and has in part also been driven by the European Union's strong emphasis on the partnership principle in designing regional policy (Bauer 2002, Bachtler and McMaster 2008, Chardas 2012.…”

“…Froy and Guigere 2009, Regalia 2007, Bachtler and McMaster 2008, ECOTEC 2002, Mosley 2011) that regional PES organisations and Pacts/LEIs in Europe differ widely with respect to their organisational structure (which in the case of a PES organisation may be described by its autonomy and its stakeholder structure -and in the case of Pacts/LEIs by the functions it is expected to fulfil in the regional policy arena and its partnership) as well as with respect to their objective structure (which we measure in terms of objectives, targets groups and strategies). Both the organisational structure and the objectives of these regional PES and Pact\LEI organisations are on the one hand determined by a number of regional, national and EU wide framework conditions (which may for instance consist of legal stipulations, the specific labour market problems of a region or country, the resources available to conduct certain policies, or national or EU-wide support for certain policies).…”

An Empirical Basis of Multi-Level Governance Approach: Subnational Mobilisation in the European Union Arena

“…Consequently, from the very narrow perspective of cost-benefit calculations, the financial incentives seemed to be the strongest driver for regional institutional change as well as growing awareness and organizational change in SNAs in Turkey for the sake of benefitting from these funds. However, Bachtler and McMaster (2008) conclude that there is no guarantee that the Structural Funds (particularly the principles of subsidiarity and partnership) will necessarily promote regionalisation and the role of regional authorities in Central and Eastern Europe, at least in the short to medium terms.…”

Europeanization and multi‐level governance: EU cohesion policy and pre‐accession aid in Southeast Europe

“…Two more recent studies provide a mixed picture of the impact of cohesion policy on regionalization in the Central and East European states. Bachtler and McMaster (2008) identify 'several points to support the contention that the role of regions has increased in terms of their legitimacy, institutional capacity and stability' (420) but also suggest that 'the limitations and barriers to regional participation in the funds currently outweigh the opportunities' (421). Their bottom line is to challenge the idea that structural funds necessarily lead to stronger regions.…”