The history and evolution of Cohesion policy

Brunazzo, Marco

doi:10.4337/9781784715670.00014

Cited by 62 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As the EU grew, cohesion policy, which aims to reduce economic and social disparities across the EU, became an increasing imperative (Bunazzo 2016), particularly with the accession of 10 new Member States in 2004. Many of these (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) have significant areas of mountains, as do Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the EU in 2007.…”

Section: European Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping mountain areas: learning from Global, European and Norwegian perspectives

Price

Arnesen

Gloersen³

et al. 2018

J. Mt. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Defining the spatial extent of mountain areas has long been a challenge. In the present century, the availability of digital elevation models (DEMs) incorporated into geographic information systems (GIS) has allowed the definition of mountain areas based on topographic and other criteria. This paper presents the various delineations of mountains that have been prepared at three scales -global, regional (Europe), and national -and explores the reasons and processes leading to these delineations, and how they have been used. A detailed case study is then presented for Norway. Overall, two types of approaches to mapping mountains have been taken: first, considering mountains per se, based on elevation and/or topography; second, considering them among other categories, e.g., landforms or biogeographical, environmental or landscape zones. All attempts to map mountain areas derive essentially from the objectives of those commissioning and/or undertaking the work; a unitary definition remains unlikely.

show abstract

Section: European Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping mountain areas: learning from Global, European and Norwegian perspectives

Price

Arnesen

Gloersen³

et al. 2018

J. Mt. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this article, we look at two of them: the European and Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Funds (ESF). The main targets of these funds are to create local employment and develop infrastructures at the local level allowing the positive development of the regions' competitiveness, while reducing their carbon impact (Brunazzo, 2016). In addition, the ERDF is an essential tool for regions to reduce the negative impact of borders through the funding of INTERREG programmes (Sousa, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Scottish and Welsh Speakers Will Miss European Structural Funds

Willis¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this blog piece Craig Willis investigates the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds projects in the period between 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, in order to ascertain direct and indirect links to the four Celtic languages, following the separation of cultural funds from the ESIF into Creative Europe and Erasmus Plus from 2007. He shows that, given that the speakers of such languages often reside in economically peripheral areas (at least in higher percentage terms), their livelihoods and everyday culture in the traditional speaking areas (even for non-speakers) are affected by availability of structural funds.

show abstract

“…We employ cross-sectional register and survey data to analyse project bureaucracy in a highly projectified policy field, namely, the Cohesion policy of the EU and its implementation in Finland. The background of Cohesion policy is in redistributive regional policies inside the EU (Munzi, 1965), which has been governed by the Director General for Regional Policy (DG) since the 1960s (Brunazzo, 2016). Starting in the 1980s, the policy has been organized as structural funds covering a certain broad policy area and, in practice, is realized by means of local-level projects, making it one of the most extensive project-based policies (Bu¨ttner, 2019).…”

Section: Data Methodology and Operationalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the post-bureaucratic landscape: project managers’ perception of bureaucracy in European Union Cohesion policy projects

Vento

Kuokkanen

2020

International Review of Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New post-bureaucratic organizational forms, such as projects, are increasingly used in policy implementation. Their assumed benefits in decreasing bureaucracy and increasing flexibility have, however, been questioned. It has been argued that public projects increase red tape (or bureaucracy perceived as a nuisance) because of the formal rules associated with them. Despite the topicality of the subject, we do not know how public project bureaucracy is perceived by the actors involved. This article explores the bureaucracy of public projects by analysing project managers’ perceptions of them with data from European Union Cohesion policy projects in Finland. The data consist of project register data and a survey to project managers ( N = 728). The study finds that when talking of the perception of bureaucracy, it is relevant to distinguish between a general attitude towards bureaucracy and a specific perception of the task at hand. The general attitude seems more negative than the specific perception of bureaucracy. We also show that project managers’ experience, institutional background and share of administrative tasks in the project condition the extent to which bureaucracy is perceived as red tape. To conclude, the findings are discussed in relation to previous research on red tape in public administration. Points for practitioners Project organization connotes flexibility and innovation but involves also bureaucracy, which can be received as red tape, especially for inexperienced managers. In general, managers consider project bureaucracy as red tape, while in their own projects, bureaucracy is seen as less burdensome. Public managers have an advantage over managers from non-public organizations by perceiving public project bureaucracy as less burdensome.

show abstract

The history and evolution of Cohesion policy

Cited by 62 publications

References 4 publications

Mapping mountain areas: learning from Global, European and Norwegian perspectives

Mapping mountain areas: learning from Global, European and Norwegian perspectives

Why Scottish and Welsh Speakers Will Miss European Structural Funds

Mapping the post-bureaucratic landscape: project managers’ perception of bureaucracy in European Union Cohesion policy projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About