The Reform of the European Regional Development Fund: A Preliminary Assessment

Structural Funds and the 1992 Program in the European Community

“…The results of re-estimation with a common GDP coefficient are reported in Table 5. In contrast to the estimate of equation ( 1), GDP per capita is now significant and the unemployment rate is not; the results indicate that a one point fall \J Prior to 1985, ERDF allocations were bound by a system of national quotas (Croxford et al (1987)). These were replaced by a system of indicative ranges for the period 1985-87, which defined maximum and minimum allocations for each country.…”

“…Steinle (1988) is skeptical of the ESF's record, arguing that the programs which it has financed would have been carried out anyway. Croxford et al (1987) have similar reservations about the additionality of ERDF financed expenditure. That historically Structural Fund assistance has been fungible is supported by the dispute in the 1970s about the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC budget, where the United Kingdom's willingness to contribute appeared to be conditional on the amount of Structural Fund transfers it would receive in return.…”

Transformation of governance: The European commission's strategy for creating a ‘Europe of the regions’

“…See Tommel 1987; Greenwood et al 1995;Jones and Keating 1995). Regions acquired a more prominent and autonomous role in formulating policy goals, designing development measures and implementing comprehensive programmes for economic modernization and innovation at local level (Croxford et al 1987). At the same time, closer interactions or even co-operation with the European Commission evolved (Mazey and Mitchell 1993).…”

Tourism and the European Regional Development Fund: The First Fourteen Years

“…As Croxford, Wise, and Chalkley (1987) note, &dquo;The chief criticisms of the pre-1985 ERDF centred upon its limited size, its inflexibility, the unco-ordinated nature of its expenditure and its failure to concentrate resources on the regions most in need.&dquo; Under the reforms which came into force in January 1985, the country quotas were replaced by a system of &dquo;indicative ranges&dquo; defining minimum and maximum allocations. The lower limit of the range constitutes the minimum amount of ERDF grants each member state is guaranteed to receive if it submits an adequate volume of eligible aid applications to the Commission.…”

“…A program approach was also introduced to improve coordination of regional effort, something which the financing of individual projects did not always achieve. &dquo;National Programs of Community Interest&dquo; (NPCIs) are initiated by the member states while the Commission initiates &dquo;Community Programs.&dquo; Emphasis was also given under Article 15 of the new regulation to exploiting the potential for &dquo;internally generated development.&dquo; Croxford, Wise, and Chalkley (1987) concluded that the introduction of the indicative ranges resulted in a slight shift in expenditure to those regions most in need. They also drew attention to the limitations imposed on the ERDF owing to the inadequate size of its budget, particularly when also trying to cope with the regional needs of two new relatively poor members, Portugal and Spain.…”