布鲁盖尔-Effectiveness-of-cohesion-policy_-learning-from-the-project-characteristics-that-produce-the-best-results_114页_3mb

Summary of "Effectiveness of cohesion policy: learning from the project characteristics that produce the best results"

Core Content

This document presents a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the European Union's Cohesion Policy, focusing on the characteristics of projects that lead to successful outcomes. It is part of a broader debate on the reform of the Cohesion Policy within the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2021–2027. The study combines a literature review, econometric analysis, and stakeholder interviews to evaluate the impact of various project attributes on economic growth.

Main Findings

1. Cohesion Policy Overview

• Cohesion Policy is a key tool for promoting economic convergence in the EU.
• It has social, political, and economic rationales, including fostering equality, honoring enlargement agreements, and creating conditions for regions disadvantaged by the single market to prosper.
• It also aligns with the EU's priorities for inclusive, smart, green, and sustainable development.
• The impact of Cohesion Policy is inconclusive in the literature due to methodological and data challenges.

2. Methodology and Approach

• The study uses a novel methodology to compare the characteristics of projects in the best and worst performing regions.
• It estimates “unexplained economic growth” by controlling for region-specific factors and then analyzes its relationship with project characteristics.
• This is not a formal evaluation or audit but a policy advisory tool for the European Parliament.

3. Key Project Characteristics Linked to Economic Growth

• Cohesion Fund (CF) is positively associated with unexplained economic growth.
• Interregional projects (part of the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF) also show a significant positive correlation with growth.
• Lower national co-financing rates are correlated with higher unexplained growth.
• Higher proportion of non-research NGOs and private-sector beneficiaries is linked to better outcomes.
• Longer duration projects and more concentrated budgets on a few priorities are associated with better performance.
• More interregional projects are found in the best-performing regions.
• National management of projects is more common in countries with more successful regions.

4. Sectoral Impact

• The role of different sectors in economic growth is ambiguous.
• Sectoral success depends heavily on regional characteristics.

5. Interview Insights

• Stakeholders emphasize that Cohesion Policy is the most evaluated EU policy and contributes to European value added.
• Local stakeholders in some countries may have different attitudes towards EU and national funds, leading to less careful management of EU funds.
• The Performance Framework is seen as adding administrative burden without clear results or quality improvements.
• There are no clear-cut characteristics that guarantee success, beyond administrative capacity and institutional quality.
• Suggestions for reform include:
  • Greater focus on underlying problems.
  • Strategic planning and simplification.
  • Stricter controls in high-corruption risk areas.
  • Synergies with other EU and national programs.
  • More cross-regional and cross-border projects.
  • A narrower focus on European goals in more-developed regions.

6. Policy Implications for Reform

• The overall allocation of EU resources to Cohesion Policy is a political decision.
• Continued convergence may reduce the need for cohesion funding.
• The proposed drastic reduction of the Cohesion Fund should be assessed based on its role in economic convergence and other goals such as social inclusion and environmental protection.
• The national co-financing rate should be determined by fiscal constraints, the additionality principle, and corruption risk.
• A negative correlation is found between economic growth and the proportion of projects managed by local entities.
• A way to reconcile this is to combine locally driven project demands with higher-level allocation and oversight.
• Thematic concentration and fewer EU goals are justified in more-developed regions but not in less-developed ones.
• Projects should be focused and long-term, aligned with strategic planning, without requiring high flexibility.
• A stronger link with the European Semester should be avoided.
• Interregional projects should be encouraged.
• Reform should prioritize results, simplification, and transparency in project design and implementation.

Key Information

• Funds Studied: ERDF, ESF, EAFRD, EMFF, CF.
• Data Sources: NUTS-2 and NUTS-3 regions, interregional dataset, 4P dataset.
• Time Frame: 2003–2015, with data up to 2013 for projects.
• Methodology: Econometric analysis and stakeholder interviews.
• Recommendations:
  • Maintain or clarify the role of the Cohesion Fund.
  • Encourage interregional projects.
  • Simplify the policy and focus on results.
  • Avoid over-concentration of EU goals in more-developed regions.
  • Strengthen oversight and management of projects to avoid mismanagement.

Conclusion

The study highlights the importance of strategic, focused, and long-term projects in driving economic growth. It underscores the need for a balanced approach in policy reform, emphasizing the role of institutional quality, administrative capacity, and the need to align projects with local needs and European priorities. The findings suggest that a more efficient and transparent Cohesion Policy, with a stronger emphasis on results and interregional collaboration, could enhance its effectiveness.