布鲁盖尔-Deep-Focus_-Reforming-and-rejuvenating-Russia-s-economy_114页_3mb

报告摘要

Summary of the Document: Effectiveness of Cohesion Policy

Core Content

This document is a study conducted by the European Parliament's Policy Department on Budgetary Affairs, analyzing the effectiveness of the European Union's cohesion policy. The study explores the characteristics of cohesion policy projects that lead to successful outcomes and provides recommendations for reforming the policy in the context of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2021–2027.

Main Objectives

To identify the project characteristics that contribute to the success of cohesion policy.
To support the European Parliament in evaluating the current MFF and planning the next generation of cohesion policy programs.
To provide insights into the effectiveness of cohesion policy based on empirical research, literature review, and stakeholder interviews.

Key Findings

Project Characteristics and Economic Growth

Unexplained economic growth is used as a proxy to measure the effectiveness of cohesion policy projects, after controlling for region-specific factors.
Cohesion Fund (CF) is the only EU fund positively associated with unexplained economic growth.
Interregional projects (part of the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF) are also positively correlated with higher unexplained economic growth.
Lower national co-financing rates are associated with higher unexplained growth.
Higher proportion of non-research NGOs and private-sector beneficiaries correlates with increased unexplained growth.
Longer duration projects and more concentrated budgets on a few priorities are linked to better performance.
More interregional projects are found in the best-performing regions.

Regional Differences

More developed regions are more likely to have strategic, focused, and long-term projects.
Less developed regions benefit more from interregional collaboration and diverse funding sources.
The role of sectoral investments is ambiguous and highly dependent on regional characteristics.

Methodology

The study uses a novel methodology that contrasts project characteristics in the best and worst performing regions.
It combines literature review, econometric analysis, and interviews with stakeholders.
The analysis includes NUTS-2 and NUTS-3 regions and examines the correlation between economic growth and various project features.

Stakeholder Insights

Cohesion policy is the most evaluated EU policy and is seen as generating European value added.
Local stakeholders may have different attitudes toward cohesion and national funds, which can lead to less careful management of EU funds.
The Performance Framework adds administrative burden without clear results or quality linkages.
Administrative capacity and institutional quality are fundamental for the success of cohesion policy.
Recommendations from stakeholders include:
- Greater focus on underlying problems.
- More strategic planning.
- Simplification of procedures.
- Stricter controls in high-corruption risk areas.
- Synergies with other EU and national programs.
- Encouragement of cross-regional and cross-border projects.
- A narrower focus on fewer European goals in more-developed regions.

Policy Implications for Reform

The overall allocation of EU resources to cohesion policy is a political decision.
Continued convergence reduces the need for cohesion funding.
The Cohesion Fund should not be drastically reduced without a clear understanding of its role in economic convergence and other priorities like social inclusion and environmental protection.
National co-financing rates should be determined based on fiscal constraints, the additionality principle, and corruption risk.
Local involvement in project management is negatively correlated with economic growth, suggesting a need for a balance between local input and higher-level oversight.
Thematic concentration and fewer EU goals are justified in more-developed regions but not in less-developed ones.
Strategic, focused, and long-term projects are recommended regardless of regional development level.
A stronger link with the European Semester should be avoided.
Interregional projects should be further encouraged.
Focus on results and simplification should be central to the reform, along with increased transparency of data and indicators.

Conclusion

The study concludes that while the effectiveness of cohesion policy is not universally clear, certain project characteristics—such as interregional collaboration, lower co-financing rates, and strategic focus—appear to be more associated with positive economic outcomes. It emphasizes the need for reform that prioritizes results, simplification, and transparency, while also ensuring that the policy remains effective in both developed and less-developed regions.

Key Information

Author: Zsolt Darvas (Bruegel and Corvinus University of Budapest), with contributions from Antoine Mathieu Collin, Jan Mazza, and Catarina Midoes.
Responsible Administrator: Kaare Barslev (Seconded National Expert), Policy Department on Budgetary Affairs, European Parliament.
Date: April 2019.
Purpose: To inform the European Parliament on cohesion policy reform.
Methodology: Literature review, econometric analysis, and stakeholder interviews.
Data Sources: NUTS-2 and NUTS-3 regions, EU funds, and regional statistics.

Main Recommendations

Maintain or clarify the role of the Cohesion Fund in the next MFF.
Balance local involvement with higher-level oversight to ensure effective project management.
Encourage interregional projects to enhance the impact of cohesion policy.
Simplify procedures and improve transparency.
Avoid over-linking with the European Semester.
Focus on fewer European goals in more-developed regions.
Improve co-financing mechanisms to ensure effective resource allocation.