Evaluation of European Union Cohesion policy: Research questions and policy challenges

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

The Editors thank all of the referees of the papers, who gave freely of their time, and whose efforts are greatly appreciated. They are also grateful for the secretarial assistance of Lynn Ogilvie and Rhona Walker of the European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde. In addition, thanks are extended to the Regional Studies Editorial Board at the University of Newcastle for their support and to the current and former Editorial Assistants at Newcastle, Gail Welsh and Sarah Wray, who processed the material efficiently and were able to offer excellent assistance. The Editors would also like to thank Frederike Goss, Tobias Gross and Carlos Méndez of the European Policies Research Centre for their assistance in the preparation of this introductory paper.

Notes

1. Cohesion policy refers to the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, which are the EU's main instruments for supporting economic and social development across the EU at both regional and national levels. There are four Structural Funds: the European Regional Development Fund; the European Social Fund; the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund: Guidance Section; and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance; while the Cohesion Fund finances major projects in environmental and transport infrastructure. The Structural Funds are currently available in priority ‘Objective’ areas (i.e. Objectives 1, 2 and 3) and in support of Community Initiatives (i.e. EQUAL, INTERREG III, URBAN II and LEADER + ). The Cohesion Fund is available in less prosperous Member States, which are currently Greece, Portugal, Spain and the ten new Member States. For the post-2006 objectives of Cohesion policy, see European Council (2005).

2. For a detailed discussion on the effectiveness and efficiency of EU Cohesion policy as part of a debate on the report of the Sapir Group, see the ‘mini-theme special issue’ in Regional Studies 2005, 39(7).

3. To see how these policy measures relate to Cohesion policy, see note 1. Cohesion policy is wide ranging, and, inevitably, for the purpose of this special issue it was necessary to be selective, so that some elements of Cohesion policy are not well represented, including the European Social Fund, agriculture, fisheries and rural development measures.

4. The latest being the Third Cohesion Report (European Commission, 2004).

5. However, it points to a general problem of the comparability of results when different evaluation methodologies are used. Martin and Tyler measure the jobs in net cumulative terms at a point in time, but which is not directly comparable with the estimates in the Third Cohesion Report, which measure the net jobs over time, i.e. a programme period (European Commission, 2004).

6. Indeed, for the current period, the Italian government supplemented the EU performance reserve with a national reserve to increase the pressure on programmes to perform, and to raise the importance accorded to evaluation.

7. This is through a benchmarking project with Scotland as part of the mid-term evaluation.