https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7081-8153
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Under which conditions is EU Cohesion Policy effective? Which are those ‘conditioning factors’ that help in explaining where, when, and how the Cohesion Policy is effective? This article adopts an Hirschmanian approach to argue that that the institutional characteristics of domestic authorities involved in the management of funds, as well as the decisions of policy makers, represent the key factors for understanding the effects of the Cohesion Policy in European regions. By using Cohesion Policy implementation in Italy and Spain as a pilot study, this article empirically investigates the interaction of three different types of factors (institutional, strategic [related to the types of investments made], and administrative), and elaborates an original framework for comparing different Cohesion Policy implementations, and existing studies analyzing the impact of the Cohesion Policy. The framework presented in this article could be extended to other European countries by political scientists who are interested in studying the Cohesion Policy as a case of development policy.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 The fifth programming period formally started in 2014.
3 Medeiros (Citation2017a) has recently proposed a new strategic paradigm, backed by the main pillars of territorial cohesion, and built around a novel vision of European spatial planning. It is a new and alternative strategy grounded in sustainable development: green economy, balanced territory, good governance and social cohesion.
4 While the first impact assessment guidelines have been introduced by the White Paper on European Governance (CEC Citation2001), it was only in 2002 that the first concrete TIA tools were developed within the EU framework. Their use became more regular in the post-2013 framework of the Cohesion Policy, as the EU adopted a more ‘territorial’ and ‘integrated’ approach to development than in the past (Mendez Citation2013).
5 Medeiros (Citation2017b), for example, made use of a multi-vector and multidimensional TIA that included elements related to territorial governance and spatial planning concurrently with the traditional socio-economic policy evaluation procedures. Camagni (Citation2006, Citation2009) laid down several criteria on which a TIA methodology may be built by analyzing three different dimensions – territorial efficiency, quality, and identity – that, in their positive sense, may constitute the pillars of territorial cohesion. Golobič et al. (Citation2015) elaborated a checklist consisting of 61 criteria to assess the likely impact on territorial units in Slovenia that cover the following four domains: territory and environment; economy; society; and, governance and administration.
6 During all five programming periods, a European region has been included among the most underdeveloped in presence of a GDP per-capita below 75% of the EU average.
7 For an exhaustive analysis of the different components of development beyond the role of the State, see Potter et al. (Citation2008, 183–325).
8 In line with the aim of this article, empirical analysis was limited to the ERDF MA. Since its establishment in 1975, ERDF's aim has been ‘to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions’.
9 Article 31.2 of regulation 1260/1999 stated that: ‘the Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account […] by the end of the second year following the year of commitment’.
10 This happened within a more general trend of decentralization of functions to the sub-national actors (see, for more details: Casula Citation2016, Citation2017, Citation2019b; and, Bolgherini, Casula, and Marotta Citation2018a, Citation2018b, Citation2019).
11 The so-called “sponda projects” are projects already financed by national resources that were procured via European funds and that, therefore, limited the additional added value of the structural interventions (IsmeriEuropa Citation2002a; Applica Citation2009).
12 By way of example, around 90% of resources were spent at the end of the 1989–1993 cycle, and this amount was equal to 30% at the end of 1996, 60% at the end of 1998 and 88% at the end of 2000.