European Commission's Proposal for the Reform of Cohesion Policy: Reactions of Governments and Regions of EU's Major Member States

Cohesion policy aimed at reducing disparities in the development of EU regions is one of the major EU policy areas which in the current financial perspective (2014 to 2020) accounts for about a third of the Union's budget. This paper focuses on the preparations for the cohesion policy reform of 2013 which determined the substance and shape of the policy for 2014-2020. In particular, the positions of governments and regional authorities of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK are analyzed. In November 2010 the European Commission put forward its suggestions concerning the reform of the cohesion policy. The key idea was a close link between the cohesion policy and "Europe 2020" strategy, the concept of EU's economic development for 2010-2020 aimed at ensuring a "smart, sustainable and inclusive" growth of EU's economy. It was suggested that a practice of signing partnership contracts between the Commission and member states should be introduced. The Commission put forward idea of earmarking a "performance reserve": 5% of cohesion policy's budget was to be reserved as a reward to the countries and regions demonstrating the most progress in reaching the policy objectives. A new category of funding recipients was envisaged, that of "intermediate regions" with the per capita GDP from 75% to 90% of the EU average. The Commission's suggestions were met with mixed responses of regional authorities and national governments. Many regions reacted with caution to the idea of making a close link between the cohesion policy and the "Europe 2020" strategy, underlining that the former's main objective should remain the reduction of economic disparities. Most of the regions were wary about making contracts between the Commission and national governments, perceiving the risks of centralizing the cohesion policy. Many regions insisted on signing trilateral contracts, with regional governments participating on an equal footing. Most of the regions did not endorse the idea of the "performance reserve". The governments of the EU's major member states voiced opposition to the EU-wide "performance reserve" which would in fact be tantamount to the expansion of the Commission's prerogatives. Opinions divided on the introduction of a new category of funding recipients, "intermediate regions". Eventually, the European Commission's major suggestions were approved and laid the foundation for the 2013 reform of the cohesion policy. The idea of the "performance reserve" was rejected. Regional authorities did not obtain a direct access to concluding contracts with the Commission. On the whole, the reactions of the national governments and regional authorities of the EU's major states to the Commission's suggestions demonstrated that central and regional elites were not ready for the expansion of EU supranational institutions' competences in the domain of cohesion policy.

Keywords

Authors

References