Eduardo Medeiros

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 6 (2018), Issue 1, Page 68 - 85

This paper addresses EU Cohesion Policy and its contribution to supporting territorial development strategies in Portugal in the last couple of decades. Based on the identification of the main drivers of territorial development, and on the use of a wide range of data, it shows the positive and the negative effects of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in supporting national and regional development. In sum, it concludes that these effects were more on the positive side, and contributed to promoting territorial development trends in all Portuguese regions. Nevertheless, the lack of a strategic territorial development vision from the national authorities prevented a more effective and efficient use of available EU cohesion, structural and investment funds. At the same time, the ultimate goal of territorial cohesion was not achieved at national level, and the approximation to EU averages in most territorial development indicators is still a far cry from the reality.

Laura Polverari, Rona Michie

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 4, Page 299 - 308

The 2014-20 European Structural and Investment Funds regulations include provisions which strengthen the legal framework for examining and handling complaints under the ESI Funds. For the first time, the regulations require EU Member States to provide effective arrangements for examining complaints under their ESI Fund programmes (in Article 74(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation). However, provisions on how such complaints should be dealt with remain vague. This article examines some of the elements such complaints handling systems should include, proposes an analytical framework to assess the effectiveness of such systems, and asks whether imposing more stringent requirements on Member State authorities in this area could further exacerbate the already contested administrative cost of implementing Cohesion policy.

Eduardo Medeiros

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 3, Page 245 - 262

In 2007, European Territorial Cooperation became one of the major goals of EU Cohesion Policy, building on the successful experiences from the INTERREG Community Initiative in supporting cross-border, transnational, and interregional cooperation processes across the EU territory since 1989. Yet, financially, this goal has never received more than 3 % of the total budget of EU Cohesion Policy. This article discusses the crucial role of European Territorial Cooperation for implementing the goals of EU Cohesion Policy, and debates several arguments suggesting its future (re)positioned at the heart of Cohesion Policy. More pointedly, the article sets out several advantages in adopting a transnational approach to the development of the EU territory, by exploiting transnational potentials, and tackling transnational needs in all domains of territorial development. Furthermore, we highlight the need to place the goals of reducing persistent barriers and implementing cross-border planning strategies at the core of cross-border cooperation programmes. Finally, it is concluded that there is a need to shift the ongoing ‘nationally driven EU Cohesion Policy’ design and implementation rationale into a ‘transnational driven’ rationale, and thus places European Territorial Cooperation at the heart EU policy making.

Franziska Sielker, Jörg Mirtl

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 3, Page 223 - 234

Ten years of macro-regional cooperation and the contemporary post-2020 discussions are the impetus for the authors to question the role and position of macro-regions, and to examine the potential and challenges for their future. In order to position macro-regions in the context of Cohesion policy and sectoral policies we explore the current state of play of macro-regional strategies (MRS) by analysing their implementation processes through a case study analysis, and an analysis of existing studies on the approach and added-value of MRS. This two-fold approach includes an institutional mapping of Priority Area 1a “Waterway Mobilities” of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, as well as conclusions drawn from studies conducted by the Interact programme. The assessment of challenges and potentials positions MRS within the institutional landscape of EU Cohesion policy and sectoral policies, especially with regard to its territorial dimension. The article outlines different options for the future of MRS, which are primarily seen as tools to increase coherence between sectoral policies and regional policies and also among the different layers of the latter.

Lysette Meuleman, Alex Brenninkmeijer

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 2, Page 161 - 173

Cohesion policy (ERDF, ESF and CF) is implemented in a system of shared management. Signals received from some EU countries indicate that legal uncertainty is created for beneficiaries of cohesion policy funds due to differences in interpretation of, mostly national, regulation. This is a problem because the prospect of legal uncertainty, with the consequence of returning paid subsidies, and the audit burden associated with European funding, may deter organizations from applying for funds. This paper tries to gain a first insight in how this legal uncertainty is created and whether these differences in interpretation are found across the EU. This study focuses on the relationship and communication between the management and audit authorities and the effect of this dialogue on legal certainty and the way audit is carried out under a shared management system. We touch upon the fear of audits, fear because professionals feel they are under constant challenge of being undermined in the future.

Jan-Philipp Kramer, András Kaszap

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 2, Page 120 - 133

Direct financial support to large enterprises in the 2007-2013 EU programming period is estimated at € 6 billion on the EU-28 level. Debates on the effectiveness of this sum often fuel controversies, containing varied points of view in favour of, or against using public money to subsidise large enterprises. The justification of subsidies often involves the argument of influencing the large firms’ location choice or realising additional indirect and wider benefits for SMEs and the regions in which they operate. The extent to which the EU support can influence the large firms’ behaviour is, however, difficult to measure, largely due to the complexity of the companies’ organisational structures and decision making mechanisms. This paper presents the methodology, the main findings and conclusions of Work Package 4 (Support to large enterprises) of the ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013. The evaluation used a theory-based approach, Contribution Analysis in particular, to open the ‘black box’ of large firm support and unravel the causal relationship between the distributed funds and the observed outcomes. The paper sheds light on the effectiveness of the interventions and identifies the conditions under which large firm support can result in added value at EU level.

Fiona Wishlade, Rona Michie, Giovanni Familiari, Peter Schneidewind, Andreas Resch

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 2, Page 111 - 119

The 2007-13 planning period saw a new and significant emphasis on the use of so-called ‘financial instruments’ as measures to implement Cohesion policy. This was justified by the Commission on the basis that such instruments are more sustainable than grants, that they can generate better quality projects and that they are a more efficient use of public funds. However, for many Member States financial instruments were a new approach to delivering Cohesion policy in 2007-13, and their increased use created significant challenges. In considering this experience, this article draws on the findings of the ex post evaluation of financial instruments for enterprise support under the ERDF and Cohesion Fund. It assesses the scale of support provided through co-financed financial instruments in 2007-13, considers the rationales of managing authorities opting to use financial instruments, outlines how financial instruments were implemented in practice and provides some initial indications of their effectiveness.