Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
The main area of uncertainty is not so much how economic forces responded to structural
intervention over the period but more whether the intervention concerned produced the expected
output and led to the expected results. This is the theme of the remainder of this chapter, which,
in addition, considers the differences across regions in different parts of the EU and the effect of
policy on territorial balance.
4.2 THE EFFECT OF COHESION POLICY ON THE REGIONS ASSISTED
The concern here is to examine developments in the regions receiving assistance from the
Structural Funds in more detail, focusing in particular on those which were in receipt of the most
support and taking account of the national context in which the regions concerned were
developing. This is intended to complement Chapter 3 above, which considered the achievements
of policy across the EU in the main policy areas, and to extend the analysis in Chapter 2, which
reviewed the growth performance of the regions assisted. It is also intended to add corroborating
evidence to the results of the model simulations which suggest that the Structural Funds can be
expected to have boosted productive potential considerably in the countries receiving a
significant amount of support. The aim is not so much to review developments in the regions as
such but to relate these to the results of the evaluations of particular policy programmes carried
out in the Member States concerned as well as the findings of the various studies undertaken as
part of the ex post evaluation.
The regions are considered in the following order:
• Objective 1 regions in EU15 Member States receiving most funding in relative terms – i.e.
those in Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany and Ireland, in that order;
• Objective 1 regions in EU15 countries receiving a smaller amount of support – i.e. those in
the UK, France, Finland and Sweden;
• Single Objective 1 regions in EU15 countries – i.e. those in Belgium, the Netherlands and
Austria);
• Objective 1 regions in the EU10 countries which received significant assistance only from
mid-2004;
• Objective 2 regions across the EU15.
4.2.1 Policy outcomes in Objective 1 regions in the EU15
Portugal
Portugal received the largest amount of assistance from the Structural Funds – and the ERDF –
relative to GDP over the 2000-2006 period. It is also the country where the effect of funding on
growth is estimated to have been largest by the two macroeconomic models. In practice, as
indicated in Chapter 2, growth of GDP per head in Portugal lagged behind the EU25 average over
the period having significantly exceeded it over the preceding 5 years. Without EU funding,
therefore, the evidence is that growth in Portugal would have lagged even further behind that in
other parts of the Union.
A key factor underlying the slow growth was the decline of traditional export industries,
especially textiles, coupled with the limited success of developing new growth sectors in the
context of a work force with the lowest education levels in the EU. In addition, slow growth led to
rising budget deficits which triggered fiscal restraint and substantial cutbacks in government
investment (which was reduced from 4% of GDP in 2000 to only just over 2% of GDP in 2008).
120