Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
The preference of the administrative authorities for small projects was reinforced by the
complicated nature of the bureaucracy, which discouraged large-scale projects from being
initiated.
Equally, monitoring and evaluation increased in importance and all programmes were subject to
both according to EC guidelines. However, while evaluations provided a large amount of
information:
• this was often interpreted in a very formal and restricted way and was not put to
constructive use;
• the evaluation units in the Ministries and regions spread a culture of evaluation but failed
to increase true evaluation capacity, since many relatively simple and routine tasks were
contracted out to technical assistance agencies, so preventing internal staff from gaining
know-how and building capacity.
Germany
Support from the Structural Funds going to the Objective 1 regions in the East of Germany over
the period 2000-2006 was slightly smaller in relation to their GDP than in the Southern Italian
regions (at around 0.65%), most of it coming from the ERDF, though if Berlin (part of which
received phasing-out funding under Objective 1 and part, Objective 2 funding) is excluded, the
relative amount is increased closer to that in Italy.
Germany like Italy experienced relatively slow growth of GDP per head over the period, if not
quite so slow (around 1.4% a year). Growth in the Objective 1 regions, excluding Berlin, however,
was much faster than in the rest of the country (around 2.5% a year), so that regional disparities
narrowed over the period. According to the HERMIN model, the Structural Funds are likely to have
contributed significantly to this narrowing.
At the same time, there are marked differences across the Objective 1 regions, which tended to
widen over the period, with the less prosperous regions in the North (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
and Brandenburg) growing at a much slower rate than the more prosperous ones further South
(Halle, Dresden and Magdeburg).
Like in Italy too, EU funding compensated in some degree for the reduction over the period in
national funds for investment, which remained small as compared with the amounts devoted to
assisting the development of these regions in the first half of the 1990s. Nevertheless, national
funds, made available under the ‘Joint Task’ (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der
regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur"), which is partly financed by the Structural Funds, represented the
major source of support.
As compared with the Joint Task, which was focussed on investment grants to companies and
infrastructure, the ERDF was wider in scope and gave the Länder receiving assistance 45 the chance
to formulate a reasonably comprehensive development strategy containing a wide-ranging
package of measures. In most cases, there was a growing emphasis on clusters and growth poles,
which was reflected in the concentration of support on specific sectors of activity or on major
cities.
Much of the funding went to strengthening SMEs and supporting RTDI, which led to:
45 In Germany, the Länder, which correspond with NUTS 1 rather than NUTS 2 regions, represent the regional level
of government responsible jointly with the Federal authorities for formulating development strategies.
127