Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
At the same time, high growth was associated in all countries with widening disparities in GDP
per head between the urban centres, especially the capital cities, and rural areas, particularly the
more peripheral ones, as economic activity, and the inward flow of foreign direct investment
(FDI), was concentrated in the former.
This was as much the case in the smaller countries which were single NUTS 2 regions as the in
the larger ones. In Lithuania, therefore, the difference in GDP per head between the richest county
(Vilnius district) and the poorest (Taurage district) had increased to 2.6 times by the time of entry
into the EU. In Latvia, the continuing widening of regional disparities between the capital, Riga,
and the other regions was explained as follows:
‘due to the backwardness of the regions, educated and qualified people leave to go to Riga’ and
‘the drawbacks of the infrastructure significantly diminish the interest of entrepreneurs in
developing production in the regions’ 46 )
The effect of the Structural Funds on regional disparities
Such disparities were, therefore, of increasing concern as the plans for the 2004-2006
programming period were being prepared. These plans in nearly all countries were focused in
particular on strengthening the competitiveness of businesses both directly through support for
investment – and more especially, for innovation – and indirectly through improving infrastructure
and the underlying conditions for enterprise development. Funding, however, was directed not
only at sustaining growth of the economy as a whole but also at trying to achieve a more
balanced spatial pattern of development.
The aim was, therefore, to spend relatively more in the less developed parts than in more
developed ones in an attempt to reduce disparities in infrastructure, and resource endowment
generally, so as to even out the capacity for growth. At the same time, it was also to provide more
support to local businesses to help them to become more competitive.
This aim, however, was not always realised because of the differential capacity of regions, and the
firms located there, to absorb the funding made available. In Latvia, therefore despite the aim of
allocating more funding per head of population to the weaker regions, a larger share of finance
went to Vidzeme, a relatively prosperous region surrounding Riga, than to Latgale, a region with
one of the lowest levels of GDP per head.
In Estonia, where the aim was similar, the national report concluded that implementation was
most effective in the most developed regions and attributed this to their greater preparedness to
take up the measures introduced.
This was also the case in Hungary, where it is reported that the emphasis on innovation and R&D
policies in the development strategy led to Közép-Magyarország, the most developed region
where Budapest is situated and where research capacity is predominantly concentrated, gaining
much more than others.
The higher take-up of funding by the more developed regions was reinforced by the shortness of
the programming period, together with the limited experience of the authorities concerned either
of managing a large volume of EU funding, and the administrative requirements which go with it,
or of implementing a regional development strategy. In Poland, therefore, it was reported that,
because of time pressure, most of the attention of policy-makers during the process of
preparation for accession was taken up by the capacity to absorb EU support. In Hungary, the
46 Single Programming Document for the period 2004-2006.
137