Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
Moreover, the management model of cohesion policy has permeated into national and regional
practices resulting in a more effective use of public resources.
In the remaining countries receiving Objective 2 funding, the sums involved were smaller in
absolute terms than in the larger countries examined above but, in most cases, they were similar
in amount in relation to GDP in the areas assisted.
Netherlands
In the Netherlands, expenditure under Objective 2 amounted to just under EUR 700 million up to
the end of 2008. Most of this went to areas in the North and East of the country where income
levels were lower than elsewhere and rates on unemployment higher. Just under 19% of the
population outside of the Objective 1 region (Flevoland) lived in the areas concerned.
The primary goal in the northern regions in which funding was concentrated – Groningen,
Friesland and Drenthe – was to generate 13,000-23,000 net additional jobs, which were
considered to be needed to increase the employment rate in the regions and close the gap with
that in the country as a whole. The measures funded in pursuit of this were the development of
new business parks and office space as well as direct support to SMEs, including in the tourist
industry.
Between 2000 and 2006, the gap between the regions and the national average closed by around
8,000 jobs. However, it is estimated that without support, employment in the regions assisted
would have fallen by 8,000, so that from this perspective, the programme achieved its goal.
Business support measures were combined with funding for the regeneration of towns and
villages in the areas assisted and for new amenities, which, accordingly, brought about an
improvement in the quality of life in rural areas to go with the increased employment in the more
urban parts.
The conscious policy was to concentrate job creation in centres of economic activity and to
preserve rural areas as largely residential and places for leisure and recreation. The rationale was
to realise the benefits from agglomeration and the externalities generated by such a
concentration of businesses, which would then provide employment, and income, to those living
in other parts of the region, while safeguarding the rural nature of the latter. The strategy was
successful in the sense that job growth was concentrated over the period in the economic centres
where business support was focused, while the Northern regions as a whole experienced
employment growth in contrast to earlier years.
In general terms, therefore, the programme contributed to achieving a more balanced pattern of
development as well as stimulating entrepreneurship on a local scale.
Austria
In Austria, expenditure financed under Objective 2 amounted to around EUR 620 million up to
end-2008 and some 30% of people outside of the Objective 1 region (Burgenland) lived in areas
receiving support.
As elsewhere, funding went primarily to business support programmes, which had the direct
effect of creating around 18,000 new jobs, as well as another 2,000 in tourism. These jobs were
to a large extent in growing, technology-oriented industries (such as in automobile manufacture)
and only a small number were in traditional sectors (such as food and drink).
In the four NUTS 2 regions receiving most support over the period (Niederösterreich,
Oberrösterreich, Kärnten and Steiermark), growth of GDP per head over the period was almost
149