Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 • the difficulties of both defining and measuring the ultimate goal of sustainable development, as opposed to economic development per se, and the long-term nature of the concept, which makes it hard to judge the appropriate balance between economic and other objectives in the short-term. • The fact that in many Member States, the financial support provided by the Structural Funds is only a small part of the aid which went to Objective 1 and 2 regions. This means that, in the non-Cohesion countries in particular, national policy towards the development of the regions concerned can have a much greater effect on outcomes than EU cohesion policy. Although the above analysis has pointed to cutbacks in overall government investment in some Member States over the programming period, data are not readily available on nationally-financed development expenditure in the different regions and how it changed over the period. • The fact that most regions receiving funding over the 2000-2006 period also received financial support in the preceding programming period and, in many cases, the one before that as well. This means that any effects which show up on regional economic performance over the period could well be a result of earlier funding as much as that received during the period itself, especially given sometimes lengthy lags in the effect of policy materialising. Accordingly, it is not possible to attribute developments observed over the period to the 2000-2006 funding alone. The effect of the ERDF on the economic development of the regions assisted is considered first before going on to consider the other objectives of cohesion policy. 5.1.2 The effect of the ERDF on the economic development of regions It is important to recognise that it is not inherently possible to draw a direct link between the financial support given to regions and changes in indicators of regional economic performance, such as growth of GDP per head in particular. What is possible is to draw together the various pieces of evidence which are relevant for judging the effect of the former on the latter, in this case, on: • Whether the scale of funding was significant. • Whether funding targeted the drivers of economic growth which economic theories – and the main international organisations – say should be targeted. • Whether simulations of the funding provided and its division between policy areas, using macroeconomic models representing the workings of the economy as best they can, indicate that it should have had a positive effect on economic growth. • Whether the growth performance over the period in regions receiving funding was better or worse than in other regions. • Whether there is concrete evidence from national evaluations and the case studies that the funding had positive results in the areas of intervention. 154
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report This is the approach which has been adopted in the evaluation. If the answers to these 5 questions are positive, this does not necessarily prove that funding had a positive effect on economic development but it is reasonable to suppose that it did 47 . The evidence is as follows: The scale of funding 48 • The Structural Funds provided EUR 174 billion of financial support to regions across the EU for the 2000-2006 period. The ERDF was responsible for almost two-thirds of this, just under EUR 116 billion. In Objective 1 regions, in particular, to which well over 80% of the funding went, this was a significant amount in relation to GDP and even more in relation to investment. • On average, ERDF support amounted to 2-3% of total fixed investment in Objective 1 regions in the EU15 and some 15% of government investment • In Portugal and Greece, the ERDF amounted to well over 1% of GDP a year and was equivalent to around 40% of government investment over the period. • In the EU10 countries, which became eligible for the ERDF only from May 2004, the scale of support was also significant from then on. • In Objective 2 regions, funding was much smaller, though not negligible, equivalent to around 3% or so of government investment in the regions receiving support. The policy areas targeted by EU intervention • The largest part of the ERDF in Objective 1 regions in both the EU15 and the EU10 was allocated to two broad policy areas – transport, on the one hand, and enterprise support, on the other. These two areas accounted for around two-thirds of the total funding made available, if support for tourism is included in the latter. • Such a focus of support is very much in line with economic theories of development which emphasise the importance for growth of both efficient communications in order to widen the market and save travel time and investment in productive capacity. • The relative weight given to these policy areas in the funding allocated varied across regions, reflecting their needs and priorities. Greece, Spain and Ireland invested the funds more in transport than enterprise support, reflecting deficiencies in their communications networks; other EU15 countries with Objective 1 regions, more in enterprise support to strengthen businesses. Investment in the two together were complementary – the one aimed directly at increasing business competitiveness, the other indirectly by improving the conditions in which businesses operate. • In regions receiving Objective 2 support, the ERDF was concentrated much more on enterprise support than in most Objective 1 regions. Together with tourism and including support for research and innovation, this accounted on average for around 60% of the total funds allocated. Much of the focus, therefore, was on one of the main drivers of economic growth. 47 It should be noted that the evaluation did not attempt to answer the question of whether the funds were used in the most effective way, or whether some other pattern of expenditure would have boosted GDP by more, which is virtually impossible to know given the differing circumstances and needs in the regions assisted. 48 Payments by the European Commission to Member States 155
Page 1:
Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 176: Consult this website for further in
show all

Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?