Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
• Much of the remaining part of funding was allocated to protecting and improving the
natural and physical environment, which contributed to the sustainability of economic
development as well as to social cohesion and territorial balance, as indicated below.
The simulation results of macroeconomic models
• The two macroeconomic models used both estimate that the expenditure financed from
the Structural Funds is likely to have had a substantial effect on economic growth in the
countries receiving more from the Funds than they contributed to their financing. This is
the case, in the EU15, in Greece, Portugal, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Ireland, as well as
in Southern Italy and Eastern Germany and all of the EU10 countries.
• In Portugal, GDP is estimated to have been around 16% higher in 2009 as a result of
support from the Funds, turning a possible decline in GDP into growth, even if at a low
rate. For Greece, GDP is estimated to have been 13-16% higher in 2009 as a result of
funding and in Spain, 10-17% higher 49 .
• In the EU10 countries taken together, GDP in 2009 is estimated to have been almost 5%
higher than it would have been without Structural Fund support, despite the short time
this was available.
• According to the model designed to estimate the combined effect of levying the taxes to
raise the necessary revenue as well as of the expenditure, the Structural Funds are
estimated to have increased economic growth across the EU25 as a whole over the period.
The boost to growth in lagging economies, therefore, outweighed any adverse effects in
the countries which were net contributors to funding.
The growth performance in regions assisted by the ERDF
• Growth of GDP per head in Objective 1 regions in the EU15 was higher on average over
the 2000-2006 period than in other regions (around 2% a year as opposed to 1.4%).
• Growth in Objective 1 regions in all EU15 countries apart from Belgium was higher than in
non-assisted regions, and in all countries apart from Belgium, Italy and Portugal, higher
than the EU25 average.
• Growth in GDP per head in all regions in EU10 countries, except Malta, was above the
EU25 average over the period 2000-2006, in the run-up to their entry into the Union and,
even more so, after it.
• Growth in regions receiving a significant amount of Objective 2 funding was either higher
than that in non-assisted regions or much the same.
• Regional disparities in GDP per head, one of the main targets of cohesion policy,
narrowed slightly in the EU15 as a whole over the 2000-2006 period having widened in
the preceding 5 years. They also narrowed in most EU15 Member States. This is all the
more the case if the effect of commuting on GDP per head is taken into account.
Evidence of the results of ERDF support
Tangible evidence of the positive effects of ERDF support in policy areas which represent key
drivers of economic growth was compiled for all countries from the administrative data available
49 The ranges refer to the estimates of the two models.
156