Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Between 2000 and 2006, therefore, growth of GDP per head in the Objective 1 regions in the
EU15 taken together averaged some 2% a year as against growth of 1.4% a year in regions not
receiving any assistance from the Structural Funds (or, more precisely, not receiving a significant
amount of assistance, since the comparatively few regions with small areas which were eligible
for Objective 2 funding are included in this category).
In all Member States, apart from Belgium, the growth rate achieved in Objective 1 regions was
higher than that in non-assisted ones (defined as indicated above). This was particularly the case
in Austria, Sweden and France, where the difference in growth rates was close to 1%, and it was
even the case in Italy, if only marginally, despite the relatively low rate of growth in Objective 1
regions.
Only in Belgium, Italy and Portugal was the growth performance of Objective 1 regions over this
period inferior to that in non-assisted regions at EU15 level. In these terms, therefore, there was
some convergence of GDP per head in the weakest regions towards that in the strongest. This
was especially so for the Greek regions, though in this case, growth was heavily concentrated
around Athens and in some regions, there was little growth at all.
It was equally the case, again with the exception of Belgium, that growth in Objective 1 regions
was higher than that in those receiving smaller, though still significant, amounts of funding under
Objective 2.
In addition, in the majority of countries, regions receiving more support under Objective 2
experienced a higher rate of GDP per head than those receiving a smaller amount of funding or
no funding at all.
The growth performance of assisted regions relative to others over the period was in most cases
significantly better than in the preceding programming period. Since the great majority of the
regions receiving Objective 1 or Objective 2 funding between 2000 and 2006 also received
funding in the period before, this might imply that it takes time for structural support to be
reflected in increased economic growth.
In Objective 1 regions on average, therefore, growth of GDP per head over the years 1995-2000
was slightly higher than in other regions, though less so than in the later years. This, however,
masks the fact that, in most of the countries, growth in Objective 1 regions was either lower than
in other regions or much the same. The only two countries where this was not the case were
Austria and Italy.
In Objective 2 regions, the growth rate achieved over the period 1995-2000 was either similar to
that in non-assisted regions or lower.
In the EU10 countries, growth of GDP per head in all the Objective 1 regions, except Malta,
outstripped the EU average over the period 2000-2006, so that in all cases there was some
convergence towards the level in the rest of the Union. Growth was especially high, as noted
above, in the three Baltic States.
At the same time, growth in the capital city regions in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia
exceeded that in the rest of the respective countries, so that internal disparities in GDP per head
widened over the period. Internal disparities also widened in Hungary and Poland, where in each
case, there was equally a relative concentration of growth in the capital city region, and in Poland
in the other more developed regions with relatively high levels of GDP per head (changes in
regional disparities within countries are examined below).
54