Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report These findings are modified to some extent if account is taken of the effect of commuting. As indicated below, the increased scale of commuting from Objective 1 regions to others over the period means, first, that the GDP per head figures exaggerate the widening of regional disparities in the EU10 countries. Secondly, it means that the economic growth of Objective 1 regions is slightly understated. 2.3.1 Narrowing disparities in employment rates The relatively high rate of growth in Objective 1 regions in the EU15 indicated above led to more of those living in the regions concerned being able to find work, which as, noted above, was a major aim of cohesion policy at the start of the programming period. The significant gap in the proportion of working-age population in employment, which existed in most countries between these regions and others, therefore, narrowed appreciably over the programming period. The average employment rate in Objective regions in the EU15 rose from 55.5% of working-age population in 2000 to 60.1% in 2006, whereas in non-assisted regions, it rose by much less – from 69.1% to 70.3% (Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Employment rates in Objective 1, Objective 2 and other regions, 2000-2006 % population 15-64 Objective 1 Obj 2 >45% Obj 2 20-45% Other 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 BE 53.6 52.2 54.9 56.8 59.2 60.7 62.9 63.3 DK . . . . . . 76.3 77.4 DE 61.7 63.9 62.0 64.3 64.4 66.9 67.4 69.5 IE 65.2 68.6 . . . . . . GR 56.5 61.0 . . . . . . ES 52.5 61.2 62.3 69.5 60.3 70.2 . . FR na na 60.0 62.4 61.1 62.8 65.8 64.8 IT 41.5 45.9 55.0 59.7 57.6 62.9 62.6 66.9 LU . . . . 62.7 63.5 . . NL 76.9 75.6 69.7 71.9 . . 73.2 74.6 AT 68.2 69.5 65.8 68.9 69.6 72.0 69.0 69.2 PT 68.4 67.9 . . . . . . FI 60.4 63.7 65.9 68.3 71.2 72.6 . . SE 68.9 72.4 70.2 70.8 73.4 76.1 73.1 73.2 UK 63.7 66.5 67.4 69.5 70.2 70.1 75.5 74.3 EU15 55.5 60.1 62.7 66.0 63.1 66.1 69.1 70.3 CZ 64.1 64.4 . . 71.7 71.6 . . EE 60.4 68.1 . . . . . . CY . . . . 65.4 69.6 . . LV 57.4 66.3 . . . . . . LT 59.6 63.6 . . . . . . HU 56.3 57.3 . . . . . . MT 54.5 54.8 . . . . . . PL 55.0 54.3 . . . . . . SI 62.8 66.6 . . . . . . SK 55.0 58.1 . . 70.0 69.8 . . EU10 57.0 57.7 . . 69.6 70.6 . . EU25 56.2 59.1 62.7 66.0 63.2 66.2 69.1 70.3 Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey and own calculations 55
Page 1:
Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 6 and 7: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176:
Consult this website for further in
show all

Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?