Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 While there was an increase in employment rates in Objective 1 regions in most countries over the period, the rise was not universal. In Hainaut in Belgium, Flevoland in the Netherlands and the Objective 1 regions in Portugal, there was a reduction in employment rates rather than an increase. In Hainaut and in the Portuguese regions, this reflects increasing difficulty of finding work in a context of relatively slow economic growth. (In Flevoland, the employment rate was already well above the EU average in 2000 and, despite the small fall, it remained so in 2006.) By contrast, in Spain, the average employment rate in Objective 1 regions increased by almost 9 percentage points, narrowing the gap markedly with regions elsewhere in the EU. The increase, however, was much the same as in other Spanish regions, so the gap with these regions remained as wide as before. In Sweden, the gap in the employment rate between Objective 1 regions – the sparsely populated areas in the North and Centre of the country – and non-assisted ones narrowed significantly between 2000 and 2006, whereas before then it had been widening. In regions receiving significant amounts of Objective 2 funding, employment rates rose either by more than in non-assisted regions or by much the same extent in all EU15 countries. In the EU10 Objective 1 regions, there was relatively little or no increase in employment rates in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Malta, while in Poland, the rate fell slightly. In all three Baltic States, however, where employment growth was accompanied by a significant reduction in working-age population, employment rates increased markedly. There was also an increase in employment rates in Slovenia and Slovakia, in the latter, in contrast to the capital city region (Bratislava), where the rate remained broadly unchanged. This was also the case in Praha, just as in the rest of the Czech Republic. 2.3.2 Narrowing of disparities in GDP per head across the EU The higher rate of economic growth in the lagging regions across the EU, described above, was associated with a narrowing of disparities in GDP per head across regions, which is one of the main goals of cohesion policy. While it is not possible to attribute this directly to the measures carried out with the aid of the Structural Funds, it is, nevertheless, consistent with these having the intended effect. This is especially the case in view of the damaging consequences that globalisation is likely to have had on economic growth in many of the lagging regions as compared with others. Other things being equal, therefore, the expectation is that these regions together with others assisted under cohesion policy would have, on average, experienced slower growth than non-assisted regions. Between 2000 and 2006, the extent of regional dispersion in GDP per head across the EU25 considered as a whole declined significantly, as measured by a commonly-used indicator of dispersion (the mean, population-weighted, logarithmic deviation index – see Box). This followed a similar, though slightly smaller, decline over the preceding 5 years (Table 2.5). 56
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Box The mean logarithmic deviation index The mean logarithmic deviation index is defined as: 1 I = n ∑ i ln ⎛ μ ⎟ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ y ⎠ i Where n is the number of observations, μ is the average GDP per head, and yi is the GDP per head of a region i. In calculating the index, each region is weighted by its population in order to allow explicitly for the large variation which exists in the size of regions and to give a more accurate measure of regional disparities across the EU. This is important since unweighted indices, which are often used, show significantly different changes. Other measures of disparity, such as the standard deviation or variance show similar results, so long as they are population weighted. This overall reduction in disparities was a result primarily of the catching up of regions in the EU10 countries where in both periods, as seen above, GDP growth was much higher than in the EU15. If regions in the EU15 and the EU10 are considered separately, the change over the period was less clear-cut. Table 2.5 Dispersion of GDP per head in PPS between NUTS 2 regions in the EU25, 1995, 2000 and 2006 Mean log deviation index 1995 2000 2006 IE 1.6 2.2 1.9 NL 0.7 0.9 1.0 AT 2.7 2.3 1.8 SE 0.9 1.7 1.6 UK 3.6 5.0 5.4 BE 5.0 5.2 5.2 DE 2.7 2.7 2.4 FI 1.1 1.7 1.3 FR 3.0 3.4 3.2 ES 2.3 2.6 2.0 IT 4.1 4.0 3.8 GR 3.0 2.4 4.2 PT 2.4 2.9 2.9 EU15 3.8 3.9 3.7 CZ 2.5 4.5 5.3 HU 4.0 6.4 8.5 SK 5.9 6.0 8.0 PL 1.4 2.5 3.1 EU10 4.9 4.9 5.5 EU25 8.3 7.5 6.3 Note: Countries are ordered within the EU15 and EU10 according to GDP per head in PPS terms in 2006. Source: Estimates based on Eurostat, Regional Accounts 57
Page 1:
Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?