Crescenzimt 2012 05 04

Basilicata in Europe. Opportunities and Threats from the EU Cohesion Policy and Ideas for policy-learning

CapacityLab – Matera

4th May 2012

Dr Riccardo Crescenzi

London School of Economics

UK

(r.crescenzi@lse.ac.uk)

2

Outline The EU Cohesion Policy … n … Why care? - Changing scenario at the Local

and EU level; n … How to care? –

¨ A framework for policy learning in time (Experience of Basilicata) and space (Experience of other EU regions);

¨ Some insights into what we can learn from the EU regions

n … Ideas for discussion

EU Cohesion Policy: Why Care?

4

EU Cohesion Policy - Why care? (Internal Perspective)

n  Important component of past and current developmental dynamics of Basilicata (Beneficiary of some support since mid-1980s but stronger involvment after 1989);

n  Important role in qualitative and quantitative terms: around 750 meuro FESR and 330 meuro FSE in 2007-2013.

n  Actual payments 17.4% for FESR and 18.8% for FSE as of February 2011 (generally better than other ‘Convergence Regions);

n  Strong role of the Regional level as beneficiary of funds (Comuni attract a smaller share of resources than in other Convergence regions);

n  Favourable accumulation of skills and competences whithin a stable institutional environment;

n  Changing status (Phasing Out) ... Not less important

5

n  In the new programming period in line with Barca Report: ¨ EU Regional Policy as a fully place-based

development policy ¨ Explicit account of spatial impacts of non-spatial

policies ¨ Move away from the convergence criteria to focus on

adjustment and transformation criteria ¨ Explicitly considers spatial population changes,

agglomeration and network effects, local regional capabilities and regional untapped potential

EU Cohesion Policy - Why care? (EU Perspective – Barca Report)

6

n  Cohesion Policy is mentioned as a key delivery mechanism for Europe 2020.

n  Regional and local authorities are requested to contribute to this strategy. n  EU Cohesion Policy programmes are expected to:

¨  Select their investment priorities taking into account the starting position of a region or city in relation to the national 2020 targets;

¨  Identify the manner it can best respond to regional/local development needs while at the same time contributing to 2020 targets.

n  Europe 2020 strategy is based on three Pillars: ¨  Smart Growth ¨  Sustainable Growth ¨  Inclusive growth

EU Cohesion Policy - Why care? (EU Perspective – EU2020)

7 Page 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006%

of B

udge

t

AdministrationExternalOther InternalCohesionCAP

Evolution of expenditure (II)

... HOW to care

9

Place-Based EU Cohesion Policy

n  Impact, outcomes and credibility of Cohesion Policy rests on policy-learning processes and the fostering of institutional innovation

n  Place-based space-specific policies which integrate sector policies into a comprehensive targeted platform are the ideal way to provide public goods tailored to the context

10

Policy Cycle Stage Activities Aims

Design Relevance

(Targets vs. Needs)

DIAGNOSIS OF LOCAL NEEDS

FOCUS/BALANCE OF STRATEGY

COORDINATION:

USE OF RESOURCES

EFFICIENCY AND TIMING

Effectivness

(Targets vs. Achievements)

Implementation AND in-itinere evaluation and

monitoring

Ex-post Evaluation

ANALYSIS OF  Time and Space Effects

 Macro / Meso / Micro perspectives

 All Steps above to identify factors conditioning/hampering success

Impact

(Achievments vs. Objectives

11

Design

DIAGNOSIS OF LOCAL NEEDS

FOCUS/BALANCE OF STRATEGY:

 Design of balanced strategies;

 Spatial Concentration;

 Concentration on specific Projects/Beneficiaries;

COORDINATION:  Top-down vs. Bottom-Up;

 Spatial coordination vs. Territorial competion (inter-regional);

 Timing

 Between different policy areas (Agricultural Policies; EUROMED; Research and Technology (FP);

Relevance

(Targets vs. Needs)

Policy Cycle Stage Activities Aims

12

Design

DIAGNOSIS OF LOCAL NEEDS

FOCUS/BALANCE OF STRATEGY:

 Design of balanced strategies;

 Spatial Concentration;

 Concentration on specific Projects/Beneficiaries;

COORDINATION:  Top-down vs. Bottom-Up;

 Spatial coordination vs. Territorial competion (inter-regional);

 Timing

 Between different policy areas (Agricultural Policies; EUROMED; Research and Technology (FP);

Relevance

(Targets vs. Needs)

Policy Cycle Stage Activities Aims

13

Diagnosis of local needs: from SWOT to ‘Integrated Perspective’ n The analysis of EU growth trajectories

suggests that individual developmental drivers should be analysed in a systemic perspective;

n Strong interactions within and between regions;

n EU Experience highlights importanc of integrated perspectives

Socio - Economic Conditions

Innovative Activities (Innovative and absorptive capacity)

International Local - Global Linkages (Pipelines/Networks)

Local and regional policies and investment

Geography (Density and Accessibility)

Incentives / infrastructure

Synergy Compensation

Hindrance

Accessibility to innovation - prone space

Knowledge

spillovers /

Knowledge

seeking

Example: Integrated framework and its five keystones

15

Design

DIAGNOSIS OF LOCAL NEEDS

FOCUS/BALANCE OF STRATEGY:

 Design of balanced strategies;

 Spatial Concentration;

 Concentration on specific Projects/Beneficiaries;

COORDINATION:  Top-down vs. Bottom-Up;

 Spatial coordination vs. Territorial competion (inter-regional);

 Timing

 Between different policy areas (Agricultural Policies; EUROMED; Research and Technology (FP);

Relevance

(Targets vs. Needs)

Policy Cycle Stage Activities Aims

16

Thematic Focus/Balance of Strategies Existing studies on the genesis of growth in the EU

Regions show that: n  The distribution of funds across development axes

targeted at achieving short-term results and delivering assistance rather that long-term growth;

n  Around 50% of total expenditure devoted to infrastructure investments with limited returns;

n  Limited emphasis on human capital and innovation (support narrowly focused on Science and Technology in this area);

n  The only development axis with short and medium-term positive returns is investment in human capital Excessive focus on one single axis responding to political or national interests;

n  Need for “more locally tailored combination of investment priorities across axes” + making local institutions more

17

Spatial Allocation of funds coherent

with policy targets ?

SPATIAL CONCENTRATION

CORRELATION WITH

DISADVANTAGE

 Smaller number of beneficiaries may allow a larger amount of resources to flow in selected regions.  Spatial concentration

maximises the externalities “flowing” within the assisted areas.

 It is possible to identify a specific set of “structural” conditions that are persistently associated with poor economic performance and which are very slow to adjust themselves endogenously (E.g. Social Filter);

Spatial Focus/Balance of Strategies

ANSWER AT THE EU-LEVEL RATHER MIXED ... Limited targeting but improving

18

Design

DIAGNOSIS OF LOCAL NEEDS

FOCUS/BALANCE OF STRATEGY:

 Design of balanced strategies;

 Spatial Concentration;

 Concentration on specific Projects/Beneficiaries;

COORDINATION:  Top-down vs. Bottom-Up;

 Spatial coordination vs. Territorial competion (inter-regional);

 Timing

 Between different policy areas (Agricultural Policies; EUROMED; Research and Technology (FP);

Relevance

(Targets vs. Needs)

Policy Cycle Stage Activities Aims

19

n  Significant changes in the COMPOSITION of EU spending;

n  Important opportunities for Basilicata after Phasing-out

n  Increasing emphasis on the capability of all EU policies to contribute to ‘territorial and social cohesion’ ¨ Regional Policy alone is not enough to achieve

cohesion (EC 2010; EESC 2007); ¨ Call for a Common Strategic Framework (DG Regio) ¨ Risk of counter-treatment effects (Esposti 2007); ¨ High cost of ‘non-coordination’ (Robert et al 2001; Barca

2009); ¨ Loss of territorial focus of spatially-targeted policies

(Greenbaum and Bondonio 2004).

COORDINATION (I)

20

Example of coordination - Regional and agricultural policies of the EU The CAP is a sectoral policy with relevant spatial implications The analysis of the EU expenditure for Regional, Rural and Agricultural policies (and its evolution over time) shows:

n  Potential inconsistencies\conflicts in the regional allocation of the funds ¨  Limited coordination between regional expenditure under different policy headings

n  Capability of Agri Policies to work pro-cohesion ¨ Some ‘reward’ for structural disadvantage from Rural Development Policies; ¨  But this ‘Virtuous Component’ of Rural Development may tend to loose focus over time when their funding is increased ¨ Lack of synergies with Regional Policies in disadvantaged areas;

21

n Example on CAP – given magnitude of funding;

n But Innovation Policy (e.g. FP7) also relevant;

n Coordination is also relevant as far as national policies are concerned

COORDINATION (II)

22

Design

DIAGNOSIS OF LOCAL NEEDS

FOCUS/BALANCE OF STRATEGY:

 Design of balanced strategies;

 Spatial Concentration;

 Concentration on specific Projects/Beneficiaries;

COORDINATION:  Top-down vs. Bottom-Up;

 Spatial coordination vs. Territorial competion (inter-regional);

 Timing

 Between different policy areas (Agricultural Policies; EUROMED; Research and Technology (FP);

Relevance

(Targets vs. Needs)

Policy Cycle Stage Activities Aims

23

… Ideas for discussion

n How to translate the EU Experience into policy innovation for the Basilicata Region? ¨ Diagnostic approach based on integrated

framework; ¨ Balanced strategy with strong focus on needs ¨ Coordination and synergies between policy

areas;