Upload
po-fesr-basilicata-20072013
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
http://www.pofesr.basilicata.it/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/CrescenziMT_2012_05_04.pdf
Citation preview
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
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;