A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO COHESION: The Development Planning of EU Member States Professor John...
-
Upload
jemimah-weaver -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO COHESION: The Development Planning of EU Member States Professor John...
A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO COHESION:
The Development Planning of EU Member States
Professor John Bachtler
European Policies Research CentreUniversity of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland
Second National Development ConferenceAthens, 9 December 2005
2
European Policies Research Centre
specialises in comparative research on public policy throughout Europe
focus on monitoring and analysis of regional development policies at European and national levels
policy advice and exchange of experience through two networks:
– IQ-Net (Improving the Quality of Programme Management) – regional and national Structural Fund programme management authorities from 12 Member States www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/iqnet/
– EoRPA (European Regional Policy Research Network) - national government departments responsible for regional policy – 10 countries
3
IQ-Net partners – national and regional programme management authorities
United Kingdom• North-East England• Office of Deputy Prime Minister• Wales (WEFO)• Western Scotland (SEP)
Spain• País Vasco
Sweden• Norra Norrland • Norra
Germany • North-Rhine Westphalia
• Saxony Anhalt
Finland• Western Finland Alliance
•Ministry of the Interior
France• DATAR/CNASEA
Belgium• Min of Flemish Community
Denmark• North Jutland/Nat Agency
Italy• Lombardy • Tuscany• IPI/Min. of Prod. Activities
Hungary• National Office for Territorial Development
Austria• Lower Austria
•Styria
Poland• Marshall Office of Slaskie Voivodeship
Greece• Min of Economy & Finance
4
A Strategic Approach to Cohesion
Strategic approach of EU Cohesion policy Key factors influencing strategies Current status of the NSRFs Approaches to strategy development NSRF – scope and focus NSRF – objectives and development paths NSRF – types of strategies Key questions
5
National Strategic Reference Frameworks: Strategic approach
Strategic approach is shaped by:
– the amount of funding available – the agreed strategic objectives in the
Community Strategic Guidelines – the content of the Regulations, notably with
respect to eligible expenditure – previous programme experience– national circumstances
6
National Strategic Reference Frameworks: Key factors
Organising the strategy development process
Establishing the scope of consultation Making policy choices The equity-efficiency dilemma The importance accorded to
Lisbon/Gothenburg Balancing political and institutional
priorities Coordination with national policies
7
State-of-play of the NSRFs: Stages
A small number of countries have already reached the final stage of NSRF preparation
Many others are still working on their first draft versions
Some are still involved with the formative stages of strategy development
Formative Stages First Draft Final Drafts
Austria, Poland, Malta, Latvia, Spain, Netherlands
France, Greece, Hungary, Finland, Italy, UK
Denmark, Germany, Sweden
8
Regional input Regional input Regional input
National Strategic Reference Framework
National Strategic Reference Framework
National Strategic Reference Framework
Bot
tom
-up
Mix
ed
Top-dow
n
Approaches to Strategy Development: Regional input
9
Approaches to Strategy Development:Development Planning in Greece
Greece among the EU countries having made advanced progress:– long-term process of preparatory planning– extensive reflection and analysis (studies of
challenges and development perspectives)– consultation with national, regional and local
partners (planning groups, circulars, Development Conferences)
– first draft of future strategy - identification of seven strategic development axes
10
National Strategic Reference Frameworks: Content
Scope Objectives Development paths Types of strategy
11
NSRFs – Scope and Strategic Focus
Mostly broad and general– Either deliberately (e.g. Germany, UK and
France)– Or as a result of the need to accommodate
various views/interests (e.g. Italy) Focused
– Austria and Denmark (Lisbon)– Finland (focussed on specific needs of
regions)
12
NSRFs – Overarching Goals
Lisbon, i.e. increased competitiveness through knowledge economy – all countries
Growth and productivity – Greece, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, UK
Employment – Denmark, Greece, Poland, Sweden, and qualification of human resources – Austria
Territorial attractiveness and/or overcoming of spatial challenges - Austria, France, Nordic countries
13
NSRFs – Development Paths
Contextual interventions (services of general economic interest/collective services, institutional and market reforms) – Hungary, Italy and, Finland & Sweden
Innovation, R&D, Competitiveness – all countries
Growth pole/competitiveness pole strategy – Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland
Other key themes: o sustainable development/gender mainstreaming (Austria)o territorial cooperation (Austria, Sweden)o balanced regional structure (Finland)o attractiveness of urban/rural areas (Germany)o development of peripheries and special-type regions (Hungary, France)
14
NSRF – Types of Strategies
Three broad groups of countries:1. Lisbon-focused strategies2. Basic development strategies3. Mix of basic development and Lisbon strategies
Consider each group in terms of:– EU funding– Policy context– Focus of EU programmes– Implementation issues
15
NSRF – Types of Strategies Group 1: Lisbon-focused strategies
Countries/regions Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK Regions of northern/central Italy; western Germany
EU funding Reduced EU Cohesion policy support Most or all funding under Regional Competitiveness &
Employment programmes
Policy context Regional disparities of limited importance (in some countries) National regional development policies focusing on growth,
competitiveness and employment Long-established territorial dimension to economic development
through regional policies, regional innovation strategies, regional/urban cluster policies, regional productivity, skills or entrepreneurship initiatives
Well-developed implementation systems – specialist intermediaries, sophisticated delivery systems
16
NSRF – Types of Strategies Group 1: Lisbon-focused strategies
Focus of EU programmes NSRFs designed around foci such as innovation, use of new
technology, quality of human resources, entrepreneurship, sustainable development
OP measures will address advisory/consultancy support, new financial instruments, utilisation of IT by target groups and innovative applications, regional innovation networking, specialist training, and improved delivery of education and training
Implementation issues Managing a reduced amount of funding; need to make difficult
choices Thematic focus – tensions between sectoral policy and regional
policy ministries Spatial focus – concentration on growth poles/centres or broad
regions?
17
NSRF – Types of Strategies Group 2: Basic development strategies
Countries/regions Most of the new Member States; Candidate Countries
EU funding Significantly higher EU Cohesion policy support; major transfers Most or all funding under Convergence programmes
Policy context Most important policy challenge is convergence with other parts
of the EU, need to address basic development needs Growing regional and social disparities, especially between
metropolitan regions and other areas Historically limited role for national regional policies – relatively
small-scale schemes Weak territorial dimension to policy-making and delivery Institutional capacity problems
18
NSRF – Types of Strategies Group 2: Basic development strategies
Focus of EU programmes NSRFs have commitment to growth, employment and sustainable
development, but main focus will be on public investment and basic conditions for business development
OPs will address mainly transport, telecoms and other physical infrastructure, human capital, environment improvement
Measures also for Lisbon but secondary to main development goals
Implementation issues Policy choices – balance between long-term investment and
measures providing immediate returns; between national growth (competitiveness) and reducing disparities (cohesion)
Spatial focus – balance between focus on metropolitan regions (pre-conditions in place) and other areas (basic needs to be addressed)– institutional framework for managing Structural and Cohesion Funds– coordination of divergent sectoral policy interests– scope for regionalisation– lack of intermediaries– absorption challenges – personnel, skills, systems etc
Managing expectations of societal groups with respect to the availability of funding
19
NSRF – Types of Strategies Group 3: Mix of basic development and Lisbon strategies
Countries/regions Greece, Portugal, Spain and (partly) Ireland Regions of southern Italy; eastern Germany
EU funding Reduced EU Cohesion policy support, although still sizeable transfers Mix of Convergence, Phasing-in/out and Regional Competitiveness &
Employment programmes
Policy context Previous support has provided a good basis for support, but some regions
still suffering infrastructure deficits and other basic development needs Strong regional differentiation, especially between capital
city/metropolitan areas and peripheral or underdeveloped regions Regional policies of increasing importance Regional-level administrative capacity to take on more economic
development responsibilities
20
NSRF – Types of Strategies Group 3: Mix of basic development and Lisbon
strategies
Focus of EU programmes NSRFs have commitment to Lisbon/Gothenburg but accompanied by
continued support for basic infrastructure and generic business investment and employment measures
Greater emphasis on innovation and technology transfer, targeted skills, entrepreneurship, financial engineering, environmental and energy management, secondary infrastructure (bottlenecks) and multimodal and logistics projects
Implementation issues Policy choices – need for greater selectivity; building on pre-conditions for
growth and competitiveness Better coordination between EU and domestic policy interventions, with
more strategic approach to national development planning Rationalisation of national-level OPs; fewer managing authorities at
national level Greater importance of regions (ROPs) in the design and delivery of future
Structural Funds strategies and programmes Need for investment in administrative capacity to strengthen
intermediaries and implementation systems for Lisbon-type interventions, especially at regional level