This paper undertakes a critical assessment of the influence of the EU Cohesion policy on regionalisation and the role of regional institutions in Central and Eastern Europe. It addresses questions that are central to ongoing theoretical debates about the role of the region in the new member states. Have the powers and resources of the regions been strengthened by their involvement in EU support programmes? Are regions increasingly involved in integrated ‘bottom-up’ responses to regional development challenges? The paper offers a fresh perspective on these issues, with a cross-national analysis of practical experience in the postenlargement period and a detailed assessment of the technical, variable, and complex reality of working with EU Structural Funds. A distinctive approach of the analysis is to disaggregate the stages of Structural Funds programme management and delivery, thereby highlighting the varied nature of regional involvement in Structural Funds. Ultimately, the paper questions the notion that Structural Funds build regional structures and competence, and lead to ‘stronger regions’. Instead, it is argued that there is no guarantee that the Structural Funds will necessarily promote regionalisation in Central and Eastern Europe, at least in the short to medium terms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AminA, 1999, “An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23365–378
2.
BacheI, 1999, “The extended gatekeeper: Central government and the implementation of EC regional policy in the UK”Journal of European Public Policy628–45
BachtlerJDownesR, 1999, “Regional policy in the transition countries: A Comparative assessment”European Planning Studies7793–807
5.
BachtlerJDownesRGorzelakG, 2000, “Transition, cohesion and regional policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Conclusions”, in Transition, Cohesion and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe Eds BachtlerJDownesRGorzelakG (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 355–378
6.
BafoilF, 2002Final report of ex ante evaluation of documents submitted on the account of Structural Funds Twinning PL 2001/IB/OT-O4 between Poland (Ministry of Economy) and France (DATAR) “Strengthening coordination and management capacities for Structural Funds”Phare, http://www.funduszestrukturalne.gov.pl/English/Evaluation/Evaluation+documents/
7.
BaileyD J, 2006, “Governance or the crisis of governmentality? Applying critical state theory at the European level”Journal of European Public Policy1316–33
8.
BaileyDDe ProprisL, 2002, “EU structural funds, regional capabilities and enlargement”, paper presented at the Regional Studies Association International Conference on Evaluation of EU Regional Policy: New Questions and New Challenges, Aix-en-Provence, 30 May–1 June
BaunM, 2002, “EU regional policy and the candidate states: Poland and the Czech Republic”European Integration24261–280
11.
BaunMMarekD, 2006, “Regional policy and decentralisation in the Czech Republic”Regional and Federal Studies16409–428
12.
BenzAEberleinB, 1999, “The europeanisation of regional policies: Patterns of multi-level governance”The Journal of European Public Policy6329–348
13.
BlažekJ, 1999, “Local and regional development and policy in the Czech Republic in the 1990s”, in Regional Policy Goes East: Essays on Trends and Lessons Learned for Regional Development Policy in Central and Eastern Europe Eds HudakVHuitfeldtHMeeganE (Institute for East West Studies, Prague) pp 44–65
14.
BlažekJVozábJ, 2006, “Ex-ante evaluation in the new member states: The case of the Czech Republic”Regional Studies40237–248
15.
BlažekJPřikrylJNejdlT, 2003, “The Czech Republic”, in Investing in Regional Development: Policies and Practices in EU Candidate Countries Ed. DaveyK (Open Society Institute, Budapest) pp 15–45
16.
Blom-HansenJ, 2005, “Principals, agents and the implementation of EU cohesion policy”Journal of European Public Policy12624–648
17.
BörzelT, 1999, “Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation and Europeanisation in Germany and Spain”Journal of Common Market Studies37573–596
18.
BrusisM (Ed.), 1999, “Regional policy-making in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia”, CAP working paper, Munich
19.
BrusisM, 2005, “The instrumental use of European Union conditionality: Regionalization in the Czech Republic and Slovakia”East European Politics and Societies19291–316
20.
Council of the European Union, 2006, “Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999”Official Journal of the European Union 31 July, L210/25
21.
CoyleC, 1997, “European integration: A Lifeline for Irish local authorities?”, in European Integration and Local Government Eds GoldsmithMKlausenK (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 75–94
22.
CumbersA, 2000, “The national state as mediator of regional development outcomes in a global era: A Comparative analysis from the UK and Norway”European Urban and Regional Studies7237–252
23.
DaviesSGrossT, 2005, “The challenges of designing cohesion policy strategies”, paper presented at Benchmarking Regional Policy in Europe: Second International Conference, Riga, 24–26 April
ECR, 2004Finalising Structures and Measures to Increase the Absorption Capacity at National and Regional LevelsEuropean Commission Representation in the Czech Republic, Prague
26.
EMoF, 2003Estonian National Development Plan for the Implementation of the EU Structural Funds, Single Programming Document 2004–2006Estonian Ministry of Finance, Tallinn
European Commission, 2004, “Structural Fund strategies for the new member states: €24 billion to ensure growth and cohesion between 2004–2006”, press release, MEMO/04/156, 23 June, http://europa.eu/rapid/
29.
European Commission, 2005The Impact and Added Value of Cohesion PolicyDG REGIO, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels
30.
European Commission, 2006The Structural Funds in 2004: Sixteenth Annual Report (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg)
31.
FabbriniSBrunazzoM, 2003, “Federalizing Italy: The convergent effects of europeanisation and domestic mobilisation”Regional and Federal Studies13100–120
32.
FerryM, 2003a, “The EU and recent regional reform in Poland”Europe–Asia Studies551097–1116
33.
FerryM, 2003b, “Regional governance in the EU: a comparative assessment”, paper prepared for the twenty-fourth meeting of the EPRC Regional Policy Research Consortium, Ross Priory, Loch Lomondside, 6–7 October, http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eorpa/reports2.cfm
34.
FerryM, 2007, “From government to governance: Polish RDAs in a changing regional context”East European Politics and Societies forthcoming
35.
FerryMMcMasterI, 2003, “Implications of EU regional assistance programmes in Moravia-Silesia and Upper Silesia”, in EU Accession, Regional Policy, Social and Economic Development in East Central Europe Eds SmithSMyantM, European Studies occasional paper (new series), PBS Working Paper Series No. 2003/03, University of Paisley, Paisley
36.
FerryMMcMasterI, 2005, “Implementing Structural Funds in Polish and Czech Regions: Convergence, variation, empowerment?”Regional and Federal Studies1519–39
GorzelakG, 1996The Regional Dimension of Transformation in Central Europe (Jessika Kingsley, London)
39.
GorzelakG, 2004, “Polish regional development in the process of European integration”, in Readiness of the Candidate Countries for the EU Regional Policy Ed. BencV (Slovak Foreign Policy Association, Bratislava) pp 199–205
40.
GrabbeH, 2003, “Europeanisation goes East: Power and uncertainty in the EU accession process”, in The Politics of Europeanisation Eds FeatherstoneKRadaelliC (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 303–327
41.
GrosseT G, 2004, “The status of regional administration preparations for the absorption of EU structural assistance”Analyses and Opinionsnumber 18, The Institute of Public Affairs, Warsaw
42.
HabudaJ, 2004, “Macroeconomic impacts of the Hungarian National Development Plan for 2004–2006”, in Readiness of the Candidate Countries for the EU Regional Policy Ed. BencV (Slovak Foreign Policy Association, Bratislava) pp 57–64
43.
HalkierH, 2006Institutions, Discourse and Regional Development: The Scottish Development Agency and the Politics of Regional Policy (Peter Lang, Brussels)
44.
HeineltHSmithR (Eds), 1996Policy Networks and European Structural Funds (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
45.
HoogheL (Ed.), 1996Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-level Governance (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
46.
HoogheLMarksG, 2001Multi-level Governance and European Integration (Rowman and Littlefield, Boulder, CO)
47.
HorvathAMaierG, 2004, “Regional development, absorption problems and the EU Structural Funds: some aspects regarding administrative absorption capacity in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia”, paper presented to the 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science Association ‘Regions and Fiscal Federalism’, University of Porto, August, http://www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa04/PDF/951.pdf
48.
HübnerD, 2006, “Delivering Lisbon through cohesion policy”, speech to the Conference, “Making Partnership Work—Regional and Local Authorities for Growth and Jobs”, 1 March (Committee of the Regions, Brussels)
49.
HudsonR, 1997, “Regional futures: Industrial restructuring, new high volume production concepts and spatial development strategies in the New Europe”Regional Studies31467–478
50.
HughesJSasseGGordonC, 2004, “Conditionality and compliance in the EU's eastward enlargement: Regional policy and the reform of sub-national government”Journal of Common Market Studies42523–551
51.
IllnerM, 2002, “Thirteen years of reforming subnational governments in the Czech Republic”, paper presented at Conference on Reforming Local Government: Closing the Gap Between Democracy and Efficiency, 26–27 September, University of Stuttgart, http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/soz/avps/rlg/papers/CZ-Illner.pdf
52.
JohanssonM, 1997, “Implementation of the Objective 6 Programme in Finland and Sweden”, in The Coherence of EU Regional Policy: Contrasting Perspectives on the Structural Funds Eds BachtlerJTurokI (Jessica Kingsley, London) pp 186–301
53.
JonesM, 2001, “The rise of the regional state in economic governance: ‘partnership for prosperity’ or new scales of state power?”Environment and Planning A331185–1211
54.
KálmánJ, 2002, “Possible Structural Fund absorption problems”, in Regionalisation for Development and Accession to the European Union: A Comparative Perspective Ed. MarcouG (The Open Society Institute, Budapest) pp 29–63
55.
KeatingM, 1995, “Europeanism and regionalism in the European Union and the Regions”, in The European Union and the Regions Eds JonesBKeatingM (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 1–22
56.
KeatingM, 2003, “Regionalisation in Central and Eastern Europe”, in The Regional Challenge in Central and Eastern Europe: Territorial Restructuring and European Integration Eds KeatingMHughesJ (Peter Lang, Oxford) pp 51–68
57.
KelleherJBatterburySSternE, 1999The Thematic Evaluation of the Partnership Principle in the EU Structural Fund Programmes 1994–1999: Final Report (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels)
58.
KleynW HBekkerM, 1997, “Integrated regional development under EU regional policy: The Dutch experience”, in The Coherence of EU Regional Policy: Contrasting Perspectives on the Structural Fund Eds BachtlerJTurokI (Jessica Kingsley, London) pp 260–273
LaffanB, 2004, “Multi-level governance: the dynamics of EU cohesion policy: a comparative analysis”, OEUE Phase II occasional paper, 3–9 April, Dublin European Institute University College, Dublin
61.
LMoF, 2003Single Programming Document for the Latvia Objective 1 Programme 2004–2006Latvian Ministry of Finance, Riga
62.
LoveringJ, 1999, “Theory led by policy: The inadequacies of the ‘new regionalism’ (illustrated from the case of Wales)”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23379–390
63.
McClementsCSmolkovaH, 2004Final Report of the ABCAP Project (ABCAP: Finalising of Structures and Measures to Increase the Absorption Capacity and National and Regional Level), Ministry for Regional Development, Prague
64.
McMasterI, 2006, “Czech regional development agencies in a shifting institutional and policy landscape”Europe–Asia Studies58347–370
McMasterIBachtlerJ, 2005, “Implementing Structural Funds in the new Member States: ten policy challenges”, paper presented at Scottish Executive EU Conference as part of the European Week of Regions and Cities—Open Days 2005, 12 October, Brussels; copy available from authors
67.
MarekDBaunM, 2002, “The EU as a regional actor: The case of the Czech Republic”Journal of Common Market Studies40895–919
68.
MarinovVBahloulHSlayB, 2006, “Structural Funds and the new member states: Lessons learned”Development and Transition45–7
69.
MarksGNielsenFRayLSalkJ, 1996a, “Competencies, cracks and conflicts: Regional mobilisation in the European Union”, in Governance in the European Union Eds MarksGScharpfFSchmitterPStreekW (Sage, London) pp 40–63
70.
MarksGHoogheLBlankK, 1996b, “European integration from the 1980s: State-centric vs. multi-level governance”Journal of Common Market Studies34341–378
71.
MorganK, 1997, “The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal”Regional Studies31491–504
72.
NEI, 2002Assessing the Administrative Capacity Needed by the Candidate Countries to Effectively Manage the Structural Funds Final Report to the European Commission (DG REGIO/DG Enlargement), NEI Regional and Urban Development, ECORYS, Rotterdam
73.
OchojskiA, 2003, “Entrepreneurial partnership in the local arena”, paper presented at 2nd Scottish–Silesian Seminar, Regions in the Process of Change, University of Economics, Katowice, 21 May; copy available from the authors
74.
Pálné KovácsI, 2004, “Challenges of regional policy and responses of traditional public administration in East-Central European countries”Society and Economy26325–339
Pálné KovácsIParaskevolpoulosC JHorváthG, 2004, “Institutional ‘legacies’ and the shaping of regional governance in Hungary”Regional and Federal Studies14430–460
77.
RobertsP, 2003, “Partnerships, programmes and the promotion of regional development: An evaluation of the operation of the Structural Funds regional programmes”Progress in Planning591–69
78.
SlocockB, 2003, “EU assistance and CEE regional development”, in EU Accession, Regional Policy, Social and Economic Development in East Central Europe Eds SmithSMynantM; PBS Working Paper Series, Centre for Contemporary European Studies, University of Paisley
79.
SmithA, 1994, “Regional development and the restructuring of state socialism: a regulationist approach to the ‘transition’ in Slovakia”, Research Papers in Geography, University of Sussex, Brighton
80.
StorperM, 1997The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy (Guilford Press, New York)
81.
StorperMScottA J, 1995, “The wealth of regions: Market forces and policy imperatives in local and global context”Futures27505–526
82.
ŠumpíkováMPavelJKlazarS, 2004, “EU Funds: absorption capacity and effectiveness of their use, with focus on regional level in the Czech Republic”, paper presented at 12th NISPAcee Annual Conference ‘Central and Eastern European Countries Inside and Outside the European Union: Avoiding a New Divide’, Vilnius, 13–15 May, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN018547.pdf
83.
SvenssonBÖstholA, 2001, “From Government to Governance: Regional Partnerships in Sweden”Regional and Federal Studies1125–42
84.
VilkasE, 2004, “Using EU Structural Funds and expected macro-economic impact on the Lithuanian economy”, in Readiness of the Candidate Countries for the EU Regional Policy Ed. BencV (Slovak Foreign Policy Association, Bratislava) pp 65–70
85.
YoderJ, 2003, “Decentralisation and regionalisation after communism: Administrative and territorial reform in Poland and the Czech Republic”Europe–Asia Studies55263–286
