Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:57:26.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Additionality of European Cohesion Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2018

Sonja Šlander  and
Peter Wostner
Sonja Šlander
Affiliation:
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska fakulteta, Kardeljeva pl. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email: [email protected]
Peter Wostner
Affiliation:
Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy, Kotnikova 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is cohesion policy effective? Does it contribute to the reduction of development disparities and strengthen competitiveness in the European Union? These are the questions that have inspired a growing body of research on cohesion policy evaluation, and which has come to varied and inconclusive results. There has been significant variation with regards to the established (in)effectiveness of cohesion policy among different methodological approaches, which all have serious methodological shortcomings. In order to circumvent these, the authors have not only continued to rely on rigorous econometric methods but also focused on the potential benefits through an indirect estimation approach. They have confirmed that cohesion policy is de facto additional, i.e. that it effectively increases the structural expenditures of the recipient Member States, which, given the evidence on fiscal multiplier, should lead to stronger growth performance.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 721 - 737
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cappelen, A., Castellacci, F., Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. (2003) The impact of EU regional support on growth and convergence in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(4), pp. 621–644.Google Scholar
2. Ederveen, S., Gorter, J., Mooij, R.D. and Nahuis, R. (2003) Funds and games. The economics of European cohesion policy. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes. Occasional Paper (3).Google Scholar
3. Bradley, J., Mitze, T., Morgenroth, E. and Untiedt, G. (2006) How can we know if EU cohesion policy is successful? GEFRA Working Paper (1), p. 91.Google Scholar
4. Venables, A.J. and Gasiorek, M. (1999) Computable general equilibrium models. Study of the Socio-economic Impact of the Projects Financed by the Cohesion Fund – A Modelling Approach, vol. 2 (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities), pp. 5–77.Google Scholar
5. OECD (2007) 2007 Economic Review – European Union.Google Scholar
6. Begg, I. (2006) Subsidiarity in regional policy. Mimeo, p. 16.Google Scholar
7. Molle, W. (2007) European Cohesion Policy (London and New York: Routledge), p. 230.Google Scholar
8. Nijkamp, P. and Poot, J. (2004) Meta-analysis of the effect of fiscal policies on long-run growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 20, pp. 91–124.Google Scholar
9. Romp, W. and de Haan, J. (2007) Public capital and economic growth: a critical survey. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 8(Special issue), pp. 6–52.Google Scholar
10. Bom, P.R.D. and Ligthar, J.E. (2008) How productive is public capital? A meta-analysis. CESifo Working Paper Series. Working Paper No. 2206, p. 47.Google Scholar
11. IMF (2014) World Economic Outlook: Legacies, Clouds, Uncertainties, October 2014.Google Scholar
12. de la Fuente, A. (2003) The effect of Structural Fund spending on the Spanish regions: an assessment of the 1994-99 Objective 1 CSF. FEDEA; Documento de Trabajo (11).Google Scholar
13. Eureval and Rambol Management (2008) Meta-study on lessons from existing evaluations as an input to the Review of EU spending. Evaluation for the European Commission, Final Report, p. 362.Google Scholar
14. EIB (2007) Operations Evaluation. Economic and Social Cohesion. EIB, p. 43.Google Scholar
15. Rafalzik, S. (2008) The future of EU Cohesion Policy post 2013: challenges for the future, proposals and solutions. Presentation at Open Days 2008, Brussels, 9 October 2008.Google Scholar
16. Afonso, A. and Alegre, J.G. (2008) Economic growth and budgetary components. European Central Bank. Working Paper Series, 848, p. 56.Google Scholar
17. European Commission (2004) A New Partnership for Cohesion. Third report on economic and social cohesion (Luxembourg: European Commission).Google Scholar
18. European Commission (2009) Report on ex ante verification of additionality in the regions eligible under the Convergence objective for the period 2007-2013. COM(2009)112 final (Brussels: European Commission), 6 March 2009, p. 13.Google Scholar
19. Bachtler, J., Mendez, C. and Wishlade, F. (2011) European Integration and EU Cohesion Policy: Budgetary Politics and Policy Dynamics (Ashgate: Aldershot).Google Scholar
20. Dardanelli, P. (1999) Implementing subsidiarity: regional policy from a British perspective. Regional & Federal Studies, 9(2), pp. 69–88.Google Scholar
21. Tomkins, J. and Twomey, J. (1992) Regional policy. In: F. McDonald and S. Dearden (Eds), European Economic Integration (London, New York: Longman).Google Scholar
22. European Commission (2008) EU Cohesion Policy 1988-2008: investing in Europe’s future. Inforegio panorama No. 26, 44, p. 31.Google Scholar
23. García, M.J. and Martos, L.P. (2004) Public expenditure dynamics in Spain: a simplified model of its determinants. Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, 9, p. 48.Google Scholar
24. Shelton, C.A. (2007) The size and composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91, pp. 2230–2260, 2230.Google Scholar
25. Cameron, D. (1978) The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 72(4), pp. 1243–1261.Google Scholar
26. Rodrik, D. (1998) Why do more open economies have bigger governments? The Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), pp. 997–1032.Google Scholar
27. Alesina, A. and Wacziar, R. (1998) Openness, country size and government. Journal of Public Economics, 69(3), pp. 305–321.Google Scholar
28. Lamartina, S. and Zaghin, A. (2008) Increasing public expenditures: Wagner’s Law in OECD countries. Center for Financial Studies, 2008/13, p. 25.Google Scholar
29. Meltzer, A. and Richard, S. (1981) Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice, 41(3), pp. 403–418.Google Scholar
30. Brennan, G. and Buchanan, J.M. (1980) The Power to Tax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
31. Musgrave, R. (1959) The Theory of Public Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
32. Easterly, W. and Levine, R. (1997) Africa’s growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(4), pp. 1203–1250.Google Scholar
33. Potrafke, N. (2006) Political effects on the allocation of public expenditures: empirical evidence from OECD countries. DIW Berlin Discussion Paper, 653, p. 25.Google Scholar
34. Nordhaus, W.D. (1975) The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), pp. 169–190.Google Scholar
35. Rogoff, K. and Sibert, A. (1998) Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles. The Review of Economic Studies, 55(1), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
36. Alesina, A. (1987) Macroeconomic policy in a two-party system as a repeated game. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(3), pp. 651–678.Google Scholar
37. Hibbs, D.A.J. (1977) Political parties and macroeconomic policy. The American Political Science Review, 71, pp. 1467–1487.Google Scholar
38. Weingast, B.R., Shepsle, K.A. and Johnson, C. (1981) The political economy of benefits and costs: a neoclassical approach to distribution politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89, pp. 642–664.Google Scholar
39. Persson, T., Roland, G. and Tabellini, G. (1998) Towards micropolitical foundations of public finance. European Economic Review, 42, pp. 685–694.Google Scholar
40. Milesi-Ferretti, G.M., Perotti, R. and Rostagno, M. (2002) Electoral systems and public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), pp. 609–657.Google Scholar
41. European Commission (2007) EU Budget 2006 Financial Report (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).Google Scholar
42. European Commission (2008) EU Budget 2007 Financial Report (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).Google Scholar
43. European Commission (2006) Commission methodological paper giving guidelines on the calculation of public or equivalent structural spending for the purposes of additionality. Working Paper No. 3, October.Google Scholar
44. Wildavsky, A. (1985) A cultural theory of expenditure growth and unbalanced budgets. Journal of Public Economics, 28(3).Google Scholar
45. Wostner, P. (2008) The micro-efficiency of EU cohesion policy. European Policy Research Paper, 64, p. 94.Google Scholar