Sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment: Will EU cohesion policy deliver on the lisbon strategy?

Authors

  • John Bachtler European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, 40 George Street, G1 1QE, Glasgow, UK
  • Irene McMaster European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, 40 George Street, G1 1QE, Glasgow, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03183015

Abstract

The relaunched “growth and jobs” agenda of the EU is reflected in the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion. These have influenced the content of the new Structural Funds programmes, with increased importance accorded to innovation, knowledge and entrepre-neurship. There is evidence of a more strategic approach to economic development and a stronger prioritisation of support. Whether this makes a difference to the Lisbon agenda depends on how the programme objectives are implemented as well as the broader regulatory and other changes required in National Reform Programmes. Convincing Member States of the importance of Cohesion policy also depends on the impact of the Funds being identifiable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Research in 2005 was originally carried out for a background paper for the UK Presidency: Bachtler, J.; Gross, T.; McMaster, I.: Delivering the Lisbon and Gothenburg Agendas. Paper for the UK Presidency Conference “Regional and Rural Development Programmes (2007–2013)”. Newcastle-Gateshead, 7–8 November 2005. The 2006 research was carried out under the auspices of the IQ-Net programme and reported in: Polverari, L.; McMaster, I.; Gross, E; Bachtler, J.; Ferry, M.; Yuill, D: Strategic Planning for Structural Funds in 2007–2013: A Review of Strategies and Programmes. IQ-Net Thematic Paper 18 (2006) 2; and Bachtler, J.; Ferry, M.; Méndez, C; McMaster, I.: The 2007–13 Operational Programmes: A Preliminary Assessment. IQ-Net Thematic Paper 19 (2007) 2, EPRC Glasgow

Murray, A.; Wanlin, A.: The Lisbon scorecard V: Can Europe compete? — Centre for European Reform, London 2005

Kohler, W.: The “Lisbon Goal” of the EU: Rhetoric or Substance? Journ. of Industry Competition and Trade (2005)

Creel, J.; Laurent, E.; Le Cacheux: Delegation in Inconsistency: The “Lisbon Strategy” Record as an Institutional Failure. Paper to the Jean-Monnet Workshop in European macroeconomics, Università di Siena, 6–8 May 2005, Observatoire Français des Conjonctures Économiques, Paris

Cameron, G.: Economic Policies for Growth and Employment. Paper prepared for WIFO, the Austrian Institute for Economic Research. — Department of Economics, University of Oxford 2005

Guerrieri, P.; Maggi, B.; Meliciani, V; Padoan, P.C.: Technology Diffusion, Services and Endogenous Growth in Europe: Is the Lisbon Strategy Useful? — New York 2005. = International Monetary Fund (IMF) WP 05/103

Begg, I.: How to Get the Lisbon Strategy Back on Track. Intereconomics 40 (2004) 2, pp. 56–59

Blanke, J.: The Lisbon Review 2006: Measuring Europe’s Progress in Reform. — World Economic Forum, Geneva 2006

From Here to Sustainability — Is the Lisbon/Göteborg agenda delivering? EPSD — European Panel on Sustainable Development, Report no. 1, 2004–12–01 (www.gmv.chalmers.se/epsd)

Communication to the Spring European Council, Brussels, 2.2.2005, COM (2005) 24; Commission Staff Working Document in support of the report from the Commission to the Spring European Council, 22–23 March 205, on the Lisbon Strategy of economic, social and environmental renewal. — Brussels, 28.1.2005, SEC(2005) 160

The economic costs of non-Lisbon: A survey of the literature on the economic impact of Lisbon-type reforms. European Economy Occasional Papers No. 16, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Brussels, March 2005

Sapir, A.; Aghion, P.; Bertola, G.; Hellwig, M.; Pisani-Ferry, J.; Rosati, D.; Viñals, J.; Wallace, H.: An Agenda for a Growing Europe: Making the EU Economic System Deliver. Report of an Independent High-Level Study group established on the initiative of the President of the European Commission (2003)

Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, 22-23 March 2005. Council of the European Union, Brussels, CONCL 1

Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs. Commission recommendation and proposal for a Council decision, Brussels, 12.4.2005, COM(2005) 141 final

Growing Regions, Growing Europe, Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Commission of the European Communities, May 2007

See for example: A new partnership for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness, cooperation, Third report on economic and social cohesion. European Commission (DG REGIO), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004

ECOTEC: Ex-Post Evaluation of Objective 1 1994–1999. Final Report to DG for Regional Policy, European Commission (2003); ECOTEC Research & Consulting Ltd. CS&S: Ex Post Evaluation of 1994–99 Objective 2 Programmes. — Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2002)

Martin, R.; Tyler, R.: Evaluating the impact of the Structural Funds on Objective 1 regions: an exploratory discussion. Regional Studies 40 (2006) 2, pp. 201–210

Bradley, J.: Evaluating the Impact of European Union Cohesion Policy in Less-developed Countries and Regions. Regional Studies 40 (2006) 2, pp. 189–201

Boldrin, M.; Canova, E: Europe’s regions: income disparities and regional policies. Economic Policy 32 (2001), pp. 207–253

Ederveen, S.; de Groot, H.L.F.; Nahuis, R.: Fertile soil for Structural Funds A panel data analysis of the conditional effectiveness of European cohesion policy. — Utrecht School of Economics, Discussion Paper Series 03-14 (2003)

Rodriguez-Pose, A.; Fratesi, U.: Between Development and Social Policies: The Impact of Structural Funds in Objective 1 Regions. Regional Studies 38 (2004) 1, pp. 97/114

Middelfart-Knarvik, H.; Overman, L.: Delocation and European integration: is structural spending justified? Economic Policy 35 (2002) pp. 321–359

Bachtler, J.; Taylor, S.: The Added Value of Structural Funds: A Regional Perspective. IQ-Net Report, European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow 2003. Mairate, A.: The ‘Added Value’ of European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies 40 (2005) 2, pp. 167-178. Tavistock Institute: Thematic evaluation of the partnership principle. Report to DGXVI, European Commission. — London 1997. Roberts, P.: Partnerships, programmes and the promotion of regional development: an evaluation of the operation of the Structural Funds regional programmes. Progress in Planning 59 (2003) 1, pp. 1-69

ECOTEC: Ex-Post evaluation of Objective 1 1994–1999, op. cit. (fn 18) Final Report to DG for Regional Policy, European Commission (2003); ECOTEC Research & Consulting Ltd. CS&S: Ex Post Evaluation of 1994–99 Objective 2 Programmes. — Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2002)

A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom. HM Treasury, Department of Trade & Industry, and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, United Kingdom, March 2003

Cabinet Standpoint concerning the Interdepartmental Policy Study (IBO) on ’European Union Structural Policy in the Context of the Enlargement of the EU’. — The Hague 2002

Tarschys, D.: Reinventing Cohesion: The Future of European Structural Policy. Swedish Institute for Growth Studies, No. 172003

Council Decision of 6 October 2004 on Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion, 2006/702/EC, L291, 21.10.06

Thematic Evaluation of the Structural Funds’ Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy: Synthesis Report. Report to the European Commission (DG REGIO), Danish Technological Institute 2005

Taylor, S.; Polverari, L.; Raines, P.: Mainstreaming the Horizontal Themes into Structural Fund Programming. IQ-Net Thematic Paper 10 (2001) 2, European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Competitiveness, sustainable development and cohesion in Europe: From Lisbon to Gothenburg. DG REGIO, European Commission 2003

Clement, K.; Bradley, K.; Hansen, M.: Environment and Sustainable Development Integration in the Nordic Structural Funds: An Appraisal of Programming Documents. Nordregio 2004

Thematic Evaluation of the Structural Funds’ Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. Danish Technological Institute, op. cit. (fn 31) (2005)

GHK: The Thematic Evaluation on the Contribution of the Structural Funds to Sustainable Development. Report to the European Commission, DG REGIO by GHK, PSO, IEEP, CE and National Evaluators, 2005

For a broader discussion of these issues, see Polverari, L. et al.: Strategic Planning for Structural Funds, op. cit. (fn 2)

Austrian Federal Chancellery, Division IV/4 (2006) Governance of territorial strategies: going beyond strategy documents. Issue Paper, June 2006, p. 3

For a broader discussion of the issues arising, see Bachtler, J. et al.: The 2007—13 Operational Programmes, op. cit. (fn 2)

Sources for the above are: European Commission: National Strategic Reference Framework, Hungary 2007–2013. Position Paper Commission Services, based on draft version of June 2006, 1.10.06, Brussels 2006; European Commission: National Strategic Reference Framework, Poland 2007–2013. 2nd Position Paper Commission Services, based on draft version of August 2006, 1.10.06, Brussels 2006; European Commission: National Strategic Reference Framework, Estonia 2007–2013. Working Draft Position Paper Commission Services, 13.10.06, Brussels 2006; European Commission: National Strategic Reference Framework, Slovenia 2007–2013. First draft assessment by DG REGIO and DG EMPL, 18.7.06, Brussels 2006

A year of delivery: The European Commission’s 2006 Annual Progress Report on Growth and Jobs. Commission of the European Communities, December 2006

Growth, jobs and cohesion — ambitions for EU Cohesion policy. Keynote Speech by Mr Graham Meadows, Director-General for Regional Policy, European Commission, to the IQ-Net Tenth Anniversary Conference ‘Strategic Planning for Structural Funds Programmes in 2007–2013’ 27–28 June 2006, Glasgow

Downloads

Published

2007-07-31

Issue

Section

Research Article

How to Cite

1.
Bachtler J, McMaster I. Sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment: Will EU cohesion policy deliver on the lisbon strategy?. RuR [Internet]. 2007 Jul. 31 [cited 2024 Jun. 15];65(4):259–274. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/1304

Share