Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Additionality of European Cohesion Policy

  • Sonja Šlander (a1) and Peter Wostner (a2)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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. 621644.
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).
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.
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. 577.
5. OECD (2007) 2007 Economic Review – European Union.
6. Begg, I. (2006) Subsidiarity in regional policy. Mimeo, p. 16.
7. Molle, W. (2007) European Cohesion Policy (London and New York: Routledge), p. 230.
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. 91124.
9. Romp, W. and de Haan, J. (2007) Public capital and economic growth: a critical survey. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 8(Special issue), pp. 652.
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.
11. IMF (2014) World Economic Outlook: Legacies, Clouds, Uncertainties, October 2014.
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).
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.
14. EIB (2007) Operations Evaluation. Economic and Social Cohesion. EIB, p. 43.
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.
16. Afonso, A. and Alegre, J.G. (2008) Economic growth and budgetary components. European Central Bank. Working Paper Series, 848, p. 56.
17. European Commission (2004) A New Partnership for Cohesion. Third report on economic and social cohesion (Luxembourg: European Commission).
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.
19. Bachtler, J., Mendez, C. and Wishlade, F. (2011) European Integration and EU Cohesion Policy: Budgetary Politics and Policy Dynamics (Ashgate: Aldershot).
20. Dardanelli, P. (1999) Implementing subsidiarity: regional policy from a British perspective. Regional & Federal Studies, 9(2), pp. 6988.
21. Tomkins, J. and Twomey, J. (1992) Regional policy. In: F. McDonald and S. Dearden (Eds), European Economic Integration (London, New York: Longman).
22. European Commission (2008) EU Cohesion Policy 1988-2008: investing in Europe’s future. Inforegio panorama No. 26, 44, p. 31.
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.
24. Shelton, C.A. (2007) The size and composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91, pp. 22302260, 2230.
25. Cameron, D. (1978) The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 72(4), pp. 12431261.
26. Rodrik, D. (1998) Why do more open economies have bigger governments? The Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), pp. 9971032.
27. Alesina, A. and Wacziar, R. (1998) Openness, country size and government. Journal of Public Economics, 69(3), pp. 305321.
28. Lamartina, S. and Zaghin, A. (2008) Increasing public expenditures: Wagner’s Law in OECD countries. Center for Financial Studies, 2008/13, p. 25.
29. Meltzer, A. and Richard, S. (1981) Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice, 41(3), pp. 403418.
30. Brennan, G. and Buchanan, J.M. (1980) The Power to Tax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
31. Musgrave, R. (1959) The Theory of Public Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill).
32. Easterly, W. and Levine, R. (1997) Africa’s growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(4), pp. 12031250.
33. Potrafke, N. (2006) Political effects on the allocation of public expenditures: empirical evidence from OECD countries. DIW Berlin Discussion Paper, 653, p. 25.
34. Nordhaus, W.D. (1975) The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), pp. 169190.
35. Rogoff, K. and Sibert, A. (1998) Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles. The Review of Economic Studies, 55(1), pp. 116.
36. Alesina, A. (1987) Macroeconomic policy in a two-party system as a repeated game. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(3), pp. 651678.
37. Hibbs, D.A.J. (1977) Political parties and macroeconomic policy. The American Political Science Review, 71, pp. 14671487.
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. 642664.
39. Persson, T., Roland, G. and Tabellini, G. (1998) Towards micropolitical foundations of public finance. European Economic Review, 42, pp. 685694.
40. Milesi-Ferretti, G.M., Perotti, R. and Rostagno, M. (2002) Electoral systems and public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), pp. 609657.
41. European Commission (2007) EU Budget 2006 Financial Report (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
42. European Commission (2008) EU Budget 2007 Financial Report (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
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.
44. Wildavsky, A. (1985) A cultural theory of expenditure growth and unbalanced budgets. Journal of Public Economics, 28(3).
45. Wostner, P. (2008) The micro-efficiency of EU cohesion policy. European Policy Research Paper, 64, p. 94.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed