Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T12:19:40.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiating the regulation of the Structural Funds: Italian actors in EU regional policy-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2016

Marco Brunazzo  and
Simona Piattoni
Marco Brunazzo
Affiliation:
Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerche sul Cambiamento Politico (CIRCAP), Università di Siena, Via Mattioli 10, 53100 Siena. E-mail: brunazzo@soc.unitn.it.
Simona Piattoni
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerce Sociale, Università di Trento, via Verdi 26, 38100 Trento. E-mail: piattoni@soc.unitn.it.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The role of Italy in the reform process of the regulations concerning EU regional policy has traditionally been weak. Since 1998, however, Italian actors in Brussels started to play an increasingly more central role. Looking at the 1998 Regulation, we analyse the internal and external factors that explain this improved performance and conclude that this change might lead to an even more active and creative role being adopted by Italian institutional actors in the current negotiations which will lead to the reform of the regulation of the Structural Funds for 2007–13.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Italy , Volume 9 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Italy in the EU: pigmy or giant? The role of Italian actors in EU policy-making , November 2004 , pp. 159 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Association for the study of Modern Italy 

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

Notes

1. We use the term ‘regional policy’ to denote what in Euro-speak is normally referred to as ‘Cohesion policy’ in order to link it explicitly with the Italian regional development policy tradition and to indicate that we refer exclusively to those structural measures which target and involve the regional tier.Google Scholar

2. See, among others, Viesti, Gianfranco and Prota, Francesco, Le politiche regionali dell'Unione Europea , Il Mulino, Bologna, 2004.Google Scholar

3. Piattoni, Simona, ‘Regioni a statuto speciale e politica di coesione’, in Fabbrini, Sergio (ed.), L'europeizzazione dell'Italia: l'impatto dell'Unione Europea sulle istituzioni e le politiche italiane , Laterza, Rome-Bari, 2003, pp. 108–38.Google Scholar

4. Boccia, Francesco, Leonardi, Robert, Letta, Enrico and Treu, Tiziano, I mezzogiorni d'Europa: verso la riforma dei Fondi strutturali , Il Mulino, Bologna, 2003.Google Scholar

5. Brunazzo, Marco, ‘Le regioni italiane nella multi-level governance: i canali di accesso alla UE’, Le Istituzioni del Federalismo , 2004 (forthcoming).Google Scholar

6. Hine, David, Governing Italy: The Politics of Bargained Pluralism , Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.Google Scholar

7. Hooghe, Liesbet, ‘The Mobilisation of Territorial Interests and Multilevel Governance’, in Balme, Richard, Chabanet, Didier and Wright, Vincent (eds), L'action collective en Europe , Presses de Sciences Po, Paris, 2002, pp. 347–74.Google Scholar

8. Graziano, Paolo, ‘La nuova politica regionale italiana: il ruolo dell'europeizzazione’, in Fabbrini, Sergio (ed.), L'europeizzazione dell'Italia: l'impatto dell'Unione Europea sulle istituzioni e le politiche italiane , Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2003, pp. 80–107.Google Scholar

9. See Ferrera, Maurizio and Gualmini, Elisabetta, Salvati dall'Europa ?, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1999.Google Scholar

10. See for all, Hooghe, Liesbet and Marks, Gary, Multi-Level Governance and European Integration , Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2001.Google Scholar

11. Ciaffi, Andrea and Leonardi, Robert (eds), ‘La nuova programmazione dei fondi strutturali in Italia’, special issue of Le Istituzioni del Federalismo , 22, 2, 2001.Google Scholar

12. Interview with an EU Commission official, February 2003.Google Scholar

13. The term ‘financial envelope’ is a left-over from a previous phase of regional policy in which member-states distributed among themselves the budgetary slice allocated to regional development according to fixed quotas (1975–79) or to indicative quotas (1979–89). The ‘quota system’ was definitely abandoned, at least officially, in 1988 after the radical reform of the Structural Funds masterminded by Delors and his entourage. However, there are reasons to believe that some sort of ‘informal quota system’ still plays a real role in the first phase of intergovernmental negotiation over the Structural Funds (interviews with DPS officials, December 2002).Google Scholar

14. Marks, Gary, ‘Structural Policy in the European Community’, in Sbragia, Alberta M. (ed.), Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policy-Making in the ‘New’ European Community , Brookings, Washington, DC, 1992, pp. 191–224; Pollack, Mark, ‘Regional Actors in an Intergovernmental Play: The Making and Implementation of EC Structural Policy’, in Rhodes, Carolyn and Mazey, Sonia (eds), The State of the European Union, 3, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1995, pp. 361–90.Google Scholar

15. Damonte, Alessia, ‘L'approccio italiano al negoziato: attori e logiche di un mutamento istituzionale’, Le Istituzioni del Federalismo , 22, 2, 2001, pp. 393–418.Google Scholar

16. Giuliani, Marco and Piattoni, Simona, ‘Italy: Both Leader and Laggard’, in Zeff, Eleanor and Pirro, Ellen (eds), The European Union and the Member-states , Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 2001, pp. 115–42.Google Scholar

17. Absence from the ‘ascending phase’ of policy-making made for poor performance in the ‘descending phase’ (interview with a member of ITALRAP, February 2003). In this policy case, the ‘Europeanization’ of Italian policy structures and processes implied both better implementation of already-made decisions and greater involvement in decision-making processes.Google Scholar

18. della Cananea, Giacinto, ‘Italy’, in Kassim, Hussein, Menon, Anand, Peters, Guy B. and Wright, Vincent (eds), The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The European Level, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001, pp. 129–46.Google Scholar

19. Interview with an official of the region Tuscany, April 2003.Google Scholar

20. The intervento straordinario is the name by which the post-war provisions for the promotion of southern development were collectively known.Google Scholar

21. Naldini, Andrea and Wolleb, Guglielmo, ‘Perché le politiche comunitarie nel Mezzogiorno non devono fallire’, Meridiana: Rivista di Storia e Scienze Sociali , 26–27, 1996, p. 168.Google Scholar

22. Graziano, , ‘La nuova politica regionale italiana’.Google Scholar

23. Interview with ITALRAP official, February 2003.Google Scholar

24. Viesti, Gianfranco, ‘La politica di sviluppo territoriale tra Europa e Regioni’, Europa Europe , 10, 5, 2001, pp. 39–47.Google Scholar

25. See also della Cananea, , ‘Italy’, in Kassim, Hussein, Peters, Guy B. and Wright, Vincent (eds), The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 99–113.Google Scholar

26. Graziano, , ‘La nuova politica regionale italiana’.Google Scholar

27. Interview with ITALRAP official, February 2003.Google Scholar

28. Interview with two DPS officials, December 2002.Google Scholar

29. Fabbrini, Sergio and Brunazzo, Marco, ‘Federalizing Italy: The Convergent Effects of Europeanization and Domestic Mobilization’, Regional and Federal Studies , 13, 1, 2003, pp. 100–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Di Palma, Giuseppe, Fabbrini, Sergio and Freddi, Giorgio (eds), Condannata al successo ?, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2000.Google Scholar

31. Fabbrini, and Brunazzo, , ‘Federalizing Italy’.Google Scholar

32. Piattoni, Simona and Smyrl, Marc, ‘Building Effective Institutions: Italian Regions and the EU Structural Funds’, in Bukowski, Jeanie, Piattoni, Simona and Smyrl, Marc (eds), Between Europeanization and Local Societies: The Space for Territorial Governance , Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2003, pp. 133–57.Google Scholar

33. Barca, Fabrizio, ‘Il ruolo del Dipartimento per le Politiche di Sviluppo e di Coesione—DPS’, Le Istituzioni del Federalismo , 22, 2, 2001, pp. 419–46.Google Scholar

34. For instance, the Commission insisted on the extension of partnership to non-governmental organizations (to secure environmental and equal opportunity goals next to regional development ones), fought for a ‘reserve clause’ (which would allow it to withhold 10 per cent of Structural Funds—in the end, the reserve quota was reduced to 4 per cent of the structural allocation—for redistribution to the most successful programmes in terms of goal attainment and procedural efficiency) and retained control over some crucial decision-making phases, criteria (such as those guiding regional selection) and issues (such as the ‘correct’ interpretation of regulations).Google Scholar

35. Agence Europe, 18 March 1998. See also Commission, European, Agenda 2000: The Legislative Proposal. Overall View , COM/98/0182 final, 1998.Google Scholar

36. Agence Europe, 18 March 1998.Google Scholar

37. Piattoni, , ‘Regioni a statuto speciale e politica di coesione’.Google Scholar

38. The DPS coordinates four different Treasury Directions charged with different tasks connected with local development: the Direction for Community funds, the Direction for programming contracts and territorial pacts, the Direction for institutional agreements and the Direction for sectoral programmes. The DPS supplies public and private institutions with the information they need to plan their investments (Ministry of the Treasury, La nuova programmazione e il Mezzogiorno: orientamenti per l'azione di governo redatti dal Ministero del Tesoro, Bilancio e Programmazione Economica , Donzelli, Rome, 1998). The Evaluations and Inspection Technical Group (Nucleo tecnico di valutazione e verifica) is responsible for the technical functions. The four above-cited Directions interact, respectively, with the European Commission, the central administrations, the regional governments and the local governments (Fabrizio Barca, ‘Obiettivi e assetto del Dipartimento’ per le politiche di sviluppo e coesione (DPS)’, Economia Italiana, 3, 1998, pp. 603–24; and Fabrizio Barca, ‘Il ruolo del Dipartimento’, pp. 419–46).Google Scholar

39. Interviews with DPS officials, December 2002.Google Scholar

40. Interviews with DPS officials, December 2002.Google Scholar

41. Interview with high-level Conferenza Stato-Regioni official, December 2002; Ministry of the Treasury, Il percorso di riforma dei Fondi Strutturali 2000–2006: testimonianze ‘in diretta’ su un modello di Partenariato Istituzionale e testi provvisori dei regolamenti, Rome, 1999.Google Scholar

42. As a regional official (interviewed on April 2003) reported: ‘The regions were the only actors really knowing qualities and faults of the 1994–1999 Regulations, the unique actors able to suggest something useful for a better functioning for the 2000–2006 period.’ Google Scholar

43. Of the six objectives of the programming period 1993–99, three of them concern regions: Objective 1 (for the regions whose development is lagging behind), Objective 2 (for areas in industrial decline) and Objective 5b (for the development of rural areas).Google Scholar

44. Interview with an official of the Liguria region, April 2003.Google Scholar

45. Abruzzo had already been phased out of Objective 1 funds during the current (1993–99) programming cycle and was at risk of also being denied Objective 2 funds in the following cycle. See also interview with a high-level Conferenza Stato-Regioni official, December 2002. See Ciaffi, Andrea, ‘Il negoziato per l'Obiettivo 2: federalismo in costruzione’, Le Istituzioni del Federalismo , 22, 2, 2001, pp. 447–82.Google Scholar

46. At the end of the meeting, Monti is reported to have commented that he had been ‘struck by the depth with which the Conferenza follows these issues … There has not been in the past a strong enough attention to Structural Funds, while now there seems to be a great interest both on the part of the central government and on the part of the regions’ (Ansa, , 11 March 1998).Google Scholar

47. See several reports Agence Europe (among others, those of 2 March 1998, 10 June 1998 and 9 February 1999).Google Scholar