In full negotiation of the next Community budget, several
reports try to assess how cohesion funds in the EU affect the regions.
Europe is about to close a year of celebrations for the
20th anniversary of the birth of the euro. And two decades and a Great
Recession later, the great objective pursued by their economies is still not
achieved: the North-South gap has not closed. Opening the focus towards the EU
as a whole, the regions of central and eastern Europe are the ones that managed
to raise their income per capita more quickly and approach the average. The
Twenty-seven are now in full negotiations for the next Multiannual Financial
Framework, which will be in force between 2021 and 2027. While they hoped to
reach an agreement in December, the battle between net taxpayers and recipients
(16 countries, including Spain, is they have conjured this Tuesday in Prague to
defend the cohesion policy of the EU) has led to parking the achievement of a
pact until next year, under the presidency of Croatia or Germany. Coinciding
with these conversations, several reports try to assess the impact on the
regions of the solidarity policy among EU partners.
The EU finance ministers took stock of this year in
Bucharest (Romania), in the framework of an informal meeting, of the results of
cohesion policy. On the table, they had a report prepared by the think tank
Bruegel, which concluded that the "unsatisfactory convergence" found
between countries and regions could lead to "threatening social
cohesion" within the EU.
Between 2003 and 2017, according to that document,
Lithuania, Latvia, Romania or Poland had grown above 4% annually. This strong
expansion allowed them to reduce the abyss with the per capita income of
countries such as Germany, where in that period it grew by 1.39% per year. On
the other side, in southern Europe, not only was there no convergence, but two
countries (Italy and Greece) even worsened, especially because of the crisis.
Spain (0.65%), Portugal (0.63%) or Cyprus (0.57%) registered green numbers, but
below the northern neighbors. The study shows, then, that the gap was closing
in the East and continued to grow in relation to the South.
Another report by Bruegel prepared by researchers Zsolt
Darvas, Jan Mazza and Catarina Madoes for the European Parliament comes to the
same conclusion. In that same period, between 2003 and 2017, the countries of
the East were the ones with the greatest thrust, while southern Europe
presented the worst results. On the other hand, a report prepared by the
European Central Bank examining the 12 founding countries of the euro concluded
that there has been a convergence in terms of economic growth or exports in the
last two decades.
But what is the role of cohesion policies? The economic
literature in this regard is abundant: the academic world has produced more
than 1,000 papers. And not everyone points in the same direction. Bruegel's
three researchers (Darvas, Mazza and Madoes) have tried to find out the role of
cohesion policy trying to strip the growth rate of the multiple factors that
contribute to it. The authors found that this disparity in the expansion
between countries was conditioned by the initial wealth of the country - the
lower, the more potential - the percentage of workers with professional
training, the population density, or the proportion of employees in R&D D +
i.
Once all these factors were analyzed, there was an
"inexplicable economic growth". And the authors believe, according to
Darvas, that this marginal rate is the one that could be explained by cohesion
policy, which between 2014 and 2020 was endowed with 367,000 million euros of
community funds. And that is what the map shows.
Central and eastern Europe remain the countries whose
growth has contributed most to these cohesion funds. The map shows that this
expansion derived from the use of these resources was intense in the countries
of the East, especially in Romania and Poland. But also in several German land
and in the southeast Irish. At the top of the ranking, 10% of the 1,337 regions
examined come from 21 different countries. In that league, however, Belgium,
Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia and Spain do not play.
The map also indicates a poor performance of some
Finnish, French or British regions. A separate case is Greece. Zsolt Darvas,
one of the authors of the study, says that that country was left out of the
study by finding that 70% of its territory was at the tail of the EU as a
result of the brutal consequences of the recession. Six other countries take
the tail van: Croatia (48% of its regions), Slovenia (42%), Bulgaria (32%),
Finland (32%), Hungary (30%) and Ireland (25%).
How do you explain those differences? Darvas explains
that the authors have spoken with several national experts who give clues about
differences in use. For starters, those funds are May water for many countries,
but they have also been a focus of corruption. In addition to avoiding the
misuse of these resources, Bruegel also suggests a certain level of funding to
ensure that this money fits the value of the programs and allow an
appropriation of those programs.
There is also agreement that good coordination between
administrations - central, regional and local - affects performance. Finally,
it affects one of the most lively debates now in Brussels, which seeks the
formula to link the use of funds with EU objectives. Darvas argues that this
could benefit the more developed areas, but not the rest. “The less developed
regions have very different needs from the more advanced ones. And there EU priorities may not
coincide with local ones, which would reduce the usefulness of cohesion policy”,
he adds.
Precisely, the member countries are in full battle for
the Multiannual Financial Framework between 2021 and 2027. The European
Commission proposes accounts equivalent to 1.11% of Community GDP. However,
Germany, Austria, Holland, Denmark or Sweden - the net contributors - are not
willing to assume the part left by the United Kingdom and want to limit the
budget to 1% of GDP. On the other hand, Spain or Portugal support the
Commission document. The Committee of the Regions fears that this will mean a
cut in cohesion funds.
SOURCE: El PaÃs
