Hubbry Logo
Regional policy of the European UnionRegional policy of the European UnionMain
Open search
Regional policy of the European Union
Community hub
Regional policy of the European Union
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Regional policy of the European Union
Regional policy of the European Union
Regional policy of the European Union
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
This article is part of a series on
Politics of the European Union
Member states (27)
Candidate countries
Countries with suspended accession negotiations
Applicant countries
States not on the agenda
Microstates and the European Union
Treaties and Declarations
Opt-outs
Treaties of accession
1972, 1979, 1985, 1994, 2003, 2005, 2011
Treaties of withdrawal
1984, 2020
Other treaties
Abandoned treaties and agreements
Executive institutions
European Council
European Commission
Legislative institutions
Council of the EU
Presidency
Denmark Denmark
(July–December 2025)
Configurations
European Parliament
(Members)
National parliaments
Judicial institutions
Court of Justice of the EU
Auditory institutions
European Court of Auditors
Other auditory bodies
European Central Bank
Other bodies
European Investment Bank Group
European Stability Mechanism
European University Institute
Unified Patent Court
Agencies, decentralised independent bodies and joint undertakings
Other independent bodies
Advisory bodies
Inter-institutional bodies
Euratom
Euratom members
Associated states
Euratom since 1 January 2021
Euratom since 1 January 2021
Economic and Monetary Union
Eurozone members
Eurogroup
Other currencies in use
Non Euro countries relationship to Euro
Eurozone since 2023
Eurozone since 2023
Schengen Area
Non-EU members
Non-Schengen area EU member states
Schengen Area from January 2025
Schengen Area from January 2025
European Economic Area
EEA members
Non-EU members
Topics
European Economic Area
European Economic Area
Elections
European elections
Elections in EU member states
Law
Policies and issues
Foreign relations
High Representative
Foreign relations of EU member states
Defunct bodies
flag European Union portal

The Regional Policy of the European Union (EU), also referred as Cohesion Policy, is a policy with the stated aim of improving the economic well-being of regions in the European Union and also to avoid regional disparities. More than one third of the EU's budget is devoted to this policy, which aims to remove economic, social and territorial disparities across the EU, restructure declining industrial areas and diversify rural areas which have declining agriculture. In doing so, EU regional policy is geared towards making regions more competitive, fostering economic growth and creating new jobs. The policy also has a role to play in wider challenges for the future, including climate change, energy supply and globalisation.

The EU's regional policy covers all European regions, although regions across the EU fall in different categories (so-called objectives), depending mostly on their economic situation. Between 2007 and 2013, EU regional policy consisted of three objectives: Convergence, Regional competitiveness and employment, and European territorial cooperation; the previous three objectives (from 2000 to 2006) were simply known as Objectives 1, 2 and 3.

The policy constitutes the main investment policy of the EU, and is due to account for around of third of its budget, or EUR 392 billion over the period of 2021-2027.[1] In its long-term budget, the EU's Cohesion policy gives particular attention to regions where economic development is below the EU average.[2][3]

Notion of territorial cohesion

[edit]

Territorial cohesion is a European Union concept which builds on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).[4][5] The main idea of territorial cohesion is to contribute to European sustainable development and competitiveness. It is intended to strengthen the European regions, promote territorial integration and produce coherence of European Union (EU) policies so as to contribute to the sustainable development and global competitiveness of the EU. Sustainable development is defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

The main aim of the territorial cohesion policy is to contribute to a balanced distribution of economic and social resources among the European regions with the priority on the territorial dimension. This means that resources and opportunities should be equally distributed among the regions and their populations. In order to achieve the goal of territorial cohesion, an integrative approach to other EU policies is required.

Objectives

[edit]
Classification of regions from 2021 to 2027:
  Less developed regions
  Transition regions
  More developed regions
Classification of regions from 2014 to 2020:
  Less developed regions
  Transition regions
  More developed regions
Eligibility of regions for different objectives from 2007 to 2013:
  Eligible under Convergence objective
  Phasing out eligibility under Convergence objectives
  Eligible under Regional competitiveness and employment objective
  Phasing in eligibility under Regional competitiveness and employment objective.
Info signs of European Regional Development Fund at monument renovation site in Poland

Less developed regions

[edit]

By far the largest amount of regional policy funding is dedicated to the regions designated as less developed. This covers Europe's poorest regions whose per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is less than 75% of the EU average. This includes nearly all the regions of the new member states, most of Southern Italy, Greece and Portugal, and some parts of the United Kingdom and Spain.

With the addition of the newest member countries in 2004 and 2007, the EU average GDP fell. As a result, some regions in the EU's "old" member states, which used to be eligible for funding under the Convergence objective, became above the 75% threshold. These regions received transitional, "phasing out" support during the previous funding period of 2007–13. Regions that used to be covered under the convergence criteria but got above the 75% threshold even within the EU-15 received "phasing-in" support through the Regional competitiveness and employment objective.[6] [7] Despite the large investment requirements of the EU, cohesion areas continue to have lower investment rates. Only 77% of businesses in transitional regions and 75% of those in less developed regions invested, compared to 79% of businesses in more developed regions.[8]

Financial limitations are more common in less developed areas, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs in these regions are more than twice as likely (11%) than their counterparts in transition (5%) and non-cohesion zones (5%) to report having financial difficulties.[9][10] Less developed regions also have the lowest percentage of businesses who have made investments to combat climate change or reduce their carbon emissions, at 46%.[8] In 2022, lending from the EIB Group under the SME/mid-cap financing policy reached €3.5 billion.[11][12]

In less developed regions, bank loans account for 49% of finance. Grants make up a larger portion of the financing in less developed areas, accounting for 13% of external financing.[13]

Many regions in Southern Europe and transition regions in higher-income Member States have seen economic downturn and population declines.[14] There has been general growth in GDP per capita and employment, but regional differences within EU nations remain, with considerable discrepancies between capital and non-capital areas, particularly in younger Member States.[15][16]

Women's participation in the workforce, including older women, has grown significantly in recent years, though notable regional differences remain.[17] In cohesion regions, women's employment rates are considerably lower than men's, with gender gaps in employment reaching as high as 30% in parts of Southern Europe.[17][18]

Areas designated as less developed from 2014 to 2020

[edit]

Transition regions

[edit]

These are regions whose GDP per capita falls between 75 and 90 percent of the EU average. As such, they receive less funding than the less developed regions but more funding than the more developed regions.

In transition regions, bank loans account for 69% of finance.[19][13] Particularly transitional regions appear to profit from investments in more developed regions. There is a 34% of the impact on GDP and 47% of the impact on employment in some circumstances.[20]

In the green transition, 19% of firms in transition regions claim that climate change is significantly affecting their business, while 43% believe climate change has a minor effect.[21] 25% of businesses in transition regions can also be categorized as "green and digital".

Areas designated as transition regions from 2014 to 2020

[edit]
  • Austria – Burgenland
  • Belgium – all of Wallonia (except Walloon Brabant)
  • Denmark – Sjælland
  • France – Auvergne, Corsica, Franche-Comté, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Lower Normandy, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Poitou-Charentes
  • Germany – Lüneburg, all of the former East Germany sans Berlin (except Leipzig)
  • Greece – Dytiki Makedonia, Ionia Nisia, Kriti, Peloponnisos, Sterea Ellada, Voreio Aigaio
  • Italy – Abruzzo, Molise, Sardinia
  • Malta – all
  • Poland - none
  • Portugal – Algarve
  • Spain – Andalucía, Canarias, Castilla-La Mancha, Melilla, Murcia
  • United Kingdom – Cumbria, Devon, East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, Highlands and Islands, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Northern Ireland, Shropshire and Staffordshire, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley and Durham
  • Bulgaria – Southwestern region
Further information: INTERREG IV France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen

More developed regions

[edit]

This covers all European regions that are not covered elsewhere, namely those which have a GDP per capita above 90 percent of the EU average. The main aim of funding for these regions is to create jobs by promoting competitiveness and making the regions concerned more attractive to businesses and investors. Possible projects include developing clean transport, supporting research centres, universities, small businesses and start-ups, providing training, and creating jobs. Funding is managed through either the ERDF or the ESF.

In all regions, bank loans are the most prevalent type of external financing. In more developed regions, they account for 58% of finance.[19][13]

Areas designated as more developed regions from 2014 to 2020

[edit]

European territorial cooperation

[edit]

This objective aims to reduce the importance of borders within Europe – both between and within countries – by improving regional cooperation. It allows for three different types of cooperation: cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. The objective is currently by far the least important in pure financial terms, accounting for only 2.5% of the EU's regional policy budget. It is funded exclusively through the ERDF.

Instruments and funding

[edit]
Main article: European Structural and Investment Funds

The cohesion policy accounts for almost one third of the EU's budget, equivalent to almost EUR 352 billion over seven years in 2014-2020,[22] and EUR 392 billion in 2021-2027,[1] dedicated to the promotion of economic development and job creation, and for helping communities and nations get ready for the European Union's transition to a more sustainable and digital economy.[23][24] Cohesion lending had a large percentage of contributions to climate and environmental goals in 2021 and 2022.[25] Sustainable energy and natural resources accounted for €10.2 billion, or 34% of overall European Investment Bank cohesion loans, compared to 26% for non-cohesion regions. 52% of loans in the European Union for sustainability (€19.6 billion) went to projects in cohesion areas.[26]

The main resource of EU's territorial cohesion policy is EU's structural funds. There are two structural funds available to all EU regions: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)[27] and the European Social Fund (ESF).[28] The ERDF is intended to be used for the creation of infrastructure and productive job-creating investment and it is mainly for the businesses, while the ESF is meant to contribute to the integration of the unemployed populations into the work life via training measurements. The funds are managed and delivered in partnership between the European Commission, the Member States and stakeholders at the local and regional level. In the 2014–2020 funding period, money is allocated differently between regions that are deemed to be "more developed" (with GDP per capita over 90% of the EU average), "transition" (between 75% and 90%), and "less developed" (less than 75%), and additional funds are set aside for member states with GNI per capita under 90 percent of the EU average in the Cohesion Fund.[29] Funding for less developed regions, like the Convergence objective before it, aims to allow the regions affected to catch up with the EU's more prosperous regions, thereby reducing economic disparity within the European Union. Examples of types of projects funded under this objective include improving basic infrastructure, helping businesses, building or modernising waste and water treatment facilities, and improving access to high-speed Internet connections. Regional policy projects in less developed regions are supported by three European funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) has pledged to increasing its support for certain regions in its Cohesion Orientation for 2021–2027.[30] Between 2023 and 2024, the Bank plans to allocate at least 40% of the overall finance it provides to projects in cohesion regions, increasing to at least 45% starting in 2025. The less developed areas of Europe will get at least half of this allocation, and increasing regions that receive its climate action and environmental loans.[31][32]

The European Investment Bank has given €44.7 billion to projects in cohesion areas for the European Union since 2021. Included in this is €24.8 billion in 2022 alone, or 46% of all EU signatures. From 2014 - 2020, they contributed a total of €123.8 billion to projects in cohesion areas.[33][34] Financial instruments from the Bank have so far helped around 6,600 projects in Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Romania, and Cyprus.[35] In 2022, the EIB Group contributed €28.4 billion to initiatives in cohesion areas and €16.2 billion in climate action and environmental sustainability.[36] 44% of the EIB Group's overall loan in the European Union in 2022—or €28.4 billion—went to projects in cohesion areas. In the same year, projects with a combined investment cost of €146 billion were backed by EIB loans across the EU.[37][38] For the EU as a whole, the European Investment Bank invested €16.2 billion in climate action and environmental sustainability in 2022 in cohesion areas. This is over half of the EU's total EIB funding for climate change and environmental sustainability.[39][40] In 2023, cohesion regions received 83% of the EIB's funding for urban and regional projects, and 65% of the funding for strategic transport projects was allocated to these areas.[41]

Also in 2023, the European Investment Fund spent €14.9 billion in cohesion areas, partnering with 300 institutions throughout Europe to provide finance for over 350 000 small firms, infrastructure projects, homes, and individuals. This resulted in €134 billion for the real economy.[42]

The European Union invested €14 billion, 49% of which focused on economic and social integration. These funds are intended to raise around €42.7 billion.[42]

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Regional policy of the European Union

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The regional policy of the , formally known as Cohesion Policy, serves as the bloc's principal investment framework to mitigate economic, social, and territorial imbalances across its member states and regions by channeling funds into , and , , and labor market enhancements. Established under the on the Functioning of the , it operates through shared management between the and national authorities, prioritizing less prosperous areas while extending support to all regions for strategic objectives like digital and green transitions. With a budget of €392 billion for the 2021-2027 programming period—representing about one-third of the EU's —the policy deploys key instruments such as the (ERDF) for and the Cohesion Fund for and environmental projects in eligible countries. Cohesion Policy has facilitated tangible investments, including over €140 billion from the Group in cohesion regions since 2021, contributing to infrastructure upgrades and economic diversification in peripheral areas. Empirical analyses indicate positive short-term effects on GDP and in recipient regions, particularly through investments projected to boost growth in less developed territories. However, long-term convergence remains elusive, as structural factors like institutional quality and national often limit sustained disparity reduction, with some studies highlighting uneven development despite decades of funding. The policy faces scrutiny for inefficiencies, including high rates of irregular spending and errors in , driven by factors such as weak administrative capacity and political favoritism in fund allocation. Instances of , particularly in public procurement tied to cohesion projects, have eroded public trust and amplified costs, underscoring challenges in ensuring across diverse member states. Recent reforms aim to modernize delivery by aligning with EU priorities like competitiveness and decarbonization, yet debates persist on whether redistributive approaches adequately address root causes of regional divergence without fostering dependency.

Historical Development

Origins in the Treaty of Rome and Early Initiatives

The , signed on 25 March 1957 by , , , , the , and , and entering into force on 1 January 1958, laid the foundational objectives for what would evolve into the European Union's regional policy. Its preamble committed signatories to reducing differences in levels of development and standards of living across regions to foster social progress and economic harmony. Article 2 further specified promoting a harmonious development of economic activities, continuous and balanced expansion, accelerated improvement in living standards, and closer relations between Member States, implicitly acknowledging the need to address territorial imbalances arising from market integration. While the treaty lacked dedicated regional funds or mechanisms—relying instead on the assumption that and would naturally converge economies—it established the principle of to counteract disparities exacerbated by the common market. Early initiatives in the European Economic Community (EEC) from the 1960s built on these principles through ad hoc and indirect instruments rather than a comprehensive policy framework. The European Social Fund (ESF), established in 1960 under Articles 123–125 of the Treaty, prioritized improving occupational adaptability, vocational training, and geographical/occupational mobility of workers to combat structural unemployment, with practical applications targeting high-unemployment regions like southern Italy's Mezzogiorno. Complementing this, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), adopted in 1962, incorporated a guidance section within the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (FEOGA) to finance structural improvements, modernization, and diversification in less-favored rural areas, addressing agricultural backwardness in peripheral regions. These funds, totaling modest allocations—ESF disbursed about 170 million units of account by 1970—served as precursors to targeted regional aid, though their impact was limited by national control over implementation and a focus on sector-specific rather than place-based interventions. By the late , persistent regional divergences—evident in GDP per capita gaps, with 's southern regions lagging 40–50% behind the north—prompted institutional steps toward coordination. The established a for Regional Policies and Coordination of Structural Policies in to analyze imbalances, advocate for investment in infrastructure, and integrate regional considerations into broader EEC decision-making. This period's efforts, driven by advocacy from disparity-affected states like , highlighted causal tensions between market liberalization and uneven development, setting the stage for demands for a dedicated fund amid the 1973 enlargement and oil crisis.

Evolution Through Enlargement and Crises

The first major enlargement of the in 1973, incorporating , , and the , highlighted regional disparities, particularly in , where GDP per capita lagged behind the community average, necessitating initial ad hoc interventions like the 1972 decision on grants. This prompted the creation of the (ERDF) in 1975 via Council Regulation (EEC) No 724/75, with an initial budget of 1.3 billion ECU for 1975-1977, aimed at supporting infrastructure in less-developed areas to mitigate uneven integration impacts. Subsequent southern enlargements—Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986—exacerbated disparities, as these countries had average GDP per capita levels 55-68% below the community average, straining existing mechanisms and fueling debates on fiscal redistribution. In response, the 1988 reform under the Delors I package restructured the Structural Funds, increasing their budget from 16 billion ECU (1987-1993) to emphasize concentration on Objective 1 regions (lagging areas), with integrated operations linking ERDF, European Social Fund (ESF), and European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The 1992 introduction of the Cohesion Fund, allocated 4.4 billion ECU for 1993-1999, targeted environmental and transport infrastructure in the four poorest members (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) to facilitate Economic and Monetary Union convergence, reflecting causal links between enlargement-induced poverty traps and the need for compensatory transfers. The 1995 accession of , , and introduced relatively affluent Nordic regions but minor peripheral disparities, prompting minor adjustments in the 1999 Council reforms for the 2000-2006 period, which allocated €213 billion overall and prioritized human resource development amid the 1992-1993 crisis that widened regional unemployment gaps to 12 percentage points in some areas. The transformative 2004 enlargement, adding ten Central and Eastern European states with GDP averaging 40-50% of the EU-15 level, necessitated a scaled-up €347 billion for 2007-2013, shifting emphasis to convergence objectives covering 84% of the EU population and integrating pre-accession instruments like ISPA into mainstream cohesion funding to build administrative capacity and , yielding post-enlargement GDP gains of up to 20-30% in new members by 2019. and Romania's 2007 entry, followed by in 2013, further extended this framework, with conditionalities tied to rule-of-law reforms to address risks in fund absorption. Economic crises intersected with these expansions, amplifying adaptation needs; the 1973-1974 oil shock, doubling energy import costs and contracting GDP by 0.5-2% across members, exposed structural vulnerabilities in peripheral regions but elicited limited supranational response beyond national aids, underscoring early policy's reactive nature. The 2008 global financial crisis, triggering a 4.5% GDP drop in 2009, prompted regulatory amendments like Commission Regulation (EC) No 397/2009, enabling 7% reprogramming flexibility for job preservation and SME liquidity, with €26 billion reallocated to counter-cyclical measures by 2011. The ensuing sovereign debt crisis (2009-2012), hitting cohesion-eligible states like (25% GDP contraction) hardest, integrated macroeconomic conditionality into the 2014-2020 period via Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, suspending funds for excessive deficits and enforcing reforms, though empirical data show cohesion investments mitigated divergence by sustaining 1-2% annual growth premiums in funded regions. The , with €100 billion in REACT-EU top-ups by 2021, further tested resilience, reinforcing performance-based allocations while empirical assessments indicate crises temporarily stalled but did not reverse long-term convergence trends, as disparities in GDP per capita fell from 30% (2000) to 24% (2021) between richest and poorest regions.

Shift from Redistribution to Performance-Based Approaches

The European Union's cohesion policy traditionally emphasized redistribution, allocating funds primarily to less-developed regions based on objective criteria such as GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average, unemployment rates, and population size, with the goal of narrowing economic disparities across member states. This approach, dominant from the policy's inception in the through the 2007-2013 programming period, distributed over €347 billion in commitments, yet evaluations indicated limited long-term convergence, as some recipient regions experienced growth while others stagnated due to absorption issues and weak institutional capacity. Critics argued that unconditional transfers often failed to address underlying structural weaknesses, prompting a reevaluation toward mechanisms that link funding to verifiable outcomes rather than need alone. A pivotal shift occurred with the 2014-2020 (MFF), which introduced a mandatory performance framework (PF) for (ESIF), including the (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund. The PF required programs to define specific output and result indicators, with annual implementation reports tracking progress against milestones; a performance reserve of 6% of each program's allocation—totaling approximately €20 billion across cohesion spending—was withheld and redistributed in 2019 to priorities meeting predefined thresholds, incentivizing efficient management and results-oriented spending. conditionalities further enforced prerequisites, such as robust administrative capacity and alignment with national strategies, suspending funds if unmet, which aimed to mitigate risks of inefficient absorption observed in prior periods where up to 20% of funds went unspent in some countries. This performance-based orientation intensified in the 2021-2027 MFF, allocating €392 billion to cohesion policy (including national co-financing exceeding €500 billion total), with enhanced conditionalities tying disbursements to achievement of specific objectives like green transition and digitalization under six policy goals. While retaining eligibility-based formulas, up to 8% of allocations now hinge on assessments, integrated with tools like the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which employs milestones and targets for 100% of its €723 billion envelope, marking a broader trend toward results-driven investment amid critiques that pure redistribution yielded diminishing returns, with GDP convergence rates averaging only 0.5-1% annually in lagging regions pre-2014. Empirical analyses confirm positive macroeconomic impacts from 2014-2020 investments, estimating GDP boosts of 0.5-1.2% in beneficiary regions, attributed partly to performance incentives that improved project selection and monitoring, though challenges persist in measuring long-term causality and addressing political influences on indicator design.

Territorial Cohesion as Defined in EU Treaties

The concept of territorial cohesion entered the European Union's legal framework as part of the broader objective of economic, social, and territorial cohesion through the , which amended the Treaties and entered into force on 1 December 2009. Prior to this, cohesion policy under the (as established by the of 1992) focused primarily on economic and social dimensions, with territorial aspects addressed informally through regional development initiatives but not explicitly enshrined. Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU), which operationalizes this objective, states: "In view of the disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backward state in which some regions are, and bearing in mind that the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is liable to create or to aggravate disparities between the levels of development of the various regions, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions or s, including rural areas." This provision emphasizes the Union's role in addressing regional imbalances exacerbated by the internal market's dynamics, with particular attention to regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as northernmost regions with very low and , cross-border, and mountain regions. Complementing Article 174 TFEU, Article 3(3) of the (TEU) identifies the promotion of economic, social, and territorial cohesion as essential to the Union's internal development and solidarity among Member States. Protocol (No 28) annexed to the TFEU further reinforces this by committing the Union to consider economic, social, and territorial cohesion in its policies, underscoring the need for balanced territorial development to support the single market's functioning. In treaty terms, territorial cohesion thus entails targeted actions to mitigate uneven regional growth, prioritizing equity in access to , services, and opportunities across diverse geographies, without prescribing specific mechanisms beyond the imperative to strengthen overall cohesion and reduce specified disparities. This definition has guided subsequent cohesion policy programming, linking treaty obligations to funding allocations aimed at less-favoured areas, though implementation remains subject to political negotiations among Member States.

Core Objectives and Principles Across Programming Periods

The European Union's cohesion policy, as the primary instrument of its regional policy, seeks to strengthen economic, social, and territorial cohesion by addressing disparities in development levels across regions and supporting the integration of less-developed areas into the single market. These aims originate from the Treaty of Rome (1957) and were reinforced in subsequent treaties, particularly the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which elevated cohesion to a fundamental objective alongside economic and monetary union. Empirical assessments indicate that while the policy has allocated over €1.5 trillion since 1989 to infrastructure, human capital, and innovation, its impact on convergence remains debated, with faster-growing regions often benefiting more due to absorption capacities and national complementarities. Guiding principles, established in the 1988 reform and refined thereafter, include concentration, which prioritizes funding for the least-developed regions (e.g., at least 70% of resources in 2014–2020 targeted such areas); programming, mandating multi-annual operational programs co-financed by EU and national budgets and aligned with union-wide priorities rather than projects; partnership, requiring involvement of regional, local, and stakeholders in design, implementation, and evaluation to tailor interventions to territorial needs; and additionality, ensuring EU funds supplement domestic expenditures without substituting them. These principles promote and proportionality, though implementation challenges, such as bureaucratic delays and uneven enforcement, have persisted across periods, as noted in reports. Across programming periods, core objectives have evolved to integrate broader union goals while retaining the focus on disparity reduction:
  • 1989–1993: Emphasis on integrating structural funds for and development in Objective 1 regions (poorest areas with GDP per capita below 75% of EU average), marking the first multi-annual framework with ECU 64 billion allocated to foster convergence amid single market completion.
  • 1994–1999: Retained convergence for lagging regions while adding support for industrial conversion (Objective 2) and , with funds doubled to ECU 168 billion under criteria, incorporating sparsely populated areas post-enlargement preparations.
  • 2000–2006: Aligned with the for knowledge-based growth, prioritizing , entrepreneurship, and job creation (e.g., 25% of funds for adaptability and ), with €213 billion for existing members plus pre-accession , though mid-term reviews highlighted absorption issues in new entrants.
  • 2007–2013: Focused on sustainable growth and jobs per the renewed Lisbon agenda, mandating 25% allocation to R&D/ and 30% to environmental measures, within a €347 billion envelope emphasizing transparency and performance reserves.
  • 2014–2020: Oriented toward 2020 targets for smart, sustainable, and , with thematic concentrations like 20% for low-carbon investments, though evaluations showed mixed convergence outcomes due to external shocks like the sovereign debt crisis.
  • 2021–2027: Streamlined to five objectives—a smarter via ; a greener, carbon-neutral ; a more connected through /; a more social tackling /; and a closer to citizens via local development—totaling €392 billion, with mandatory climate (30–37%) and digital (20%) targets, amid post-COVID recovery and green transition imperatives.
This evolution reflects a shift from pure redistribution toward performance-oriented investments, with conditionalities linking funds to reforms, though critics argue overemphasis on thematic targets dilutes place-based tailoring.

Regional Classification Criteria and Methodologies

The European Union's regional classification for cohesion policy relies on the of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), a hierarchical system established by to standardize regional divisions across member states for statistical and policy purposes. NUTS divides territories into levels, with NUTS 2 designated as the primary unit for defining eligibility and targeting cohesion funds, encompassing basic regions suitable for regional policy application; these typically range from 800,000 to 3 million inhabitants where possible, though administrative boundaries are prioritized for practicality. Regions at this level are assessed using harmonized data from national accounts, ensuring comparability in metrics like (GDP). Regions are categorized into three groups—less developed, transition, and more developed—primarily based on average GDP in standards (PPS) relative to the EU-27 average, calculated over a three-year reference period to smooth cyclical fluctuations; for the 2021–2027 programming period, this uses data from 2016–2018. Less developed regions have GDP below 75% of the EU average, qualifying for the highest co-financing rates and comprehensive support; transition regions range from 75% to 100%, reflecting moderate disparities and eligibility for targeted investments; more developed regions exceed 100%, receiving limited funding focused on and rather than convergence. This threshold adjustment from prior periods (where transition was 75–90%) accommodates post-financial crisis realities and enlargement effects, aiming to broaden support amid stagnant convergence in some areas. Methodologies incorporate additional qualifiers for specific vulnerabilities, such as population sparsity (under 8 inhabitants per km² or 12.5% in decline over three years), low (under 50 per km² with net migration loss), or outermost regions under Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the , which may override GDP thresholds for enhanced eligibility; these ensure tailored interventions beyond pure economic metrics. Classifications are reviewed periodically, with transitions between categories triggering phasing-in or phasing-out mechanisms to avoid abrupt funding shifts—e.g., regions graduating from less developed status receive 66–100% of prior allocations initially. is maintained through validation of member state submissions, though critiques note potential manipulation via NUTS boundary revisions to influence eligibility, as observed in cases from , , and . Overall, this GDP-centric approach, while empirically grounded in convergence theory, has faced scrutiny for over-relying on a single indicator that may undervalue non-monetary disparities like or gaps.

Funding and Implementation Mechanisms

Budgetary Framework and Allocation Formulas

The budgetary framework for the European Union's regional policy, primarily implemented through Cohesion Policy, is embedded within the (MFF), which sets multi-annual spending limits across EU priorities. For the 2021-2027 programming period, Cohesion Policy receives €392 billion in EU commitments, representing approximately one-third of the total MFF and leveraging additional national co-financing to reach around €500 billion overall. These resources are channeled mainly through the (ERDF), European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), and Cohesion Fund (CF), with supplementary allocations from the Fund (JTF) for regions affected by decarbonization. The framework emphasizes performance-based conditionalities, requiring Member States to meet milestones for disbursements, and aligns funding with EU-wide objectives such as , sustainability, and social inclusion. Allocations to Member States follow the Berlin method, a formula adopted by the in 1999 that uses objective, data-driven criteria to distribute funds based on relative economic disadvantage. The methodology calculates initial envelopes using a weighted combination of factors, with prosperity—measured as average GDP (or GNI for some components) relative to the EU average over three years—accounting for about 81% of the weighting, while population contributes the remainder, adjusted for regional eligibility categories. Additional premiums are applied for (up to €500 per excess unemployed person annually), low attainment, net migration inflows (3% weighting), and (1% weighting), reflecting updates introduced for 2021-2027 to address emerging disparities. For the CF, which targets environmental infrastructure in lower-income states, the formula prioritizes population (50% weight) alongside GDP criteria, with eligibility limited to countries below 90% of EU GDP . Post-Member State allocation, funds are sub-distributed to regions according to NUTS-2 classifications: less developed (GDP <75% EU average, receiving ~75% of total funds), transition (75-90%), and more developed (>90%). Caps limit allocation increases to 8% and reductions to 24% compared to prior periods, with safety nets ensuring no receives less than 85% of its 2014-2020 envelope in real terms, followed by political negotiations for final approval. This approach, while formulaic, incorporates discretionary adjustments to balance equity and efficiency, though critics note it perpetuates historical spending patterns over pure need-based distribution.
FactorWeighting (Approximate)Description
GDP per capita / GNI81%Relative to EU average, using 3-year average; core measure of economic disadvantage
Population19% (varies by fund)Eligible population in target regions; higher for CF
Youth Unemployment PremiumVariable premium€500/year per person above EU average
Other (Education, Migration, Emissions)1-3%Adjustments for low education (years 15-24), net migration, and climate impacts

Key Instruments: ERDF, Cohesion Fund, and ESF+

The , established in 1975 and regulated under Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 for the 2021-2027 period, aims to strengthen economic, social, and territorial cohesion by addressing regional imbalances through investments in infrastructure, innovation, digitalization, and . It supports projects across all EU regions but prioritizes less developed areas, funding initiatives like , greener economies, and better connectivity, with at least 30% of resources allocated to and 8% to sustainable urban development by 2027. In the current programming cycle, ERDF forms the bulk of cohesion investments, contributing to the overall €392 billion Cohesion Policy envelope when including national co-financing. The Cohesion Fund (CF), introduced by the 1993 and also governed by Regulation (EU) 2021/1058, targets EU Member States whose (GNI) per capita is below 90% of the EU-27 average, focusing on environmental projects and trans-European transport networks (TEN-T) to promote convergence. Eligible countries, such as , , and several Central and Eastern European states as of 2021, receive grants covering up to 85% of public expenditure for qualifying infrastructure, with strict emphasis on projects enhancing economic and social cohesion without supporting ongoing operational costs. Unlike the ERDF, the CF operates at national rather than regional levels in eligible states, ensuring targeted aid to poorer economies while integrating performance-based conditionalities tied to macroeconomic stability. The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), reformed under Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 for 2021-2027, serves as the EU's primary tool for investing in , , skills, and social inclusion, merging the original ESF with the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) and the Youth Employment Initiative. It allocates approximately €99.3 billion to reduce disparities by funding active labor market policies, vocational training, poverty alleviation, and health initiatives, with at least 20% dedicated to social inclusion and combating . ESF+ complements ERDF and CF by emphasizing people-centered investments, such as upskilling for the green and digital transitions, and includes a dedicated €5.1 billion and strand managed directly by the Commission to support policy reforms across all Member States. Together, these instruments operate through shared management with national authorities via multi-annual programs, subject to ex-ante conditionalities ensuring alignment with EU priorities like the European Semester recommendations.

Programming Cycles, Monitoring, and Conditionalities

The European Union's cohesion policy operates through seven-year programming cycles aligned with the (MFF), which sets the budgetary framework and regulatory basis for implementation. These cycles begin with the adoption of regulations by the and Council, followed by negotiations on partnership agreements between the Commission and member states, and the approval of operational programs specifying investments at national, regional, or sub-regional levels. For the 2021-2027 period, programming emphasized alignment with EU priorities such as the and digital transitions, with €392 billion allocated to cohesion policy instruments. The process incorporates stakeholder consultations and performance frameworks to ensure targeted spending, with mid-term reviews allowing adjustments based on progress assessments. Monitoring occurs continuously through multiple layers, including annual implementation reports submitted by managing authorities, reviews by monitoring committees comprising national, regional, and Commission representatives, and integration into the European Semester's economic cycle. The Commission's directorates assess compliance and performance indicators, such as output targets for or , with data reported via the Structural Funds Information System. Ex-post evaluations, conducted at the end of periods or mid-way, draw on independent audits by the to verify effectiveness, revealing, for instance, that in the 2014-2020 cycle, only partial achievement of convergence goals in less-developed regions due to delays. These mechanisms aim to enforce accountability but have been critiqued for administrative burdens, as evidenced by the Court of Auditors' findings on inconsistent across member states. Conditionalities link funding disbursement to specific prerequisites and benchmarks, evolving from macroeconomic linkages in earlier periods to a broader set including enabling conditions fulfilled before program approval. In the 2014-2020 framework, 23 thematic conditionalities covered areas like frameworks or capacity, with non-fulfillment leading to suspensions; fulfillment rates reached about 90% by 2018, though enforcement varied. The 2021-2027 regulations introduced horizontal enabling conditions on public procurement, state aid, and environmental standards, alongside a 5% reserve allocated post-2024 based on milestone achievements. Rule-of-law conditionality, applicable since 2021, allows suspensions for breaches affecting EU finances, as applied to in 2022, while macroeconomic conditionalities tie cohesion funds to excessive deficit procedure compliance under the . These tools seek to enhance policy leverage but raise concerns over politicization, with empirical analyses indicating limited impact on structural reforms in recipient states.

Targeting Regional Disparities

Metrics for Measuring Economic and Social Gaps

The European Union's cohesion policy relies principally on in standards (PPS) as the benchmark metric for quantifying economic gaps between regions, calculated at the NUTS level 2 and indexed relative to the EU average of 100. This indicator captures average economic output per person, adjusted for cost-of-living differences, and serves as the threshold for classifying regions and allocating funds; for the 2021–2027 period, regions with GDP per capita below 75% of the three-year average (2016–2018) are designated less developed, affecting over 200 such regions primarily in Central, Eastern, and . In 2021, the EU's regional GDP per capita dispersion showed a standard deviation of approximately 25 points from the mean, with the lowest values in Bulgarian and Romanian regions around 35–40% of the average, reflecting entrenched and structural differences not fully mitigated by prior interventions. Social gaps are assessed through a suite of labor market and deprivation indicators from Eurostat, including the unemployment rate, long-term unemployment rate (share unemployed for over 12 months), and youth unemployment rate (ages 15–24), which highlight human capital and integration disparities. For instance, the EU average unemployment rate stood at 6.2% in 2022, but regional variations ranged from under 3% in Prague and Southern Germany to over 15% in parts of Spain's Andalusia and Greece's mainland, correlating with lower GDP regions where structural factors like skill mismatches persist. The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) rate integrates income poverty (below 60% of national median equivalised income), severe material deprivation (inability to afford essentials like heating or meat weekly), and household low work intensity (adults working <20% potential), revealing social divides; in 2022, this metric affected 21.0% EU-wide but exceeded 35% in regions like Norte in Portugal and Sud-Est in Romania, compared to under 10% in Nordic areas. Complementary metrics address and broader , such as the share of population aged 25–64 with at least upper and tertiary attainment rates, which measure skill gaps contributing to economic divergence; EU averages hover around 80% for secondary and 33% for tertiary completion, yet gaps persist with Eastern regions lagging 10–20 percentage points behind Western counterparts as of 2021 data. The EU Social Progress Index (SPI), a composite of 60 indicators across , foundations, and opportunities (excluding economic variables), provides a non-GDP lens on social gaps, showing less developed regions scoring 10–20 points lower on average in 2023 editions, though its policy integration remains advisory rather than determinative due to GDP's primacy in funding formulas. These metrics, drawn from harmonized data, enable cross-regional comparability but face critiques for underweighting intra-regional inequalities and non-monetary factors like migration-driven depopulation in peripheral areas.

Categories of Regions: Less Developed, Transition, and More Developed

The European Union's cohesion policy classifies NUTS level 2 regions into three categories based on their average GDP per inhabitant in standards (PPS) relative to the EU-27 average, calculated over a three-year period (2016-2018 for the 2021-2027 programming period). Less developed regions are those with GDP per inhabitant below 75% of the EU average, transition regions range from 75% to less than 90%, and more developed regions are at or above 90%. This classification determines eligibility for structural funds, co-financing rates, and targeted interventions under instruments like the (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund, with the aim of addressing economic disparities while recognizing varying development needs. Less developed regions, numbering 78 out of approximately 238 NUTS 2 regions in the EU-27, encompass areas facing the most severe economic challenges, often in southern and eastern member states such as , , and parts of and . These regions receive the highest co-financing rates—up to 85% of eligible project costs from EU funds—and priority access to the Cohesion Fund for and environmental infrastructure, provided they meet GDP thresholds and are not classified as more developed. The category supports investments in , digitalization, and to foster catch-up growth, though empirical data indicate persistent gaps, with average GDP per capita in these regions at around 50-60% of the EU average in recent years. Transition regions, totaling 67, include areas in countries like , , and certain Spanish and Portuguese regions that have experienced moderate convergence but remain below full parity. Co-financing rates here are set at 60-70%, balancing support for competitiveness-enhancing projects with reduced dependency on EU transfers compared to less developed areas. This category reflects regions in , where funds target sustainable growth factors like , yet studies show slower convergence rates than anticipated, influenced by factors beyond GDP such as labor mobility and institutional quality. More developed regions, comprising the remaining approximately 93 NUTS 2 units primarily in northern and western Europe (e.g., , excluding overseas territories, and the ), receive lower co-financing (40-50%) and focus on , low-carbon transitions, and urban challenges rather than basic infrastructure. While not eligible for the Cohesion Fund, these regions benefit from ERDF allocations for advanced objectives, underscoring the policy's universal coverage but graduated intensity; however, internal disparities within these regions, such as urban-rural divides, highlight limitations in GDP-based classification alone. Classifications are reassessed at the start of each seven-year programming period to account for economic shifts, with some regions graduating or downgrading, as seen in post-2004 enlargement effects.

Cross-Border and Territorial Cooperation Programs

European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programs, branded as , form a dedicated objective within the (ERDF) to address regional disparities by enabling collaborative initiatives across administrative boundaries. Established in 1990 under the initial I initiative, these programs target economic, social, and environmental challenges that transcend national borders, such as labor market mismatches, transport connectivity deficits, and ecological vulnerabilities in peripheral areas. By funding joint strategies and projects, ETC seeks to exploit synergies between regions, thereby narrowing gaps in development levels observed between core and border areas, where GDP per capita can differ by up to 50% or more in adjacent territories. The programs operate across three primary strands tailored to varying scales of cooperation. Cross-border cooperation (Interreg A) focuses on contiguous regions, supporting 73 programs for 2021-2027 with €6.7 billion in ERDF allocation, including 49 internal EU programs, 24 external ones (via IPA for enlargement countries and NEXT for neighborhood partners), and the PEACE PLUS program for Northern Ireland-Ireland. These initiatives prioritize small-scale infrastructure, like cross-border rail links or shared between and , alongside SME internationalization and healthcare access to reduce isolation in less developed border zones. Transnational cooperation ( B) encompasses 14 programs with €1.5 billion, addressing macro-regional strategies in areas like the Basin or Alpine region, where projects enhance river navigation or flood to integrate disparate economic hubs and lagging peripheries. Interregional cooperation (Interreg C), funded at €60 million EU contribution, promotes EU-wide networking to disseminate innovations, such as smart specialization models from advanced regions to transition ones. For the 2021-2027 period, ETC aligns with broader cohesion goals through five specific objectives: improved governance via institutional partnerships; a greener through sustainable ; a more connected via and digital links; a social fostering inclusion; and secure EU borders emphasizing resilience. Funding supports over 2,000 projects per cycle, requiring multi-partner consortia with at least 20% national co-financing, managed by joint secretariats to ensure targeted interventions against disparities, such as boosting employment rates in cross-border labor markets averaging 5-10% below national figures. External extensions, like IPA with €1.1 billion, extend these benefits to candidate states, aiding convergence along EU frontiers where income gaps exceed 70% relative to the EU average. While ETC has facilitated tangible outputs—such as 1,500 km of cross-border since 2007—their impact on enduring disparities remains mixed, with studies showing localized growth spillovers but limited diffusion to or productivity gaps due to asymmetric national policies and regulatory hurdles. Programs emphasize evidence-based selection, with monitoring via common indicators like jobs created (targeting 100,000+ annually) and CO2 reductions, though bureaucratic coordination across jurisdictions often delays by 12-18 months.

Empirical Effectiveness and Outcomes

Evidence on Economic Convergence and Growth Impacts

Empirical assessments of the European Union's Cohesion Policy have employed beta-convergence models, which test whether poorer regions exhibit higher growth rates to catch up to richer ones, and sigma-convergence measures, which evaluate reductions in the dispersion of GDP across regions. Studies using techniques on EU-15 regions from 1995 to 2013 found evidence of conditional beta-convergence, with poorer regions growing faster after controlling for factors like initial income and structural characteristics, though the speed remained modest at around 1-2% annually. However, sigma-convergence has been weaker or absent in many periods, as indicated by persistent or increasing standard deviations in regional GDP , particularly after the . Quantitative analyses of Cohesion Policy's growth impacts reveal positive but heterogeneous effects. A of studies on Structural Funds estimated an average GDP growth multiplier of approximately 1.2-1.5 for recipient regions, meaning each invested yields 1.2-1.5 euros in additional output, primarily through and channels. Peer-reviewed evaluations, such as those covering 2000-2021 NUTS-2 regions, confirm that funds significantly boosted growth in less-developed areas, with elasticities around 0.1-0.3 (a 10% increase in funds linked to 1-3% higher GDP growth), though effects diminish in high-uncertainty macroeconomic environments. For instance, in Central and Eastern European regions post-accession, cohesion spending correlated with accelerated catch-up, narrowing GDP per capita gaps to averages by 10-20 percentage points between 2004 and 2019. Despite these gains, long-term convergence remains incomplete, with disparities widening in some metrics. NBER analysis of place-based policies, including Cohesion Funds, found broadly positive effects on convergence but noted that EU-wide sigma dispersion in regional incomes has not declined substantially since 1989, as growth in lagging regions often fails to outpace frontier ones consistently. Institutional quality mediates outcomes: funds amplified growth by up to 2% annually in regions with strong but yielded negligible or negative returns in areas prone to or inefficiency. Cross-border and transition regions showed spatial spillovers enhancing local growth, yet national-level factors like labor market rigidities and gaps explain more variance in persistent East-West divides than policy alone. Critics highlight methodological challenges, including endogeneity—regions receiving funds may already be on upward trajectories—and potential crowding out of private investment, which could inflate short-term estimates. Overall, while Cohesion Policy has contributed to modest growth accelerations and partial beta-convergence in targeted areas, it has not reversed entrenched regional hierarchies, with GDP per capita in the poorest EU regions (e.g., parts of and ) still below 50% of the EU average as of 2023. These findings underscore that supranational transfers alone insufficiently address causal drivers like differentials and agglomeration economies.

Infrastructure and Human Capital Investments: Successes and Limitations

The (ERDF) primarily supports infrastructure investments, including transport networks, digital connectivity, and energy efficiency projects, while the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) targets through education, vocational training, and labor market activation initiatives, aiming to enhance skills and employment in less developed regions. In the 2014-2020 period, these funds allocated approximately €198 billion to ERDF and €86 billion to ESF+, representing about 14% of total EU government investment and up to 60% in some poorer member states. Empirical analyses indicate positive short-term effects on regional output, with ERDF-financed transport infrastructure correlating to GDP per capita gains of 1-2% in recipient regions over programming cycles, particularly in where connectivity deficits were acute. Successes are evident in targeted interventions that leverage complementary local factors. For instance, ERDF investments in and rail networks in regions like Poland's eastern provinces have boosted by facilitating and firm agglomeration, with studies estimating a 0.5-1% annual growth uplift attributable to improved capital stock. programs under ESF+ have similarly reduced by 2-4 percentage points in less developed areas through apprenticeships and upskilling, contributing to alleviation (SDG 1) and innovation capacity (SDG 9) as measured by patent filings and firm survival rates. These outcomes are strongest where regions possess robust and private sector absorption capacity, as cohesion funds amplify rather than substitute endogenous growth drivers. Overall, the 9th Cohesion Report documents a narrowing of GDP gaps by 0.5-1% across EU regions from 2000-2020, crediting and skills investments for mitigating post-crisis divergences. Limitations persist due to structural barriers and implementation inefficiencies, undermining long-term efficacy. Infrastructure projects often yield in regions lacking "soft" assets like institutional quality or entrepreneurial ecosystems, leading to underutilization; for example, high-speed rail lines in have seen load factors below 50% despite €10 billion in ERDF spending, failing to generate sustained agglomeration benefits. investments face high leakage through skilled labor migration to core regions, exacerbating brain drain and perpetuating endowments disparities—working-age populations in lagging areas like Bulgaria and Romania have seen net outflows of 10-15% post-ESF training programs. Meta-analyses reveal mixed growth impacts, with ESF+ effects on employment fading after 5-7 years due to skill-job mismatches and inadequate alignment with local industries. Regional GDP disparities have narrowed only modestly since 2000, with the coefficient of variation in hovering at 40-50%, as fundamental factors like , , and override fund-induced convergence. Critically, these investments do not fully address causal roots of uneven development, such as regulatory burdens or fiscal incentives favoring urban cores, resulting in persistent spatial inequalities despite cumulative cohesion outlays exceeding €1 trillion since 1989. Quantitative models confirm that while ERDF/ESF+ mitigate shocks like the 2008 recession—cushioning GDP drops by 1-2% in funded areas— they fail to reverse pre-existing trajectories, with less developed regions growing at 2-3% annually versus 1.5% in advanced ones, but absolute gaps widening due to faster baseline recovery in the latter. Reforms in the 2021-2027 period emphasize performance-based allocation, yet evaluations suggest ongoing challenges in scaling returns amid aging demographics and pressures.

Quantitative Studies and Long-Term Persistence of Disparities

Quantitative analyses of EU cohesion policy reveal modest short-term gains in GDP per capita for recipient regions but limited success in achieving sustained convergence, with disparities persisting over decades. A study of Polish regions from 2004 to 2018 found that cohesion funds increased GDP per head by 2.6% in less developed areas and narrowed the gap between the top and bottom deciles by 3.5%, yet Wilcoxon tests showed no significant long-term reductions in or innovation disparities (p=0.9699 for human capital, p=0.9999 for innovativeness). Similarly, econometric evaluations across EU15 regions from 1980 to 1996 indicated no substantial convergence in levels, with the standard deviation of regional GDP remaining stable despite structural fund allocations exceeding €150 billion in the 1994-1999 period. Long-term persistence is evident in the failure to reduce convergence metrics, which measure dispersion rather than conditional growth rates. Research spanning multiple programming periods demonstrates that while beta convergence—poorer regions growing faster in absolute terms—occurs at low rates (around 1-2% annually), overall inequality in GDP across NUTS-2 regions has not declined proportionally to investments, which totaled over €350 billion from 2007-2013 alone. In Eastern and , post-accession funds have accelerated national-level catching-up but reinforced intra-country divides, as peripheral regions lag core urban centers by factors of 2-3 in productivity and employment. Institutional quality emerges as a critical mediator: instrumental variable regressions show EU funds raising GDP growth by up to 1% annually in high-governance contexts but yielding zero or negative effects (-2% to -3.5%) in areas with or weak , potentially exacerbating gaps through misallocation. Causal realism underscores that agglomeration economies, limited labor mobility, and rigid national policies—rather than mere funding shortfalls—sustain these patterns, as evidenced by total factor productivity differentials explaining over 70% of income variance between regions. Peer-reviewed assessments conclude that cohesion policy's redistributive focus has not overcome structural barriers, with regional inequalities in the EU remaining roughly twice those in the United States, prompting debates on whether continued subsidization merely offsets domestic fiscal displacement without fostering self-sustaining growth. Despite adaptations like performance-based conditionalities in 2021-2027, empirical trajectories suggest enduring divides, particularly amid enlargement pressures from lower-income candidates.

Criticisms and Controversies

Bureaucratic Overhead, Corruption, and Misallocation Risks

The implementation of EU cohesion policy, which disburses funds through multiple layers of national, regional, and local authorities, generates significant bureaucratic overhead due to stringent eligibility rules, extensive reporting requirements, and compliance audits. has repeatedly highlighted the complexity of these regulations, noting in its 2025 review that they impose unnecessary administrative costs on beneficiaries and managing authorities, often exceeding those of other EU funding programs. Administrative burdens can consume up to 10-15% of project budgets in some cases, particularly for smaller recipients where EU co-financing ratios are low, diverting resources from substantive investments to paperwork and audits. This overhead is exacerbated by the need for alignment with EU-wide standards, leading to delays in fund absorption; for instance, during the 2014-2020 period, unspent commitments reached €100 billion partly due to administrative bottlenecks. Corruption risks in cohesion policy arise primarily from decentralized management, where national governments handle fund allocation, creating vulnerabilities in countries with weaker institutional controls. The ECA reported a sharp rise in estimated error rates for cohesion expenditure, reaching 6.4% in 2023—up 45% from the previous year—attributable to ineligible expenditures, public procurement irregularities, and insufficient documentation, with higher rates in southern and eastern member states. The (OLAF) has investigated numerous cases, recommending recoveries totaling €871.5 million in misused cohesion and structural funds in 2024 alone, while preventing an additional €43.5 million in improper spending; over the 2022-2024 period, OLAF facilitated €4.5 billion in total recoveries across EU budgets, with structural funds comprising a significant share. Notable hotspots include , where financial irregularities prompted the EU to withhold portions of its €22 billion cohesion allocation in 2023-2024 due to rule-of-law concerns, and , with scandals involving mafia infiltration of public tenders for EU-funded infrastructure. Misallocation risks stem from political incentives that prioritize short-term electoral gains over long-term , often directing funds to visible but low-impact projects or regions aligned with ruling parties. Empirical studies document regional favoritism in EU fund distribution, where politicians allocate resources to co-partisan areas, reducing overall ; for example, analysis of Italian and Spanish cases shows that favored municipalities receive disproportionate grants, leading to inefficient capital allocation and persistent disparities. In countries with weaker governance, such as and , up to 20% of funds have been linked to politically motivated projects with minimal growth returns, as evidenced by World Bank assessments of procurement biases. This central planning approach, while intended to address disparities, fosters by local elites and distorts market signals, with econometric evidence indicating that politically driven allocations yield 10-20% lower returns on investment compared to merit-based criteria. Despite safeguards like integrity pacts, these risks undermine the policy's objectives, particularly in enlargement contexts where institutional capacity lags.

Economic Distortions from Subsidies and Central Planning

EU Cohesion Policy subsidies, totaling over €392 billion for the 2021-2027 period, have been empirically linked to economic distortions when transfer intensities exceed optimal levels. Analysis of Structural and Cohesion Funds disbursed to NUTS-3 regions during 1994-2006 reveals a non-linear growth impact, with transfers accelerating per-capita income growth up to an intensity of approximately 1.3% of regional GDP, beyond which the marginal multiplier falls below unity, implying net drags on efficiency. In 36% of recipient regions, observed intensities surpassed the efficiency-maximizing threshold of 0.4% of GDP, resulting in lower growth than would occur absent such excessive funding; reallocating these resources could enhance aggregate EU convergence. These distortions manifest through mechanisms such as and resource misallocation, where subsidies incentivize local authorities to prop up declining industries rather than facilitating to competitive sectors. Theoretical and empirical assessments indicate that such interventions perpetuate outdated economic structures, delaying necessary labor and capital reallocation, while also attracting inflows of low-skilled workers that exacerbate skill mismatches and within-region inequality. Benefits often accrue disproportionately to landowners via capitalized property value increases, rather than to intended low-income households, further undermining . Central planning elements in Cohesion Policy, involving Brussels-directed priorities and conditionalities, amplify inefficiencies by overriding decentralized knowledge of regional comparative advantages, leading to one-size-fits-all projects prone to bureaucratic misallocation. Critics, including analyses from the , highlight how this centralization fosters and overregulation, with thousands of EU directives imposing compliance costs that disproportionately burden less-developed regions, widening productivity gaps—such as Luxembourg's GDP per capita being 14.9 times Bulgaria's in recent data, compared to narrower U.S. state disparities. Potential crowding-out of private investment arises when public funds compete for inelastic inputs like skilled labor, reducing complementary responses despite overall policy aims.

Political Critiques: Rent-Seeking and Unequal Burden-Sharing

Critics of the European Union's regional policy contend that it incentivizes , where regional authorities, businesses, and political actors expend resources for transfers rather than pursuing market-driven development, distorting incentives and reducing overall efficiency. A analysis by the ifo Institute describes this as a core defect, likening the process to a competitive auction in which rational agents invest disproportionately to secure funding prizes, often prioritizing short-term gains over structural reforms. Empirical evidence from post-accession shows EU structural funds enabling patronage networks, with funds redirected toward clientelist distribution by entrenched interest groups rather than broad economic productivity. Such behaviors exacerbate corruption risks in institutionally weaker regions, where supranational allocations amplify opportunities for elite capture without commensurate . This dynamic is compounded by unequal burden-sharing, as the policy's €392 billion allocation for 2021-2027 draws disproportionately from net contributor states like , the , , and , which remit far more to the budget than they receive in cohesion disbursements. For instance, in 2023, recorded a net contribution exceeding €20 billion to the overall budget, subsidizing transfers that primarily flow to net beneficiaries such as (€7.1 billion net receipt) and (€5.9 billion), where less developed regions absorb the bulk of cohesion investments. Political leaders from net payers, including former Dutch Prime Minister , have voiced frustrations over these imbalances, arguing that persistent subsidies foster dependency in recipient states without delivering verifiable convergence, thereby straining domestic fiscal capacities and fueling taxpayer resentment. These critiques gained traction amid debates on EU enlargement, where absorbing new members like those in the Western Balkans would amplify burdens on existing contributors, potentially requiring budget hikes or cuts elsewhere, as projected by analyses estimating cohesion costs rising to 2.3% of GDP caps for entrants. In net contributor capitals, this has manifested in calls for conditionality reforms tying funds to governance improvements, reflecting broader euroskeptic pressures that question the policy's value-for-money amid uneven absorption rates—e.g., some regions disbursing under 20% of allocations by mid-period due to administrative bottlenecks. Proponents counter that indirect benefits like market access offset direct costs, yet skeptics emphasize causal evidence of limited long-term multipliers, with funds often amplifying local inequalities rather than resolving them.

Recent Reforms and Future Prospects

Adaptations in the 2021-2027 Programming Period

The 2021-2027 programming period for EU Cohesion Policy introduced a of €392 billion in current prices, representing approximately one-third of the EU's and including €50.6 billion from the Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU) initiative to address recovery. This allocation marked a nominal increase from the previous period, adjusted for inflation and enlargement pressures, with funds distributed across (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF), and European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) programs managed at national and regional levels. Key adaptations shifted focus to five policy objectives: fostering a smarter Europe through and digitalization; advancing a greener, low-carbon Europe aligned with the ; improving connectivity via and energy networks; promoting a more social Europe under the European Pillar of Social Rights; and enhancing proximity to citizens through balanced territorial development in urban, rural, and local areas. These objectives replaced the broader thematic concentrations of prior periods, emphasizing strategic investments with at least 37% of ERDF and CF allocations targeting —exceeding initial 30% targets in adopted programs—and 20% for digital transitions, though actual implementation varies by member state priorities. Regulatory reforms under Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, effective from July 1, 2021, introduced performance-based budgeting with common output and result indicators tied to milestones, enabling mid-term adjustments and suspensions for underperformance to enhance accountability over input-focused approaches. Simplification measures reduced administrative burdens by consolidating rules into a single framework, eliminating overlaps between funds, and allowing flexible reprogramming without full renegotiation, particularly via REACT-EU, which waived co-financing requirements temporarily and prioritized job preservation, green recovery, and resilience-building until end-2022. A mid-term review in April 2025 proposed further alignments, including increased emphasis on defense-related investments and amid geopolitical shifts, while maintaining core cohesion goals; these amendments aim to adapt to evolving priorities without altering the overall envelope, though critics note potential dilution of regional disparity reduction if security spending crowds out traditional . Programs now require ex-ante conditionalities for sound public and low-carbon strategies, with 380 operational programs across the EU focusing on operations of strategic importance to concentrate resources on high-impact projects. Empirical projections suggest these changes could boost EU GDP by 0.5% and create 1.3 million jobs by period-end, contingent on effective absorption and minimal leakage to non-productive uses.

Performance Reforms and Response to Crises like

The performance-oriented approach in Cohesion Policy was formalized in the 2014-2020 programming period through the Common Provisions Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, which introduced a structured framework requiring operational programmes to define milestones and targets for key indicators linked to priorities such as and . This framework included ex-ante conditionalities as prerequisites for effective fund deployment, with 98% of the 761 required actions fulfilled by August 2017, though evaluations noted these as largely one-off assessments with minimal ongoing impact on spending efficiency. A performance reserve equivalent to 6% of allocations—approximately €20.2 billion—was withheld for mid-term review in 2019, with 82% ultimately released to programmes meeting spending and output targets, but reallocations had limited influence on overall funding distribution due to reliance on quantifiable outputs rather than deeper results. In the 2021-2027 period, reforms built on this foundation by aligning funds more closely with six policy objectives, including a smarter and greener , while mandating performance data in annual implementation reports and introducing mechanisms for mid-term adjustments based on achievement of targets. However, independent assessments highlight persistent limitations, such as excessive administrative burdens from monitoring multiple indicators, unreliable , and a focus on short-term outputs over long-term causal impacts, which reduced the framework's ability to drive substantive improvements in regional disparities. Uptake of innovative performance-based models, like financing not linked to costs, remained low, with pilots limited to €36 million in and minimal use of joint action plans across member states. The COVID-19 crisis prompted rapid adaptations to the performance framework, prioritizing flexibility over strict targets to address immediate economic shocks. In April 2020, the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII) enabled reprogramming of €37 billion in unspent 2014-2020 cohesion funds, waiving national co-financing requirements and deeming all crisis-related expenditures eligible from February 1, 2020, onward, which facilitated support for healthcare infrastructure, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and short-time work schemes. CRII+, enacted later in 2020, extended these simplifications, leading to 239 programme amendments across 25 member states by December 2020. Complementing this, the REACT-EU initiative, launched in May 2020, injected an additional €47 billion from the NextGenerationEU recovery package into (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) envelopes, extending support through 2023 for repairing economic damage, enhancing resilience, and funding green and digital transitions while temporarily suspending certain performance milestones. These crisis measures demonstrated the framework's adaptability but exposed tensions with performance goals, as urgency led to broadened eligible activities and delayed assessments, potentially undermining result-oriented . Empirical analyses indicate that cohesion funds under these flexibilities helped mitigate employment declines and sustain regional labor market resilience, particularly in less-developed areas, by enabling quick liquidity injections. Nonetheless, post-crisis evaluations from bodies like the emphasize the need for refined indicators that better capture causal outcomes, such as sustained GDP growth or disparity reduction, to prevent future overrides from eroding the reforms' intent. The 2021-2027 regulations incorporated lessons from the by embedding greater thematic concentration on recovery priorities, though ongoing challenges in data reliability and member state capacity continue to limit overall effectiveness.

Debates on Post-2027 Framework Amid Enlargement Pressures

The prospective to include economically lagging candidates such as , , Georgia, and the Western Balkan states—, , , , , and —has intensified debates on reforming the Cohesion Policy framework beyond 2027. These discussions, accelerated by 's EU candidacy application in February 2022 and the ongoing Russian invasion, focus on adapting the policy's allocation mechanisms, eligibility criteria, and overall budget to accommodate regions with per capita GDPs often below 40% of the EU average, without exacerbating fiscal burdens on net contributor member states. Budgetary implications form a core contention, with projections indicating that large-scale enlargement under existing rules would necessitate a roughly 7% rise in total cohesion spending to maintain equity across an expanded union. Modeling the fiscal impact of integrating and the aforementioned candidates estimates an additional €61 billion in cohesion funds directed to new members over a seven-year (MFF) equivalent to 2021-2027 levels, yielding a net cost of €170 billion—or 0.17% of GDP annually—to current members after accounting for reduced allocations to some existing recipients due to reclassification effects. Such pressures compound existing strains from the €392 billion allocated to Cohesion Policy in the 2021-2027 period, prompting calls for transitional arrangements, revised own-resources mechanisms, and potential dilution of per-region funding for poorer current areas like parts of southern and . Reform proposals for the post-2027 MFF, set to cover 2028-2034, advocate broadening flexibility under instruments like Article 20 of the current to handle crises and enlargement shocks, while intensifying performance-based conditionality tied to verifiable economic reforms and improvements in candidates. Think tanks and bodies highlight risks of implementation delays and misallocation in an enlarged union, recommending radical shifts toward place-based investments that prioritize competitiveness over pure redistribution to avoid perpetuating development traps amid overlapping demands from net-zero transitions and defense spending. Politically, net payers such as , the , and emphasize curbing administrative overhead and enforcing strict rule-of-law compliance to mitigate costs, viewing unchecked expansion as a to fiscal ; in contrast, cohesion fund recipients like and argue for scaled-up envelopes to sustain convergence, with eastern members often linking enlargement support to geopolitical imperatives against Russian influence. These divides underscore broader tensions over whether the policy should evolve into a more conditional, efficiency-driven tool or retain its redistributive core, potentially requiring consensus on hikes or rebated contributions ahead of the 2027 negotiations.

References

  1. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en
  2. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/available-budget_en
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161893825000493
  4. https://www.eib.org/en/projects/topics/regional-development/index.htm
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939362523000055
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9756696/
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2025.2472065
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161893824000309
  9. https://eucrim.eu/news/high-risk-areas-of-corruption-in-the-eu-in-depth-report-highlights-six-vulnerable-sectors/
  10. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_929
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2025.2540361
  12. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/treaty-of-rome-eec.html
  13. https://netaffair.org/documents/1957-rome-treaty.pdf
  14. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/history_en
  15. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Briefing-Note-on-Intra-European-Regional-Policy-Mechanisms-in-the-Context-of-the-Debate-on-Development-Policies.pdf
  16. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/4c3134a1-1d3a-4825-98a3-e64460babbce/content
  17. https://books.openedition.org/iup/821?lang=en
  18. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/whats-new/newsroom/04-10-2024-regional-convergence-trends-in-the-eu_en
  19. https://wiiw.ac.at/cohesion-policy-as-a-function-of-the-eubudget-a-perspective-from-the-cee-member-states-dlp-3625.pdf
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377512253_The_origins_of_the_EU_Cohesion_Policy_from_regional_economic_development_to_the_place-based_approach
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223005243
  22. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/work/2015_03_impact_crisis.pdf
  23. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/whats-new/panorama/2024/05/05-08-2024-enlargement-2004-cohesion-policy-20-years-later_en
  24. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/12/03/the-2004-eu-enlargement-was-a-success-story-built-on-deep-reform-efforts
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9448585/
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/some-differences-many-similarities-comparing-europes-responses-to-the-1973-oil-crisis-and-the-2022-gas-crisis/EEA76D0AEF933DFDD55D5D45DDC35A7B
  27. https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/reports/impact-of-the-economic-crisis-on-social-economic-and-territorial-cohesion-of-the-eu
  28. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/how/future-cohesion-policy/Issue_Paper9_231130.pdf
  29. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/whats-new/panorama/2024/03/27-03-2024-cohesion-policy-is-narrowing-development-gaps-9th-cohesion-report_en
  30. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2016/the-implementation-of-the-performance-frameworks-in-2014-2020-esi-funds
  31. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/299553/1/1881103757.pdf
  32. https://eucrim.eu/news/eca-special-report-on-performance-based-financing-in-cohesion-policy/
  33. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/01/strengthening-governance-of-eu-funds-under-cohesion-policy_079de45d/9b71c8d8-en.pdf
  34. https://www.interact.eu/media/1353/download/PBA%2520and%2520SCOs%2520Post%25202027%2520Discussion%2520Paper.pdf?v=1
  35. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/122873/
  36. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/economic-social-and-territorial-cohesion.html
  37. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E174
  38. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M003
  39. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/pro_28/oj/eng
  40. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/european-regional-development-and-cohesion-funds-2021-2027.html
  41. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en
  42. https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/RV-2025-04/RV-2025-04_EN.pdf
  43. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/how/principles_en
  44. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/how/priorities_en
  45. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/principles
  46. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Cohesion_policy_indicators
  47. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2018/06/06-08-2018-regional-development-and-cohesion-policy-2021-2027
  48. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/9397402/KS-GQ-18-007-EN-N.pdf
  49. https://www.eib.org/files/publications/eibis_2021_2022_regional_cohesion_en.pdf
  50. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1406099X.2023.2259249
  51. https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/rcr_cohesion/rcr_cohesion_en.pdf
  52. https://www.euro-access.eu/en/programs/56/European-Regional-Development-Fund
  53. https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/cohesion-fund-cf_en
  54. https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/funding/european-social-fund-plus-esf_en
  55. https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/main-priorities
  56. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/how/programming-and-implementation_en
  57. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_3059
  58. https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/partnership-agreements-15-2017/en/
  59. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/how/future-cohesion-policy/7th_Meeting_Issue_Paper7.pdf
  60. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/ex-ante-conditionality-in-esi-funds/
  61. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/cohesion9/9CR_Report_FINAL.pdf
  62. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Unemployment_statistics_at_regional_level
  63. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Living_conditions_statistics_at_regional_level
  64. https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/what-enlargement-could-imply-european-unions-budget
  65. https://www.eib.org/en/projects/topics/regional-development/impact
  66. https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/2023-03/cohesion_policy_study-_final.pdf
  67. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial_en
  68. https://interreg.eu/
  69. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border_en
  70. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/trans-national_en
  71. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/interregional_en
  72. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/ipa_en
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2023.2226698
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012124002118
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115016937
  76. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum1-08-focus3.pdf
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284206066_Meta-Analysis_of_the_Impact_of_European_Union_Structural_Funds_on_Regional_Growth
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1703494924000318
  79. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12061-023-09551-w
  80. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33513/w33513.pdf
  81. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3014~757446ef99.en.pdf
  82. https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/24/4/477/7635397
  83. https://www.bruegel.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cohesionpolicyep.pdf
  84. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/income-convergence-eu-tale-two-speeds/
  85. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/2021-2027-programming-outcome/report-outcome-2021-2027-cohesion-policy-programming-part1.pdf
  86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2023.2243989
  87. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/381
  88. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/studies/challenges2020/regional_challenges_new_social_risk.pdf
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056819024000526
  90. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11079-025-09801-z
  91. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c15060/c15060.pdf
  92. https://www.crei.cat/wp-content/uploads/users/pages/icoeu.pdf
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165188914000852
  94. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/studies/assess_admin_costs.pdf
  95. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13597566.2025.2485052?src=
  96. https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/AR-2023-AIB/AR-2023-AIB_EN.pdf
  97. https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/media-corner/news/olaf-exposes-fraud-involving-over-eu870-million-2025-06-16_en
  98. https://www.statista.com/chart/22891/financial-irregularities-in-the-eu/
  99. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/232945/1/1753128404.pdf
  100. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/129/2/995/1867438
  101. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/how/improving-investment/integrity-pacts_en
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292112000438
  103. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/300266/1/189527334X.pdf
  104. https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/european-union-critical-assessment
  105. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3098~f8a4989211.en.pdf
  106. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/dice-report-2015-3_Blankart-Ehmke_October.pdf
  107. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14631377.2019.1693738
  108. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6870
  109. https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-pays-the-most-into-the-eu-and-who-gains-the-most
  110. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/01/31/the-future-of-cohesion-policy-current-state-of-the-debate/
  111. https://www.delorscentre.eu/en/publications/detail/publication/how-to-refocus-regional-policies-in-the-eu
  112. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/cohesion-policy_en
  113. https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/european-regional-development-fund-erdf_en
  114. https://regions.regionalstudies.org/ezine/article/how-much-for-cohesion-policy-in-the-2021-2027-multiannual-financial-framework/?doi=10.1080/13673882.2018.00001042
  115. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/regional-policy-performance_en
  116. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/publications/reports/2023/report-on-the-outcome-of-2021-2027-cohesion-policy-programming_en
  117. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/legislation-and-guidance/regulations_en
  118. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/coronavirus-response_en
  119. https://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/lacoesione/le-politiche-di-coesione-in-italia-2014-2020/programmazione-2021-2027/?lang=en
  120. https://interreg.eu/news-stories/commission-proposes-changes-to-align-cohesion-policy-with-eus-evolving-strategic-priorities/
  121. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/building-beneficiary-capacity-under-eu-cohesion-policy_c2efa2e2-en/full-report/understanding-the-beneficiaries-of-european-union-cohesion-policy_7ff5c795.html
  122. https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/performance-24-2021/en/
  123. https://www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/how-improve-european-union-cohesion-policy-next-decade
  124. https://eprc-strath.org/publication/navigating-stormy-waters-crises-and-cohesion-policy-beyond-2027/
  125. https://www.cer.eu/insights/eu-budget-larger-union-key-issues-and-open-questions
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.