Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies Sándor Richter and Tamás Szemlér Cohesion and EU Budget seen from CEE Results of a Questionnaire Survey GRINCOH Workshop Milan February 27, 2014

 2  The cohesion policy of the EU and its position within the EU budget  Assessment of the period  Identification of prospects for cohesion policy as a key component of the EU budget in the future  A perspective from Central and Eastern European Member States Objective of the survey

 3  A group of experts from the 11 CEE NMS  Administration: ministry, managing authority, intermediate body or similar at national or regular levels  Academia: educational and research institutes  Participants of a 2008 Brussels conference to launch the consultation on the Budget Review 2008/9; other conferences, official INTERREG national contact points > 303 persons  248 questionnaires reached the selected circle, 78 responses (31.5%) had been returned  42% administration, 37% academia, 21% “other”; more than two thirds of the respondents had over 6 years working experience with the EU budget and/or the cohesion policy  BG, CzR, HU, PL, SI, SK nine or more responses, Baltic states, RO, CR less The respondents

 4 Ranking of the importance of the main expenditure headings of the EU budget for the respondent’s country Top priorityIn betweenBottom priority No. of responses Percentage of responses No. of responses Percentage of responses No. of responses Percentage of responses Common Agricultural Policy Cohesion Competitiveness

 5 If cohesion policy is important for your country, this is because it is considered... Replies (No.) Replies as % of all respondents …to be a good instrument to promote growth and jobs in your country to contribute decisively towards an improved 'net budgetary position' of your country to be an efficient instrument for reducing economic and social disparities within the country Other45.1

 6 Replies (No., whole sample) Percentage of replies (whole sample) Not successful at all 11.3 Not successful79.0 Successful Very successful No answer The evaluation of cohesion policy in the respondent’s country Pre-accession period Phasing-in period Post-phasing-in period Replies (No., whole sample) Percentage of replies (whole sample) Not successful at all 00.0 Not successful810.3 Successful Very successful No answer Replies (No., whole sample) Percentage of replies (whole sample) Not successful at all 33.9 Not successful Successful Very successful810.3 No answer1215.4

 7 Assessment of the importance (1 = lowest; 6 = highest) of individual cohesion policy objectives for the respondents’s country Average (whole sample) Average (academia) Average (administration) Economic growth (economic convergence) Competitiveness Job creation Development of urban areas Development of rural areas Environmentally sustainable development Socially sustainable development Support to territories with specific problems

 8 Assessment of the success (1 = lowest; 6 = highest) of practical implementation of cohesion policy principles in the respondents’s country Average (whole sample) Average (academia) Average (administrati on) Programming Management of funds (implementing structures) Project facilitation and selection procedures Decentralisation of decision-making Financial management (co-financing, N+2/N+3, eligibility, control) Monitoring and evaluation Partnership principle Long-term approach and predictability of development support

 9 In your view, what would be the optimal size of the EU budget in terms of percentage share of EU GNI?

 10

 11 In 2011 the EU budget accounted for 1.08% of the EU GNI. One quarter of it represented redistribution from 'net contributors' to 'net beneficiaries'. (The rest represented Member States’ payments to the EU budget which were fully compensated by transfers from the EU budget.) In your opinion what would be the appropriate share of redistribution from 'net contributors' to 'net beneficiaries' within the EU budget?

 12

 13  Status quo - in general: fine, details: not that fine -The general assessment of the respondents is positive -Coming closer to the present, the opinions show more and more contrast For different time periods, different overall pictures (snapshots) -Differences between the replies to the questions regarding the importance or the success of different expenditure items Conclusions (1)

 14  Just juste retour or something more? -Various interests in mind – incl. net financial position -Replies based on much more founded and forward- looking considerations than simply juste retour  Ready for reform? -A high degree of openness towards reform -Despite some differences, no unbridgeable gap between “academia” and “administration” respondents Conclusions (2)

 15  and : fait accompli, basically supported -The rules of the game were/are established, there is not much to change -Capping: changes are clearly unpopular -Macroeconomic conditionality for support: welcome  Beyond 2020: too far for being realistic? -The fact that many CEE countries are members of the EU will not necessarily make the task arising around 2018 more difficult than it was before Conclusions (3)

Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Remarks? Questions?