Preliminary Results from the project ‘Services of General Interest’ (SeGI) Daniel Rauhut, KTH ESPON Seminar, Krakow, November 2011 Regional Policy Options and Governance

- The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden – Lead Partner - University of Vienna (UNIVIE), Austria - Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR), Germany - Centre of Geographical Studies (CEG), University of Lisbon, Portugal - University of Akureyri (UNAK), Iceland - Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), Norway - Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization (IGSO), Polish Academy of Science, Poland - PlanIdea, Hungary - Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, Research Centre for Macroeconomic and Regional Forecasting (PROMAR), Romania - Territorial Observatory of Navarra (NASURSA), Spain - University of West of England (UWE) United Kingdom The TPG 2

The aim of the project 3 The prime objective of the project is to address the identified need for support for policy formulation, at all levels of governance and respect of all types of territories, for the effective delivery of services of general interest throughout Europe. The project will identify the gaps that exist in the territorial evidence to support implementation, monitoring and evaluation of territorial policy measures for services of general interest.

1How should the defined (groupings of) services of general interest be addressed by territorial development and cohesion policies? 2What is the territorial distribution of the services of general interest throughout the European territory and how can this be measured? 3How and to what extent do the various levels of services of general interest contribute to the global competitiveness, economic development and job growth of cities, urban agglomerations and other territories? Policy questions 4

Defining the key conceptsWhat is SGI? What is Territorial Cohesion? What are the policy ambitions? Implementation and monitoringResponsibility for SGI? How are policies implemented? How is implementation monitored? Results Solutions Setting the scene 5

In the telecom sector both countries have fully liberalised markets and have adopted the general EU policies. Important to remember is the territorial differences and Sweden that is a large country in many areas is sparsely populated and has focused many of its policies on territorial distribution. Telecommunications 6 SwedenGermany National The market is fully liberalised and EU policies are applied. National targets are additionally developed. The market is fully liberalised and EU policies are applied. Regional(-) Local/Municipality(-)

The education sector shows a very heterogeneous reality with many actors, public and private at different levels. The two countries have very different division of responsibility on organisation, financing and monitoring. Education 7 SwedenGermany National National guidelines and targets are strongly influenced by EU targets and the Europe 2020 strategy but are taken as national policies. Tertiary education is normally state-run. (-) Regional(-) All education, policy-making, operation and monitoring is a regional responsibility through the federal Länder. Local/MunicipalityPrimary and secondary education is a municipality responsibility. Most schools are public but private schools with special profiles are allowed as long as they follow the national objectives. (-)

Both countries have adapted many of the EU policies on waste management but the operating responsibility is on local levels involving many private actors, making the way from EU policy to implementation long and complicated. Waste management 8 SwedenGermany National National guidelines and targets are decided by the parliaments. In practice they are strongly influenced by the EU policies but some national objectives are added. The Federal Environment Ministry is responsible for waste policies and the political key words are more or less the same as the EU main objectives. Regional(-) Local/MunicipalityThe municipalities alone or in cooperation with other municipalities are responsible for the waste management, producers and other waste generators are responsible for their own waste. Waste collection and treatment facilities are commonly operated by private actors. (-)

Four clear conclusions can be drawn: 1.The EU formulates policies that are difficult to implement; the Member States produces their own policies and implements them instead. 2.The open method of coordination (OMC) is the model used for policy implementation in the EU. Evidence shows that this model is better suited for information exchange; the implementer has no monitoring possibilities with the OMC. 3.In many Member States many policies on SGI are formulated on the national level and implemented by either national or local agents, both public and private; the regional level is not so marked. 4. If the policy goals of Europe 2020 are going to be implemented a revision of the present methods for implementation and monitoring need to be considered; this is highly politicaly controversial. Preliminary conclusions 9

Daniel Rauhut The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Merci beaucoup pour votre attention! 10