The political functions of cohesion policy Prof. Daniel Tarschys Stockholm University & Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS)

Urban sprawl: the uncoordinated expansion of metropolitan areas

Policy sprawl: objectives running wild in all conceivable directions

Cohesion policy is a prime example of ”goal congestion” Convergence objectives Modernisation objectives Consensus-building objectives Compensation objectives

Convergence & catching up: Closing the gaps in terms of GDP per capita Productivity per capita Employment Unemployment Educational level Share of high tech Patent applications Individual disposable income

Modernising & uniting Europe Strengthening institutions Developing administrative & managerial skills Imposing financial discipline Moving from parochialism to wider horizons Policy diffusion Building transnational bridges Promoting European instincts and identities

Forging the left-right consensus: cohesion policy as an element in the European historical compromise Balancing growth and equity objectives Balancing rich and poor countries and areas Bringing Europe to the citizens Bringing the regional and local level into Europe

Compensation & juste retour Acceptance of the Monetary Union Increments in the Structural Policy have been used to facilitate: Accession of new Member States Acceptance of the Internal Market

Enter “territorial cohesion”… Cohesion policy was a well-loaded ship even before the arrival of this last passenger, “territorial cohesion”. What does the new concept add to the old formula of ”economic and social cohesion”? And what does it mean?

The classic texts, such as the 1999 European Spatial Development Strategy, do not give much guidance: Towns are important Rural areas are important Links between towns and rural areas are also important There should be equal access to services, and a good balance between everything And long live polycentrism!

What should cohere with what? Some possible interpretations of the concept: Fill in missing links in the physical infrastructure Public services ( or “services of general economic interest”) are important to the European social model The spatial impact of all EU policy should be closely monitored (ESPON) Spatial imbalances should be corrected Let the regional level have a say in all EU policy

Some key notions in the discourse on territorial cohesion are highly ambiguous: Which “missing links” have priority? What is meant by “equal access” to public services? What is a “balanced development”?

Add to this the question of leverage – what is the strength of the EU in promoting ”territorial cohesion”? Small contributions towards big and diffuse goals? Big contributions towards small and concrete goals?

The perennial issue of subsidiarity and European added value Necessary to weigh the comparative advantages of European and national rules & interventions Which measures have a truly trans-national dimension? Where can EU action neutralise national tendencies to sub-optimise public investments?

Diffuse objectives for territorial cohesion policy (European Commission 2005): Sustainable communities in urban and rural areas A more balanced development Greater consistency with other sectoral policies Territorial integration Territorial cooperation between regions Tackling particular problems presented by different geographical circumstances

If this is ”territorial cohesion”, what was it Robert Reich said of globalisation? A term that has moved from obscurity to meaninglessness without even passing the intervening stage of coherence

Now, like it or not, ”territorial cohesion” has been inscribed into the long-term budget for the next seven years, so we had better give it some reasonable interpretation...

The € 7,5 billion question : Policy sprawl, or focused target?

Some pros and cons of policy sprawl: –Low-leverage interventions towards diffuse goals are difficult to evaluate +Greater flexibility – money can be used for almost anything – Low legitimacy through weak causal links

The policy sprawl option: The Community Strategic Guidelines suggest funding for the following goals: the contribution of cities to growth and jobs supporting the economic diversification of rural areas cross-border, trans-national and interregional co- operation (optional)

What a focused target option might look like: the contribution of cities to growth and jobs supporting the economic diversification of rural areas cross-border, trans-national and interregional co-operation (compulsory)

Taking subsidiarity and European added value seriously Letting Member States take care of their own territorial cohesion Reserving EU funds exclusively for investments with cross-border and trans-national impact

These are some questions to consider:

Thanks for your attention! The argument developed more thoroughly in: Daniel Tarschys: Reinventing Cohesion: The Future of European Structural Policy (2003) Daniel Tarschys: The Enigma of European Added Value: Setting Priorities for the European Union (2005) Downloadable at