1. Ex-Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy
Presentation to COCOF 30 June 2010

2. Question of the evaluation:
What has been achieved in terms of reducing disparities (e.g. as GDP per capita)? and
in specific policy fields?
Evaluation design:
Thematic approach - methods and evaluation teams adapted to themes
Evaluation effort has been substantially stepped up in scale and resources. Academic community involved.
→ Change in comparison to earlier work

3. Impact of Cohesion Policy 2000 - 2006
Modelling Block
Data Block
Management
and
implementation systems
Hermin
Quest
Transtools
Data indicators ‘06
Major projects
Geographic distrib.
Impact of Cohesion Policy
Thematic Block
Enterprise support
Environment and Climate Change
Transport
Structural change and globalization
Gender and Demography
Rural Development
Community Initiatives
Interreg III & Urban
Cohesion Fund
Transport & environment

4. Observations for growth and regional disparities
Growth higher in Objective 1 regions in nearly all countries
EU 25: regional disparities narrowed
EU 15: narrowed in most EU15 countries (exception GR)
EU 10: regional disparities widened (high growth capitals!)
In Objective 1 in EU15, 2% growth in GDP pc, 1.4% in non-assisted regions

5. Economic Cohesion
Not possible to judge success of policy by observation of statistics –
other factors at work!
Approach adopted:
Was scale of funding big enough to make a difference?
Was it targeted at relevant factors?
Do macroeconomic models indicate positive effect on growth?
Was growth performance better in assisted regions?
Is there concrete evidence of positive results?
Answers to all questions positive:
Funding significant especially in Obj 1 regions
2-3% of total fixed investment in Obj 1 regions
+1% of GDP pa in GR and PT
Targeted at drivers of growth identified by theory, e.g. Enterprise investment & Infrastructure

6. Cohesion policy expenditure relative to Government gross capital annual averages, (EU-15) and (EU-10)
ERDF SF
SF+CF
EU-15
7.28
10.92
12.18
EU-10
14.37
23.54
36.78
EU-25
7.30
11.02
12.70

7. Cumulative net effect of cohesion policy on GDP (model: QUEST) Percentage difference in GDP in end year as result of policy. For approximate annual value divide by number of years. All funds, Cohesion Fund included. Priority on Objective 1.
EU 25
0.7
2.4
EU 10
3.7
10.2
EU 15
0.5
1.9

9. Enterprise Support WP 6a, b, c
Member States report creation of over 1 million jobs by enterprise support.
Test of new evaluation methods in E. Germany:
Higher investment per worker -
€8,000 grant leads to €11,000 - €12,000 extra investment
Estimate by counterfactual methods and regression.

10. Policy Questions… Should ERDF finance aid to large enterprises?
Need for more evidence on effectiveness of support to enterprises
What are the correct measures/indicators?
Jobs safeguarded (now generally regarded as inappropriate – policies of the 1990s)
New jobs created (but are we always trying to create jobs directly and immediately?)
Increased productivity (with longer term job creation)

11. Transport WP5a
ERDF co-financed 13% of all new high speed rail lines & 24% of the extension of motorways
ERDF co-financed 26% of 7,734 km of motorway completed in EU15 and upgrading of 3,000 km of railway lines
TRANSTOOLS: failed attempt to model effect on GDP, environment. New model needed?
Questions on high-speed railways, support for ports, roads in EU15. Insufficient attention for public transport, cross-border projects.

12. Social and Territorial Cohesion WP5b
A third of ERDF in Objective 1 and 36% in Objective 2 was aimed at social objectives plus territorial balance rather than economic growth
Mainly environmental infrastructure and ‘planning and rehabilitation’
increase in households in deprived regions connected to supply of clean drinking water (+14 million inhabitants) or main drainage (+20 million inhabitants)
renovation and regeneration of villages, inner city areas, old industrial sites, heritage sites

13. Social and Territorial Cohesion (2)
Improvement in quality of life + territorial balance, but no indicators to measure this
Limited effect on growth but strengthened conditions for sustainable development by reducing social + territorial disparities
Policy conclusion
Achievements of Cohesion policy go beyond economic growth: multiple objectives
Need to spell out clearer case for ERDF financing and link to regional development

14. Particular case of Objective 2 WP4
In Objective 2 regions, small scale of funding – under EUR 40 per head a year
Contrasts with large scale and long-lasting problems in many regions targeted
Objective 2 in many cases acted as a catalyst for development of a long-term strategy for restructuring
Effectiveness reflected in growth performance – rate achieved at worst no lower than in regions with fewer problems

15. Implications for future Objective 2
Vision and commitment of regional policy makers more important than specialisation pattern
Objective 2 and regional strategies need to be aligned
More exchange of experience across MS is needed
Evidence needed – how funding used plus effects
Competitiveness only objective?

16. Management and implementation WP11
EU10 countries had only short time to implement programmes plus limited experience.
Fears of absorption difficulties not realised.
Delivery system had significant effects on effectiveness of policies + spill-overs into domestic policy areas
But weaknesses:
main focus on processes + financial control, not on results of programmes and effectiveness
evaluations not adequately supported by indicators

17. Implications for Future Policy
Multiplicity of goals – social, environmental, economic
Needs to be recognised in design, implementation and evaluation
Priority attached to different objectives should be made clear when programmes determined
Indicators needed so as progress can be monitored
Concentration of funding in each region
On limited number of policy areas and measures to ensure critical mass – does not mean concentrating on one objective
Policy measures cannot be specified a priori - should be in line with needs of region
Whatever choice – needs to be justified in light of EU strategies

18. A Summary
Evaluation demonstrates contribution of ERDF to reduction of disparities.
EU25 as a whole wins with cohesion policy.
We have more knowledge about what policy has delivered in main policy fields (transport, environment, enterprise support).
We can demonstrate that policy delivers more than growth: a better environment and social benefits.
We know much better how to evaluate.
We have many more questions to answer!

19. But More Evidence on the Way…
Ex Post Evaluations
Interreg & Urban: June 2010
Cohesion Fund/ISPA: Mid 2011
And results of a new expert network synthesising evidence on performance from programmes in each Member States: early 2011
All Published on INFOREGIO: