Wiener Institut für
Internationale
Wirtschaftsvergleiche
The Vienna Institute for
International Economic
Studies
www.wiiw.ac.at
GRINCOH Workshop Milan
February 27, 2014
Cohesion and EU Budget seen from CEE
Results of a Questionnaire Survey
Sándor Richter and Tamás Szemlér
Objective of the survey
 The cohesion policy of the EU and its position within the EU
budget
 Assessment of the 2007-2013 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

2
The respondents
 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

3
Ranking of the importance of the main expenditure headings of
the EU budget for the respondent’s country
Top priority
In between
Bottom priority
No. of
responses
Percentage
of
responses
No. of
responses
Percentage
of
responses
No. of
responses
Percentage
of
responses
16
21.9
31
42.5
26
35.6
Cohesion
59.5
81.5
11.5
15.8
2
2.7
Competitiveness
24.5
33.1
28.5
38.5
21
28.4
Common
Agricultural Policy

4
If cohesion policy is important for your country, this is because
it is considered...
…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
Other
Replies (No.)
Replies as % of all
respondents
58
74.4
23
29.5
48
61.5
4
5.1

5
The evaluation of cohesion policy in the respondent’s country
Pre-accession period
Replies
Phasing-in period
Percentage of
replies
(No.,
whole
sample)
(whole sample)
Not successful
at all
Not successful
1
1.3
7
Successful
Replies
(No.,
whole
sample)
Post-phasing-in period
Percentage
of replies
Replies
(whole
sample)
0
0.0
9.0
Not successful
at all
Not successful
8
45
57.7
Successful
Very successful
14
18.0
No answer
11
14.1
Percentage of
replies
(No.,
whole
sample)
(whole sample)
3
3.9
10.3
Not successful
at all
Not successful
13
16.7
47
60.3
Successful
42
53.9
Very successful
12
15.4
Very successful
8
10.3
No answer
11
14.1
No answer
12
15.4

6
Assessment of the importance (1 = lowest; 6 = highest) of
individual cohesion policy objectives for the respondents’s
country
Average
Average
(whole sample)
(academia)
Average
(administration)
4.95
4.75
5.12
4.46
4.32
4.65
Job creation
4.45
4.25
4.64
Development of urban areas
3.60
3.30
3.88
Development of rural areas
3.96
3.93
4.03
Environmentally sustainable development
4.03
3.70
4.30
Socially sustainable development
3.80
3.44
4.13
3.20
2.86
3.72
Economic
growth
convergence)
Competitiveness
Support to
problems
territories
(economic
with
specific

7
Assessment of the success (1 = lowest; 6 = highest) of practical
implementation of cohesion policy principles in the
respondents’s country
Average
Average
(whole
sample)
4.19
(academia)
Average
(administrati
on)
3.92
4.41
Management of funds (implementing structures)
3.80
3.48
4.22
Project facilitation and selection procedures
3.51
3.37
3.78
Decentralisation of decision-making
3.17
2.88
3.53
Financial management (co-financing, N+2/N+3,
eligibility, control)
Monitoring and evaluation
4.01
3.76
4.30
3.72
3.40
4.22
Partnership principle
3.49
3.22
3.75
3.30
3.08
3.75
Programming
Long-term approach
development support
and
predictability
of

8
In your view, what would be
the optimal size of the EU budget
in terms of percentage share of EU GNI?

9

10
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?

11

12
Conclusions (1)
 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

13
Conclusions (2)
 Just juste retour or something more?
- Various interests in mind – incl. net financial position
- Replies based on much more founded and forwardlooking 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

14
Conclusions (3)
 2007-2013 and 2014-2020: 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

15
Wiener Institut für
Internationale
Wirtschaftsvergleiche
The Vienna Institute for
International Economic
Studies
www.wiiw.ac.at
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Remarks? Questions?
[email protected]
[email protected]