IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The Cohesion versus Better Spending Debate During the Negotiation of the EU Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020

  • Alexandru Huza


Registered author(s):

    The paper reviews the negotiations on the EU multi-annual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 which took place between 2011 and 2013 and involved all EU member states and institutions. Focus is put on the debate regarding the funding of the Cohesion Policy, which emerged as the most contentious issue throughout the negotiation process. By following the reasoning lines of the coalitions built around this controversial issue and how the diverging interests were accommodated to allow the advancement of negotiations, it concludes on the significance of the achieved compromise for the EU growth and convergence related goals, as well as with respect to the inter- institutional balance and the relations between member states within the European Union.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest in its journal Knowledge Horizons - Economics.

    Volume (Year): 6 (2014)
    Issue (Month): 2 (June)
    Pages: 91-99

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:khe:journl:v:6:y:2014:i:2:p:91-99
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Splaiul Unirii nr. 176, sector 4, Bucuresti
    Phone: 0040213308460
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:khe:journl:v:6:y:2014:i:2:p:91-99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Adi Sava)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.