Proposal of a new design of the future EU Cohesion Policy
Th e aim of this article is to present a proposal for a new EU Cohesion policy design for the next programming period (i.e. 2014-2020). Th e proposal presented is in line with a debate proceeding on a European level on the following key conceptual dilemmas of this policy: 1) relation of EU cohesion policy and Lisbon strategy, 2) relation of EU cohesion policy and so called ?new challenges? (demographic changes, sustainable and secure energy, climatic changes, globalization, and security issues), 3) question, if EU cohesion policy should support all European regions or only selected ? most needy ? regions. With those conceptual dilemmas in mind, a concrete proposal for a new design of a future EU Cohesion policy is submitted to debate of both experts and decision-makers. Namely, incorporation of ?new challenges? into cohesion policy is proposed. In case of Objective 1 regions, these regions would be eligible not only for traditional activities/projects supported within this policy but also for activities responding to new challenges according to their own preferences. Objective 2 would be reoriented exclusively towards the new challenges and would be opened to all European regions with the exception of those with Objective 1 status. To achieve a suffi cient concentration of resources and eff ort each region/country would make their own selection of new challenges they consider as a priority. Extending the EU support to all European regions would have obvious fi nancial consequences. Namely, it is proposed that fi nancial resources needed for implementation of new Objective 2 would be reallocated from Common Agriculture Policy. Th e GDP is proposed to remain a single criterion for eligibility under Objective 1, while per capita fl at rate is proposed to be an allocation criterion for Objective 2 regions. Th is fl at rate would involve a convergence mechanism as in less developed countries for the same amount of money can be achieved more due to their lower price level. Introduction of new additional criteria for both Objective 1 and 2 is discouraged both due to limited comparability of data on international level and due to the fact that each country would be tempted to propose such indicators that would be advantageous for them resulting in never ending debate.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 2008 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: nam. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3|
Phone: (02) 24 09 51 11
Fax: (02) 24 22 06 57
Web page: http://www.vse.cz/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, Katedra regionálních studií, nám. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3|
Web: http://www.regionalni-studia.cz/ Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prg:jnlrst:v:2008:y:2008:i:2:id:55:p:29-33. 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: (Frantisek Sokolovsky)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.