IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Does European cohesion policy reduce regional disparities? An empirical analysis

Listed author(s):
  • Joeri Gorter


  • S. Ederveen

European cohesion policy entails predominantly the funding of infrastructure and employment projects in lagging regions of EU Member States. It involves the distribution of more than 35 billion euro annually, making it the second most important EU policy in budgetary terms. Its main aim is to reduce regional disparities in regional welfare. This paper investigates to what extent European cohesion policy achieves this aim. The data reveal poorer regions do tend to receive more cohesion support. The policy thus satisfies a necessary condition for its effectiveness. It remains, however, unclear whether cohesion support significantly increases economic growth. In particular, the more independent convergence one presupposes, the less well cohesion support appears to work. This points at a clear trade-off: either one accepts that regional disparities are here to stay, or one concludes that cohesion policy fails.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis in its series CPB Discussion Paper with number 15.

in new window

Date of creation: Oct 2002
Handle: RePEc:cpb:discus:15
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Postbus 80510, 2508 GM Den Haag

Phone: (070) 338 33 80
Fax: (070) 338 33 50
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:cpb:discus:15. 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: ()

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.