IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/euf/ecopap/0120.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

National and Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Implications for EU Structural Assistance

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Hallet

Abstract

After summarising briefly the national development gap of the CEECs relative to the EU (section 2), a more comprehensive view is taken on the CEECs' regions (section 3). Section 4 presents some theoretical considerations on whether priority should be given to national or to regional development policy. Section 5 discusses several implications for EU structural assistance. Section 6 summarises and concludes.II/039/97-ENSummary and conclusions The gap of national development compared to the EU15 average income as measured by income per capita in 1993 was considerable, the 10 associated CEECs' average being at 29% of EU15 average.Regional policies and the regions in CEECs are characterised by a missing level of regional administration and statistics. Regional policy in the socialist era was essentially the outcome of national sectoral plans and can broadly be categorised into two country groups: A first group of countries, including Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland, did not undertake major efforts to reduce inter-regional disparities and allocated industries - although with several exceptions - according to traditional locations. A second group of countries, among which Czechoslovakia, Romania and Slovenia, tried to allocate industries to all regions of the country, in this way creating intra-regional differences and locations that have problems to survive in a competitive environment.Although economic transition caused polarisation effects, an implemented regional policy can hardly be found in any of these countries due to disputes over ministerial responsibilities, the need to reform territorial administrative structures and the lack of financial resources. A major regional orientation can only be found in some countries with active labour market policies for problem regions as well as in the context of programmes on cross-border co-operation. Describing regional disparities in the CEECs during the transformation process is limited by insufficient regional data. Unemployment rates in Romania and the Czech Republic vary only little across the regions, while there are major differences within Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania. Classifying the regions in the four Visegrad countries according to sectoral employment shares in 1991 above the national average suggests a typology of regions as mono-structural problem regions, lagging regions with a development potential and growth poles. This typology of regions is essentially in line with the ones frequently applied in western countries and gives a first idea of the future objectives of regional policies in the CEECs: diversification of the economic structure in mono-structural problem regions, development of the locational advantages in regions with a development potential and removal of bottlenecks in the growth poles. Given the financial constraints of implementing EU structural assistance in CEECs, one of the most crucial decisions will be on the regional allocation of funds, in particular whether to promote primarily national or regional development because a trade-off between national and regional development policy could force governments to decide whether to prioritise either national development or regional equality. The institutional setting in the CEECs' regions, i.e. the lack of regional administration and statistics, as well as subsidiarity considerations suggest not to have structural assistance carried out directly on a regional level.Implications for EU structural assistance bringing together PHARE and Structural Funds assistance were discussed following the four operating principles that were introduced for the reform of the Structural Funds in 1988: concentration, partnership, programming and additionality. In respect to concentration, no new objective for countries in economic transformation should be introduced because the differences in regional problems are of a quantitative dimension rather than of a qualitative one. The basic problem in applying the principle of partnership would be a lack of administrative and social partners at the regional level, but could be an important leverage for democratisation and institution-building at the national level. While programming should in general be no problem at the national level, there might be insufficient information to programme the regional allocation of funds. In the course of enlargement, an option for reform could be to give Member States access either to a Cohesion Fund-like scheme or to a Structural Funds-like scheme in order to allow for a better targeting of projects and instruments. The Cohesion Fund-like scheme would provide for the real convergence of poorer Member States towards the Union, based on a national development programme, while the Structural Funds-like scheme would provide for social and regional cohesion in the wealthier Member States. There might be some specific problems for CEECs to comply with the additionality principle and to avoid excessive deficits at the same time. The main reason is that the budgets of the CEECs still face some risks for revenues and expenditures. Therefore, maintaining structural expenditure at a stable level without allowing for temporary public deficits will be difficult for CEECs.To sum up, several arguments suggest not to target EU structural assistance exclusively at the reduction of regional disparities within CEECs. Doing so would not only face problems due to missing administrations and statistics at the regional level, but might also be at the expense of national economic growth and extend the process of catching-up. A Cohesion Fund-like scheme could be developed into an adequate instrument for assisting the real convergence of cohesion countries towards the Union.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Hallet, 1997. "National and Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Implications for EU Structural Assistance," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 120, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
  • Handle: RePEc:euf:ecopap:0120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication11247_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Akaev, A. A. & Ichkitidze,Yu. R. & Sarygulov, A. I. & Sokolov, V. N., 2016. "Post-Socialist Transformation of Central and Eastern Europe at the Turn of the Century: Regional Development and Economic Inequality," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 279-289.
    2. Reiner Martin, 1998. "Financing EU cohesion policy in Central and Eastern Europe," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 33(3), pages 103-111, May.
    3. Askar Akaev & Yuri Ichkitidze & Askar Sarygulov & Valentin Sokolov, 2016. "The Post-Socialist Transformation of Central and Eastern European Countries at the Turn of the Century: Regional Development and Economic Inequality," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 613-626.
    4. Busch, Berthold, 2002. "Die Erweiterung der Europäischen Union: Das Regionalgefälle wird größer," IW-Trends – Vierteljahresschrift zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute, vol. 29(2), pages 27-36.
    5. Roman, Monica, 2006. "Diferenţa dintre genuri în alocarea timpului liber în România [Gender Difference in Alloting Leisure Time in Romania]," MPRA Paper 7689, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:euf:ecopap:0120. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dg2ecbe.html .

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ECFIN INFO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dg2ecbe.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.