IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evolving Regional Governance Structures for future EU Cohesion Policy: Croatian Perspectives


  • Marijana Sumpor
  • Irena Dokic



European cohesion policy has been inspiring Croatian national policy makers for a decade in the attempt to organize and prepare the institutional structures for new ways of designing and implementing a modern regional development policy. Emphasis has been put to a large extent on the design of strategic development documents, while implementation remains problematic. As Croatia is becoming an EU member in July 2013, the future EU Cohesion policy becomes also important for national development policy. Through EU pre-accession funded projects, the first regional operational programmes have been drafted in the period 2001-2003. At that time, no NUTS classification of regions existed and focus was on counties, which today have NUTS III level status. Croatia’s regional policy was rather fragmented and oriented towards areas of special concern such as war torn areas, island, hilly and mountainous areas. The process of creating an integrated regional policy framework including a law, by-laws and a national strategy started in 2003 and ended in May 2010. Since then, all counties were obliged to formulate 3 year integrated strategic programmes involving local stakeholders into partnerships. The process is designed according to a legally prescribed methodology that is based on EU programming and partnership principles. On NUTS II level, functioning as statistical regions, three coordination partnerships of county representatives meet and discuss joint project proposals to be submitted to the national level institutions. These in turn try to establish project pipelines on national level to be ready for EU structural funding. The entire process is promising, but is full of complex and intertwined problems on all governance levels, which significantly influences policy implementation. While policymakers and public administrations are thinking more of the efficiency of the system and its institutions, the regional and local stakeholders’ and the research community’s attention is more on effectiveness of the policy. In order to establish regional governance system that works, cooperation and coordinated actions of all sides is required. The main aim of this paper is to present the evolution of the partnership based regional development approach in Croatia across governance levels and to critically reflect on the outcomes of this process. It is about the creation of new governance structures and new ways of how institutions work. Many problems appear along the way, but some positive experiences can be presented and analysed. Results from a recent survey and research study on experiences in regional development planning in all Croatian counties will be presented. Key words: regional development policy, cohesion policy, governance, institutions, strategic planning JEL: R58 (Regional Development Planning and Policy), H83 (Public Administration), P11 (Capitalist Planning, Coordination and Reform)

Suggested Citation

  • Marijana Sumpor & Irena Dokic, 2012. "Evolving Regional Governance Structures for future EU Cohesion Policy: Croatian Perspectives," ERSA conference papers ersa12p770, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p770

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Miller, Paul & Mulvey, Charles & Martin, Nick, 1996. "Multiple Regression Analysis of the Occupational Status of Twins: A Comparison of Economic and Behavioural Genetics Models," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 58(2), pages 227-239, May.
    2. Sean P. Corcoran & William N. Evans & Robert M. Schwab, 2004. "Changing Labor-Market Opportunities for Women and the Quality of Teachers, 1957-2000," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 230-235, May.
    3. Stenberg, Anders, 2013. "Interpreting estimates of heritability – A note on the twin decomposition," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 201-205.
    4. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson & Matthijs J. H. M. van der Loos & Philipp D. Koellinger & Patrick J. F. Groenen & James H. Fowler & J. Niels Rosenquist & A. Roy Thurik & N, 2011. "Molecular Genetics and Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 57-82, Fall.
    5. Christian Pfeifer, 2011. "Risk Aversion and Sorting into Public Sector Employment," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 12(1), pages 85-99, February.
    6. Claudio Lucifora & Dominique Meurs, 2006. "The Public Sector Pay Gap In France, Great Britain And Italy," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 52(1), pages 43-59, March.
    7. Miller, Paul & Mulvey, Charles & Martin, Nick, 2001. "Genetic and environmental contributions to educational attainment in Australia," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 211-224, June.
    8. Dustmann, Christian & van Soest, Arthur, 1998. "Public and private sector wages of male workers in Germany," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1417-1441, September.
    9. Costas Kanellopoulos, 1997. "Public-private wage differentials in Greece," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(8), pages 1023-1032.
    10. Terhi Maczulskij & Jaakko Pehkonen, 2011. "Public-Private Sector Pay Gaps in Finland: A Quantile Regression Analysis," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 111-127, Autumn.
    11. Uusitalo, Roope, 1999. "Return to education in Finland," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 569-580, November.
    12. Christofides, Louis N. & Pashardes, Panos, 2002. "Self/paid-employment, public/private sector selection, and wage differentials," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 737-762, December.
    13. Stephen Nickell & Glenda Quintini, 2002. "The Consequences of The Decline in Public Sector Pay in Britain: A Little Bit of Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(477), pages 107-118, February.
    14. Hartog, Joop & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & Jonker, Nicole, 2002. "Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-26.
    15. David Cesarini & Christopher T. Dawes & Magnus Johannesson & Paul Lichtenstein & Björn Wallace, 2009. "Genetic Variation in Preferences for Giving and Risk Taking," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(2), pages 809-842.
    16. Nicos Nicolaou & Scott Shane & Lynn Cherkas & Janice Hunkin & Tim D. Spector, 2008. "Is the Tendency to Engage in Entrepreneurship Genetic?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 167-179, January.
    17. Lassibille, Gerard, 1998. "Wage Gaps Between the Public and Private Sectors in Spain," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 83-92, February.
    18. Adamchik, Vera A. & Bedi, Arjun S., 2000. "Wage differentials between the public and the private sectors: evidence from an economy in transition," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 203-224, March.
    19. Charles F. Manski, 2011. "Genes, Eyeglasses, and Social Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 83-94, Fall.
    20. Don Bellante & Albert N. Link, 1981. "Are Public Sector Workers More Risk Averse Than Private Sector Workers?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 34(3), pages 408-412, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
    • H83 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Public Administration
    • P11 - Economic Systems - - Capitalist Systems - - - Planning, Coordination, and Reform

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p770. 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: (Gunther Maier). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.