1(1)2014

Dominika Cichońska
Jarosław Fedorowski
Romuald Holly

Dominika Cichońska, Jarosław Fedorowski, Romuald Holly

The Cohesiveness Policy of The European Union: Multidimensional Regionalization

The Cohesiveness Policy of The European Union: Multidimensional Regionalization

Spójność polityki Unii Europejskiej: wielowymiarowa regionalizacja

Streszczenie

Kraje europejskie po kilkunastoletnim okresie destabilizacji gospodarczej i rozchwiania struktur społecznych w połowie drugiej dekady XXI wieku wkroczą w co najmniej kilkunastoletni okres przeobrażeń społecznych, ustrojowych i strukturalno­-organizacyjnych stymulowanych coraz głębiej motywowanymi, uświadomionymi i jednoznacznie artykułowanymi oczekiwaniami bezpieczeństwa socjalnego i zdrowotnego szerokich rzesz społecznych. W tej nowej, bliskiej już, epoce transformacji realizacja nadrzędnych celów służyć powinna jedności UE i wspólnemu bezpieczeństwu wewnętrznemu i zewnętrznemu. Polityka spójności, jako narzędzie realizacji tych celów, uwzględniać musi te nowe uwarunkowania i wymaga wsparcia przez szczegółowe komplementarne programy/projekty regionalne. Wynika stąd konieczność reinterpretacji pojęcia regionalizacja, czy też wskazania nowych wymiarów regionalizacji, w odniesieniu do polityki spójności.

Słowa kluczowe: region, regionalizacja, polityka spójności, Unia EuropejskaThe Cohesiveness Policy of The European Union: Multidimensional Regionalization

Abstract

European nations may expect years of positive transformation in the next half of the second decade of the 21st century, just after decades of economic and social instability. Such transformation would involve social, political and structural changes stimulated by societies’ deep motivation and well defined expectations with regard to social and health issues. In this new (and soon to come) era of transformation, fulfilment of superior goals should serve the unity of the EU as well as joint internal and external safety. While using the cohesion policy as a tool to achieve those goals, policymakers must take all those new conditions into consideration. Effective support by means of detailed and complementary regional programs/ projects is surely required. Based on the above, we have to once more interpret the definition of regionalization. We must also demonstrate new dimensions of regionalization in relation to the cohesion policy.

Keywords: region, regionalization, cohesion policy, the European Union

Regional policy making faces multidimensional issues. Effective resolution of regional problem requires cooperation between various levels of governance and other stakeholders. The idea of territorial cohesion is based on building connections among economic effectiveness, social cohesiveness and environmental safety. Policy programming must be focused on balanced development. The EU with its sector oriented policies1 produces significant impact on the regions. Some of those policies include regulations2, which may refer to particular territorial needs. Such processes take place in all EU member states, although with various intensity and in different ways3.

Despite the idea of integrated approach and cooperation, we should ask a question whether crisis, instability and mistrust do exist in Europe?

Probably, no matter how deep the crisis is and how strong the mistrust and instability are, it all depends on defining those problems. For many years, multiple analyses and dissertations in the field of political science, economics, sociology, psychology and related disciplines attempted to identify, quantify and assign parameters to the three issues mentioned above4. Researchers usually draw definite and unified conclusions: European nations should expect years of positive transformation in the next half of the second decade of the 21st century, just after tens of years of economic and social instability. Such transformation would involve social, political and structural changes stimulated by deeply motivated, realized and well­-defined expectations from the society with regard to social and health issues. In this new and soon to come era of transformation, fulfilment of superior goals should serve the unity of the EU as well as joint internal and as external security. The cohesion policy as the tool to achieve those goals must take into consideration those new conditions. Good support by means of detailed and complementary regional programs/projects is surely required. Based on the above, we have to interpret the definition of regionalization once more. We must also demonstrate new dimensions of regionalization in relation to the cohesion policy.

Regionalization within the concept of the cohesion policy

Terms “region” and “regionalization” have multiple meanings. Generally speaking, they are related to a certain area, defined by one or more criteria: geographical, ethnic, political, administrative, historical, linguistic and so on.5 Hence, we may describe the Balkan region, Scandinavian region and East European region considering certain characteristics of adjacent countries. Due to the same reasons, we may also call large borderless areas as “regions”, for example, Mediterranean, as well as Silesia, Lombardy, Baden­-Wurttemberg, Alpine, Poland –B. The same principle may apply to metropolitan regions, like Tri-city (Poland), Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Paris, London or Stockholm. Several terms, like macro­-region, micro­-region or sub-region do not seem to be much helpful in defining regionalism. More proper would be to use other terms: network related, zonal, industrial, rural, metropolitan etc.6

Other criteria, like socio­-cultural, historical, linguistic and developmental may also play a role in definition of regionalism. From that particular point of view, in Poland, we usually distinguish the areas which correspond to administrative borders of 16 Provinces (called voivodeships) as separate regions. Therefore, similarly to the most EU member states, those are administrative units positioned below national level.

Acknowledgment of territorial dimension is not a new phenomenon. It constitutes the centre of the structural policy of the EU and has been there since the origin of the European integration. Most of sector­-related policies have impact on regions, some of them may actually respond to certain local needs. Regional and territorial policies result from advances in democratic processes, as far as social, political and economic activity in the EU nations are concerned. They are also related to the fact that central governments are backing off from their promises to fulfil responsibilities to the citizens. We merely state that territorial and regional policy making in the EU is a constant and common process, without judging which of these problems are the most important ones. It is a multivariate process of delegating tasks to local authorities, as far as competencies and duties towards citizens are concerned7.

In accordance to the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon (art. 174), the goal of the European cohesion policy8 is to strengthen the economic and social ties through reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions9. That policy concentrates on main areas, whose development is critical in facing the challenges of the 21st century. From the global competitiveness’ perspective, it is also important to consider economic efficacy, social cooperation and ecological security. Thanks to more sustainable development, decreased population density and lower pressure on cost cutting, multiple benefits may be explored, for example financial ones, which is the mainstay of territorial cohesion. Better use of resources, environmental benefits and improvement in the quality of life is also to be accomplished. Nowadays, networking is not only about making connections in the area of inter­-modal transport. It also requires sufficient access to services, like healthcare, education and balanced energy resources.

The cohesion policy is the area of the EU intervention which focuses on the issue of institutional structures quality, in particular on so the called good governance practices. It is crucial for success in developmental endeavours. The main components of good governance according to the canon of cohesion policy are: partnership, multi­-level governance, subsidiarity, coordination, consistency, proportionality10.

Cohesion policy and the idea on which it is based refer to such slogans and proposals as the following11:

•increase in competitiveness and innovation of the economy, building the IT society, enforcement of R&D through implementation – via structural funds,

•from the macro­-economic perspective – increase in GDP per capita, higher employment, lower unemployment, rise in central or local investments,

•vehicle of change in socio­-economic structures (change in employment rate, GDP structure, public expenses) and structural (variation in levels of national development in relation to EU average, inter­-regional differences),

•efficacy and quality of the functioning of the administration.

In fact, those are slogans, based on which, regions do apply for EU financing of their various projects.

Structure of the cohesion policy operations

The cohesion policy places special impact on territorial cohesion which, since the middle of 1990-­ties, has been a subject of the EU discussion, mostly at the governmental level12. That discussion has led to the adoption of the European Spatial Development Perspective, which transformed into initiatives like the first generation of international cooperation programs under auspices of ­INTERREG. It also resulted in formation of the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (­ESPON)13.

The ministers of EU countries responsible for regional development voiced the need for progress in the area of balanced economic development, creation of new places of employment, as well as in the area of social and ecologic development in all regions of the EU – at the time of the meeting on adoption of the territorial agenda in Leipzig, in May 2007. At the same time, they stressed that better life conditions and better quality of life as well as equal opportunities, regardless the place of residence, should be provided. A stimulus for discussion came from the territorial agenda together with the first action plan for implementation, adopted at Azores in November 2007. Six regional priorities were identified: regional clusters of innovation, green infrastructure, cultural resources, multi­-centric development, new forms of partnership, new regional management strategies. In addition, necessary actions14, mainly related to interventions of the European Regional Development Fund, European Structural Fund, European Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund15 – were defined.

As the role of particular regions in a given key country increases, a question about the direction of funds arises. Another question is the effectiveness of the use of the funds, or perhaps about the methods of the evaluation of such effectiveness. The aforementioned funds are the ones directed to the budgets of member states from the EU budget. There is also an issue of the understanding the mechanism of influence of the EU funds on indicators of macroeconomic and socio­-economic position of the member stated, who use those funds, including Poland16. It is uneasy to indicate that the financial aid has actually assisted to reach main goals of the EU socio­-economic cohesion policy. It is obvious that the inflow of funds is based on the demand. In particular, the aspect of increasing innovations and economic competitiveness, as well as reduction of inter­-regional disparities, development of human resources and counteraction of social exclusion, all need to be taken into consideration.

In evaluation of macroeconomic and social results of the use of EU funds, applied methods should be based on the following:

•Comparison of the theoretical economical models, both using different case scenarios, in which one corresponds to the “real” situation, and the other assumes lack of the EU financial aid (ex-ante analysis),

•Comparison socio­-economic development indicators as actually achieved, with results generated by the mathematic model of economy, assuming no EU aid scenario (ex-poste analysis)17.

Benefits of the EU support will be demonstrated by these analyses. Verification of the nature of the occurrences would not be possible neither with ex-ante analysis, nor with ex-post analysis, should EU aid has not been used.18 Multiple, widely accepted criteria are therefore required in order to assess that policy and its results.

Should the cohesiveness policy be identified as the regional policy?

Assuming that the goal of the cohesiveness policy is such transformation of organizational structures that their individual modules and parts would be not only become complementary but rather highly compatible, that would mean the creation of synergy. This can only be achieved at the local level19. What exactly are dimensions of a region? What is a region? How region should be defined in order to serve the cohesiveness policy? Should the cohesiveness policy be identified as regionalization and regional policy?

Regionalization has therefore many identities, dimensions and levels. Generally, it relies upon formation of political and administrative structures, as well as management and business relationships. Macro­-regional dimension, like the one related to OECD countries, Balkan region, Scandinavia or Baltic states should be assessed from that perspective. Moreover, regional dimensions, like those related to provinces or groups of provinces, sub-regional (Mazury or Kujawy sub-regions in Poland) and even micro­-regional (ex. Sandomierz area in Poland) should be considered.

The ideas of „Europe of Regions” or even „Europe with regions” are troubled not only by the lack of unified nomenclature or problems with definitions. Differences in the way that common European regional policy is portrayed by particular member states are even more important. That policy may serve countries, like for example Italy, Great Britain or The Netherlands, in different ways that it would benefit Germany or Austria. That is, however not the only difference – regional policy is handled in different ways in federal model countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium) than it is considered in those with regional model of organization (Spain, Italy).

Controversial opinions about the role of the EU regionalization, whether it serves the European integration or actually promotes its disintegration have been heard since the beginning of the 1980s. Those opinions have been having significant impact on the so stated idea of the “Europe of Regions”. Without doubt, they are amplified or at least made more evident by nationalistic movements, which constitute a negative legitimization for previously significantly devalued idea of the “Europe of Nations”. From the point of view of the nationalists, regionalization is just an opposite to “state national policy” that places priority on the unity of the society, society of citizens as a nation. These groups think that the regionalization actually divides nations; therefore it may endanger the integrity of nations. Enthusiasts of “Europe of Nations” perceive those reservations differently than proponents of the so called “Euro­-federalism”. Sometimes, regionalization is the only solution to preserve frail integrity of some countries, as we should point to Basque region or Catalonian regions of Spain, as well as island of Corsica and Alsace region of France. European Kosovo or non-European regions like Tibet, Timor or areas inhabited by Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Syria are examples of the failure of such integrity preservation.

We should not treat the reformed cohesiveness policy and the regional policy as equal. It should be stressed out that regions and even all territories are the objective of the reformed cohesiveness policy. That transposes into the higher importance of developmental metropolitan projects, rural projects, mountainous, coastal or insular, and so on. The movement towards wider incorporation of local communities and local governments into implementation of the renewed cohesiveness policy should be related to existing local structures and national customs.

Functional approach dominates within the reformed cohesiveness policy. That is provided by the new tools, predicted in EU laws, which are regulating the policy, the so called Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI).20 ITI delegate some of the tasks related to management of structural EU funds (at a minimum – influence on selection of funds) to an executive level lower than national or even regional. Those tasks are therefore delegated to cities or their economic impact areas21. It leads to transition from regionalization to concentration of activity in certain locations22. In order to coordinate activities of several institutions at various levels, metropolitan authorities have been established in some member states. Their goal is to provide solutions for problems connected with business development, public transportation, access to healthcare, higher education and training facilities, as well as problems with water and air quality. Such issues cross regional borders. Some metropolitan areas go beyond not only local and regional boundaries but even beyond national borders, i.e. Euro­-metropolis Lille­-Kortrijk­-Tournai, which includes cities on both sides of the border23. Regions located near internal EU borders have also been using the cohesiveness policy to improve cross border cooperation24.

The idea of “new” cohesiveness policy assumes/allows the parities in territorial, social and functional approaches to regions. It appreciates the structure of the balance of powers in the cooperation network (must be balanced, dynamic and committed), with appropriate dynamics and commitment of various stakeholders, and with coordination of activities together with information exchange networks.

Recent transformations in the area of regional policy are regarded as a change in a paradigm encompassing new goals (related to competitiveness), new geographical perspective (inclusion of all regions of a particular country), new way of management (multidimensionality), and new policy instruments (based on programs)25.

The assumed dimensional aspect of the region also depends on answers to the following questions:

1. To what degree the assumed regional level at which activities are undertaken, should depend on the nature of problems being solved?

2. What is the correlation between the cohesiveness policy priorities and regional policy in a particular country?

3. To what degree the agenda of regional policy in a particular country reflects the corresponding EU agenda?

4. Does the framework of the EU regional policy support processes of national regional policy? Or perhaps develops regardless of the foundation of the EU policy?

References

Territorial agenda of the EU, Leipzig 24–25 May 2007.

Bedrunka K., Efektywne wdrażanie polityki spójności – doświadczenia dotychczasowych okresów programowania w województwie opolskim, a nowa wizja Polityki Spójności po 2013 roku, „Barometr Regionalny” 2011, nr 4(26).

Chojnicki Z., Czyż T., Region–Regionalizacja–Regionalizm, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny”, Rok LIV, zeszyt 2, Poznań 1992.

Cohesion Policy Support For Local Development: Best Practice And Future Policy Options, Final Report, CCI n.2009.CE.16.0.AT.081, April 2010.

Efekty polityki spójności UE w Polsce, Dokument problemowy, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa sierpień 2009.

Engel C., Allemagne, in: Charpenfier J., Engel C., Les régions de l’espace communautaire, Press Universitiaires de Nancy, Nancy 1992.

ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective. Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union, Published by the European Commission, Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999.

Gorzelak G., Kukliński A. (eds.), Dilemmas of Regional Policies in Eastern and Central Europe, University of Warsaw, European Institute for Regional and Local Studies, Warsaw 1992.

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength, SEC(2008) 2550, Brussels, 6.10.2008 COM(2008) 616 final.

Holly R., Regionalization of Health Care in Poland and Other European Countries – Who, and What, Really Benefits from it?, “Journal of Health Policy Insurance and Management” XIII/III, Krajowy Instytut Ubezpieczeń w Warszawie, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Łodzi, Warszawa 2013.

Holly R., Ubezpieczenia w organizacji ochrony zdrowia w Polsce, Krajowy Instytut Ubezpieczeń, Warszawa 2013.

Integrated Territorial Investment, Cohesion Policy 2014–2020, European Commission, March 2014.

Introduction to ­EUROMETROPOLIS, http://www.eurometropolis.eu.

Koncepcja good governance. Refleksje do dyskusji, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa wrzesień 2008.

Misiąg J. Misiąg W., Tomala M., Ocena efektywności wykorzystania pomocy finansowej Unii Europejskiej jako instrumentu polityki spójności społeczno­-gospodarczej oraz poprawy warunków życia, Rzeszów 2013.

Sixth Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Report from the Commission to the European Parlament and the Council, SEC(2009) 828 final, Brussels, 25.6.2009 COM(2009) 295 final.

Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011 Gödöllő, Hungary.

The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union 2011 update. Background Document for the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 Presented at the Informal Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011 Gödöllő, Hungary.

Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej (the EU Treaty of Lisbon), Dz. Urz. UE 2012 C 326, http://oide.sejm.gov.pl/oide/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14804&Itemid=946.

Koncepcja good governance. Refleksje do dyskusji, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa wrzesień 2008.

Yuill D., Ferry M., Gross T., Przegląd, zmiany, reformy – zmiany Polityki Regionalnej w Unii Europejskiej i w Norwegii, „Studia Regionalne i Lokalne” 2008, nr 1(31).

Żuber P., Baucz A., Nowa polityka spójności szansą dla miast, „Magazyn Miast” luty 2014, nr 5–6.

---