Ada

Centre International de Formation Europenne
Institut Europen des Hautes tudes Internationales

Master (M.A) in Advanced European and International Studies
Anglophone ranch
Academic !ear
"##$ % "##&
DEVELOPMENT OF AND PROSPECTS FOR
THE EUROPEAN UNION
MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM /
REFORMS AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
EUROPEAN COHESION POLICY
Onur Ada
July 2009
'esearch (irectors)
Frdric Lpine
Ma!ia" #aec!er
Table of Contents
*a+le o, Contents ..................................................................................................... "
A+stract .................................................................................................................... -
.. Introduction .......................................................................................................... /
". Cohesion 0olic! ................................................................................................... $
".. *he 1rigins o, Cohesion 0olic! ................................................................ $
".... *he 'ole o, the EC Institutions and the 0olitical Atmosphere in the
Construction o, Cohesion 0olic! ................................................................... ..
"." *he .&$$ 'e,orm o, Cohesion 0olic! ...................................................... ."
".".. *he .&$$ 'e,orm and the Creation o, the Fundamental 0rinciples o,
Cohesion 0olic! ............................................................................................. ."
"."." *he (istinctive Features o, the .&$$ 'e,orm ....................................... .-
".2 *he 0rinciple o, Solidarit!) 0oor vs. 'ich3 ............................................. ./
".- Impact o, Enlargement on Cohesion 0olic! ............................................. .4
"./ 0rinciple o, Concentration and the 1+5ectives o, Cohesion 0olic! ......... .$
".4 *he 'e,orms o, the European Cohesion 0olic! ....................................... "#
".4.. *he .&&2 re,orm o, Cohesion 0olic! .................................................... "#
".4." *he .&&& 'e,orm o, Cohesion 0olic! ................................................... ""
".4.2 *he "##4 'e,orm o, Cohesion 0olic! ................................................... "-
".6 Cohesion 0olic!) Success or Failure3 ...................................................... "6
2. Multi%7evel 8overnance and Cohesion 0olic! .................................................. 2.
2.. Multi%7evel 8overnance .......................................................................... 2.
2.... 8overnance ........................................................................................... 2.
2..." 1rigins o, Multi%7evel 8overnance ...................................................... 2"
2...2 *he Essential Assumptions o, Multi%7evel 8overnance ...................... 2/
2...- Multi%7evel 8overnance) (estination o, the European Communit!
since the Creation o, Cohesion 0olic!3 ......................................................... 24
2." Issue o, 7egitimation) E,,icienc! and E,,ectiveness vs. (emocrac! and
0artnership ...................................................................................................... 26
2.2 Implementation o, 0artnership) (ivergence vs. Convergence ................ 2$
2.- Alliance o, Su+national and Supranational Actors vs. Central
8overnments .................................................................................................. 2&
2.-.. Supranational Actors vs. 9ational 8overnments .................................. 2&
2.-." 'egions vs. 9ational 8overnments ....................................................... -.
2.-.2 Empo:erment o, Su+national Actors ................................................... -"
2.-.- Su+national Actors through the Channels to:ards the E; ................... -2
2.-./ 7egal 'e<uirements to Sa,eguard the 'egional 0articipation .............. -4
2.-.4 Fle=i+le 8ate>eeping vs. Multi%7evel 8overnance .............................. -6
2.-.6 Multi%7evel 8overnance in the Implementation o, Cohesion 0olic! .. . -&
2.-.$ 0rincipal%Agent *heor! vs. Multi%7evel 8overnance .......................... /#
2.-.& ?oint (ecision *rap) (eadloc> o, the Multi%7evel 8overnance S!stem3
........................................................................................................................ /2
2.-..# Europe o, 'egions vs. Europe :ith 'egions ...................................... /4
2.-... E; 0olic!%Ma>ing) Multi%7evel vs. State Centric .............................. /6
2./. European 'egional and Cohesion 0olic! at Sta>e .................................. 4.
2./.. 9eoli+eral Europe vs. Social Europe .................................................... 4.
"
2./." 0rinciples o, Concentration@ Solidarit! and 0artnership at Sta>e ......... 42
2./.2 Friends and Enemies o, Cohesion 0olic! in the 0olitical Arena .......... 44
2./.- 'ise o, Emplo!ment 0olic! and Fall o, Cohesion 0olic! ..................... 46
-. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 4$
i+liograph! ........................................................................................................... 6.
2
Abstract
*he heated de+ate on the development and course o, European Cohesion 0olic!
has al:a!s +een in the agenda o, the E; and national decision%ma>ers since the
creation o, it. *he proponents and opponents o, cohesion polic! did not agree on
the direction that the E; should progress. ecause cohesion polic! is at the core
o, the multi%level governance s!stem and the ,undamental principles o, cohesion
polic! such as solidarit! and partnership might +e eradicated@ the thesis suggests
that the :ithdra:al and demise o, multi%level governance s!stem might ,ollo:
the decline o, cohesion polic! as neoli+eral Europe prevails over social Europe.
*he role and in,luence o, the su+national actors might +e :ea>ened and the
regions can retreat ,urther in ,avour o, the national governments as paralleled to
the structural trans,ormation :hich might +e ,ollo:ed +! the decrease in the
e=planator! po:er o, multi%level governance model as alternative versions o,
intergovernmentalism :ithin the conte=t o, the state%centric model are presented
and evaluated in the thesis. *he ,ocus on the re,orms o, cohesion polic! ensures
that the potential impact o, the prospective re,orms on the development and
direction o, cohesion polic! and multi%level governance +e!ond "#.2 might +e
estimated to some e=tent as a variet! o, possi+ilities are ta>en into consideration
herein.
-

1. Introduction
*he prospective re,orms o, European Cohesion 0olic!@ :hich should +e situated
in the conte=t o, the historical evolution o, cohesion polic!@ :ill presuma+l! pla!
a ma5or role in the prospects ,or and development o, the multi%level governance
s!stem. *he re,orms might have a considera+le impact on the in,luence o, the
su+national@ national and supranational actors at the di,,erent stages o, the
cohesion polic!%ma>ing as :ell as its implementation. 1n the other hand@ these
actors concerned are also e=pected to participate in and in,luence the +argaining
during the re,orm%ma>ing in accordance :ith their strength. Ahether the re,orms
:ill preserve and consolidate or undermine the ,undamental principles o,
cohesion polic! is under discussion.
In m! thesis@ I attempt to uncover the >e! points@ main characteristics and
direction o, the re,orms o, cohesion polic! regarding the development o, the
multi%level governance s!stem and h!pothesiBe a+out the implications o, it along
:ith the anal!sis o, the de+ate on the multi%level governance model. esides@ the
impact o, the re,orms on the role o, the supranational E; institutions@ national
governments and the su+national authorities along :ith the interaction o, them is
underlined +! scrutiniBing the institutional architecture o, the E;@ evolution o,
cohesion polic! and the e=planator! po:er o, the multi%level governance theor!.
Moreover@ I discuss the prospects ,or the ,uture re,orms and ela+orate the
potential ,eatures and path to:ards :hich the European ;nion (E;) :ill direct
the polic! in ,avour o, or against the s!stem o, multi%level governance.
It is li>el! that the prospective re,orms o, cohesion polic! might su+stantiate a
Cma5or polic! shi,tD or Cparadigm shi,tD@ ta>ing the necessar! steps to:ards an all%
encompassing and overarching revision o, the ,undamental principles o, cohesion
polic!. *here,ore the <uestion E:hat :ould the characteristics o, this t!pe o,
revision +e3F is supposed to +e central to the thesis so that a +etter assessment o,
/
the prospective re,orms and its impact on the multi%level governance s!stem can
+e ensured.
EE; Cohesion 0olic! as :e have >no:n it since .&$$ is under threatF
.
according
to Hooghe and Mar>s ,or :hom cohesion polic! is at the core o, multi%level
governance as the! appl! the polic! to structure their model. I thin> it is essential
to ta>e the CthreatD seriousl! and identi,! the indications and elements o, it clearl!@
:hile the premises o, this e,,ort are +ased on the assumption that this perception
o, threat is settled@ realistic and convenient. *here,ore@ the anal!sis o, the CthreatD
,orms the ,ocal point o, m! thesis o, :hich purpose is to uncover to :hat e=tent
cohesion polic! is threatened +! :hich actors and ho: much :ould the
prospective re,orms in,luence the ,undamental principles o, this polic! in :hich
direction. esides@ :hether the previous re,orms led to the
renationaliBationGrecentraliBation at the e=pense o, the su+national and
supranational actors is e=amined in the thesis. Moreover@ the <uestion C:hom to
+lame3F is also vital in order to identi,! the actors :hich attac> the polic!@ i, there
is an!. Ho:ever@ the implications o, this threat should not +e limited to cohesion
polic! as long as the intert:ined structure o, the polic! and multi%level
governance is ta>en into consideration.
*he historical +ac>ground and current state o, the principles o, cohesion polic!
along :ith their reciprocal relation :ith the multi%level governance s!stem in the
conte=t o, the European integration is evaluated in much detail. *here,ore@ it
might +e ,easi+le to shed light on the o+stacles to the advancement o, multi%level
governance +! e=posing that the principles concerned are a,,iliated :ith the
multi%level structure o, the E;.
I +ene,ited ,rom the :or>s o, the scholars :ho come up :ith alternative models
o, and concepts that account ,or the European integration as their criticisms on the
shortcomings o, multi%level governance and cohesion polic! in line :ith the
models and concepts such as ,le=i+le gate>eeping@ 5oint%decision trap and
.
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (7anham)
'o:man H 7ittle,ield 0u+lishers@ "##.)@ p. .#/.
4
principal%agent theor! provide a multidimensional grasp o, the pros and cons and
strong and :ea> points o, multi%level governance@ cohesion polic! and the
,undamental principles o, it.
Ahile the purpose o, the thesis is to ,ind out :hether the E; multi%level
governance s!stem is also in danger@ under threat or attac> in line :ith the threat
that European 'egional and Cohesion 0olic! is e=posed to@ the anal!sis o, the
struggle +et:een neoli+eral and social models o, Europe provides me :ith a
coherent +asis to achieve this purpose. *he ver! core o, cohesion polic! is
argua+l! at odds :ith the neoli+eral perspective :hich con,irms neither the
solidarit! nor partnership@ :hile the achievement o, the single mar>et might +e
associated :ith the neoli+eral perspective and the e,,orts o, its proponents.
*here,ore@ the standpoint o, the neoli+erals re<uires a strong opposition to the
empo:erment o, cohesion polic!. Finall!@ the measures :hich have to +e ta>en in
order to preserve and consolidate the essential elements o, the polic! against the
attempts o, the neoli+eral agenda to undermine it are suggested and assessed in
accordance :ith the model o, social Europe.

6
2. Cohesion Policy
2.1 The Origins of Cohesion Policy
*he commitment o, the countries :hich signed the *reat! o, 'ome in .&/6 to
alleviate the disparities +et:een the regions :as strengthened +! additional steps
later on as the :ording and content o, the related part in the *reat! o, 'ome laid
the genuine ground ,or them in order to e=pand the scope o, the targets +oth
<ualitativel! and <uantitativel! and to testi,! the commitment during the
implementation process. C*o strengthen the unit! o, their economiesD@ Cto ensure
their harmonious development +! reducing the di,,erences e=isting the various
regions and the +ac>:ardness o, the less%,avoured regionsD
"
are still the chie,
goals o, the mem+er states o, the European ;nion in spite o, the ma5or steps
,or:ard ta>en at the European@ national and su+national levels. Although Ian
ache de,ends that EAt this stage@ it :as not clear :hether these disparities :ould
+e addressed through national or Communit! regional policies@ or a com+ination
o, +oth. For almost t:o decades@ the responsi+ilit! remained nationalF as he re,ers
to the *reat! o, 'omeF
2
@ the unit! and solidarit! are the >e! points o, the chie,
goals identi,ied +! the Communit!.
*he European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural 8uidance and
8uarantee Fund (EA88F) :ere noticea+le actions to put these chie, goals into
practise one !ear a,ter the declaration o, them +! the *reat! o, 'ome in .&/6.
Ho:ever@ the ,oundation o, the ma5or method to achieve this dates +ac> to the
advent o, the European 'egional (evelopment Fund (E'(F) in .&6/ as the
method :as +ased on the allocation o, the +udget in ,avour o, the regions lagging
+ehind@ although the contri+ution o, the mem+er states that those regions are part
o, :as o+viousl! less than the others and the role pla!ed +! the European and
"
ESome Ie! (ates@F in Working for the Regions, European Union Regional Policy ed. 'aphael
8oulet (7u=em+ourg) European Communities@ "##-) p. /.
2
Ian ache@ he politics of European Union Regional Policy, Multi-level Governance or !le"i#le
Gatekeeping (She,,ield) She,,ield Academic 0ress@ .&&$)@ p. 2..
$
su+national actors in comparison to those +! the mem+er states :as not
su+stantial.
-
*he redistri+ution o, the resources survived so ,ar as it remained as
the essential instrument o, cohesion polic! throughout several modi,ications
during the re,orms that this polic! has +een e=posed to. *he identi,ication o, the
goals in the *reat! o, 'ome and the invention o, the suita+le tools to achieve
those goals during the introduction o, the E'(F :ere the landmar>s that
constituted the +ac>+one o, and led to the construction o, cohesion polic! as such
+! the Single European Act in .&$4.
/

C'educing disparities +et:een the levels o, development o, the various regions
and the +ac>:ardness o, the least ,avoured regions@ including rural areasD through
harmonious development is an essential re<uirement o, the European ;nion
according to the ./$ o, the *reat! on European ;nion (*E;) :hich :as signed in
.&&" and came into ,orce in .&&2.
4
CFirst 'eport ,rom the Commission on Economic and Social CohesionD :hich
:as pu+lished in .&&6 illuminates the de,inition o, the concept CcohesionD and the
general ,eatures o, cohesion polic!. Ahile the European CommissionDs
interpretation o, the European societal organiBation is +ased on its con,irmation
that it is a social mar>et econom! :hich aims at the com+ination o, the mar>et
,orces@ ,reedom o, opportunit!@ enterprise@ solidarit! and mutual support@
cohesion polic!Ds Csole aim is to achieve greater e<ualit! in economic and social
opportunitiesD as the polic! is composed o, solidarit! and mutual support.
6
8raham Meado:s@ :ho :as (irector%8eneral ,rom "##2 to "##4 in (8 'E8I1
in the European Commission suggests that E*he polic! is in place to +alance
gro:thF :hich continuousl! generates disparities :hile cohesion polic! is one o,
the three elements +! :hich the E; ensures the gro:th along :ith the single
-
EFrom 0ro5ects to 0rogrammes@F Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+
Investing in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4 (?une "##$)) $.
/
ESome Ie! (ates@F p. /.
4
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..6.
6
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, p. ..6.
&
mar>et and single currenc!
$
:hile ?rJme Kignon@ :ho :as Mem+er o, the
Ca+inet o, 0resident ?ac<ues (elors in .&$/@ reminds that E?ac<ues (elors :as
reall! >een to avoid that Cohesion 0olic! and the use o, the Structural Funds
:ould turn into pure redistri+ution. C*he dealD :as to counteract the e,,ects o, the
single mar>et and the single currenc! on the poorestF
&
as he also sheds light on
the relation +et:een the three elements o, the gro:th e=plained +! Meado:s.
*he ultimate aim o, the polic! is to ensure the development o, poorer regions up
to the point that the! no longer need the support o, the Communit! as the! :ill +e
su,,icientl! competitive and d!namic Con their ,eetD +! themselves as ?rJme
Kignon de,ends that E9o+od! should +e dependent on assistanceF Ho:ever E*he
underl!ing logic :as@ o, course@ that those receiving more should +e committed to
some achievementsF alongside the elimination o, their dependenc!.
.#
*he economies o, the poorer regions :hich are rather intensi,ied in the southern
countries :ould +e the losers o, the single mar>et unless cohesion polic! :as not
created. *here,ore@ it is note:orth! :hen it comes to the de+ate on the re,orm o,
it that the raison d-.tre o, cohesion polic! is to compensate the costs o, the single
mar>et so that the +ene,iciaries o, the single mar>et are supposed to support the
losers o, it :hile the +ene,iciaries o, cohesion polic! are e=pected to come up
:ith the precise pro5ects in order to catch up :ith the other regions although the
polic! is not consisted o, the side%pa!ments :ithin a +roader conte=t o, the
European integration. *he legitimac! o, the solidarit! principle o, cohesion polic!
is +ased on this essential rationale +ehind the ,ormation o, the European 'egional
0olic! :hich +ene,ited ,rom the resources such as the Structural Funds and
Cohesion Fund.
$
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F in Inforegio
Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+ Investing in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4
(?une "##$)) 2#.
&
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2#.
.#
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2..
.#
2.1.1 The Role of the EC Institutions and the Political
Atmosphere in the Construction of Cohesion Policy
*he institutional architecture o, the European Communit! and the political
atmosphere at that stage should +e e=amined in order to comprehend :h! and
under :hich circumstances the essential ,eatures o, the .&$$ re,orm emerged. It
might also +e +ene,icial in the planning and construction o, the prospective
re,orms o, cohesion polic!.
..
*he European Council convened to resolve the stalemate concerning the +udget
crisis and developed the instrument to achieve this goal as agreed +! man!
European leaders including FranLois Mitterrand@ Helmut Iohl and Felipe
8onBals in Fontaine+leau in .&$- and the ,ollo:ing period is also mar>ed +! the
emergence o, the ideal conditions to create Cthe e=ceptional institutional momentD
,or cohesion polic!.
."
*he >e! point o, the Ce=ceptional institutional momentD :as
the ultimate reliance o, the national governments on the principle o, su+sidiarit!
and the Commission :hich@ the! +elieved@ :as capa+le o, conducting cohesion
polic! according to ?ean%Charles 7e!gues@ :ho :as (eput! Head o, the Ca+inet
o, Commission 0resident ?ac<ues (elors.
.2
0hilip 7o:e@ :ho is (irector%8eneral o, (8 Competition and :as Head o,
Ca+inet o, ruce Millan@ indicates that Ethe ultimate <uestion :as :hether :e
:ere tal>ing a+out Ca net dealD to compensate the poorest Mem+er States or a+out
a :ider sense o, a European structural polic!. 9o agreement :as possi+le at that
stageF
.-
as he re,ers to the de+ates in the Copenhagen European Council in .&$6.
Although the European Cohesion 0olic! as such en5o!ed the general recognition
and survived throughout the continuous contention and al:a!s heated de+ate on
the e=istence o, it@ it ma! +e argued that the de+ate on the ,undamental principles
o, cohesion polic! sho:s that the disagreement on cohesion polic! +et:een the
..
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2-.
."
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2#.
.2
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2-.
.-
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2".
..
supranational@ national@ regional and local actors is still in the agenda o, the
European polic!%ma>ers to some e=tent. I, the options at hand :ere 5ust to deal
:ith the dail! and temporar! issues rather than the creation o, a long%standing
essential European polic!@ it :ould mean that the conditions ,or the construction
o, a ,ull!%,ledged polic! did not e=ist. Ho:ever@ the European decision%ma>ers at
all levels have +een a+le to come up :ith a polic! :hich still has the ground it
:as erected on. So@ the de+ate on the prospective re,orm that include the
modi,ication o, the principle o, solidarit! and the privileged status o, the poorer
mem+er states apart ,rom the regions lagging +ehind should +e +ased on
recognition o, the polic! as a :hole rather than attac>ing the components such as
the solidarit! and partnership as i, cohesion polic! :ould +e a+le to e=ist :ithout
those components.
2.2 The 1!! Reform of Cohesion Policy
2.2.1 The 1!! Reform and the Creation of the "undamental
Principles of Cohesion Policy
*he meeting o, the European Council in russels in .&$$ is considered to +e the
turning point in the histor! o, cohesion polic! as it agreed on the creation o, the
then Solidarit! Funds :hich is no: the :ell%>no:n Structural Funds@ allocating
EC; 4$ +illion ,or these ,unds.
./
*he European Social Fund esta+lished in .&/$
:as also shaped +! the .&$$ re,orm :hich is considered to +e the pea> o,
cohesion polic! in a ver! general sense as solidarit! has +een developed ,urther
and approached to the status o, principle :hile the partnership :as alread!
adopted as a principle. Solidarit!@ :hich +asicall! re<uires supporting the poorer
regions@ is the idea at the core o, cohesion polic! :hile the principle o,
partnership re<uires the participation o, the European@ national and su+%national
actors o, the Communit! at the di,,erent phases o, the decision%ma>ing@
programming@ implementation and monitoring processes.
./
."
*he de,inition o, the partnership suggested +! Andre: Evans is su,,icientl!
comprehensive and +ased on the legal documents so that it could enclose the
evolving ,orm o, it that :as +roadened +! the su+se<uent re,orms o, cohesion
polic!) E*he partnership is de,ined in the legislation as close consultationM
+et:een the Commission and the Mem+er State@ together :ith the authorities and
+odies designated +! the Mem+er State :ithin the ,rame:or> o, its national rules
and current practices@ namel!) the regional and local authorities and other
competent pu+lic authorities@ the economic and social partners@ and an! other
competent +odies :ithin this ,rame:or>.F
.4
In order to reach :ell%de,ined goals in the long run@ the programmes :hich :ere
created +! ta>ing into consideration the re<uirements o, a longer period :ere
necessar!. 1ther:ise the perspective and vision :ould +e ver! limited and +lunt
:ithout programming. *hese multi%annual programmes :ere also launched +! the
.&$$ re,orm.
.6
*he role o, the Commission along :ith the role pla!ed +! the
Mem+er States and the su+national authorities has also +een an issue :hich is
:idel! de+ated throughout the developmental process o, the regional and
cohesion polic!. *he Commission :ould no longer manage a large num+er o,
pro5ects :ithout the participation o, the other actors such as the regional
authorities and the Mem+er States :hich are also supposed to ta>e responsi+ilit!
in accordance :ith the ne:l! esta+lished principle o, partnership. *here,ore the
Mem+er States and the regions also commenced to ta>e part in the management
and programming phases o, the ESF.
.$
Ho:ever@ .&$$ re,orm also empo:ered
the Commission :hich :ould ta>e responsi+ilit! in the creation and ,inancing o,
the regional pro5ects :ithout so much inter,erence o, the other actors as it :ould
have the opportunit! to gain e=perience and reach +etter results graduall!. *his
role pla!ed +! the Commission eventuall! o+tained greater importance so that it
:as considered to +e the implementation method o, cohesion polic! later on.
.&
.4
Andre: Evans@ E'egionalism in the E;) 7egal 1rganisation o, a challenging social
phenomenon@F European Integration "-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) ""4.
.6
Kladimir Spidla@ EInvesting in 0eopleF Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+
Investing in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4 (?une "##$)) 4.
.$
Kladimir Spidla@ EInvesting in 0eopleF p. 4.
.&
EFrom 0ro5ects to 0rogrammes@F p. .#.
.2
Although the national governments are e=posed to the pressure o, +argaining
:ith the other pla!ers at the supranational and su+national levels@ the po:er o,
decision%ma>ing on the e=penditure o, regional polic! +elongs to them. *he
negotiation +et:een the mem+er states rather than the struggle o, the
supranational@ national@ regional and local authorities is dominant in terms o, the
,inancial redistri+ution o, the resources@ suppressing the European institutions in a
sense.
"#
esides@ Eruce Millan@ Commissioner :ith 'esponsi+ilit! ,or 'egional
0olic!@ .&$&%&/@ stated) C*he point a+out the re,orm started in .&$& :as that
previousl! European Communit! aid :ent to the areas that the mem+er states
themselves declared eligi+le and :ere giving their o:n aid to. *hat lin> :as
+ro>en.DF
".
Ho:ever that +ro>en lin> :as restored later on as the mem+er states
managed to reta>e the po:er to ma>e decisions on the eligi+ilit! o, the area.
2.2.2 The #istincti$e "eatures of the 1!! Reform
*he development o, the integrated approach a,ter .&$# led to the creation o, the
Integrated (evelopment 1perations (I(1s) and Integrated Mediterranean
0rogrammes (IM0s)@ triggering a Cparadigm shi,tD to:ards Cintegrated@ +ottom%up
approachesD rather than top%do:n prescriptive attitude o, the institutions and
national governments :ithout the involvement o, the su+national actors in the
process.
""
*here,ore it has +een more ,easi+le to modi,! the pro5ect in response to
the ,eed+ac> sent +! the regional actors during implementation.
*he origins o, the principles initiated +! the .&$$ re,orm might +e ,ound out in
the preceding re,orms and treaties as mentioned a+ove. Ho:ever@ the .&$$ re,orm
is the ,undamental driving ,orce com+ining a num+er o, elements :hich come out
earlier@ under the ,lagship o, the ,irm principles such as additionalit! and
partnership. In addition to the principles e=plained a+ove@ multi%annual
programming is also considered to +e a particular principle :hich includes the
"#
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. &/.
".
?ohn . Sutcli,,e@ E*he .&&& 'e,orm o, the Structural Fund 'egulations) Multi%7evel
8overnance or 'enationaliBation3@F /ournal of European Pu#lic Policy 6) " (?une "###)) "&..
""
.-
anal!sis@ strategic planning and evaluation steps@ :hile the principle o,
additionalit! o+liges the Mem+er States to utilise the amount the! get ,rom the
E; +udget ,or the re<uired spending. *he num+er o, the o+5ectives o, the polic!
had to +e restricted as to the clearl! identi,ied goals and a convenient
classi,ication o, them@ pa!ing the utmost attention at the regions :hich need to
speed up in terms o, the developmental per,ormance according to the principle o,
concentration.
*he re<uisite o, supporting the regions lagging +ehind :ere anticipated earlier
than the esta+lishment o, Economic and Monetar! ;nion (EM;) and single
mar>et :hich@ along :ith cohesion@ are the main o+5ectives o, the ;nion
according to the Maastricht *reat! that :ere signed in .&&" and entered into ,orce
in .&&2. *here,ore the necessar! measures against the side%e,,ects o, the single
mar>et and EM; :hich :ere the long%standing o+5ectives o, the Communit! :as
ta>en preceding the esta+lishment o, them. *he aim o, endorsing the development
o, the transport and environment ,ields in the poorer Mem+er States constituted
the +asis ,or the esta+lishment o, the Cohesion Fund.
"2
2.% The Principle of &olidarity' Poor $s. Rich(

*he assumption that the poorer regions and mem+er states advance at the
e=pense o, the other regions and mem+er states is in contrast to the ,act that the
reason :h! cohesion polic! :as created is that a d!namic and competitive union
cannot +e ,ull! esta+lished on the Continent :hich has e=tremel! deep%rooted
economic@ social and cultural disparities :ithout this >ind o, polic!. 1n the other
hand@ the concept o, diversit! should not +e con,used :ith the concept Cdisparit!D
as Cdiversit!D points out to the potential that might +e e=posed and utilised
through the discover! o, the advantageous points. Ho:ever@ the e=istence o,
diversit! does not ensure the elimination o, disparities and achievement o,
economic and social development ta>en ,or granted and it can lead even to
"2
./
deepening o, the disparities unless a s!stematic e,,ort to accomplish such a
progress is e=erted cooperativel! +! the participation o, all actors concerned.
According to the European ;nion 'egional 0olic! document :hich :as
pu+lished in "##- E'egional 0olic! can onl! +e e,,ective :hen it concentrates its
action on a limited num+er o, su,,icientl! large territories.F *hen@ it is necessar!
to Eclari,! the criteria ,or the selection o, the regions :ith the greatest need o,
pu+lic support ,or development.F
"-
Ho:ever@ the role o, the European 'egional
0olic! should not +e restricted to the redistri+ution o, the availa+le resources ,rom
the more prosperous to the less prosperous Mem+er States or regions. In ,act@ it
re<uires the creation o, an Cadded valueD through the e,,ective and e,,icient use o,
the ,unds so that the advancement o, the regions in order to catch up :ith the
:ell%developed regions can +e o+served graduall!.
"/
2.) Impact of Enlargement on Cohesion Policy
*he impact o, the enlargement on cohesion polic! has al:a!s +een su+stantial
throughout the histor! o, the Communit! as it increased the disparities as :ell as
the num+er and siBe o, the o+structions continuousl!. It is indicated that +ecause
,irst 8reece@ and then 0ortugal and Spain 5oined the Communit! su+se<uentl!@
considera+le rise o, the regional disparities +ecame unavoida+le as it led to the
+udget crisis along :ith the other ,actors such as the long%standing o+5ective o,
esta+lishing single mar>et and increasing cohesion@ paralleled to the ,ormer
o+5ective.
"4
*here,ore@ the .&$$ re,orm o, cohesion polic! is also driven +! the
need to compensate ,or the side%e,,ects o, the enlargement.
*he European Council convened in erlin in .&&& came up :ith the CAgenda
"###D and the ne: E; +udget :hich covered the period ,rom "### to "##4.
Having ,ocused on the re,orm o, man! polic! ,ields o, the E; to identi,! and
"-
EFor Ahom3@F in Working for the Regions, European Union Regional Policy ed. 'aphael 8oulet
(7u=em+ourg) European Communities@ "##-) p. $.
"/
EAh!@F in Working for the Regions, European Union Regional Policy ed. 'aphael 8oulet
(7u=em+ourg) European Communities@ "##-) p. 6.
"4
EFrom 0ro5ects to 0rogrammes@F p. $.
.4
clari,! the ne: goals and to ensure a stead! development@ the CAgenda "###D :as
suita+l! constructed in order to simpli,! the structure and implementation o,
cohesion polic! as :ell as dealing :ith the negative conse<uences o, the previous
enlargement.
"6
*he am+itious goal to elevate the European ;nion up to the point o, Cthe most
competitive and d!namic >no:ledge%+ased econom! in the :orld +! the !ear
"#.#D :ithin the scope o, the 7is+on Strateg! :hich is composed o, three pillars
as economic and social rene:al and the environmental dimension :as determined
+! the 7is+on European Council in "###. A,ter the 8othen+urg Council convened
in "##.@ sustaina+le development along :ith emplo!ment emerged as the ma5or
polic! ,ield la!ing the ground ,or the 7is+on Strateg! as the three pillars
concerned :ere sta+led.
"$
*he 7is+on Strateg! is argua+l! one step ,or:ard to
ta>e up the challenges that :ere e=pected to emerge a,ter the ,ollo:ing
enlargement :hich :ould +e the ne: and greatest enlargement ever in the histor!
o, the Communit!.
*he "##- enlargement :ould +e incompara+le to the previous e=amples in terms
o, its siBe and impact on the economic and social structures and o+5ectives o, the
;nion. Although the 9ice *reat! in "##. has not +een su,,icientl! a+le to respond
to the e=pectations o, the European polic!%ma>ers and essential demands o, the
institutions@ ten ne: mem+ers :hich had dissimilar ,eatures in comparison to the
Aestern European countries as the! have the in,luent legac! o, the Aarsa: 0act
+ehind the Iron Curtain and are still in the transition process states 5oined the E;
in "##-@ ,ollo:ing the agreement o, the Copenhagen European Council in "##"
on the re<uirements o, the participation o, the candidate states to the E;. *he
proposals o, the European Commission ,ormed the +ac>+one o, the re,orm o,
cohesion polic! ,rom "##6 to "#.2 5ust +e,ore the challenges o, the ne:
enlargement came out. *he enlargement o, "##- and the second :ave in "##6
imposed a great deal o, di,,icult! on Europe as to the integration and a+sorption
"6
EMa>ing Enlargement a SuccessF in Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+
Investing in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4 (?une "##$)) $.
"$
.6
o, these ne: mem+ers :ith noticea+l! di,,erent historical legac! and the political
and economic organism@ representing the counter%pole o, +ipolar :orld in a sense.
2.* Principle of Concentration and the Ob+ecti$es of Cohesion
Policy
In accordance :ith the principle o, concentration introduced in the .&$$ re,orm@
,ive o+5ectives :ith particular purposes are determined. Although the re,orms
,ollo:ing the .&$$ re,orm did not modi,! the principles and regulations regarding
them su+stantiall!@ the num+er and content o, the o+5ectives :ere changed in
accordance :ith the re<uirements o, the trans,ormation and the changing
allocation o, the po:ers attri+uted to the several actors :hich pla!ed role in the
process. *here,ore@ an overvie: o, the o+5ectives as a :hole in the conte=t o, the
re,orms concerned :ill +e ensured as long as it is related to the topic o, the thesis
instead o, providing too detailed in,ormation on them.
*he ,ootprints o, the solidarit! principle can +e traced +ac> through all the
o+5ectives identi,ied in the .&$$ re,orm@ +ut the ,irst o+5ective might +e
considered to have the priorit! in terms o, the amount that it gets ,rom the related
,unding as its ,ocus is on the promotion o, Cthe development and structural
ad5ustment o, regions :hose development is lagging +ehind.D *he .&&2 re,orm
did not ma>e an! considera+le changes in the structure o, the o+5ectives and the
o+5ective . remained completel! intact. Although the .&&& re,orm re<uired a
reduction in the num+er o, the o+5ectives and amalgamation o, some principles@
the :ording o, the o+5ective . :as not a,,ected +! these modi,ications. Ho:ever
the "##4 re,orm preserving the purpose o, ,urther concentration that :as
determined +! the .&&& re,orm :hich reduced the num+er o, the o+5ectives
speci,ied the content o, the related o+5ective@ renaming it as CconvergenceD.
*here,ore@ convergence criteria re<uired the Cspeeding up the convergence o, the
least%developed Mem+er States and regions de,ined +! 8(0 per capital o, less
than 6/ N o, the E; averageD
"&
"&
EFocus on 8ro:th and ?o+s@F Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+ Investing
in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4 (?une "##$)) "2.
.$
*he target o, the 1+5ective " :as the regions :hich :ere e=posed to a
considera+le industrial decline@ according to the .&$$ re,orm and this o+5ective
survived until the .&&& re,orm as the concentration o, the o+5ectives reduced the
num+er o, them@ :hile 1+5ective 2 o, the .&$$ re,orm :hich aimed at com+ating
Clong%term unemplo!mentD :as com+ined :ith the o+5ective - o, the .&$$ re,orm
:hich aimed at ,acilitating the occupational integration o, the !oung people under
the o+5ective 2 o, the .&&2 re,orm +! containing the Cpromotion o, e<ual
emplo!ment opportunities ,or men and :omenD and the individuals :ho :ere
e=cluded ,rom the 5o+ mar>et.
2#

*he .&&2 re,orm speci,ied the content o, the o+5ectives comprehensivel!.
1+5ective / o, the .&$$ re,orm :hich :as ,ocused on C(a) speeding up the
ad5ustment o, agricultural structures and (+) promoting the development o, rural
areasD
2.
has +een modi,ied +! the .&&2 re,orm as the rural development :as
central to the :ording o, the o+5ective concerned and the 1+5ective /(a) pointed
out to the :a! ho: the o+5ective :ould +e achieved :ithin the conte=t o, the
re,ormed Common Agricultural 0olic! (CA0)@ including the promotion o, the
modernisation and structural ad5ustment o, the ,isheries sector@ according to the
.&&2 re,orm. esides@ the .&&2 re,orm came up :ith the 1+5ective 4 :hich :as
,ormulated to ensure the Cdevelopment and structural ad5ustment o, regions :ith
an e=tremel! lo: population densit!D.
2"
ecause the .&&2 re,orm added one more
o+5ective to the e=isting o+5ectives and@ seemingl!@ it :as not aiming at the
concentration as the direction o, the .&&& re,orm ,ollo:ed +! the "##4 re,orm
:as o+viousl! to:ards the concentration.
*he .&&& re,orm that reduced the num+er o, the o+5ectives ,rom si= to three :as
,ocused on the concentration as the ne: o+5ective " :as ,ormulated in order to
support the Ceconomic and social conversion o, areas ,acing structural
2#
EConsolidation and (ou+ling the E,,ort@F Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+
Investing in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4 (?une "##$)) ./.
2.
2"
EConsolidation and (ou+ling the E,,ort@F Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+
Investing in Europe,s !uture ed. 'aphael 8oulet "4 (?une "##$)) ./.
.&
di,,icultiesD
22
and o+5ective 2 :as in order to support Cthe adaptation and
modernisation o, policies and s!stems o, education@ training and emplo!mentD
2-
:hile the o+5ective . :as not e=posed to a su+stantial trans,ormation.
2., The Reforms of the European Cohesion Policy
2.,.1 The 1% reform of Cohesion Policy
Ahether the regulations made +! .&&2 re,orm :ere in ,avour o, the
supranational@ national or su+national level is also interpreted +! the state%centric
and multi%level perspectives di,,erentl!@ that is to sa!@ the construction and
implications o, the re,orm is also contentious. For e=ample@ Ian ache assumes
that EAs :ith .&$$@ prior intergovernmental +argains set the conte=t ,or .&&2
re,ormF
2/
*here,ore@ an overvie: o, the opposite opinions is necessar! to assess
the e,,ects o, the re,orm properl!.
0ollac> de,ended that the .&&2 re,orm paved the :a! ,or the national
governments to reta>e :hat the! had to give to the supranational institutions and
the su+national actors as the re,orm ena+led them to dominate the implementation
stage o, cohesion polic!
24
in :hich multi%level governance is prominent as
assumed +! Mar>s and Hooghe.
26
For instance@ the national governments
increased their in,luence and decision%ma>ing po:er in the identi,ication o, the
eligi+le regions ,or the 1+5ective " and /+ and over the Communit! initiatives.
2$
esides@ the national governments have +een a+le to e=ploit the principle o,
additionalit!@ ta>ing advantage o, the :ording o, the related article :hich
,avoured them. *here,ore the tight control o, the added value :hich should +e
22
EMa>ing Enlargement a Success@F p. .&.
2-
EMa>ing Enlargement a Success@F p. "#.
2/
ache@ he politics of European Union Regional Policy, Multi-level Governance or !le"i#le
Gatekeeping p. .2$.
24
Sutcli,,e@ E*he .&&& 'e,orm o, the Structural Fund 'egulations) Multi%7evel 8overnance or
'enationaliBation3@F p. "&$.
26
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. "-.
2$
'enationaliBation3@F p. "&$.
"#
imposed on the national governments :as rendered impotent as it :as esta+lished
to ma>e sure that the national governments cannot e=ploit the principle o,
solidarit!.
2&
*he .&&2 re,orm also ena+led the national governments to ma>e decisions on the
eligi+ilit! o, the regional and local actors :hich :ould +ene,it ,rom the principle
o, partnership.
-#
*here,ore i, the national governments are convinced that the
participation o, a regional actor might endanger their interests@ there is no
restriction on them that might ,orce them to allo: the actor concerned to ac<uire
the status CpartnerD. *hen@ the agreement o, the national governments is
compulsor! ,or the participation o, the certain actors :ithin the e=tent o, the
principle o, partnership.
?ohn . Sutcli,,e de,ends that EM@ the .&&2 regulations did not amend the
,undamental principles o, the regulations and did not@ there,ore@ result in a
complete renationaliBation o, the sector. Moreover@ the re,orms :ere not as
radical as some central governments advocated.F
-.
I, there is not a co$plete
renationaliBation@ the <uestion :hether the .&&2 re,orm led to a partial
renationaliBation comes to mind inevita+l!. Ho:ever the article o, Sutcli,,e sheds
light neither on this issue nor on the assessment o, the .&&& re,orm in terms o, the
degree o, renationaliBation.
Although the .&&2 re,orm o, cohesion polic! eroded the rather advantaged
position o, the regional and local actors that :ere granted +! the .&$$ re,orm@ it
made contri+ution to the principle o, partnership alongside the .&&& re,orm@
increasing the num+er o, the participants that eventuall! included man!
organiBations ranged ,rom the pu+lic and private organiBations such as the
companies and universities to the social partners li>e the trade unions.
-"

2&
'enationaliBation3@F p. "&&.
-#
-.
-"
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. $-.
".
2.,.2 The 1 Reform of Cohesion Policy
*he di,,erence +et:een the .&&& re,orm o, cohesion polic! and the previous
re,orms is that the .&&& re,orm :as conducted ta>ing into consideration the ne=t
enlargement :ave :hich :as greatest :ith the si= candidate countries during that
period.
-2
*he .&&& re,orm preserved and consolidated the principles o, solidarit!@
partnership@ additionalit! and programming alongside the principle o,
concentration :hich gained more importance +! reducing the num+er o, the
o+5ectives ,rom si= to three and the num+er o, the communit! initiatives ,rom
thirteen to ,our initiatives that :ere consisted o, I9*E''E8@ ;'A9@
7EA(E'@ EO;A7. *here,ore simpli,ication o, cohesion polic!Ds di,,erent stages
is a distinctive ,eature o, the .&&& re,orm.
--
*he proposals presented +! the Commission argua+l! re,lect the signi,icance o,
the role pla!ed +! the national governments during the .&&& re,orm. Although the
principle o, partnership remained as an essential element o, cohesion polic!@
Sutcli,,e sa!s that EAs in .&$$ and .&&2@ ho:ever@ the ne: regulations clearl!
state that the su+national partners are to +e selected +! the central governments.F
-/
It also rearranged the distri+ution o, the responsi+ilities among the European
Commission and the national and regional authorities as ?ohn . Sutcli,,e states
that EMthe Commission shall have a larger role in the setting o, the overall
priorities ,or the structural ,und assistance@ :hereas the central governments and
su+national partners should ta>e a larger role in the implementation and
monitoring o, the ,unds.F
-4
*here,ore the previousl! stronger role o, the
-2
'enationaliBation3@F p. 2#..
--
'enationaliBation3@F p. 2#".
-/
'enationaliBation3@F p. 2#2.
-4
""
Commission in the implementation and monitoring o, the ,unds :as :ea>ened +!
the .&&& re,orm in ,avour o, the central governments and su+national partners.
-6
In addition to the e=%ante and e=%post evaluations@ a mid%term evaluation is
created in order to scrutiniBe and con,irm the progress more ade<uatel!. Another
contri+ution o, the .&&& re,orm to the development o, cohesion polic! is the
esta+lishment o, the per,ormance reserve as the mem+er states :ould reserve the
,our per cent o, the ,unds the! o+tain ,or each o+5ective in order to a:ard the
success,ul regions in the practice o, the polic!.
-$
*he <uestion Sutcli,,e as>s C:hether the re,orms introduced in the .&&&
regulations represent evidence o, a renationaliBation o, the polic! sector@ or
:hether the! hold the potential ,or renationaliBation during the implementation
phase ,or :hich the! set the conte=tD
-&
is also crucial in terms o, the ,uture o,
cohesion polic!. I, the ans:er is C!esD it :ould +e necessar! to ,ind out :hether
the similar conditions o, the renationaliBation in the .&&& re,orm occur in the
designation o, the prospective re,orm. Ho:ever@ the ans:er o, Sutcli,,e is partly
CnoD as he de,ends that EEAc>no:ledging the importance o, the central
governments in the polic! sector does not@ ho:ever@ indicate that the polic! sector
has +een totall! renationaliBed ,or the "###%#4 period. *he ma5or principles set in
.&$$ remains in place@ al+eit in revised ,ormF
/#
I, cohesion polic! is not totally
renationaliBed@ it is necessar! to underline that there is a partial renationaliBation
according to him@ though he does not deal :ith the details regarding the evidence
and e=tent o, the renationaliBation e=cept the emphasis on the revision o, the
,undamental principles as :ell as the importance o, the central governments@ the
Commission and su+national actors :hich are the negotiators that ta>e place
around the round ta+le. Ho:ever his conclusion :ith the sentence that E*he .&&&
-6
'enationaliBation3@F p. 2#-.
-$
-&
/#
'enationaliBation3@F p. 2#/.
"2
re,orms have not renationaliBed the structural ,undsF
/.
is not consistent :ith his
statement related to the partial renationaliBation.
2.,.% The 2--, Reform of Cohesion Policy
*he +udget proposal o, the European Commission :hich :as pu+lished in "##-
:as designated in order to dra: a roadmap ,or the period o, "##6%"#.2. *he
European Council convened in russels in "##/ decided to provide the Structural
and Cohesion Funds :ith 2-6 +illion Euros and so%called CConvergenceD regions
:ould +e a+le to +ene,it ,rom the $../ N o, this amount.
/"
According to the
In,oregio 0anorama magaBine o, the E;@ C*he highest concentration ever o,
resources on the poorest Mem+er States and regions@ the inclusion o, all regions@
and a shi,t in priorities set to +oost gro:th@ 5o+s and innovation@ are essentiall! the
ma5or changes to E; Cohesion 0olic! during the current periodF :ithin the
conte=t o, the "##4 re,orm.
/2
*here,ore the concentration might +e escalated at
the e=pense o, the principle o, partnership a,ter the prospective re,orm as the
concentration o, the ,unding on some regions and social segments :hich en5o!
the support o, the polic! and lac>s the organiBational capa+ilities and capacities
argua+l! cannot e=ploit :ell%developed organiBational s>ills and satis,actor!
e=periences o, the developed regions su,,icientl!.
*he "##4 re,orm turned the 1+5ective . to convergence criteria :hich
speci,icall! re<uired the Cspeeding up the convergence o, the least%developed
Mem+er States and regions de,ined +! 8(0 per capital o, less than 6/ N o, the
E; averageD
/-
*he re,orm also com+ined the 1+5ective " and 1+5ective 2 o, the
.&&& re,orm under the C'egional Competitiveness and Emplo!mentD heading
:hich Ccovers all other E; regions :ith the aim o, strengthening regionsD
competitiveness and attractiveness as :ell as emplo!mentD.
//
esides@ the Interreg
/.
/"
EFocus on 8ro:th and ?o+s@F p. "".
/2
/-
EFocus on 8ro:th and ?o+s@F p. "2.
//
"-
initiative :as incorporated into the CEuropean *erritorial CooperationD :hich :as
designed to support the cross%+order@ transnational and interregional cooperation
and net:or>s +! the "##4 re,orm :hich Creduced the num+er o, ,inancial
instruments ,or cohesion ,rom si= to threeD as those :ould +e composed o, t:o
Structural Funds (E'(F@ ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.
/4
*he num+er o, the programming phases :as also reduced ,rom three to t:o
:hile the economic gro:th and emplo!ment :ould constitute the ,ocal point o,
the ne: programmes. *he operational programmes :ill +e lia+le ,or the
implementation o, the planning :hich :ill +e conducted +! the national
governments as the! are supposed to prepare the C9ational Strategic 'e,erence
Frame:or>sD according to the CCommunit! 8uidelines on CohesionD.
/6

*he national governments instead o, the supranational E; institutions :ere
authoriBed to ma>e decisions on the recipients o, the ,unding +! the "##4 and the
principle o, proportionalit! :ill +e applied more in order to Creduce +ureaucrac!
and the constraints imposed on smaller programmes.D
/$
*he cooperation +et:een the European Commission and European Investment
an> alongside the other ,inancial institutions :ill +e enhanced than>s to the
creation o, ?aspers@ ?eremie and ?essica@ the ne: polic! instruments developed +!
the "##4 re,orm so that capacit!%+uilding@ e,,ectiveness and e,,icienc! :ill +e
ensured in terms o, the availa+le ,unds :ithin the scope o, cohesion polic!.
/&

'egardless the countr! in :hich the! are situated@ the regional and local actors
o, the E; :ill +e a+le to esta+lish o,,iciall! recogniBed Ccooperation groupingsD
:hich are eligi+le to create cross%+order pro5ects.
4#
*hus@ the transnational
cooperation o, the su+national actors o+tained legal recognition as their
mo+iliBation is argua+l! promoted and strengthened.
/4
/6
EFocus on 8ro:th and ?o+s@F p. "-.
/$
/&
4#
"/
*he pre%accession countries and the Aestern al>an countries :hich might +e
eligi+le to o+tain the E; candidac! in the ,uture :ill +ene,it ,rom the support o,
the 0re%Accession Assistance (IS0A)@ a ne: instrument :hich is created to ensure
the regional development and cooperation and replaced the ,ormer instruments
that :ere lia+le ,or the pre%accession aid and support.
4.
*he convergence criteria o, the "##4 re,orm preserved the principle o, solidarit!
in ,avour o, the regions lagging +ehind :hich are composed o, the prior targets o,
cohesion polic!. *he re,orm also represents a redistri+ution o, the responsi+ilities
+et:een the supranational@ national and su+national authorities as the national
governments :ere assigned +! the "##4 re,orm to measure the eligi+ilit! o, the
actors :hich demand ,unding and to conduct the operational programmes at the
e=pense o, the supranational E; institutions.
4"
*he identi,ication o, the challenges is vital in shaping the priorities o, the polic!
,ield. *here,ore the content and direction o, the "##4 re,orm is also closel!
related to the challenges identi,ied previousl!. *he European ;nion :ill have to
ta>e up ,our challenges +et:een "##6 and "#.2 :ithin the scope o, the regional
and cohesion polic! according to the European ;nion 'egional 0olic! document.
Firstl!@ cohesion should +e increased in an enlarged ;nion as each enlargement
imposed a higher level o, +urden on the ;nion and added ne: o+stacles@
deepening the economic and social disparities and hardening the achievement o,
the current o+5ectives. *here,ore@ the e=tent o, the cohesion should also +e
:idened@ compl!ing :ith the altering conditions. Secondl!@ the ;nionDs priorities
should +e strengthened in accordance :ith the o+5ectives o, the 7is+on strateg!.
Ho:ever@ these priorities should +e incorporated into the national and regional
development programmes in order to progress through the o+5ectives concerned.
*hirdl!@ <ualit! to promote sustaina+le and more +alanced development should +e
improved and lastl!@ a ne: partnership ,or cohesion should +e created as to the
4.
EFocus on 8ro:th and ?o+s@F p. "/.
4"
EFocus on 8ro:th and ?o+s@F pp. ""%"-.
"4
re<uirement to strengthen the capacities o, the institutions at the European@
national and regional levels.
42
2.. Cohesion Policy' &uccess or "ailure(
Ahile the reluctance o, the mem+er states ,or the contri+ution to the E;
e=penditure and ,or the implementation o, the partnership and prevailing role o,
the Commission :ithin the scope o, cohesion polic! in addition to the pa!ments
that are re<uired +! the principle o, additionalit! is apparent@ the e=isting or
potential +udget de,icit along :ith the other reasons ma>es the empo:erment and
endorsement o, cohesion polic! even more di,,icult to cope :ith. Additionall!@
the mem+er states :hich have more need! regions are no longer capa+le o,
in,luencing the polic! as the! did previousl!@ +ecause the claim that the! :ould
not +e a+le to achieve competitiveness due to their e=posure to the side%e,,ects o,
the single mar>et could not preserve its strength and validit! a,ter the
esta+lishment o, the single mar>et.
4-
*hen it is :orth de+ating :hether the! could
succeed in terms o, the competitiveness to a considera+le e=tent in spite o, the
support o, cohesion polic! to ena+le them. *he cautious assessment o, the degree
o, the contri+ution that cohesion polic! made so ,ar has vital importance@ +ecause
it ma>es it possi+le to ascertain the de facto reason :h! the polic! is ,orced to
retreat. I, the polic! is considered to +e success,ul@ +earing in mind the
remar>a+le development o, the countries such as Ireland@ 0ortugal and Spain
along :ith the rising competitiveness or survival o, the +ac>:ard regions in spite
o, the single mar>et than>s to cohesion polic!@ :h! should it retreat3 Here it is
necessar! to remem+er :hat ?ac<ues (elors said) EMar>et ,orces are po:er,ul. I,
:e le,t things to their o:n devices@ industr! :ould +e concentrated in the north
and leisure pursuits in the southF
4/
so that the gap +et:een the regions and
coreGperipher!@ northGsouth and :estGeast cleavages :ould +e higher at the
e=pense o, cohesion as :ell as a competitive and d!namic econom! o+viousl!.
42
EAnd *omorro:3@F in Working for the Regions, European Union Regional Policy ed. 'aphael
8oulet (7u=em+ourg) European Communities@ "##-) pp. "4%"6.
4-
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#&.
4/
EFrom 0ro5ects to 0rogrammes@F p. &.
"6
*he principle o, su+sidiarit! re<uires that the issue at hand should +e resolved at
the most suita+le level ,or the achievement o, the polic! goals :hile the reasoning
o, the decision%ma>ers at the European level is +ased on the claim that the E; in
general and cohesion polic! in particular are necessar! +ecause a +etter treatment
o, the challenges that the national governments ,ace :ith can +e achieved at the
European level rather than the national level in a num+er o, the cases :ithin the
conte=t o, the man! polic! areas. *here,ore@ cohesion polic! alongside the other
European policies is e=posed to the critics o, and surveillance +! some o, the
national governments.
A large num+er o, the reasons ranged ,rom the use o, 8(0 :hich is argua+l! an
erroneous measure ,or cohesion polic! to the insu,,icient resources availa+le ,or
the ,unding o, the +ac>:ard regions in order to 5usti,! the claim that the gap
+et:een the poorer and richer regions still e=ists and is even :ider no:.
44
*he
contri+ution made through the principle o, partnership to the development o, the
regions lagging +ehind and to the mo+iliBation o, the regional and local actors and
the signi,icance o, this mo+iliBation are e=posed to the condemnation +! man!
actors ranged ,rom the neoli+erals to the national governments :hich argue that it
has not an ade<uatel! strong de,ence mechanism against the pressure o,
corruption and clientelism and the implementation o, partnership re<uires
e=cessive e,,ort to ensure the e,,icienc! and e,,ectiveness o, the conse<uences
and the participation o, regional and local actors as :ell as the privateGpu+lic and
social actors
46
@ although the principle o, partnership is designed to ensure the
e,,icient redistri+ution o, the limited resources apart ,rom another ,undamental
goal o, it to 5oin the regional and local actors into the game in accordance :ith the
aim to esta+lish and consolidate a multi%level governance s!stem. Ho:ever
Hooghe and Mar>s state that E0artnership has :or>ed least e,,ectivel! in the
poorer southern regions on account o, incompetent or under%resourced local
administration and clientelism.F
4$
Ian ache also underlines that the
44
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..#.
46
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..#.
4$
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..-.
"$
implementation o, partnership depends on :hether the mem+er state concerned is
centraliBed or decentraliBed. Ahile the su+national actors :ere mo+iliBed in the
centraliBed stated@ though the! :ere Cnot necessaril! empo:eredD@ those in the
decentraliBed states :ere capa+le o, e=ploiting the principle o, partnership.
4&
*here,ore the implementation o, partnership in terms o, the e,,icienc! and
e,,ectiveness much depends on the northGsouth@ :estGeast cleavages as :ell as the
centraliBedGdecentraliBed and coreGperipher! distinctions apart ,rom the
per,ormance o, the regional and local actors to achieve the o+5ectives o, the
polic!.
6#
*he >e! <uestion is :hether the ne: challenges that the E; needs to ta>e
up :ill maintain or deepen these distinctions and the regional disparities.

*he disparities among the regions o, the ;nion argua+l! cause the ,ormation o,
an o+stacle preventing it ,rom ma>ing good use o, the potential and resources.
Mar>s and Hooghe as> that EHo: can one de,end spending some hundreds o,
+illions o, euros on a polic! that ,ails to meet its polic! o+5ective3@F reminding
that the o+5ective to alleviate the disparities could not ma>e a considera+le
di,,erence as the more prosperous regions o, the +ac>:ard countries continued to
get stronger economicall! :hile@ apparentl!@ the regions lagging +ehind did not
+ene,it ,rom cohesion polic! to a :ider e=tent as e=pected +! the polic!%ma>ers.
6.
Ho:ever@ aun de,ends that EE; regional polic! appears to have +een e,,ective
in achieving its primar! goal o, promoting economic convergence. According to a
Commission stud!@ ,rom .&$4%.&&4 the per capita 8(0 o, the E;Ds ten poorest
regions increased ,rom -. per cent o, the E; average to /# per cent.F
6"
He also
reminds that E*he CommissionDs ESecond 'eport on Economic and Social
Cohesion@F issued in ?anuar! "##.@ con,irmed this convergence trend and the
positive contri+ution o, E; structural polic!.F
62
*here,ore the de+ate on the
success and ,ailure o, cohesion polic! is also contentious. At this point@ it seems
4&
Ian ache@ he politics of European Union Regional Policy, Multi-level Governance or !le"i#le
Gatekeeping (She,,ield) She,,ield Academic 0ress@ .&&$)@ p..#2.
6#
Commission o, the European Communities@ 'egions "#"#@ EAn Assessment o, Future
Challenges ,or E; 'egions@F %o$$ission 0taff Working 1ocu$ent (9ovem+er "##$)) -.
6.
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..2.
6"
Michael aun@ EE; 'egional 0olic! and the Candidate States) 0oland and the CBech 'epu+lic@F
European Integration "-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) "4".
62
aun@ EE; 'egional 0olic! and the Candidate States) 0oland and the CBech 'epu+lic@F p."42.
"&
to +e suita+le to o,,er that the assessment should uncover +oth the :ea> and
strong points o, the polic!@ rather than conceiving it to +e an entire success or
,ailure.
*he point 0hilip 7o:e deals :ith is also help,ul to enlighten the de+ate on the
regional development) EAhich contri+uted also to another e,,ect :hich 8rigoris
Kar,is >ept e=plaining to me) C(o not ,orget that :e are not dealing :ith the
:ea>est countries and regions. Ae are dealing :ith the :ea>est
administrations.DF
6-
*he +ac>:ard regions are also considera+l! :ea> in terms o,
their institutional structure. aile! and (e 0ropris con,irm this idea a+out the
:ea>est administrations +! stating that E*he poorest regions :ere also those :ith
the :ea>est regional institutions and@ there,ore@ those less capa+le o, accessing
and +ene,iting ,rom the Structural Funds.F
6/
*here,ore the ,ailed and
underdeveloped administrations in the poorer regions need to +uild the institutions
:hich might ma>e it ,easi+le to ma=imiBe the +ene,it the! derive ,rom or to ma>e
+etter use o, the ,unds availa+le ,or them at least. 1ther:ise the ,unding
guarantees neither the added value nor e,,icienc! nor e,,ectiveness. Economic
convergence and regional development are paralleled to regional participation and
institution +uilding
64
:hich are also the ,undamental o+ligations that the candidate
states must ,ul,ill in order to o+tain E; mem+ership and +ene,it ,rom the ,unds
66
as sho:n +! aile! and (e 0ropris. Ho:ever@ it is controversial i, these
o+ligations along :ith the other hierarchical regulations set ,orth +! the
Commission and the incentives provided to promote the institution +uilding and
an enhancement or creating o, the institutional capa+ilit! are su,,icient ,or the
achievement o, the polic!Ds o+5ectives.
6$
*here,ore@ a +ottom%up approach to:ards
the institution +uilding is !et to +e ela+orated.
6-
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. 2..
6/
(avid aile! and 7isa (e 0ropris@ EE; Structural Funds@ 'egional Capa+ilities and
Enlargement) *o:ards Multi%7evel 8overnance3@F European Integration "-) - (?ul! "##")) 2.$
64
aile! and (e 0ropris@ EE; Structural Funds@ 'egional Capa+ilities and Enlargement) *o:ards
Multi%7evel 8overnance3@F p.2#6
66
Multi%7evel 8overnance3@F p.2.6
6$
Multi%7evel 8overnance3@Fp.2.$
2#
%. /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance and Cohesion Policy
%.1 /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance
%.1.1 2o$ernance
An appropriate de,inition o, the term CgovernanceD is necessar! in order to reach
a +etter understanding o, Cmulti%level governanceD o, :hich de,inition is supposed
to +e closel! related to the de,inition o, CgovernanceD.
*here are ,undamentall! di,,erent de,initions suggested +! the scholars as
8overnance means C+inding decision ma>ing in the pu+lic sphereD according to
8ar! Mar>s and 7ies+et HoogheD
6&
@ :hile Colin Scott de,ends that E8overnance
is@ in essence@ a+out control and the technologies +! :hich control is achieved.F
$#
Ahile the ,irst de,inition is su,,icientl! ,le=i+le and accessi+le to allo: the
participation o, regional and local actors in the decision%ma>ing@ the latter
assumes that the su+national actors are those over :hich the control o, the higher
authorities :ill +e overriding.
Although@ it also deals :ith the <uestion o, control@ the de,inition suggested +!
Iohler%Ioch seems to +e more e=tensive Econtinuous political process o, setting
e=plicit goals ,or societ!@ o, providing incentives and sanctions ,or their
achievement PandQ o, monitoring and controlling compliance.F
$.
I, one ta>es into
consideration the polic!%ma>ing@ implementation and monitoring phases along
:ith the incentives and sanctions to achieve the o+5ectives in the E;@ this
6&
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ EContrasting Kisions o, Multi%7evel 8overnanceF in Multi-
Level Governance ed. Ian ache and Matthe: Flinders (1=,ord) 1=,ord ;niversit! 0ress@ "##-)@
p. ./.
$#
Colin Scott@ E*he 8overnance o, the European ;nion) *he 0otential ,or Multi%7evel Control@F
European La2 /ournal $) . (March "##")) 42.
$.
*homas ConBelmann@ EA 9e: Mode o, 8overning3 Multi%7evel 8overnance +et:een Co%
operation and Con,lictF in Multi-Level Governance in the European Union+ aking 0tock and
Looking 3head ed. *homas ConBelmann and 'andall Smith (aden%aden) 9omos@ "##$)@ p. .$
2.
de,inition is argua+l! su,,icientl! comprehensive to contain those phases
concerned :ithin the conte=t o, cohesion polic! in particular.
Colin Scott argues that E*he Commission ta>es governance to +e Crules@
processes and +ehaviour that a,,ect the :a! in :hich po:ers are e=ercised at
European level@ particularl! as regards openness@ participation@ accounta+ilit!@
e,,ectiveness and coherenceDF
$"
as he re,ers to the Ahite 0aper on European
8overnance prepared and pu+lished +! the European Commission in "###. *he
model o, governance ela+orated in the Ahite 0aper concerned is argua+l! in
contrast to the model o, governance o,,ered +! the polic!%net:or>s literature
C:hich emphasiBes Csel,%organiBing@ inter%organiBational net:or>sD characteriBed
+! interdependence +et:een organiBations (+oth state and non%state)@ a pattern o,
interactions :ithin net:or>s@ o+servation o, Crules o, the gameD negotiated
+et:een the actors@ and a degree o, autonom! ,rom the stateF.
$2
Even i, the vie:
o, the Commission is +ased on the control and po:er e=ercised +! it rather than
the gro:ing participation o, the regional and local actors in the E; decision%
ma>ing and implementation alongside the interaction o, the supranational E;
institutions including the Commission :ith the national and su+national
authorities@ it does not re,ute the claim o, the multi%level governance and the
polic!%net:or>s literature that the su+national actors and the gro:ing cooperation
+et:een them should +e ta>en into account in order to illustrate the contemporar!
state o, relations and emerging structures in the E; ade<uatel!.
%.1.2 Origins of /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance
*he de+ate on the sophisticated and multi,aceted institutional structure and
competencies o, the institutions@ mem+er states and the su+national regional and
local authorities in the European ;nion is e=tremel! controversial as to the
theories and approaches tr!ing to e=plain and interpret the evolving structure o,
the ;nion are generall! situated at entirel! distinct points o, the de+ate o, the
$"
Scott@ E*he 8overnance o, the European ;nion) *he 0otential ,or Multi%7evel Control@F p.4.
$2
Scott@ E*he 8overnance o, the European ;nion) *he 0otential ,or Multi%7evel Control@F p.4.
2"
scholars ,rom di,,erent disciplines that ranged ,rom the International 'elations to
the European Studies and practitioners :ho act at di,,erent levels o, the ;nion.
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s categoriBed these attempts to conceptualiBe the
structure o, the ;nion as the! divided them into t:o parts. Ahile the anal!sts that
+elong to the ,irst categor! stretch the e=isting theories@ those that +elong to the
second categor! pre,erred creating ne: approaches and Centirel! ne: conceptsD.
$-
For e=ample@ although the! :ere a:are o, the ,act that the Communit! had man!
dissimilar ,eatures as :ell as the similarities :ith the ,ederal entities@ scholars o,
,ederalism@ :ho are included in the ,irst categor!@ utilised the ,ederalist theor! in
order to e=plain the allocation o, po:ers in the E; and to predict the shape it
might ta>e in the ,uture through its evolution@ >eeping in mind the de+ate on Cthe
,inalit! o, the ;nionD. *he ,ederalists also participated in the construction o, the
;nion@ tr!ing to in,luence the direction o, it apart ,rom the attempts to interpret
and predict. E*he ,ederal state@ ho:ever@ remains a state and there are limits to the
use,ulness o, this ,rame:or> o, ,ederalism in relation to a non%state entit! li>e the
E;F according to 9ic> ernard.
$/

*he concept Cmulti%level governanceD that emerged in the European ;nion
Studies is the most in,luential :ell%>no:n e=ample ,or the second categor!.
Mar>s and Hooghe state that EMulti%level governance initiall! descri+ed Ea
s!stem o, continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial
tiers R supranational@ national@ regional and localF that :as distinctive o,
European ;nion structural polic!M@ +ut the term is no: applied to the European
;nion more generall!F
$4
although the! eventuall! suggested that Epolitical arenas
are interconnected rather than nestedF
$6
as the regional and local pla!ers act
through the channels crossing across the su+national@ national and supranational
$-
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ E;nraveling the Central State@ +ut Ho:3 *!pes o, Multi%
7evel 8overnanceF 3$erican Political 0cience Revie2 &6) " (Ma! "##2)) "2-.
$/
9ic> ernard@ Multi-Level Governance in the European Union (*he Hague) Ilu:er 7a:
International@ "##")@ p.2.
$4
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ E;nraveling the Central State@ +ut Ho:3 *!pes o, Multi%7evel
8overnanceF@ p."2-.
$6
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (7anham)
'o:man H 7ittle,ield 0u+lishers@ "##.)@ p. /.
22
levels :ithout the re<uirement to ac<uire the consent o, the national authorities.
*he >e! point here is that the structural polic! is considered to +e at the centre o,
the description o, the given concept@ :hile another signi,icant point re,ers to the
territorialit! in the classi,ication o, the tiers along :ith the CnestedD structure o,
the governments.
8ar! Mar>s invented the concept Cmulti%level governanceD in .&&2 in order to
anal!se the novel structure o, the E; a,ter the emergence and development o, the
European Cohesion 0olic! as such. Ho:ever the concept is originated in his
statement :hich dates +ac> to .&&" as he re,erred to Ca comple=@ multila!ered@
decision%ma>ing process stretching +eneath the state as :ell as a+ove itD. Stephen
8orge indicates that EAt this stage Mar>s thought that there :as Clittle reason to
+elieve that the e=perience o, structural polic! :ill +e replicated in other polic!
areas in the ECDF Eventuall! Mar>s applied it to the other polic! ,ields as
paralleled to the development o, cohesion polic! and continuousl! utiliBed and
improved the concept in order to create an alternative model apart ,rom the
neo,unctionalist and intergovernmentalist perspectives.
$$
Ahile the ,ormer :as
+ased on the concept o, ,unctional spillover to:ards the step%+!%step :ithdra:al
o, the central governments
$&
as CMonnet approachD re<uired@ the
intergovernmental +argaining :as prevalent in the E; according to the latter.
Simona 0iattoni de,ends that EMthe simultaneous activation o, all three
developments R centre%peripher!@ domestic%,oreign and state%societ! d!namics R
is at the core o, multi%level governance theoriBationF
&#
:hile Ian ache de,ends
that EAt the core o, the multi%level governance is the argument that collective
decision%ma>ing and the independent role o, supranational institutions are eroding
the sovereignt! o, national governments in Europe.F
&.
Ahile the categoriBation o,
$$
Stephen 8orge@ EMulti%7evel 8overnance and the European ;nionF in Multi-Level Governance
ed. Ian ache and Matthe: Flinders@ (1=,ord) 1=,ord ;niversit! 0ress@ "##-)@ p..#4.
$&
8orge@ EMulti%7evel 8overnance and the European ;nion@F p..#$.
&#
Simona 0iattoni@ EMulti%7evel 8overnance) A Historical and Conceptual Anal!sis@F European
Integration 2.) " (March "##&)).6-.
&.
Ian ache@ he politics of European Union Regional Policy, Multi-Level Governance or
!le"i#le Gatekeeping (She,,ield) She,,ield Academic 0ress@ .&&$)@ p. "".
2-
0iattoni is apparentl! use,ul@ the vie: o, ache does not contain the intrinsic
element o, the multi%level governance theor!) su+national actors. Although he
deals :ith the role o, the su+national actors :ithin the conte=t o, the multi%level
governance s!stem in his :or>@ he does not attri+ute to them a decisive po:er as
assumed +! Mar>s and Hooghe.

%.1.% The Essential Assumptions of /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance
*he essential assumptions o, multi%level governance might +e summariBed as
,ollo:s)
Shared authorit! and polic!%ma>ing in,luence across multiple levels o,
government as su+national@ national and supranational
European integration as a polit!%creating process
9ational governments as ,ormida+le in E; polic! ma>ing
Control slipped a:a! ,rom the national governments to supranational
institutions.
StatesD loss o, some o, their ,ormer authoritative control over individuals
in their respective territories
Changed locus o, political control
&"
Hooghe and Mar>s argue that their assumptions re,lect a clear standpoint
contrasting :ith the state%centric interpretation o, the European Integration :hich
de,ends that E; is controlled +! and strengthening the sovereignt! o, the states as
the supranational E; institutions serve to the interests o, the states@ depending on
the conse<uences o, intergovernmental negotiations and the aspirations o, them.
*he trans,ormation mar>ed +! a num+er o, ma5or incidents such as the
achievement o, the goal to ,orm a single mar>et in .&&2@ the construction o, the
EM; and the creation o, Euro and the gradual empo:erment o, the supranational
&"
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p.".
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p."
2/
European institutions and the su+national regional and local actors re<uire a novel
conceptualiBation o, the European integration.
&2
%.1.) /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance' #estination of the European
Community since the Creation of Cohesion Policy(
Mar>s and Hooghe argue that EAhile the Commission did not use the term
Emulti%levelF governance to descri+e the .&$$ re,orms@ multi%level governance
:as indeed the goal.F Ho:ever 0hilip 7o:e@ :ho Ehas +een (irector%8eneral o,
(8 Competition since "##" and :as Head o, Ca+inet o, ruce Millan@ the then
Commissioner ,or 'egional 0olic! +et:een .&$& and .&&.@F states that the
Commission tas> ,orce +et:een .&6& and .&$. E:as not thin>ing so much a+out
the grand principles o, Cohesion 0olic! such as solidarit! +ut ho: the e,,icienc!
and e,,ectiveness o, Communit! interventions could +e improved through an
Cintegrated approachD :hich :ould put the di,,erent structural instruments
(E'(F@ ESF@ EI loans@ etc.) at the service o, regional or national o+5ectivesMF
until E+oth the concepts o, e,,icienc! and cohesion :ere then advanced +!
?ac<ues (elors as o, .&$/ and the! ena+led him to dominate the de+ate a+out a
ne: vision ,or Europe.F
&-
esides@ ache states that E! the time o, the .&$$
re,orm@ there :as a general agreement among academic commentators that
national governments dominated the EC regional polic! process.F
&/
*here,ore@ the
emerging Cne: visionD :as argua+l! +ased on the su+stance o, the multi%level
governance s!stem in line :ith the principles o, solidarit! and partnership@
ensuring the colla+oration o, the pu+lic and private actors at the levels concerned
in the E; and creating so%called channels in addition to the participation o, the
su+national and supranational actors into the game. ?ust a,ter a decade :hich
,ollo:ed the historical +rea>through o, the .&$$ re,orm :hich deepl! concerns
the :hole structure o, the E; rather than 5ust a single polic! area@ the ne:
challenges started to emerge as cohesion polic! has +een e=posed to the
&2
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p."
&-
EA (e+ate et:een 1,,icials o, the European Commission@ 7oo>ing ac> to .&$$@F p. "6.
&/
Gatekeeping@ p. .26.
24
condemnation and attempts to restructure it in a :a! that opposed to the
,undamental principles o, it in compliance to the neoli+eral prespective.
%.2 Issue of 1egitimation' Efficiency and Effecti$eness $s.
#emocracy and Partnership
*he gro:ing num+er o, the o,,icials dealing :ith the multi%level governance
a,,irmativel! in the E; institutions is an indicator o, the increasing strength o, the
concept as Mar>s and Hooghe also state that Ethe concept o, multi%level
governance@ :hich :as ,irst developed +! academic scholars to e=plain cohesion
polic!@ has no: +een ta>en up +! the Commission to descri+e its o:n
achievements.F
&4
For e=ample@ (anuta HS+ner e=pressed that E*he most
important asset@ as I +elieve@ is the s!stem o, multi%level governance@ +ased on
accounta+ilit! and partnership. *his s!stem :hich@ on one hand@ ,osters economic
e,,icienc! and development through co%operation +et:een the European@ national
and regional levels@ on the other@ ,irml! anchors the polic! in the ;nionDs
territories and hearts o, its citiBensF
&6
at the -
th
Cohesion Forum in russels in
"##6.
*he >e! concepts uttered +! HS+ner in her speech at the -
th
Cohesion Forum to
demonstrate the core o, the s!stem o, multi%level governance are Caccounta+ilit!D
and CpartnershipD@ :hereas the origin o, the latter is criticiBed +! 9ic> ernard
:ho de,ends that EIt ma! :ell +e that the original raison d,.tre o, partnership
o:es less to a concern a+out democrac! and citiBen participation per se and more
to a concern a+out the e,,icient use o, the Funds.F
&$
Ho:ever the claim o, ernard
is +ased on the continuit! o, the un+alanced situation in the E; in terms o, the
practice o, partnership. *heoreticall!@ partnership is not consisted o, output
legitimation and contains the input legitimation as :ell@ :hereas the output
legitimation out:eighs the input legitimation practicall!. esides@ the purpose o,
the polic! and e=tent o, the principle o, partnership also re<uires the gro:ing
&4
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. $4.
&6
&$
ernard@ Multi-Level Governance in the European Union@ p. ..".
26
num+er o, participants. ernard suita+l! suggests that E*he pro+lem ,or the E;@
ho:ever@ is that it can hardl! rel! on output legitimation alone@ not least +ecause@
in a pluralistic democratic societ!@ :hat constitutes the outcome@ the Cpu+lic
goodD@ is determined +! the input@ through the participation o, citiBens in the
decision%ma>ing process.F
&&
So@ the actors and instruments re<uired should +e
identi,ied and activated in order to achieve the input legitimation as :ell as the
e,,icienc! and e,,ectiveness@ as the ,ocus o, the polic! is on the regional and local
actors along :ith the individuals :ithin the scope o, the civil societ!.
I, *ie+outDs suggestion that competition among multiple local 5urisdictions leads
to more e,,icient provision o, local pu+lic services
.##
is accurate@ then the priorit!
o, the re,orm concerned should +e the promotion o, the competition +et:een the
local 5urisdictions. Ho:ever@ consolidationists de,end that reduction in the
num+er o, the municipalities@ merging o, the multiple local 5urisdictions :ould +e
more e,,icient and e,,ective as a +etter allocation o, the resources is ensured.
*here,ore@ the practical conse<uences o, the academic de+ate on the num+er o,
and relationship +et:een the 5urisdictions should +e o+served in order to ascertain
:hat are the more appropriate o+5ectives to ensure the elimination o, the
disparities and more developed methods and instruments to achieve the o+5ectives
concerned ,or the re,orm o, cohesion polic!.
%.% Implementation of Partnership' #i$ergence $s. Con$ergence
Ian ache emphasiBes that EMpartnership in principle applied e<uall! to all
Mem+er States@ :hereas partnership in practice :as implemented unevenl!.F
.#.
*he uneven implementation o, partnership is in contrast to the o+5ectives o,
cohesion polic! :hich aims at the participation o, the poorest regions and
disadvantaged societal segments as :ell@ +ecause partnership as such re<uires
rather even practice o, it. Ailliam M. (o:ns suggest that EFinall!@ regionalism is
&&
ernard@ Multi-Level Governance in the European Union@ p. 6.
.##
7ies+et Hooghe and 8ar! Mar>s@ E;nraveling the Central State@ +ut Ho:3 *!pes o, Multi%
7evel 8overnanceF p. "2/.
.#.
Gatekeeping@ p. &&.
2$
partiall! a ,unction o, the capacit! o, regional institutions (legislatures and
e=ecutives) to respond to the opportunities o, European integration +! see>ing to
internall! secure democratic gains +! :a! o, decentralisation and to e=ternall!
secure pro,it and prominence through representation in E;%level institutions.F
.#"
*here,ore@ the demand o, the regions to have their sa! in the decision%ma>ing
process is also re<uired in order to activate and ma>e a +etter use o, their
potential. Ho:ever@ the degree o, demand@ participation and development in terms
o, the multi%level governance in the E; varies ,rom a region to one another ver!
highl! as a sign o, e=cessive divergence so that the <uestion that is the aim o,
cohesion polic! to ensure convergence@ eradicating the disparities realistic is
under discussion. 1n the other hand@ it seems to +e suita+le to assume that the gap
+et:een the poorest and richest regions :ould +e much deeper in the single
mar>et :ithout cohesion polic! unless an alternative :a! o, regional development
is discovered.
%.) Alliance of &ubnational and &upranational Actors $s.
Central 2o$ernments
%.).1 &upranational Actors $s. 3ational 2o$ernments
*he role o, the supranational E; institutions in the decision and polic!%ma>ing
process :as eventuall! rein,orced +! the su+se<uent re,orms :hich also involve
the signi,icance o, cohesion polic! as paralleled to the considera+le development
o, the regional and local actors. (espite the state%centristsD core assumption is that
the intergovernmentalist +argaining and the interest o, the states the determining
the lo: common denominator at all levels o, the European ;nion that also
include the European institutions :hich covers the central role o, the mem+er
states@ the Commission e=pands its range o, competences regarding the pro5ects
and proposals prepared +! it and its in,luence in the monitoring and
implementation process along :ith the ma5orit!%voting in the Council o,
.#"
Ailliam M. (o:ns@ E'egionalism in the European ;nion@F European Integration "-) 2
(9ovem+er "##.)) .6".
2&
Ministers is recogniBed in the increasing num+er o, polic! ,ields that include
cohesion polic! as :ell. Mar>s and Hooghe e=press the ,act that E*he po:er o,
the E0 in the European political process has gro:n +! leaps and +ounds over the
past t:ent! !ears@ and collective national control o, decision ma>ing has declined
as a result.F
.#2
*he Commission and the national courts are the partners o, the European Court
o, ?ustice (EC?) in the trans,ormation o, the E; la: to:ards a supranational
structure through the implementation o, the principles o, supremac! and direct
e,,ect@ gaining the legitimac! in the mem+er states and eventuall! penetrating into
the national la: as it leads to the ,lourishing o, the multi%level governance
s!stem@ according to Mar>s and Hooghe.
.#-
*he disparities +et:een the regions in the E; alongside the practice o, cohesion
polic! all across the European ;nion provide a clue regarding the uneven
structure o, the multi%level governance s!stem in accordance :ith the division o,
the tas>s@ arenas and the so%called levels that are consisted o, the su+national@
national and supranational actors. Cohesion polic! is Europe%:ide in the e!es o,
Hooghe and Mar>s :ho emphasiBe that the designation and ,inance o, it is
conducted +! the mem+er states and the European Commission at the European
level. *he stages o, the polic! ranged ,rom the construction to the implementation
di,,er@ depending on the territor! to a large e=tent.
.#/
*here,ore@ the evaluation o,
the contri+ution made +! and the relation +et:een the supranational@ national@
regional and local actors at the di,,erent stages o, the polic! has vital importance
in order to comprehend the degree o, the multi%level interaction.
*he national governments that are accompanied +! the Commission decide on
the allocation o, the resources +e,ore o+5ectives o, cohesion polic! are determined
as the negotiations +et:een them in order to ascertain the share o, each countr!
are o+viousl! dominant at this stage o, the polic!%ma>ing. *he negotiations on the
.#2
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. 4.
.#-
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. "6.
.#/
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. &2.
-#
content o, the Communit! Support Frame:or>s related to the multi%annual
programmes also correspond to the turning points o, cohesion polic! in .&$$@
.&&2 and .&&& respectivel! :hich are mar>ed +! the re,orms.
.#4
E'egulation
"#$"G&2GEEC stipulated in its pream+le that implementation o, assistance
contained in Communit! support ,rame:or>s should +e primaril! the
responsi+ilit! o, the Mem+er StatesF according to 9ic> ernard.
.#6
Since then
some o, the disadvantaged regions :hich +ene,ited ,rom cohesion polic! to a
large e=tent have +een a+le to catch up :ith the more developed regions so that
the re%planning o, the distri+ution o, the ,inancial support re<uires multi%annual
programmes in compliance to the trans,ormation and development. A,ter the
mem+er states decide on the +udgetar! distri+ution@ the Commission commences
to pla! the ma5or role in terms o, the resolution on and accomplishment o, the
o+5ectives@ although it is sometimes limited +! the national governments such as
the ritish@ French@ 8erman and Spanish governments :hich attempted to the
renationaliBation and recentraliBation o, cohesion polic! in .&&2 and achieved it
to a less e=tent at the e=pense o, the po:er o, the Commission in the designation
o, the institutions as e=plained a+ove.
.#$
*he participation o, the su+national
pla!ers as :ell as the supranational and national pla!ers is re<uired at the
structural programming stage o, cohesion polic!@ although the role o, the di,,erent
pla!ers gain more importance than the others at the di,,erent phases@ depending
on the characteristics o, the each territor! and countr!.
%.).2 Regions $s. 3ational 2o$ernments
Ailliam M. (o:ns assumes that E*he cru= o, the regional phenomenon lies in
the strategic dilemmas ,aced +! constitutional regions and other meso%level
authorities over ho: to +roaden their scope ,or autonomous action@ ho: to
enhance their a+ilit! to act as entrepreneurs@ and ho: to increase the possi+ilities
o, adapting supranational policies to local conditionsF
.#&
in the conte=t o, the
.#4
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. &-.
.#6
ernard@ Multi-Level Governance in the European Union@ p. ."".
.#$
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. &4.
.#&
Ailliam M. (o:ns@ E'egionalism in the European ;nion@F European Integration "-) 2
(9ovem+er "##.)) .6".
-.
European integration. *his assumption is +ased on some premises such as the
regions in the E; are capa+le o, having direct communication :ith the
supranational institutions through the channels the! have even to the e=tent that
the! can in,luence them more or less. Another premise :ould +e the regions
alread! act autonomousl!@ although it does not mean the! ac<uire the status o,
autonom!. *here,ore@ the! are supposed to represent their o:n interests rather
than the interest o, the central%state that the! +elong to over a num+er o, issues in
the related plat,orms. It triggers a <uestion that ho: :ould the re,orm concerned
have an impact on the C+alance o, po:erD in case there is a con,rontation +et:een
the interests o, the central%state and those o, the regions. *here are man! ,actors
that shape the ,lo: o, the events during the re,orm%ma>ing process so that the
actors :hich participate in the negotiations and more or less include the regional
authorities are supposed to de,end their o:n interests as :ell as the interest o, the
Communit!@ interpreting the common good and interests through the e!es o, the
their o:n institution.
%.).% Empo4erment of &ubnational Actors
Hendri> Kos@ *ine ouc> and Carl (evos state that Ein order to de,end and
e=tend their position in the E; multi%level governance s!stem and in order to
realiBe their potential added value@ regions need to +e ac>no:ledged as ,ull upper%
level pla!ersF
..#
in their :or> in :hich the! propose that regions are respectivel!
Cagents o, e,,icienc!@ :atchdogs o, E; polic!@ guardians o, cultural diversit!@
commercial cultivators and agents o, democratiBationD
...
at last as the Craison
d,.tre o, the regions in the European multi%level structure.D
.."
*he role o, the
regional actors at the European level can gain more importance through the
re,orm o, regional polic! or through a +etter implementation o, the e=isting
policies :hich is also in ,avour o, the participation o, the regions as the principles
..#
Hendri> Kos@ *ine ouc> and Carl (evos@ E*he %onditio %ine 4ua 5on o, the Added Kalue
o, 'egions in the E;) ;pper%7evel 'epresentation as the Fundamental Condition@F European
Integration "-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) "#/.
...
Kos@ ouc> and (evos@ E*he %onditio %ine 4ua 5on o, the Added Kalue o, 'egions in the
E;) ;pper%7evel 'epresentation as the Fundamental Condition@F pp. "#4%"#$.
.."
Kos@ ouc> and (evos@ E*he %onditio %ine 4ua 5on o, the Added Kalue o, 'egions in the
E;) ;pper%7evel 'epresentation as the Fundamental Condition@F p. "#6.
-"
o, su+sidiarit!@ partnership and solidarit! actuall! la!s the legal +asis that might
+e su,,icient to activate the regions. Ho:ever@ some o, the regional and local
actors also lac> the essential ,eatures such as the :illingness@ capacities and
capa+ilities to participate as the aim o, cohesion polic! :hich is to alleviate the
disparities in a multi%level governance s!stem through the dispersion o, authorit!
across the multiple accession points contain some elements that might constitute a
+arrier themselves +e,ore the achievement o, the o+5ectives o, the polic!. esides@
it is under discussion :hether the multiple accession points to the decision%
ma>ing mechanism in the E; institutional architecture can induce to overlapping
5urisdictions :hich can lead to a deadloc> +! Cthe 5oint%decision trapD at the
polic!%ma>ing@ monitoring and implementation phases.
..2
*he ,act that the
disparities var! ,rom one region to one another to a large e=tent is one o, the
reasons :h! some regions are capa+le o, representing their interests at the
European level +etter than the others@ in,luencing the decision%ma>ing process
and +ene,iting ,rom the same legal s!stem as the other regions are also o+liged to
,ul,il the re<uirements o, it.
%.).) &ubnational Actors through the Channels to4ards the E5
*he European institutional architecture and the initiatives ta>en +! the
su+national authorities to participate allo: the development o, the :ell%suited
conditions ,or the construction o, the channels that are composed o, the
connections :ith the Committee o, the 'egions@ Council o, Ministers@ the
European Commission@ su+national o,,ices in russels and transnational net:or>s
as these channels transmit the in,ormation and ensure communication@
participation and cooperation +et:een the European institutions and the regional
and local actors.
..-
Although it is considered to +e one o, the so%called channels@ the Committee o,
the 'egions@ :hich :as created +! the *reat! on the European ;nion (*E;) in
..2
Arthur enB and ur>ard E+erlein@ Regions in European Governance+ he Logic of Multi-
Level Interaction (adia Fiasolana) European ;niversit! Institute@ .&&$)@ p. ".
..-
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ pp. $.%&..
-2
Maastricht +! incorporating it into the EC *reat! under the Article "42
../
@ has not
+een a+le to cross the constraints :hich reduce it to a consultative +od! and do
not let it ac<uire an! legal po:ers alongside the competences to ma>e +inding
decisions.
..4
A re,orm o, cohesion polic! has to aim at the modi,ication o, the
current ine,,icient and incompetent legal status and structure o, the Committee@
ta>ing into account the option that it might +e empo:ered +! the legall! +inding
competences in a :a! that also contri+utes to the participation o, the regions. It
ma! +e assumed that it is li>el! to render the Committee ver! vi+rant channel ,or
the su+national actors as it directl! addresses to and is ,or and +! the regions
themselves.
Ahile Andre: Evans states that EA regional minister might +e prevented ,rom
e=pressing regional interests divergent ,rom those pursued +! the central
institutions o, his mem+er state. At least@ i, there is a clash o, interests +et:een
central and regional institutions o, a mem+er state@ Article "#2 *EC allo:s ,or
national la: to give priorit! to the interests o, the ,ormer institutionsF
..6
At the
,irst sight@ this restriction seemingl! demonstrates prevailing and privileged
position o, the mem+er states. Ho:ever a closer vie: :ould +e a+le to ,ind out
the another dimension o, the restrictions on the su+national actors@ noticing the
opportunities provided +! the evolving multi%level governance s!stem o, the E;
in ,avour o, the regional and local actors. (espite the ,act that the mem+er states
are authoriBed to ma>e decisions on the regional participation in the Council o,
Ministers and the regional actors :hich are allo:ed to participate +! their national
governments must represent the interests o, their respective countries rather than
their regions in accordance :ith the Maastricht *reat!@ the Council o, Ministers
argua+l! corresponds to the general ,eatures o, the channels@ providing the
regions :ith the opportunit! to participate in the E; decision%ma>ing.
..$
Ironicall!@ the e=istence o, the national states accompan!ing the regions through
the channels might contradict :ith the su+stance o, the idea o, the channels as
../
Evans@ E'egionalism in the E;) 7egal 1rganisation o, a challenging social phenomenon@F p.
""/.
..4
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. $".
..6
""..
..$
--
the! still restrict the su+national actors@ >eeping the right to ma>e ultimate
decision on the participation o, the actor ,or themselves. Ho:ever@ once the
regions accomplish the representation in the Council@ as long as the! continue to
de,end the national interests@ the right to vote assigned to them delves into the
core o, the s!stem@ ensuring the removal or ine,,icienc! o, the o+structions that
limit the advancement o, the regional and local actors inside the channel
concerned. *he role o, the Commission :hich contains the arrival and departure
plat,orms that are situated at the 5unction o, the related channel is composed o,
the ,undamental point o, cohesion polic!. *he Commission has +een a+le to
trans,orm the limited role :hich is consisted o, communicating :ith the mem+er
states individuall! as to a more comprehensive and competent role :hich
rendered the Commission eligi+le to move through all the levels and arenas
emerged@ strengthening the lin>ages +et:een them through the principle o,
partnership than>s to the ground%+rea>ing contri+ution o, the .&$$ re,orm.
..&
*he gro:ing num+er o, the o,,ices that represent the regional and local actors is
also considered to +e a relia+le indicator o, the mo+iliBation o, the su+national
actors through the gradual esta+lishment o, another channel@ though the reasons o,
them to e=ploit this channel are under discussion. *he emphasis o, Mar>s and
Hooghe in terms o, the reasons o, regional representation in russels is on the
opportunit! to access to the in,ormation as the regions have +een a+le to e=tract
the in,ormation themselves directl! :ithout the intervention o, the national
governments in spite o, the constrains o, them.
."#
Finall!@ another :a! o, channelling the interests o, the su+national pla!ers@ the
transnational net:or>s :hich argua+l! conve!ed regionalism +e!ond the
individual mem+er states@ :ere constructed +! the regional and local authorities@
grouping the regions :ith the similar ,eatures in order to ,ind common solutions
to the common pro+lems +! cooperation and solidarit! alongside the
representation o, those transnational net:or>s in russels.
.".
..&
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. $-.
."#
.".
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. $&.
-/
%.).* 1egal Re6uirements to &afeguard the Regional
Participation
*he lac> o, regulations to 5oin the su+national actors o+liging +oth the central
governments and the su+national actors is pointed out +! the scholars. For
e=ample@ 9ic> ernard states that E*he a+sence o, an! o+ligation on the social
partners in relation to the choice o, negotiating partners stands in sharp contrast to
the e=istence o, legall! +inding dut! on the Mem+er States to esta+lish a
representative partnership in the conte=t o, the Structural Funds.F
.""
His emphasis
is o+viousl! on the a+sence o, legal o+ligations imposed on the social partners
li>e the trade unions. Ho:ever@ it might +e e=tended to the regional and local
actors in general. As ,ar as the principle o, partnership in a ver! general sense is
concerned@ it can +e argued that the participation o, the regional and local actors
in the re,orm negotiations o, cohesion polic! should +e o+ligator! in order to
ensure the democratic legitimac!@ e,,ectiveness and e,,icienc!@ sa,eguarding the
s!stem o, multi%level governance as the re,orm is e=tremel! relevant to the
development o, the regions. Moreover@ ?ohn . Sutcli,,eDs claim is supportive o,
and complementar! to ernardDs vie: as its emphasis is on the lac> o, regulations
imposed on the central governments) E*he structural ,und regulations did not
command central governments to include su+national actors in regional polic!%
ma>ing. Instead@ the! stated that central governments :ere responsi+le ,or
designating the su+national actors that :ould participate in partnerships.F
."2
In
addition to the points dealt :ith +! those scholars@ the aspect that Andre: Evans
covers in terms o, the insu,,icient and incompetent legall! +inding regulations is
also necessar! to contain in order to reach a comprehensive illustration o, the
issue concerned) EM@ in the a+sence o, E; legal guarantees o, the degree o,
autonom! ,or regional institutions assumed +! the literature on multi%level
governance@ regional institutions ma! lac> the resources to participate in such
net:or>s. Indeed@ their lac> o, resources ma! +e e=aggerated rather than
.""
ernard@ Multi-Level Governance in the European Union@ p. ../.
."2
'enationaliBation3@F p."&4.
-4
compensated +! E; decision ma>ing. In other :ords@ multi%level governance ma!
+e undermined +! the dominant role o, central institutions o, mem+er states in
;nion decision ma>ingF
."-
*here,ore the prospective re,orm o, cohesion polic!
has to consider the necessit! o, legall! +inding o+ligations imposed on +oth the
national governments and su+national actors so that the principle o, partnership
:ill +e put into practice more e,,ectivel! and e,,icientl!.
%.)., "le7ible 2ate8eeping $s. /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance
ache asserts that the C,le=i+le gate>eepingD perspective centered in the
predominance o, the national governments in terms o, the European cohesion
polic!
."/
might ensure an ade<uate means to e=plain the essential characteristics
o, the European polit!. He rather attempts to re,ute the validit! that multi%level
governance claims@ :hile at the core o, his assumption stands the premise that
national government gate>eeping prevails the su+national participation +!
preventing it to trans,orm its mo+iliBation into an decisive and in,luential
instrument :hich might claim po:er in the decision%ma>ing) E1n occasions@ the
conse<uence o, national government gate>eeping is a political arena characteriBed
less +! multi%level governance than +! multi%level participation) actors ,rom
su+national and supranational levels participate@ +ut do not signi,icantl! in,luence
decision%ma>ing outcomes.F
."4
*hen@ it ma! :ell +e argued that@ i, not
significantly@ the! in,luence to a lesser e=tent as it is li>el! the degree o, their
in,luence might rise. *he vie: o, Frederi> Fleur>e and 'ol, Ailliemse is
supportive o, and complementar! to the statement o, ache as the article :ritten
+! them is +ased on the <uestion :hether the European ;nion empo:ered the
regional and local authorities in the decision%ma>ing process or actuall!
:ea>ened them as the authors de,end that although the one%sided vie: on the
contri+ution o, the E; to the role o, the su+%national actors is :idespread@ the E;
."-
"22.
."/
Gatekeeping@ p. ./4.
."4
Gatekeeping@ p..//.
-6
also restricts and channels them@ in,luencing the decision%ma>ing at the su+%
national level considera+l!. *he! remind that there is an alternative vie:
emphasiBing the dominant role o, the central%governments in the negotiations
:ith the supranational E; institutions and implementation o, the E; regional
polic!@ in comparison to rather passive role pla!ed +! so%called su+%national
actors.
."6
*here,ore@ EEuropean integration Eundermines legal and constitutional
arrangements guaranteeing regional autonom!FF as it might eventuall! lead to
recentraliBation according to the representatives o, this alternative vie:.
."$
*here
is also an intergovernmentalist vie: o, :hich supporters de,end that European
integration has no noticea+le impact on the development and participation o, the
regional and local actors@ either positivel! or negativel!@ apart ,rom the scholars
:ho de,end that regional polic! o, the E; signi,icantl! in,luenced them.
."&
*here,ore@ in response to the approaches the! criticiBe@ Fleur>e and Ailliemse
come up :ith a ,ourth approach in order to measure the degree and genuine
characteristics o, the in,luence o, the E; at the su+%national level@ suggesting that
+ecause scholars lac> a multi%dimensional perspective that consider the di,,erent
aspects as :ell as the di,,erent polic! ,ields@ vague and one%sided vie:s on the
issue and the case that the! cover emerge@ depending on the selection o, the case
and polic! ,ield along :ith the particular aspects o, it. *heir ,ourth approach
claims that Ethe E; constrains su+%national decision ma>ing as :ell as enhancing
it@F ta>ing into account the in,luence and presence o, the E; at the su+%national
level in accordance :ith the conclusions the! dra: at the end o, the given
article.
.2#
Ho:ever@ the argument that the E; has +oth enhancing and constraining
e,,ects contradicts neither :ith the assumption that the E; promotes and
strengthens the participation o, the regions nor :ith the one that it eventuall!
restricts and :ea>ens them as +oth these claims point to the ma5or direction o, the
."6
Frederi> Fleur>e and 'ol, Ailliemse@ EE,,ects o, the European ;nion on Su+%9ational
(ecision%Ma>ing) Enhancement or Constriction3@F European Integration "&) . (March "##6)) 4&%
$4
."$
Fleur>e and Ailliemse@ EE,,ects o, the European ;nion on Su+%9ational (ecision%Ma>ing)
Enhancement or Constriction3@F p. 6.
."&
Enhancement or Constriction3@F p. 6"
.2#
Enhancement or Constriction3@F pp. $/%$4
-$
in,luence rather than the e,,ect o, particular elements the! include. esides@ a
:ell%designed assessment o, the enhancing and constraining e,,ects in the scope
o, the re,orm o, cohesion polic! is entailed in order to estimate the ,uture impact
o, the modi,ications on the multi%level governance s!stem as the
renationaliBationGrecentraliBation :ould +e at the e=pense o, the su+%national
level and at odds :ith the e=planator! po:er o, multi%level governance in terms
o, the European integration so that it :ould +e in ,avour o, the alternative
approaches and theories.
%.).. /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance in the Implementation of Cohesion
Policy
Ahile Mar>s and Hooghe de,end that EMulti%level governance is prominent in
the implementation stage@F E*he most prominent e=ample is cohesion polic!F
.2.
regarding the role o, the Commission as :ell as the regional and local actors so
that the institutionaliBation o, the channels lin>ing the regional and local actors to
the Commission is mar>ed +! the contri+ution o, the principle o, partnership. At
this point@ ache raises o+5ection +! asserting that E*he pro+lem ,or the European
Commission in securing polic! o+5ectives agreed at E; level is its dependence on
national administrative s!stems ,or polic! implementationF
.2"
as he suggests the
C,le=i+le gate>eepingD perspective :hich +asicall! Cassume national governments
are crucial actors in the E; polic! processesD
.22
is capa+le o, uncovering the
+ac>+one o, cohesion polic!. In order to challenge the most prominent point o,
multi%level governance@ :hich is argua+l! the implementation stage and cohesion
polic! itsel,@ he re,ers to 0ollac> :ho assumes that CCollectivel!@ the Council has
adopted ,und regulations :hich@ despite the principles o, partnership and
additionalit!@ maintain much o, the gate>eeping a+ilit! o, the mem+er
governments.D and C,or the &# percent o, the Structural Funds allocated to national
.2.
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. "-.
.2"
Gatekeeping@ p. "$.
.22
Gatekeeping@ p. .-6.
-&
and regional CSFs@ the mem+er governments remain the gate>eepers to regional
participation in Communit! structural polic!ma>ingD
.2-
%.).! Principal0Agent Theory $s. /ulti01e$el 2o$ernance
?ens lom%Hansen as>s the <uestion E:ho controls the implementation o, E;
cohesion polic!3F assuming that the concept multi%level governance is not
su,,icientl! :ell%e<uipped in order to give a satis,actor! e=planation ,or this
implication o, the given <uestion. *here,ore@ he de,ends that the principal%agent
theor! :ould provide the :ell%suited tools and applies it to the de+ate on cohesion
polic!.
.2/
I, one interprets the opinion o, Mar>s and Hooghe on this theor!@ it
:ould +e possi+le to come to the conclusion that the principal%agent theor! is
actuall! a >ind o, e=tension o, the intergovernmentalist theor! as the principals o,
it@ the mem+er states hold the ultimate control o, the E;@ creating the agent
institutions such as the Commission and the 0arliament@ +ecause the relationship
+et:een the states :ould +e deprived o, regulator! and mediating mechanisms@
conducing to sort o, anarch! in the a+sence o, such institutions and the
ma=imiBation o, the +ene,its that the Mem+er States can reap :ould +e
prevented.
.24

?ens lom%Hansen reminds that the pro5ects created and implemented +! the
mem+er states should serve to the accomplishment o, the common o+5ectives o,
the E;@ creating an added%value in accordance :ith the principle o,
additionalit!
.26
as ?rJme Kignon e=plains that Ethe political idea :as Ci, !ou help
!oursel,@ Europe :ill help !ouDMF
.2$
Ho:ever@ lom%Hansen <uestions :hether
the mem+er states are relia+le partners at the implementation phase as the! might
.2-
Gatekeeping@ p. "$.
.2/
?ens lom%Hansen@ E0rincipals@ Agents@ and the Implementation o, E; Cohesion 0olic!@F
/ournal of European Pu#lic Policy .") - (August "##/)) 4"-%4"/.
.24
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#.
.26
?ens lom%Hansen@ E0rincipals@ Agents@ and the Implementation o, E; Cohesion 0olic!@F p.
4"-.
.2$
In,oregio panorama@ E; Cohesion 0olic! .&$$%"##$) Investing in EuropeDs Future@ 7oo>ing
+ac> to .&$$@9o."4@ ?une "##$@ p."$
/#
have the tendenc! to give priorit! to the national interests in the a+sence o, a tight
monitoring.
.2&
*here,ore@ the determination o, the actors in charge o, cohesion
polic! is entailed in order to comprehend the level o, the ris> concerned.
lom%Hansen states that Ethe goals o, the E; cohesion polic! are set at di,,erent
levels o, the E; hierarch!F as article ./$ o, *EC declares the purpose o, the
economic and social cohesion as :ell as the rationale +ehind it and the ma5or
actors that act and activate the other actors and instruments to reach the o+5ectives
o, cohesion polic! are the European Council and Council o, Ministers :hich
esta+lish the ma5or o+5ectives and the European Commission :hich sets the goals
in accordance :ith those ma5or o+5ectives.
.-#
*he su+stance o, the claim o, lom%Hansen is that EE; control mechanisms are
:ea> and that the goals ,ormulated at the E; level are li>el! to +e remoulded in
the implementation process in order to suit the pre,erences o, the implementing
actors at the national levelF
.-.
in addition to the assumption that the de,icienc!
and ,ailure o, multi%level governance model is in its lac> o, e=planator! po:er to
ascertain the role o, the di,,erent actors and their importance at di,,erent levels.
.-"

In addition to the one e=plained a+ove@ he identi,ies the other de,iciencies o, the
multi%level governance model as ,ollo:s) *he multi%level governance model
assumes the empo:erment o, the su+%national and supranational actors and
decline in the in,luence o, the national governments@ although the strength and
roles o, the actors as :ell as the reasons o, this process o, simultaneous rise and
decline are not clari,ied in the related literature. According to him@ multi%level
governance model cannot illuminate the reason :h! the supranational E;
institutions are not capa+le o, preventing the in,luence o, the national and
su+national actors at the implementation phase properl!@ assuming that the actors
.2&
4"/.
.-#
?ens lom%Hansen@ E0rincipals@ Agents@ and the Implementation o, E; Cohesion 0olic!@F pp.
4"-%4"/.
.-.
4"-.
.-"
4"/.
/.
concerned are not supposed to get involved in the process to the e=tent that the!
can also have an impact on the structure o, the polic! as re<uired +! the principle
o, partnership.
.-2
Although the lom%HansenDs perception o, the principal%agent theor! does not
e=plicitl! challenge the multi%level governance model as to the claim that it
represents an alternative in the conte=t and ,or the anal!sis o, cohesion polic!@
e=amining the de,iciencies o, the model concerned@ the rationale +ehind it along
:ith the ground o, premises it is erected on sho:s that the role pla!ed +! the
regions is not considera+le in cohesion polic! so that there is an interstate pla! in
the E; rather than multi%level interaction intert:ined :ith the polic! net:or>s
+ecause the so%called agent is e=posed to the continuous intervention and ,ull
control o, the principal in his e!es. *here,ore@ the re,orm :ould +e a solid and
isolated act o, the principal to impose on the regional agents rather than the
actors@ according to this assumption. esides@ he implicitl! de,ends that the
purpose and :illingness o, the mem+er states in charge at ,ull length rather than
the pressure and demand o, the regional actors@ claiming that Ethe more precise
the mandate@ the less room ,or agenc! dri,tF.
.--
1n the one hand@ he suggests that
the principle%agent model ena+les him to anal!se the control mechanism and the
degree o, its po:er to hold the control in the implementation o, cohesion polic!@
on the other hand@ :hether it is considera+le or not@ he turns a +lind e!e to the role
o, the regional and local actors. *here,ore@ it can +e argued that principal%agent
perspective is contradictor! rather than complementar! :ith the multi%level
governance theor! as it is in coherence :ith the intergovernmentalist vie:.
esides@ the E; is considered to +e ine,,ective as a principal over the mem+er
states :hich represents the agents according to this approach +ecause Ethe
mandate to the mem+er states is +road and has onl! a :ea> legal ,oundation. *he
grants ,rom the structural ,unds cannot +e used +! the E; as an economic
incentive to the mem+er states. Administrative procedures do not contain an! real
.-2
?ens lom%Hansen@ E0rincipals@ Agents@ and the Implementation o, E; Cohesion 0olic!@F pp.
4"6%4"&.
.--
42..
/"
incentives to act in :a!s contrar! to +usiness as usual.F
.-/
*his argument can lead
to the conclusion that the re,orm o, cohesion polic! might not strengthen the
supposedl! :ea> legal ,oundation o, the E; :hich is impotent in comparison to
the po:er o, the mem+er states on the regional and local agents in terms o, its
in,luence on the implementation process@ considering the implicit assumption that
even the .&$$ re,orm had not +een a+le to ensure a ,irm legal +asis in spite o, its
relativel! higher impact on the development o, cohesion polic!.
Although the principle%agent theor! is operated against the validit! o, multi%
level governance +! some authors@ Hooghe and Mar>s have also dealt :ith this
theor! in the conte=t o, the European integration@ stressing the multiplicit! o, the
agents in the E; as the! suggest that the num+er o, the principals is e<ual to the
num+er o, the mem+er states. *heir perception o, the principal%agent theor! does
not reduce the European Commission and the European Court o, ?ustice to the
agents o, the mem+er states@ :hich per,orms in the E; institutional architecture@
compl!ing :ith the o+ligations imposed on them +! the mem+er states through
the po:er o, the incentives.
.-4
*here,ore@ the rulings o, the Court o, ?ustice@ the
principles o, direct e,,ect and supremac! as the indicators o, its ma5or role@ the
,undamental role o, the Commission in the construction o, cohesion polic!
represents the >e! points on the contrar! to the interpretation o, the principal%
agent theor! at the e=pense o, the supranational E; institutions.
%.). 9oint #ecision Trap' #eadloc8 of the /ulti01e$el
2o$ernance &ystem(
*he :or> o, Arthur enB and ur>ard E+erlein :hich is +ased on the anal!sis o,
the regions in the conte=t o, the multi%level governance endeavours to prove that a
possi+le deadloc> o, this s!stem concerning the interaction +et:een the regional
and national governments as :ell as the E; institutions due to the 5oint decision
trap as argued +! FritB A. Scharp, can +e avoided or prevented through the use o,
.-/
422.
.-4
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ pp. .#%."
/2
Cloose couplingD and a :ell%ad5usted use o, the intrinsic elements o, the
governance such as the polic! net:or>s and cooperative and competitive
components.
.-6
C7oose couplingD@ :hich can argua+l! th:art the possi+le
deadloc>@ means that Edecisions in one arena do not completel! determine
decisions in other arenas +ut onl! in,luence parts o, the decision premisesF.
.-$
*he
o+stacles to cope :ith@ such as the so%called democratic de,icit apart ,rom the
5oint decision trap seem to +e intrinsic and structural as :ell) *he E; as Ea
loosel! integrated multi%level s!stem o, governance characteriBed +!
,ragmentation and comple=it!F
.-&
Ho:ever it :ould +e appropriate to perceive the
interaction o, the arenas :here decisions are made on this ,ragmented and
comple= ground as a reciprocal relationship :hich has onl! partial impact on the
decision%ma>ing mechanism o, the other arenas in accordance :ith the idea o,
loose coupling@ rather than a re,lection o, an a+solute hierarchical structure :ith
some elements that o+tain a decisive authorit! upon the others in accordance :ith
an approach +ased on a determinist understanding o, causalit!. *here,ore the
scholars concerned indicate to the state o, +alance in the s!stem in :hich E:hile
the di,,erentiation o, decision%ma>ing structures (decoupling) creates room ,or
competition +et:een autonomous units@ Eloose couplingF again allo:s the
di,,usion o, ne: ideas :ithin the s!stem.F
./#
I, it is demonstrated +! providing
su,,icient evidence that this sophisticated mechanism ,unctions e,,ectivel! and
e,,icientl!@ guaranteeing that this multi%level structure e=ists and is :orth
protecting@ a su+stantial re,orm might sha>e the ground o, this ,ragile and
vulnera+le entit! in :hich a danger o, arising con,rontation can e=ceed +e!ond
the limits o, vigorous de+ates and d!namism@ reaching a deadloc> in case o, an
activated 5oint decision trap. *here,ore@ the ,undamental principles such as the
solidarit!@ partnership and additionalit! should +e a+le to endure the pressure o,
an un+alanced movement in a case that one o, the constituent units such as the
competitive d!namics that tend to decoupling or the cooperative d!namics that
.-6
enB and E+erlein@ Regions in European Governance+ he Logic of Multi-Level Interaction p.
".
.-$
.&.
.-&
2.
./#
"#.
/-
tend to loose coupling can prevail at the e=pense o, one another@ that is to sa!@
against the common concerns o, the compound@ during the re,orm o, cohesion
polic!. enB and E+erlein assume that the decoupling might out:eigh loose
coupling@ stating that Ecooperative and Eso,tF patterns o, Eloose couplingF might
not +e readil! availa+le as devices ,or the success,ul integration o, the regional
level. Con,rontation@ competition@ and hierarch! :ill presuma+l! continue to pla!
a more important role@F
./.
although the! suggest Eloose couplingF as an
instrument to avoid a potential deadloc>. *hen@ the prospective re,orm o,
cohesion polic! is supposed to ta>e into consideration the necessit! to ensure@
preserve and enhance the ,easi+le conditions ,or the availa+ilit! o, the patterns o,
loose coupling in ,avour o, the :ell%+alanced scales :hich argua+l! secure an
insurance against the deadloc>.
*he theor! o, 5oint decision trap re<uires the e=istence o, a >ind o, 5oint%decision
s!stem and has some similarities :ith the intergovernmentalist vie: as it implies
that the supranational E; institutions cannot ta>e an! genuine initiatives in the
decision%ma>ing +ecause the mechanism developed +! the mem+er states can
+uild up a ,irm +arricade :henever it threatens the interests o, some o, the
mem+er states at least@ so that it is unli>el! to ma>e a ma5or di,,erence and
progress as the s!stem is inclined to insta+ilit! and con,rontation.
./"
*here are a
num+er o, CarenasD apart ,rom the European@ national and regional ClevelsD in the
,ormation o, the E; according to enB and E+erlein and the con,rontation
+et:een these arenas leads to the insta+ilit! o, the s!stem.
./2
*he! suggest@ the
con,rontation and tension o, this s!stem is CinherentD and one can produce onl!
partial solutions to relieve it. Ho:ever@ the! state that EregionaliBation did not add
to institutional disorder and deadloc>. Instead@ it produced Ed!namic restructuring
processesF o, intergovernmental relations.F
./-
./.
"..
./"
.#.
./2
/.
./-
$.
//
enB and E+erlein suggest that the contri+utions o, the .&$$ re,orm o, cohesion
polic! can +e summariBed as ,ollo:s) An integrative approach to polic!%ma>ing@
enhancement o, vertical intergovernmental coordination through the principle o,
partnership@ 5oint ,inance o, the pro5ects +! the E;@ national and regional
governments@ the promotion o, regional polic! net:or>s.
.//
*here,ore the
enhancement o, the esta+lished instruments paralleled to the emergence o, the
ne: instruments along :ith the eradication o, the o+stacles preventing the active
participation o, the regions in the decision%ma>ing and the elimination o, the
disparities +et:een them in order to recogniBe the status o, the regions as an
intrinsic element o, the multi%level governance s!stem should argua+l! ta>e place
in the ,uture re,orms o, cohesion polic! in accordance :ith the raison dDTtre o, the
polic!@ ensuring an enhanced interaction o, the components at di,,erent levels and
arenas o, this compound and ta>ing into consideration the de+ate on the CEurope
o, the 'egionsD or CEurope :ith the 'egionsD.
%.).1- Europe of Regions $s. Europe 4ith Regions
As ,ar as the idea o, CEurope o, the 'egionsD or CEurope :ith the 'egionsD
de+ate is concerned@ the e=istence o, the ethnicGcultural communities :ithin the
+orders o, the national states alongside the economic ,actors :hich are +ased on
regional development la!s ground ,or the creation o, the distinct regional
identities as Ale=ander Murph! suggests that E*he emergence o, increasingl!
predominant su+state nationalist movements has made it di,,icult to vie: Europe
solel! as a collection o, nations@ each :ith its o:n state.F
./4
Simona 0iattoni states that EEven though much o, empiricall! orientated
CEurope o, the regionsD literature o,ten concluded that the regions that +est
promoted their interests still did so +! :or>ing through their national
governments (hence@ the more apt phrase CEurope :ith the regionsD@ c,. Hooghe
.//
&.
./4
Ale=ander Murph!@ E'ethin>ing Multi%7evel 8overnance in a Changing European ;nion) Ah!
Metageograph! and *erritorialit! Matter@F Geo/ournal 6") 6 ("##$)) .#.
/4
and Mar>s .&&4U Ieating and Hooghe .&&4)@ the essence o, the M78 re,lection
necessaril! pointed in the direction o, a con,usion (con%,usion) o, esta+lished
processes and hierarchies and the emergence o, ne: con,igurations o, po:ers and
competencies.F
./6
*here,ore@ the claim that the e=istence o, the direct channels
+et:een the su+national actors and the supranational institutions :ithout the
inter,erence o, the national governments might +e more +ene,icial in terms o, the
promotion o, the regionsD interests is not necessaril! true. esides@ it also
endangers the e=planator! po:er and validit! o, the multi%level governance
theor! :hich assumes the direct communication o, the su+national and
supranational actors alread! e=ists and in ,avour o, the regional development@
although the supporters o, this claim also deal :ith the shortcomings o, it.
0iattoni also reminds that EMthe CEurope o, the regionsD literature postulated a
causal correlation +et:een gro:ing EuropeaniBation and the strengthening o,
regional identities@ :hile the literature on CEurope :ith the regionsD reduced the
causal claim to a mere correlation@ :ith the E; acting as an additional structure o,
political opportunities that onl! some regions :ere :illing and a+le to e=ploit
e,,ectivel!.F
./$
Ho:ever@ even i, it is true that Cthe regions that +est promoted
their interests still did so +! :or>ing through their national governmentsD and
Conl! some regions :ere :illing and a+le to e=ploit e,,ectivel!D it does not
necessaril! mean@ the regional and local actors :ill not +e a+le to e=ploit the ne:
channels o, communication +etter in ,avour o, the regional development and the
multi%level governance s!stem in the ,uture as paralleled to the enhancement o,
the novel instruments and emergence o, the ne: structures :ithin the conte=t o,
the multi%level governance.
%.).11 E5 Policy0/a8ing' /ulti01e$el $s. &tate Centric
As ,ar as the potential impact o, the re,orm on the polic!%ma>ing is concerned@
one should deal :ith the related characteristics o, the polic!%ma>ing in the E;@
./6
0iattoni@ EMulti%7evel 8overnance) A Historical and Conceptual Anal!sis@F p. .46.
./$
0iattoni@ EMulti%7evel 8overnance) A Historical and Conceptual Anal!sis@F p..62
/6
concerning the perspective suggested +! the multi%level governance theor! along
:ith the state%centric vie: as its ma5or antagonist. *he multi%level governance
argua+l! attempts to generate a novel understanding o, the European integration
+e!ond the dichotom! o, intergovernmental and supranational perception o, it.
./&
*here,ore its insight o, the polic!%ma>ing in the E; is supposed to +e either
re5ecting or merging the neo%,unctionalism and intergovernmentalism. Although it
does not den! that the central governments pla! a ma5or role in the E; decision%
ma>ing@ o+viousl! it does not locate them at the centre o, the European polit!
either@ as the ma5or role attri+uted to the national governments might +e
considered to +e a >ind o, concession to the so%called state%centric vie: in a
sense@ as compromised +! the supranational E; institutions as :ell as the
su+national actors :hich argua+l! get stronger step +! step at the e=pense o, the
state sovereignt!.
*he contri+ution o, the European institutions to the E; legislation is pointed out
+! Hooghe and Mar>s as the! state that Ethe great re,orm o, the E; cohesion
polic! :as@ ,or e=ample@ mandated +! treat! in .&$4 +ut :as hammered into
innovative institutional ,orm +! the Commission. According to the Commission@
:hich has no reason to +elittle national governments@ treaties generate onl! one%
tenth o, its legislative proposals.F
.4#
esides@ it also pertains to the development o,
the regional and local actors as :ell as the central role o, the re,orm concerned in
the ,ormation o, the multi%level governance theor! and s!stem. ecause the
novelt! o, the emerging polit! :as argua+l! deprived o, a clear understanding
and comprehensive e=planation@ the multi%level governance has +een designed ,or
this purpose. *he position o, the Commission as the agenda setter at the polic!
initiation phase o, the polic!%ma>ing is depicted +! Mar>s and Hooghe as
,ollo:s) E*he picture that emerges is one :here the Commission holds the pen
+ut is su+5ected to pressures ,rom man! actors. 0olic! initiation in the European
;nion is a multi%actor activit!. It includes@ in addition to the Commission@ the
European Council@ the European 0arliament@ the Council o, Ministers@ and
./&
8orge@ EMulti%7evel 8overnance and the European ;nion@F p..#$.
.4#
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .2.
/$
interest groups alongside individual mem+er states.F
.4.
*he speci,icit! o, the
legislative proposals o, the Commission is situated on the ,le=i+ilit! o, the +road
guidelines prepared +! the European Council@ :hich are too general in order to
in,luence and control the :or> o, the Commission immensel!. *he competence o,
the European 0arliament allo:s it to as> the European Commission to prepare
proposal on a particular issue in accordance :ith the article .&" o, the *reat! on
the European Communit! (*EC). Although Mar>s and Hooghe attri+ute more
importance to the role o, the Commission@ the! also indicate that Ethe
Commission operates in a s!stem o, multi%level governance involving
competition and interdependence among it and the European Council@ Council o,
Ministers@ and European 0arliament.F
.4"
ruce Milan emphasiBes the increasing
role and in,luence o, the Commission in terms o, the decision%ma>ing and
implementation process o, the structural ,unds ,rom .&$$ to .&&2 as he shares his
o:n e=periences@ stating that EIt is not usual in the Communit! :hen !ou are
dealing :ith huge sums o, mone! li>e that@ to have the Council o, Ministers
virtuall! e=cluded. *he onl! time I had to do an!thing :ith the Council o,
Ministers :as getting the revised 'egulations through in .&&2. I didnDt have an!
other 'egulations the :hole time I :as there. Ae didnDt even have a Council o,
Ministers@ :e onl! had in,ormal meetings :ith Ministers ,rom time to time@ not in
ever! presidenc!@ and these didnDt ma>e an! decisions an!:a!.F
.42
*he
comparison o, the European institutions in terms o, the competences the! have as
:ell as their impact on the :hole process including the decision%ma>ing@
implementation@ monitoring etc. in practice re<uires a :ell%+alanced assessment
:hich ta>es into account the evolution o, the institutions along :ith the di,,erent
aspects and turning points o, cohesion polic!. 9ic> ernardDs e=planation ensures
an ade<uate measurement o, the role pla!ed +! the European Commission) E*he
plans put ,or:ard +! the Mem+er State :ill naturall! re,lect that Mem+er StateDs
o:n regional and social development priorities. *he intervention o, the
Commission at this stage@ ho:ever@ is not limited to chec>ing the soundness o,
the plans ,rom the Mem+er StateDs o:n perspective +ut also ensuring its
.4.
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .-.
.4"
.42
?ohn . Sutcli,,e@ E*he .&&& 'e,orm o, the Structural Fund 'egulations) Multi%7evel
8overnance or 'enationaliBation3@F p. 2##.
/&
coherence :ith the Communit!Ds o:n policies.F
.4-
*here,ore the interdepence o,
the supranational@ national and su+national levels o, the E; prevails over an
intergovernmentalist interpretation :hich underestimates the role o, the
Commission and Ea s!stem o, multi%level governance involving competition and
interdependence among it and the European Council@ Council o, Ministers@ and
European 0arliamentF
.4/
is seemingl! the most appropriate description o, the
European polit! :ithout ignoring the decreasing po:er o, the European
Commission in some stages o, the process a,ter the su+se<uent re,orms o,
cohesion polic!.
*he po:er o, the mem+er states in the decision%ma>ing decreases graduall! as
the! pool or share their sovereignt! i, the!@ step +! step@ do not lose it either
partiall! or completel! in ,avour o, the supranational and su+national actors in the
E; according to the multi%level governance model. *he Single European Act laid
the +asis ,or upgrading the European 0arliament in terms o, its legislative po:er@
:hile the a+ilit! o, the mem+er states to dominate the E; legislation through the
Council o, Ministers is graduall! do:ngraded as it is e=posed to serious
restrictions. *he num+er o, the polic! ,ields :hich re<uire the <uali,ied ma5orit!
voting instead o, unanimit! in the Council is increasing steadil! so that the
li>elihood that a state can drag the decision%ma>ing mechanism into a deadloc> is
getting lo:er. *he num+er o, the competences that the E0 has is rising through
the introduction o, the cooperation@ assent and codecision procedures alongside
the enhancement o, these procedures in ,avour o, the 0arliament as the codecision
procedure allo:s the E0 even to +loc> the proposals o, the Council. *he
Commission practicall! e=pands its e=tent o, the rights and responsi+ilities to the
e=tent that this act ena+les it to negotiate along :ith the other actors in the scope
o, cohesion polic!.
.4-
ernard@ Multi-level governance in the European Union@ p. ."2.
.4/
4#
%.*. European Regional and Cohesion Policy at &ta8e
%.*.1 3eoliberal Europe $s. &ocial Europe
Although the states maintained their role that put mar>ets on a leash@ the rise o,
the ,ree mar>et ideolog! paralleled to the dissolution o, the communist s!stem
and its command econom! ,acilitated the decline o, the Ie!nesian policies@
strengthening the tendenc! to li+eralise the mar>ets and to loose the so%called
leash in Europe eventuall!@ :hich :as entailed to diminish the in,luence o, the
regulations controlling the mar>ets. *he diminishing role o, the states in terms o,
the organiBation and development o, the mar>ets intensi,ied the de+ate on the
su+stantial principle o, solidarit! o, cohesion polic! along :ith the re<uirement to
regulate the mar>ets@ inducing to the challenging the rationale +ehind the
regulation and the principle concerned@ despite the ,act that the political in,luence
o, the states all across the European ;nion maintained to dominate the contention
regarding the general structure.
.44
Mar>s and Hooghe suggest that cohesion polic! is e=posed to the rivalr!
+et:een the European@ national and su+national actors@ :hich is located in a
+roader rivalr! +et:een the supporters o, neoli+eral Europe and those o, a
regulated capitalism that is associated :ith social Europe.
.46
Even though the
concepts such as social mar>et@ social Europe@ the European Social Model and
regulated Capitalism are not interchangea+le in general@ the! might coe=ist :ithin
the conte=t o, cohesion polic! as the conceptual circle in :hich the! operate is
identical so that the alternative concepts might +e utilised in order to identi,! the
characteristics o, the rivalr! concerned. Social Europe and neoli+eral Europe
represent the leading perspectives on the ideal ,ormation o, Europe. *he claim o,
the neoli+eral perspective is +ased on the ,ree%hand o, the mar>ets :ithout the
involvement o, the political authorities :hile the regulated capitalism re<uires the
.44
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#/.
.46
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, p. .#/.
4.
protection o, the principles o, the partnership and solidarit! along :ith the
regulation o, the mar>ets. Ironicall!@ the supporters o, the neoli+eral Europe are in
,avour o, preserving the intactness o, the national sovereignt! as the! remain
reluctant to the advancement o, the political integration to a large e=tent@ :hile
the! do not raise an! o+5ections against the European economical integration.
Cohesion polic! eases the social tension in Europe through the principles o,
solidarit! and partnership and la!s the ground ,or the development o, the mar>et
competition@ increasing the competitiveness o, the regions lagging +ehind.
.4$
Hooghe and Mar>s de,end that E*he .&$$ cohesion polic! re,orm has +een
+edroc> o, the anti%neoli+eral program. *hough the immediate o+5ective :as to
reduce territorial ine<ualities@ its larger goal :as to strengthen European regulated
capitalism.F
.4&
*han>s to the re,orm@ the ultimate purpose o, achieving cohesion
+! alleviating the regional disparities has ,lourished to create a genuine polic!
:hich gained a concrete designation and organiBational vision so that the regions
that include those lagging +ehind and those :hich participate@ i, not at all@ less in
the polic!%ma>ing@ :ere empo:ered ,inanciall! +! the su+stantial rise o, the
,unds availa+le ,or them and sociall! +! the promotion o, the regional and local
mo+iliBation through partnership :ithin the conte=t o, cohesion polic!. *he
escalating involvement o, the su+national actors in the di,,erent phases o,
cohesion polic! at the e=pense o, the national governments in accordance :ith the
principle o, partnership and the increasing ,unding that is provided to +ac> the
economicall! +ac>:ard regions in accordance :ith the principle o, solidarit!
contradict :ith the re<uirements o, the programme suggested +! the
neoli+erals.
.6#
.4$
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#4.
.4&
.6#
4"
%.*.2 Principles of Concentration: &olidarity and Partnership at
&ta8e
*he concentration o, the cohesion ,unding on the regions and social segments
:hich need to catch up :ith the rest o, the regions and population o, the E; in
accordance :ith the principle o, solidarit! has +een situated at the centre o, the
de+ate on cohesion polic! continuousl! since the creation o, it as paralleled to the
gradual step%do:n o, the concentration. *his de+ate is accompanied +! a
tendenc! that contradict :ith the principle o, solidarit! to restructure the polic! in
a :a! that :ould contain the rearrangements in ,avour o, all the regions o, the E;
rather than 5ust the regions lagging +ehind as the disadvantaged aspects o, the
+ac>:ard regions :ould no longer +e ta>en into account that much in terms o, the
allocation o, the limited resources. *here,ore@ i, it ma>es an! visi+le changes@
threatening the sta+ilit!@ it is li>el! that this tendenc! might trigger the
deterioration o, those disadvantaged aspects as the regions concerned :ill +e
deprived o, the support that the! are accustomed to +ene,it ,rom all o, a sudden@
unless ,ull alternative measures are ta>en in order to prevent it and those
alternative measures should +e testi,ied +e,ore the! are put into practice@ ta>ing
,eed+ac> regularl! in order to avoid possi+le side%e,,ects :hich might occur
une=pectedl!. Ho:ever@ one o, the important resources to get in,ormation on the
su+national units might run out i, the regional representative o,,ices are no longer
promoted in russels in the a+sence o, the satis,actor! incentives.
.6.
*he +ac>:ard regions +ene,ited ,rom the ,unding availa+le ,or them +! the
increasing concentration o, it as paralleled to the rising capa+ilit! o, the
Commission +! the su+se<uent re,orms and to the decrease in the num+er o, the
o+5ectives. Ho:ever@ the concentration as e=plained a+ove along :ith the
decrease in the total amount o, the ,unding availa+le ,or the territorial cohesion
might have a variet! o, re<uirements and conse<uences including the necessit! to
utilise the limited resources ,or the limited num+er and scope o, o+5ectives in
.6.
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..$
42
order to +e e,,ective su,,icientl!. esides@ the in,luence o, cohesion polic! on the
political arenas might e=perience a signi,icant decline as the :ider dispersion o,
resources can reach people ,rom all :al>s o, li,e :hile the concentration re<uires
the use o, resources ,or some regions and segments o, the societ!. Although
Mar>s and Hooghe indicate that ECohesion 0olic! :as designed to deepen multi%
level governance in regional economic polic!@ +ut this can onl! +e accomplished
i, the polic! reaches +e!ond the ver! poorest regionsF
.6"
@ there is insu,,icient
evidence proving that the purpose o, cohesion polic! at the phase o, designation
:as to esta+lish a multi%level governance s!stem as the pragmatic aim to achieve
the e,,icienc! and e,,ectiveness :as prevailing. Ho:ever@ it is evidentl!
appropriate that cohesion polic! should +e penetrated into the all segments o,
societ! including the +ac>:ard regions and unemplo!ed and disadvantaged
people in the ;nion in order to strengthen the multi%level governance s!stem.
*he principle o, partnership has +een challenged +! the opponents o, it :ho
assumed that the principle +lurs :ho is accounta+le ,or :hich sphere as there is a
shared responsi+ilit! o, the man! partners. A potential C5oint%decision trapD :hich
might drag the E; multi%level governance s!stem to:ards a s!stemic deadloc> at
the polic!%ma>ing@ monitoring and implementation phases is also attri+uted to the
principle concerned. *here,ore@ a clear%cut division o, the competences instead o,
the overlapping 5urisdictions and dispersion o, authorit! across multiple access
points in compliance to the multi%level governance has also +een suggested as an
alternative.
.62
Ho:ever@ Mar>s and Hooghe de,end that EAn e=plicit division o,
la+or :ould impl! some renationaliBation o, cohesion polic!@ ,or it :ould ma>e it
more di,,icult ,or the Commission to pla! a role :ithin countries.F
.6-
So@ the
possi+ilit! o, renationaliBation at the e=pense o, the Commission might +e
necessar! to avoid the 5oint%decision trap and to achieve accounta+ilit!@ :hereas
the loose%coupling and a :ell%ad5usted use o, the intrinsic elements o, the
governance such as the polic! net:or>s and cooperative and competitive
.6"
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, p. .#$.
.62
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..-.
.6-
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#$.
4-
components to avoid or prevent 5oint%decision trap as suggested +! Arthur enB
and ur>ard E+erlein.
.6/
0artnership has +een e=posed to the struggle +et:een the supranational@ national
and su+national actors as Mar>s and Hooghe assume that EAll in all@ rather than
mitigating the territorial con,lict@ partnership has incited rivalr! +et:een national
and su+national levels@ :ith the Commission o,ten caught in the middle.F
.64
So@
the principle o, partnership :hich is also an intrinsic element o, the multi%level
governance s!stem is condemned +! Mar>s and Hooghe :ho ela+orated the term
Cmulti%level governanceD. *here,ore@ partnership might +e associated :ith the
con,rontation.
Although the range o, the partnership principle :as enlarged +! the .&&&
re,orm@ containing the ne: pla!ers@ the in,luence o, the Commission on the
central states to promote the participation o, the regional and local pla!ers as :ell
as the pu+lic and private actors has +een considera+l! decreased as paralleled to
the decrease in the num+er o, the incentives that the Commission possessed.
*here,ore@ the goal to reach the e,,icienc! and e,,ectiveness might +ecome more
challenging in the a+sence o, the Commission :hich previousl! acted Eas an
agent o, institutional change@F re<uiring the other pla!ers to compensate ,or it.
.66
At this point@ Mar>s and Hooghe state that E*he changes introduced in the .&&&
re,orm amend the original .&$$ design o, cohesion polic!. *he +udget ,or
cohesion polic! :ill ,all in relative terms@ it :ill a,,ect ,e:er regions@ and its
impact on governance in the E; :ill +e constrained.F *he! <uestion :hether it
:ill lead to a Ema5or polic! shi,tF :hich might mean the undermining and
eradication o, the ,undamental principles o, cohesion polic!@ :hile it is evident
that the European Cohesion 0olic! cannot survive :ithout the principles :hich
are at the core o, the polic!.
.6$
.6/
enB and E+erlein@ 'egions in European 8overnance) *he 7ogic o, Multi%7evel Interaction@ p.
".
.64
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ../.
.66
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#$.
.6$
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. .#&.
4/
%.*.% "riends and Enemies of Cohesion Policy in the Political
Arena
*he rivalr! +et:een the perspectives o, neoli+eralism and regulated capitalism
has man! ,ronts that include the political competition at the European and
national levels. Social democrat parties are usuall! in ,avour o, the regulated
capitalism :hile some o, the Christian democratic parties agree :ith them at this
point. ?ac<ues (elors@ the president o, the European Commission :ho has +een
considered to +e the creator o, the .&$$ re,orm and cohesion polic! as such also
de,ends the regulated capitalism. A considera+le num+er o, the o,,icials in the
Commission and the E0 as :ell as the regional@ local@ pu+lic@ private and social
actors :hich are encouraged to participate :ithin the conte=t o, cohesion polic!
are generall! in ,avour o, regulated capitalism@ too. Ho:ever@ Hooghe and Mar>s
state that E1ver time@ polic! ine,,iciencies and divergent interests among coalition
partners have +egun to dissolve the glue holding together the coalition together@F
:hile the! assume that the Commission is also supposed to support the regulated
capitalism and cohesion polic!. *he! suggest that EI, the Commission is divided
on European regulated capitalism and on E; cohesion polic!@ it should come as
no surprise that con,lict on these issues runs deep in the European 0arliament and
among political parties and national governments.F *here,ore@ the de+ate on the
re,orm o, cohesion polic! is supposed to +e implicated :ith the political
con,iguration in the 0arliament and Commission as :ell as the involvement o, the
actors concerned overtl! or covertl!.
.6&
*he neoli+erals along :ith the other opponents o, the regulated capitalism and
cohesion polic! occasionall! endeavour to limit the e=penditure o, cohesion
polic! as the insistence on the claim that +udget de,icits in the mem+er states
should +e restricted :as rein,orced during the esta+lishment o, the EM; and the
preparation period preceding it. EA territorial division is superimposed on this
ideological con,lict@ pitting net recipients against the net donorsF according to
.6&
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ pp. ...%..".
44
Mar>s and Hooghe.
.$#
*he dominance o, the division +et:een the northern and
southern countries :as replaced +! the :estern and eastern countries in terms o,
the partiall! uni<ue attitude o, them to:ards cohesion polic! a,ter the accession
o, ten Central and Eastern European countries to the E; in "##/. Ho:ever@ these
territorial divisions are ,ar ,rom +eing uni<ue in ,act as sho:n +! the e=istence o,
a num+er o, regional and local actors that de,end cohesion polic! in the north and
:est.
.$.
%.*.) Rise of Employment Policy and "all of Cohesion Policy
*he emplo!ment polic! might +e a+le to replace the predominance o, cohesion
polic! as paralleled to the rising signi,icance o, the gro:ing unemplo!ment in the
e!es o, the man! people ,rom all :al>s o, li,e in the E; in comparison to the
contested and degraded cohesion polic!. *he emplo!ment polic! might +e more
promising in spite o, the relativel! modest goals o, it in comparison to the ver!
long%standing e=tensive o+5ectives o, cohesion polic!. *here,ore@ it can attract the
support o, a :ider social spectrum :ithout the northGsouth and :estGeast
cleavages as the unemplo!ment and the struggle against the e=pansion o, it is
common to all as EA revamped anti%neoli+eral coalition is tr!ing to capture the
European agenda :ith a ne: ,lagship) the emplo!ment initiativeF according to
Hooghe and Mar>s.
.$"

*he stress on the 5o+s@ emplo!ment and gro:th along :ith the innovation and
education
.$2
in the conte=t o, the 7is+on Strateg! :hich led to Cthe momentum ,or
a paradigm shi,t in Cohesion 0olic!D
.$-
alongside the "##4 re,orm sho:s that
Mar>s and HoogheDs prediction on the rise o, the European Emplo!ment 0olic!
and the ,all o, the European Cohesion 0olic! is proven@ even though the issues
that the emplo!ment polic! usuall! deals :ith is incorporated into cohesion
polic!.
.$#
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ p. ..".
.$.
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ pp. .."%..2.
.$"
Hooghe and Mar>s@ Multi-Level Governance and European Integration@ pp. ../%..4.
.$2
.$-
EMa>ing Enlargement a Success@F p. .$.
46

). Conclusion
*he essential principles o, cohesion polic! date +ac> to the advent o, the
European Communit! :hich em+ar>ed on the initial steps to:ards the integration
so that the principles concerned are argua+l! intrinsic to the E;. In addition@
cohesion polic! is complementar! to and in accordance :ith the single mar>et and
EM;@ although there is argua+l! an undenia+le and unavoida+le tension as :ell
as interdependenc! +et:een them.
In ,act@ the .&$$ re,orm is revolutionar! as to the empo:erment o, the
supranational and su+national actors at the e=pense o, the national governments in
accordance :ith the creation and consolidation o, the ,undamental principles o,
cohesion polic! so that it represents one step ,or:ard in comparison to the
preceding period and su+se<uent re,orms. Ho:ever it is ,ollo:ed +! a
considera+le do:nturn in terms o, the content and impact o, the succeeding
re,orms as the Commission and regional and local actors had to surrender a
noticea+le portion o, the po:ers :hich the! previousl! ac<uired@ in line :ith the
renationaliBationGrecentraliBation en5o!ed +! the national governments
particularl!. *his illustration o, the redistri+ution o, the po:ers +! the re,orms
concerned suggests a rivalr! +et:een the supranational@ national and su+national
actors apart ,rom the cooperation :ithin the scope o, the multi%level interaction.
*he success and ,ailure o, cohesion polic! is measured +! the achievement o,
the regional and local actors to ensure the development and participation@ :hich is
ver! diverse and uneven@ depending on the ,actors such as the e=istence o,
northGsouth@ :estGeast and coreGperipher! cleavages. Ahile the scholars do not
agree on the evaluation o, the success and ,ailure o, cohesion polic!@ the! point
out to the di,,erent aspects :hich strengthen their claims@ providing a
complementar! overvie: o, the :ea> and strong points. Additionall!@ there is no
su,,icient evidence proving that the regions :ould +e a+le to cope :ith the
challenges imposed +! single mar>et and single currenc! :ithout the support o,
4$
cohesion polic!. *he rapidl! rising disparities suggest that the need to narro:
them is also rising.
Although the principle o, concentration is strengthened +! the su+se<uent
re,orms@ the elements that pertain to emplo!ment polic! are incorporated into the
agenda o, cohesion polic! and might +ecome the priorities at the e=pense o, the
participation o, the su+national actors in the multi%level governance s!stem
through the implementation o, the essential principles o, cohesion polic!. Ahile
the empo:erment o, concentration is not in ,avour o, partnership@ the claim
Cregional polic! is ,or all@ not 5ust ,or poorD can argua+l! undermine solidarit! and
concentration.
*he su+national actors and social partners are deprived o, su,,icient legal
o+ligations to participate@ :hile the national actors are not o+liged to ensure their
participation +! the E; la:. *here,ore the provision o, e,,icienc! and
e,,ectiveness@ empo:erment o, the multi%level governance s!stem and e=clusion
o, democratic de,icit re<uire the e=istence o, legal o+ligations :hich :ill +e
imposed on the actors at all levels o, the E; +! the E; la:. *he creation o, the
legal o+ligations to ensure participation should +e in the agenda o, the prospective
re,orms o, cohesion polic!. 1ther:ise@ partnership :ill continue to su,,er ,rom an
ine,,icient and incompetent implementation in spite o, the noticea+le
advancement in some o, the regions.
Even though the disparities +et:een the regions rise considera+l! a,ter the
su+se<uent enlargements o, the E; and the emergence o, the ne: challenges@ the
decline o, cohesion polic! continues as paralleled to the :ithdra:al o, the
supranational and su+national actors ,orced +! the national governments and the
rise o, emplo!ment polic!. Ho:ever@ the principle o, solidarit! is still legitimate
and ,unctional +ecause the e=istence o, the disparities all across the ;nion
accounts ,or the creation o, cohesion polic! as such and the need to compensate
the costs o, single mar>et still e=ists and gro:s. *here,ore@ the ,undamental
principles :hich are the indispensa+le components o, cohesion polic! must +e
4&
preserved and consolidated +ecause there is no genuine cohesion polic! :ithout
them o+viousl!.
*he prospective re,orms might ,ollo: the trend o, the previous re,orms and the
national governments might +e a+le to claim their predominance over the
su+national and supranational actors +! the elimination o, the .&$$ re,ormDs
tremendous contri+ution to the development o, cohesion polic!. A paradigm shi,t
in setting goals@ agenda and priorities o, cohesion polic! along :ith a ma5or
polic! shi,t in terms o, the implementation and monitoring stages might
strengthen and undermine di,,erent aspects o, the polic! simultaneousl!@ though
the main direction o, it is supposed to +e in accordance :ith the raison d,.tre o,
it. 1ther:ise@ it is highl! li>el! that the multi%level governance s!stem cannot
survive :ithout a genuine cohesion polic!.
*he ,undamental principles o, cohesion polic! are in danger and under attac> as
the! are e=posed to the criticisms and continuous e,,orts o, the neoli+erals@
national governments and intergovernmentalism to :ea>en it in addition to the
implementation pro+lems and con,rontation +et:een the principles. Ahile
cohesion polic! su,,ers ,rom the ris> that a ma5or polic! shi,t might undermine
and eradicate it@ the intert:ined structure o, the multi%level governance s!stem
and cohesion polic! provides su,,icient evidence that multi%level governance is
also in danger and under attac> +! the neoli+erals and national governments. *he
decline o, social Europe might +e ,ollo:ed +! the demise o, multi%level
governance and cohesion polic! :hich is an intrinsic element o, the European
integration. esides@ the lac> o, solidarit!@ partnership@ additionalit! and
concentration might :ea>en the ;nion and lead to the ,ailure o, it +! raising the
disparities +et:een the components o, it. Finall!@ :hile the achievement o,
common mar>et and EM; is strongl! lin>ed to the e,,orts o, the neoli+erals@ the
neoli+eral and social models o, Europe are complementar! and their coe=istence
is vital ,or the survival and empo:erment o, the ;nion in accordance :ith the
coe=istence o, single mar>et@ single currenc! and cohesion polic!.
6#
;ibliography
ache@ Ian. he politics of European Union Regional Policy, Multi-level
Governance or !le"i#le Gatekeeping. She,,ield) She,,ield Academic 0ress@ .&&$.
aile!@ (avid and 7isa (e 0ropris. EE; Structural Funds@ 'egional Capa+ilities
and Enlargement) *o:ards Multi%7evel 8overnance3.F European Integration "-)
- (?ul! "##")) 2#2%2"-.
aun@ Michael. EE; 'egional 0olic! and the Candidate States) 0oland and the
CBech 'epu+lic.F European Integration "-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) "4.%"$#.
enB@ Arthur and ur>ard E+erlein. Regions in European Governance+ he Logic
of Multi-Level Interaction6 adia Fiasolana) European ;niversit! Institute@ .&&$.
ernard@ 9ic>. Multi-Level Governance in the European Union. *he Hague@
7ondon and 9e: Vor>) Ilu:er 7a: International@ "##".
lom%Hansen@ ?ens. E0rincipals@ Agents@ and the Implementation o, E; Cohesion
0olic!.F /ournal of European Pu#lic Policy .") - (August "##/)) 4"-%4-$.
Europeani7ation, 5e2 Research 3gendas. Ed. 0aolo 8raBiano and Maarten 0.
Kin>. 7ondon@ ;I) 0algrave Macmillan@ "##6.
Evans@ Andre:. E'egionalism in the E;) 7egal 1rganisation o, a Challenging
Social 0henomenon.F European Integration "-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) ".&%"-2.
Fleur>e@ Frederi> and 'ol, Ailliemse. EE,,ects o, the European ;nion on Su+%
9ational (ecision%Ma>ing) Enhancement or Constriction3.F European
Integration "&) . (March "##6)) 4&%$$.
6.
Hooghe@ 7ies+et and 8ar! Mar>s. Multi-Level Governance and European
Integration6 7anham@ oulder@ 9e: Vor> and 1=,ord) 'o:man H 7ittle,ield
0u+lishers@ "##..
Hooghe@ 7ies+et and 8ar! Mar>s. E;nraveling the Central State@ +ut Ho:3 *!pes
o, Multi%7evel 8overnance.F 3$erican Political 0cience Revie2 &6) " (Ma!
"##2)) "22%"-2.
Inforegio Panora$a, EU %ohesion Policy &'((-)**(+ Investing in Europe,s
!uture Ed. 'aphael 8oulet. "4 (?une "##$)
Mar>s@ 8ar! and 7ies+et Hooghe. E1ptimalit! and Authorit!) A Criti<ue o,
9eoclassical *heor!.F /ournal of %o$$on Market 0tudies 2$) / ((ecem+er
"###)) 6&/%$.4
Mar>s@ 8ar!@ Hooghe@ 7ies+et and Iermit lan>. EEuropean Integration ,rom the
.&$#s) State%Centric v. Multi%7evel 8overnance. /ournal of %o$$on Market
0tudies 2-) 2 (Septem+er .&&4)) 2-"%26-.
Mar>s@ 8ar!@ 9ielsen@ FranLois@ 'a!@ 7eonard and ?ane E. Sal>. ECompetencies@
Crac>s and Con,licts@ 'egional Mo+iliBation in the European ;nion.F
%o$parative Political 0tudies "&) " (April .&&4)) .4-%.&".
M. (o:ns@ Ailliam. E'egionalism in the European ;nion.F European Integration
"-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) .6.%.66.
Multi-Level Governance6 Ed. Ian ache and Matthe: Flinders. 1=,ord) 1=,ord
;niversit! 0ress@ "##-.
Multi-Level Governance in the European Union+ aking 0tock and Looking
3head6 Ed. *homas ConBelmann and 'andall Smith. aden%aden) 9omos@ "##$.
6"
Murph!@ Ale=ander. E'ethin>ing Multi%7evel 8overnance in a Changing
European ;nion) Ah! Metageograph! and *erritorialit! Matter.F Geo/ournal 6")
6 ("##$)) 6%.$.
0iattoni@ Simona. EMulti%7evel 8overnance) A Historical and Conceptual
Anal!sis.F European Integration 2.) " (March "##&)) .42%.$#.
'egions "#"#@ E3n 3ssess$ent of !uture %hallenges for EU Regions,
%o$$ission 0taff Working 1ocu$entF (russels) Commission o, the European
Communities, 9ovem+er "##$.)
Scott@ Colin. E*he 8overnance o, the European ;nion) *he 0otential ,or Multi%
7evel Control.F European La2 /ournal $) . (March "##")) /&%6&.
Sutcli,,e@ ?ohn . E*he .&&& 'e,orm o, the Structural Fund 'egulations) Multi%
7evel 8overnance or 'enationaliBation3.F /ournal of European Pu#lic Policy 6) "
(?une "###)) "&#%2#&.
Kos@ Hendri>@ ouc>@ *ine and Carl (evos. E*he %onditio %ine 4ua 5on o, the
Added Kalue o, 'egions in the E;) ;pper%7evel 'epresentation as the
Fundamental Condition.F European Integration "-) 2 (9ovem+er "##.)) "#.%".$.
Working for the Regions, European Union Regional Policy Ed. 'aphael 8oulet.
(7u=em+ourg) European Communities@ "##-)
62

Ada

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ada

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Centre International de Formation Europenne

Institut Europen des Hautes tudes Internationales

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen