Regional Policy Options and Governance
Preliminary Results from the project ‘Services of General
Interest’ (SeGI)
Daniel Rauhut, KTH
ESPON Seminar, Krakow, November 2011
The TPG
- The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden – Lead Partner
- University of Vienna (UNIVIE), Austria
- Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial
Development (BBSR), Germany
- Centre of Geographical Studies (CEG), University of Lisbon, Portugal
- University of Akureyri (UNAK), Iceland
- Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), Norway
- Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization (IGSO), Polish Academy of
Science, Poland
- PlanIdea, Hungary
- Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, Research Centre for
Macroeconomic and Regional Forecasting (PROMAR), Romania
- Territorial Observatory of Navarra (NASURSA), Spain
- University of West of England (UWE) United Kingdom
2
The aim of the project
The prime objective of the project is to address the
identified need for support for policy formulation, at
all levels of governance and respect of all types of
territories, for the effective delivery of services of
general interest throughout Europe.
The project will identify the gaps that exist in the
territorial evidence to support implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of territorial policy
measures for services of general interest.
3
Policy questions
1 How should the defined (groupings of) services of general interest
be addressed by territorial development and cohesion policies?
2 What is the territorial distribution of the services of general interest
throughout the European territory and how can this be measured?
3 How and to what extent do the various levels of services of general
interest contribute to the global competitiveness, economic
development and job growth of cities, urban agglomerations and
other territories?
4
Setting the scene
•
Defining the key concepts
What is SGI?
What is Territorial Cohesion?
What are the policy ambitions?
•
Implementation and monitoring
Responsibility for SGI?
How are policies implemented?
How is implementation monitored?
•
Results
•
Solutions
5
Telecommunications
Sweden
Germany
The market is fully
liberalised and EU policies
are applied.
Regional
The market is fully
liberalised and EU policies
are applied. National
targets are additionally
developed.
(-)
Local/Municipality
(-)
(-)
National
(-)
In the telecom sector both countries have fully liberalised markets
and have adopted the general EU policies. Important to remember is
the territorial differences and Sweden that is a large country in many
areas is sparsely populated and has focused many of its policies on
territorial distribution.
6
Education
The education sector
shows a very
heterogeneous reality with
many actors, public and
private at different levels.
The two countries have
very different division of
responsibility on
organisation, financing
and monitoring.
National
Sweden
Germany
National guidelines and
(-)
targets are strongly influenced
by EU targets and the Europe
2020 strategy but are taken
as national policies.
Tertiary education is normally
state-run.
Regional
(-)
All education, policy-making,
operation and monitoring is
a regional responsibility
through the federal Länder.
Local/Municipality
Primary and secondary
education is a municipality
responsibility.
Most schools are public but
private schools with special
profiles are allowed as long as
they follow the national
objectives.
7
(-)
Waste management
Both countries have
adapted many of the
EU policies on waste
management but the
operating
responsibility is on
local levels involving
many private actors,
making the way from
EU policy to
implementation long
and complicated.
National
Sweden
Germany
National guidelines and
The Federal Environment
targets are decided by the
Ministry is responsible for
parliaments. In practice
waste policies and the political
they are strongly
key words are more or less
influenced by the EU
the same as the EU main
policies but some national
objectives.
objectives are added.
Regional
(-)
(-)
Local/Municipality
The municipalities alone or
(-)
in cooperation with other
municipalities are
responsible for the waste
management, producers
and other waste generators
are responsible for their
own waste. Waste
collection and treatment
facilities are commonly
operated by private actors.
8
Preliminary conclusions
Four clear conclusions can be drawn:
1. The EU formulates policies that are difficult to implement; the Member
States produces their own policies and implements them instead.
2. The open method of coordination (OMC) is the model used for policy
implementation in the EU. Evidence shows that this model is better
suited for information exchange; the implementer has no monitoring
possibilities with the OMC.
3. In many Member States many policies on SGI are formulated on the
national level and implemented by either national or local agents, both
public and private; the regional level is not so marked.
4. If the policy goals of Europe 2020 are going to be implemented a
revision of the present methods for implementation and monitoring need
to be considered; this is highly politicaly controversial.
9
Merci beaucoup pour votre attention!
Daniel Rauhut
The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
daniel.rauhut@abe.kth.se
http://www.espon.eu/
10