Master in European Studies
(M.E.S.)
Master in European and Global Affairs
(M.E.G.A.)
Course Syllabus
for the academic year 2014/15
Course title:
Instructor:
Home University:
Office hours:
Contacts:
COHESION POLICIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Prof. Robert Leonardi
London School of Economics
[on request]
Robert.Leonardi.LUISS@gmail.com
COURSE OUTLINE
Course Aims and Objectives:
The course will provide a detailed knowledge of the structure and content of the European Union’s
policy on socio-economic cohesion and the manner in which it is implemented in member countries and
regions. Of particular concern for the course is the impact of the EU’s socio-economic cohesion policy
on levels of economic growth and social well-being. For this purpose, an extensive review of the
theoretical literature will be undertaken, and reference will be made to the numerous empirical studies
conducted by the European Commission and research scholars. Special attention will also be paid to the
Lisbon Agenda and how since 2000 this policy has interacted with the cohesion policy in the creation of
greater interaction between the Commission and member states in achieving specific social and economic
results. In 2010 the Commission issued its Europe 2020 strategy that has become an important template
for the formulation of the cohesion policy for 2014-2020. Material will be drawn from the studies
completed by the Commission on the Impact of the Single Market on Cohesion. Attention will also be
paid to (1) the impact of the Euro crisis on the Southern European countries and the emerging
economies of Eastern Europe; (2) the negotiations on the 2014-2020 multi-annual budget that have
determined the allocation for the period of the Cohesion Policy; (3) the new Regulations for the Cohesion
Policy that define a major change in the implementation and evaluation of the policy outputs and
outcomes. Analysis will be presented of the trend in regional statistics to illustrate the impact of the Euro
and economic crises on the southern and eastern European regions and countries.
Course Content:
Theories of European integration; core-periphery theories in political science and economics; the
devolution of powers in centralised states; impact of Single Market and EMU on regional disparities;
operation of the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund within the EU, member states, regions and
localities; political role of the Committee of Regions: European spatial planning; Evaluation of EU
policies and programmes.
Course Structure:
The course is structured over a three week period. During the first week the class will meet on the three
days between March 4th and the 6th. The second week will cover the two days of March 19th and 20th while
during the third week classes will be held on March 25 and 26th. The first day will be dedicated to the
presentation of the essential political, institutional elements necessary for the analysis of the EU’s socioeconomic cohesion policies in the less developed and peripheral regions. The second two days are
dedicated to the analysis of the theoretical debates that have characterized the cohesion policy from its
birth to the present day. After the first three days of lecturers, students will be asked to prepare a 5-page
paper on regional disparities. The second week of classes will cover
During the second week of the course, lectures will concentrate on what has happened in the EU as a
whole and in individual member states. The first group of members states will cover the original four
“cohesion” countries—Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain—to be followed by a discussion of Italy and
the UK. The third week of the course will look at the group of member states that joined the EU in 2004,
2007, and 2013. During the final day of lecture we will discuss the prospects of expanding further the EU
into the Western Balkans, Turkey and the Ukraine. Attention will also be addressed to the new planning
period, 2014-2020, and an evaluation of the changes that have been introduced to the cohesion policy
both in terms of objectives as well as methods of implementation.
Useful sources of information on regional and social policy on the internet: http://inforegio.cec.eu.int
and http://europa.cec.eu.int
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
Students have to attend all lectures prepared as indicated in the Study Plan (below) and do all oral and
written assignments within the given timelines. An intermediate paper (memo; 1.500 words) and two final
papers (essays; 2.500 words each) on different topics will be requested. The final papers cover the entire
course material and will be completed as "take home" papers.
COURSE ASSESSMENT
The composition of the final course grade will contain the following elements:
Course participation: 25%
Intermediate paper: 25%
Two final papers: 25% each
COURSE STRUCTURE
March 4
1) Cohesion Policies in the EU: ECSC, EEC, SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and
Lisbon Treaties.
2) Devolution in Europe: state reform and building institutions at sub-national level
March 5
1) The theoretical debate on convergence and centre-periphery theories: Political science
and Economics
2) The theoretical debate: side-payments and multi-level governance
March 6
Agglomeration theories, infrastructure, human capital, FDI, innovation.
March 19
The empirical evidence relating to convergence and divergence in regional
disparities in the European Union.
March 20
1) The PIGS I, Iberia (Portugal and Spain) and Ireland. Has the crisis passed?
2) The PIGS II: Greece and Italy State clientelism, private market, the public sector and
social policies; budget deficits
March 25
Decentralisation of state structures in the northern periphery: Scotland and Wales
March 26
1) Enlargement accomplished: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary
2) Enlargement: second round. Cohesion policy in centralised states, Bulgaria and
Romania;
3) Evaluation, Europe 202 and Cohesion Policy 2014-2020
STUDY PLAN AND READING LIST1
March 4th : Introduction and background to cohesion policies in the EU;
Europeanization; theories of growth; centre-periphery theories; Single
Market; Single Currency
Study questions:
1) The Single European Act represents the turning point in the construction of an integrated European
economy and political system. Forms of market integration: free trade area, common market; and single
market.
2) Cohesion policies are the product of the Single Market and Single Currency programmes. Results of
the 1990s and what happened during the last decade.
3) The Single Market programme and cohesion policies have had a strong impact on the institutional
structure of member states.State reform and policy reform. Principal-agent approaches to policy analysis.
4) EU cohesion policy is just another regional development policy.Differences between cohesion and
regional policy. The Europeanisation of policies in agriculture, competition, transport, environment and
social policies.
Essential Readings:
European commission, Sixth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial cohesion: “Investment
for jobs and growth”, pp. 1-136.
R. Leonardi, “The Impact of the Single Market on Cohesion: Literature Review”, 2011, Paper.
R. Leonardi, Cohesion Policy in the European Union, (Palgrave, 2005), Chps. 1 & 2.
R. Leonardi, Convergence, Cohesion and Integration in the European Union (Macmillan, 1995), Chps.
1&2.
R. Leonardi and R.Y. Nanetti ““Multi-Level Governance in the EU: Contrasting Structures and
Contrasting Results in Cohesion Policy”, Regional Science Association Research Network on
Effectiveness, Added Value and Future of EU Cohesion Policy, Institute for European
Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 28-29 November
2011.Paper
M. Arghyrou and G. Chortareas, “Current account imbalances and real exchange rates in the Euro area”,
Review of International Economics, 2008, pp. 747-764.
V. Bornschier (ed.) State-building in Europe: The Revitalization of Western European Integration
(Cambridge, 2000), Chps. 5&6.
1
Where Paper is designated, the paper will be provided through the course.
J. Bukowski, S. Piattoni and M. Smyrl (eds.) Between Eurpeanization and Local Societies: The Space for
Territorial Governance (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), pp. 1-21.
T. Borzel, States and Regions in the European Union (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 1-44.
European Commission, Fourth Cohesion Report, 2007, Introduction.
J. Loughlin, Subnational Democracy in the European Union, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 1-36.
W. Molle, European Cohesion Policy, London: Rutledge, 2007. pp. 1-12. Regional Studies, special issue
on cohesion policy, April 2006.
N. Vanhove, Regional Policy: A European Approach, Ashgate, 1999, Chps. 1 & 2
Further Readings:
H. Armstrong and J. Taylor, Regional Economics and Policy (Harvester, 2000).
I. Bache, The Politics of European Union Regional Policy, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
M.J.F. Goldsmith & K.K. Klausen (eds.), European Integration and Local Government, Edward Elgar,
1997.
M. Keating, The New Regionalism in Western Europe, Edward Elgar, 1998.
P. Le Gales and C. Lequesne, Regions in Europe, Routledge, 1998.
R. Leonardi (ed.), The Regions and the European Community: The Regional Response to the Single
Market in Underdeveloped Areas, Frank Cass, 1993.
C. Paraskevopoulos, R. Grinspun and T. Georgakopoulos (eds.), Economic Integration and Public Policy
in the European Union, Edward Elgar, 1996.
A. Rodriguez-Pose, Dynamics of Regional Growth in Europe, Oxford University Press, 1998.
A. Rodriguez-Pose, The European Union: Economy, Society and Polity, Oxford University Press, 2002.
W. Swenden, Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2006, Chps. 1 and
2.
March 5th : The theoretical debate: convergence and centre-periphery theories: Political
science and Economic. Side-payments, multi-level governance, social capital and learning,
social policy
Study questions:
1) Integrated markets naturally converge due to the free flow of the factors of production.
2) Integrated markets naturally diverge. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
3) Structural Funds represent a social policy rather than an economic one. Therefore, they represent
“side-payments” for the poor in preparation for eventual economic decline?
4) What are the implications of multi-level governance for regional policy?
5) Is multi-level governance federalism under a different disguise?
6) What is the role of social capital and learning in the process of convergence?
Essential Readings:
D. Allen, ‘Cohesion and Structural Adjustment’ in H. Wallace and W. Wallace, Policy Making in the
European Union, 4th edition (2000)
J. Bachtler and C. Mendez, “Who Governs EU Cohesion Policy? Deconstructing the Reforms of the
Structural Funds”, JCMS, 2007, pp. 535-564.
R. Balme, “Regional Policy and European Governance” in Michael Keating and John Loughlin (eds.),
The Political Economy of Regionalism, Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 63-76
R. Geyer, Exploring European Social Policy (Policy Press, 2000), Chps. 1&2
M. Hodges “Liberty, Equality, Divergency: The Legacy of the Treaty of Rome?” in Hodges and Wallace
(eds.) Economic Divergence in the European Community (1981) Chp. 1.
L. Hooghe and G. Marks “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance”,
American Political Science Review, Volume 97, No. 2, May 2003, pp. 233-244.
J. Jordana, “Collective action theory and the analysis of social capital”, in J. van Deth et al., Social Capital
and European Democracy, Routledge, 1999, pp. 45-72.
R. Leonardi and C.J. Paraskevopoulos, “Social Capital and Learning Institutional Networks: Making sense
of subsidiarity in European regional policy” www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa96/SESSION.A/a269.pdf
C. J. Paraskevopoulos, Interpreting Convergence in the European Union (Macmillan, 2001), Chps. 1 & 2
C.J. Paraskevopoulos and R. Leonardi, “Adaptational Pressures and Social Learning in European
Regional Policy: Cohesion (Greece, Ireland and Portugal) and CEE (Hungary, Poland) Countries in
Comparative Perspective, Regional and Federal Studies, August 2004.
S. Rokkan and D.W. Urwin, Economy, Territory, Identity: Politics of West European Peripheries (1983).
Sapir Report, “An Agenda for a Growing Europe: Making the EU Economic System Deliver”, 2003.
V. Schmidt, “European ‘Federalism’ and its Encroachments on National Institutions”, Publius (Winter
1999), pp. 19-44.
D. Seers, B. Schaffer and L. Killjunen (eds.) Underdeveloped Europe: Studies in Core-Periphery (1979).
Preface and Selwyn chapter.
Further readings:
J. Bachtler and I. Turok (eds.) The Coherence of EU Regional Policy (1997), Part I “Overview of
Regional Problems and Policies”, Chps 1-3, pp. 5-47.
V. Bufacchi and S. Garmise, “Social Justice in Europe: An Evaluation of European Regional Policy”,
Government and Opposition, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1995.
Committee of the Regions, The regional and local dimensions in establishing new forms of Governance
in Europe, Office of Official Publications, 2002.
European Commission, Governance in the European Union, Office of Official Publications, 2001,
preface.
L. Hooghe (ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance,
Clarendon, 1996, Chaps. 1-2.
R. Leonardi, The Regions and the European Community, Chp. 10
G. Marks et. Al. “Competencies, Cracks and Conflicts: Regional Mobilization in the European Union” in
G. Marks, et al. (eds.) Governance in the European Union, Sage, 1996.
R. Nanetti, “EU Cohesion and Territorial Restructuring in the Member States” in L. Hooghe (ed.),
Cohesion Policies in the European Union, Clarendon Press. 1996, pp. 59-88.
F. Scharpf, Community and Autonomy: Multi-Level Policy Making in the European Union, EUI Working
Paper, RSC No. 94/1, 1994
March 6th: Agglomeration theories, infrastructure, human capital, FDI, innovation
The pre and post-SEA and Single Market debate
Study questions:
1) Development is the product of advanced technology.
2) Infrastructure networks are essential for a developed economy.
3) The most important component of a competitive economy is a skilled work force.
Required readings:
R. Leonardi The ‘Cohesionisation’ of the Lisbon Strategy through the Implementation of Europe 2020:
The Challenge for the Regions and Member States, Regional Studies Association 2012 European
Conference, Deflt, Netherlands, 16 May 2012.Paper
European Commission, “The Impact and Effectiveness of the Single Market”, October 1996. Paper
W. Molle, B. van Holst, and H. Smit, Regional Disparities and Economic Development in the European
Community (1980).
M. Manning, “The Politics of Structural Funding: Arenas and Agendas” in F. Carr and A. Massey (eds.)
Public Policy in the New Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999
Further Readings:
H. Armstrong, ‘Convergence among Regions of the EU, 1950-1990’ in Papers in Regional Science, Vol.
74, No. 2, 1995
F. Barry, “Economic Integration and Covergence Processes in the EU Cohesion Countries, JCMS, Vol.
41, No. 5, 2003.
J. Bradley, G. Petrakos, and I. Traistaru, Integration, Growth and Cohesion in an Enlarged European
Union, ZEI, Springer, 2005.
Beugeldijk and Eijffinger, “The Effectiveness of Structural Policy in the European Union: An Empirical
Analysis for the EU-15”, JCMS, 2005, European Commission, The impact of structural policies on
economic and social cohesion in the Union 1989-99 (1997).
L. Cohesion-Tanugi, “Beyond Lisbon: A European Strategy for Globalisation”, Report for the French
Presidency, 2008. Paper
R. Leonardi, Convergence op. cit., Chaps. 6-7.
M. Monti, “A New Strategy for the Single Market: At the Service of Europe’s Economy and Society”,
May 2010. Paper
W. Molle and S. Boeckhout, “Economic Disparity Under Conditions of Integration”, Papers in Regional
Science, Vol. 74, No. 2, 1995.
W. Molle, The Economics of European Integration, chp. on regional policy
W. Molle and S. Boeckhout, ‘Economic Disparity Under Conditions of Integration. A long term view of
the European Core’ in Papers in Regional Science, 74, 1995
R.Y. Nanetti “The Strategy of Region-Specific Development, Geoforum, No. 1, 1987.
L. Tsoukalis, The New European Economy, chp. On Regional Policy
March 19th: Convergence/divergence; the empirical evidence
Study Questions:
1) What are the implications of centre-periphery theories on the evolution of regional disparities?
2) Can dependency theory be applied to the regions in the European Union?
3) Is convergence of peripheral areas possible in large integrated markets?
4) Has the theoretical and policy paradigms in the discussion of convergence changed after the creation
of the single market in 1993?
5) What has been the impact of EMU?
Essential Readings:
European Commission, Sixth Cohesion Report, Investing in Europe’s Future (2013).
M. Boldrin and F. Canova “Inequality and Convergence: Reconsidering European Regional Policies”,
CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3744, February 2003, www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP3744.asp.
J. Cuadrardo Regional convergence in the European Union.From hypothesis to the actual trends”, Annals
of Regional Science, Vol. 35, 2001, pp. 333-356.
A. De la Fuente “Convergence across countries and regions: Theory and empirics”, EIP Papers, No. 2,
2000.
J. Delors, “Regional Implications of Economic and Monetary Integration” in CEC, Report of Economic
and Monetary Union in the European Community, Office of Official Publications of the European
Community, 1987, pp. 81-89.
C. Krieger-Boden, E. Morgenroth and G. Petrakos, The Impact of European Integration on Regional
Structural Change and Cohesion, London: Routledge, 2008).
R. Leonardi, “Cohesion in the European Community: Illusion or Reality?”, Western
European Politics, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1993). M. Keating (1995), “A Comment on Robert
R.Leonardi, (1995) “A Response to Michael Keating”, Western European Politics, Vol. 18, No. 2.
R. Leonardi Convergence, Cohesion and Integration in the European Union, Chaps.3 and 4.
R. Leonardi, Cohesion Policy in the European Union, Chp. 4.
Further Readings:
H. Armstrong “Convergence Among Regions of the EU, 1950-1990”, Papers in Regional Science, April
1995, pp. 143-152.
R. Barro and X. Sala-i-martin, “Convergence across states and regions”, Brookings Papers on Economic
Activity (1991).
A. De la Fuente, “The empirics of growth and convergence: a selective review,” Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, Vol. 21, Amsterdam, 1997, p. 36.
F. Fagerberg and B Verspagen, ‘Heading for Divergence? Regional Growth in Europe Reconsidered’ in
Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.34, no.3
March 20th : The PIGS: Iberia and Ireland: Has the crisis passed?
Study questions:
1)Have Portuguese and Spanish regions converged as a block or separately in relation to other regions
inEurope?
2) What role has democratization played in promoting regional development?
3) Has membership in the European Union proved to be beneficial or harmful for the Iberian
economies?
4) What has been the impact of joining the Euro?
5) Regional development in Ireland has been predominantly an exogenous phenomenon.
Essential Readings:
T. Börzel, States and Regions in the European Union (Cambridge University Press, 2002), Part III, 93152 on “Transforming competitive regionalism: Institutional adaptation to Europeanization in Spain.
C. Dudek, “Creation of a Bureaucratic Style: Spanish Regions and EU Structural Funds” in J. Bukowski,
S. Piattoni and M. Smyrl (eds.) Between Eurpeanization and Local Societies: The Space for Territorial
Governance (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), pp. 111-132.
F. Morata, “Regions and the European Community: A Comparative Analysis of Four Spanish Regions” in
R. Leonardi (ed.) The Regions and the European Community, 1993.
R. Nanetti, “Institutional Capacity and Reluctant Decentralization in Portugal: Case-study of the Lisbon
andTagus Valley Region”, Regional and Federal Studies, August 2004.
S. Syrett “Local Economic Development in Peripheral Rural Areas: The Case of Portugal” in S. Hardy et
al. (eds.) An Enlarged Europe: Regions in Competition? 1995, pp. 281-294.
L. Suarez-Villa and J. CuadradoRoura “Thirty Years of Spanish Regional Change”, International Regional
Science Review, vol. 15, No. 2, 1993.
L. Whitehead, “Democracy by convergence and Southern Europe” in G. Pridham (ed.) Encouraging
Democracy, Leicester Press, 1991.
G. Yannoppulos (ed.) European Integration and the Iberian Economies, St. Martins Press, 1989.
Further Readings:
S. Syrett, Local Development: restructuring, locality and economic initiatives in Portugal, Averby, 1995.
M. da Silva, J. Felyes and J. Neves “European Integration and Local Government: The Ambiguous
Portuguese Case” in M.F.J. Goldsmith and K. K. Klausen (eds.) European Integration and Local
Government(1997), pp. 172-188.
2) The PIGS: Greece and Italy; Structural Reforms in Southern Periphery
Study questions:
1) What have been the obstacles to economic development in southern Italy?
2) Does centralisation aid or retard development in Greece?
3) What are the prospects of strengthening social capital in Southern Italy and Greece?
4) Has the social and economic policy reforms imposed by the Euro crisis helped to reduce deficits and
increased competitiveness?
Essential Readings:
S. Fabbrini and M. Brunazzo, “Federalizing Italy: The Convergent Effects of Europeanization and
Domestic Mobilization”, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, Spring 2003, pp. 100-120.
E. Gualini, Multi-Level Governance and Institutional Change: The Eurpeanization of Regional Policy in
Italy (Ashgate, 2004), pp. 81-224.
S. Milio, "Can Administrative capacity explain differences in regional performances? Evidence from
Structural Funds implementation in Southern Italy", Regional Studies, Vol. 41, June 2007.
C. J. Paraskevopoulos, Interpreting Convergence in the European Union (Macmillan, 2001), Chp. 4
“Greece: Restructuring Under Pressure or the Response to an External Shock”.
S. Piattoni and M. Smyrl “Building Effective Institutions: Italian Regions and the EU Structural Funds” in
J. Bukowski, S. Piattoni and M. Smyrl (eds.) Between Eurpeanization and Local Societies: The Space for
Territorial Governance (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), pp. 133-156.
S. Piattoni, “’Virtuous Clientelism’: The Sourthern Question Resolved?”, in J. Schneider (ed.), Italy’s
“Southern Question”, Oxford, 1998, pp. 225-244.
R.D. Putnam, R. Leonardi and R.Y. Nanetti Making Democracy Work, Princeton University Press,
1993,Chaps. 4-6.
S. Verney and F. Papageorgiou “Prefecture Councils in Greece” in R. Leonardi (ed.) The Regions and the
European Community, Frank Cass, 1993.
Further Readings:
A.N. Carrello, The Northern Question: Italy’s Participation in the European Economic Community and
theMezzogiorno’s Underdevelopment, University of Delaware Press, 1989.
K. Featherstone & K. Ifontis (eds.), Greece in a Changing Europe (University of Manchester Press, 1996)
N. Konsolas, A. Papadaskalopoulos, and I. Plaskovitis, Regional Development in Greece, Springer, 2002.
A. Sbragia, “Italy Pays for Europe: Political Leadership, Political Choice, and Institutional Adaptation,” in
M.Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds.) Transforming Europe. Europeanization and Domestic
Change,Cornell University Press, 2001, pp. 79-98.
L. Tsoulouvis “Urban and Regional Restructuring in Northern Greece and the Single European Market”
in S.Hardy et al. (eds.) An Enlarged Europe (1995), pp. 267-280.
J. Walston, The Mafia and clientelism: roads to Rome in post-war Calabria, Routledge, 1988.
March 25th: Enlargement accomplished: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary
Study questions:
1) Enlargement towards Eastern Europe places into question the sustainability of cohesion policies in
theEU.
2) New member states are not in a position to engage in effective multi-level governance of
cohesionpolicies.
3) Institutional learning of how to formulate and manage cohesion policies in new member states will
takea long time in being carried out.
4) The accession of Romania, Bulgaria and eventually Turkey will marginalize the role of cohesion policy
inthe EU
Essential readings:
M. Boldrin and F. Canova, “Regional Policies and EU Enlargement”, CEPR, February 2003,
www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP3744.asp
H. Grabbe, “Europeanization Goes East: Power and Uncertainty in the EU Accession Process”, in
KevinFeatherstone and Claudio Radaelli (eds.) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford University Press,
2003, pp.302-327.
S. Hardy et al. An Enlarged Europe: Regions in Competition? (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, ), Part 3:
TheTransformation Process in Eastern and Central Europe. Especially chps.15 & 16.
R. Leonardi, Cohesion Policy in the European Union, Chp. 6.
R. Leonardi and H. Heinault, 2008, SOCCOH, chapters on Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic.
N. Nugent, “EU Enlargement and ‘the Cyprus Problem’”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 38,
No. 1,pp. 131-150.
N. Nugent, European Union Enlargement, 2004, Chps. 1 & 3.
Further readings:
D. Bailey and L. De Propris, “A Bridge Too Phare? EU Pre-Accession Aid and Capacity-Building in the
Candidate Countries”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 77-98.
G. Blazyca, K. Hoffman and E. Helilnska-Hughes, “Poland-Can Regional Policy Meet the Challenges of
Regional Problems”, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 2002, pp. 263-276.
M. Cremona, The Enlargement of the European Union, Oxford University Press, 2003.
European Commission, “Comprehensive monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU
membership of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia
andSlovakia”, December 2003, in Commission’s web site www.cec.eu.int.
J. Gower and J. Redmond (eds.) Enlarging the European Union, Ashgate, 2000.
H. Grabbe, "European Union Conditionality and the AcquisCommunautaire", International Political
ScienceReview, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2002, pp. 249-268.
J. Huges, G. Sasse and D. Gordon, Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU’s Enlargement to
Centraland Eastern Europe: The Myth of Conditionality, London: Palgrave, 2004.
Debra Johnson, “Developments in the Economies of the Applicant Countries”, Journal of Common
MarketStudies, Vol. 41, Annual Review, pp. 191-206.
D. Johnson, “Developments in the Economies of the Applicant Countries”, Journal of Common
MarketStudies, Vol. 41, Annual Review, pp. 191-206.
F. Millard, Polish Politics and Society, Rutledge, 1999.
H. Siursen, “Why Expand? The Question of Legitimacy and Justification in the EU’s Enlargement
Policy”,Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 491-513.
Special Issue of Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 2002 on enlargement
J. Winiecki, Institutional Barriers to Economic Development: Poland’s Incomplete Transition, Rutledge,
2) Enlargement: second round, Bulgaria and Romania, and third round, Croatia
Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia
Study questions:
1) Have multi-level governance procedures been scrapped for the management of the cohesion policy
inthe two new member states?
2) Participation of socio-economic groups in the management of cohesion policy represents a
programmeformality but not a realistic prospect in Bulgaria or Romania.
R. Leonardi and H. Heinault, 2008, SOCCOH: Chapters on Bulgaria and Romania
European Commission, Monitoring Report on Croatia’s Accession Preparations, 26. 3. 2013.
March 26th :ESDP, Cross-Border Networks, Evaluation, and the Future of Cohesion
Policy
1) ESDP
Study questions:
1) Territorial planning is the logical next-step for the Community Support Frameworks.
2) The ESDP and Cross-Border Networks represent two ‘foreign policies’ of the EU toward
neighbouring regions andcountries.
Essential Reading:
R. Leonardi and R.Y. Nanetti “Cross-border and trans-national cooperation in Cohesion Policy:
The analysis of visions and strategies in the European Union, 2007-2013”. Paper presented at the
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, 53rd Annual Conference, Cincinnati, USA, 1-4
November 2012. Paper
A. Falludi (ed.) European Spatial Planning, Lincoln Land Institute, 2002
L. Albrechts et al., Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe”, Journal of the
AmericanPlanning Association, Vol. 69, No. 2, Spring 2003, p. 113.
R.Cappellin and P.W.J Batey (eds.) Regional Networks, Border Regions and European Integration,
(Pion,1993), Chapters 1 by Cappellin and 2 by Hingel.
Further Reading:
EC Commission, Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the European Territory, 1992.
EC Commission, Europe 2000+: Outlook for the Development of the European Territory, 1994.
European Commission, Agenda 2000: For a stronger and wider Union, 1997.
European Spatial Development Perspective, Glasgow, 8 June 1998.
European Spatial Development Perspective, Potsdam, 10 May 1999.
EC Commission, Study of prospects in the Atlantic regions, 1995.
EC Commission, The Nordic countries: what impact on planning and development in the Union, 1995.
EC Commission, The spatial consequences of the integration of the new German Lander into the
Community, 1995.
EC Commission, Development prospects of the western Mediterranean regions, 1995.
EC Commission, Development prospects of the central Mediterranean regions (Mezzogiorno-Greece),
1995.
EC Commission, Prospects f or the development of the central and capital cities and regions, 1996.
Faludi, “Territorial Cohesion: Old (French) Wine in new bottles?”, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 7, 2004,
p.1350.
P. Getimis and G.Kafkalas (eds.), Urban and Regional Development in the New Europe (1993), pp.
Chps. 7, 8and 9 on urban problems in the EU.
W. Salet, A. Thornley and A. Kreukels, Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning, SponPres, 2003.
M. Tofaridis, The Urban Policy of the European Union, Ashgate Press, 2003.
2.Evaluation
Study questions:
1) Evaluation is a sine qua non condition for regional policy. Without it, regional policy represents a
“sidepayment”.
2) As structural and cohesion fund budgets increase, so does the need for objective, empirical evaluation.
Essential Readings:
R. Leonardi“The Performance Turn in Cohesion Policy: The Relationship Between ‘Outputs’ and
‘Outcomes’ in the Evaluation of the Implementation of Cohesion Policy in 2014-2020”, University of
Strathclyde, Conference on “Cohesion Policy at the Crossroads: Budget Reform, Geographical Allocation
and the Performance Turn in the 2014-2020 Period”, Glasgow, European Policies Research Centre,
Strathclyde University, 10-11 December 2012. Paper
F. Barca and p. McCann, “Output Indicators and Targets: Towards a New System of Monitoring and
Evaluation of EU Cohesion Policy”, high Level Group Reflecting on Future of Cohesion Policy, June
2011. Paper
J. Bachtler and C. Wren, “Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy: Research Questions and Policy
Challenges”, Regional Studies, April 2006, pp. 143-154.
S. Batterby, “Principles and Purposes of European Cohesion Policy Evaluation”, Regional Studies, April
2006,pp. 179-188.
T. Borzel and T. Risse, “Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe”, in K. Featherstone and C.
Radaelli(eds.) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp.57-79.
J. Bradley, “Evaluating the Impact of European Cohesion Policy in Less-Developed Countries and
Regions”,Regional Studies, April 2006, pp. 189-200.
European Commission, “Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy, European Regional
Development Fund and Cohesion Fund: Concepts and Recommendations”, November 2011. Paper
M. Diez, “Evaluating New Regional Policies: Reviewing the Theory and Practice”, Evaluation, Vol. 8, No.
3,2000, pp. 285-305.
R. Martin and P. Tyler, “Evaluating the Impact of the Structural Funds on Objective 1 Regions: An
Exploratory Discussion”, Regional Studies, April 2006, pp. 201-210.
Further Readings:
D. Diamond and N. Spence, Regional policy evaluation, 1983.
European Commission, Evaluating Socio-economic Programmes, MEANS Collection (2003).
Special issue of Regional and Federal Studies on cross-border experiments. Vol. 12, No. 4, Winter 2002
inEU and candidate countries.
3) The Future of Cohesion Policy: Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020
R. Leonardi. “The Performance Turn in Cohesion Policy: The Relationship Between ‘Outputs’ and
‘Outcomes’ in the Evaluation of the Implementation of Cohesion Policy in 2014-2020”, University of
Strathclyde, Conference on “Cohesion Policy at the Crossroads: Budget Reform, Geographical Allocation
and the Performance Turn in the 2014-2020 Period”, Glasgow, European Policies Research Centre,
Strathclyde University, 10-11 December 2012. Paper.
R. Leonardi, “The ‘Cohesionisation’ of the Lisbon Strategy Through the Implementation of Europe 2020:
The Challenge to the Regions and Member States”,Regional Studies Association 2012 European
Conference, Deflt, Netherlands, 16 May 2012.Paper.
F. Barca, “An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European
Union challenges and expectations”, European Commission, 2008. Paper
I. Begg, “Cohesion or Confusion: A Policy Searching for Objectives”, Journal of European Integration,
32: 1. pp. 77-96.2010.
European Commission, “Regions 2020: An Assessment of Future Challenges for EU Regions”,
November 2008. Paper
Committee of Regions, “Third CORE Monitoring Report on Europe 2020, October 2012.”Paper