scholarly journals The main achievements of the EU structural funds 2007–2013 in the EU member states: efficiency analysis of transport sector

Equilibrium ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukáš Melecký
Keyword(s):  
Efficiency Analysis ◽  
Lower Amount ◽  
Transport Sector ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Development Fund ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Eu Structural Funds ◽  
The Eu

Research background: The European Union currently provides financial support to the Member States through various financial tools from European Structural and Investment Funds 2014–2020, and previously from the EU Structural Funds. In both terminologies, the funds represent the main instrument of EU Cohesion Policy to sustain territorial development, to increase competitiveness and to eliminate regional disparities. The overall impact of EU Funds depends on the structure of funding and absorption capacity of the country. Purpose of the article: The efficiency of funding across the EU Member States is a fundamental issue for EU development as a whole. The Author considers deter-mining the efficiency of EU Funds as an issue of high importance, and therefore this paper provides a contribution to the debate on the role of EU Cohesion Policy in the Member States. The paper focuses on territorial effects of relevant EU Funds in programming period 2007–2013 in infrastructure through efficiency analysis. Methods: Efficiency analysis is based on data at the country level, originating from ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013 and representing the input and output variables to analyse whether the goal of fostering growth in the target countries have been achieved with the funds provided, and whether or not more resources generated stronger growth effects in transport accessibility. The paper deals with comparative cross-country analysis, descriptive analysis of dataset and multiple-criteria approach of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in the form of output-oriented BCC VRS model of efficiency and output-oriented APM VRS subsequently model of super-efficiency. Findings & Value added: The paper aims to test the factors of two inputs and five outputs, trying to elucidate the differences obtained by the Member States in effective use of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the transport sector. The paper determines if the countries have been more efficient in increasing their levels of competitive advantages linked with transport. Preliminary results reveal that most countries with a lower amount of funding achieve higher efficiency, especially countries in a group of so-called “old EU Member States”, i.e. group EU15.

scholarly journals The allocation of financial resources of the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund during the period 2007–2013

2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (No. 2) ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
W. Heijman ◽  
T. Koch
Keyword(s):  
Financial Resources ◽  
Gdp Per Capita ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Real ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Cohesion Fund ◽  
Eu Structural Funds ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
The Eu

The article describes a model to predict the allocation of the EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund over the EU member states. By comparing the predicted allocation with the real allocation, it is possible to indicate which member states receive more and which countries receive less than the predicted share. The variables determining the predicted allocation are the GDP per capita and the size of the population.

scholarly journals R&D expenditure and thematic orientation of European investment in selected new EU member states / Výdaje na výzkum a vývoj a tematické zaměření evropských investic ve vybraných nových členských státech EU

Ergo ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-21
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Eu Structural Funds ◽  
Programming Period ◽  
European Investment ◽  
The Eu

Abstract During the programming period 2007-2013, the Structural Funds represented an important source of funds for research, development and innovation in the new member states of the EU. The article compares thematic focus of the EU Structural Funds support to this area (according to the categories of expenditure set by the EU legislation) in five countries with common historic experience - Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. The aim is to identify different approaches of individual states to finance research and innovation from the EU funds, also related to the development and structure of R&D expenditure, analysed in the first part of the text. The states in question have selected diverse strategies to invest European resources in research and innovation, particularly concerning the proportion of investment in research infrastructures to investment in research, innovation and related activities in business sphere. According to this comparison with the other examined countries, the Czech Republic is characterized by the highest orientation at spending the EU funds on the construction of research infrastructure.

scholarly journals Preparation of Serbia for implementation of Chapter 22 in the field of regional policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-143
Author(s):  
Sonja Živojinović
Keyword(s):  
Financial Management ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Administrative Capacity ◽  
Eu Structural Funds ◽  
Main Instrument ◽  
The Eu

Regional policy is the EU's main instrument for investing in sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Member States are responsible for its implementation, which requires adequate administrative capacity and sound financial management. When Serbia becomes a member of the EU, it will have at its disposal many times more funds from the EU structural funds than the ones it currently receives, and for the use of which it must prepare before joining the Union. Member States must respect EU law when selecting and implementing projects, in areas related to regional policy and Structural Instruments. Member States must also establish the institutional framework, organizational arrangements and necessary organizational arrangements to prepare supporting documents. This implies the establishment of all structures at the national and regional level required by EU regulations and standards. This Chapter 22 has a double meaning: it is important in itself, because through the negotiations on this Chapter it must be proven that we are in the mood to establish good and sufficient capacities for the use of EU Cohesion Policy. At the same time, Serbia is thus preparing to be an equal participant in the Union's Cohesion Policy, as well as all other member states.

scholarly journals Growing Significance of EU Institutions in Promotion of Inter-regional policies

2014 ◽  
pp. 222-230
Author(s):  
E. V. Ermakova
Keyword(s):  
Political Crisis ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Member States ◽  
Belgian Society ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Regional Policies ◽  
Regional Committee ◽  
Walloon Region ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the variety of tools and vehicles applied within the EU to expand the prerogative of the regions of the EU member states. The author uses as an example the inter-regional policies in Belgium in respect of the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region. The author analyzes the mechanisms of promotion of external regional relations in Belgium as a means of addressing different problems both on national and all-European level, supporting the arguments and conclusions by examples of relevant EU initiatives. The article details the activities of the EU Regional Committee (RC), the EU advisory body with the powers of political initiative, upholding the principle ofsubsidarity in the implementation of the EU member states' regional policies. The involvement of the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region in the activities of EU RC is described and summarized. As a case study, the article deals with Belgium's rotating six months presidency in the EUin 2010 when the country, which was going through a severe political crisis with no federal government in place, was represented by the two regions. The special focus of the article is on the strategic EU program "Europe2020" and its implementation by the regions of Belgium. There is an account of the initiatives undertaken by the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region within the framework of this program outlining the interaction of the two regions. The author provides a comprehensive analysis of the involvement of the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region with various EU institutions describing how each party achieves the promotion of its regional interests. Within this context, it is a noteworthy development that the Flemish Region is participating in the international program "Pact 2020" on energy all by its own. The article features quotations by Flemish and Walloon political figures which serve as an illustration of the prevailing attitudes in the Belgian society to the process of regionalization of their country. The EU structural funds aimed at funding these policies play a crucial role in the maturing of the regional dimension of the activities pursued by the EU institutions. The author finalizes with the review of the EU reasons for placing high importance on the promotion of the development of inter-regional ties between member states.

Connecting Europe Facility in the system of joint financing of the EU critical infrastructure

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (10) ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Robert BALAKIN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Support ◽  
Critical Infrastructure ◽  
Infrastructure Development ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Development Fund ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
Financing Infrastructure ◽  
The Eu

The study shows components of financial support for the formation and development of critical infrastructure entities in the European Union. The sustainable functioning of critical infrastructure is aimed at the observance of common Union interests, given the existence of differences in the economic policy in different EU Member States. It was found that the development of Trans-European infrastructure programs is carried out within the framework of the EU Cohesion Policy. The Connecting Europe Facility is a key special tool for funding critical infrastructure in the EU transport, energy and digital services sectors. The Fund is mainly used to finance entities aimed at achieving the goals of the European Green Deal. Recommendations for Ukraine to take into account the experience of financial support regulation for the development of the EU critical infrastructure are substantiated. Based on the experience of the EU, the criteria for determining the priority of the project for financing critical infrastructure are highlighted. Based on the analysis of the formation and use of the Connecting Europe Facility as the main common instrument for financing the EU critical infrastructure, a conclusion was made on the feasibility of establishing a critical infrastructure development fund of Ukraine to support financing of key projects in transport, digital and energy infrastructure. Special rules for determining the eligible costs incurred for financing infrastructure projects at the expense of the critical infrastructure development fund of Ukraine are disclosed.

European transport industry deregulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 1095-1115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Koliousis ◽  
Dongmei Cao ◽  
Panagiotis Koliousis
Keyword(s):  
Transport Sector ◽  
Operating Efficiency ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Managerial Efficiency ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Transport Industry ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Purpose This paper aims to examine the impact of deregulation on the European transport industry in the form of privatization, on the managerial efficiency of a panel of deregulated transport companies. Design/methodology/approach This research examines a data set of 25 deregulated transport companies from a sample of 12 EU nations from 1988 to 2015. Some studies have analyzed deregulation by using non-parametric models. However, only a limited number of studies focus on the impact of deregulation on the managerial efficiency. This study answers two questions: whether deregulation, in the form of privatization, in the transport sector has any effect on the managerial efficiency, on the profitability and on the investment decisions of the firm, and whether this premise is robust enough across the European transport industry. This study formulates a multivariate regression framework utilizing data from major privatized European transport companies. The final panel includes 25 companies, from 12 EU - Member States for the period 1988-2015, equaling 375 firm-year observations based on a rigorous selection methodology. Findings The study confirms that transport companies, post-privatization, are more efficient regarding operating efficiency and profitability. The authors find no evidence that deregulation improves investment efficiency. Social implications The study addresses the regulators’ dilemma, whether to deregulate, by focusing on analyzing the improvement of the managerial efficiency. Originality/value This study contributes to the transport industry management literature in three ways. First, the authors update the literature of the economic theory of regulation with an empirical examination which covers the latest years across the EU Member States. Second, the authors introduce a comparison of the effects of deregulation on different components of the managerial efficiency, namely, investment, profitability and operating efficiency of the incumbents in the EU transport industry. Third, they examine deregulation by using two approaches: a traditional one where deregulation is a dummy variable assessing the overall effect on incumbents’ efficiency performance; and a novel approach where the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s deregulation index is used to measure the regulation intensity, accounting also for industry-wide impact assessment. This two-sided approach increases the robustness of the results.

scholarly journals Regional Analysis of New EU Member States in the Context of Cohesion Policy

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-90
Author(s):  
Milan Viturka ◽  
Vladimír Žítek ◽  
Viktorie Klímová ◽  
Petr Tonev
Keyword(s):  
Regional Analysis ◽  
Regional Differentiation ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Socioeconomic Analysis ◽  
Information Relevance ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
New Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

Regional Analysis of New EU Member States in the Context of Cohesion Policy The paper concentrates on the new European Union member states, i.e. the states of central and eastern Europe which entered the Union in 2004 (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia) and 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania). The basis of the paper is the evaluation of the cohesion policy in the countries in question, which are then analysed at the level of NUTS 2 regions (cohesion regions). The aim of the socioeconomic analysis is to assess the economic level of the regions and to use the results to form their typology. Ten characteristic indicators were chosen so that the study was as complex as possible. For each indicator in the examined countries the average was calculated, which allowed for a considerable increase of the information relevance of the study conclusions. For the cartographic representation of the regional differentiation intervals based on this average and the standard deviation were used. The final part of the study presents a concluding synthesis together with the above-mentioned typology of the regions. The results are interpreted in the context of the optimal strategy selection for the regional policy determined by the EU cohesion policy.

scholarly journals Distributing the European structural and investment funds from a conflicting claims approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
María-José Solís-Baltodano ◽  
José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez ◽  
Josep E. Peris
Keyword(s):  
Investment Funds ◽  
Actual Problem ◽  
Development Fund ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
European Regional Development Fund ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
Claims Problem ◽  
Future Policy ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn order to support economic development across all European Union regions, €351.8 billion –almost a third of the total EU budget– has been set aside for the Cohesion Policy during the 2014–2020 period. The distribution of this budget is made through five main structural and investment funds, after long and difficult negotiations among the EU member states. This paper analyzes the problem of allocating the limited resources of the European Regional Development Fund as a conflicting claims problem. Specifically, we attempt to show how the conflicting claims approach fits this actual problem, and we propose alternative ways of distributing the budget via (i) claims solutions or (ii) the imposition of bounds (guarantees) to each of the regions. By applying this approach we also show that there is a claims solution that performs better than the others by reducing inequality and promoting convergence to a greater degree. It is clear that political bargaining will always be part of the allocation process. However, having an intuitive initial proposal may help politicians to find the best agreement. To that effect, we propose the use of a claims solution as a way to find an initial proposal for future policy changes concerning the allocations of the EU structural funds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document