Cohesion policy good and bad practices
Introduction:
Lithuania (along with the other Baltics) is the success story of EU structural fund absorption.
Bulgaria (along with Romania) is the worst performer.
Lithuania has contracted projects for 87% (€6.4 billion) of available funds as of November 2012 and paid out 54% (€4 billion) to beneficiaries.
Bulgaria absorbed only €2 billion of an available €9.5 billion between 2007 and 2011.
Key factors affecting absorption capacity of structural funds:
1. Use of pre-accession funds
2. Political will
3. Wealth/political legitimacy of regions
4. Human resources
5. Knowledge of available funds
6. Corruption and transparency
7. Or is it just a question of TIME (and size)?
Bulgaria:
Joined EU in 2007 having spent very little of its pre-accession aid.
Multiple corruption and transparency scandals; funds are withheld and projects are delayed.
Change of government in July 2009 with creation of new administrative units to handle structural funds.
The quality of human resources is low in regional/municipal administrations: 4% speak English, the same people used for planning as for evaluation.
2011 sees improvements: 27 municipal information centres set up, number of prosecutions over misappropriation of funds increasing (but the absorption rate slightly lower than 2010).
Lithuania:
EU member since May 2004.
Population 3.2 million compared to Bulgaria’s 7.5 million.
Flexible economy: experienced rapid growth before the 2009 crisis (with help of pre-accession funds), and rebounded relatively quickly after huge contraction.
In 2004-06 priority was accorded to spending EU money according to all rules and procedures.
Start of 2007-2013 programming period absorption rate was similar to EU10 average (approx. 45%), but ‘slow’ absorption became an issue in government and changes were implemented.
Conclusion:
A combination of factors affects the absorption rate of structural funds in each country.
Bulgaria has absorbed the greatest proportion of
Lithuania (along with the other Baltics) is the success story of EU structural fund absorption.
Bulgaria (along with Romania) is the worst performer.
Lithuania has contracted projects for 87% (€6.4 billion) of available funds as of November 2012 and paid out 54% (€4 billion) to beneficiaries.
Bulgaria absorbed only €2 billion of an available €9.5 billion between 2007 and 2011.
Key factors affecting absorption capacity of structural funds:
1. Use of pre-accession funds
2. Political will
3. Wealth/political legitimacy of regions
4. Human resources
5. Knowledge of available funds
6. Corruption and transparency
7. Or is it just a question of TIME (and size)?
Bulgaria:
Joined EU in 2007 having spent very little of its pre-accession aid.
Multiple corruption and transparency scandals; funds are withheld and projects are delayed.
Change of government in July 2009 with creation of new administrative units to handle structural funds.
The quality of human resources is low in regional/municipal administrations: 4% speak English, the same people used for planning as for evaluation.
2011 sees improvements: 27 municipal information centres set up, number of prosecutions over misappropriation of funds increasing (but the absorption rate slightly lower than 2010).
Lithuania:
EU member since May 2004.
Population 3.2 million compared to Bulgaria’s 7.5 million.
Flexible economy: experienced rapid growth before the 2009 crisis (with help of pre-accession funds), and rebounded relatively quickly after huge contraction.
In 2004-06 priority was accorded to spending EU money according to all rules and procedures.
Start of 2007-2013 programming period absorption rate was similar to EU10 average (approx. 45%), but ‘slow’ absorption became an issue in government and changes were implemented.
Conclusion:
A combination of factors affects the absorption rate of structural funds in each country.
Bulgaria has absorbed the greatest proportion of