Thematic concentration & flexibility High Level Meeting on the Future of Cohesion Policy

1. Thematic concentration & flexibility High Level Meeting on the Future of Cohesion Policy Budapest, 31 March 2011 Peter Wostner Government Office for Local Self-government and Regional Policy, Slovenia

2. Partnership: Regional Studies Association – DG Regio - Slovenia • Dialogue between academic and policy communities • Participants from 22 MS • From range of disciplines • 20 workshops • Over 60 papers all available at http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/2011/mar-slovenia-papers.asp

3. Thematic concetration • “Yes, but...” kind of issue • Discussion paper by HU predsidency: • Yes...: • increased effectiveness • alignment with Europe 2020 strategy • visibility • But...: • flexibility for regional specificities • ownership: question of governance

4. Discussion at the conference • Policy objectives • Alignment with Europe 2020 • Governance: • Bottom-up vs. top-down approach • Programming • Policy complementarities

5. Policy objectives • One objective – one instrument (Barca): common understanding what is the policy about – improved impact evaluation possible; indications of policy learning process (R-Pose) • Unlocking development potentials: • Begg: “investibility” • Region specific strategies needed (ESPON) • McCann: for “smart specialisation” • is about diversification • a way to couter agglomeration economies • sectoral or space-neutral approach regional vs. place-based approach where context matters → embeddedness, relatedness, connectivity

6. Policy objectives • EC: menu approach with typology of outcome and core indicators focusing on limited number of priorities • Gaffey: new logic needed focusing on 2 fundamental questions: • What do you want to change? • How will you know you were successful? • Question of available funding? • Real world complexities vs. policy simplicity • How will it work in practice – political dimension of the process

7. Objectives &Europe 2020 • Agreement about full alignment with Europe 2020; the question is how to do it? • No of policy sectors covered by the “third edition of the Lisbon strategy” has increased (Leonardi); e.g. energy and environment now much more at the forefront – consequences for CP? • National targets • Flexibility needed: so, is there an argument for broader thematic priorities .... • .... but also case for obligatory priorities: e.g. Molle arguing for administrative capacity building.

8. Governance • Bottom-up vs. top-down approach: • If decision-making left entirely to the MS, what is the case for financing at the EU level with the present structure → agreement on stronger top-down, but some assurances needed • Who is “top”: Commission, Council, Parliament... • Is there sufficient capacity; question of excellence at the EU level • Programming is the key to ensure bottom-up (multi-level governance & subsidiarity): • Selection of priorities • Outcomes and targets • Policy complementarities: • Synergies between EU and national policies • Synergies between different EU policies (smart specialisation) • Alignment of different policy processes: e.g. relationship between National Reform Programmes, Pact for Euro & SGP and CP

9. Some key messages (no conclusions) • Care about simplification of processes • Pragmatism: • Less is more • in terms of number of documents • in terms of their length: concentration is not just about themes but also about contents (i.e. focus on key issues) • Strategic choices (what do we want to achieve) are fully compatible with high flexibility in the implementation phase (how do we do it) • Concentration should not be at the expense of “integrated approach”. • Sucess of “thematic concentration”, like that of “Lisbonisation”, will in practice depend much more on how the policy will be implemented than on the form and its presentation. • How much time is left?

10. THANK YOU Peter.Wostner@gov.si Government Office for Local Self-government and Regional Policy, Slovenia