Preliminary Results from the project ‘Services of General Interest’ ( SeGI ) Daniel Rauhut , KTH

1. Preliminary Results from the project ‘Services of General Interest’ (SeGI) Daniel Rauhut, KTH ESPON Seminar, Krakow, November 2011 Regional Policy Options and Governance

2. - 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 The TPG

3. The aim of the project

4. 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? 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? Policy questions

5. 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 Setting the scene

6. 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. Telecommunications

7. 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. Education

8. 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. Waste management

9. Four clear conclusions can be drawn: The EU formulates policies that are difficult to implement; the Member States produces their own policies and implements them instead. 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. 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. If the policy goals of Europe 2020 are going to be implemented a revision of the present methods for implementationand monitoringneed to be considered; this is highlypoliticalycontroversial. Preliminary conclusions

10. Daniel Rauhut The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) daniel.rauhut@abe.kth.se http://www.espon.eu/ Merci beaucoup pour votre attention!