The politics of European union regional policy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Integration in the European Community/Union has progressed on three fronts: the creation of a common market; the development of common institutions; and the forging of common policies. Contrary to the expectations of early functionalist and neo‐functionalist observers, the three have not proceeded in concert. Market integration has progressed a long way, albeit in fits and starts. Institutional integration has lagged. Common policies have proved most difficult of all, especially where they have required funding. The budget of the European Union will amount to a maximum of 1.27 per cent of GDP by 1999. There are two notable exceptions to this: the Common Agricultural Policy, and regional policy, now encompassed in the ‘structural funds’. This article examines two issues. First, we ask how and why regional policy has been able to advance to the point that structural funds now account for almost a third of the Union budget. Second, we ask about the effects of this expansion on political mobilization and the changing roles of the Commission and regional actors in the policy process. We find that the establishment and expansion of regional policy can be understood neither as simply Commission policy, nor as simply an interstate transfer, but are to be explained by a series of economic and political factors. As it has expanded, the policy has become the object of contestation among the Commission, member states and regions and has stimulated new forms of political mobilization. This mobilization could potentially reshape the policy, particularly at the implementation end. It might also forge new roles and relationships within the European Union and challenge the monopoly of member states over decision‐making in the field of spatial development policy. We find that there has been a great deal of regional mobilization but that its effectiveness is questionable. Member states have been able to maintain and recently reinforce their primacy in defining the modalities of intervention.