Does cohesion policy reduce EU discontent and Euroscepticism
Summary (2 min read)
Introduction
- Between 2014 and 2020 the European Union (EU) spent almost one third of its budget – or €351.8 billion – “in order to support job creation, business competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development, and improve citizens’ quality of life” in its regions and cities (European Union, 2014).
- Between 2013 and 2018 13.4% of voters in the EU cast their vote in national legislative elections for parties that are either strongly opposed or opposed to European integration.
- The next section briefly describes cohesion policy and looks at the potential link between cohesion policy investments and support for Eurosceptic parties, as captured by the relatively limited literature on the topic.
- The presentation and examination of the results of the econometric analysis ensue, before concluding with a discussion about potential policy implications.
EU EU-12 EU-15 EU-15 EU-25 EU-27 EU-28 EU-27***
- Structural Fund Reports, SFC and REGIO calculations, also known as Source.
- There is considerable variation in the level of support across countries.
- Whereas investment in German, Italian, and UK less developed regions never topped €200 per capita per year, in countries such as Czechia, Greece, Hungary, or Portugal, the investment intensity was around €400 per capita on an annual basis between 2007 and 2013.
Cohesion policy and Euroscepticism
- While the discussion about the effectiveness of EU cohesion policy has been intense, much less is known about the extent to which the cohesion policy has contributed to stymie the rise of Eurosceptic support across Europe.
- They highlight that “Polish farmers have voiced their frustration with aid conditions, with their eroding livelihoods, and with a sense of having been dealt an uneven hand in comparison with their EU competitors” (Hartnett and Gard-Murray, 2018: 2000).
- Second is what some have considered “an insufficient correlation between the funds and the set of socioeconomic conditions that are shown to be responsible for hampering the economic success of many EU regions” (Crescenzi, 2008: 129) or even a lack of accord with the needs of the citizens living in the regions receiving the funding.
- Not all research based on individual countries reaches the same negative conclusions.
- There is a reduced but growing body of research that supports the idea that EU cohesion policy has a relatively small but growing influence on electoral outcomes.
Model and data
- Education is captured by the percentage of adults (between 25 and 64) with a higher education degree; age by the share of the population above the age of 64; and wealth, more indirectly, by the GDP per capita.
- The variable of interest is investment intensity – measured in Euros per capita of annual support – in cohesion policy for the period 2000-2013.
- Electoral constituencies are used for Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia, or the UK, while the larger NUTS3 level is the unit of analysis in Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, or Malta.
Methodology
- The empirical analysis is estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS).
- The main OLS estimations are complemented with Instrumental Variable (IV) analysis and Population Weighted estimations.
- An indirect impact does not require that people are aware, if cohesion policy investments have a positive impact on a region, people living in this region may become more positive in general, including with regard to the EU and European integration.
- This implies that, once other factors shaping Eurosceptic voter behaviour are controlled for, more cohesion policy investment is linked to lower support for parties opposed to European integration.
Conclusion
- With the recent rise of support for Eurosceptic parties at the ballot box across many parts of Europe, increasing attention has been focused on what can be done in order to prevent and, eventually, stop this trend.
- It has also studied different levels of Euroscepticism and different cohesion policy funds and programming periods.
- The roots of people’s discontent, of their growing resentment against the ‘system’ are deep and would require of more and better targeted forms of intervention.
- The EU, through its cohesion policy, can and should play a more central role in leading this type of intervention.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
18 citations
11 citations
References
850 citations
784 citations
677 citations
561 citations
552 citations
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (9)
Q2. What are the main reasons for the drop in support for the Eurosceptic parties?
In the case of the 2013 Italian national election, more cohesion policy investment by the EU led to a drop in support for the Eurosceptic Lega and Cinque Stelle parties.
Q3. According to what survey did the majority of the population in the mid-2000s trust the EU?
According to different Eurobarometer surveys, in the mid-2000s only one quarter of the European population tended not to trust the EU.
Q4. What was the amount of money that was channeled to Cornwall during the period between 2007 and?
The EU channelled through cohesion policy a considerable amount of resources to Cornwall during the period between 2007 and 2013.
Q5. What is the effect of a larger share of cohesion policy investment in human capital?
This means that although a larger share of cohesion policy investment in human capital is generallyconducive to a lower share of Eurosceptic vote, as the amount of support rises in a region, the connectionbetween greater investment in education, skills, and training weakens, until becoming – at very highlevels of investment – connected with a greater vote for parties opposed to European integration.
Q6. What is the common reason why the majority of studies posing the question from a?
The very limited number of studies posing the question from a European dimension (e.g. Borin et al., 2018; Schraff, 2019) generally rely on large territorial units and survey data, rather than on real electoral outcomes.
Q7. How many people in the UK are expressing doubts about the European project?
By the late 2010s – and one long economic crisis later – the share of European citizens expressing doubts on the European project had reached 45% of the population.
Q8. What is the common way of assessing the link between EU spending and Eurosceptic?
Most assessments of the link between the territorial allocation of EU funding and Eurosceptic voting patterns are anchored in national case studies – and, most notably, in UK research linked to Brexit.
Q9. What is the way to combat the wave of discontent and resentment against European?
This implies that generating viable and solid development strategies for places lagging behind and/or suffering long-term economic decline should represent one of the soundest options to combat the wave of discontent and resentment against European integration (Dijkstra et al., 2020; Iammarino et al., 2019).