Macro-regional strategies seek to improve the interplay of the EU with existing regimes and institutions, and foster coherence of transnational policies. Drawing on macro-regional governance and Europeanization, this edited volume provides an overview of processes of macro-regionalization in Europe displaying evidence of their significant impact.

Discussing the ongoing and future challenges of EU Cohesion Policy, this book critically addresses the economic, social and territorial challenges at the heart of the EU’s policy. It identifies the multifaceted and dynamic nature of the policy as well as the cohesions goal interlinkage with other policies and considers unresolved questions of strategic importance in territorial governance, urban and regional inequalities, and social aspects and wellbeing.

This book considers the extent to which EU cohesion policy and related pre-accession instruments are contributing to the development of more compound polities in south east Europe and, specifically, promoting multi-level governance. In this respect, there are two points of departure: the first is the argument that the EU is a highly compound polity that tends to pull member (and candidate) states in this direction; the second is the considerable literature that links EU cohesion policy to the promotion of multi-level governance. Following this, we have chosen a range of south east European states whose period of engagement with the EU generally differs: Greece, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, F.Y.R. Macedonia and Turkey. The case studies reveal that EU cohesion policy has created more compound polities but that system-wide multi-level governance remains weak and central governments are still prominent. However, there are interesting and potentially important developments in relation to particular features of multi-level governance, not least in states whose engagement with the EU in this sphere is relatively new. This book was published as a special issue of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies.

The academic literature on the effectiveness of the European Union's cohesion policy is inconclusive: some studies find positive long-term impacts, others find positive but only short-term impacts, while others find no or even negative impacts. This range of results arises from major complicating factors, related to complex local environments, the diversity of policy interventions beyond cohesion policy, varying time frames, cross-regional spillover effects, lack of appropriate data for the analysis and various econometric problems and related estimation biases. We adopted a novel methodology that first estimated 'unexplained economic growth' by controlling for the influence of various region-specific factors, and then analysed its relationship with about two dozen characteristics specific to projects carried out in various regions in the context of EU cohesion policy. We found that the best-performing regions have on average projects with longer durations, fewer priorities, more inter-regional focus, lower national co-financing, more national (as opposed to regional and local) management, a higher proportion of private or non-profit participants among the beneficiaries (as opposed to public-sector beneficiaries) and a higher level of funding from the Cohesion Fund. No clear patterns emerged concerning the sector of intervention. Interviews with stakeholders suggested that cohesion policy is the most evaluated of all EU policies and generates European value added. In some countries, local stakeholders have different attitudes towards cohesion and national funds, which sometimes leads to less-careful management of EU funds. The Performance Framework is seen as creating an additional layer of administrative burden, without a clear connection to results or the quality of interventions. Beyond the crucial role of administrative capacity and institutional quality, there are no clear-cut characteristics that contribute to the success of cohesion programmes. Cohesion policy reform should focus on addressing the underlying problems, involving more strategic planning, fostering simplification but with stricter controls when the corruption risk is high, increasing the interregional focus and exploring synergies with other EU and national programmes. Focused and longer-term strategic programmes do not require high levels of flexibility. The national co-financing rate should be set on the basis of fiscal constraints, the additionality principle and corruption risk. The importance of a locally-led perspective should be reconciled with our finding that centralised management works better. Thematic concentration along with fewer EU goals is well justified for more-developed regions, but not for less-developed regions. A strengthened link with the European Semester should be avoided. Transparency over data, design and implementation of projects should be increased.