Improving the Synergies between the Structural Funds and the Lisbon Strategy

Dr. Jens Henrik HaahrDanish Technological Institute

Thematic Evaluation:

Analyse implementation of the Lisbon Strategy

Assess the contribution of SF programmes to Lisbon

Identify ways for better exploiting synergies and

complementarities

Study Elements

Processess and Contributions

Lisbon Strategy Implementation

Structural Fund Contributions

Rationales, Potentials and Risks

Objectives and Governance Structures

Economic Rationales

”Lisbon is like a road that everyone wants to be on. You may want to be on the left or the right side of the road, but no one wants to leave it altogether. It defines good manners for European policy making”

High but Varied Congruence of SF Expenditure with Lisbon Objectives

Country / region Programme Share of funding relevant for Lisbon Objectives (%)

Portugal CSF 21 Greece CSF 39 Ireland CSF 42 Germany – NBL CSF 56 Greece – Attica Objective 1 18 Italy – Campania Objective 1 26 Portugal – North region Objective 1 28 Spain – Extremadura Objective 1 32 Germany – Sachsen Anhalt Objective 1 67 Sweden – Norra Norrland Objective 1 78 UK – Western Scotland Objective 2 68 Denmark – Bornholm Objective 2 80 Austria – Lower Austria Objective 2 n/a Finland – Satakunta Objective 2 85 France – Aquitaine Objective 2 83

Lisbon is about stronger growth

Two options:

1.Promote Lisbon via specific Structural Fund programme

2.Increase the Structural Funds’ focus on aggregate growth

1) Promoting Lisbon in a specific SF programme (Competitiveness and Employment Objective)

Recommendations:

If objective is increased competitiveness at regional level: Concentration of finances on selected regions

If objective is stronger strategic orientation in Member States: Direct link to national policies and programmes Thematic or geographical concentration of financial resources Clear commitments to multiplication and mainstreaming

2) Increasing the Growth Contribution of SF Programmes

More emphasis on the growth objectives of Structural Fund programmes

Stronger emphasis on R&D and innovation Stricter limits for support to individual enterprises More solid assessments of social rate of return and

cost/benefits More focus on institution building (public administration,

business services) Find ways to facilitate risk taking and innovation in SF projects

Use Structural Fundsas lever for reform