Marcin Dabrowski
I am an Assistant Professor at the Chair of Spatial Planning and Research at the Department of Urbanism. My academic interests span across regional, urban and policy studies and include such topics as regional and urban development policies, urban climate change adaptation, waste management and circular economy, energy transition, (multi-level) governance or international policy transfer.
I graduated from Sciences Po in Paris and completed my PhD at the University of the West of Scotland. I worked as a researcher at the European Policies Research Centre (University of Strathclyde) and at the University of Vienna. I am actively involved in the activities of the Regional Studies Association (RSA), among others by coordinating the RSA Research Network on EU Cohesion Policy and acting as an editor or one of the RSA's journals - Regional Studies, Regional Science (RSRS).
Individual grants and awards: Urban Studies Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, RSA Early Career Grant, Urban Knowledge Network Asia grant, RSA Early Career Excellence Award.
EU-funded research: H2020 COHESIFY, H2020 REPAiR, ESPON COMPASS.
I graduated from Sciences Po in Paris and completed my PhD at the University of the West of Scotland. I worked as a researcher at the European Policies Research Centre (University of Strathclyde) and at the University of Vienna. I am actively involved in the activities of the Regional Studies Association (RSA), among others by coordinating the RSA Research Network on EU Cohesion Policy and acting as an editor or one of the RSA's journals - Regional Studies, Regional Science (RSRS).
Individual grants and awards: Urban Studies Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, RSA Early Career Grant, Urban Knowledge Network Asia grant, RSA Early Career Excellence Award.
EU-funded research: H2020 COHESIFY, H2020 REPAiR, ESPON COMPASS.
less
InterestsView All (31)
Uploads
Publications by Marcin Dabrowski
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.11.001
Abstract: Delta cities are increasingly exposed to the risks of climate change, particularly to flooding. As a consequence, a variety of new spatial development visions, strategies, plans and programmes are being developed by city governments in delta regions to address these risks and challenges. Based on a general conceptual framework, this paper examines the nature of visions, strategies, plans and programmes in the delta cities of Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Rotterdam which are highly exposed to flooding and connected through a network of epistemic communities. The paper follows two main lines of inquiry. First, it examines the terms, concepts, and dominant institutional characteristics associated with the development of these visions, strategies, plans and programmes as a way of constructing a conceptual framework for understanding and explaining their connectivity. Second, it explores how and why cities’ spatial plans and governance dynamics are shaping climate adaptation responses. The systematic development of conceptual frameworks and in-depth analyses of varied, representative case studies is needed as their findings have important implications for vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in terms of policy options and cities as the optimal level for adaptation. The paper finds that dominant institutional characteristics critically affect the steering capacity of organisations/agencies (including their coordination capacity) to address climate-related risks. The findings have important implications for vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in cities, in general and delta cities, in particular.
Keywords
Climate change; Strategic spatial planning; Flood risk management; Governance; Delta cities
In the context of a severe economic crisis and austerity, new ideas were put forward
to reform cohesion policy to enhance its effectiveness and the return on investment.
Among them, financial engineering instruments, such as JESSICA, expected to offer
a means to ‘do more with less’ in this difficult budgetary context. In the case of such
instruments, EU funds are not offered as grants co-financing investment projects, but
rather are used to provide repayable assistance to projects, a form of support. Such
revolving funds approach is in stark contrast with the grant-based assistance typically
offered as part of EU cohesion policy and was expected to increase the sustainability
and effectiveness of interventions. But does it fulfil those expectations? This paper
examines JESSICA through the conceptual lens of policy instruments literature. It
verifies whether JESSICA is actually fit for its purpose of supporting sustainable
urban development. It also gauges the impacts of instrument on the behaviour of the
actors involved in its implementation at the sub-national level. The findings indicate
that JESSICA is a flawed and overly complex instrument that instead of doing ‘more
with less’ only allows for achieving ‘less with less’. However, it still exerts a positive
influence on the sub-national authorities involved by promoting cross-sectoral
interactions and facilitating learning. It also promotes a change in the approach to
EU cohesion policy and public investment more generally, putting more emphasis on
economic viability of investment.
Keywords: EU cohesion policy; JESSICA; financial engineering instruments; urban
development; policy instruments; tools of government
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/discursive-governance-in-politics-policy-and-public-sphere-umut-korkut/?K=9781137495778
This chapter examines the implementation and the effects of the so-called Financial Engineering Instruments (FEI) deployed as part of the European Union’s Cohesion Policy framework as one of the means to deliver better results and increase the policy’s effectiveness in a context of economic crisis and austerity. It focuses on the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA), an innovative tool using the EU Structural Funds to provide repayable assistance for urban development projects, marking a stark departure from the pre-existing grant-based support for regional and urban development initiatives. Drawing on the literature on policy instruments and empirical evidence from Polish and Spanish regions where JESSICA was pioneered, this chapter provides insights into how this new “discursive package” on EU cohesion policy is actually interpreted by the actors on the ground and how it affects their actual practices.
In the context of a severe economic crisis and austerity, new ideas were put forward
to reform cohesion policy to enhance its effectiveness and the return on investment.
Among them, financial engineering instruments, such as JESSICA, expected to offer
a means to ‘do more with less’ in this difficult budgetary context. In the case of such
instruments, EU funds are not offered as grants co-financing investment projects, but
rather are used to provide repayable assistance to projects, a form of support. Such
revolving funds approach is in stark contrast with the grant-based assistance typically
offered as part of EU cohesion policy and was expected to increase the sustainability
and effectiveness of interventions. But does it fulfil those expectations? This paper
examines JESSICA through the conceptual lens of policy instruments literature. It
verifies whether JESSICA is actually fit for its purpose of supporting sustainable
urban development. It also gauges the impacts of instrument on the behaviour of the
actors involved in its implementation at the sub-national level. The findings indicate
that JESSICA is a flawed and overly complex instrument that instead of doing ‘more
with less’ only allows for achieving ‘less with less’. However, it still exerts a positive
influence on the sub-national authorities involved by promoting cross-sectoral
interactions and facilitating learning. It also promotes a change in the approach to
EU cohesion policy and public investment more generally, putting more emphasis on
economic viability of investment.
Keywords: EU cohesion policy; JESSICA; financial engineering instruments; urban
development; policy instruments; tools of government
doi: 10.1177/0969776414533020
打造多层级治理?欧洲联合支持可持续投资城市区域基金 (JESSICA),以及私人与金融行动者参与至城市发展政策,区域研究。欧洲联合支持可持续投资城市区域基金 (JESSICA),是欧盟凝聚政策框架在 2007 年至 2013 年期间的金融工程工具(FEI)之一,创造了发展次国家政府与金融机构和私人投资者之间的合作领域。本文植基于多层级治理之文献,检视此一工具的执行如何影响波兰与西班牙的次国家治理模式。该工具的执行,儘管促进了学习过程,以及前所未有的跨部门伙伴关係的浮现,但却被诸多困难所阻碍,凸显出多层级治理和金融工程工具作为促进城市发展之工具的局限性。
Susciter la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux? Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) et la participation des acteurs privés et financiers à la politique en faveur du développement urbain, Regional Studies. Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (l'initiative JESSICA), l'un des instruments d'ingénierie financière au sein du cadre de la politique de cohésion de l'Union européenne de 2007 à 2013, a rendu possible le développement de la coopération entre l'administration sous-nationale, les institutions financières et les investisseurs privés. Cet article, qui repose sur la documentation au sujet de la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux, examine comment la mise en oeuvre de cet instrument a influencé les modèles de gouvernance en Pologne et en Espagne. En dépit de stimuler les processus d'apprentissage et la naissance des partenariats intersectoriels sans précédent, sa mise en oeuvre était entravée par de nombreux obstacles, ce qui souligne les limites de la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux et des instruments d'ingénierie financière comme outils pour promouvoir le développement urbain.
Instrumente zur Regierungsführung auf mehreren Ebenen? Gemeinsame europäische Unterstützung für nachhaltige Investitionen in städtische Gebiete (JESSICA) und die Beteiligung von privaten und finanziellen Akteuren an der Politik zur Stadtentwicklung, Regional Studies. Die gemeinsame europäische Unterstützung für nachhaltige Investitionen in städtische Gebiete (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas bzw. JESSICA), eines der Finanzierungsinstrumente im Rahmen der Kohäsionspolitik der Europäischen Union im Zeitraum von 2007 bis 2013, ermöglichte einen Ausbau der Zusammenarbeit zwischen subnationalen Behörden, Finanzinstituten und privaten Investoren. Ausgehend von der Literatur über Regierungsführung auf mehreren Ebenen wird in diesem Beitrag untersucht, wie sich die Umsetzung dieses Instruments auf die Abläufe bei der subnationalen Regierungsführung in Polen und Spanien ausgewirkt hat. Trotz anregender Lernprozesse und der Herausbildung von bisher unbekannten sektorenübergreifenden Partnerschaften wurde die Umsetzung durch zahlreiche Hindernisse erschwert, was die Grenzen der Regierungsführung auf mehreren Ebenen und der Finanzierungsinstrumente als Mittel zur Förderung der Stadtentwicklung verdeutlicht.
¿Instrumentos para la gobernanza de varios niveles? Ayuda europea conjunta en apoyo de inversiones sostenibles en zonas urbanas (JESSICA) y la participación de actores privados y financieros en la política de desarrollo urbano, Regional Studies. La ayuda europea conjunta en apoyo de inversiones sostenibles en zonas urbanas (JESSICA), uno de los instrumentos de ingeniería financiera en el marco de la política de cohesión de la Unión Europea para el periodo entre 2007 y 2013, facilitó la cooperación entre autoridades subnacionales, instituciones financieras e inversores privados. A partir de la bibliografía sobre la gobernanza de varios niveles, en este artículo se analiza cómo ha afectado la aplicación de estos instrumentos en los patrones de la gobernanza subnacional en Polonia y España. Pese a estimulantes procesos de aprendizaje y el surgimiento de colaboraciones intersectoriales sin precedentes, esta aplicación se ha visto frenada por numerosos obstáculos, poniendo de relieve las limitaciones de la gobernanza de varios niveles y los instrumentos de ingeniería financiera como herramientas para fomentar el desarrollo urbano.
period was one of the ways to respond to the growing pressures on EU cohesion policy to deliver more tangible results and make the use of the Structural Funds (SF) more efficient and sustainable in the context of conditions of crisis and austerity. In fact, the policy has been widely criticized for its limited success in promoting economic growth in Europe’s lagging regions. This article focuses on one of those new instruments – the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) implemented jointly by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide repayable assistance for urban investment projects in the form of loans, equity and guarantees. Apart from promising to do ‘more with less’ through revolving funding, JESSICA also brought new actors into the policy process, creating scope for a shift in the governance of CP and, potentially, in the general governance styles and practices at a regional level.
Historically, the EU has been a latecomer in aviation policy and has been importing international standards. Nonetheless, this has changed dramatically over time. Since the mid-1980s the EU has been rapidly developing its aviation policy to establish a comprehensive regime covering practically all aspects of air transport. International norms are still being imported into European policy, however, and the European Commission uses this import strategically to enforce compliance and harmonization across the EU as well as to foster higher standards using the international norms as the baseline. Simultaneously, the EU has been able to shape the global aviation policy regime through persuasion and its technical input for the drafting of international norms,. The EU has also been successful in exporting its aviation policy to third countries, particularly within the wider European neighborhood, through conditionality and ‘soft’ mechanisms of influence. Finally, as illustrated by the case of the recent extension of the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme to aviation, the EU does not hesitate to shake up the global policy regime through bold unilateral action to promote its vision and policy solutions, even if the effectiveness of this method of export is questionable.
""
By imposing a close partnership among a variety of actors, cohesion policy has the capacity to alter domestic relations between the centre and the periphery, and to create a broader scope for regional and bottom-up involvement in economic development policy. However, a lack of tradition of decentralization and collaborative policy-making, as well as a limited capacity of sub-national actors, can result in uneven outcomes of the application of the partnership principle
across countries and regions. This raises questions about the transferability of the partnership approach to new Member States characterized by weak sub-national institutions, a legacy of centralized policy-making and feeble civic involvement. This paper addresses this issue by comparing horizontal partnership arrangements put in place for the purpose of cohesion policy implementation and examining their impacts on the patterns of sub-national governance. The horizontal partnership arrangements are compared across three regions in countries with differentiated systems of territorial administration: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.""""
Keywords: EU cohesion policy, Poland, regional policy, sub-national actors, Europeanisation."
Keywords: EU cohesion policy, Europeanization, partnership, Poland, structural funds, sub-national authorities."
This paper investigates the patterns of the regional authorities’ adjustment to the cohesion policy’s programming principle, requiring that the co-financed interventions are based on multi-annual strategic plans tailored to regional/local development needs. Drawing on the Europeanization concept and new empirical evidence from Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, it demonstrates that the impact of the programming principle is differentiated and often remains limited to ‘superficial’ changes.
The study draws on the concept of Europeanisation, understood as a process of diffusion and institutionalisation of EU policy rules and practices within the member states’ domestic policy arenas. The thesis adds to the literature by examining the patterns of influence of the SF on the Polish regional actors and also by shedding new light on the mechanisms of post-accession Europeanisation. In particular, it looks into the policy actors’ strategies, perceptions and attitudes in order to assess whether adoption and diffusion of EU-imported norms and practices is driven by rational choice or sociological mechanisms.
Moreover, the study emphasises the impact of EU cohesion policy’s partnership principle requiring close cooperation between the different levels of government and inclusion of regional stakeholders in administration of the SF. By doing so the study adds to the scholarly debate on the ‘New Regionalism’ and the issue of transferability of policy measures aimed at nurturing cooperation between regional actors to Central and Eastern European member states of the EU characterised by a lack of traditions of cooperative policy-making.
The research provides evidence of a significant impact of the SF in three key areas: changes in organisational practices improving administrative capacity; diffusion of a strategic approach to regional and local development based on multi-annual planning; and diffusion of new forms of cooperation between the regional actors based on multi-level and inclusive governance as a result of introduction of EU cohesion policy’s partnership principle.
Furthermore, the study reveals that rationalist and sociological mechanisms of Europeanisation can be intertwined. Adoption of the SF-related norms initially tends to be stimulated by cost/benefit calculation or constraint, thus by rationalist mechanisms, which may involve ‘shallow’ Europeanisation. However, over time, provided that the EU-imported norms are in line with the actors’ preferences, sociological mechanisms of Europeanisation become more prominent thanks to processes of social learning and horizontal diffusion of what is considered by the actors as ‘good practice.’
Finally, the study reveals that the impact of EU cohesion policy on the Polish regional policy actors is limited by a set of factors, which are mainly linked with the Polish political and administrative traditions. These include high turnover of staff in administration, clientelism and politicisation of regional institutions involved in distribution of the SF as well as the differentiated capacity of local authorities to participate in SF programmes, which may limit their exposure to the EU-imported norms and practices."
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.11.001
Abstract: Delta cities are increasingly exposed to the risks of climate change, particularly to flooding. As a consequence, a variety of new spatial development visions, strategies, plans and programmes are being developed by city governments in delta regions to address these risks and challenges. Based on a general conceptual framework, this paper examines the nature of visions, strategies, plans and programmes in the delta cities of Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Rotterdam which are highly exposed to flooding and connected through a network of epistemic communities. The paper follows two main lines of inquiry. First, it examines the terms, concepts, and dominant institutional characteristics associated with the development of these visions, strategies, plans and programmes as a way of constructing a conceptual framework for understanding and explaining their connectivity. Second, it explores how and why cities’ spatial plans and governance dynamics are shaping climate adaptation responses. The systematic development of conceptual frameworks and in-depth analyses of varied, representative case studies is needed as their findings have important implications for vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in terms of policy options and cities as the optimal level for adaptation. The paper finds that dominant institutional characteristics critically affect the steering capacity of organisations/agencies (including their coordination capacity) to address climate-related risks. The findings have important implications for vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in cities, in general and delta cities, in particular.
Keywords
Climate change; Strategic spatial planning; Flood risk management; Governance; Delta cities
In the context of a severe economic crisis and austerity, new ideas were put forward
to reform cohesion policy to enhance its effectiveness and the return on investment.
Among them, financial engineering instruments, such as JESSICA, expected to offer
a means to ‘do more with less’ in this difficult budgetary context. In the case of such
instruments, EU funds are not offered as grants co-financing investment projects, but
rather are used to provide repayable assistance to projects, a form of support. Such
revolving funds approach is in stark contrast with the grant-based assistance typically
offered as part of EU cohesion policy and was expected to increase the sustainability
and effectiveness of interventions. But does it fulfil those expectations? This paper
examines JESSICA through the conceptual lens of policy instruments literature. It
verifies whether JESSICA is actually fit for its purpose of supporting sustainable
urban development. It also gauges the impacts of instrument on the behaviour of the
actors involved in its implementation at the sub-national level. The findings indicate
that JESSICA is a flawed and overly complex instrument that instead of doing ‘more
with less’ only allows for achieving ‘less with less’. However, it still exerts a positive
influence on the sub-national authorities involved by promoting cross-sectoral
interactions and facilitating learning. It also promotes a change in the approach to
EU cohesion policy and public investment more generally, putting more emphasis on
economic viability of investment.
Keywords: EU cohesion policy; JESSICA; financial engineering instruments; urban
development; policy instruments; tools of government
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/discursive-governance-in-politics-policy-and-public-sphere-umut-korkut/?K=9781137495778
This chapter examines the implementation and the effects of the so-called Financial Engineering Instruments (FEI) deployed as part of the European Union’s Cohesion Policy framework as one of the means to deliver better results and increase the policy’s effectiveness in a context of economic crisis and austerity. It focuses on the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA), an innovative tool using the EU Structural Funds to provide repayable assistance for urban development projects, marking a stark departure from the pre-existing grant-based support for regional and urban development initiatives. Drawing on the literature on policy instruments and empirical evidence from Polish and Spanish regions where JESSICA was pioneered, this chapter provides insights into how this new “discursive package” on EU cohesion policy is actually interpreted by the actors on the ground and how it affects their actual practices.
In the context of a severe economic crisis and austerity, new ideas were put forward
to reform cohesion policy to enhance its effectiveness and the return on investment.
Among them, financial engineering instruments, such as JESSICA, expected to offer
a means to ‘do more with less’ in this difficult budgetary context. In the case of such
instruments, EU funds are not offered as grants co-financing investment projects, but
rather are used to provide repayable assistance to projects, a form of support. Such
revolving funds approach is in stark contrast with the grant-based assistance typically
offered as part of EU cohesion policy and was expected to increase the sustainability
and effectiveness of interventions. But does it fulfil those expectations? This paper
examines JESSICA through the conceptual lens of policy instruments literature. It
verifies whether JESSICA is actually fit for its purpose of supporting sustainable
urban development. It also gauges the impacts of instrument on the behaviour of the
actors involved in its implementation at the sub-national level. The findings indicate
that JESSICA is a flawed and overly complex instrument that instead of doing ‘more
with less’ only allows for achieving ‘less with less’. However, it still exerts a positive
influence on the sub-national authorities involved by promoting cross-sectoral
interactions and facilitating learning. It also promotes a change in the approach to
EU cohesion policy and public investment more generally, putting more emphasis on
economic viability of investment.
Keywords: EU cohesion policy; JESSICA; financial engineering instruments; urban
development; policy instruments; tools of government
doi: 10.1177/0969776414533020
打造多层级治理?欧洲联合支持可持续投资城市区域基金 (JESSICA),以及私人与金融行动者参与至城市发展政策,区域研究。欧洲联合支持可持续投资城市区域基金 (JESSICA),是欧盟凝聚政策框架在 2007 年至 2013 年期间的金融工程工具(FEI)之一,创造了发展次国家政府与金融机构和私人投资者之间的合作领域。本文植基于多层级治理之文献,检视此一工具的执行如何影响波兰与西班牙的次国家治理模式。该工具的执行,儘管促进了学习过程,以及前所未有的跨部门伙伴关係的浮现,但却被诸多困难所阻碍,凸显出多层级治理和金融工程工具作为促进城市发展之工具的局限性。
Susciter la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux? Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) et la participation des acteurs privés et financiers à la politique en faveur du développement urbain, Regional Studies. Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (l'initiative JESSICA), l'un des instruments d'ingénierie financière au sein du cadre de la politique de cohésion de l'Union européenne de 2007 à 2013, a rendu possible le développement de la coopération entre l'administration sous-nationale, les institutions financières et les investisseurs privés. Cet article, qui repose sur la documentation au sujet de la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux, examine comment la mise en oeuvre de cet instrument a influencé les modèles de gouvernance en Pologne et en Espagne. En dépit de stimuler les processus d'apprentissage et la naissance des partenariats intersectoriels sans précédent, sa mise en oeuvre était entravée par de nombreux obstacles, ce qui souligne les limites de la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux et des instruments d'ingénierie financière comme outils pour promouvoir le développement urbain.
Instrumente zur Regierungsführung auf mehreren Ebenen? Gemeinsame europäische Unterstützung für nachhaltige Investitionen in städtische Gebiete (JESSICA) und die Beteiligung von privaten und finanziellen Akteuren an der Politik zur Stadtentwicklung, Regional Studies. Die gemeinsame europäische Unterstützung für nachhaltige Investitionen in städtische Gebiete (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas bzw. JESSICA), eines der Finanzierungsinstrumente im Rahmen der Kohäsionspolitik der Europäischen Union im Zeitraum von 2007 bis 2013, ermöglichte einen Ausbau der Zusammenarbeit zwischen subnationalen Behörden, Finanzinstituten und privaten Investoren. Ausgehend von der Literatur über Regierungsführung auf mehreren Ebenen wird in diesem Beitrag untersucht, wie sich die Umsetzung dieses Instruments auf die Abläufe bei der subnationalen Regierungsführung in Polen und Spanien ausgewirkt hat. Trotz anregender Lernprozesse und der Herausbildung von bisher unbekannten sektorenübergreifenden Partnerschaften wurde die Umsetzung durch zahlreiche Hindernisse erschwert, was die Grenzen der Regierungsführung auf mehreren Ebenen und der Finanzierungsinstrumente als Mittel zur Förderung der Stadtentwicklung verdeutlicht.
¿Instrumentos para la gobernanza de varios niveles? Ayuda europea conjunta en apoyo de inversiones sostenibles en zonas urbanas (JESSICA) y la participación de actores privados y financieros en la política de desarrollo urbano, Regional Studies. La ayuda europea conjunta en apoyo de inversiones sostenibles en zonas urbanas (JESSICA), uno de los instrumentos de ingeniería financiera en el marco de la política de cohesión de la Unión Europea para el periodo entre 2007 y 2013, facilitó la cooperación entre autoridades subnacionales, instituciones financieras e inversores privados. A partir de la bibliografía sobre la gobernanza de varios niveles, en este artículo se analiza cómo ha afectado la aplicación de estos instrumentos en los patrones de la gobernanza subnacional en Polonia y España. Pese a estimulantes procesos de aprendizaje y el surgimiento de colaboraciones intersectoriales sin precedentes, esta aplicación se ha visto frenada por numerosos obstáculos, poniendo de relieve las limitaciones de la gobernanza de varios niveles y los instrumentos de ingeniería financiera como herramientas para fomentar el desarrollo urbano.
period was one of the ways to respond to the growing pressures on EU cohesion policy to deliver more tangible results and make the use of the Structural Funds (SF) more efficient and sustainable in the context of conditions of crisis and austerity. In fact, the policy has been widely criticized for its limited success in promoting economic growth in Europe’s lagging regions. This article focuses on one of those new instruments – the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) implemented jointly by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide repayable assistance for urban investment projects in the form of loans, equity and guarantees. Apart from promising to do ‘more with less’ through revolving funding, JESSICA also brought new actors into the policy process, creating scope for a shift in the governance of CP and, potentially, in the general governance styles and practices at a regional level.
Historically, the EU has been a latecomer in aviation policy and has been importing international standards. Nonetheless, this has changed dramatically over time. Since the mid-1980s the EU has been rapidly developing its aviation policy to establish a comprehensive regime covering practically all aspects of air transport. International norms are still being imported into European policy, however, and the European Commission uses this import strategically to enforce compliance and harmonization across the EU as well as to foster higher standards using the international norms as the baseline. Simultaneously, the EU has been able to shape the global aviation policy regime through persuasion and its technical input for the drafting of international norms,. The EU has also been successful in exporting its aviation policy to third countries, particularly within the wider European neighborhood, through conditionality and ‘soft’ mechanisms of influence. Finally, as illustrated by the case of the recent extension of the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme to aviation, the EU does not hesitate to shake up the global policy regime through bold unilateral action to promote its vision and policy solutions, even if the effectiveness of this method of export is questionable.
""
By imposing a close partnership among a variety of actors, cohesion policy has the capacity to alter domestic relations between the centre and the periphery, and to create a broader scope for regional and bottom-up involvement in economic development policy. However, a lack of tradition of decentralization and collaborative policy-making, as well as a limited capacity of sub-national actors, can result in uneven outcomes of the application of the partnership principle
across countries and regions. This raises questions about the transferability of the partnership approach to new Member States characterized by weak sub-national institutions, a legacy of centralized policy-making and feeble civic involvement. This paper addresses this issue by comparing horizontal partnership arrangements put in place for the purpose of cohesion policy implementation and examining their impacts on the patterns of sub-national governance. The horizontal partnership arrangements are compared across three regions in countries with differentiated systems of territorial administration: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.""""
Keywords: EU cohesion policy, Poland, regional policy, sub-national actors, Europeanisation."
Keywords: EU cohesion policy, Europeanization, partnership, Poland, structural funds, sub-national authorities."
This paper investigates the patterns of the regional authorities’ adjustment to the cohesion policy’s programming principle, requiring that the co-financed interventions are based on multi-annual strategic plans tailored to regional/local development needs. Drawing on the Europeanization concept and new empirical evidence from Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, it demonstrates that the impact of the programming principle is differentiated and often remains limited to ‘superficial’ changes.
The study draws on the concept of Europeanisation, understood as a process of diffusion and institutionalisation of EU policy rules and practices within the member states’ domestic policy arenas. The thesis adds to the literature by examining the patterns of influence of the SF on the Polish regional actors and also by shedding new light on the mechanisms of post-accession Europeanisation. In particular, it looks into the policy actors’ strategies, perceptions and attitudes in order to assess whether adoption and diffusion of EU-imported norms and practices is driven by rational choice or sociological mechanisms.
Moreover, the study emphasises the impact of EU cohesion policy’s partnership principle requiring close cooperation between the different levels of government and inclusion of regional stakeholders in administration of the SF. By doing so the study adds to the scholarly debate on the ‘New Regionalism’ and the issue of transferability of policy measures aimed at nurturing cooperation between regional actors to Central and Eastern European member states of the EU characterised by a lack of traditions of cooperative policy-making.
The research provides evidence of a significant impact of the SF in three key areas: changes in organisational practices improving administrative capacity; diffusion of a strategic approach to regional and local development based on multi-annual planning; and diffusion of new forms of cooperation between the regional actors based on multi-level and inclusive governance as a result of introduction of EU cohesion policy’s partnership principle.
Furthermore, the study reveals that rationalist and sociological mechanisms of Europeanisation can be intertwined. Adoption of the SF-related norms initially tends to be stimulated by cost/benefit calculation or constraint, thus by rationalist mechanisms, which may involve ‘shallow’ Europeanisation. However, over time, provided that the EU-imported norms are in line with the actors’ preferences, sociological mechanisms of Europeanisation become more prominent thanks to processes of social learning and horizontal diffusion of what is considered by the actors as ‘good practice.’
Finally, the study reveals that the impact of EU cohesion policy on the Polish regional policy actors is limited by a set of factors, which are mainly linked with the Polish political and administrative traditions. These include high turnover of staff in administration, clientelism and politicisation of regional institutions involved in distribution of the SF as well as the differentiated capacity of local authorities to participate in SF programmes, which may limit their exposure to the EU-imported norms and practices."
Lecture delivered as part of the Urban Studies Foundation symposium at the University of Glasgow.