eu cohesion monitor 2018€¦ · the 2017 update country groups overview big six founding six...

an initiative of

EU Cohesion Monitor 2018

An assessment of cohesionin the 28 member states

of the European Union

Overall Results Countriesecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor Intro RankingsDesign

http://www.ecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor

http://www.ecfr.eu/europeanpower/rethink

Copyright of this publication is held by the European Council on Foreign Relations. You may not copy, reproduce, republish or circulate in any way the content from this publication except for your own personal and non-commercial use. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

© ECFR December 2017

ISBN: 978-1-911544-38-8

Published by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR),Tennyson House 159-165, Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5PA, United Kingdom

Data visualization and interactive PDFby Dieter Dollacker and Dirk Waldik,Denkbuilder Berlin

Document Version 1.1

ECFR

/238




Josef Janning heads the Berlin office of ECFR and leads the project as Senior Policy Fellow.

Christoph Klavehn manages the project as Project Coordinator at the Berlin office of ECFR.

Christel Zunneberg is Project Assistant and supports Rethink: Europe’s research.

The EU Cohesion Monitor is part of the Rethink: Europe project by the European Council on Foreign Rela-tions and Stiftung Mercator.

To learn more about the project please visit ecfr.eu/rethinkeurope and ecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor.

To contact the project team please email [email protected]

Introduction Rationale

IntroductionRationale

FAQCohesion conceptData and designThe 2017 update

Country GroupsOverviewBig SixFounding SixAffluent SevenSouthern SevenVisegrád Four

The EU Cohesion Monitor is an index of the 28 member states of the European Union and their readiness for joint action and cooperation.

The monitor uses ten indicators to conceptualize and illustrate the foundations, national trajectories and future potentials of cohesion in Europe.

This updated edition includes the cohesion ranking and trends of the EU28 from 2007 to 2017.

Team




mailto:[email protected]



What is the EU Cohe-sion Monitor?

The EU Cohesion Monitor is an index of the 28 member states of the European Union and their readiness for joint action and cooperation.

It measures how strong cohe-sion is, how it is changing, and how much it differs between the member states of the European Union.

The concept’s central assump-tion is that European cohesion is a precondition for Europe’s ca-pacity to act, and that acting to-gether successfully will in turn strengthen cohesion.

FAQ Cohesion concept

What recommenda-tions emerge from the EU Cohesion Monitor?

Cohesion is a central resource needed for European coopera-tion. Strategies to strengthen co-hesion need to address both its individual as well as its struc-tural dimension. They should also address each country’s dis-tinct cohesion profile.

Cohesion is not subject to swift changes. Measures that can boost cohesion should be pur-sued with stamina for the long term. The variety in cohesion also means that not only policy-makers and governments are en-couraged to address it. Cohesion is as much a field of engage-ment for civil-society organisa-tions as well as EU citizens.




Are cooperation and cohesion different concepts?

Overall, we assume that success-ful cooperation between indi-viduals as well as societies and countries will strengthen mutual bonds, shared incentives, and common experiences.

Cohesion is broader in that it fo-cuses on the disposition of col-lective actors to work together.

The EU Cohesion Monitor looks not only at actual cooperation but includes a measurement of the awareness, readiness, and cooperation-mindedness of soci-eties.

What is the differ-ence between indi-vidual and structural cohesion? Individual cohesion describes people’s experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and well-being. Struc-tural cohesion is shaped by con-nections and practices between countries on the macro-level, in-cluding the actions of economic, political, and cultural elites.

The two dimensions often com-plement each other, but this is not necessarily so. The EU Cohe-sion Monitor displays both di-mensions separately to make this differentiation visible.




FAQ Data and design

What is the reason for choosing these particular indicators and variables?

Each of the EU Cohesion Monitor’s ten indicators rests on a cohesion assumption, or hy-pothesis.

Regarding the indicator Funding, for example, we argue that the inflow of resources through EU funds will strengthen awareness of EU benefits, such as through the presence of EU-funded pro-jects to improve local infrastruc-ture. At the same time, being a net contributor to the EU budget will increase that country’s stake in shaping the EU and thus will generally strengthen its engage-ment with it.




How is the EU Cohe-sion Monitor com-piled?

The EU Cohesion Monitor com-bines a total of 32 factors to a set of ten cohesion indicators for each of the 28 EU member states. Data was gathered for 2007, 2014, and 2016/17.

The monitor presents the cohe-sion indicators on a scale of 1 to 10 points for ease of analysis and comparability.

A description of how the data is converted is available at ecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor.

What are your data sources? How do you deal with data gaps?

The EU Cohesion Monitor relies on datasets that are publicly available. The most prominent sources include Eurostat and Eurobarometer surveys.

Where there are gaps in the primary data we use proxy data to cover them. For example, if a statistic is not available for 2017, we use the closest data available, say 2016. Similarly, when no data is available from other years at all, we use data from proxy countries, e.g. using Cyprus data for Malta.

The EU Cohesion Monitor was compiled with the goal to minimise these approximations.

Do you weigh your data?

We only weigh data where we see a compelling reason. For ex-ample, the maximum score in the ‘Security’ indicator is 7 points rather than 10. The scale ends at seven because stronger cooperation and deeper integra-tion in the area of security and defence is part of ongoing policy debates.

The scaling has to give room for such steps and may need to be adjusted in future editions of the EU Cohesion Monitor.





Can I use EU Cohe-sion Monitor scores for my work? Are the data sets available?

Yes. The data underlying and generated by the EU Cohesion Monitor can be accessed in its entirety and free of charge at ecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor.

Please cite as follows:

EU Cohesion Monitor, European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2017, available at www.ecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor.

FAQ The 2017 update




What are the methodological changes?

The updated edition includes new data for the period from 2007 to 2017 as well as meth-odological improvements to make comparisons in a three-year timeline more consistent.

Some of the primary data had not received an update since the EU Cohesion Monitor’s first edi-tion. This includes cases where Eurobarometer questions or Eu-rostat tables have been discon-tinued or, in the case of the En-gagement indicator, no new elections have taken place. In these cases we used the 2014 data point for 2017. Details atecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor.

Why do countries still differ so much in their levels of cohesion?

The differences stem from the monitor’s combination of cohe-sion indicators and factors that represent different sources of cohesion and give each country its distinct cohesion profile based on its geography, popula-tion, socio-economic resilience, and more.

The EU Cohesion Monitor cap-tures a variety of data points to give a balanced assessment of cohesion. Therefore, the trends it describes tend to change gradu-ally rather than abruptly from one year to the next.

What are the results since the previous edition of the EU Co-hesion Monitor?

In the past three years the con-tinued recovery from the finan-cial crisis and long-term EU funding patterns have shaped structural cohesion more than the arrival of migrants in Europe.

Trends in individual cohesion are marked by the substantial turn-out for anti-EU and populist par-ties in several member states that held national elections in the period from 2015 to 2017. While this led to a further plum-meting of the Engagement indi-cator, positive results for the At-titudes, Approval and Experience indicators explain why indi-vidual cohesion has grown steadily.






Country Groups Overview

France

Italy

Germany

Spain

Poland

UnitedKingdom

Greece

Portugal

Malta

Cyprus

Belgium

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Czech Rep.

Hungary

SlovakiaAustria

Denmark

Sweden

FinlandSlovenia

Croatia

Bulgaria

Romania

Estonia

Latvia

IrelandLithuania

Big SixFounding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Vise-grád Four

Five Country Groups

Results are not only presented for individual EU member states, but also for five country groups. The illustration shows each group’s composition, the overlap between them, and the countries that do not fall into any of the five groups.

The impact of country groups on the politics of the EU and Euro-pean integration at large has been changing over time and has often depended on the policy issue at stake. Some groups are more formalized or institutional-ized than others.

Group data is provided by com-bining the scores of their respec-tive member countries.







Country Groups Big Six

Share of PopulationThe EU Powerhouse

The term “Big Six” refers to France, Ger-many, Italy, Spain, Poland and the UK. These countries are considered major European powers.

After Brexit, the group will eventually turn into the Big Five. Even without the UK, it will continue to be the EU powerhouse.

Share of Military Spending

Share of GDP

Employed to Unemployed

70%

80%

75%

Spain

Poland

Italy

UK

France

Germany

Spain

Poland

Italy

UK

France

Germany

Spain

Poland

Italy

Germany

France

UK

23%

21%

16%

10%

6%

4%

16%

13%

13%

12%9%

7%

10:1Big Six

Germany

UK

Poland

France

Italy

Spain

10:1

21:1

18:1

13:1

9:1

8:1

5:1

21%

18%

15%11%

7%

3%

Big Six




Sources: Eurostat (Population 2015), World Bank (GDP 2015), SIPRI Milex Data (Military Spending 2015), Eurostat (Ratio of employed to unemployed 2015).




Country Groups Founding Six

Share of PopulationThe EU Pioneers

The term “Founding Six” refers to Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. As signatories to the 1957 Rome Treaty they created what has become the European Union.

With the Franco-German partnership at its centre the Founding Six is the oldest group within the EU. It continues to have signifi-cant leverage and makes up about half the EU’s population, GDP, and defence spending.


Share of GDP Total


47%

53%

55%

Italy

France

Germany

Italy

France

Germany

Italy

Germany

France

21%

16%

10%4%

16%

13%

12%

12:1Founding Six

Belgium

France

Germany

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

12:1

12:1

9:1

21:1

8:1

15:1

14:1

21%

15%

11%5%

NetherlandsBelgium

Luxembourg

NetherlandsBelgium

Luxembourg

NetherlandsBelgiumLuxembourg

Founding Six








Country Groups Affluent Seven

Share of PopulationStrength in Numbers

The term “Affluent Seven“ refers to the group of seven countries consisting of Aus-tria, the three Nordic EU members of Den-mark, Finland, and Sweden, and the Benelux countries.

This group has special economic clout among the EU28. Each one of the seven maintains an employment ratio of at least 10 to 1. In addition, the group's disposable income per capita is significantly above the averages of both the EU and the Big Six.


Share of GDP Total


11%

11%

16%

14:1Affluent Seven

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Sweden

14:1

17:1

12:1

16:1

10:1

15:1

14:1

13:1

NetherlandsAustria

BelgiumSweden

DenmarkFinland

Luxembourg

NetherlandsBelgiumSwedenAustria

DenmarkFinland

Luxembourg

NetherlandsBelgiumSwedenAustria

DenmarkFinland

Luxembourg

5%

4%

Affluent Seven








Country Groups Southern Seven

Share of PopulationMediterranean Shores

The term “Southern Seven“ refers to the group of seven countries consisting of Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain.

Despite being disparate in size, the countries in this group share socio-economic similari-ties. In recent years political initiatives have attempted to institutionalize this group. The Southern Seven have been particularly af-fected by the Eurozone debt crisis and in-creasing migration to Europe.


Share of GDP Total


38%

41%

36%

Spain

Cyprus

Italy

France

13%

12%

9%

7:1Southern Seven

Cyprus

France

Greece

Italy

Malta

Portugal

Spain

7:1

7:1

9:1

4:1

8:1

18:1

8:1

5:1

GreecePortugal

Malta

Spain

Cyprus

Italy

France

21%

10%

6%

GreecePortugal

Malta

Spain

Cyprus

Italy

France

15%

11%

7%

GreecePortugal

Malta (2013)

Southern Seven








Country Groups Visegrád Four

Share of PopulationThe New East

The term “Visegrád Four” refers to the group of countries consisting of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. All four joined the European Union together in 2004.

More frequently than other groups the Viseg-rád Four act as a political coalition within the European Union. Their cooperation is based on common cultural values, history and a similar outlook on economic and security policy.


Share of GDP Total


13%

6%

5%

13:1Visegrád Four

Czech Rep.

Hungary

Poland

Slovakia

13:1

19:1

15:1

13:1

9:1

PolandCzech Rep.

HungarySlovakia

PolandCzech Rep.

HungarySlovakia

PolandCzech Rep.

HungarySlovakia

4%

7%

Visegrád Four








EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

Citizens of other EU countries % of populationVisited another EU country

Socialised with people from other EU countryForeign language skills

Turnout in EP electionsAnti-EU/populist share in EP elections

Anti-EU/populist share in national elections

Trust in EUPositive image of EU

National interest well taken into accountPerception as European

Support for economic and monetary unionSupport for common foreign policy

Support for common defence and security policyEuro among most positive results of EU

Free movement among most positive results of EUPeace in Europe among most positive results of EU

Individual Cohesion

RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

Disposable income per capitaDebt to GDPSocial Justice Index

EU trade to total tradeEU trade to GDP ratioEU investments to total investmentsEU investments to GDP ratio

Inflow of EU funds as % of GDPBalance of payments to EU budget

Population (share) living near bordersNon-EU neighbours

Number of opt outs

Joint commands and cooperationJoint development and procurementMultinational deployments

Structural Cohesion

EU Cohesion Monitor Design Individual Structural




EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

Citizens of other EU countries % of populationVisited another EU country

Socialised with people from other EU countryForeign language skills

Turnout in EP electionsAnti-EU/populist share in EP elections

Anti-EU/populist share in national elections

Trust in EUPositive image of EU

National interest well taken into accountPerception as European

Support for economic and monetary unionSupport for common foreign policy

Support for common defence and security policyEuro among most positive results of EU

Free movement among most positive results of EUPeace in Europe among most positive results of EU

+ Citizens’ first-hand EU experience, proximity of other EU countries, and foreign language skills

+ A high turnout in elections to the European Parliament and low voting preferences for anti-EU/populist parties in the EP and national parliaments

+ Positive views on the benefits of integration and on the EU at large

+ Support for and positive views on areas of deeper integration

4 Indicators17 Factors

Individual Cohesion is strengthened by:





+ A society’s resilience in terms of its affluence and equality fostering EU engagement and solidarity

+ High connectedness and integration of a country’s economy with other EU economies through trade and investment flows

+ Inflow of resources through EU funds as well as being a net contributor to the EU’s budget

+ A high number of regions sharing a border with other EU member states as well as with non-EU countries

+ No or a low number of opt-outs from the generally accepted state of integration

+ Deep multinational cooperation in the area of defence and security

6 Indicators15 Factors

RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

Disposable income per capitaDebt to GDPSocial Justice Index

EU trade to total tradeEU trade to GDP ratioEU investments to total investmentsEU investments to GDP ratio

Inflow of EU funds as % of GDPBalance of payments to EU budget

Population (share) living near bordersNon-EU neighbours

Number of opt outs

Joint commands and cooperationJoint development and procurementMultinational deployments

Structural Cohesion is strengthened by:





Design Overall Results Countriesecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor Intro Rankings

Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion

Attitudes outperformstructural ties

Fairly weak cohesion

Experience andattitude gap

Strong cohesion

EU

IE

MT

DK

ES

SEHR

FR

CY

UK

IT

PT

EL

BGPL

CZHU

DE

FI

NL

AT

RO

SI

BE

LU

EE

LTSK

LVOverall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four

Overall Results 2007 2014 2017




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

EU

IEMT

DK ESSE

HR

FR

CY

UK ITPT

EL

BG

PL

CZ

HU

DE

FI

NL

AT

RO

SI

BE

LU

EE

LTSK

LV

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four





Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

EU

IE

MT

DKES

SE

HR

FR

CY

UKIT

PT

EL

BG

PL

CZHU

DE

FI

NL

AT

RO

SI

BE

LU

EE LT

SKLV

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four





Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Founding Six

EU

Southern SevenAffluent Seven

Visegrád Four

Big Six

Country Groups 2007 2017

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Founding Six

EU

Southern Seven

Big Six

Affluent Seven

Visegrád Four

Country Groups 2007 2017

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Germany

FranceItaly

UK

Spain

Poland

Big Six 2007 2017

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Germany

France

Italy

UK

Spain

Poland

Big Six 2007 2017

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Germany

FranceItaly

Belgium

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Founding Six 2007 2017

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Denmark

AustriaSweden

Belgium

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Affluent Seven 2007 2017

Finland

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Cyprus

FranceItaly

Spain

Greece

Malta

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four

Portugal

Southern Seven 2007 2017




Structural Cohesion

IndividualCohesion




Strong cohesion

Hungary

Czech Rep.

Slovakia

Poland

Visegrád Four 2007 2017

Overall Results

Country Groups

Big Six

Founding Six

Affluent Seven

Southern Seven

Visegrád Four



8.4

7.4

7.3

6.8

6.7

6.5

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.1

5.0

4.9

4.7

4.4

4.2

Luxembourg

Belgium

Ireland

Cyprus

Malta

Germany

Netherlands

Spain

Slovenia

Estonia

Italy

Austria

Denmark

Greece

Finland

France

Slovakia

Lithuania

Sweden

Croatia

Bulgaria

Latvia

Portugal

Poland

Romania

UK

Hungary

Czech Rep.

#1

2

3

4

6

7

9

10

12

14

15

18

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

28

6.50 or more

5.85 to 6.49

5.20 to 5.84

less than 5.20

Individual Cohesion 2007 2017 Trend

STRUCTURALCOHESION

ResilienceEconomic TiesFundingNeighbourhoodPolicy IntegrationSecurity

INDIVIDUALCOHESION

ExperienceEngagementAttitudesApproval




9,1

8,0

7,9

7,7

7,5

6,9

6,8

6,7

6,5

6,3

6,2

6,1

5,9

5,8

5,7

5,5

5,4

5,3

5,1

4,9

4,6

4,5

4,2

4,0

Luxembourg

Ireland

Belgium

Malta

Germany

Netherlands

Cyprus

Estonia

Lithuania

Austria

Sweden

Finland

Slovenia

Spain

Denmark

Slovakia

Latvia

Croatia

Portugal

Bulgaria

Romania

France

Italy

UK

Poland

Greece

Czech Rep.

Hungary

#1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

12

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


STRUCTURALCOHESION


INDIVIDUALCOHESION


6.50 or more

5.85 to 6.49

5.20 to 5.84

less than 5.20




8.9

7.9

7.5

7.4

7.2

6.9

6.8

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.2

5.9

5.7

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.0

4.8

4.1

Lithuania

Malta

Sweden

Germany

Ireland

Luxembourg

Estonia

Latvia

Portugal

Austria

Belgium

Finland

Romania

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Croatia

UK

Denmark

Slovakia

Slovenia

Cyprus

Czech Rep.

Spain

Hungary

Poland

France

Italy

Greece

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-1.0

-1.4

Gains

No Change

Losses


STRUCTURALCOHESION


INDIVIDUALCOHESION





8.1

6.1

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.1

4.9

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3

3.8

Luxembourg

Belgium

Netherlands

Slovakia

Austria

Latvia

Lithuania

Czech Rep.

France

Germany

Slovenia

Spain

Hungary

Estonia

Portugal

Bulgaria

Finland

Greece

Italy

Poland

Romania

Croatia

Sweden

Denmark

Ireland

UK

Cyprus

Malta

#1

2

3

4

5

7

8

13

14

16

19

20

21

22

24

27

5.48 or more

5.11 to 5.47

4.43 to 5.10

less than 4.43

Structural Cohesion 2007 2017 Trend

STRUCTURALCOHESION


INDIVIDUALCOHESION





7.6

6.8

6.5

6.4

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.4

5.2

4.9

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.1

4.0

3.7

3.6

Luxembourg

Slovakia

Hungary

Latvia

Czech Rep.

Lithuania

Belgium

Bulgaria

Estonia

Slovenia

Romania

Poland

Austria

Germany

Netherlands

Finland

Greece

France

Spain

Malta

Portugal

Sweden

Croatia

Denmark

Italy

Ireland

UK

Cyprus

#1

2

3

5

7

8

11

12

13

15

16

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

26

28


STRUCTURALCOHESION


INDIVIDUALCOHESION


5.48 or more

5.11 to 5.47

4.43 to 5.10

less than 4.43





STRUCTURALCOHESION


INDIVIDUALCOHESION


Gains

No Change

Losses

Hungary

Romania

Czech Rep.

Poland

Slovakia

Bulgaria

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

Estonia

Slovenia

Sweden

Croatia

Finland

Germany

Greece

Austria

Belgium

Cyprus

Denmark

Luxembourg

France

Ireland

Portugal

UK

Italy

Spain

Netherlands

1.2

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.4

0.1

0.0

-0.2

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10

INDIVIDUAL COHESION STRUCTURAL COHESION

Individual C.

Structural C.

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIreland

ItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUK

Austria 2017 vs. Austria 2007 EU 2017

6.5 5.4

Design Overall Results Rankings Countriesecfr.eu/eucohesionmonitor Intro



RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.5 5.4


2.1

1.0

1.3

0.4

1.1

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.5 0.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.5 5.4





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Belgium 2017 vs. Belgium 2007 EU 2017

7.9 5.9




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




7.9 5.9


0.8

1.0

1.2

0.9

0.8

0.2

0.8

0.7

0.4

0.0

0.5 0.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




7.9 5.9





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Bulgaria 2017 vs. Bulgaria 2007 EU 2017

5.5 5.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.5 5.8


0.2

0.5

0.3

0.6

0.1

1.9

0.4

7.0

0.2

0.0

0.3 0.9




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.5 5.8





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Croatia 2017 vs. Croatia 2007 EU 2017

5.7 4.4




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.7 4.4


0.4

0.9

0.2

0.6

2.1

1.6

0.8

2.7

0.0

0.0

0.3 0.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.7 4.4





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Cyprus 2017 vs. Cyprus 2007 EU 2017

6.8 3.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.8 3.6


0.6

1.0

0.3

1.7

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.0 0.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.8 3.6





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Czech Rep. 2017 vs. Czech Rep. 2007 EU 2017

4.2 6.4




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.2 6.4


0.1

0.2

0.9

0.8

0.2

0.1

0.2

5.2

0.0

1.0

0.0 1.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.2 6.4





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Denmark 2017 vs. Denmark 2007 EU 2017

6.1 4.1




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.1 4.1


0.8

0.1

1.0

0.5

0.1

0.9

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.5

0.1 0.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.1 4.1





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Estonia 2017 vs. Estonia 2007 EU 2017

6.7 5.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.7 5.8


0.8

2.2

0.1

0.5

0.0

0.2

0.1

2.6

0.0

2.0

0.6 0.7




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.7 5.8





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Finland 2017 vs. Finland 2007 EU 2017

6.3 4.9




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.3 4.9


0.6

1.4

1.6

1.9

1.0

0.1

0.3

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.5 0.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.3 4.9





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



France 2017 vs. France 2007 EU 2017

5.3 4.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.3 4.8


0.4

0.8

2.1

0.8

1.5

1.2

0.9

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.5 0.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.3 4.8





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Germany 2017 vs. Germany 2007 EU 2017

7.5 5.4




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




7.5 5.4


1.0

2.0

0.9

1.2

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.8 0.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




7.5 5.4





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Greece 2017 vs. Greece 2007 EU 2017

4.5 4.9




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.5 4.9


0.9

1.0

4.2

3.4

2.1

1.1

0.2

0.8

0.0

0.0

1.4 0.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.5 4.9





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Hungary 2017 vs. Hungary 2007 EU 2017

4.0 6.5




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.0 6.5


0.1

0.3

1.2

0.0

0.5

0.2

0.0

7.3

0.0

0.5

0.4 1.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.0 6.5





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Ireland 2017 vs. Ireland 2007 EU 2017

8.0 3.7




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




8.0 3.7


0.6

1.9

0.4

0.6

2.1

0.6

0.5

1.9

0.0

0.5

0.7 0.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




8.0 3.7





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



5.1 4.0

Italy 2017 vs. Italy 2007 EU 2017




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



5.1 4.0


0.3

0.3

3.7

0.7

1.6

2.4

0.6

0.3

0.0

0.0

1.0 0.7





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



5.1 4.0

Italy 2017 vs. Italy 2007 EU 2017Italy 2017 vs. Italy 2007 EU 2017




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Latvia 2017 vs. Latvia 2007 EU 2017

5.8 6.5




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.8 6.5

1.0

1.9

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.6

3.9

0.0

2.0

0.6 0.9





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.8 6.5





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Lithuania 2017 vs. Lithuania 2007 EU 2017

6.7 6.4




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.7 6.4


1.0

2.0

0.1

1.3

0.3

0.4

0.5

3.4

0.1

2.0

1.1 0.9




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.7 6.4





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Luxembourg 2017 vs. Luxembourg 2007 EU 2017

9.1 7.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




9.1 7.6


0.0

1.9

0.2

0.9

0.0

1.5

1.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7 0.5




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




9.1 7.6





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Malta 2017 vs. Malta 2007 EU 2017

7.7 4.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




7.7 4.6


1.2

2.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.7

0.1

2.0

0.0

1.5

0.9 0.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




7.7 4.6





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Netherlands 2017 vs. Netherlands 2007 EU 2017

6.9 5.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.9 5.2


0.5

1.8

1.2

0.5

1.5

2.4

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.4 0.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.9 5.2





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Poland 2017 vs. Poland 2007 EU 2017

4.6 5.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.6 5.6


0.2

0.3

1.8

0.2

0.2

0.4

1.2

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.4 1.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




4.6 5.6





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Portugal 2017 vs. Portugal 2007 EU 2017

5.7 4.5




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.7 4.5


0.9

1.7

0.8

0.6

2.5

0.1

0.7

1.1

0.4

0.0

0.6 0.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.7 4.5





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Romania 2017 vs. Romania 2007 EU 2017

5.4 5.7




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.4 5.7


0.3

0.6

1.3

0.1

0.6

0.4

0.2

6.4

0.0

0.0

0.5 1.2




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.4 5.7





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Slovakia 2017 vs. Slovakia 2007 EU 2017

5.9 6.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.9 6.8


0.4

1.7

1.3

0.6

0.3

0.1

0.2

4.6

0.0

2.0

0.1 1.0




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




5.9 6.8





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Slovenia 2017 vs. Slovenia 2007 EU 2017

6.3 5.8




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.3 5.8


1.1

1.5

0.2

1.8

1.9

0.8

0.0

2.9

0.0

1.0

0.1 0.4




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.3 5.8





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Spain 2017 vs. Spain 2007 EU 2017

6.2 4.7




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.2 4.7


0.0

1.5

1.8

1.0

2.9

0.4

0.3

1.2

0.0

0.0

0.3 0.7




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.2 4.7





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



Sweden 2017 vs. Sweden 2007 EU 2017

6.5 4.5




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.5 4.5


0.8

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.3

0.7

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.5

0.9 0.1




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.




6.5 4.5





RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



UK 2017 vs. UK 2007 EU 2017

4.9 3.7




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



UK 2017 vs. UK 2007 EU 2017

4.9 3.7

UK 2017 vs. UK 2007 EU 2017

1.1

1.1

3.4

1.8

2.2

1.2

0.1

0.7

0.0

1.0

0.2 0.6




RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC TIES

FUNDING

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POLICY INTEGRATION

SECURITY

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDES

APPROVAL

10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10


Individual C.

Structural C.



UK 2017 vs. UK 2007 EU 2017

4.9 3.7

UK 2017 vs. UK 2007 EU 2017




eu cohesion monitor 2018€¦ · the 2017 update country groups overview big six founding six...

Documents