What do evaluationstell us about Cohesion Policy?

Andrzej Regulski

Brussels, September 28, 2017

competing narratives about CP (1)

before after

competing narratives about CP (2)

macro perspective

setup of cohesion policy programmes

BG CZ HR HU

PL RO SK SL

structure of expenditure

15%

48%8%

29%

supply of products

construction

external services

personnel, project costs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CZ

HU

PL

SK

2007-2013

0% 50% 100%

POIG

POIS

POKL

POPW

RPO

5,69

2,22

0,88

0,45

(0,52)

(1,99)

(5,57)

transport

innovations/competitivness

labor market, socialinclusion

ICT

human capital

social infrastructure

energy andenvironment

Narrowing the development gap

V4+4

-34% -32%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

2006 2015

produktywność czas pracy na pracownika

wskaźnik zatrudnienia demografia

PKB per capita

Poland

-49%

-31%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

2006 2015

produktywność czas pracy na pracownika

wskaźnik zatrudnienia demografia

PKB per capita

How significant is CP?

CP as % of public investement

CP inflow relative to GDPDecreasing economic

signifiacce of a single EUR

100%

96%

93%

90%

86%84%

83%

81%

78%76%

100%

96%

99%97%

94% 94%93%

90%

87%

84%

PL V4+47%

57%

52%

41%

39%

34%

25%

25%

4%

EU28

HU

SK

PL

BG

CZ

RO

SL

HR

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

GDP growth CP as % of GDP

KPIs and the impact of cohesion policy

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EU28 Poland V4+4

+18percentage

poitns

GDP per capita (rel. EU 28) employment rate unemployment rate

22%contribution of CP to accumulated economic growth

39%contribution of CP to employment growth

31%contribution of CP to the fall of unemployment

50

55

60

65

70

EU28 Poland V4+4

0

5

10

15

20

EU28 Poland V4+4

+8percentage points

-6percentage points

regional development

local develompent

(matching estimation)

CP’s impact on Eastern Poland

(macroeconomic modelling)

indicator policy effects

wages CP + CAP +

employment CP + CAP no impact

priviateinvestment

CP (enterprise)

+

PIT raised locallly CP +

0

5

10

15

Polska Polska Wschodnia

lubelskie podkarpackie

podlaskie świętokrzyskie

regional development

GDP per capita ranking

+124

+51+49+35+25+23+11+10 +7 +8 +9 +3 +5 +3 +5 +2

1

70

139

208

277

RIS 2016w por. do RIS 2008

województwa

moderateinnovators

0

mazowieckie, dolnośląskie, śląskie, pomorskie, łódzkie,

małopolskie, podlaskie, podkarpackie

↗ zachodniopomorskie

modestinnovators

↘wielkopolskie, lubelskie, opolskie, świętokrzyskie,

kujawsko-pomorskie

0warmińsko-mazurskie,

lubuskie

Regional Innovation Scoreboard

benefits to the EU15

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,7

1,2

1,9

3,0

4,2

4,8

5,4

7,2

7,8

8,9

10,3

40,4

LU

EL

PT

FI

IE

DE

SE

UK

BE

ES

FR

NL

IT

AT

DE

indirect export benefits

direct export benefits

direct capital benefits

Total benefits of EU-15

amount to EUR 96.6

bn; since total

contributions of EU-15

stand at EUR 121 bn,

the economic benefits

account for 80% of the

contributions paid.

transport infrastructure

R&D and universities

enterprise support

environment protection

benefits to the V4 (direct effects)

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

CZ SK PL HU

CZ HU PL SK

origin of company/capital….

Cooperation within V4 generatedturnover of approx. EUR 2.8 billion, more than half of which came from Czech-Slovakian trade in goods and services. Moreover, Polish contractors established a presence in Czechia (EUR 165 million), and Czech contractors became active in Poland (EUR 468 million).

Figure: Value of contracts in EU-funded projects (2007-2013 OPs)

Cohesion Policy in….

energy & environment

KPIs and the impact of cohesion policy

+8,9percentage poitns

population connected to wastewater treatment

population connected to public water supply

share of renewable energy in gross final energy

consumption

74%contribution of CP

18%contribution of CP

21%contribution of CP

+6,3percentage points

+6,5percentage points

0

10

20

30

40

50

EU28 Poland V4+4

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Poland V4+4

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poland V4+4

what have we learned?

Cohesion Policy extremely important in the upgrade of

wastewater treatment infrastructure, less important, though still significant in waste

management

despite complimentary national interventions, the

2007-2013 OPs were insufficient to fulfill all Poland’s

pre-accession commitments

Cohesion Policy had a big impact on RES, but the scale of potential effects of regulatory

solutions is much larger

in general: Cohesion Policy’s contribution is has the largest impact in policy areas, where objectives had been precisely

defined prior to the intervention

labour market & human capital

outreach of the intervention

Females:9,5

4,0

1,4

1,0

5,0

2,0

0,7

participants - total

of which:

employed

… in SMEs

…in public administration

out of work

of which unemployed

of which LTU

34% of total

population aged 15-64

9.0 MLN participants

Disabled:

57%

PLin millions

4%

34%

Low edu

10,0

9,1

5,0

2,6

2,2

1,4

0,8

0,017

CZ

PL

HU

BG

SK

RO

SI

HR

V4+4in millions

PL

31.1 MLN participants

the impact of cohesion policy

Impact on unemployed in PL Impact on education in PL

app. 11% per year

share of unemployed participated in ESF projects

share of unemployed who gained job after intervention

app. 6%-8%

Effectiveness Net effect

Approx.

52% - 74% unemployed participants

found a job

Per annum:

0.8% app. 13 k people

36% of children aged 3-5 from rural areas

participated in early childhood education as a result of CP

98% vocational schools implemented development

programmes

48% higher education institutions implemented

development programmes

79% elementary school implemented methods of

individualized learning

what have we learned?

Great outreach is not equivalent of good

intervention

Net effect doesn’t reflect the impact of the

intervention

It is difficult to determine the impact of ESF intervention on

macro-level

Labour market intervention should be

based on individualisation

(customized support)

It is a struggle for schools to maintain

extra activities without EU funding

Systemic changes need legislation to support it

SME & innovation

KPIs and the impact of cohesion policy

+0,45percentage poitns

GERD/GDP BERD/GDP Product and/or process innovative enterprises - Industry (except construction)

(2014)

18%contribution of CP (2007-2015)

22%contribution of CP (2007-2015)

22%contribution of CP in 2014

+0,3percentage points

0

1

2

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EU28 Poland V4+4

0

1

2

3

2006200720082009201020112012201320142015

EU28 Poland V4+4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

EU28 Poland V4+4

Investment grants

19 997

26 471

wsparte przedsiębiorstwa

projekty

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

liczba wartośćprojektów

dofinansowanieUE

mikro małe średnie duże

struktura wsparcia

0,6%

10,0%

20,3%

10,0%

mikro

małe

średnie

duże

significance of CP investment grants

9,7%

18,7%

11,1%

4,0%

mikro

małe

średnie

duże

approx. 1.1%of all existingenterprises

approx. 7.7% of

priviate investment(2008-2015)

projects worth approx. EUR 17 billion

including approx. EUR 6 billion of EU-contribution

projects

enterprises

structure of the intervention

number value of projects

EUcontribution

micro small medium large

micro

small

medium

large

micro

small

medium

large

financial instruments

16.2kfinal recepients

4.2xfor EU contribution

32.6kfinal recepients

1.6xfor EU contribution

mld zł

2,59

3,11

4,15

1,08

1,30

4,61

EU contribution

project values (intermediaries)

value of loans

EU contribution

project values (intermediaries)

value of loans

loan

sgu

aran

tees

what have we learned?

changing values of indicators do not always

correspond to real change

deadweight is unavoidable

net effects are present, but let’s not exaggerate

their magnitude and interpretation

supporting business environment is even

harder than supporting SMEs

FIs remain terra incognita in terms of impact evaluations

conclusions

so, what do the evaluations tell u, after all?

vs

thank you!