According to Simona Milio, Associate Director of the Social and Cohesion Policy Unit at the London School of Economics, “linking up all the knowledge actors within the country” is the key to ensuring the best use of Structural Funds assistance made available by Europe.
And such proper use by major recipients like Italy – explained Milio in an interview with the Aspen Italia website team – is fundamental to preventing the dismantling of EU cohesion policy, which is being called for from several quarters in the midst of the current crisis.
The crisis in Europe is forcing a reduction in public spending at all levels. Are cuts to Structural Funds assistance also under discussion? Can cohesion policy serve as a catalyst for economic recovery?
Cohesion policy is at the heart of quite a fierce debate, driven by Member States who are opposed to the existence of this line item, which absorbs 35% of the European Union’s budget. The United Kingdom – along with Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium – has called for the renationalization of regional policies, a proposal which undermines one of the EU’s cornerstone principles, namely: solidarity. But this has come about because the benefits of cohesion policies don’t seem apparent in the short term.
It has thus become imperative to understand the impact of Structural Funds assistance in the context of the crisis. To that end, the European Commission has just published a report which shows that the Funds have generated added value and, in point of fact, currently represent a lifeline for many countries, in part because the crisis has led to a reduction in available public funds in the coffers of Member States, such that cohesion policy has become one of the few economic stimulus tools at their disposal. Indeed, the European Commission has revealed that, since 2007, 2.4 million people have found jobs thanks to support from the European Social Fund. Reading these figures, you can see how cohesion policy – if used effectively and efficiently – can really have a significant impact.
In Italy, there is often talk about the need to improve the use of Structural Funds support. What steps should be taken?
Up until the 2000-2006 programming period, Italy was the second largest recipient of Structural Funds assistance after Spain. With the eastward enlargement of the Union, the largest recipient became Poland, but Italy remains one of the major recipient countries. In order to better manage the Structural Funds received, it is necessary to link up the country’s various agents of knowledge creation. Of course, a focus on quality rather than quantity of spending is also essential, but what is most needed is systemic collaboration between all public and private organizations involved in the process.
The Commission is pushing hard for partnership between actors. In the same vein, Fabrizio Barca said something a decade ago that remains just as pertinent today: partnership is crucial because knowledge is pivotal to the implementation of Structural Funds. Knowledge cannot be transferred easily because sometimes it is entrenched at different levels – both vertically and horizontally – within a local area. What the Commission encourages is the pooling of all knowledge existing within a local area to avoid interventions being imposed from on high, favoring instead measures that respond to real local needs. Indeed, European cohesion policy is moving away from a sector-based approach towards one that is increasingly more local-area focused.
Are Italian local authorities equipped for this shift in strategy?
The bulk of Structural Funds assistance is spent by regional authorities, and, in my opinion, what’s still lacking in Italy – and I stress this again – is the ability to bring together all stakeholders in local-area development, overcoming rivalries and partisan divisions. Also, let’s not forget that optimal management of structural policy involves a certain learning curve. Within Italian regional authorities, however, a change of government all too often coincides with the appointment of new department heads and technical advisors, which prevents a build-up of an enduring body of expertise. Instead, what is needed are better integrated measures and dialogue that transcends political affiliations. This would also avoid duplication, which creates problems in the implementation of interventions. The European Social Fund, for instance, should help educate and train people, while the European Regional Development Fund serves to create conditions conducive to the hiring of new workers. It goes without saying that a lack of coordination leads to wasted investment.
If we take the example of the European Social Fund, proposals for intervention in the fields of mobility, training, and the deployment and attraction of human capital – aimed at encouraging growth in underdeveloped areas – are essential for economic recovery. But for such interventions to be effective, they need to form part of a long-term development strategy for the country which creates structures that provide training and take in human capital, with the aim of developing the potential of local areas and breaking into new and competitive sectors. What is very often lacking in such interventions is that they are not systematized, or incorporated into a consistent, cohesive and long-term development plan for the country. In isolation and left unintegrated, such measures are regrettably similar in effect to indiscriminate piecemeal interventions, being too small in scale and insufficiently targeted to trigger change.
How can the exchange of ideas and practices within European countries be encouraged? Is it possible to attract Structural Funds scholars and experts to Italy?
While conducting courses at the University of Palermo, I suggested to some of the more eager students that they come to London for training. So, over the years, we have built up a small network that helps us to forge links between different skill-sets. In fact, I believe that the only way to get Italians abroad and Italians in Italy to talk to each other is by having them interact within a structured network.
And there’s no reason why the same thing shouldn’t also apply to the implementation of Structural Funds assistance. What’s more, one of the biggest obstacles to attracting overseas talent to Italy is language. A student of the London School of Economics who wants to study Structural Funds in Palermo or Potenza will come face-to-face – and I say this because I’ve worked there – with an administration that is highly-skilled and has an excellent grounding in Structural Funds, yet all the documentation is in Italian. We need to take a cue from those countries – a case in point being Croatia, where we recently did some capacity building training in preparation for their accession to the EU – which produce bilingual versions of programming and strategy documents on such issues. One option would be to require staff in administrations to have a better grasp of English: this would help us to build vital bridges by enabling communication with other European civil servants.
