Laura Polverari on… the Key Role of EU Cohesion Policy in Urban Policymaking

Why is Cohesion Policy still central for cities today, and what might undermine its relevance and effectiveness?

Cohesion Policy is central for cities for several reasons. First, it embodies the principle of subsidiarity, allowing policies to be tailored to each specific context; second, in the context of the financial constraints that many cities have faced since 2008, it represents an important funding source for essential public investments which cities would otherwise struggle in some cases to fund; and, third, because of its procedures, tools and priorities, Cohesion Policy has been a stimulus for the introduction of policy and administrative innovation in towns and cities of all sizes, including the introduction of novel forms of cooperation across administrative borders. It is a policy that has firm principles and rules, but that also allows for a degree of flexibility for different characteristics and needs.

Relevance and effectiveness can be undermined by factors that are both endogenous and exogenous to EU Cohesion Policy. The need for simplification and for a reduction of the administrative burden is one of the issues. The lack of administrative capacities is another major burden that sometimes prevents cities applying for projects. When domestic institutional settings are unfavorable or excessively politicised, Cohesion Policy can be important exactly because it forces politicians to think beyond the short term and with a strategic mindset. On the other hand, sometimes meso or national level authorities can be reluctant to hand down competences to the cities and to equip them with the necessary decision-making autonomy, and with the tools, capacity building measures and resources that they need, even when there would be good reasons to devolve competences down.

You mention the dangers of cities’ “past and future austerities”. Could you explain what you mean by that, and what we know from academic research?

Towns and cities across the EU have often paid a high price for the budget cuts due to austerity. My ongoing research across Italy, for example, is showing that many cities have seen their human resources decline sharply over time. At the same time, cities are at the forefront of the provision of goods and services to citizens, and they have been the first port of call for their communities in the context of crises. Crises like the recent pandemic have had a negative impact on cities’ finances, while at the same time they have increased the need for social services. So, towns and cities have had to do more with less human and financial resources. The RRF has been an important source of funding for important investments, but the NGEU is an extraordinary, temporary measure. The reintroduction of Stability and Growth Pact constraints will lead to a new round of austerity, and this risks having a plurality of negative effects. For instance, it may cause difficulties in finding resources to fund the running and maintenance costs of the new infrastructure which will have been built or to run local services whose demand might be higher exactly due the likely deteriorating economic circumstances. Austerity will probably further exacerbate the personnel shortages that many cities are facing. All of this might lead to a worsening of the perception that citizens have about what local politicians (and the EU) do for them and feed the ongoing trends of citizens disengagement and distrust of institutions.