In other words, less obligations resulted in a more centralised governance at the expense of local/regional authorities role in managing the funds but the domestic distribution of the funds across regions did not change much.

The findings of the paper on this specific aspect are interesting: compared to standard cohesion policy funds, REACT-EU resources have been massively channeled to national programmes, but there is little difference in terms of territorial concentration.

As REACT-EU due to its exceptional nature was exempted from many cohesion policy core requirements, its investigation gives a hint of how cohesion policy funds would work if the multi-level governance and territorial earmarking legal obligations were not in place.

Thanks Tom. Table 1 (page 11) of the paper shows the av. proportion of ERDF + FP8 grants (together) in relation to overall private and public AI investments across Member States. We could estimate this share only at country level using the AI watch (ai-watch.ec.europa.eu/publications...)

Thanks Tom. Table 1 (page 11) of the paper shows the av. proportion of ERDF + FP8 grants (together) in relation to overall private/public AI investments by Member State. We could estimate this share only at country level using data from the AI watch (ai-watch.ec.europa.eu/publications...)

How has the readiness indicator been constructed? 👇👇👇