More specifically, I propose to move beyond the current narrow category of 'less developed regions' towards a more encompassing and future-oriented concept of challenged regions that accounts not only for regional prosperity but also for development and structural traps.

Even if negotiators eventually decide to return to separate cohesion programmes, smarter regional allocation will remain key to pursuing cohesion goals in the future.

Policies tend to reinforce themselves: institutions and beneficiaries adapt to the status quo, learn and invest accordingly. This makes change harder over time, especially in distributive policies with visible, direct benefits. But this remains for now an informed hunch of the underlying mechanisms.

Link to publication: 👇
doi.org/10.1177/1465...

Now that the Commission is proposing a performance-based but also more flexible Cohesion Policy 2028–2034, the question arises as to whether this will lead to better alignment with EU objectives or simply open up more discretion for rigid national spending patterns. To be discussed and analysed!

Let me conclude: There are important reshuffles in this budget that align it better with current EU priorities and challenges - the detailed envelopes such as for decarbonisation and for less developed regions (and how about the JTF ones?) could do with some fine-tuning.

Also, one shortcoming of MFF comparisons becomes very obvious: they neglect the generous NGEU funding. So de facto, the increases of the current MFF are much less impressive considering that countries and beneficiaries had access to these additional funds in the last years.

The ringfenced social investment 28-34 is roughly comparable (+2%) with ESF+ and JTF in 21-26, but less developed regions receive 9% less than before. Within Heading 1, the relatively largest profiteer is clearly the topic of Migration & Security.

Cohesion and agriculture face some reductions. And whereas the ringfenced income support for farmers is cut by 10%, all other cohesion funding goes down by more than 20%. And this could even be more drastic, if farmers manage to captivate a higher share of the National and Regional P. Plans.

The praised shift towards competitiveness becomes very clear when considering the new Heading 2. Zooming in, a lot of the change derives from the increases of Horizon Europe and the ECF‘s Defence & Space window. NB: the targeting of the green transition doesn‘t exactly jump out.