The launch of the European Commission’s proposals for the next
Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) throws a spotlight on how the EU
budget should be used to maximise the added value of EU spending. In
presenting the MFF proposals, President Juncker referred to the
fundamental EU principle of “solidarity” and the need for spending to
make “
a real difference to the lives of citizens and businesses.” Yet, new
research indicates a potential contradiction between the MFF proposed
by the Commission, and what makes a difference to citizens’ perception
of the EU.
On 26 April 2018, the multi-disciplinary Horizon2020 project COHESIFY
presented its main research results at the European Committee of the
Regions. For two years a consortium of 8 universities and 2 SMEs
investigated the question of how EU citizens perceive Cohesion Policy and
whether they identify themselves with the EU.
- The study found clear evidence of
the impact of Cohesion Policy on citizens’ perceptions of the EU and
European identity
.
-
A key finding is that
Cohesion Policy improves the recognition of the advantages of the
EU and EU integration
.
The key recommendations and results of the project were presented to EU
policy-makers and to the Commissioners responsible for the EU budget and
Cohesion Policy just in time for the finalisation of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) which sets out the
annual budget of the EU for the period 2021 – 2027 – and actually proposes
major cuts to spending on Cohesion Policy after 2020.
According to Prof. John Bachtler, lead COHESIFY researcher
from the University of Strathclyde and responsible for
coordinating the 10 project partners, there is a contradiction between the
EU’s ambitions and its proposals in the MFF.
“Public trust in EU institutions has deteriorated over the past decade.
A key message from our study is that citizens recognise the importance
of Cohesion Policy for their region or locality and want to see more
control of EU spending at local level. The MFF is going in the reverse
direction: proposing the biggest cuts
in Cohesion Policy in its history and centralising rather than
decentralising EU spending.”
The COHESIFY study is ground-breaking in providing a new and much more
comprehensive view of how Cohesion Policy – currently accounting for one
third of the EU budget – is perceived by citizens on the ground. The
project applied an innovative methodological approach by combining case
studies in 17 pilot regions across 12 Member States, stakeholder
interviews, a large-scale telephone survey among 8,500 citizens, a
cross-national media framing analysis (including over 110,000 posts and
comments on social media) as well as 47 focus groups including 240
citizens.
Dr Carlos Mendez, COHESIFY Project manager from the University of Strathclyde, added:
“Our study found that perceptions of the EU and specifically EU
Cohesion Policy are influenced by the scale of funding under the policy
as well as its performance and good management. The results also show
the importance of EU spending being regionally and locally
differentiated – and considered by citizens to be addressing the needs
and development changes that matter to them. Introducing a more
participatory citizen-focused approach to the programming and
communication of EU funds is therefore needed and would undoubtedly
further strengthen people’s identification with the EU.”
The study also has important implications for how the EU communicates with
citizens. Although many people recognise the importance of the policy for
addressing regional disparities and improving their quality of life, they
do not feel adequately informed about it. Future communication strategies
therefore need to be given a higher priority and need to target citizens
more explicitly so that they feel an ownership of the projects in their
area. “It needs to be a two-way process,”Dr. Andreja Pegan from Trinity College Dublin stressed, “
citizens want to have more say on how funds are allocated or governed
in their area
.”
Another part of the study also analysed the way Cohesion Policy is
currently framed in the media. Dr. Vasiliki Triga from the Cyprus University of Technology explained that “
indeed Cohesion Policy frames are rich and diverse and overall positive
since the two dominant frames describe the positive economic effects of
Cohesion Policy for Member States as well as the dominant impact on the
citizens’ quality of life.”
However, the analysis also brought to the fore a difference between
regional and national media: the former frame the effects of Cohesion
Policy more positively while the national media focus more on criticising
national governments or authorities regarding the way Cohesion Policy is
being implemented.
All the results of the project and the presentations of the final event are
available at
www.cohesify.eu/final-conference