the impact of interreg on norwegian regional development policy einar leknes international research...
Post on 31-Mar-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Impact of Interreg on Norwegian Regional
Development Policy
Einar Leknes International Research Institute of Stavanger
Overall conclusions1. Interreg A-, B- and C-projects have had
lasting impacts on regional development policy in the county councils
2. The follow up of the projects have contributed to:– development of skills– networks that include foreign regions– increased allocations of funds pertaining to the topic
of the projects – new public services– new infrastructure– setting a new political direction in regional
development policy for a third of the projects
3. Factors that promotes several of the impacts are:– role as Lead-partner– county council directors being active in the project – high Norwegian share of the project budget
Research questions• How are Interreg prosjects followed up
in county councils´ regional development policy? – Permanent changes in the direction of regional
development policy?– Indirect efffects as result of single looop learning?
• Changes in form of collaboration, network methods and work structures in regional development policy
– Strategic effects as result of double loop learning?• Changes in policy in form of priorities within or between
different policy areas, fundamental changes in approaches and instruments, establishment of new collaborative relations.
• What factors affect whether or not projects are followed up in regional development policy beyond meeting their own stated goals?
Research methods• 44 case-studies of the follow up of different
Interreg projects completed between 1998 and 2007 in 10 county councils– 16 Interreg A projects– 22 Interreg B projects– 6 Interreg C projects
• Interviews with project participants and with political and administrative representatives of the county councils + written documents– What has happened with the project topic after the
project period?– What has happened with the project participants
aften the project period?• Analysis of factors that promote or deter
lasting project impact by use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Hypothesis regarding the impact of Interreg on the county councils regional development policy
Interreg-A project
Aquaculture Murmansk
Air route Luleå - Tromsø
Barents Road
Crossmedia Design
Fishing along the Kruttfjell road
Chanting song: revitalisation
Countryside recreationKungspilen Implementation
Mid-Scandia Cross-connection
Culture bus without borders
Growth corridorMaster of Public Administration
Health fountain
Økomuseum Borderland
New Railway Oslo - Gøteborg
Borderland 2005
Interreg-B projects
SEAGIS
Northern Maritime Corrridor II
Northern Maritime Corridor I
Northern Potentials
Nature Based TourismWater Cities
Canal Link
Hi Trans
Northern Maritime Corridor I
NAMBig Lakes II
Metropolitan Areas +
North Sea Cycle Route II
Forum Skagerak II
Northern Maritime Corridor I
Northern Maritime Corridor II
North Sea Cycle Route II North Sea Cycle Route II
North Sea Cycle Route II
Metropolitan Areas +
PIPE
Northern Maritime Corrridor II
Interreg-C projects
Enable
AquaregEnable
MaremaEuromountain Net
Euromountain Net
Follow up: New Interreg projects• 20 of 44 projects
have been followed up by new Interreg projects
• Interreg-funded expansion of the county councils policy- field for transport and education
• continuation of horizontal Europeanization
• vertical Europeanization
Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0
5
10
15
20
25Maintenence of skills in the county
councilsNumber of cases
External project
Employe continues
Project employed con-tinues
New permanent job
Not mainteined
• Permanent changes of the direction of regional development policy
• Not a part of the Europeanization of the development policy
• Latent potential for future Europeanization
• Variations between A-,B- and C-projects• Increased formalisation of cooperation between regions • Horizontal «Nordification» (A-projects) and
Europeanization (B- and C)
Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0
5
10
15
20
25
Maintenance of network and coop-eration
Number of cases
External project
Professional cooperation
Networking between directors
Network between politicans
Formal cooperation agreements
Not maintained
• Conservative estimates• The direction of the regional development policy has changed
and often permanent• Many examples shows that this is a result of organisational
learning• Horizontal «Nordification» (A-projects) and Europeanization (B-
and C)• The spatial scope of the regional development policy has been
expanded
Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0
5
10
15
20
25
Budget allocation, public services, in-frastructure or other efforts by the
county councils or other public bodiesNumber of casesExternal projectIncreased budgetNew public serviceNew infrastructureOther new effortsNo efforts
• In 34 of 44 Interreg-projects we find follow-up through specific efforts by the county council or by other bodies • Budget allocations, public services, infrastructure etc.
• Changes in directions of policy by the county council is found for 15 of the projects
Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0
5
10
15
20
25
Changes in prioritizing of project-topics and in direction of policy
Number of caseNo change of priorityMinor increase in priorityMajor increase in priorityNew direction of policy
Factors promoting or deterring Interreg project impact
Types of impactsFollow up factors
Factors promoting or deterring impacts of Interreg Type of impact
FACTORSNew
Interreg project
Mainte-nence of
skills
Mainte-nence of project
networks
Higher priority
of project topic
Changes in policy direction
Interreg A-project
High Norw. budget-share
Basis in an earlier project
High internal participation
Traditional responsibility
Active politicans
Active directors
Lead Partner
Overall conclusions1. Interreg A-, B- and C-projects have had
lasting impacts on regional development policy in the county councils
2. The follow up of the projects have contributed to:– development of skills– networks that include foreign regions– increased allocations of funds pertaining to the topic
of the projects – new public services– new infrastructure– setting a new political direction in regional
development policy for a third of the projects
3. Factors that promotes several of the impacts are:– role as Lead-partner– county council directors being active in the project – high Norwegian share of the project budget
top related