Evolution%20of%20the%20Czech%20Regional%20Policy%20in%20the%20Context%20of%20the%20EU%20Regional%20Policy

1
Evolution of the Czech Regional Policy in the
Context of the EU Regional Policy

• RNDr. Jan Vozáb, PhD
• external lecturer, Charles University, Prague
• consultant, partner Berman Group

2
Background for Czech regional policy evolution

• Character of regional differences
• Prague vs. Rest of the country
• West-East gradient
• Micro-regional vs. mezo-regional differences
• Structures for Czech regional policy
• State interventions vs. local and later regional
  interventions
• Strong sectoral ministries but weak ministry for
  regional development -gt weak formal/official
  regional policy
• Limited (or lack of) co-operation, networking and
  partnership, both, horizontally and vertically

3
Evolution stages of the Czech regional policy and
main influences forming it
First half of 90s
Second half of 90s
Pre-accession 2000-04
EU accession 2004-06
New programming 2007-13
Towards integration
Two parallel systems
Creation of regional governments, devolution EU
accession Chapter 21, acquis
Moderate regional policy Phare instrument and
pre-accesion funds
Economic transition
4
Development of the Czech RP until 1996

• Moderate regional disparities emerging at
  microregional/local level mostly
• Pro-claimed economic liberalism
• very narrow official/explicit regional policy
• no programming/strategic documents
• very limited supporting mechanisms aimed at SMEs
  support on a project basis
• Sectoral and fiscal policy instruments much
  larger than RP, with unintentional and
  unconceived regional impacts
• No influence of EU RP Phare instrument focused
  on transition issues and mostly institutional
  building

5
Regional policy in the second half of 90s

• Increasing unemployment (3.5 -gt 9), growing
  regional disparities both, at NUTS III as well as
  at local level
• Moderate regional policy of the new government
• first programming documents at national and
  regional levels
• more and stronger delivery agencies
• The Act on Regional Development, Government
  Principles of RP
• Non-regional policy instruments prevail, partly
  intentional regional impacts (SMEs support,
  labour market policy)
• Modest preparation for EU ESC policy started
• separated Phare and CZ policies, Phare project
  based, very limited support in the field of EU
  ESC policy
• first (training) operational programmes (e.g.
  ROPs) usually no or very modest implementation

6
Czech regional policy prior EU accession
2000-2004

• High unemployment remains with regional
  differences, economy grows, regional disparities
  continue to grow
• Pre-accession instruments support
• direct aim at EU ESC policy adjustment but
  still project based
• pilot SF like programmes implemented at small
  scale at local level
• National preparing for EU ESC policy
• programming (two rounds) as well as project
  preparation
• new implementing structures built parallel to
  existing ones
• twinning no particular effects
• NUTS II level created
• Former national/regional policies continue
  unchanged
• Public administration reform

7
Differences between pre-accession instruments and
Structural Funds

• Pre-accession instr.
• International aid -
• Centralised, EC responsibility
• Spending technically based
• Accession oriented gtIB projects important
• Limited financial resources
• Many projects not supported
• Larger projects prefered
• Support out-of-system
• Selection of projects similar to public
  procurements

• STRUCTURAL FUNDS
• Support to national policies
• Decentralised, member state responsibility
• Spending based on programming
• ESC oriented gt Economic development objectives
• Larger financial resources
• Absorption capacity threat
• Small projects are usual
• SF co-finances regular national programs
• First come first serve project selection
  possible

8
Czech regional policy after EU accession2004-2006
two parallel systems

• EU ESC policy and programmes parallel to the
  Czech ones
• parallel programmes and other documents
• new implementing bodies eg. Reg. Councils,
  Secretariats
• new dept. of existing ones eg. CzechInvest,
  Regional Labour Offices,
• parallel delivery mechanisms based on demand of
  high number of small local and regional
  stake-holders
• parallel financial flows, too much match funding
  for end users
• Former Czech RP and national programmes
  continue unchanged, sometimes competitive to EU
  Funds programmes
• New interventions introduced by ESC policy
• more development and target oriented (incl.
  indicators)
• new fields (e.g. innovations, life-long learning)
• new roles of programme management structures
  MAs, IBs,
• Serious absorption capacity problems

9
Comparison of EU ESC policy and Czech national
policies interventions
Supply driven projects
Top down
ESC policy interventions
In-system
Czech policies interventions
Out-of-system
Bottom-up
Demand driven projects
10
Czech regional policy in the new programming
period 2007-2013

• Continuous economic growth, decreased
  unemployment
• Large EU funds indicative allocation for the
  Czech Republic
• ESC policy becomes the core of the Czech RP,
  aimed particularly at
• Innovations, research development, HR
  adaptation, Adjustment to EU environmental
  standards (accession requirements),
  transportation infrastructue, interventions from
  regional level (ROPs)
• Merging national and EU programmes
• Former national interventions in the field of ESC
  policy mostly (not fully) integrated into SF
  programmes
• SF implementation structures partly adapted, many
  new created due to new programmes -gt likely
  difficulties in co-ordination
• Financial flows for SF programmes/projects partly
  streamlined
• Big threat of insufficient SF absorption, delays
  in SF implementation

11
CZ regional policy vs. EU regional policy
development concept
EU ESC policy
Merging CZ RP and EU ESC policy
Czech RP in 90s
welfare concept
pro-active policy
re-active policy
12
Conclusion New policy paradigm partially
accepted but old institutions prevail

• New interventions more Lisbon or a development
  nature, BUT
• old delivery mechanisms to continue
• wide and non-targeted intervention focus still
  planned
• Merging national programmes into SF programmes,
  BUT
• excessive fragmentation continues 24 OPs, 15 MAs
• attempts to hide non-ESC policy interventions
  into SF OPs
• redistribution nature of SF OPs real
  implementation at the lowest possible level
• Financial flows streamlined for SF implementation
  BUT old legislation and bureaucratic structures
• high administrative burden at the level of MAs
  and IBs
• complicated project management for FBs and end
  users