Studies examining the additionality of Structural Funds in UK regions have emphasised the dominant ‘gatekeeping’ role played by central government. This has been explained by the ‘global’ interpretation of additionality adopted by UK central government, coupled with the absence of a strong tier of regional government. Based on preparations for an Objective 1 programme in Wales, in this paper we critically evaluate the progress made by the devolved National Assembly for Wales in challenging the central government interpretation of additionality. This suggests that, in the context of devolution, matters surrounding Structural Fund finances will become more fiercely contested, exposing significant tensions between processes of decentralisation and centralisation within the UK polity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdsheadMQuinnB, 1998, “The move from government to governance: Irish development policy's paradigm shift” Policy and Politics26209–225.
2.
AminATomaneyJ, 1995, “The regional dilemma in a neo-liberal Europe” European Urban and Regional Studies2171–188.
3.
AndersonJ J, 1990, “Skeptical reflections on a Europe of the Regions: Britain, Germany and the ERDF” Journal of Public Policy10417–447.
4.
Assembly, National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff CF99 1NA.
5.
1999aEuropean Structural Funds—Financing Mechanisms Report by the Finance Division to the Economic Development Committee, 13 October 1999.
6.
1999bMinutes of the National Assembly for Wales Economic Development Committee 30 June 1999 (EDC-02–99 min).
7.
1999cMinutes of the National Assembly for Wales Economic Development Committee 13 October 1999 (EDC-08–99 min).
8.
1999dMinutes of the National Assembly for Wales Economic Development Committee 15 December 1999 (EDC-12–99 min).
9.
1999eRecord of Proceedings Plenary Debate of 14 July 1999 (pm).
10.
1999fRecord of Proceedings Plenary Debate of 7 October 1999 (pm).
11.
BacheI, 1996EU Regional Policy: Has the UK Government Succeeded in Playing the Gatekeeper Role over the Domestic Impact of the European Regional Development Fund?unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Politics, Sheffield University, Sheffield.
12.
BacheI, 1999, “The extended gatekeeper: Central government and the implementation of EC regional policy in the UK” Journal of European Public Policy6(1) 28–49.
13.
BacheIGeorgeS, 1999, “Administering the Structural Funds: the impact of the Independent Secretariats”, report for the South Yorkshire Objective 1 Taskforce, Sheffield University, Sheffield.
14.
BacheIGeorgeSRhodesR A W, 1996, “The European Union, cohesion policy and subnational authorities in the UK”, in Cohesion Policy and European Integration Ed. HoogheL (Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp 294–319.
15.
BarnettR RBorooahV, 1995, “The additionality (or otherwise) of European Community structural funds”, in An Enlarged Europe: Regions in Competition? Eds HardySHartMAlbrechtLKalusA (Regional Studies Association, London) pp 180–191.
16.
BeningtonJHarveyJ, 1994, “Spheres or tiers: The significance of transnational local authority networks”, in Contemporary Political Studies 1994 Eds DunleavyPStanyerJ, Political Studies Association, Department of Politics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 11–24.
17.
BolandP, 1999, “Contested multi-level governance: Merseyside and the European structural funds” European Planning Studies7647–664.
18.
BolandP, 2000, “Urban governance and economic development: A Critique of Merseyside's Objective 1 experience” European Urban and Regional Studies7211–222.
19.
BoyleM, 2000, “Euro-regionalism and struggles over scales of governance: The politics of Ireland's regionalisation approach to Structural Fund allocations 2000–2006” Political Geography19737–769.
20.
BrennerN, 1997, “State territorial restructuring and the production of spatial scale: Urban and regional planning in the Federal Republic of Germany 1960–1990” Political Geography16273–306.
21.
BrownA, 1998, “Asymmetrical devolution: The Scottish case” Political Quarterly39215–223.
22.
BulmerS, 1983, “Domestic politics and European policy-making” Journal of Common Market Studies21349–363.
23.
CEC, 1998Financing the European Union: Commission Report on the Operation of the Own Resources System (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels).
24.
Coalfield Communities Campaign, 1999, “Wales: European funding and the additionality problem”, Coalfield Communities Campaign (Wales), Torfaen County Borough Council, Civic Centre, Pontypool.
25.
CornfordJ, 1996, “Constitutional reform in the UK”, in The State and the Nations: The Politics of Devolution Ed. TindaleS (Institute of Public Policy Research, London) pp 38–46.
26.
DaviesR, 1999Devolution: A Process Not an Event (Institute of Welsh Affairs, Cardiff).
27.
European Commission Representation in the UK, 1997Funding from the European Union European Commission Representation in the UK, 8 Storey's Gate, London SW1P 3AT.
28.
European Court of Auditors, 2000, “Special report number 6/99 concerning the principle of additionality” Official Journal of the European Communities C68/01 (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels).
29.
Euro Taskforce for Wales, 1999European Structural Funds in Wales: Developing the Next ProgrammeEuro Taskforce for Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff.
30.
GreenwoodJLevyRStewartR, 1995, “The European Union structural fund allocations: ‘lobbying to win’ or recycling the budget?” European Urban and Regional Studies2317–338.
31.
HazellRCornesR, 1999, “Financing devolution: The centre retains control”, in Constitutional Futures: A History of the Next Ten Years Ed. HazellR (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 28–41.
32.
HealdD, 1994, “Territorial public expenditure in the United Kingdom” Public Administration72147–175.
33.
HealdDGeaughanN, 1996, “Financing a Scottish Parliament, in The State and the Nations: The Politics of Devolution Ed. TindaleS (Institute of Public Policy Research, London) pp 167–183.
34.
HealdDGeaughanNRobbC, 1998, “Financial arrangements for UK devolution” Regional and Federal Studies8(1) 23–52.
35.
HM Treasury, 1998Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments Cm 3917 (The Stationery Office, London).
36.
HM Treasury, 1999Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly: A Statement of Funding Policy (The Stationery Office, London).
37.
House of Commons Library, 1998, “The Barnett Formula”, Research Paper 98/8 Institute of Welsh Affairs, 1999 Devolution: A Dynamic Settled Process? (Institute of Welsh Affairs, Cardiff).
38.
JessopB, 1997, “Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance” Review of International Political Economy4561–607.
39.
JohnP, 1996, “Centralisation, decentralisation and the European Union: The dynamics of triadic relationships” Public Administration74293–313.
40.
JonesM, 1997, “Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance” Environment and Planning A29831–864.
41.
KeatingM, 1995, “Europeanism and regionalism”, in The European Union and the Regions Eds JonesBKeatingM (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 1–22.
42.
LloydPMeeganR, 1996, “Contested governance: European exposure in the English regions”, in Regional Development Strategies: A European Perspective Eds AldenJBolandP (Jessica Kingsley, London) pp 55–85.
43.
McAleaveyP, 1995a, “European Regional Development Fund expenditure in the UK: From additionality to ‘subtractionality’” European Urban and Regional Studies2249–253.
44.
McAleaveyP, 1995bPolicy Implementation as Incomplete Contracting: The European Regional Development Fundunpublished PhD thesis, Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute, Florence.
45.
MarksG, 1993, “Structural policy and multi-level governance in the EC”, in The State of the European Community Volume 2: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond Eds CafrunyARosenthalG (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO) pp 391–410.
46.
MarksGHoogheLBlankK, 1996, “European integration from the 1980s: State-centric versus multi-level governance” Journal of Common Market Studies34341–378.
47.
MartinS, 1998, “EU programmes and the evolution of local economic governance in the UK” European Urban and Regional Studies5237–248.
48.
MidwinterA, 1999, “The politics of needs assessment: The Treasury select committee and the Barnett formula” Public Money and Management, 19(2) 51–54.
49.
MidwinterAMcVicarM, 1996, “The devolution proposals for Scotland: An assessment and critique” Public Money and Management, 16(4) 13–20.
50.
MoravcsikA, 1993, “Preferences and power in the European Community: A Liberal intergovernmentalist approach” Journal of Common Market Studies31473–524.
51.
NortonP, 1998, “The consequences of devolution”, King-Hall paper number 6, The Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, London School of Economics, Sheffield Street, London.
52.
OsmondJ (Ed.), 1999The National Assembly Agenda (Institute of Welsh Affairs, Cardiff).
53.
PearceGMartinS, 1996, “The measurement of additionality: Grasping the slippery eel” Local Government Studies22(1) 78–92.
54.
PollackM, 1995, “Regional actors in an intergovernmental play: The making and implementation of EU structural policy”, in The State of the European Union. Volume 3: Building a European Polity Eds RhodesCMazeyS (Longman, Harlow, Essex) pp 64–78.
55.
Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, 2000European Structural Funds First Report HC 46, 1999/2000 Session, 17 February (The Stationery Office, London).
56.
SmithA, 1997, “Studying multi-level governance: Examples from French translations of the structural funds” Public Administration75711–720.
57.
ThomasI C, 1992, “Additionality in the distribution of European Regional Development Fund grants to local authorities” Local Economy6292–310.
58.
ThomasA, 1996, “Wales and devolution: A Constitutional footnote?” Public Money and Management16(4) 21–28.
59.
Treasury Committee, 1997The Barnett Formula Second Report of Session 1997–98 HC 341 (The Stationery Office, London).
