The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is the most significant of the Structural Funds in terms of budget and range of thematic priorities. For the purposes of this paper, we argue that three different levels in multi-level governance emerge in their planning and management: the higher (European and national) level planning; the lower level (beneficiaries); and the intermediate level of (national and regional) planning and management. We discuss the views and practices of intermediate managers and beneficiaries to gain insights on the effectiveness of ERDF interventions on the island of Lesvos (Voreio Aigaio region, Greece), with interviews with a number of key stakeholders and beneficiaries. The findings suggest differences and contrasting views on the role of ERDF funding among the different levels. Local politics also affect the effectiveness by influencing the administration, planning and management of ERDF implementation.
BacheI (1998) The Politics of European Union Regional Policy: Multi-Level Governance or Flexible Gatekeeping? (Contemporary European Studies Series). Sheffield: UACES/Sheffield Academic Press.
2.
BacheI (2010a) Europeanization and multi-level governance: EU cohesion policy and pre-accession aid in Southeast Europe. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies10(1): 1–12.
3.
BacheI (2010b) Partnership as an EU Policy instrument: A political history. West European Politics33(1): 58–74.
4.
BachtlerJMcMasterI (2008) EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions: Investigating the influence of Structural Funds in the new member states. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26(2): 398–427.
5.
BährC (2008) How does sub-national autonomy affect the effectiveness of structural funds?Kyklos61(1): 3–18.
6.
BateiraJFerreiraLV (2002) Questioning EU cohesion policy in Portugal. European Urban and Regional Studies9(4): 297–314.
7.
BatterburySCE (2006) Principles and purposes of European Union cohesion policy evaluation. Regional Studies40(2): 179–188.
8.
BoldrinMCanovaF (2001) Inequality and convergence in Europe’s regions: Reconsidering European regional policies. Economic Policy32: 207–253.
9.
BriassoulisH (2004) The institutional complexity of environmental policy and planning problems: The example of Mediterranean desertification. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47(1): 115–135.
10.
ChardasA (2012) Multi-level governance and the application of the partnership principle in times of economic crisis in Greece. GreeSE paper no. 56, Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe, March. LSE European Institute, Hellenic Observatory. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/research/hellenicObservatory/pubs/GreeSE.aspx.
11.
ChristofakisMPapadaskalopoulosA (2011) Cohesion policy and regional disparities: The recent experience of Greece. Local Economy 26(6–7): 517–531.
12.
Dall’erbaSLe GalloJ (2008) Regional convergence and the impact of European structural funds over 1989–1999: A spatial econometric analysis. Papers in Regional Science87(2): 219–244.
13.
ESPON (2011) The development of the Islands – European Islands and Cohesion Policy (EUROISLANDS), Targeted Analysis 2013/2/2. Available at: http://www.espon.eu (accessed 17 December 2012).
14.
European Commission (EC) (2010) Investing in Europe’s future: 5th report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. November. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
15.
GrahamBHartM (1999) Cohesion and diversity in the European Union: Irreconcilable forces?Regional Studies33(3): 259–268.
16.
GualiniaE (2003) Challenges to multi-level governance: Contradictions and conflicts in the Europeanization of Italian regional policy. Journal of European Public Policy10(4): 616–636.
17.
HadjimichalisC (2011) Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial justice and solidarity: European regions after the 2009 financial crisis. European Urban and Regional Studies18(3): 254–274.
18.
HadjimichalisCHudsonR (2007) Rethinking local and regional development: Implications for radical political practice in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies14(2): 99–113.
19.
HalkosGETzeremesNG (2010) Measuring regional economic efficiency: The case of Greek prefectures. Annals of Regional Science45(3): 603–632.
20.
HoogheL (ed.) (1996) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
JeffreyC (2000) Sub-national mobilization and European integration: Does it make any difference?Journal of Common Market Studies38(1): 1–23.
22.
KnillC (1998) European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy18(1): 1–28.
23.
LeonardiR (2006) Cohesion in the European Union. Regional Studies40(2): 155–166.
24.
LolosSEG (2009) The effect of EU structural funds on regional growth: Assessing the evidence from Greece, 1990–2005. Economic Change and Restructuring42(3): 211–228.
25.
MolleW (2008) European Cohesion Policy. Oxon: Routledge.
26.
NikolaidesMNHristopoulouOKarasavvoglouAGMandilasAMaditinowD (2009) The efficiency of the evaluation system of productive investments in Greece: The case of the developmental incentives for East Macedonia – Thrace region. Aeihoros12: 83–108.
27.
ShuttJColwellAKoutsoukosS (2002) Structural funds and their impact: Signed and sealed, but can we deliver?European Planning Studies10(1): 113–130.
28.
Sosvilla-RiveroSBajo-RubioODíaz-RoldánC (2006) Assessing the effectiveness of the EU’s regional policies on real convergence: an analysis based on the HERMIN model. European Planning Studies14(3): 383–396.
29.
TodlG (2000) EU regional policy in southern periphery: Lessons for the future. South European Society and Politics3(1): 93–129.
30.
Ulltveit-MoeKH (2007) Regional policy design: An analysis of relocation, efficiency and equity. European Economic Review51(6): 1443–1467.
31.
ZoppiCLaiS (2011) Urban development and expenditure efficiency in the 2000–2006 regional operational program of Sardinia. Land Use Policy28(3): 472–485.
