The Vienna Institute for ISMERI EUROPA International Economic Studies Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 regions Work package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States THE NETHERLANDS WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 The Netherlands TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE......................................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................3 MAP OF THE NETHERLANDS– OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS ..........................................5 1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT .............................6 2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY..............................................7 3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS ......8 4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTIONS IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS .....................................11 5 FORM OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS....................................14 6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................16 7 GLOBAL EFFECTS...................................................................................................17 8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION .............................................................18 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................19 TABLES......................................................................................................................21 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES.................22 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 1 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 The Netherlands PREFACE This report is intended to summarise the main aspects of regional disparities, the changes in these which occurred over the 2000-2006 programming period and the principal features of regional development policy over this period in terms of the objectives, the way that it was implemented and the contribution of the Structural Funds. It also reviews the evidence on the effects of policy as regards both the direct results of expenditure in the different policy areas and the wider impact on development as such. It is based on three primary sources of information. The statistical data on regional and national developments over the period so far as possible come from Eurostat in order to ensure comparability with other studies carried out at EU level as well as with the other national reports produced as part of the ex post exercise. The data on the allocation of funding and expenditure come from the INFOVIEW database maintained by DG REGIO, which itself is based on regular information from the Member States on the allocation of funding and the payments made. Information on policy objectives, on the results of expenditure and the wider effects of this and on the procedures adopted as regards the implementation of policy comes from various programming documents and national evaluation reports as well as from impact studies which have been carried out on the actual or intended effects of programmes. The reports, therefore, are based on existing information – or more precisely, the information available at the time they were prepared (around mid-2008) – and no new evaluation has been undertaken for purposes of preparing the report. The report has been prepared by the Applica-Ismeri Europa- wiiw Consortium, which is coordinating the work on the ex post evaluation of ERDF expenditure in Objective 1 and 2 regions, working closely with a national expert who was responsible for interpreting the quantitative data and the other information indicated above.1 Although the contents of the report have been checked with officials in DG REGIO and with the national authorities, responsibility for any errors in the factual information presented or its interpretation rests with the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DG REGIO or the national authorities. 1 This report was produced with the assistance of Lourens Broersma, University of Groningen Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 2 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 The Netherlands EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the Netherlands, a number of regions were eligible for support from the EU Structural Funds between 2000 and 2006. The province of Flevoland was a (phasing out) Objective 1 region, while several regions in the northern, eastern and southern part of the country, as well as in the urban area comprising the four largest cities in the central and southern part of the country were all Objective 2 areas. The programme for Flevoland was designed to narrow the gap in GDP per head with that in the rest of the country by stimulating economic activity within the region and curbing the very high rates of outbound commuting. These problems are related to the specific character of this province, which comprises reclaimed land from the sea and was formally established only in 1986. It is primarily a residential region, where many people work in the neighbouring Randstad area, the economic core of the Netherlands. The programme was reasonably successful as GDP per head increased in relative terms and the number of firms and hence jobs inside Flevoland increased. Only unemployment remains a problem since the difference relative to the national average widened between 2000 and 2006. The programme for the North of the country was designed to narrow the gap with the rest of the country by strengthening the economic structure. This gap arises from relatively high unemployment rates in the North, relatively low GDP per head (especially when corrected for extraction of natural gas), and over-representation of traditional sectors (agriculture and basic manufacturing). These problems have been acknowledged for decades. The 2000- 2006 development programme is considered to have been successful, since from 1999 onwards there is clear evidence of a more positive development in unemployment rates. In addition, evaluation reports also note that the development programme has been a success in establishing an additional 16,000 jobs over and above what would otherwise have been expected. The programme for the eastern part of the country was focused on realising sustainable and balanced economic and social development, preserving the natural, environmental and scenic features of the area. This pursuit of this goal was organised around a number of priority areas: (i) spatial development, (ii) economic stimulation and (iii) social cohesion. While the programme had some success in achieving the first priority, this was less the case for the other two. The focus was less on employment creation than in the North and the programme was smaller in financial terms. The goals of the programme in the South were much the same as those in the East. In this case, the programme is considered to have been relatively successful, except for the closure of agricultural businesses and the limited creation of jobs, both of which compared Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 3 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 The Netherlands unfavourably to the national average. Finally, the programme for the urban area was aimed at improving the social and economic environment within the cities concerned and, in terms of output at least, was relatively successful. The total Structural Fund budget for the Flevoland Objective 1 region was EUR 132 million, while that for the Objective 2 regions was EUR 859 million, of which 42% went to the Northern provinces, 17% each to the East and South and the remaining 24% to the urban area. The programmes for Flevoland and the North have been evaluated positively in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency with which projects were implemented. Whether or not these projects would have been undertaken without EU funding, however, is difficult to assess based on the evaluation reports. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 4 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 The Netherlands MAP OF THE NETHERLANDS– OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 5 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 The Netherlands 1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT The main regional disparity in the Netherlands has for a long time been the lag in economic development of the three Northern provinces (NUTS-2) of Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe compared to the rest of the country. From 1959 onwards the whole of the North of the country was continuously a major focal point for regional policy2 and these regions were the only ones in the Netherlands over the period 2000-2006 for which a specific regional development programme was implemented by the national authorities.3 The long-term economic growth of the North of the country has continuously lagged behind growth in other regions. This is particularly evident if the extraction of natural gas (the deposits in Groningen being the largest in Europe outside Russia) is excluded from GDP. When gas extraction is included, GDP per head in Groningen is among the highest in Europe (especially if the effect of commuting in the case of capital city regions is taken into account). When it is excluded, which it arguably should be since almost all of the income generated goes outside the region4, GDP per head is reduced