ABSTRACT
The Structural Funds have traditionally been deployed as instruments of regional policy, with limited concern for disparities within regions. They have also been used to promote economic growth, with less interest in distributional issues, social conditions and the quality of everyday life. The current regional programmes in Britain, and to a lesser extent France, mark an interesting departure in some respects. Unlike previous programmes, or those in other European countries, they seek to target part of their resources towards disadvantaged areas within their regions. Equally important, they imply a broader and more inclusive approach to development than practised in the past. A preliminary indication can be obtained from the terminology used for this ‘priority for action’: it is called Community Economic Development, Economic and Social Cohesion, or Urban and Community Regeneration. In Britain this priority has been allocated between a tenth and two-fifths of the total funds within each programme (see Table 5.1), so it is clearly important. France is the only other EU country where Structural Funds are explicitly allocated to this objective, and on a more limited scale than in Britain (see Chapter 13). Community economic development in British Objective 1 and 2 regions (1994–1996)
|
Value of SF devoted to CED (mecu) |
Share of total SF in CED |
Proportion of region’s population in target areas |
SF spend per capita in target areas (ecu) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Eastern Scotland |
11.9 |
9.8% |
22% |
48 |
|
East London |
19.5 |
26.5% |
35% |
101 |
|
East Midlands |
15 |
18.9% |
20% |
109 |
|
Greater Manchester |
55.8 |
17.0% |
33% |
60 |
|
North-East England |
33.9 |
11.0% |
25% |
52 |
|
Plymouth |
3.2 |
11.2% |
14% |
87 |
|
South Wales |
61.3 |
32.6% |
46% |
78 |
|
Strathclyde |
40.3 |
14.1% |
24% |
72 |
|
West Cumbria |
3.37 |
13.5% |
20% |
70 |
|
West Midlands |
88.5 |
23.9% |
35% |
83 |
|
Yorkshire and Humberside |
58.8 |
18.8% |
35% |
65 |
|
Average for Objective 2 |
35.6 |
17.9% |
28% |
75 |
|
Merseyside |
180.5 * |
44.2% |
35% |
374 |
|
Highlands and Islands |
23.5 * |
15.1% |
15% |
427 |
|
Overall Average |
45.8 |
19.7% |
28% |
125 |
over three rather than six years to permit comparisons with Objective 2 regions.
Source: Derived from European Commission (1995); Lloyd et al. (1996).