ABSTRACT
The Estonian case first of all pinpointed the threat of institutional lock-in and an urgent
need for regional and local capacity-building; otherwise, there is no chance for multilevel
governance, partnership and place-based policymaking. The second lesson told that
without a thorough policy discussion the institutional change, inclusion of new knowledge
and good practices would not be sustainable and allowed “pragmatic” politicians and civil
servants to neglect important policy principles. Thirdly, it became evident that RP tools
which attempted a one-size-fits-all approach in the form of standardized grant schemes,
arguably saving administrative costs, actually increased regional differences even
further because of extra costs of project preparation and extensive paperwork and therefore
eliminated weaker regions from the circle of potential applicants. Fourthly, as the minis-
terial evaluation reports lack qualitative and case analysis and are unable to measure the
real cohesion effect, it is extremely important to carry out ex-post evaluations of RP and to
learn from the on-going practices.
