Wales and objective 1 status: learning the lessons or emulating the errors?

Abstract

West Wales and the Valleys is approaching the mid-way point of its European funded Objective 1 programme-the highest form of Structural Fund aid for the Union's economically and socially 'lagging' regions. Objective 1 has afforded Wales the tools to develop an economic regeneration strategy aimed at improving the performance of the western part of the Welsh economy, and combating the country's entrenched pockets of economic and social disadvantage. However, after three years there are some important structural and implementation problems facing those managing Objective 1 in Wales, specifically in terms of the governance of the programme and resource allocation. This paper draws out these key issues by tracing the main fault lines in the design and delivery of the programme, and also offers some critical assessment of the initial economic impact of Objective 1. In short, this paper argues that Wales has shown little evidence of learning the lessons from other Objective 1 regions, but has been rather more adept at emulating the errors found elsewhere.

Collaborative governance and territorial rescaling in the UK: a comparative study of two EU Structural Funds programmes

“…The basic aim behind this ''contrived grouping'' (Gripaios and Bishop 2006, p. 939) was to include as much of the country's territory as possible in a region likely to qualify for Objective 1 status under the Structural Funds. Although this was achieved, it has subsequently posed intractable problems for programme management and implementation (Boland 2004;Royles 2006).…”

“…Turning to eligibility for support under the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 programming period, both case study areas were designated under Objective 1. The major difference between the two was that in South Yorkshire the programme covered the same four local authority areas (Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield), whereas the Central Valleys were part of the much larger West Wales and the Valleys area (Boland 2004). At the same time, Cardiff was not included in the Objective 1 area, instead having limited eligibility for Objective 2 support, focused on its most deprived wards.…”

“…As will be seen below with respect to Wales, where the latest definition of the NUTS2 areas resulted from considerable lobbying, it would be difficult to claim that the resultant map forms an optimum framework for the construction of alternative 'economic integration zones' (Boland 2004;Gripaios and Bishop 2006).…”

Devolution and the modernization of local government: Prospects for spatial planning

“…One of the other initiatives that has assisted in galvanizing new relations between the Welsh Assembly Government and the local authorities has been the designation of large parts of south, west and north Wales as an Objective 1 EU Structural Fund region (Bristow & Blewitt, 2001;Boland, 2004). The award of £1.2 billion in the period 2000 -2006 to assist in social and economic development has led to strengthened relations between the centre and the local, as was witnessed in the preparation of the bid for EU recognition in the late 1990s, and has-in many ways-led to the development of a distinct form of regional policy in Wales (Brooksbank et al, 2001).…”

People, Places and Policy

“…For example, the 2002 national economic strategy A Winning Wales highlighted the south Wales valleys as 'lagging behind on most measures' (Welsh Assembly Government, 2002: 106). Also, since devolution, the area 'west Wales and the Valleys', which includes the Heads of the Valleys authorities (WEFO, 2013), has been eligible for European Structural and Cohesion Funding, aimed at reducing economic inequality across the European region (Objective 1 funding between 2000 and 2006 and Convergence Funding between 2007 and 2013) (Boland, 2004;European Commission, 2011a, b). Secondly, other policies, such as the 2007 coalition agreement One Wales, adopt the Heads of the Valleys region in particular.…”