Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Some level of funds-matching makes excellent sense, to avoid the recipient spending the money just to spend the money. Of course in the present situation, spending the money just to spend the money is objectively superior to not spending it at all. But that's not always the case.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2012 at 05:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The investment could also be undertaken entirely by the EIB, including the oversight of the project. If the recipient cannot take advantage of EU monies for one reason or other it is a failure to insist on an interpretation of "subsidiarity" that prevents the federal level from being "the closest instance that can get it done".

See, for instance, Cash dash: Tapping the EU funds Deadlines loom as officials struggle to retrieve millions of euros from Brussels (August 1, 2012)

Negotiations between the Nečas government and Brussels officials have prevented the country from losing billions of euros worth of European Union subsidies, but fast-approaching deadlines and issues of future disbursements continue to pose a risk for the Czech economy.

Some 60 billion Kč in payments for development projects will again flow into the country after government representatives agreed to address concerns over the administration of jointly funded programs July 23.

The funds were frozen by the European Commission (EC) in March due to misallocation, and some programs will continue to be on hold pending further scrutiny, Prime Minister Petr Nečas said.

If the Brussels/Frankfurt consensus is set on giving the EU power over national budgets in their entirety, why can't they say that in case structural funds are affected by issues of local mismanagement or corruption the EU level will direct the projects?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2012 at 05:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is to say, maybe the "carrot-and-stick" philosophy applied to local politicians by the federal level isn't the best way to ensure that the local population benefits from federal action.

More faulty "the state as a household" metaphors?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2012 at 05:43:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...why can't they say that in case structural funds are affected by issues of local mismanagement or corruption the EU level will direct the projects?

The important thing is that the funds get spent in the intended country in a manner that most benefits the local economy. The danger is that neo-liberal capture of EU institutions will lead to conversion of such funds to private looting by the most powerful interests.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2012 at 09:07:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series