Partnership in the 2000-2006
Analysis of the implementation of the partnership principle
DISCUSSION PAPER OF DG REGIO
link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
THE ADDED VALUE OF PARTNERSHIP .............................................................. 4
3. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 5
documents ............................................................................................ 6
3.2. Fiches from social partners................................................................................ 6
PARTNERSHIP IN THE 2000-2006 PROGRAMMING PERIOD ........................... 6
4.1. Role of partners in the Structural Funds 2000-2006: results of the survey
Selection of partners ............................................................................ 7
4.1.2. Programming ....................................................................................... 8
4.1.3. Implementation .................................................................................... 9
Involvement in Monitoring Committees ........................................... 10
4.1.5. Evaluation.......................................................................................... 10
4.2. Assessment carried out by the partners on their contribution to the
programming cycle .......................................................................................... 11
THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD .......................................................... 12
ANNEX 1 - LIST OF SOCIAL PARTNERS ...............................................................................14
ANNEX 2 - INDICATIVE FICHE ................................................................................................15
ANNEX 3 - DG REGIO COUNTRY DESK QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................16
The partnership principle is fundamental to the implementation of European cohesion
policy. It implies close cooperation between the Commission, the authorities at national,
regional and local level in the Member States and other governmental and non-
governmental organisations and bodies during the different stages of the implementation
cycle of the Structural Funds. Partnership was already present in the guiding principles in
the 1988 reform of the Structural Funds and strengthened with the subsequent reforms of
EU cohesion policy, whereby the scope of partnership and the circle of partners have
The partnership principle is very much linked to the principle of subsidiarity which
implies that decisions should be made at the level most competent to carry them out
within the context of a broader cooperative network to be able to pool resources and
experiences (see also Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Article 8(3) of Reg. 1260/1999).
During the current programming period, 2000-2006, partnership has been expanded
under Article 8 of Regulation No. 1260/1999 on the Structural Funds to include national,
regional, local and other level authorities as well as the economic and social partners, and
other relevant competent bodies representing different civil society groups1. The
regulation calls for “close consultation” with these partners, although it is for the Member
States to establish national rules or practice for their inclusion. Annual consultations on
cohesion policy take place between the European-level socio-economic partners and the
Commission. Furthermore, Article 15 of Regulation 1260/99 provides for the application
of the partnership principle in different stages of the programming cycle, from
programme preparation to evaluation.
Over the last few years, various evaluations on the impact of partnership in the Structural
Funds have drawn attention to the positive benefit and added value that partnership can
bring to the implementation of cohesion policy through enhanced legitimacy, greater
coordination, guaranteed transparency, and better absorption of funds through improved
selection of projects and dissemination of information to potential project promoters2.
In some Member States, the potential benefits from partnership are still not widely
understood and the method of its application is not fully transparent. The social partners,
via their contacts with the Commission, have expressed concerns about the inconsistency
across EU Member States on the application of the partnership principle. In the light of
this, the aim of this report is to provide a short survey of the state of play of the
1 By “partners”, the report refers to stakeholders as defined by Art. 8 (1) of Regulation n° 1260/1999.
“The thematic evaluation of the partnership principle: final synthesis report”, Tavistock Institute,
1999; “A Study on the Efficiency of the Implementation Methods for Structural Funds”, ÖIR in association
with LRDP and IDOM, 2003; “Opinion on the Partnership for Implementing the Structural Funds”
European Economic and Social Committee, 2003; and “The EU 'partnership principle': still a sustainable
governance device across multiple administrative arenas?”, Michael W. Bauer, 2002.
application of the partnership principle over the course of the 2000-2006 programming
period. The report provides some examples of best practice3 and suggestions on how to
maximize the benefits and added value of the partnership principle in cohesion policy and
how to improve its working mechanisms.
THE ADDED VALUE OF PARTNERSHIP
The potential added value of a well-organised partnership is widely acknowledged, and
supported by the results of studies dealing with the issues of good governance.4 These
study results can be briefly summarised in the following four points:
First, through the involvement of a broad group of participants, a wider range of expertise
is available for use during the programming cycle of Structural Funds programmes. This
can help to improve the effectiveness of programme development, monitoring and
evaluation. By contributing their specific knowledge on a certain subject or region, their
awareness of potential project applicants, partners can improve programme effectiveness
by raising the efficiency of project selection. Generally speaking, a widely drawn
partnership leads to greater commitment and ownership of programme outputs, and hence
to a direct interest in the success of the programme.
Second, the participation of regional and local authorities and that of civil society helps to
legitimize the decision-making process by counterbalancing any specific political or other
influence. Regional and local authorities, socio-economic partners and civil society can
contribute also to the transparency in decisions and decision-making processes through
their involvement and through their channelling of information.
Third, in many cases the involvement of partners contributes to the development of
institutional capacity at sector and territorial levels. To facilitate the involvement of local
or regional authorities, their institutional capacity has had to be strengthened, their
awareness on European structural policy has been extended, and a more effective
dialogue between the different authorities has been established. The participation of the
different actors also creates opportunities for reinforcing innovation and learning across
In Austria, the responsibilities of management of Structural Funds are shared between the
federal and regional authorities. Therefore, the Structural Fund delivery mechanisms
considerably contributed to creation of various co-ordination structures (e.g. ÖROK –
Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning) and co-operation networks through the
introduction of the partnership principle at all stages of the programme management
3 These can be found in the text boxes in the relevant sections of the report
4 W. Bauer, M. (2002); ÖIR in association with LRDP and IDOM (2003); Batterbury, J. S., Kelleher, J. &
Stern, E. (1999); European Economic and Social Committee, CESE 1166/2003
Fourth, the analysis also broadly confirms the positive impact that partnership has had on
the improvement of the planning and implementation procedures of public
administrations responsible for the Structural Funds. In several cases it has led to the
creation of a new institutional framework based on a series of cooperative networks or
relations with various social and economic partners. In most cases it has enhanced
institutional networking and cooperation between national and regional authorities.
In Ireland, social partnership has formed the backdrop to economic development since
1987. This partnership was strengthened through Structural Funds processes and was
extended to include the community and voluntary sector as a result of their involvement
in Structural Funds. The Ballyfermot Community Civic Centre
/ URBAN Ballyfermot Programme management is a good example of partnership in
action in Ireland, involving representatives from the community, local groups and
relevant Government departments on the URBAN Ballyfermot’s Board of Directors and
its committees, acting as the Managing authority for Urban Programmes in Ireland.
In Spain, Structural Funds has contributed to improved coordination and partnership
between the different national and regional administrative bodies which has resulted in
developing a more integrated vision of regional issues, thus contributing to a better
quality of conception and implementation of programmes.
Perhaps the most significant change in the partnership arrangements during the 2000-
2006 programming period occurred in Finland, where despite a traditionally centralised
administrative system, regional, local and social actors where given wide-ranging
participatory rights in the programmes. In Finland, the Regional Management
Committees include representatives from various ministries and their district
administrative authorities, regional and local authorities and other organisations. Actors
are able to discuss and design future steps in regional planning together with other
authorities in the regions concerned. This cooperation has produced positive results and
opened up new avenues for regional development. Also the project leaders have received
better guidance as the authorities have become better aware of the main issues and the
provision of services offered by other authorities.
The report is based on the following sources of information:
Internal documents and assessments of the Commission – short evaluations
conducted by the geographical units of DG REGIO on the participation of
partners in Monitoring Committees and in other stages of the implementation
Questionnaire filled in by those social partners consulted by the Commission
under Article 8 of Council Regulation No. 1260/1999;
Other literature available: existing reports and academic research.
The report concerns the partnership arrangements for programmes supported by
Structural Funds in general and there is deliberately no analysis by Fund.
As a starting point, the Commission prepared an internal evaluation of the involvement of
partners during the implementation of the Structural Funds. The geographical desks in
DG REGIO examined the situation in each of the Member States analysing the
partnership arrangements in a wider perspective involving stakeholders in the different
stages of the programming process. The analysis was supported by a questionnaire that
focused on the participation of partners in the Monitoring Committees and are
differentiated by region and programme (Objective 1, Objective 2, Urban and
INTERREG). All together, 176 questionnaires were completed and subsequently
summarized to serve as the basis for a series of country fiches.
The second main source of internal information were the “Country sheets on Impact and
Added Value” of cohesion policy in the Member States5. These sheets are based on
different evaluation studies undertaken by the Commission and the Member States
themselves. The sheets assess the implementation of cohesion policy in a broader context
of which one point of focus is the role of different partners (i.e. regional and local
authorities, socio-economic partners and other stakeholders).
Fiches from social partners
On the basis of the analysis made by DG REGIO’s geographical units, a questionnaire for
each Member State was prepared which was then forwarded to the social partners. Fiches
were drafted and submitted to the social partners, covering 14 Member States. The new
Member States, where programmes have only just begun since enlargement in May 2004,
could not be included in the assessment at this stage. The fiches were submitted to the
social partners in the course of the regular consultations under Article 8 of Council
Regulation No. 1260/1999. They in turn organised the input of social partners at Member
The fiches included a variety of questions on the extent of the participation of partners in
the different stages of the programming cycle, from preparation to monitoring. A sample
fiche is included in Annex 26.
PARTNERSHIP IN THE 2000-2006 PROGRAMMING PERIOD
Role of partners in the Structural Funds 2000-2006: results of the
This section describes the perceptions of DG REGIO Desk officers regarding the role and
involvement of partners in the different stages of the programming cycle during the
current programming period. The section provides some best practices – in the text boxes
– resulting from studies organised by the Commission in the evaluations of the impact of
6 Unlike the questionnaires filled in by DG REGIO geographical desk, the fiches completed by the social
partners took into account also Objective 3 programmes.
Structural Funds on good governance. The information provided has not been subject to
any independent verification.
Partners can perform a variety of functions in the programming cycle, from conception to
monitoring. This is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 – Actors in the programming cycle of the Structural Funds 2000-2006
Role of partners
Commission (COM), MS
National, regional, other
level authorities -
appointed by the Member
Operational Programme (OP)
Programme Complement (PC)
MS or Management
Consultative role, or
acting through the MA
or the MC
MS, national, regional,
Consultative role, or
local level authorities,
acting through the MA
public or private
organisations - appointed
by the MS
MS, national, regional,
Participation in MCs,
local level authorities,
but - depending on the
public or private
country -, having
organisations - appointed
different power of
by the MS. Actors acting
legitimacy. Role from
mainly through the MC
consultation to equal
MS or MA, MC, partners
Consultative role, or
acting through the MA
or the MC
Consultative role, or
under supervision of the
acting through the MA
MA, in cooperation with
or the MC
the COM and the MS
Consultative role, or
under supervision of the
acting through the MA
COM, in cooperation with
the MS and the MA
4.1.1. Selection of partners
In most Member States, participating partners are generally chosen by the Managing
Authority or in certain cases by regional or local authorities through the Managing
Authority. These authorities decide on the appropriate balance between different partners
in terms of their contribution to the programme, specific competencies etc. The survey
suggests that in some cases selection is based on the political importance of the partner.
Pre-determined procedures or a legislative basis for the selection of partners appear to
exist in 4 of the 14 Member States. In two cases, it was noted that it is the social partners
who select a candidate from their own group, who is then appointed by the Managing
The survey revealed that in approximately half of the Member States examined, partners
participate in the setting of indicators and targets that are specific and quantifiable for the
structural intervention, in the elaboration of the project selection criteria and in the
process of project selection itself. In over half of the Member States, partners participate
in the drafting of the programme complement. The following table shows the extent of
involvement of partners in other phases of the programming cycle aside from the
participation on the Monitoring Committees:
Table 2 – Intensity of partnership involvement in the implementation of the Structural
Occurrence of involvement
Phase of SF programming cycle
Fixing targets for the intervention
Preparing the programme complement
Elaborating project selection criteria
Drawing up specifications for the mid-term evaluation
In Denmark, where partnership is an accepted part of the implementation of the Structural
Funds programmes, the drafting of national programmes is based on a bottom-up process
with a wide-ranging partnership. The programme preparation and implementation is
decentralised with the lead role played by various local authorities and agencies.
Similarly, a wide range of socio-economic partners and external experts are involved
from the development stage of the programmes onwards in Germany.
The survey revealed a general perception that their participation and involvement could
be improved at the strategic level, thus in various phases of the programming cycle of the
Structural Funds. However in some cases the participation on strategic level is facilitated
In the UK as part of the strategy development process (e.g., in the West Midlands),
partners are being encouraged not only to put forward ideas on strategic objectives,
priorities and measures but also to identify how these can be measured. The purpose is to
encourage partners to be realistic in making proposals for the strategy and to see the
rationale for indicators and targets.
The programme planning in Finland for the 2000-2006 period was undertaken through a
process of wide consultation with a large number of partners such as regional co-
ordination groups, municipalities and districts, and social partners i.e., workers,
employers, entrepreneurs, farmers and organisations advocating equal opportunities and
protection of environment. The Finnish Ministry of Interior was in charge of the entire
process. It initiated the planning, organised the ex-ante evaluation, and established a
national co-ordination group. The main preparatory bodies in the regions were the
Regional Councils, who formed co-ordination groups with members from the Regions,
Employment and Business Centres, Environment Centres and Provincial Governments.
The Austrian regions
were key players in preparation of the programming documents for
the current programming period in co-operation with the Federal Government. While the
1995-1999 period was considered as a learning process, for the 2000-2006 period, the
regions strove to deliver the programme documents that would be more strategically
driven. The programming process involved external experts and consultants who
coordinated actual drafting of the programming documents. Core planning groups
involving implementing authorities led the strategic discussion and different regional
management offices, interest groups and social partners actively contributed to the whole
drafting process. Several studies and evaluation were taken into consideration.
In most cases, socio-economic partners are not involved in the implementation of
Structural Funds interventions –, i.e. in the day-to-day management of programmes, -.
There are however some cases when they have consultative role. In some cases socio-
economic partners are also involved in project implementation.
In one case it was noted that although the socio-economic partners had the right and the
intention to take part in different phases of implementation, it proved to be difficult, due
to poorly coordinated multiple institutional structures, where competences and
involvements were overlapping one another.
A task force of independent experts (project development specialists) responsible for
project selection has been set up in Belgium. Direct involvement of independent
specialists in programme implementation has resulted in the improvement in the quality
of response to the programme’s strategic objectives.
In the 2000-2006 programming period the United Kingdom made serious improvement in
its programme management. Among others, it improved the capacity of communities to
manage their own regeneration, complementing the positive development of relevant
regional capacities, notably in terms of programme partnerships. It has become common
to subcontract programme delivery to partner organisations, such as to independent
programme management executives (for example in Scotland the Strathclyde European
Partnership Programme Management Executive involves around 200 agencies, including
the Scottish Executive, local authorities, enterprise bodies, further and higher education,
voluntary and community organisations and the environmental and equality agencies).
This allows Managing authorities to concentrate on the strategic management and the
monitoring of programmes.
4.1.4. Involvement in Monitoring Committees
The participation of partners in Monitoring Committees is one of the more visible aspects
of the application of the partnership principle in the Structural Funds. In most cases, the
social partners have the same participatory or voting rights as other members of the
Monitoring Committees. The experience of the Commission is that the representation of
the social partners greatly varies. In most cases these relate to trade unions and
employers’ groups, but it is largely dependent on the type of Structural Funds programme
or the Fund (ESF - European Social Fund, ERDF - European Regional Development
Fund, EAGGF - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, FIFG - Financial
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance). Some respondents noted the lack of participation of
women’s groups in the Monitoring committee meetings.
The survey of social partners shows that in the minority of cases, partners are only
consulted without having direct participatory rights in the implementation of Structural
Funds or the right to vote. In some cases their main role is to serve as an information
channel towards the public. The survey revealed that in those cases, where the selection
of partners initiates from the social partners themselves, their representation in the
Monitoring Committees was well-organised.
In Greece, partnership working in the Monitoring Committees has ensured the
dissemination of information related to Structural Funds programmes and projects and in
this way it has helped to increase participation among stakeholders.
The survey showed that the involvement of smaller and less traditional partners, for
example, anti-poverty groups, and that of the charity and voluntary sector is limited; and
that Monitoring Committee meetings can be rather time-consuming because of the level
of technical details discussed. In many cases the partners feel unable/unwilling to
increase their participation due to time and capacity constraints. The burdens of
complicated administrative procedures and the lack of a regional partnership forum
creates constraints to the good functioning of partnership.
The analysis of the recent mid-term evaluation shows that this exercise was typically
carried out with the participation of partners. Regulation 1260/1999 specifically refers to
the involvement of the Commission, the Member State, the managing authority, the
monitoring committee and the evaluator. In most cases, steering committees were set up,
as recommended by the Commission. They usually consisted of a sub-committee of the
monitoring committee and their role was to guide the evaluation process from the
establishment of terms of reference to the finalisation of the evaluation.
Partnership worked at several different levels during the mid-term evaluation process and
in different ways depending on national and regional practice, budgets involved and the
scale of the programmes. The role of the steering groups varied across programmes and
countries and they were not always involved from the beginning of the process. In
general, the steering groups were considered to have led to higher quality and more
relevant evaluations possibly reflecting enhanced ownership and involvement in the
evaluation process by the partnership. That said, in some cases some partners felt that
there was some attempt to steer the evaluation too much towards particular conclusions
and recommendations. The presentation of the report to the monitoring committee
broadened the involvement of the partnership in the process.
In the survey of social partners, in over half of the Member States, partners were found to
participate in the drawing up of specifications for the mid-term evaluations.
Assessment carried out by the partners7 on their contribution to the
First, the participation of the partners helps to secure the relevance of Structural Funds
co-financed projects, their connection to national and EU policy issues and a better
quality of projects. Many partners also see themselves as important in persuading public
authorities to simplify administrative procedures.
Secondly, from the survey it seems clear that partners feel that they have an important
role in defining the objectives of the Structural Funds interventions, the dissemination of
information, and in highlighting problems and implementation issues.
Thirdly, successful partnership arrangements often provide a network for information
exchange and the sharing of best practice, thus fostering greater efficiency in the
implementation of the programmes. Partnership ensures more bottom-up participation,
the introduction of innovative ideas and different perspectives and serves as a network
across various policies and sectors.
The overall principle of the de-centralisation of management, both from the Commission
to the Member State and from the central level in the Member State to sub-regions, seems
to have proved fruitful in Denmark. The sub-regional level is the first contact point for
the public and potential project promoters in the respective geographical areas. The sub-
regional secretariats then recommend approval (or non-approval) to the Danish central
managing authorities, who take the final decision on a grant, usually following the
recommendations of the sub-regional secretariats.
Fourthly, by representing a specific sector of the population, partners can identify the
needs of the groups they represent and any related problems of implementation.
Further, partners are also able to provide political and technical advice and by having a
more strategic approach to the cohesion policy, are able to shift the focus away from
process and administration to strategy.
7 See List of Social partners in Annex 1
Most mid-term evaluations of 2000-2006 Structural Fund programmes in the UK have
highlighted the perceived benefits of partnership-based strategies. Positive effects of
partnership approaches cited in mid-term evaluations include the establishment of
democratic and inclusive approaches, the sharing of intelligence to target resources to
meet local needs and the introduction of new organisation to regional/sub-regional
programmes. The emphasis on the partnership principle has acted as a catalyst at regional
and local level for improved partnership structures and contributed positive effects in
terms of capacity building.
THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD
This analysis suggests that partnership can contribute to the effectiveness, efficiency,
legitimacy and transparency of Structural Funds operations, and to the commitment to,
and ownership of, programme outputs. The analysis also shows that there have been
efforts to improve the functioning of partnership. Where it is well implemented,
partnership has also generated further benefits such as the improvement of institutional
capacities at different levels (local, regional and national), better inter-institutional
coordination and communication at the national level, or a better involvement of civil
Although it is clear from the analysis that a wider range of partners than ever before is
involved in cohesion policy, in some cases, the involvement of partners at different stages
of the programming cycle is not considered as equally necessary and sometimes is even
seen as causing an additional burden on time and resources. It is not always clear whether
the selection of partners is based on their specific expertise or on political preference.
Some partners indicated a preference for matching the specific expertise of the partners
with a particular stage in the programming cycle for maximum impact and efficiency.
Many partners felt that their role was little known or recognized with little public
awareness of the issue. In the survey, the social partners called for the rules on their role
and the transparency of the selection process to be more clearly defined.
For the next period, the partnership principle will be implemented in accordance with the
provisions of the new Council Regulation for 2007-2013. The Commission’s proposal8
seeks to reinforce the partnership principle notably by adding civil society, environmental
partners, NGOs and gender equality organisations. However, it is highly likely that the
new regulatory framework will bear many similarities to the present one, in particular, by
allowing Member States to implement the partnership principle in accordance with
national practice. Even so, there remains a number of ways in which the principle could
be implemented more transparently and more effectively. Some tentative suggestions for
the next period include:
8 Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, article 10; COM (2004) 492
First, Member States themselves could decide to organise a seminar at the start of the
next programming period to discuss the envisaged partnership arrangements with the
partners. This would ensure that partners are made aware of possibilities from the
beginning while providing the public authorities the opportunity to outline their
expectation of the partners.
Secondly, the Member States could provide more information during the
negotiations on the content of the operational programmes on how they intend to
implement the partnership principle. This could involve the identification of the
partners to be consulted, the stages of the programming cycle requiring the
participation of the partners and the responsibilities and participatory rights of the
Thirdly, the Managing Authorities could decide to appoint a representative as a one-
stop shop responsible for relations with the partners. This individual would act as a
point of liaison between the partners and the Managing Authority.
LIST OF SOCIAL PARTNERS
INVOLVED IN THE ANALYSIS
European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of
General Economic Interest
Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union -
General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union
European Trade Union Confederation
Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry
Association of National Organizations of Fishing Enterprises in the EU
European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Union of Industrial and Employer's Confederations of Europe
EUROPEAN WOMEN’S LOBBY
Partnership in Structural Funds Interventions
charge of the analysis:
Do the conclusions drawn from this analysis confirm or run counter to their own
Is participation by the partners in programmes restricted to the Monitoring
Committee or participate (or have participated) they on a broader scale, for
fixing targets for the intervention
preparing the programme complement
elaborating project selection
drawing up specifications for the interim evaluation
other aspects of preparation, implementation or monitoring. Please
Does the present degree of association appear sufficient and how, if at all, it
should be improved?
Please state your opinion on the procedures for selecting partners in the country in
How the presence of the partners adds value in the country in question?
DG REGIO COUNTRY DESK QUESTIONNAIRE
ON THE PARTICIPATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
STRUCTURAL FUND PROGRAMMES
(FILLED IN BY THE GEOGRAPHIC UNITS OF THE DG REGIO)
Name of the programme:
Is it a sector-specific programme?
If yes, which sector?
Objective that the programme belongs to
1. Do the economic and social partners YES
participate in the Monitoring Committee of If yes, which partners?
this programme ?
2. If they do participate in the Monitoring YES
Committee, do they have the same rights as NON
If their rights are different, explain what
rights they do / do not have compared to
3. Are the partners present in the
Monitoring Committee present because
they are managing a project or are they
involved because their quality of a partner?
4. If the economic and social partners
participate in the Monitoring Committee
without managing a project, what is the
criteria for their selection and which body
is proceeding the selection-procedure?
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds
Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION COM(2004)492 of 14 July 2004, laying
down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
Opinion on the Partnership for Implementing the Structural Funds, European Economic
and Social Committee, CESE 1166/2003
Batterbury, J. S., Kelleher, J. & Stern, E. (1999), “The thematic evaluation of the
partnership principle : final synthesis report”, Tavistock Institute
Iurato, G. (2003), “Partnership and Structural Funds: Set up and Conditionings on
Regional Participation”, The European Union Review, Vol. 8 No. 3,
Harvey, B. (2004), « The illusion of inclusion – Access by NGOs to the Structural Funds
in the member states of eastern and central Europe », Brussels: ECAS
W. Bauer, M. (2002) “The EU 'partnership principle': still a sustainable governance
device across multiple administrative arenas?”, Public Administration, Vol. 80 No. 4
Europe et Société (2003), “Le rôle des partenaires sociaux dans la construction d’une
Les cahiers de la fondation N° 57-58, octobre 2003 - mars 2004,
ÖIR in association with LRDP and IDOM (2003), “A Study on the Efficiency of the
Implementation Methods for Structural Funds – Final Report”, Vienna