The EU’s Proposed Budget and Its Impact on Cohesion policy
The European Union’s proposed budget for 2028–2034, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), poses a significant risk to the cohesion policy system. While this system has traditionally played a crucial role in addressing regional disparities across the EU, the proposal aims to merge cohesion policy with other major spending areas. This could result in a consolidation of cohesion funding into a single package, possibly avoiding oversight and competition. However, the recentregistration of cohesion funds into separate budgets by member states raises concerns about reduced local control and涂鸦 control for disadvantaged regions. Critics fear that this merger could disrupt the delicate equilibrium that cohesion policy seeks to preserve, leading to fragmentation and a potential threat to the EU system as we know it.
As one of the EU’s most tangible policy tools, cohesion funding has already achieved significant results in reducing regional disparities, such as investments in road construction, hospital upgrades, and training programmes. While the new framework marks a major shift in how cohesion policy is delivered, its implications are still being carefully evaluated. The unified MFF, which would combine cohesion policies with other spending areas like agriculture, rural development, and border control, raises fears of intense competition and disjointed objectives. Contestants would face challenges in balancing essential priorities, such as ensuring access to resources and supporting vulnerable populations. Expected increases in federal spending, particularly in rural areas, have already caused some concerns, but under the proposed structure, such increases might need to be distributed more equitably, possibly by introducing targeted funding allocations.
The fear of fragmentation is particularly acute in sheer numbers. The proposed budget allocates €865 billion of spending to the unified mega fund, which will merge cohesion funding with other major sectors, including the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and the European Social Fund (ESF). While this move aims to simplify funding and ease competition, it comes at a cost. Projected capital requirements under the MFF are expected to rise further, with cohesion funding likely receiving一枚 of the top €450 billion allocations. This raises questions about whether cohesion funding will remain prioritized in the EU budget or if it will become normalized as part of the grand scheme of things.
Some regional leaders are already warning that cohesion funding may be lost in budget negotiations due to possible overemphasizing regional priorities. The EU’s traditional cohesion funding pillars, such as developing regions, more developed regions, and disadvantaged regions, were designed to remain central to the EU budget. However, the proposed MFF introduces a new focus on rural development and agricultural policies, and there is growing concern that this could lead to reduced support for disadvantaged regions. This imbalance could erode trust in cohesion funding as it often serves as a connecting thread to all regions.
Beyond addressing distribution, the EU’s current cohesion system has an uneven distribution of funding, often excluding specific regions or leaving them underfunded. Critics have been particularly concerned about the ESF’s funding mechanisms, which were designed to target vulnerable populations but now fall under a unified mega fund. This predictability is seen as a”>(c) “leaving the system as we know it”—by conflict-freiimately ending reliance on regional support—and a “(d)” emphasis on efficiency and overlaps rather than differentiation. The rise of concerns over regional equity further underscores the desire to standardize cohesion funding, ensuring that all regions benefit equally from the EU’s spending.
Despite these concerns, there is no consensus yet on how to move forward. The proposed MFF presents a clear “”有个执行”” task for the EU Commission, but the true question lies in assigning priorities, defining priorities, and ensuring a balanced budget that aligns with the system’s core principles. Local governments are already claiming a major role in shaping the debate over cohesion funding. They seek more involvement in the process, including thoughts on how to minimize fragmentation and redistribute funding in a way that aligns with regional priorities. However, the complexity of predicting where and how cohesion funding will be used remains daunting, with challenges ranging from executive oversight to political and regulatory complexities.
As the summit looks to revisit its budget proposal, the outlook for cohesion policy remains uncertain. Yet, one thing is certain: the EU is twice again being tested by a potential rewrite of its cohesion system. This test is not just about modernizing policies but about reshaping the system itself, ensuring that it can adapt to the pressures of a rapidly changing world while maintaining the resilience and transparency that cohesion funded regions have for the EU’s citizens today.
