Content uploaded by Dimitar Hadjinikolov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimitar Hadjinikolov on Feb 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Dimitar Hadjinikolov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimitar Hadjinikolov on Jan 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Dimitar Hadjinikolov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimitar Hadjinikolov on Dec 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
86
ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS Vol. 20, No. 2, December 2020
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy –
the case of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
Dimitar Hadjinikolov1
Abstract: is paper provides an analysis of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
for the EU post-accession period. Bulgaria joined the EU together with Romania on 1
January 2007. In accordance with the EU legislation, six NACE 2 planning regions have
been established – three in the southern part and three in the northern part of the country.
All of them meet the requirements for receiving EU funding under the Cohesion Policy
rules. e expectation was that EU founds would create a more favourable environment
for pursuing an active and ecient Regional policy in Bulgaria. One of the goals of
such a Regional policy should be the reduction of intra-regional disparities, particularly
between the regions in the northern and in the southern part of the country. In order to
determine whether this objective of the Regional policy has been achieved, changes in
Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) and in the Coecient of Variation (CV) have been
estimated. According to the ndings in the paper, intra-regional dierences in Bulgaria did
not decline in the post-accession period, on the contrary they have in general increased.
is is partly due to the concentration of EU funds in the more developed southern part of
the country, especially in the capital Soa. e concentration of funds can be illustrated by
the development of the highway network in the southern part of Bulgaria. Intra-regional
disparities have resulted in depopulation of the lagging regions.
Keywords: Bulgaria, European Union, Cohesion policy, Regional policy, Intra-
regional disparities
JEL: F15, F36, R12
Introduction
Bulgaria joined the EU on 1 January 2007. e time passed since is already
enough to draw some conclusions about the eciency of the EU policies and programs
concerning dierent aspects of Bulgaria’s economic development. In the period between
2007 and 2019 Bulgaria has received signicant EU funding mostly from the European
Regional Development Fund and the EU Cohesion Fund. During the Multiannual
Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013 six operational programs were in operation in
the country, with a total budget of 7.7 billion euro (see table below).
Table 1. MFF 2007 – 2013 Operational programs in Bulgaria (million €)*
Operational Program Budget
Transpor t 1 911.3
Environment 1 641.7
Regional Development 1 601.3
1 Dimitar Hadjinikolov is Professor at the University of National and World Economy in Soa and President of
Bulgarian Economic Studies Association (www.becsa-bg.eu). His research interests are in the following scientic areas:
Economics of the European Union, EU Common Trade Policy, EU Single Internal Market, International Economics and
International Trade. www.hadjinikolov.pro. E-mail: d.hadjinikolov@unwe.bg
87
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
Human Resources Development 1 213.9
Development of the Competitiveness of
the Bulgarian Economy
1 162.2
Administrative Capacity 197.2
TOTA L 7 727.4
* - without EU agricultural payments and rural areas development payments
Source: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Bulgaria
e importance of the EU nancial support for the Bulgarian economy is well
described in a communication from 2017 of the Directorate-General for Regional and
Urban Policy by the European Commission. According to this document, in 2007-
2013 Bulgaria received net nancial contribution from European Reginal Development
Fund and Cohesion Fund of about EUR 5.4 billion, which was equivalent to over 2% of
Bulgaria’s GDP and has created a growth of about 4% of national GDP2.
Signicant importance for the development of the Bulgarian economy has
also the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. During this period eight
national Operational Programs were in use (not including the EU payments for the
agriculture and rural development, maritime and shery support). e budget of the
above-mentioned programs is given in the table below.
Table 2. MFF 2014 – 2020 Operational programs in Bulgaria (Million €)*
Budget
Transport and Transport Infrastructure 1887.6
Environment 1770.4
Regions in Growth 1543.2
Innovation and Competitiveness 1321.3
Human Resources Development 1092.2
Science and Education for Smart Growth 650.0
Good Governance 334.2
SMI Initiative 102.0
TOTA L 8700,9
* - without EU agricultural payments and rural areas development payments
Source: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Bulgaria
e main objective of the EU structural and cohesion funds is to achieve a
better cohesion in the EU, in all its three content dimensions: economic cohesion,
social cohesion, and territorial cohesion3. But the EU cohesion process should also be
analysed in three others, “spatial”, dimensions. One of them is, of course, the inter-
2 A. Monfret, Bulgaria and Romania celebrate 10 years in the EU, European Commission, DG for Regional and Urban
Policy, Brussels, 2017, p. 9.
3 In article 3 of the Treaty on European Union is written that the EU shall “promote economic, social and territorial
cohesion, and solidarity among Member States”. See: European Union, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European
Union, Ocial Journal of the European Union, Brussels, 26.10.2012, C326/17.
88
Dimitar Hadjinikolov
national level or the dimension of cohesion – among the 27 EU Member States. On this
level of cohesion, a lot had been achieved in the last decades. With regard to Bulgaria
the achievements of the country in the EU Cohesion process can be seen in the table
below.
Table 3. Bulgaria’s achievements in the EU cohesion process
(national result as % of EU average)
Indicator 2007 2018
GDP per capita (€ in PPS) 41.0 51.0
People at risk of poverty or
social exclusion (%)
247.8 150.5
Total length of motorways
(km) per 1000 km2
territory
24.5 42.6
Source: Calculated by the author based on data from Eurostat and from the National Statistical Institute of
the Republic of Bulgaria
At the same time, we have also to analyse another important level or dimension
of the cohesion process in the EU, namely the regional one4, and to distinguish between
two variants of regional cohesion: cohesion among the 283 EU NUTS 2 regions, and
intra-regional cohesion in each of the 27 EU Member States. In the spirit of the Preamble
on the Functioning of the European Union Treaty both variants of socio-economic
regional dierences should be decreased. e aim of this article is to check whether this
goal of the EU Cohesion policy is implemented regarding the intra-regional cohesion
process in Bulgaria.
Discussion
All authors agree that regions and regional policy play an important role in
European integration. ere is also unanimity regarding the role of EU Regional policy
for the process of Europeanisation of the regions in the EU. However, dierences
appear regarding the content of “Europeanisation” and regarding the success of the
Europeanisation of the EU regions especially of the regions in the so-called CEEC5.
Bache, Andreou, Atanasova, Tomic and other authors point out that the most
important feature of Europeanization of the regions in CEEC is the adoption of the
following European principles: regionalization (multi-level governance); partnership in
two directions - among regions (horizontal approach); between regions and the central
government (vertical approach); and programming such as linking the funding to the
achievements of certain objectives6. For other researchers (Schmidt) Europeanisation
4 In the Preamble of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is written that the EU shall ensure the
harmonious development by “reducing the dierences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of
the less favoured regions”, European Union, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Journal of the European Union, Brussels, 26.10.2012. C326/49.
5 Central and Eastern European Countries in the European Union: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.
6 Bache, I., Andreou, G., Atanasova, G., Tomsic, D., “Europeanization and multi-level governance in south-east Europe:
the domestic impact of EU cohesion policy and pre-accession aid” in Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 18: 1, 2011,
p. 126.
89
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
reects the core of the development of the EU towards deeper integration (federalization)
which goes hand in hand with a greater decentralization7.
Scherpereel8 and Plešivčák9 are of the opinion that Europeanisation in the new
Member States, or at least in the Visegrad Four, is a success story. Other scholars (Ferry,
McMaster) consider Europeanisation as quite a long and dicult process and even
make the suggestion that “no clear and unambiguous process of Europeanisation is
apparent” concerning the regions in the CEEC10. e low achievements in these regions
are due to “traditional concentration of power of the unitary structures”11. In 2019,
the European Commission also described the cohesion process in the regions as a
long-term process that would take decades to develop12. e topic of a more ecient
spatial orientation of resources also raises a discussion. e traditional opinion is
that in the rst stage of the cohesion process in the European Union in the so called
catching-up stage, a concentration of resources in the best developed regions is not
only possible but also desirable. In later stages of the cohesion process a transfer of
growth is expected to appear from the best developed regions to the lagging behind
regions in some kind of spatial aggregation or economic entropy (Williams)13. Spatially
uneven development is seen as some price to be paid for productivity maximisation
and an accelerated economic growth (Iammarino, Rodriques-Pose, Storper, etc.)14.
In the CEEC this classical approach to the Regional policy is described sometimes as
“growth pole approach”15.
A number of ndings and conclusions by dierent scholars however reject
this approach of concentrating resources in the most developed regions of the EU. It
is believed that investing in more backward regions could also be highly protable.
e European Commission, for example, points out in one of its papers that public
investments for cohesion in some less developed regions has shown in the last years
a higher return on investments on growth than the European average, which in fact
contradicts the claim of developed regions, to be the locomotive of economic growth16.
Functioning of market forces in the past few decades in Europe has not automatically
led to decline in regional disparities at the EU level and at national level, which is
also not in line with the traditional theory of the automatic nature of catching-up
7 See: Schmidt, V. Europe’s “so-core” future of dierentiated integration, Social Europe: politics, economy, employment &
labour, https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-so-core-future-of-dierentiated-integration
8 Scherpereel, J., “EU Cohesion Policy and the Europeanization of Central and East European Regions” in Regional and
Federal Studies, Vol. 20, 1, 2010, p. 49.
9 Plešivčák, M., “How Successful are Member States when Following EU Cohesion Policy Priorities? Focus on the
Visegrad Four Countries” in Geogracký Časopis/Geographical Journal, Vol. 72, 2020, 1, 64.
10 Ferry, M., McMaster, I., “Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe” in
Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 65, No. 8, 2013, 1523.
11 Schmidt, V., Europe’s “so-core” future of dierentiated integration, Social Europe: politics, economy, employment &
labour, https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-so-core-future-of-dierentiated-integration
12 European Commission, Study on National Policy and Cohesion, EC Directorate-General Urban and regional Policy,
Brussels, 2019, p. 58.
13 Williamson, J.G. (1965), “Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: a Description of the Patterns”
in Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13(4), 1965, pp. 3-45.
14 Iammarino, S., Rodriques-Pose, A., Storper, M., “Regional inequality in Europe: evidence, theory and policy
implications” in Papers in Journal of Economic Geography, 19, 2019, p. 283.
15 Bachtler, J., McMaster, I., Implementing Structural Fonds in the New Member States: Ten Policy Challenges, EPRC,
University of Strathclyde, 2005, p. 5.
16 European Commission, Study on National Policy and Cohesion, EC Directorate-General Urban and regional Policy,
Brussels, 2019, 23.
90
Dimitar Hadjinikolov
development17. In fact, regional disparities have been on the rise in the last decade in
many EU countries, with a sharp increase in disparities in the period of the economic
crisis in 2007–2009 and with a moderate increase in the rst years aer the crisis18.
We can say that there are two trends in the cohesion process in the EU. On
the one hand, there is a trend toward stronger convergence at the national level (inter
Member State level), with the coecient of variation in GDP per capita declining by 30
percent between 2000 and 2016. However, at the NUTS-2 level there is a convergence
trend seen only from 2000 to 2008. Aer 2008, the trend is reversed, and by 2016 regional
inequality fell back to the level last reached in 200519. A signicant recentralization of
decision-making and nancial resources is taking place20, which do not correspond
to one of the most important principles of Europeanisation, namely the principle of
decentralization of the decision-making process (subsidiarity principle). e problem
of increasing spatial centralization in the distribution of funds is again in the centre
of the debate regarding the adoption and implementation of the new 2021-2027 EU
Multiannual Financial Framework21. e “trade-o” between the aim of achieving
more aggregate national economic growth and the need to reduce interregional
inequalities remains. is makes the choice between the use in the Cohesion policy
of Sectoral Operational Programs (SOPs) or Regional Operational Programs (ROPs)
more and more dicult22. Some authors already say that the traditional model, “which
relied on the concentration of development in large urban centres” is not meeting the
requirements of sustainable development23.
Discussion on the mission and on the objectives of the EU Cohesion Policy
has become increasingly important especially in the new Member States24. In general,
most of the CEEC favours centralization of resources. Almost 90% of all development
programs and other EU nancial instruments are designed at the national level, while
only 3% are designed at regional level25. One of the explanations for this concentration
of decision making mostly in the capitals of CEEC is the lack of administrative capacity
in the regions. According to some authors, the administrative capacity determines to
a high degree the absorption of EU funds and it is certainly much easier to nd the
necessary people in the capitals of CEEC26.
However, there are also gradations in concentration. For example, Poland
gradually relaxed its centralized administrative system in the 2007-2013 MFF while in
17 Iammarino, S., Rodriques-Pose, A., Storper, M., p. 21.
18 European Commission, p. 20.
19 Farole T., S. Goga, and M. Ionescu-Heroiu, Rethinking Lagging Regions – Using Cohesion Policy to deliver on the
potential of Europ’s regions, World Bank Report on the European Union, World Bank Group, 2018, p. 36.
20 See: Ahmad, E., Bordignon, M., Brosio, G, “Multi-level Finance and the Euro Crisis: Causes and Eects” in Studies in
Fiscal Federalism and State-Local Finance series. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, 2016.
21 Farole T., S. Goga, and M. Ionescu-Heroiu, p. 62.
22 See: Davies, S., Gross, I, e Challenges of Designing Cohesion Policy Strategies, paper presented at the Benchmarking
Regional Policy in Europe Conference, Riga, 24-26 April, 2005.
23 Czaplewski, M., Klóska, R., “Regional policy as a factor in shaping regional development in Poland” in South East
European Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 15 (1), Warsaw, 2020, p. 102.
24 See: Crescenzi, R., Giua, M., “One of many Cohesion Policies of the European Union? On the dierential economic
impacts of Cohesion Policy across member states” in Regional Studies, VOL. 54, NO. 1, 2019, 10–20.
25 European Commission, p. 134.
26 Țigănașu, R., Încalțărău, C., Carmen, G., “Administrative Capacity, Structural Funds Absorption and Development.
Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries” in Romanian Journal of European Aairs, Vol. 18, No. 1, June
2018.
91
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
Hungary the government adopted during the same period and later a more centralized
approach concerning the EU Cohesion Policy measures27. In Poland, territorial contracts
have been signed between national and regional governments and place-based dialog
in the Cohesion policy was laid dawn in law28. Perhaps due to that, Poland is the most
successful of the Visegrad countries in the implementation of the EU Cohesion policy
social priorities29. On the other hand, the EU support for Hungary, much the same as in
some other CEEC, has increased intra-regional disparities30.
Bulgaria, like Romania, joined the European Union in 2007 without having
any specic experience in implementing the EU Cohesion policy. All pre-accession
nancial instruments such as PHARE or SAPARD, were managed directly by the
delegation of the European Commission in Soa and Bucharest31. Nevertheless, a
process of Europeanisation also started in both countries during their preparation to
join the EU, especially by adoption of national regional policy legislation32. Later in
Bulgaria was adopted a National Concept for Spatial Development 2013–2025 aiming
to promote a polycentric spatial model of the country and to reduce the existing
“extreme monocentricity”, with the capital Soa as the only important centre of
economic development33. Bulgarian authors are of the opinion that despite some eorts
made by the government, intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria remain quite a serious
problem34. e same conclusion can be seen for the period 2010-2016 in the Interim
report on the implementation of the National Strategy for Regional Development of
Bulgaria published by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works35.
Methodology
For the present analysis it is appropriate to use the NUTS Level 2 regions in
Bulgaria. Firstly, because statistical data is mostly available on this spatial level, secondly,
because it makes possible comparisons among regions in dierent Member States and
thirdly, because the EU Cohesion policy is mostly implemented at this spatial level.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that these six NUTS Level 2 regions
are not functioning as independent territorial and administrative units. In Bulgaria,
local self-government is carried out mainly within the municipalities. ey are 265
municipalities, which are quite dierent. e largest municipality, the capital Soa,
has a population of 1.3 million people, and the smallest municipality, Treklyano, has a
27 Bachtler, J., Berkowitz, P., Hardy, S., Muravska, T., EU Cohesion Policy, Reassessing performance and direction,
Routledge, Abingdon, 2017, pp. 233-235.
28 See: Zaucha, J., Komornicki, T. (2017) ‘e place-based approach in development policy. A comparative analysis of
Polish and EU space’ in EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing performance and direction, Routledge, London, pp. 297- 310.
29 Plešivčák, 60.
30 See: Medve-Balint, G., Funds for the wealthy and the politically loyal? How EU Funds may contribute to increasing
regional disparities in East Central Europe, IN: EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing performance and direction, Routledge,
London, 2017, pp. 220-240.
31 Surubaru, N.–C., “Revisiting the role of domestic politics: politicization and European Cohesion Policy performance
in Central and Eastern Europe” in East European Politics, 33:1, 2017, p. 113.
32 Yuill, D., Quiogue, N.-C., Spatial targeting under EU and National Regional Policies, European Policies Research
Centre Second International Conference, Conference Discussion Paper № 5, Riga 24-26 April 2005, 17.
33 Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (2018) Mezhdinen doklad za izpalnenie na Natsionalnata
strategiya za regionalno razvitie na Republika Bulgariya za perioda 2012-2022 g. [Interim report on the implementation
of the National Strategy for Regional Development of the Republic of Bulgaria for the period 2012-2022], p. 15.
34 Dokova, S., Regionalna ikonomika [Regional Economy], UNSS, Soa, 2015, 58; Totev, S., “Regional Disparities in
Bulgaria and EU countries” in Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 15, Suppl. 1, 1-5, 2017.
35 Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, p. 18 and 28.
92
Dimitar Hadjinikolov
population of only 629 inhabitants.
According to the decision of the European Commission, all six NUTS Level 2
regions in Bulgaria are eligible for funding from the EU Cohesion policy instruments36.
ese regions are indicated in the following table.
Table 4. Main characteristics of the NACE Level 2 regions in Bulgaria
Region Area
(in km2)
Population
(number,
31.12.2019)
Population
density
(inhabitants
per km2)
Districts included
Northwestern 19,070 728,157 38.18 Lovech, Montana,
Pleven, Vidin, Vratsa
North-Central 14,974 773,450 51.65 Gabrovo, Razgrad,
Rousse, Silistra, Veliko
Tarno vo
Northeastern 14,487 924,870 63.84 Dobrich, Shoumen,
Targovishte, Varna
Southeastern 19,798 1,024,115 51.73 Bourgas, Sliven, Stara
Zagora, Yambol
Southwestern 20,306 2,094,260 103.14 Blagoevgrad, Soa, Soa
(capital), Kiustendil,
Pernik
South-Central 22,365 1,406,630 62.89 Haskovo, Kardzhaly,
Pazardzhik, Plovdiv,
Smolyan
Total (Bulgaria) 111,001 6,951,482 62.63
Source: Calculated by the author based on data from the National Statistical Institute of the Republic of
Bulgaria
In measuring the intra-regional disparities, it is important to take into
consideration all three dimensions of cohesion in the EU, namely economic cohesion,
social cohesion and territorial cohesion. Regarding the economic cohesion the indicator
GDP per capita could be used. is indicator best represents the degree of economic
development in a given area. For measuring social cohesion as a criterion could be used
the Severe material deprivation rate indicator37. According to this indicator, Bulgaria
strongly diers from the EU averages and the dynamics in the regions is very important
36 See: European commission, COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 18 February 2014 setting out the list
of regions eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund and of
Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020, Ocial Journal of the European
Union, 20.2.2014, L 50/24.
37 e material deprivation rate is an indicator in EU-SILC that expresses the inability to aord some items considered
by most people to be desirable or even necessary to lead an adequate life. e indicator distinguishes between individuals
who cannot aord a certain good or service, and those who do not have this good or service for another reason, e.g.
because they do not want or do not need it. Severe material deprivation rate is dened as the enforced inability to pay for
at least four of the deprivation items. See: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/product?code=tespm030
93
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
for overcoming the backwardness in the social sphere. Finally, for measuring the
achievements in territorial cohesion could be used the indicator “Length of motorways
per 1000 sq. km territory”. For Bulgaria, the development of a network of modern roads
means real integration into the European Union's single market. is is the reason why
a signicant part of the cohesion funds is used for the construction of the network of
motorways in Bulgaria38.
Regarding the method of estimating the dynamic of changes in intra-regional
disparities as the most appropriate method seems the use of the Mean Absolute
Deviation (MAD) and the Coecient of Variation (CV). e formulas are given below:
Where,
x, represents the observations in this case the data from the Bulgarian regions;
μ, represents the mean;
n, represents the number of observations, in this case it is 6.
Finally, it should be useful to nd out which correlation exists between intra-
regional disparities in the three chosen indicators: GDP per capita, share of people at
risk of poverty or social exclusion and motorways (km) per 1000 km2 territory. e
correlation is calculated according to the formula:
Where
x and y are arithmetic means
Most of the data for the present survey are taken from the regional statistics
of Eurostat, as well as from the National Statistical Institute of the Republic of Bulgaria
in Soa. Since in Bulgaria statistics is mostly given at municipal or district level it was
necessary in some cases to calculate regional values based on the available district or
municipal data. e aliation of the 28 Bulgarian districts to the six planning regions
is given in Table 4.
Findings
e ndings for the indicator GDP per capita (nominal) by using the MAD
and CV methods of analysis are given in table 5 and in the following charts 1 and 2.
Table 5. Intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria by GDP per capita (2007-2018)
Indicator
/Time
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MAD 1776 2096 2178 2311 2515 2511 2494 2513 2804 3002 3249 3531
CV 41.47 42.35 43.48 45.09 44.92 43.77 43.37 42.47 44.21 44.17 44.10 44.38
Source: Calculated by the author based on data from the National Statistical Institute of the Republic of Bulgaria
38 About 1/4 of the cohesion funds under the multiannual nancial frameworks 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 are intended
for the transport infrastructure of Bulgaria (see Table No. 2 and 3).
94
Dimitar Hadjinikolov
With respect to the second indicator, representing achievements in the social
cohesion at regional level, results of analysis are shown in table 6, charts 3 and 4.
Table 6. Intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria by share (in %) of people at risk of
poverty or social exclusion (2008–2018)*
Indicator
/ Time
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MAD 39.8 38.4 36.4 36.5 30.5 34.5 33.9 31.3 30.0 33.6 31.7
CV 86.8 83.1 74.0 74.3 61.9 66.9 86.0 82.1 77.5 102.4 97.5
* No data available for 2007.
Source: Calculated by the author based on data from the National Statistical Institute of the Republic of Bulgaria
Construction of motorways in Bulgaria started in the early 70s of the 20th
century. By 2007 a total of about 400 km were functioning and during the period 2007-
2019 another 400 km were put into operation. e distribution of Bulgarian motorways
is very uneven throughout the country both before 2007 and now. It can also be seen
from the table and graphs below.
Table 7. Intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria by length of motorways (km) per
1000 km2 territory (2007–2018)
Indicator
/ Time
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MAD 13.7 13.7 13.7 14.9 17.8 20.5 20.9 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 28.3
CV 353 353 353 354 353 359 374 379 399 399 399 403
95
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
Regarding correlation between MAD and CV, of the three chosen indicators of intra-
regional disparities ndings are given in the table below.
Table 8. Coecient of correlation between MAD and CV of indicators
representing intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria based on data from
Tables 5, 6 & 7
GDP per capita/People
at risk of poverty or
social exclusion
People at risk of poverty
or social exclusion/
Length of motorways
(km) per 1000 km2
territory
GDP per capita/
Length of motorways
(km) per 1000 km2
territory
MAD -0.6950 -0.8187 0.8421
CV -0.0989 0.5267 0.1308
Conclusions
Since 2007, the country’s lag in a number of indicators from the EU average
has signicantly been reduced (see data in Table 3). It should not surprise us because
disparities inside the EU at national level have in general declined due to dierent
reasons, including the implementation of the EU Cohesion policy. However, the
picture is quite dierent if we take the intra-regional disparities, especially in Bulgaria.
Despite the EU membership of the country and the EU Cohesion Policy, intra-regional
disparities in Bulgaria have not declined as expected, but on the contrary, they have
in general increased (see Tables 5, 6 & 7). If we go into details, we can see that during
the period 2007-2018 intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria signicantly increased
regarding the GDP per capita indicator (Table 5) and Length of motorways (km) per
1000 km2 territory indicator (Table 7). However, they remain almost at the same level
regarding the share (in %) of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion indicator
(Table 6). e lower correlation between the degree of intra-regional social inequality
and degree of intra-regional income inequality can be explained by the transfer of
money earned by young people working in more developed regions of Bulgaria to their
parents living in the less developed regions.
e manner of implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy in Bulgaria
obviously plays some role in increasing the intra-regional dierences in the country.
ere is a relation between the type of spatial distribution of the EU nancial resources
in Bulgaria and the intra-regional disparities. During the period 2012-2018 about 60%
96
Dimitar Hadjinikolov
of the EU grants were allocated to the most developed Bulgarian regions – 40% to
the Southwestern region with the capital Soa and about 20% to the South-Central
region with the second largest Bulgarian city of Plovdiv. e two economically mostly
underdeveloped Bulgarian regions – the Northwestern and the North-Central regions
received together only about 20% of the nancial resources from the EU39. A signicant
part of the EU resources was used for construction of motorways. erefore, it is not
surprising that the spatial distribution of newly built motorways was extremely unequal
in the above-mentioned period. Only 5 km of motorways were put in operation in
the period 2007-2018 in the less developed northern part of the country, while in the
much more developed southern part of the country the new motorways are about
370 km. Taking into account the relatively strong correlation between the dynamics
of intra-regional disparities in incomes and in motorway infrastructure (Table 7), we
can conclude that one of the important reasons for deepening of economic inequality
in Bulgaria during the time aer Bulgaria’s EU accession is the current unequal
distribution of the motorway network of the country which, in fact, is a result of the
improper spatial distribution of the EU nancial resources.
e concentration of resources and achievements in the most developed regions
of Bulgaria have also been due to the implementation of the adopted national regional
policy. e government has paid more attention to the catch-up strategy at national
level than to the domestic regional problems. In fact, no real eorts were undertaken to
change the existing model of economic development focused exclusively on the capital
Soa and in a more moderate form on some other important cities in the southern
part of the country, like Plovdiv or Burgas. e need of a more place-sensitive regional
policy was realized in Bulgaria only in the last years due to the political pressure exerted
by the municipalities in the neglected northern part of the country. It was only in 2019
that the Hemus motorway construction was continued40. No European co-nancing is
envisaged for Hemus motorway construction, which seems quite strange taking into
account that the motorway should help also to connect with a modern motorway the
capitals of two EU Member States – Soa and Bucharest.
It remains to be hoped that things will change in the new nancial framework
2021-2027. Unfortunately, by mid-2020, there were little indications that this will
happen. Programming documents for the next nancial framework show that almost
the same operational programs will be implemented during the new programming
period as those already implemented during the current period, and this runs the risk
of a further concentration of EU funds in the capital and in some other more developed
parts of the country41.
39 Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (2018) Mezhdinen doklad za izpalnenie na Natsionalnata
strategiya za regionalno razvitie na Republika Bulgariya za perioda 2012-2022 g. [Interim report on the implementation
of the National Strategy for Regional Development of the Republic of Bulgaria for the period 2012-2022], p. 25.
40 Hemus motorway connects the capital Soa with the largest city in the northern part of the country Varna. When
fully built, the highway will have a length of 413 km. At present about 190 km are in operation.
41 See: Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria (2019) Decision No. 196 of 11 April 2019, http://pris.government.
bg/prin/search_results.aspx.
97
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
References:
• Ahmad, E., Bordignon, M., Brosio, G., Multi-level Finance and the Euro
Crisis: Causes and Eects. Studies in Fiscal Federalism and State-Local, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltenham, 2016.
• Bache, I., Andreou, G., Atanasova, G., Tomsic, D., “Europeanization and multi-
level governance in south-east Europe: the domestic impact of EU cohesion policy and
pre-accession aid” in Journal of European Public Policy, 18: 1, 2011, 122 — 141.
• Bachtler, J., Berkowitz, P., Hardy, S., Muravska, T., EU Cohesion Policy.
Reassessing performance and direction, Routledge, Abingdon, 2017.
• Bachtler, J., McMaster, I., Implementing Structural Fonds in the New Member
States: Ten Policy Challenges, EPRC, University of Strathclyde, 2005, available at https://
pure.strath.ac.uk/ws/portalles/portal/11767849/12A07_McMaster_Bachtler_paper.
pdf (accessed 7 July 2020).
• Czaplewski, M., Klóska, R., “Regional policy as a factor in shaping regional
development in Poland” in South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Vol.
15 (1), Warsaw, 2020, 93-104. available at https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/
jeb/jeb-overview.xml?language=en&tab_body=latestIssueToc-78033 (accessed 12 July
2020).
• Crescenzi, R., Giua, M., “One of many Cohesion Policies of the European
Union? On the dierential economic impacts of Cohesion Policy across member
states” in Regional Studies, 2020, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2019, 10–20, available at https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00343404.2019.1665174 (accessed 12 July 2020).
• Davies S., Gross I., e Challenges of Designing Cohesion Policy Strategies.
Conference Discussion paper Nr 2, Benchmarking Regional Policy in Europe Second
International Conference, Riga, 24-26 April, 2005, available at https://www.eprcstrath.
eu/uploads/benchmarking2/documents/Paper2_Cohesion_policy_strategies.pdf
(accessed 5 July 2020).
• Dokova, S., Regionalna ikonomika [Regional Economy], UNSS, Soa, 2015.
• European Commission, COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of
18 February 2014 setting out the list of regions eligible for funding from the European
Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund and of Member States eligible
for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020, Ocial Journal of the
European Union, 20.2.2014, L 50/22.
• European Commission, Study on National Policy and Cohesion, Urban and
regional Policy DG. Brussels, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/docgener/studies/nation_policies_cohesion_en.pdf (accessed 7 July 2020).
• Farole T., Goga, S. and Ionescu-Heroiu, M., Rethinking Lagging Regions – Using
Cohesion Policy to deliver on the potential of Europa’s regions, IBRD/World Bank, 2018,
available at http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/204131524477660470/Lagging-Regions-
nal-report.pdf (accessed 7 July 2020).
• Ferry, M., McMaster, I., “Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy
in Central and Eastern Europe” in Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 65, No. 8, 2013, 502-1528,
available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263378297_Cohesion_Policy_
and_the_Evolution_of_Regional_Policy_in_Central_and_Eastern_Europe (accessed
12 July 2020).
• Iammarino, S., Rodriques-Pose, A., Storper, M., “Regional inequality in Europe:
evidence. theory and policy implications” in Journal in Economic Geography, 19,
98
Dimitar Hadjinikolov
2019, 273-298, available at https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article/19/2/273/4989323
(accessed 12 July 2020).
• Medve-Balint, G., “Funds for the wealthy and the politically loyal? How EU
Funds may contribute to increasing regional disparities in East Central Europe” in EU
Cohesion Policy: Reassessing performance and direction, Routledge, London, 2017, 220-
240.
• Ministerski suvet na Republika Bulgariya, Reshenie № 196 ot 11 april 2019 g.
za odobryavane na analiz na sotsialno-ikonomicheskoto razvitie na Bulgariya 2007-
2017 g., za opredelyane na natsionalnite prioriteti za perioda 2021-2027 g., na spisuk s
tselite na politikite, koito da budat podkrepeni prez programen period 2021-2027 g., i
na spisuk s programi i vodeshti vedomstva za razrabotvaneto im. [Council of Ministers
of the Republic of Bulgaria, Decision № 196 of 11 April 2019 approving an analysis of the
socio-economic development of Bulgaria 2007-2017, determining the national priorities
for the period 2021-2027, on a list of objectives of policies to be supported during the
2021-2027 programming period, and a list of programs and lead agencies for their
implementation], available at http://pris.government.bg/prin/search_results.aspx
(accessed 4 August 2020).
• Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, Mezhdinen doklad za
izpalnenie na Natsionalnata strategiya za regionalno razvitie na Republika Bulgariya
za perioda 2012-2022 g. [Interim report on the implementation of the National Strategy
for Regional Development of the Republic of Bulgaria for the period 2012-2022], Soa,
2018, available at https://www.mrrb.bg/bg/mejdinen-doklad-za-izpulnenie-na-
nacionalnata-strategiya-za-regionalno-razvitie-na-republika-bulgariya-za-perioda-
2012-2022-g-priet-s-rms-425-ot-19-07-2019-g/ (accessed 5 July 2020).
• Monfret, A., "Bulgaria and Romania celebrate 10 years in the EU" in Panorama,
DG for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission, Spring, 2017, available
at https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/panorama-
magazine/2017/panorama-60-bulgaria-and-romania-celebrate-10-years-in-the-eu
(accessed 12 July 2020).
• Plešivčák, M., “How Successful are Member States when Following EU Cohesion
Policy Priorities? Focus on the Visegrad Four Countries” in Geogracký Časopis
[Geographical Journal], 72, 1, 2020, 51-69 available at https://www.humannageograa.
sk/clanky/Plesivcak_2020_1.pdf (accessed 12 July 2020).
• Schmidt, V., Europe’s “so-core” future of dierentiated integration. Social Europe:
politics. economy. employment & labour, 2019, available at https://www.socialeurope.
eu/europes-so-core-future-of-dierentiated-integration (accessed 12 July 2020).
• Surubaru, N.–C., “Revisiting the role of domestic politics: politicization
and European Cohesion Policy performance in Central and Eastern Europe” in East
European Politics, 33:1, 106-125, 2017.
• Totev, S., “Regional Disparities in Bulgaria and EU countries” in Trakia Journal
of Sciences, Vol. 15, Suppl. 1, 1-5, 2017.
• Țigănașu, R., Încalțărău, C., Carmen, G., “Administrative Capacity, Structural
Funds Absorption and Development. Evidence from Central and Eastern European
Countries” in Romanian Journal of European Aairs, Vol. 18, No. 1, June 2018, available
at http://rjea.ier.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/articole/RJEA_vol.18_no.1_June2018_
art.3.pdf (accessed 12 June 2020).
• Williamson, J.G., “Regional Inequality and the Process of National
99
Achieving the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy – the case
of intra-regional disparities in Bulgaria
Development: A Description of the Patterns” in Economic Development and Cultural
Change, Vol. 13, 4, Part 2, 1965, 3-45.
• Yuill, D., Quiogue, N.-C., Spatial targeting under EU and National Regional
Policies. Conference Discussion paper No. 5, Benchmarking Regional Policy in Europe
Second International Conference, Riga, 24-26 April, 2005, available at https://www.
eprc-strath.eu/uploads/benchmarking2/documents/Paper5_Spatial_targeting_of_
regional_policy.pdf (accessed 12 July 2020).
• Zaucha, J., Komornicki, T., “e place-based approach in development policy.
A comparative analysis of Polish and EU space” in EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing
performance and direction, Routledge, London, 2017, 297-310.
