Narzędzie modernizacji w kłopotach: jak kryzys w strefie euro zmienił politykę spójności

Main Article Content

Tomasz Grzegorz Grosse

Abstrakt

Polityka spójności Unii Europejskiej jest głównym narzędziem modernizacji społecznej i gospodarczej w państwach Europy Środkowej. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza Polski, która otrzymuje największą pomoc finansową z tego instrumentu spośród wszystkich innych państw członkowskich UE. Celem artykułu jest analiza zmian w polityce spójności pod wpływem kryzysu w strefie euro oraz ocena tego, w jaki sposób te zmiany mogą wpłynąć na procesy modernizacyjne w najsłabiej rozwijających się państwach UE, a także szerzej – jak wpłyną na sposób funkcjonowania integracji europejskiej.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Grosse, T. G. (2016). Narzędzie modernizacji w kłopotach: jak kryzys w strefie euro zmienił politykę spójności. Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej, (10), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.14746/rie.2016.10.2
Dział
Articles

Referencje

  1. Argüelles M., Benavides C. (2014), Analysing How Environmental Concerns are Integrated in the Design of the EU Structural Funds Programmes, “European Planning Studies”, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 587–609.
  2. Bickerton Ch. J., Hodson D., Puetter U. (2015), The New Intergovernmentalism. States and Supranational Actors in the Post-Maastricht Era, Oxford University Press, Oxford–New York.
  3. Chang M. (2012), Understanding the rules of European economic governance: Economics, politics, and wishful thinking, “Journal of European Integration”, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 297–303.
  4. Churski P., Perdał R., Borowczak A. (2014), Zróżnicowania rozwojowe na poziomie lokalnym a absorpcja środków polityki spójności – wyzwania krajowej polityki rozwoju, in: Przyszłość wolności. Wymiar krajowy – regionalny – międzynarodowy, eds. A. Kukliński, J. Woźniak, Kraków.
  5. Consilium (2013), Summary of the European Council agreement, 7–8 February 2013, http://www.consilium.europa.eu, 27.02.2013.
  6. Copeland P., James S. (2014), Policy Windows, ambiguity and Commission entrepreneurship: explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic reform agenda, “Journal of European Public Policy”, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–19.
  7. Dinan D. (2012), Governance and Institutions: Impact of the Escalating Crisis, “Journal of Common Market Studies”, vol. 50, Annual Review, pp. 85–98.
  8. Dotti N. F. (2013), The Unbearable Instability of Structural Funds Distribution, “European Planning Studies”, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 596–614.
  9. European Commission (2014a), Final Simplification Scoreboard for the MFF 2014–2020, Communication from the Commission, Brussels, 3.3.2014, COM (2014) 114 final.
  10. European Commission (2014b), Investment for jobs and growth. Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, Brussels.
  11. European Council (2012a), Conclusions, European Council 28–29 June 2012, EUCO 76/12, Brussels.
  12. European Council (2012b), Conclusions, European Council 13–14 December 2012, EUCO 205/12, Brussels.
  13. European Council (2013), Conclusions, European Council 7–8 February 2013, EUCO 37/13, Brussels.
  14. European Council (2014), Total ESIF allocations 2014–2020, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm, 29.01.2015.
  15. European Parliament (2012), European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2012 on the Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources, 2012/2678(RSP), P7_TA(2012)0245, Strasburg.
  16. European Parliament (2013), Legal options for an additional EMU fiscal capacity, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Constitutional Affairs, PE 474.397, Brussels.
  17. European Parliament (2014), European Parliament resolution of 15 April 2014 on negotiations on the MFF 2014–2020: lessons to be learned and the way forward, P7_TA-PROV(2014)0378, Strasburg.
  18. Evans A. (1999), The E.U. Structural Funds, Oxford University Press, Oxford–New York.
  19. Fabbrini S. (2015), Which European Union? Europe after the Euro Crisis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  20. Fasone C. (2014), European Economic Governance and Parliamentary Representation. What Place for the European Parliament?, “European Law Journal”, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 164–185.
  21. Fésüs G. (2014), Reforming Policies for Regional Development: The European Perspective, “Business & Entrepreneurship Journal”, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57–62.
  22. Grosse T. G. (2010), EU Cohesion Policy and the peripheries of the New Member States, in: Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe, eds. G. Gorzelak, J. Bachtler, M. Smętkowski, Routledge, London–New York.
  23. Grosse T. G. (2012), Debate on the cohesion policy during the Euro crisis, in: European economic integration and convergence, eds. B. Jóźwik, T. Stępniewski, Instytut Europy Środkowo- Wschodniej, Lublin.
  24. Hodson D. (2011), Governing the Euro Area in Good Times and Bad, Oxford University Press, Oxford–New York.
  25. Jauhiainen J. S. (2014), New Spatial Patterns and Territorial – Administrative Structures in the European Union: Reflections on Eastern Europe, “European Planning Studies”, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 694–711.
  26. Kölling M., Leal C. S. (2014), An analysis of the agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020, “Working Paper”, no. 2/2014, Elcano Royal Institute.
  27. Marshall T. (2014), The European Union and Major Infrastructure Policies: The Reforms of the Trans-European Networks Programmes and the Implications for Spatial Planning, “EuropeanPlanning Studies”, vol. 22, no. 7,pp. 1484–1506.
  28. McCann P., Ortega-Argilés R. (2012), Redesigning and Reforming European Regional Policy: The Reasons, the Logic, and the Outcomes, “International Regional Science Review”, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 424–445.
  29. McCann P., Ortega-Argilés R. (2013), Transforming European regional policy: a results-driven agenda and smart specialisation, “Oxford Review of Economic Policy”, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 405–431.
  30. Mendez C. (2013), The post-2013 reform of EU cohesion policy and the place-based narrative, “Journal of European Public Policy”, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 639–659.
  31. Mendez C., Bachtler J. (2011), Administrative reform and unintended consequences: an assessment of the EU Cohesion policy ‘audit explosion’, “Journal of European Public Policy”, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 746–765.
  32. Montanino A. (2014), The EU investment plan: The good, the bad, and the ugly, “EUobserver”, 15.12.2014, www.EUobserver.com, 27.12.2014.
  33. Porras-Gómez A. M. (2014), Metagovernance and Control of Multilevel Governance Frameworks: The Case of the EU Structural Funds Financial Execution, “Regional and Federal Studies”, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 173–188.
  34. Puetter U. (2012), Europe’s deliberative intergovernmentalism: the role of the Council and European Council in EU economic governance, “Journal of European Public Policy”, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 161–178.
  35. Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, „Official Journal of the European Union”, L 347, 20.12.2013.
  36. Rodriguez-Pose A., Fratesi U. (2004), Between development and social policies: The impact of European structural funds in objective 1 regions, “Regional Studies”, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 97–113.
  37. Schneider Ch. J. (2013), Globalizing Electoral Politics. Political Competence and Distributional Bargaining in the European Union, “World Politics”, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 452–490.
  38. The Council of Ministers (2010), Position of the Government of the Republic of Poland on the future of Cohesion Policy after 2013 “Cohesion Policy as an efficient, effective and territorially differentiated response to EU development challenges”.
  39. Toporowski P. (2014), Financing the Juncker Investment Vehicle: Better Safe than Sorry, “Bulletin PISM”, no. 137(732), 30 December.