Shifts in EU Cohesion Policy and Processes of Peripheralization: A View from Central Eastern Europe

Open access


The increasing dominance of neoliberalism as the key steering mechanism of the European Union (EU) since the early 1990s has implied the competitiveness-oriented reshaping of cohesion policy. The aim of this paper is to initiate a debate from a critical political economic perspective on the implications of this shift for Central Eastern European (CEE) member states. To this end, the paper discusses the formation of EU centre-periphery relations from a CEE point of view and formulates some preliminary suggestions as to how cohesion policy would need to be rethought in order to ensure the better integration of lagging CEE regions.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • AGNEW J. (2001) ‘How many Europes? The European Union eastward enlargement and uneven development’ European Urban and Regional Studies 8 pp. 29–38.

  • ALLEN D. (2005) Cohesion and Structural Funds: Competing Pressures for Reform? [in:] WALLACE H. WALLACE W. and POLLACK M. (eds) Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 213–241.

  • ALLEN J. MASSEY D. and COCHRANE A. (1998) Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.

  • BACHTLER J. and DOWNES R. (2000) ‘The spatial coverage of regional policy in Central and Eastern Europe’ European Urban and Regional Studies 7 pp. 159–174.

  • BACHTLER J. and GORZELAK G. (2007) ‘Reforming EU Cohesion Policy’ Policy Studies 28 pp. 309–326.

  • BACHTLER J. and MENDEZ C. (2007) ‘Who Governs EU Cohesion Policy? Deconstructing the Reforms of the Structural Funds’ Journal of Common Market Studies 45 pp. 535–564.

  • BALÁZS P. (2014) ‘Közeledés vagy távolodás?’ Közgazdasági Szemle LXI pp. 350–362.

  • BARCA F. (2009) An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner Commissioner of Regional Policy (Accessed 23 September 2015)

  • BAUN M. and MAREK D. (2014) Cohesion Policy in the European Union. London–New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • BORÉN T. and GENTILE M. (2007) ‘Metropolitan Processes in Post-Communist States: an Introduction’ Geografiska Annaler 89 B pp. 95–110.

  • BORRÁS-ALOMAR S. CHRISTIANSEN T. and RODRÍGUEZ-POSÉ A. (1994) ‘Towards a `Europe of the Regions’? Visions and Reality from a Critical Perspective’ Regional Politics and Policy 4 pp. 1–27.

  • BRUSZT L. (2008) ‘Multi-level governance—the Eastern versions: Emerging patterns of regional development governance in the new member states’. Regional and Federal Studies 18 pp. 607–627.

  • BUDD L. (1997) ‘Regional integration and convergence and the problems of fiscal and monetary systems: Some lessons for Eastern Europe’ Regional Studies 31 pp. 559–570.

  • BUDD L. (2007) ‘A Cohesion pact for the regions’ Policy Studies 28 pp. 347–363.

  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2005) Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines 2007–2013. Available at (Accessed 23 September 2015)

  • CEC (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the Development of Partnership Agreement and Programmes in HUNGARY for the Period 2014–2020. Available at (Accessed 23 September 2015)

  • CEC (2014) Investment for jobs and growth Brussels Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities Sixth report on economic social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • COTELLA G. ADAMS N. and NUNES R. J. (2012) ‘Engaging in European Spatial Planning: A Central and Eastern European Perspective on the Territorial Cohesion Debate’ European Planning Studies 20 pp. 1197–1220.

  • DĄBROWSKI M. (2014) ‘Towards place-based regional and local development strategies in Central and Eastern Europe? EU cohesion policy and strategic planning capacity at the sub-national level’ Local Economy 29 pp. 78–393.

  • DUNFORD M. and PERRONS D. (1994) ‘Regional inequality regimes of accumulation and economic development in contemporary Europe’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 19 pp. 163–182.

  • EHRLICH K. KRISZAN A. and LANG T. (2012) ‘Urban development in Central and Eastern Europe – between Peripheralization and centralization?’ The Planning Review 48 pp. 77–92.

  • EUROSTAT (2015) (Accessed 23 September 2015).

  • FERRY M. (2015) ‘Synthesis Report: WP8. Cohesion Policy and its Components: Past Present and Future’ GRINCOH Working Paper Series Paper No. 8 (Accessed 23 September 2015)

  • FERRY M. and MCMASTER I. (2013) ‘Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe’ Europe-Asia Studies 65 pp. 1502–1528.

  • GÁL Z. and LUX G. (2014) ET2050 Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Europe Final Report 30/06/2014 Volume 8 – Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Central and Eastern Europe.

  • GRABBE H. (2001) ‘How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality diffusion and Diversity’ Journal of European Public Policy 8 pp. 1013–1031.

  • High Level Reflection Group (2014)’ Central Europe fit for the future – Visegrad Group ten years after the accession. Bratislava-Warsaw: CEPI-demosEuropa. (Accessed 23 September 2015)

  • HUDSON R. (2003) ‘European integration and new forms of uneven development but not the end of territorially distinctive capitalisms in Europe’ European Urban and Regional Studies 10 pp. 49–67.

  • JUNCKER J-C. (2014) A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs Growth Fairness and Democratic Change Political Guidelines for the next European Commission Opening Statement in the European Parliament Plenary Session. (Accessed 23 September 2015).

  • KÁPOSZTA J. and NAGY H. (2015) ‘Status report about the progress of the Visegrad countries in relation to Europe 2020 targets’ European Spatial Research and Policy 22 pp. 81–99.

  • KEATING M. (2008) ‘A Quarter Century of the Europe of the Regions’ Regional and Federal Studies18 pp. 629–635.

  • KENGYEL Á. (2014) ‘Az európai uniós tagság mint modernizációs hajtóerő’ Közgazdasági Szemle LXI pp. 493–508.

  • MASSEY D. (1979) ‘In what sense a regional problem?’ Regional Studies 13 pp. 233–243.

  • MASSEY D. (1984) Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

  • MASSEY D. (2001) ‘Geography on the agenda’ Progress in Human Geography 25 pp. 5–17.

  • MENDEZ C. (2011) ‘The Lisbonization of EU Cohesion Policy: A Successful Case of Experimentalist Governance?’ European Planning Studies 19 pp. 519–537.

  • MENDEZ C. (2013) ‘The post-2013 reform of EU cohesion policy and the place-based narrative’ Journal of European Public Policy 20 pp. 639–659.

  • MENDEZ C. BACHTLER J. and GRANQVIST K. (2013) European Commission Perspectives on the 2014–2020 Partnership Agreements and Programmes: A Comparative Review of the Commission’s Position Papers European Policy Research Paper nr. 84 Glasgow: European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde.

  • Ministry of Regional Development of Poland (2011) Evaluation of benefits to the EU-15 resulting from the implementation of Cohesion Policy in the Visegrad Group countries. Warsaw: Ministry of Regional Development of Poland.

  • MONASTIRIOTIS V. (2011) ‘Regional growth dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe’ LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.

  • MRAK M. RICHTER S. and SZEMLÉR T. (2015) Cohesion Policy as a Function of the EU Budget A Perspective from CEE Member States. Research Report 400 May 2015 Vienna: The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.

  • NÖLKE A. and VLIEGENTHART A. (2009) ‘Enlarging the Variety of Capitalism: The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe’ World Politics 61 pp. 670–202.

  • PALLAGST K. (2006) ‘European spatial planning reloaded: Considering EU enlargement in theory and practice’ European Planning Studies 14 pp. 253–272.

  • PARASKEVOPOULOS C. J. and LEONARDI R. (2004) ‘Introduction: Adaptational Pressures and Social Learning in European Regional Policy – Cohesion (Greece Ireland and Portugal) vs. CEE (Hungary Poland) Countries’ Regional and Federal Studies 14 pp. 315–354.

  • RADVÁNSZKI Á. (2009) ‘Old wine in a new bottle? The Hungarian approach to polycentric territorial Development’ Urban Research and Practice 2 pp. 308–318.

  • SCOTT A. J. (2001) ‘Globalization and the Rise of City-regions’ European Planning Studies 9 pp. 813–826.

  • SOKOL M. (2001) ‘Central and Eastern Europe a Decade After the Fall of State-socialism: Regional Dimensions of Transition Processes’ Regional Studies 35 pp. 645–655.

  • SMITH A. and TIMÁR J. (2010) ‘Uneven transformations: Space economy and society 20 years after the collapse of state socialism’ European Urban and Regional Studies 17 pp. 115–125.

  • TIMÁR J. (2004) ‘‘More than ‘Anglo-American’ it is ‘Western’: hegemony in geography from a Hungarian perspective’ Geoforum 35 pp. 533–538.

  • VANOLO A. (2010) ‘European Spatial Planning Between Competitiveness and Territorial Cohesion:Shadows of Neoliberalism’ European Planning Studies 18 pp. 1301–1315.

  • VARRÓ K. and FARAGÓ L. (2016) The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary: The Interplay Between European and National Discourses of Space European Planning Studies 24:(1) pp. 39–60.

  • ŽENKA J. NOVOTNÝ J. and CSANK P. (2014) ‘Regional Competitiveness in Central European Countries: In Search of a Useful Conceptual Framework’ European Planning Studies 22 pp. 164–183.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.61

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.181
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.525

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 297 155 6
PDF Downloads 171 96 5