The Impact of Interreg on Norwegian Regional Development Policy Einar Leknes International Research Institute of Stavanger.

The Impact of Interreg on Norwegian Regional

Development Policy

Einar Leknes International Research Institute of Stavanger

Overall conclusions1. Interreg A-, B- and C-projects have had

lasting impacts on regional development policy in the county councils

2. The follow up of the projects have contributed to:– development of skills– networks that include foreign regions– increased allocations of funds pertaining to the topic

of the projects – new public services– new infrastructure– setting a new political direction in regional

development policy for a third of the projects

3. Factors that promotes several of the impacts are:– role as Lead-partner– county council directors being active in the project – high Norwegian share of the project budget

Research questions• How are Interreg prosjects followed up

in county councils´ regional development policy? – Permanent changes in the direction of regional

development policy?– Indirect efffects as result of single looop learning?

• Changes in form of collaboration, network methods and work structures in regional development policy

– Strategic effects as result of double loop learning?• Changes in policy in form of priorities within or between

different policy areas, fundamental changes in approaches and instruments, establishment of new collaborative relations.

• What factors affect whether or not projects are followed up in regional development policy beyond meeting their own stated goals?

Research methods• 44 case-studies of the follow up of different

Interreg projects completed between 1998 and 2007 in 10 county councils– 16 Interreg A projects– 22 Interreg B projects– 6 Interreg C projects

• Interviews with project participants and with political and administrative representatives of the county councils + written documents– What has happened with the project topic after the

project period?– What has happened with the project participants

aften the project period?• Analysis of factors that promote or deter

lasting project impact by use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Hypothesis regarding the impact of Interreg on the county councils regional development policy

Interreg-A project

Aquaculture Murmansk

Air route Luleå - Tromsø

Barents Road

Crossmedia Design

Fishing along the Kruttfjell road

Chanting song: revitalisation

Countryside recreationKungspilen Implementation

Mid-Scandia Cross-connection

Culture bus without borders

Growth corridorMaster of Public Administration

Health fountain

Økomuseum Borderland

New Railway Oslo - Gøteborg

Borderland 2005

Interreg-B projects

SEAGIS

Northern Maritime Corrridor II

Northern Maritime Corridor I

Northern Potentials

Nature Based TourismWater Cities

Canal Link

Hi Trans

Northern Maritime Corridor I

NAMBig Lakes II

Metropolitan Areas +

North Sea Cycle Route II

Forum Skagerak II

Northern Maritime Corridor I

Northern Maritime Corridor II

North Sea Cycle Route II North Sea Cycle Route II

North Sea Cycle Route II

Metropolitan Areas +

PIPE

Northern Maritime Corrridor II

Interreg-C projects

Enable

AquaregEnable

MaremaEuromountain Net

Euromountain Net

Follow up: New Interreg projects• 20 of 44 projects

have been followed up by new Interreg projects

• Interreg-funded expansion of the county councils policy- field for transport and education

• continuation of horizontal Europeanization

• vertical Europeanization

Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0

5

10

15

20

25Maintenence of skills in the county

councilsNumber of cases

External project

Employe continues

Project employed con-tinues

New permanent job

Not mainteined

• Permanent changes of the direction of regional development policy

• Not a part of the Europeanization of the development policy

• Latent potential for future Europeanization

• Variations between A-,B- and C-projects• Increased formalisation of cooperation between regions • Horizontal «Nordification» (A-projects) and

Europeanization (B- and C)

Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0

5

10

15

20

25

Maintenance of network and coop-eration

Number of cases

External project

Professional cooperation

Networking between directors

Network between politicans

Formal cooperation agreements

Not maintained

• Conservative estimates• The direction of the regional development policy has changed

and often permanent• Many examples shows that this is a result of organisational

learning• Horizontal «Nordification» (A-projects) and Europeanization (B-

and C)• The spatial scope of the regional development policy has been

expanded

Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0

5

10

15

20

25

Budget allocation, public services, in-frastructure or other efforts by the

county councils or other public bodiesNumber of casesExternal projectIncreased budgetNew public serviceNew infrastructureOther new effortsNo efforts

• In 34 of 44 Interreg-projects we find follow-up through specific efforts by the county council or by other bodies • Budget allocations, public services, infrastructure etc.

• Changes in directions of policy by the county council is found for 15 of the projects

Interreg A Interreg B Interreg C0

5

10

15

20

25

Changes in prioritizing of project-topics and in direction of policy

Number of caseNo change of priorityMinor increase in priorityMajor increase in priorityNew direction of policy

Factors promoting or deterring Interreg project impact

Types of impactsFollow up factors

Factors promoting or deterring impacts of Interreg Type of impact

FACTORSNew

Interreg project

Mainte-nence of

skills

Mainte-nence of project

networks

Higher priority

of project topic

Changes in policy direction

Interreg A-project

High Norw. budget-share

Basis in an earlier project

High internal participation

Traditional responsibility

Active politicans

Active directors

Lead Partner

Overall conclusions1. Interreg A-, B- and C-projects have had

lasting impacts on regional development policy in the county councils

2. The follow up of the projects have contributed to:– development of skills– networks that include foreign regions– increased allocations of funds pertaining to the topic

of the projects – new public services– new infrastructure– setting a new political direction in regional

development policy for a third of the projects

3. Factors that promotes several of the impacts are:– role as Lead-partner– county council directors being active in the project – high Norwegian share of the project budget