• No results found

The Committee of the Regions

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Committee of the Regions"

Copied!
39
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

I

N T E R N A T I O N E L L A

H

A N D E L S H Ö G S K O L A N

HÖGSKOLAN I JÖNKÖPING

T h e C o m m i t t e e o f t h e R e g i o n s

Bachelor Thesis within Political Science Author: Julia Sjögren

Tutor: Professor Benny Hjern, Per Viklund Jönköping Spring 2011

(2)

i

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation for comments and input from my

supervisor Professor Benny Hjern and Per Viklund.

Also, I would like to thank Andreas Pettersson for comments, ideas,

feed-back and support.

Jönköping, Spring 2011

Julia Sjögren

(3)

ii

Kandidatuppsats i Statsvetenskap

Titel: The Committee of the Regions

Författare: Julia Sjögren

Handledare: Professor Benny Hjern, Per Viklund

Datum: Våren 2011, Jönköping

Ämnesord: Regionskommittén, Europeiska Unionen, representation, Svensk

Representation i Regionskommittén, regioner, Regionskommitténs framtid.

Sammanfattning

Europas politiska karta är under ständig förnyelse bland annat på grund av utökningen av EU samt ökade krav, från alla olika nivåer av bestämmande, för att just deras röster ska hö-ras ännu mer och få större inflytande än vad de får idag. Ett sätt att ge regionerna i EU större inflytande i det politiska livet, var genom att starta Regionskommittén. Kommittén samlar representanter från de olika europeiska regionerna för att möjliggöra för dem att framföra sina åsikter och perspektiv gällande frågor som rör just regioner.

Denna uppsats fokuserar på Regionskommittén och dess representanters åsikter om Regi-onskommittén och om hur de uppfattar att den fungerar. Uppsatsen hävdar inte att den in-nehåller den totala sanningen gällande Regionskommittén men den ger en glimt av hur re-presentanternas tankar angående kommittén går, hur de ser på sin egena representation och vad de tänker om kommitténs framtid.

Uppsatsens syfte är uppdelat i tre delar; den försöker ta reda på om kommitténs medlem-mar tycker att deras åsikter tas tillvara på och får den respons som de önskar. Andra delen undersöker vad medlemmarna tycker om sin egna representation och om stöd och upp-backning hemifrån är viktigt eller inte. Den sista delen handlar om vad medlemmarna tän-ker om kommitténs framtid.

Det har framkommit att nästan alla medlemmar upplever att deras åsikter tas till vara på. Detta sker speciellt på de olika möten som kommittén har. Trots detta, finns det mycket att jobba med för att medlemmarnas åsikter ska få ännu större genomslagskraft under just mö-tena. Medlemmarna var splittrade i frågan om det är enkelt eller svårt att representera sina områden. Ett argument för att det är enkelt handlar , att eftersom kommittén är utan verk-lig betydelse, förväntas det heller ingenting av dess medlemmar. Andra menar att det är svårt med tanke på att det finns så få resurser för medlemmarna att tillgå. Alla medlemmar har en ljus bild av kommitténs framtid, både när det handlar om kommitténs ökade påver-kan inom EU samt deras egna representation. Men det är mycket som påver-kan förbättras samt att delar i den interna strukturen är i desperat behov av förändring.

(4)

iii

Bachelor Thesis in Political Science

Title: The Committee of the Regions

Author: Julia Sjögren

Tutor: Professor Benny Hjern, Per Viklund

Date: Spring 2011, Jönköping

Key words: The Committee of the Regions, European Union, representation, Swedish representation in CoR, regions, the future of CoR.

Abstract

The political map of Europe is always changing due to, for example the enlargement of EU and the demand from all different levels of power within EU to have their right to speak their mind and be taken seriously. One way of trying to give the regions in EU the oppor-tunity to influence the political life and to ask them about their opinions was the creation of the Committee of the Regions (CoR). This committee was created in order to gather representatives from the different regions in Europe in order to offer them the opportunity to give their perspectives on different issues that concerns regions.

This thesis focus on CoR and its representatives’ opinions on CoR and how they think it works. The thesis does not claim to be the total truth about CoR but it does give us a glimpse of how the representative´s view it, how they view the personal representation and what they think about the future of CoR.

The aim of this thesis is threefolded. It seeks to find out wheter the members of CoR find that their opinions are taken under consideration and get the response that they would like them to or not. The second aim is to see what the members of CoR think about their per-sonal representation and if support is important or not. The final aim is to find out what the members of CoR think about the future of the committee.

It was found that almost all of the members think that their opinions are taken into consid-erations, especially during the meetings. On the more negative side, there is still much work to do when it comes to giving the members even more of a say during the meetings. The members were divided in the question of whether it is hard or easy to represent their areas. One argument is that it is easy to represent areas since CoR is without power and thus there is no expectations on the members. Other argue that it is hard because there is no re-sourses to help the members with their representation. All members seem to view the fu-ture of CoR in a positive way, both when it comes to the belief that CoR will have more power in the future and about their personal representation. But still, much improvements are needed and parts of the internal structure is in desperate need of change.

(5)

iv

Table of Contents

Table of figures ... v

List of abbreviations ... vi

1

Introduction/Problem ... 1

1.1 Aim ... 1 1.2 Method ... 1 1.2.1 Survey ... 2 1.2.2 Validity ... 3 1.3 Limitations ... 3 1.4 Outline ... 3

2

Representation in general ... 4

3

The Committee of the Regions ... 4

3.1 History ... 5

3.2 Expectations on the Committtee of the Regions ... 6

3.3 What does the Committee do? ... 6

3.4 How is the Committee’s work organized? ... 6

3.5 Internal structure of the Committtee of the Regions ... 7

3.6 The work of the Committee of Regions ... 9

4

Swedish representatives in the Committee ... 10

5

Regions ... 11

6

The limitations of CoR ... 13

7

The impact of CoR ... 13

8

Results- Survey one ... 14

8.1 Part one ... 14

8.2 Part two ... 15

8.2.1 Positive feedback ... 15

8.2.2 Negative negative feedback ... 16

8.2.3 Representing popoluos areas ... 17

8.2.4 How well-known is CoR in the different areas? ... 17

8.2.5 Representation ... 18

8.3 Part three... 19

8.3.1 Specific questions ... 20

9

Results- Survey two ... 21

9.1 Part one ... 21

9.2 Part two ... 22

9.2.1 Response ... 22

9.2.2 Representation of populous areas ... 22

(6)

v

9.2.4 Representation ... 23

9.3 Part three... 23

9.3.1 Problems with the internal structure of CoR? ... 23

9.3.2 The future of CoR ... 24

10

Analysis ... 24

10.1 Response ... 24

10.2 Personal Representation and Support ... 25

10.3 The Future of CoR ... 26

References ... 28

Appendix 1: Survey ... 30

Table of figures

Table 8.1.1 ……….14 Table 8.1.2 ……….14 Table 8.1.3 ……….14 Table 8.2.1………..16 Table 8.2.2 ……….16 Table 8.3.1 ……….19 Table 8.3.2 ……….19 Table 8.3.3 ……….20 Table 9.2.1 ……….22

(7)

vi

List of abbreviations

ALDE - the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe C- Centerpartiet ( The Centre Party)

CoR- Committee of the Regions EPP- European People’s Party EU- European Union

FP- Folkpartiet (The Liberal Party)

M- Moderaterna ( The Conservative Party) PES- the Party of the European Socialists

S- Socialdemokratiska partiet( The Social democrat party) V- Vänsterpartiet ( The left -ving Party)

(8)

1

1 Introduction/Problem

The political map of Europe is in constant renewal due to, for example the enlargement of EU and the demand from all different levels of power within EU to have their right to speak their mind and be taken seriously.

One way of trying to give the regions in EU the opportunity to influence the political life and to ask them about their opinions was the creation of the Committee of the Regions. 1

This committee was created in order to gather representatives from the different regions in Europe in order to offer them the opportunity to give their perspectives on different issues that concerns regions.

This thesis focus on CoR and its representative’s opinions on CoR and how they think it works. The thesis does not claim to be the total truth about CoR but it does give us a glimpse of how the representative´s view it, how they view the personal representation and what they think about the future of CoR.

1.1

Aim

The aim of this thesis is threefolded. It first seeks to find out wheter the members of CoR find that their opinions are taken under consideration and get the response that they would like them to or not. The second aim is to see what the members of CoR think about their personal representation and if support is important or not. The final aim is to find out what the members of CoR think about the future of the committee. There is yet another under-lying aspect that this thesis try to answer; are there any differences in how and what Swe-dish representatives answer in the survey compared to their fellow representatives?

1.2 Method

The thesis start with an overview of CoR and its history. This part is built upon literature from European Union´s own publications but also from authors who have an a special in-terest within this field.

A survey will be used to find out the answers to the thesis’ questions. The survey will later on lay the ground for further analysis and in the end a conclisuon will be drawn. According to Bryman (1984) epistemology is a proper foundation for studies of the society and the society’s manifestations. It is therefore worth noticing that epistemology is the worldview

(9)

2

that the author has when discussing this issue. According to Byman and Bell (2007) ontol-ogy regards world view and difficulty with what reality and existence is. Epistemolontol-ogy re-gards, on the other hand, what reality and existence actually is and how it can be attainable. My ontological position of social construction means that I believe objective reality to lie beyond human perception. As a result, subjective reality needs to be interpreted ( Byman and Bell, 2007). This mean that I have to understand the world of my respondents, to give meaning to the empirical material that have been gathered.

The method used in this thesis is a quantitative method where a survey has been used in order to gather the information directly from the members. The results will later on be used to answer the aim of the thesis.

This thesis has an abductive approach since it allows the author to go away from simple fact distillation and it allows for taking advantage of previously developed theory by mov-ing back and forth among theory and empirical findmov-ings(Alvesson and Sköldberg, 1994). The author started out with reading up on CoR, its history and challenges which gave the author a better understanding of what CoR is and the problems it might face. With the an-swers the author got from the members, she returned to theory to look for more theory to explain the outcome of the survey.

1.2.1 Survey

The survey consist of 16 questions. An email was sent to all members of CoR with an in-troduction to the thesis and to the survey. Included in the email was also an internet link that directed the members to the survey. The author used an internet site called freesurvey-sonline.com in order to distribute the survey. This page also gave the author the opportuni-ty to login and see how many of the members that had answered the survey. After one and a half week a reminder was sent to the members in order to get more answers. The survey was sent to the 344 members of CoR but only 45 members answered.

Unfortunately the answering rate was not as high as one could wish so after some reflexion, the survey was sent out once again, but this time only to the Swedish members. The survey was distributed by regular mail and a letter was also attached to the survey. The letter ex-plained the survey and the situation for the members and it kindly asked them to partici-pate.

The survey has two different types of questions, some are open questions where the ans-wering person can express her opinions in her own words. In the other type of question is the answering person given alternatives and need to choose one of the suggested answers. The survey is in English,due to the great variety of nationalities within CoR and because English is the most common used language among the members of CoR. This could be seen as a bias in favour of the members which have English as their mother tounge but the

(10)

3

author assumed the members to have quite a high level of knowledge of English since they are taking part in the work of CoR which has English as its working language.

1.2.2 Validity

Research validity refers to the correctness or truthfulness of an conclusion that is drawn, from the result of the research. In order to conduct a valid research study, is it important to develop a plan or strategy to use and follow. The strategies within the plan must be in-volved in order to get valid results ( Christensen, Johnson and Turner, 2011).

Christensen,Johnson and Turner (2011) mean that the best way to ensure that a quantita-tive research study yields empirical findings from which correct conclusions can be drawn is to try to make sure that the study has four types of validity. These four different types of validity are: statistical conclusion validity, construct validity, internal validity and external validity. The authors argue that is best to think about validity as falling on a range instead of thinking as categories of 100% valid versus 0 % valid. The goal must always be to max-imize all four types of validity but it is possible to do a good study even if not all of the va-lidity types is completed. This is the case since we cannot include all the methods that would make it possible for us to achieve all four types of validity. Including one method might lead to a reduce in achieving another type of validity ( Christensen, Johnson and Turner, 2011).

1.3 Limitations

The thesis is limited to the Committee of Regions. It does not discuss other organs within EU or within European states. Organs that are connected with CoR are presented but they are not given a closer presentation since it does not seem to be necessary for reaching the goal of this thesis.

1.4 Outline

The first section is about general information and history about the Committee of the Re-gions. Later on a short presentation is given of the Swedish representatives. This is fol-lowed by a discussion about the term “region” and the difficulties with using this term. Af-ter that section, the limitations and input by CoR are discussed.

Section number two is a summary of the survey. The first part is summarizing the survey that was sent out to all members of CoR and the second part summarizes the answers that the Swedish members gave to the same survey.

The last section of the thesis is a analysis of the survey. This section is divided into three parts; Response, Personal Representation and Support and The Future of CoR.

(11)

4

2

Representation in general

Representation is a word that is discussed and used in many different areas and ways. This chapter gives a short presentation on how the word can be used and what it means according to different authors.

Hanna Fenichel Pitkin (1967) means that the word and concept of representation needs to be explained. Considering that so many have been writing about representation, it is nota-ble that few political theorists actually have tried to explain what representation is and what it means. Pitkin writes about Hobbes and he claims for example that every government is a representative government in that it represent its subjects. This is a view that many has adopted after Hobbes.

According to an article written by Lisa Disch, Hanna Pitkin made a readical move beacuse she claimed that political representative stands in a “one-to-one, person-to-person relation-ship” to a principal. Pitkin defines political representation as an institutionalized arrange-ment that is made by the public. She further means that representation come out of any ac-tion that is taken by any participant but from the over-all structure and funcac-tioning of the system. Pitkin claims that the system exists so it can be open to popular requests when there are some.

3

The Committee of the Regions

This chapter will give an overview of CoR, its history, what it does, how it is organized and its internal structure. The expectations of CoR is also something that will be discussed later on in this chapter.

The Committee of the Regions is said to be the voice of regional and local authorities within European Union. The committee was set up in 1994 under the Treaty on European Union. The committee has 344 members and all member states have representatives in the committee. The number of representatives is reflected on each state’s population size (European Commission, 2007).

The representives are distributed as follows:

 France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom 24

 Poland and Spain 21

 Romania 15

 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, 12 Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands,

Portugal and Sweden

(12)

5

Slovakia and Finland

 Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia 7

 Cyrus and Luxembourg 6

 Malta 5

Total: 344

CoR is said to be an advorisory committee which denote that CoR have to be consulted before EU decions are to be taken. This is the case when it comes to issues which concerns regional policy, like the environment, culture, transport and education. To sum up, CoR have to be asked when decions are to be taken which handles everything that matters local and regional government (European Commission, 2007).

The representatives of the Committee are people which have been elected in local or re-gional authorities in their home region. It is the national governments who nominate their representatives to the Committee and they are later on chosen by the Council of the Euro-pean Union. The commitment is four years and the members may be rechosen. Every country chooses its members in their own way. The only guidelines they have is that their representatives must mirror the political and geographical balances in the country. If the representatives loose their mandate at home they will no longer be able to be a member of the Committtee (European Commission, 2007).

3.1 History

Before CoR was formed there was a Consultative Council of Regional and Local Authori-ties. This council was formed in 1988 and it had been set up by the European Commission. The Commission felt that they needed some kind of body to consult on matters that re-lated particularly to regional policy. So the original Consultative Council had its beginning in regional policy but it was also encouraged to look at regional policy in a rather broad sense (Millan, 1997).

The European Council noted, in December 1990, the interest of some member states in setting up some kind of advice-giving group in relations to the regions. Millan (1997) writes that it is important to notice that only some member states were in favour here. Miller claims that this is true even to the present day while some member states for example the German Federal Republic have a large interest in regional government, while other mem-ber states are uninterested in CoR. Millan goes as far as to claim that in some cases memmem-ber states are even quite intimidating by the idea of an additional body (Millan, 1997).

The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 decided to include the Committee of the Regions and the committees first meeting took place in Brussels in March 1994. The inclusion was a big step forward because it was the first time were a democratic bodies below the member state level, was accepted in the basic Treaties of the European Union. There had of course been dealings with regional and local authorities before too but this was a big step forward

(13)

6

and it gave credit to the statement that democracy does not stop at the member state level. Democracy goes below that to democratically elected regional and local institutions (Millan, 1997).

The CoR does not have the status of a Community institution, which means that its func-tion is only to be advice-giving. This was defined in the origin Treaties. The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam made the Committee’s autonomy stronger and some other adjustment also made their advisory role more comprehensive (European NAvigator, 2009).

The Treaty of Nice in 2001 further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the CoR. This was made by introducing the need for political responsibility from its members as they are representing their local and regional authorities. The Treaty that was accepted in Lisbon in 2007 made the advisory role of the CoR even stronger. It also allows the CoR the right to refer to the Court of Justice if they want to defend their privileges (European NAvigator, 2009).

3.2 Expectations on the Committtee of the Regions

According to Christiansen (1996), the expectations about the evolution of CoR was differ-ent between people who put a disproportionately huge hope to the Committee and those who were more skeptical about this new body within EU. Christiansen claims that this challenge put CoR in the middle of those who thinks it is an important regional body within the structure of EU and those who are afraid that CoR will delegitimize EU’s poli-cymaking.

3.3 What does the Committee do?

The task that the Committee has is to put forward local and regional opinions on EU’s leg-islation. This is done by reports on different issues or opinions on proposals made by the Commission. The CoR needs to be asked before any decisions are to be taken on issues that matters localy or regionally. But the CoR is also free to adopt opinions on their own initiative and to present them to the Commission, Council and Parlament (European Commission, 2007).

3.4 How is the Committee’s work organized?

The Committee of the Regions holds five plenary sessions every year. During these ses-sions the Committee’s general policy is defined and opinions are adopted. There are also five meeting in which different policy areas are discussed. During these meetings is also preparation of the opinions on the timetable. These opinions are later on to be discussed in the plenary sessions (European Commission, 2007).

(14)

7

The daily work of the Committee is handle by a secretarty general and the council is located in Brussels ( Eu-upplysningen, 2009).

3.5 Internal structure of the Committtee of the Regions

The internal structure of CoR consists of different parts. Below is a short presentation of each of them. It starts with presenting the role and work of the president, first Vice-president and the bureau. It continues with discussing the planary session, CoR Commission, CAFA, political groups and national delegations. The chapter ends with a presentation of what the secretary- general and the general secretariat do.

President

The role of the President is to guide the Committee’s work and to chairs plenary sessions. The President also officially represent the CoR. The President serves a two-years term (European Union, C).

In February 2010 Mercedes Bresso was elected as the new President of the CoR. Bresso is the first woman to serve as President . She is a former member of the European Parliament and she has also been a member of the CoR for a long time. Bresso was the President of the CoR’s PES group from 2006 to 2010 (European Union, B, 2010).

First Vice-President

The role of the First Vice-President is to represent the President when he/she is not pre-sent. The First Vice-President is elected for a period of five years ( European Union, C). It is Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso who now serve as the First Vice-President of the CoR. He will have this mandate for the first half (2010-2012) of the five-years mandate ( European Union, D).

Bureau

The Bureau is said to be the ruling body and the political driving force of the CoR. The Bureau consists of 60 members and these members are: The President, First Vice-President, 27 vice-presidents (one per Member state), the four president of the CoR politi-cal groups and 27 other members. These together make it possible to mirror national and political balances ( European Union, C).

The Bureau usually meets seven times a year. They meet before each of the five plenary sessions in Brussels and they also meet in two extraordinary meetings. One of these ex-traordinary meetings is held in the President’s home state. When they meet, they set the CoR’s policy programme and they also instruct and coordinate the work of the plenary ses-sions and the commisses-sions (European Union, E).

Plenary Session

Five times every year the members of the CoR meet in plenary session. The sessions are held in Brussels in order to discuss and adopt opinions, reports and resolutions. People like the Commissioners and representatives of the EU presidency are often invited to the ses-sions., to discuss matters that concer regions and cities (European Union, C).

(15)

8 CoR Commission

The CoR is divided in to six groups. These groups are known as commissions and special-ises in different areas. The areas are as follows: territorial cohesion policy, economic and social policy, sustainable development, culture, education and research, external relations and decentralised cooperation, constitutional affairs, governance and the area of freedom, security and justice. The commissions arrange draft opinions and they also hold confer-ences and seminars that focus on their special area. Each commission consist of around 100 members. The commissions are also supported by a secretariat within the administra-tion (European Union, C).

CAFA

The Committee for Administrative and Financial Affairs consists of eight members. This committee helps the Bureau with advice when it comes to questions about administration and finance (European Union, C).

The CAFA was set to in order to make it easier to support a closer relationship with the budget authority. This is supposed to be done to make sure that the CoR’s main concerns are taken into account and also realized in the yearly budget procedure (European Union, F).

Political groups

The Committee consists of four political groups. These are; the European People’s party(EPP), the Party of the European Socialists (PES), the Alliance of Liberals and De-mocrats for Europe (ALDE) and the Union for Europe of the Nations-European Alliance (UEN-EA)(European Commission, 2007).

The creation of a political group needs no less than 20 representatives from more than three member states or at least 18 representatives from four member states or at least 16 representatives from five member states. Both ordinary representatives and the replace-ment representatives are allowed to create a political group but half of the group needs to consist of ordinary representatives ( Eu-upplysningen, 2009). Some of the members are in-dependent which means that they are not part of a political group (European Union, C). The different groups meet before every major meeting. They meet in order to agree about common positions. Before these meetings the CoR’s President, First Vice-president and the presidents of the political groups also gather. Their aim is to reach political agreements on important questions ( European Union, C).

National delegations

Members and alternates from every member state form a national delegation. Each delega-tion forms and accepts its own internal rules and they also elect a chairman (European Un-ion, G).

All members meet regulary in their respective national delegations. The delegations can ei-ther have a well-organized decision-making or decision-preparing structure. Every delega-tion have a person that has been elected to lead the group and nadelega-tional coordinators

(16)

organ-9

ize sessions for all delegations. In some of the member states, like France and Germany, the members’ assistants meet two weeks before every plenary session. They meet in order to have a preparatory discussion and members of the delegation meet after the Bureau meeting. They also meet before the plenary session so they will have time to discuss changes. They will also try to find a position that everyone agrees on with regards to the opinions that are to be presented in the plenary session (Schweiger,1997).

Schweiger (1997) writes that the Nordic member states have very well-organized and united delegations. In these states one will find organizations of towns or provinces where all the work that is connected to EU is centralized. One will also find that extensive help from a central body is offered to the persons which are members of CoR. Schweiger claims that it is interesting that in states that have a more federal system with dominant regions, which have a large administration themselves, it seems to be much harder to agree on a common basis to protect “national” or “regional” interests in a coordinated national situation. Secretary-General

It is the Bureau that appoint the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is chosen for five years. It is Gerhard Stahl, from Germany, which holds this post since April 2004. Since the Secretary-General is the head of the CoR administration, it is not allowed to be held by a political mandate. The Secretary-General is responsible for putting the Bureau’s decisions into action. He/she is also responsible for keeping the administration going smooth (European Union, C).

General Secretariat

The General Secretariat is divided into three parts. These parts are as follows: Administra-tion, Consultative Works and Registry, Legal Service and Assistance to Members. A divi-sion for Communication, Press and Protocol is also a part of the General Secretariat. Within this structure the units for budget, personnel, commission work and interintitu-tional relations are organized. The political group secretariats and Internal Audit Service is also included in the General Secretariat ( European Union, C).

3.6 The work of the Committee of Regions

This chapter will go through the work of CoR. It will give the reader a better understanding of, in what ways CoR progress its work. Below is a short presentation of opinions, resolutions, outlook opinions and impact reports and studies.

Opinions

When the European Union, Council of Ministers and European Parliament are about to sketching up new legislation texts (like regulations and directives) on areas that affect local and regional authorities is the CoR consulted. The important CoR commission receives the draft texts and a secretary is choosen in order to work out the Committee´s opinion. It is important that this opinion is adopted by the CoR commission before it is being discussed at the plenary session. As soon as the opinion has been accepted in the plenary the official

(17)

10

opinion was sent out to all the European institutions and it is also published in the Official

Journal of the European Union2( European Union, C).

Resolutions

Resolutions make it easier for the Committee to state its opinion on important and current issues. Resoultions can also be worked out by the political groups within the CoR (Euro-pean Union, C).

Outlook opinions and impact reports

One can be tempted to think that the CoR´s only work is to respond to legislature sugges-tions but this is not the case. CoR also need to give input that is based on the member´s experiences for potential EU policy development in the future. This lets CoR be active in the development of policy at a early stage and thus to have a great impact on the policies. It is only the President or a member of the European Commission who can ask the CoR to organize these initial opinions. The Commission may also ask CoR to draw up impact ports. These reports has the purpose of evaluating the impact of a policy on a local or re-gional level ( European Union, C).

Studies

CoR produces studies on different parts of the local and regional dimension of the EU. These studies cover issues like education, social issues, enlargement and education etc. The studies are created with help of people that are experts within the specific issue that the study deals with ( European Union, C).

4

Swedish representatives in the Committee

In this chapter will a presentation of the Swedish delegation in CoR be made. It give us a better under-standing of how Sweden chooses its representatives and there is also a table that give us the name of the rep-resentatives and some more information about them.

The Swedish municipalities and county councils nominate twelve politicians who should represent Sweden in the Committtee of the Regions. The nomination is made every fourth year, after the Swedish general election. Geographical spread and equality is taken under consideration when the representatives are to be nominated. The nominated politicians are later on suggested from the government and are choosen by the Minister Council ( Eu-upplysningen, 2009)

It is seldom the case that the length of office with the Committee of the Regions harmo-nizes with the length of office in the representatives’s home country. This means that there is some lag inbetween the length of offices. In the Swedish case, that it is the outcome of

2 The Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) is the only magazine that is published every working

(18)

11

the general election in 2006, that is the election from which the representatives are nomi-nated for the period 2007-2011 (Eu-upplysningen, 2009).

The permanent representatives from Sweden are as follows:

Name Municipality/county council/region Party Political Group

Uno Aldegren Region Skåne (S) PES

Kristina Alvendal Stockholms stad (M) EPP

Lotta Håkansson Harju Järfälla kommun (S) PES

Kent Johansson Västra Götalandsregionen (C) ALDE

Anders Knape Karlstads kommun (M) EPP

Paul Lindquist Lidingö stad (M) EPP

Mona Lisa Norrman Jämtlands läns landsting (V) PES

IImar Reepalu Malmö stad (S) PES

Yoomi Renström Ovanåkers kommun (S) PES

Catarina Segersted Larsson Landstinget i Värmland (M) EPP Annelie Stark Västra Götalandsregionen (S) PES Maria Wallhager Stockholms läns landsting (FP) ALDE (Eu-upplysningen, 2009).

5

Regions

There is a great variety between the definitions of a region and this might lead to confusion when to analyz-ing issues that has to do with regions within Europe. In order to understand the problems that might arise within CoR, it is useful to distinguish between the following four kinds of regions: economic, histori-cal/ethnic, administrative/planning and political.

Loughlin ( 1996) argues that the term region often refers to subnational levels of govern-ment or territory rather than groups of countries. The latter explanation is often used in discussions about international relations. Loughlin means that region is defined differently dependent on if it is a economist or political scientist, just to mention a few people that use this term in different regional questions.

(19)

12

The term regions refers to a mixture of politico-administrative situations in different coun-tries and the term is also used in other ways by the European Union for the use of policy design and implementation. A region in France differs in its constituational situations com-pared to example a region in Belgium and not to forget a Land in Germany (which often is referred to as a region). But the German Länder have their own regions and they also have developed regional policies towards those regions. Many countries see regions as levels of government and/or administration. They are found between the central state and the prov-idence. But the Netherlands refer to regions as the level between the Provincie (county or level) and the Gemeente ( city or commune) ( Loughlin, 1996).

Economic Regions

Economic regions are territories that are defined according to economic characteristics. They might also be defined by economic criterias such as industrialized/deindustrialized, urban/rural or sectoral. Economic regions may also refer to territories that are chosen by national governments for economic development. A new way of defining economic re-gions is based on the idea of recently emerged economic rere-gions that are marked by local or endogenous development.

The regions may also be related to economic globalization, technological changes and shifts in the factors of economic production. In many cases these are new regions often outside the control of existing political and administrative institutional arrangements (Loughlin, 1996).

Historical/Ethnic Regions

Historical/Ethnic regions are territories that have a close connection with human societies sharing histories and cultural/linguistic characteristics that differ from the dominant culure of the nation-state in which they are located. These groups sometimes define themselves as nations or nationalities. One example of this is the Scottish National Party in the United Kingdom ( Loughlin,1996).

Administrative/ Planning Regions

All states define territory in order to simplify the gathering of statistics and policymaking. France, for example, created administrative or planning regions in the late 1950s when they regionalized the national plan. Also highly centralized states, such as Greece and Ireland have set up administrative regions in order to meet the European Union´s criteria at the re-gional level for the implementation of EU rere-gional policy funds (Loughlin, 1996).

Political Regions

Political regions differ from the other three types of regions. Political regions enjoy demo-cratically elected councils or assemblies. These councils or assemblies choose a manager who is accountable to the voters. This means that they have complete regional govern-ments. There is a great variety between different governmental situations. Political regions

(20)

13

may be for example powerful German Länder and Belgium communities that have re-placed the central state in many of its tasks.

On the other end of this variety lies among others the rather weak French regions which still have to fight for their place in the decionsmaking. Smaller states have not followed the bigger states in setting up regional government but according to Loughlin (1996) there are now a tendency for smaller states to start doing that.

Christiansen (1996) uses the term “regional” as an umbrella, including and representing re-gional, local and intermediate territorial units. The author claims that this is the meaning of the word “region” in the Committee of the Regions.

6

The limitations of CoR

This chapter will give the reader the understanding of some of the issues that might limit the work of CoR.

CoR is only an advice-giving institution and it cannot guarantee that its Opinions are ac-tually acted upon. The Committee does not have the freedom to put their Opinions into action and they cannot demand feedback from the Council or Commission. A time limit of one month might be imposed from both the Council and the Commission, on the Com-mittee concerning any referred proposal. This might mean that CoR find itself not capable to issue effective Opinions because of time limits ( Warleigh, 1997).

The Committee does not have the control over its own budget since it is protected by the Council and the Parliament. CoR does not have anything to do with for example a mone-tary union. Instead their required remit lies within the fields of less exciting policy fields so one can say that CoR’s position is peripheral (Warleigh, 1997).

7

The impact of CoR

This chapter will give the reader an understanding of why it might be hard to access the impact that CoR makes.

Christiansen (1996) argues that it can be difficult to access the impact made by CoR. This is the case since CoR is not the single advisory organization that works with the Commission and beacause CoR seldom adopts a critical position towards the Commission’s suggestions. Wahrleigh (1997) continues on Christiansen’s thought and writes that tracking all legislative proposals that are given to CoR and its capability to shape their final wording would be a phenomenal and interesting assignment. Wahrleigh claims that this favours positive version of CoR’s role. The Commission have both been more open to CoR’s proposals and they have also acted upon the proposals than the Council has.

(21)

14

8

Results- Survey one

In this chapter will the results, from the survey that was sent out the first time, be presented. The chapter will go through all of the questions and the answers that were given.

8.1 Part one

In this chapter will the first short questions be answered. The questions are about how many of the members that participated in the survey, which states they are representing, what they are representing, which political group they are a member of and for how many length of terms they have been a member of CoR.

The survey was sent to all the 344 members of CoR. Unfortunately the answering rate was only 46 out of 344. 36 persons (78.3 percent) of them are male. The number of females are 10 (21.7 percent).

Listed below is the member states that participated in the survey and how many of the members in each country that answered.

Table 8.1.1

Country Numbers of members

Poland, United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland 4

Scotland, Latvia, Germany 3

Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Cyprus, Ireland 2 Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Lithua-nia,Estonia,France, Malta

1

The distribution of what the members represent in CoR is as follows: Table 8.1.2

Area of representation Percentage

City 17,4%

Municipality 39,1%

Region or state 43,5%

The majority (40.0 percent) of the answering members are members of PES. 33.3 percent are members of EPP. UEN-EA follows with 15.6 percent and 11.1 percent are members of ALDE.

(22)

15 Table 8.1.3

Length of term Percentage

One term 43,5%

Two terms 39,1%

More than two terms 17,4%

As shown above, the majority of the representatives have only been a member of CoR for one term. There is also a great part of the members that have been in CoR for two periods of times and a smaller part of them that has been a member for more than two terms.

8.2 Part two

This section will go through the second part of the survey. Questions that here will be presented are about the opinions from the members, the support that the members get and how the members view their representat-ing. How well-known CoR is in the members area and if it is easy or not to represent their areas will also be presented.

One of the questions in the survey is about if the members think that their opinions are taken into considerations in CoR and in which typical issues. Since this is a open question, many different answers were given. Below is a summary of the different answers. The an-swers are summarized in two different categories, one with the anan-swers that are positive according to the question and one with the answers that are more negative.

8.2.1 Positive feedback

Examples of issues where the members think that their opinions are taken into considera-tions is among others regional development, agriculture, international relaconsidera-tions, protection of environment, issues that concerns the Baltic states. More issues where the members think that their opinions are taken into considerations are, those that express UK opinions. An other member answered like this:

“In any case I appreciate that through my participation in the democratic process of voting or in public con-sulation for different issues, my points of view are indirectly taken into consideration. Moreover our collabo-ration and support of the Members of the permanent Greek Delegation as well as the assistance of munici-pal employees contribute significantly in this direction through the opinions we submit.” 3

When asking the members if they think that their opinions are taken under considerations, some of them says that this is the case and especially during commissions’ meetings. Dur-ing these meetDur-ings the members are allowed to give statements and send amendments to the papers and these papers are later on formulated in the different commissions and this is

3 All quotations are taken directly from the answers that the members gave. No changes have been made

(23)

16

seen as something good that makes the members feel that their opinions are taken into de-liberation. Another member gives another view and answer like this:

“They are taken into account to the extent possible. It is anyway the feeling that the CoR remains an

advi-sory body. It means there is no obligation from the other institutions to follow the advice of the CoR. This is something that could be improved in the future.”

8.2.2 Negative negative feedback

A few of the answers are more negative when it comes to the issue if their opinions are taken into consideration or not. One answer like this; No, as CoR dominated by the large

politi-cal groups. Another member thinks it is more up to each member and formulate it like this:

“I’ve been a member about one year. I think that my opinion depends about my ability to create networks

and speeches I make in my group and in the sessions. It doesn’t depend about issues, it depends about your own knowledge and ability to convince other members.”

Table 8.2.1

Opinions Percentage

Opinions GET response 80%

No, the opinions does NOT get the wanted

response 19,6%

As shown above, 80 percent of the members think that their opinions get response. Worth to notice is also that almost 20 percent think that their opinions not get response.

Table 8.2.2

Level of support Percentage

Full support 37,8%

Considerable support 33,3%

Some support 20 %

No support 8,9%

The majority of the representatives feel like they have full or considerable support from the organization that elected them. But over 33 percent think that they have considerable sup-port and over 28 percent of the members think that they have some or no supsup-port at all.

(24)

17

8.2.3 Representing popoluos areas

Question number nine in the survey asked the members if they think that members, who represent more populous areas in CoR, have more say than those who represent smaller areas. The answering rate between yes and no for this question was almost even. There is only a few more members that answered no on this question instead of yes.

No-answers

Some of the people that answered no to this question write that: I’m from a sparsely populated

area and our issues are as important as thise who are from more populous areas.Another member

means that: It is not so much a problem of population, but rather of power. There is a danger that

Re-gions with legisaltive powers will dominate too much. Another writes: Influence etc is determined by the political group you belong to rather than the size of area you represent.

According to a member the representation of the member states is to be changed in favour of a more equal representation. The member writes: No, but currently there is a motion on the

floor that will probably change the composition of CoR and will further enhance the equal representation of all member states. Yet another member writes:It is true that representing a populous area means that matters of those areas are of great imterest for the members of CoR. However, I believe that each region has its own particular issues and their importance does not depend on numerical elements.

Yes-answers

The people that answered yes to the question argue that it is a problem but that it is at the same time expected. Another put it like this:

“Yes that is always the case wether within the EU or within the nation.”

“Yes. No, I don’t see a problem with this. Areas with more populations have more problems. It is nor-mal.”

“Yes, because big regions ans big cities seems to be more powerful despite of good representation of smaller

countries and cities. Yes, positions in CoR, both at party level and CoR level, are normally filled by people coming from big EU countries.”

8.2.4 How well-known is CoR in the different areas?

Question number ten is about how well- known CoR is in the areas that the members represent. The answer to this question is not hard to find since almost every member ans-wered the same thing: CoR is not very well known in their area. Examples of the given an-swers as follows :

“Not, very well known, it definitely needs promotion. Not known at all. As a counciller with 10 years

standing, I was not aware of the CoR. Experts and people interested in European politics know the CoR. The average citizen doesn’t. It’s very few known, as European institutions are generally not very well known.”

As said before, the majority thinks that CoR is not very well known but there is also a ten-dency in the given answers that the situation is going to be improved: Not enough. However,

(25)

18

writes: Not very. I am trying to set up seminars in my Region to publisise our work. And: Not very well.

However, the last two years I think CoR have a little more information to the public.

There is also a couple of people who think that CoR is well- known and quite well-known in their area. One of the members writes like this: In general well known and especially among

those who are concerned with the CoR.

8.2.5 Representation

Question number eleven asked the members if they think that it is easy to represent their area. It is here hard to find a clear answer since the members seems to be divided in this question. Below comes a summary of both the yes- and no answers.

Diveded arguments

The members that think that it is easy to represent their area mean that this is the case since: CoR is without any power. And; because there are no expectations. Other members write that it is hard to represent their area because of limited resourses and that it is hard to represent a small area compare to other regions. Another member writes:

“CoR usually works on “general”, “European” topics and it is rather difficult to represent issues

concern-ing one area only.

“It is not easy enough. As Mayor of a big city, I am often called to claim many things for my city. It is

ob-vious though, that the duties we have in the CoR are something extra to our basic duties and that needs more personal time and more personal work to achive our mission.”

Another issue that is brought up is that it is hard to represent the area because of: the size of

the EU and the general group think of both the CoR, the European Commission and the European Par-liament. Some others mention that as a member of CoR, one is not only representing ones

regions but also ones national political party which, according to a member, makes the re-presenatation a bit difficult sometimes.

“The region has strategic documents on direction for development so it is not that difficult to represent the

re-gion. I would sayits more difficult to represent the national party.”

To conclude this part, one member writes:

“The word easy is not quite appropriate. To represent your area and interest is always challenging but

(26)

19

8.3 Part three

In this last part of the results from the survey will the future of CoR be discussed. The power of CoR and problems of the internal structure are also subjects that are going to be presented.

The representatives were asked about what they think about the power of CoR in the fu-ture. Below are the answer given.

Table 8.3.1

Level of power Percentage

More power 88,6%

Less power 11,4%

The majority of the members believe that CoR will have more power in the future but around 10 percent of them belive that CoR will have less power.

Table 8.3.2

Problems with the internal structure Percentage

Yes 47,7%

No 53,3%

The majority of the representatives think that there is no problem with the internal struc-ture of CoR. But there is also a great part, that think that there are parts of the strucstruc-ture that is in need of change.

Below are the answers to what in the structure that is in need of change.One member think that the structure of the power is in need of change and another person continues on this thought and write:

“At this moment the structure of CoR facilitates and favour the good collaboration of the members.

Howev-er, in the future, it will be desirable if there will be a better arrangement of the dates of the meetings of the different committees, so that they will be near the dates of planary session. In this way can we avoid the fre-quent locomotions and our frefre-quent absence from our basic duties.”

Another answer is also concerned about being able to manage to represent CoR and their home at the same time:

“It is a too big decision-making body and the nature of travelling constraints of the members along with

their other time commitments works against a real decision-making process.”

Flexibility

Flexibility is also something that is seen as needed. One thing that is mention a couple of times among the answers is that it is too much bureaucracy. One member writes:

(27)

20

“Too much bureaucracy, very long procedures, opinions are sometimes voted too late for the real need. And;The administration should have less influence. The demographic aspect concerning the structure should

be more respected.”

Numbers of representatives

Others are more concerned with the the numbers of representatives from each state. Small

countries shall be given more seates so they can raise their voice, otherwise they will slowly retract. Another

writes:

“The big countries and parties have too much members and power. The challenge to get rapports is easier for

bigger parties and that’s not a good system. Equality between sexes should take in notice. Old men are too governing in CoR!”

The meetings

The answers is also about how the meetings in CoR are, as one member answered: The

meet-ings are not always so democratic. The chairman may refuse to give someone the floor and the way. Yet

another write that there should be more empahasis on party groups and less on national is-sues. Another one thinks the other way around:

“ I would like to see a structure where the CoR vould work with the National Parliaments and ensure that

their regional and governance standards are benchmarked across the member countries. This would also im-prove the knowledge about CoR.”

The last answer means that currently, there is nothing in the structure that needs to change but if new countries will join, the structure will be in need of great change.

The second last question ask if the members would like to be a member of CoR for anoth-er tanoth-erm of office.

Table 8.3.3

Member for another term Percentage

Yes 80%

No 18,2%

Over 80 percent of the members would like to be a member for another term. Worth to notice is also that almost 18 percent not would like to be a member for another period of time.

8.3.1 Specific questions

The last question in the survey asked if the members have any specific questions that they would like to focus on in their next term of office. Also here vary the answers over a broad spectra of issues. Below is a summary of them.

Cohesion policy and cooperation

The future of the cohesion policy and cooperation between EU and countries of the East-ern part of Europe are something that is mention a couple of times in the answers of the

(28)

21

question. Topics that are connected with the Eastern part of Europe seem to involve many of the members, according to what they would like to focus on. One would like to focus on the strategy for the Baltic Sea region and another would like to work more with EU’s re-lation with Russia.

Ecology and energy

Ecology and renewable energy together with agriculture and rural development is also something that the members bring up. Connected with the development of rural areas is al-so the competition for them to grasp growing areas is mentioned as an area that the mem-bers would like to put more emphasis on.

Transition Regions

One want to focus on the problem of the so called “Transition Regions” and the question about new member states is also something that people would like to discuss more. Other areas that the different members would like to focus more on during their next term of of-fice are: the illegal immigration, the unemployment of young people, poverty and social ex-clusion.

Other areas of interest are unnecessary expenditure, external affairs, territorial cohesion. The Structural Funds of EU is also something the comes up in the answers together with the wish to create more jobs for all Europeans.

Another member writes:

“Being a member of this kind of international body, it takes at least a couple of years to learn how to work

and more time even to get a network that is wide enough. Therefore is it essential to have a mandate that is long enough in order to do a good job.”

One of the members seems to be satisfied with the way things are right now, as he/she writes: No, the CoR has been operating better and better during the last years.

9

Results- Survey two

The same survey as before was once again sent to the Swedish members of CoR. Below are the results from the survey presented. This chapter will go through all of the questions and the answers that were given.

9.1 Part one

In this chapter will the first short questions be answered. The questions are about how many of the members that participated in the survey, what they are representing, which political group they are a member of and for how many length of terms they have been a member of CoR.

The answering rate was here six answers (out of twelve). Two of them are men and the rest are female. Four of the members represent different Swedish regions and the last two represent municipalities. Three members are members of PES, two are members of EPP and the last one is a member of ALDE. Three of the Swedish members have been a mem-ber of CoR for more than two terms of office. One has been a memmem-ber in two terms of of-fice and two persons have been members in one term of ofof-fice.

(29)

22

9.2 Part two

This section will go through the second part of the survey. Questions that here will be presented are about the opinions from the members, the support that the members get and how the members view their representat-ing. How well-known CoR is in the members area and if it is easy or not to represent their areas will also be presented.

Question number six ask if the members think that their opinions are taken under eration in CoR. The Swedish members all think that their opinions are taken under consid-erations. Two of them marked both yes and no. One of them also write that he think that his opinions are taken into considerations in issues that concerns economic and social problems. But the same person also writes that he feels that when issues about agriculture is discussed his opinions are not taken under consideration.

The other persons who also marked both yes and no, did not give any answers in which is-sues he referred to. One writes that she feels that her opinions are taken into consideration

“In the committeemeetings if I have something to add to reports”. Yet another writes that he thinks

that his opinions are taken into considerations in issues like; regional questions about sub-sidarity and growing influence in both a local and regional level.

9.2.1 Response

The next question is about if the members think that their opinions, overall, get the re-sponse they should in CoR. Four of them think that they get the rere-sponse that they should and one does not think so. The last one answered both yes and no on this question. This last person also wrote that “Sweden is a small country and we have to work hard”.

Question number eight ask how much support the members have from the organization that elected them to CoR.

Table 9.2.1

Level of support Amount of answers

Full support 2

Considerable support 3

Some support 1

As shown above, two members think that they get full support, three think that they re-ceive considerable support and one person thinks that he or she get some support.

9.2.2 Representation of populous areas

Next question would like to know if the members think that members who represent more populous areas in CoR, have more say than those who represent smaller areas. Five of the Swedish members answered yes to this question and the last one did not answer at all. The members were asked if they could see a problem with this and some different answers were

(30)

23

given: “No,it’s part of a democracy”. Another person writes that this is a question about de-mocracy and legitimacy.

9.2.3 How well-known CoR is in different areas

Question number ten is about how well-known CoR is in the area that the members represent. Five members answers “not at all” and the sixth members means that it is mixed. This members writes that CoR is well-known in organizations and in the international and regional side but not well-known among regular citizens since there is so much news eve-ryday so they cannot keep up with everything. The members who wrote that CoR is less known also mean that improvements can and need to be made.

9.2.4 Representation

The last question in this section is about if the members think it is easy to represent their area. Four of the Swedish members mean that it is easy to represent their area while two members do not agree upon this issue. One of the two persons that answered that they think it is hard to represent their area writes that it is hard since:

“I’m in opposition in my municipality-it makes it harder to put questions forward”.

9.3 Part three

In this last part of the results from the survey will the future of CoR be discussed. The power of CoR and problems of the internal structure are also subjects that are going to be presented.

The last part of the survey begins with a question about the future of CoR, will it have more or less power in the EU? Five out of six members believe in a bright future for CoR with more to say within EU. The last person writes that she/he thinks that CoR will have about the same amount of power in the future as it has now.

9.3.1 Problems with the internal structure of CoR?

Question number thirteen ask if the members can see any problems with the internal struc-ture of CoR. Four members answered yes, they do think that there are some problems with the internal structure. One answered no and the last one choose not to answer this ques-tion.

Question number fourteen is connected with the question before. The question ask what in the structure that is in need of change. Below is a summary of the answers that were given. “We need more opportunities to have meetings with more interaction. Today it’s too many long speeches and

monologs. (typical for men…)”.

“The way meetings are held. Chairpersons tend to neglect members who asks for the floor. Sometimes voting results are questionable”.

Another member writes:

“Sometimes difficult to reach consensus that really means something in the political sense” and “Too bu-reaucratic”.

(31)

24

9.3.2 The future of CoR

The fifteenth question asks if the members would like to be a member of CoR for another term of office. Five members answered that they would like to continue as memers of CoR. One member answered no to this question.

The last question in the survey asked the members if they have specific questions that they would focus on in their next term of office. The members have many different issues that they would like to focus on. The first member would focus on “Reduce the financial support to

farms subsidarity”. Next person would like to focus on economic and social issues and

another on new memberstates and gender. BSR Strategy, Eastern partnership, the Enlargement are also issues that are brought up. The last person writes that he follows; “the Eu-level

agen-da. EU-2020- the plan for the budget. The cohesiveness politics. And he writes that these are the

most important subjects right now.

10 Analysis

The purpose of this study is threefolded and this section of analysis focus on each of them. It starts with answering the question whether the representatives find that their opinions get any response in specific issues. The next part analyse how the members view their personal representation within CoR and what they think about the support that they should be given. The last part of this section is about the members opinions about the future of CoR and if something within the structure is in need of change.

10.1 Response

The main condition for CoR, to be able to have an impact, is that someone take their members opinions in-to consideration and listen in-to what they have in-to say. The survey tried in-to find out whether this is the case or not within CoR. Below comes an analysis of this.

According to the the answers that were given in the first survey, the representatives were splitted, some of them thought that their opinions were taken into consideration and some did not.

The members answered in the first survey that they find that their opinions are taken into considerations especiallt during commissions’ meetings since they are allowed to give statements and send adjustments to the papers. Thus this is a way for the representatives to not only express their opinions but also see that their opinions are taken into deliberation. Although the members opinions might lead to reflection, the fact, that CoR only is an ad-vice giving body, remains. This is something that the members think could be improved in the future which would give the opinions of the members of CoR even more response and influence.

A couple of the members that were asked in the first survey think that their opinions are not taken into considerations. They mean that this is the case since CoR is dominated by large political groups and not by the single member’s opinions.

All of the Swedish members in the second survey answered that they think that their opi-nions are taken into considerations. One member writes that he thinks that his opiopi-nions are taken into considerations when it comes to issues that concerns economic and social

References

Related documents

Stöden omfattar statliga lån och kreditgarantier; anstånd med skatter och avgifter; tillfälligt sänkta arbetsgivaravgifter under pandemins första fas; ökat statligt ansvar

Generally, a transition from primary raw materials to recycled materials, along with a change to renewable energy, are the most important actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

För att uppskatta den totala effekten av reformerna måste dock hänsyn tas till såväl samt- liga priseffekter som sammansättningseffekter, till följd av ökad försäljningsandel

Strukturfonderna är endast en del i detta lärande och kan på så sätt bidra till att utveckla vår förmåga att lära av olika typer av insatser inom den regionala

Från den teoretiska modellen vet vi att när det finns två budgivare på marknaden, och marknadsandelen för månadens vara ökar, så leder detta till lägre

Generella styrmedel kan ha varit mindre verksamma än man har trott De generella styrmedlen, till skillnad från de specifika styrmedlen, har kommit att användas i större

a) Inom den regionala utvecklingen betonas allt oftare betydelsen av de kvalitativa faktorerna och kunnandet. En kvalitativ faktor är samarbetet mellan de olika

Närmare 90 procent av de statliga medlen (intäkter och utgifter) för näringslivets klimatomställning går till generella styrmedel, det vill säga styrmedel som påverkar