O22 - Project AnalysisNávrat zpět

Considering the differences between public and non-public beneficiaries, the main aim of this paper is to evaluate the relationship between the disadvantage of Czech regions and the spatial distribution of EU structural funds in the programming period 2007–2013. The empirical results reveal negative and significant influence of socioeconomic disadvantage of regions on the amount of structural funds obtained by public beneficiaries. On the contrary, agglomeration economies are the statistically significant determinant of the amount of structural funds obtained by non-public beneficiaries. These conclusions are related to different absorption capacity of regions, regarding the number and size of projects. Overall, structural funds do not compensate for the disadvantage of regions, neither for public nor for non-public beneficiaries.

This paper deals with the spatial relationship between national and European regional policies. Spatial coherence of these two types of policies in two CEE countries - in the Czech Republic and Slovakia - is discussed. Our findings point at a higher spatial coherence of national and European regional policy in Slovakia. Thus, there is a higher financial allocation per 1 inhabitant in the nationally delimitated areas of special interest in Slovakia compared with the Czech Republic. Three aspects are discussed in this regard. First, different strategies of the delimitation of the areas of special interest in the both countries are emphasised. Second, different strategies of the implementation of the areas of special interest in programming documents in the both countries are upheld. Third, the factor of territorial absorption capacity is mentioned. We claim that the three aspects should be considered in achieving a higher spatial coherence of national and European regional policies.

This paper deals with the relationship between regional disparities and financing of regional policy. The Czech Republic and the Convergence goal of cohesion policy were chosen as a case study. Four themes are discussed in this regard. First, the spatial distribution of funds is analyzed with respect to the disparity goal of regional policy. Second, the coherence of regional policy on different regional levels is evaluated. Third, the differences in evaluations based on the seat of applicants on one hand and place of realization on the other are discussed. Finally, some thematic issues are considered. Our findings point at some ambivalent conclusions with respect to both, the disparity goal and the coherence of regional policy on different regional levels. In addition, the differences in the both forms of evaluations are emphasized.