Decentralization and Structural Policies: The European Experience

  • Manuel Porto
Conference paper

The European model is a model of decentralization, determined by the principle of subsidiarity.

The principle was already implicit in the original version of the Treaty of Rome. But now it is explicitly stated, after the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht. According to art. 5 of the EC Treaty, “in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.


Regional Policy Structural Policy European Experience European Social Fund Cohesion Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Denton G, O'Cleireacain S (1972) Subsidy issues in international commerce. Trade Policy Research Centre, Thame Essays, n. 5, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (1999) Sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of regions in the European Union. Office for Official Publications, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission (2003) Segundo Relatório Intercalar sobre a Coesão Económica e Social. BruxelasGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission (2005) Cohesion policy in support of growth and jobs — community strategic guidelines, 2007–2013. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2006) Reform of European cohesion policy. Fourth Progress Report on Cohesion. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. Fagerberg J, Verspagen B (1996) Heading for divergence? regional growth in Europe reconsidered. J Common Mark Stud 34:431–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitoussi JP (dir.) (2000) Rapport sur l'État de l' Union Européenne, 2000. Presses de Sciences Po and Fayard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Gros D, Micossi S (2005) A better budget for the European Union. More value for money. more money for value. In: Centre for European policy Studies, CEPS Policy Brief, n. 66/FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  9. Magrini S (1999) The evolution of income disparities among the regions of the European Union. Reg Sci Urban Econ 29:257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marques A (2006) Economia da União Europeia. Almedina, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  11. Neven D, Gouyette C (1995) Regional Convergence in the European Community. J Common Mark Stud 33:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Porto M (2004) Theory of integration and EU policies. Institute or European Studies of Macau (new fort ed., Almedina, 2004)Google Scholar
  13. Silva JR, Lima MA (1997) L' Experience Européenne des ‘Pays de la Cohesion’: Rattrapage ou Périphérisation Accrue? Institute Orléonais de France, Faculté de Droit, d'Economie et de Gestion, OrléansGoogle Scholar
  14. Winnick, L (1961) Place prosperity vs. people prosperity: welfare considerations in the geographical redistribution of economic activity. In: Essys in Urban and Land Economics, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Porto
    • 1
  1. 1.European Studies Course, Faculty of LawUniversity of CoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations