1. Is Territorial Cohesion Making
Cohesion?
EU Territorial Development Policy, Evaluation,
and the Multiscalarity Issue in Palermo
Simone Tulumello and Sara Verones
SP03. Cohesion Policy

2. 0. Introduction
WHAT IS TERRITORIAL COHESION (TC)?
[Territorial Cohesion is] about enabling citizens and enterprises,
wherever they happen to live or operate, to benefit from and
contribute to European integration and the functioning of the Single
Market and, with respect to sustainability, to make the most of the
territorial capital of places (Faludi, Peyrony, 2011, 5).
TC is about EU (economic) development.
TC is a matter of scale:
• it entails the rescaling of competences between the EU and the
member states (Brenner, 1999);
• it is pursued mainly through communitarian policies operating at
the regional level;
• it concerns the development of the urban territories;
• it fosters competition between regions to enhance the competition
of the EU.

3. 0. Introduction
TC, OBJECTIVE 1, AND THE EU CRISIS

4. 0. Introduction
TC AND THE ACADEMIA
The “transversal” analyses – TC in general, (re)scaling, evaluation
of TC and evaluation within TC, programmes, instruments – and the
end of the 2000-2006 programming period:
• Town Planning Review 76[1], 2005
• Regional Studies 40[2], 2006
• Doucet (2006)
• Faludi (2006a; 2006b; 2007a; 2007b)
The lack of “longitudinal/localized” studies:
• Mateus (2013)

5. 0. Introduction
STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Theoretical understandings of TC.
2. EU programmes for sustainable urban development in Palermo,
Sicily.
3. Understanding the development of the Italian Mezzogiorno: from
“failure” to “timing”.
4. The “relevance” of the case: local/European; theoretical insights.
5. Concluding remarks

6. 1. Understandings of TC
THE INSTITUTIONAL VIEWPOINT
EU cohesion policy – and territorial cohesion policy – has to square
the circle of pursuing Europe's competitiveness while at the same
time compensating peripheral areas (Faludi, 2006b, 3).
The significance of TC lies in its capacity to be between economic
and social cohesion, and to strengthen both (CEC, 2004).
Good governance and an effective institutional structure are an
important source of regional competitiveness through facilitating
cooperation between the various parties involved in both the public
and private sectors (CEC, 2004, 58).

7. 1. Understandings of TC
TC AS AN “UMBRELLA CONCEPT”
TC = COHESION + DEVELOPMENT.
TC = COHESION + COMPETITIVENESS.
But competitiveness and balanced development are not always
easy to reconcile (Faludi 2007b).
The ideals of sustainability, polycentric and balanced development,
subsidiarity and competitiveness can result abstract and invoked in
rhetoric and discursive struggles (Faludi, 2007b).
Is TC more adequate to achieve cooperation or competition (Doucet,
2006)?

8. 1. Understandings of TC
MULTI-SCALARITY ON FOUR RELATIONSHIPS
1. UE / Member States: rescaling of competences (Brenner, 1999;
Governa, 2012; Zanon, 2013);
2. UE / Regions: the latter being the territorial unit elected for most
of evaluation and funding allocation actions (i.e. NUTS II
regionalisation of Ob.1, Ob.2, and Ob.3 areas; EDSP territorial
agenda);
3. UE / Cities: understanding of cities as crucial for UE
development (Urban Pilot Projects, the Smart City model, …);
4. Region / Region: competitiveness/cohesion duality (Governa,
2012, Governa, Saccomani, 2004).

9. 1. Understandings of TC
THE MATTER OF EVALUATION
A growing concern for evaluation and monitoring.
Decentralization to the Member State level (2000-2006).
Debate on evaluation:
• methodologies currently employed (accountability and
legitimacy; improving quality and performance; improving
planning) vs those not used but yet suitable (building capacity;
local learning) (Batterbury, 2006);
• cost-benefit analysis (Florio, 2006);
• analysis of job creation (Martin, Tyler, 2006);
• macro-models (Bradley, 2006).

10. 2. EU policies in Palermo
EU PROGRAMMES FOR URBAN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN PALERMO
Palermo is the administrative capital of the region Sicily, since 1989
an Ob.1 area.
Sicily received:
• 8,5 billion € in 2000-2006;
• 10,5 billion € in 2007-2013.
Three programmes for urban sustainable development in Palermo:
• Urban I Initiative (1994-1999).
• PIT (integrated territorial project) “Palermo Capitale dell’Euro-
mediterraneo”, included into the POR (Sicily regional operational
programme) 2000-2006.
• PISU (integrated programme for urban development) “Palermo
Capitale”, included into the PO-FESR (Sicily ERDF operational
programme) 2007-2013.

11. 2. EU policies in Palermo
EU Programmes for Sustainable Urban Development in Palermo (1994-2013)
EU/Regional
programme
PIC-Urban I (1994-1999) Asse 5 (Objective 5) of POR
(2000-2006)
Asse 6 (Objective 6) of PO-
FESR 2007-2013.
Total
expenditure
95% (Italy) (Padovani, 2002b) ? 20% (PO-FESR, Sicily, 31
December 2012)
Programme in
Palermo
Urban Palermo PIT Palermo Capitale
dell’Euro-mediterraneo
PISU Palermo Capitale
Measures Launching new economic
activities; ensuring
employment; improvement of
public social services;
environment and
infrastructures
Pole for the Euro-Mediterranean
culture; technological innovation
and internationalization for
entrepreneurial/productive
system; improvement of the
touristic system; human capital
and knowledge
Funded operations: public
social services; updating of
municipal GIS; municipal
services on-line portal;
requalification of a school
Funded (total) 22 million € 172 million € 12.5 millions € (operations
approved, December 2012)

12. 2. EU policies in Palermo
EU Programmes for Sustainable Urban Development in Palermo (1994-2013)
Urban Palermo PIT Palermo Capitale
dell’Euro-mediterraneo
PISU Palermo Capitale
Evaluation
object for
funding
allocation
Whole programme Whole programme Whole programme and single
operation
Evaluation
body for
funding
allocation
European Commission Department of Planning of the
Region Sicily
Departments of Region Sicily
(depending on the single
operation)
Funding
allocation
Whole programme Whole programme Single operation

13. 2. EU policies in Palermo
EU Programmes for Sustainable Urban Development in Palermo (1994-2013)
Urban Palermo PIT Palermo Capitale
dell’Euro-mediterraneo
PISU Palermo Capitale
Coordination National government (Office of
the Prime Minister, Ministry of
Public Works)
Department of Planning of the
Region Sicily
Department of Planning of the
Region Sicily
Funding
management
body
Municipality of Palermo Department of Planning of the
Region Sicily
Departments of Region Sicily
(depending on the single
funded operation)
Programme
planning body
Municipality of Palermo Municipality of Palermo Coalizione territoriale (PIST) /
Municipality of Palermo (PISU)
Execution body Municipality of Palermo Municipality of Palermo Municipality of Palermo

14. 2. EU policies in Palermo
EU Programmes for Sustainable Urban Development in Palermo (1994-2013)
Urban Palermo PIT Palermo Capitale
dell’Euro-mediterraneo
PISU Palermo Capitale
+
Regeneration of the physical
environment.
Socio-economic and social
capital impacts.
Institutional impacts.
Innovation on city strategies.
Some spatial regeneration
projects completed.
Innovative programme both at
the regional and urban level.
-
In the long term, vanishment of
the impacts in terms of
institutional innovation and
competences acquired.
Failed integration with current
policies.
Failure of actions supporting
innovation and development for
the economic local system.
Failed timing of the POR and
over-charging of actions in the
last period.
In-course revocation of funding.
Less transparent expenditure
procedures.
Use of structural funds for
ordinary expenditure.
Too complex procedures.
Accumulation of delays on the
bureaucratic passages .
Less transparent procedures.
Necessary extension of the
programming period.
Funding revocations expected.
Failed respect of regional
deadlines.

15. 3. The development in Sicily
THE RHETORIC VERSUS THE “TIMING”
Banfield, Putnam and the “impossible” development of the Italian
Mezzogiorno.
The “timing” of development:
• 1960s-1980s: “development without autonomy” (Trigilia, 1994);
• 1990s: “the autonomous development” (Tulumello, 2008;
Foderà, Tulumello, 2011);
• Between 1990s and the 2000-2006 programming period: the
critical phase (Ismeri Europa, 2002);
• 2000s: the backward steps (Trigilia, 2012; Foderà, Tulumello,
2011).

16. 3. The development in Sicily
SICILY DEVELOPMENT AND EU FUNDS
EVOLUTION/INVOLUTION
• 2000-2006 / 2007-2013: the use of EU funds for development as
replacement of ordinary expenditure.
• From competition at the EU level (1990s) to regional distribution
of funds – not to “discontent” anybody.
• Growing complexity of procedures vs the dilution of the
learning processes.
• Management and planning: from EU / cities to regions /
territories.
• The growing rigidity of programmes which does not consider
local specificities..

17. 4. The “relevance” of the case
IS THE FAILED DEVELOPMENT OF PALERMO/SICILY A
LOCAL/NATIONAL/SOUTHERN EUROPEAN/EUROPEAN
ISSUE?
EU funds as means of “survival”.
Questioning the capacity itself of TC to pursue its objective.
The coincidence of “timing” between local development and EU
funds phases.
The delegation of compentences and the lack of long-term
negotiation processes EU / Regions.
The lack of regional strategies versus the design of operational
programmes.

18. 4. The “relevance” of the case
WHICH LESSONS FOR TC?
1. Timing: questioning 7 year cycles for urban and territorial
development policies.
2. Evaluation:
• progresses in expenditure monitoring
versus
• the elimination of mid-term evaluation;
• the lacking focus on “expected resuluts”.
3. Multi-scalarity:
• the abandoning of the successful EC / cities relationships;
• the need for questioning EC / region;
• from competitive basis to territorial distribution of funding.

19. 5. Conclusions
The commonalities between Southern European urban
territories (Seixas, Albet, 2012).
Southern Europe as a proper scale in order to debate the future
European policies.
Facing the “common problems” instead than relying in the
regional distribution of funds.
The need for more nuanced theories: timing, evaluation, multi-
scalarity.

20. 5. Conclusions
A more genuine feedback process between the bottom and top
levels of the government structure [that] should allow the true
objectives of policy choices to emerge more clearly (Barca,
2006, 276).
Towards 2014-2010: the first UE balance with a minor financial
provision in respect to its previous
Fewer resources for TC will make harder the “making” of
cohesion.
Barca “reloaded”.

21. 5. Conclusions
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Mail: simone.tulumello@gmail.com
Mobile: (+351) 961379236