The successful implementation of European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy funds hinges not only on sound programme management, but also on the capacity of beneficiaries – those who apply for and implement projects funded by the European Union. Yet what does “beneficiary capacity” truly mean? This chapter explores the diversity of Cohesion Policy beneficiaries, and the range of skills and resources they need to navigate the Cohesion Policy funding process. It then explores the core barriers they face in effective use of EU funds, including institutional limitations and the complexity of Cohesion Policy project design and delivery. The chapter closes with a call for a refined approach to addressing beneficiary capacity gaps: one that is targeted, systemic and beneficiary-centric.
Building Beneficiary Capacity under EU Cohesion Policy
Abstract
The significant diversity among Cohesion Policy programmes and beneficiaries reveals a strong need for differentiated approaches to understanding and supporting beneficiaries.
The European Union’s (EU) Cohesion Policy covers a breadth of investment themes and operates in a multi-layered system which introduces diversity and complexity to its implementation. Between 2021 and 2027, the EU Cohesion Policy plans to invest over EUR 500 billion – comprised of nearly EUR 400 billion in EU funds and the balance from national co-financing. This is invested across 58 specific objectives through nearly 200 measures,1 ranging from research and innovation, energy efficiency and sustainable transport to education, inclusive labour market and urban development. These investments aim to make Europe smarter, greener, more connected, socially inclusive and closer to citizens. This ambition is channelled through different strategies (“Partnership Agreements”) and programmes developed by EU Member States and adopted by the European Commission.
The programmes developed by EU Member States serve as the organisational basis on which regional, national and transnational managing authorities implement Cohesion Policy. Managing authorities design their programmes by identifying a set of specific objectives and adopting a range of investment measures to support each specific objective. They then manage and implement the programmes by selecting projects under each investment measure, and distribute the funds in compliance with EU and domestic regulations and budget frameworks. In the 2021-27 programming period, a total of 380 Cohesion Policy programmes are operating across the European Union2 – 103 managed at the national level, 191 at the regional level3 and 86 multi-country programmes (Interreg) (European Commission, 2025[1]).
These programmes all differ in investment volumes, portfolios and approaches. Regional programmes with relatively smaller envelopes (EUR 1 billion on average) often target many objectives (13 per programme on average) and invest in a small range of measures (5 on average) under each objective. By contrast, national programmes invest larger amounts (EUR 1.8 billion on average), applied to fewer objectives (7 on average) through a wider range of measures (12 on average) to support each objective. A quarter of national programmes only have one objective, arguably rendering national programmes more concentrated and targeted. When pursuing a given objective, national programme investments can be more integrated and comprehensive.4 For example, to enhance access to employment, a national programme may invest in female labour-market participation, business start-ups, digital skills, labour mobility, social economy, youth employment, and so forth. Meanwhile, Interreg programmes are smaller and more concentrated – most Interreg programmes have budgets below EUR 600 million and pursue no more than 10 objectives (European Commission, 2025[1]). Figure 1.1 shows the variations across programmes in terms of planned investment amounts and number of specific objectives.
Many factors underpin the different investment portfolios and approaches adopted by national, regional and Interreg programmes. They include resource levels; the more specific territorial needs compared to nationwide needs; and the scope of investment responsibilities at the regional, national and transnational levels. For example, in some EU Member States, regional programmes focus on a narrower set of measures because many investment areas are addressed through national thematic programmes. In contrast, in countries with no or only limited national thematic programmes, regional programmes may cover a broader range of investment measures. In particular, the high integration of investment measures within national programmes could be driven by the Just Transition programmes, which are designed to use a wide range of measures to advance one objective – a just transition. The Just Transition programmes in Czechia, Greece, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain, for example, invest in over 50 measures to advance their objectives.
Note: N=380. To zoom in on the scales and show the granularity of data, this graph excluded two outliers: the Polish national programme European Funds for Infrastructure, Climate, Environment 2021-2027, with EUR 29 billion and 13 specific objectives (the highest in terms of planned investment amount), and the national Programme Slovakia 2021-2027, with EUR 16 billion and 37 specific objectives (the highest in terms of number of specific objectives).
Source: OECD calculation based on (European Commission, 2025[1]), data extracted on 7 May 2025. Financial allocations in the adopted programmes (i.e. transfers between themes and between funds) may change during the programming period.
Depending on the investment portfolios, the way in which each programme is managed, the set-up behind the programme’s implementation system and the capacities required for programme implementation also vary across programmes, regions and EU Member States. For example, a highly integrated national programme may require the managing authority to establish strong co-ordination mechanisms to manage a large set of investment measures targeting the same objective. A regional programme that pursues many objectives may call for the managing authority to have a wide range of thematic expertise to appraise projects – or the managing authority needs to designate intermediate bodies (e.g. sectoral departments or public agencies) to do so. The same applies to fund beneficiaries who ultimately receive funds and implement projects. For example, beneficiaries that implement large, complex infrastructure projects under a national programme need financial and legal expertise. Beneficiaries under an Interreg programme need to deliver collaborative projects with multiple partners across countries and sectors, requiring significant networking and partnership-building capacities.
Cohesion Policy beneficiaries are also highly heterogeneous. According to the European Commission’s Kohesio database, over 640 000 beneficiaries have implemented more than 1.8 million projects across the European Union since 2014 (European Commission, 2025[2]). Almost all types of entities – public institutions at all levels, public companies and private firms, civil society organisations (CSOs), clusters, research institutions, associations, European groupings of territorial cooperation – can apply for Cohesion Policy programmes. Whether they can become beneficiaries and receive funds depends on each programme’s focus and the eligibility criteria of specific calls for proposals or investment measures. For example, a national programme on infrastructure investments tends to target ministries and public agencies, while a regional programme covering multiple investment topics can have municipalities, small- and medium-enterprises (SMEs), CSOs and universities as beneficiaries. The nature of interactions between beneficiaries and managing authorities also varies. Technical assistance projects supporting public administrative capacity or strategic infrastructure investment undertaken by line ministries or regional authorities, for instance, are more likely to receive funds through direct award procedures, whereas revitalisation projects carried out by local governments or social innovation projects run by SMEs often go through an open-call process (European Commission, 2023[3]). Another example is that public beneficiaries are subject to public procurement procedures, while private beneficiaries ones may face state-aid rules.
The significant diversity among programmes and beneficiaries reveals the strong need for differentiated approaches to understanding and supporting beneficiaries. Failing to differentiate among beneficiary groups may lead to a one-size-fits-all support approach to capacity building that overlooks potential bottlenecks, which may differ according to the programme or beneficiary group. The question is how to adopt tailored and effective approaches to beneficiary capacity building. To answer the question, the European Commission launched the pilot project “Supporting managing authorities to build the capacity of Cohesion Policy funds beneficiaries”, on which this report is based. It aims to shed light on who Cohesion Policy beneficiaries are, what capacity needs they face, and what managing authorities can do to provide better support. This report presents the findings from this pilot project, supported by other studies and evidence (Box 1.1).
In 2024, the European Commission launched a pilot project with six managing authorities to explore how they can develop measures to better support their beneficiaries, define what a long-term managing authority-beneficiary partnership can look like and advance the agenda of good governance for Cohesion Policy. The OECD provided technical support for the project at the request of the European Commission. The project included online beneficiary surveys to understand their capacity needs, focus-group meetings with managing authorities and beneficiaries, multi-stakeholder workshops for each pilot programme and peer-to-peer workshops for the pilot managing authorities to exchange with each other. The project resulted in tailored action plans for each pilot managing authority, along with this synthesis report and the Managing Authority Toolkit for Beneficiary Capacity Building under EU Cohesion Policy1 (OECD, 2025[4]) to help managing authorities across the European Union better build beneficiary capacity. The project methodology and activities are detailed in Annex A.
Beneficiary surveys
With OECD support, the six pilot managing authorities launched standardised online surveys among their respective and potential beneficiaries featuring some questions tailored to each programme. A total of 1 058 responses were collected across the six programmes. The survey results served as important inputs to the action plans and this synthesis report. Detailed information on the survey methodology and results is available in Annex 1.A.
Note: The six managing authorities are the Managing Authority of Corsica ERDF-ESF+ Regional Programme in France; Managing Authority of Emilia-Romagna ERDF Regional Programme in Italy; Managing Authority of Programme Technical Assistance for European Funds in Poland; Managing Authority of Programme Sustentável 2030 in Portugal; Managing Authority of North-East Regional Programme in Romania; and Managing Authority/Joint Secretariat of Danube Region Programme.
Beneficiary capacity encompasses a suite of strategic, technical, administrative and financial abilities to invest Cohesion Policy funds.
The successful implementation and ultimate impact of EU Cohesion Policy investments hinge on the capacities of beneficiaries. For managing authorities and policy makers wishing to enhance Cohesion Policy implementation through beneficiary capacity building, a clear understanding of “beneficiary capacity” is fundamental.
Beneficiary capacity refers to the strategic, technical, administrative and financial abilities of the beneficiary entity to effectively design and deliver high-quality projects under Cohesion Policy programmes and, crucially, to achieve the expected investment outcomes. Strategic capacity enables beneficiaries to identify impactful project ideas, align projects with changing policy priorities, navigate trade-offs between short-term and long-term needs, manage risks and changes in implementation, and deliver projects that can have a real impact. Technical capacity includes practical skills needed to turn these plans into action – it helps beneficiaries prepare strong applications, follow the necessary rules and show the results of their projects. In this report, unless otherwise specified, “beneficiaries” refers to both potential beneficiaries – actors that could possibly apply to Cohesion Policy programmes – and actual beneficiaries, already formally selected to receive funds.
Navigating Cohesion Policy programmes, from identifying funding opportunities to reporting on project results, requires beneficiaries to deploy a broad spectrum of capacities, from the skills to perform specific tasks to capabilities in different disciplines (Table 1.1). While some tasks and capacity needs are inherent to general organisational development and management (e.g. maintaining sufficient human resources; understanding internal needs; and managing project implementation risks, budgets and timelines), many are unique to the characteristics and procedural demands of Cohesion Policy. For example, beneficiaries must be able to understand the specific goals, logic and regulations of Cohesion Policy funds. Furthermore, as Cohesion Policy fundamentally supports regional development, beneficiaries also need to understand the specific context of their region, territory or sector within their territory, so that they can design projects that strategically serve programme policy goals.
Note: The actual tasks vary according to the project and programme.
Building beneficiary capacity is fundamental to optimising Cohesion Policy investment outcomes. In addition to the administrative and financial capacity to navigate rules and finance projects, cultivating the strategic and technical capacity of beneficiaries in project development is equally important. Without these capacities, projects may meet all formal requirements but fall short of delivering transformative change, leading to a tendency for “form-over-substance” compliance. For instance, implementing investments for a green transition requires that regional and local actors understand evolving trends in green transition, explore advanced technologies and innovative initiatives, learn effective ways to measure project results and outcomes, and build strong partnerships with other territorial and sectoral actors for longer-term collaboration. Participation in Cohesion Policy programmes should ideally serve as a learning-by-doing experience for beneficiaries to acquire and deepen these capacities. This experience can transform beneficiaries into capable agents of regional development, enabling them to contribute to Cohesion Policy objectives far beyond the scope and lifespan of their individual projects.
Cohesion Policy beneficiaries – especially regional and local public administrations – are facing a turbulent period. With the proposed modernisation of Cohesion Policy, including a probable streamlining of programmes and the certain transition to new priorities (Box 1.2), public authorities at all levels of government – including public beneficiaries and managing authorities – must be ready to tackle the new demands to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public funding and investment. This also means they need a new set of skills and competencies in public investment and service delivery, including co-ordinated management of multiple transitions (e.g. green, digital, industrial and demographic) and emerging priorities (e.g. security, competitiveness); risk-taking in public procurement to deploy innovative technologies and transformative solutions with uncertain outcomes; upgraded governance models to manage trade-offs across different investment priorities; and foresight in strategic planning that relies on data and participatory methods. Building capacity to address the challenging context will be difficult for all regions, but some – such as those without a robust governance model, solid administrative capacity or health investment ecosystems to start with – will face more challenges (Hunter, 2025[5]).
In April 2025, the European Commission proposed targeted amendments to the regulatory framework for Cohesion Policy funds – the aim being to better align investments with EU strategic priorities emerging from the evolving economic, societal and geopolitical context, as well as climate and environment objectives. The mid-term review is an opportunity for managing authorities to incorporate the strategic priorities to their 2021-27 programmes. These strategic priorities include:
1. strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and closing the innovation gap by offering large enterprises support in critical areas, such as defence, strategic technologies and decarbonisation
2. backing the defence and security industry and Eastern border regions by building resilient infrastructure to facilitate military mobility and supporting the productive capacities of small and large enterprises in the defence sector
3. increasing affordable housing by addressing the housing investment gap and doubling the amount of Cohesion Policy funding dedicated to affordable housing
4. enhancing water resilience by investing in the digitisation of water infrastructure and reducing the impact of droughts and desertification, etc.
5. supporting the energy transition by promoting energy interconnectors (i.e. land and subsea cables that connect the electricity systems of neighbouring countries) and setting up a recharging infrastructure.
Institutional capacity constraints and administrative complexities are leading barriers for beneficiaries.
Cohesion Policy beneficiaries are at the frontline of investing in projects that drive regional development. Their capacity to apply for, implement and report on EU-funded projects is a large determinant of successful policy delivery. Many beneficiary organisations are well-capacitated – particularly the larger or more resourced ones – possessing the human capital, expertise, and skills needed to implement investment projects. Those with experience gained by participating in past programming periods have also progressively strengthened their capacities. Yet many still face challenges. These challenges can range from internal limitations on technical or planning capacity to external obstacles, such as administrative complexity derived from EU, and national rules and regulations related to Cohesion Policy and public investment processes. These challenges are often underexplored and insufficiently addressed by current support mechanisms. Unpacking them, and using them to understand what support is needed, is an essential first step in building beneficiary capacity in Cohesion Policy implementation.
This section presents findings from the surveys disseminated by the six pilot managing authorities (Box 1.1). The results highlight beneficiary profiles and capacity needs, drawing high-level implications for beneficiary capacity building. Given the significant diversity of programmes and beneficiaries, the results in this chapter are not intended for broad generalisation. Instead, they offer insights into potential beneficiary capacity gaps and methods for their analysis. Further research and analysis are encouraged to build a more complete picture of this complex topic.
Institutional capacity constraints exist, especially the lack of thematic expertise
Survey results reveal a significant perceived lack of thematic expertise among beneficiaries – a problem most acute among subnational public entities (Figure 1.2). “Thematic expertise” refers to in-depth knowledge of Cohesion Policy investment topics, such as social innovation, circular economy and energy efficiency. This expertise enables beneficiaries to design projects that are not only eligible, but also strategically aligned with programme objectives and emerging policy priorities. Only 16% of subnational public beneficiaries reported having sufficient thematic expertise – a stark contrast to 44% of national public beneficiaries and 38% of non-public beneficiaries (e.g. SMEs, CSOs, universities). This finding underscores the need to boost thematic expertise on EU investment topics (e.g. through targeted training and initiatives to attract relevant experts) – especially among subnational public authorities, where the deficit is most pronounced. Further analysis is needed to identify what types of subnational public authorities (e.g., small municipalities, rural authorities, those in transition regions) lack essential expertise, the category of expertise (e.g., energy efficiency, technological innovation) missing, and why (e.g. lack resources or difficulty attracting talent). This will facilitate designing more targeted interventions.
The need for thematic expertise is poised to become even more critical as Cohesion Policy targets new investment priorities, including competitiveness, defence and security, housing and water resilience (European Commission, 2025[7]) (Box 1.2). Successfully navigating these emerging fields requires beneficiaries to possess or access up-to-date knowledge. Recent evidence from the European Investment Bank survey (2025[8]) also illustrates the strong need for thematic expertise among municipalities: although a majority of the surveyed municipalities plan to boost investment in climate measures and social infrastructure significantly over the next three years, 30% consider access to environmental and climate assessment experts a major obstacle. Robust capacity assessments and targeted measures to equip beneficiaries with the necessary expertise are essential for effective Cohesion Policy investment delivery.
% of survey beneficiaries who reported having the following experts/resources in their organisations to design and implement EU-funded projects
Note: Total respondents=1 058. National public (88). Subnational public (555). Non-public (private, CSO, universities, etc.) (415).
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
According to the surveys, 90% of subnational public beneficiaries are equipped with a dedicated team or officer to manage EU projects. However, they report the lowest capacity across nearly all other institutional capacity dimensions when compared to national public and non-public counterparts (Figure 1.2). These interconnected institutional capacity gaps could significantly limit their responsiveness to regional needs and effective leveraging of EU funds. According to the estimation model (Annex 1.A), beneficiaries who reported a lack of technical expertise (e.g. financial management, public procurement, data analysis) were more likely to perceive EU project implementation as challenging. The link between this gap and implementation challenges points to the need to further support beneficiaries’ technical capacity. This underlying weakness in financial and human resources potentially stems from structural factors like restricted fiscal autonomy, or difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled staff (OECD, 2024[9]).
Addressing the institutional deficits of subnational public beneficiaries through targeted policy interventions is therefore critical. Such interventions could include investing in subnational fiscal capacity, as well as encouraging continuous training, upskilling programmes and experience sharing in investment topics related to Cohesion Policy (OECD, 2023[10]). Reinforcing the expertise of public officials and institutions invovled in public investment at the subnational level is one of the principles in the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government (OECD, 2014[11]). Additionally, addressing these institutional capacity gaps requires incremental and long-term efforts, with commitment from all levels of government and the public-sector workforce to continually developing skills (OECD, 2023[10]). The 1 000 Experts programme, launched by the Italian national government to close capacity gaps in local administrations and enhance their ability to manage complex projects, provides an example (Box 1.3).
Launched by the national government in 2021, Italy’s 1 000 Experts Programme assisted local administrations in implementing projects related to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan and EU structural funds. A taskforce of 1 000 experts – including engineers, architects, lawyers and environmental consultants – temporarily joined regional and municipal administrations to assist them in streamlining bureaucracy, securing permits and efficiently utilising EU funds for essential infrastructure projects like railways, green technology and childcare facilities. The professionals selected in December 2021 were distributed among all the Italian regions. In August 2022, additional resources were allocated to the initiative, and the taskforce expanded to over 1 200 experts.
In Sardinia, this initiative received a financial allocation of approximately EUR 13 million and featured a specialised taskforce of 37 thematic experts, who worked closely with regional and local stakeholders to reduce backlogs and streamline critical procedures identified by the regional administration and local entities. The latest monitoring data available show the programme has been effective in reducing procedure completion times and backlogs.
In Umbria, the programme initially recruited 22 external experts to support regional and local public authorities in managing complex procedures and reducing backlogs. In 2024, the regional taskforce was expanded to 30 members, with a budget of EUR 8 million. The taskforce included specialists addressing major local backlogs, for example in municipal construction permits. The programme’s monitoring and evaluation report, published in the first half of 2024, found tangible results, including shorter processing times for 18 complex procedures.
Compared to public entities, non-public beneficiaries may face more administrative challenges in navigating the Cohesion Policy fund system. Less than half of the surveyed non-public beneficiaries reported having a dedicated team or officer to manage EU-funded projects, a share significantly lower than their national (76%) and subnational public counterparts (90%) (Figure 1.2). The absence of a dedicated administrative resource may be related to a beneficiary organisation’s size, funding structure or engagement with the managing authority: those without a dedicated team often are small institutions, apply for funds from only one Cohesion Policy programme, and many report limited interaction with managing authorities (Annex 1.A). Providing adequate administrative support, such as simplified processes and user-friendly guidelines, can help such non-public entities navigate more easily the process of accessing EU funds and project implementation. In addition, more active engagement, and exposing non-public entities (and/or those entities without dedicated teams) to a broader range of programmes, could encourage them to develop the internal administrative capacity necessary for more successful and sustained participation in Cohesion Policy.
Facing various institutional capacity constraints, many beneficiaries (72% of those surveyed) report turning to external consultants for support.5 Survey results also show that external consultancy is most sought for drafting applications and preparing projects. While engaging consultants can offer a crucial short-term solution by filling immediate knowledge or resource gaps, a primary concern is the risk of substituting for beneficiaries' own capacity, rather than effectively helping them build it. Furthermore, beneficiaries who lack the networks or financial resources to access and afford qualified consultants are disadvantaged in competing for and accessing Cohesion Policy funds. This can generate inequities in the system and a distortive or even regressive impact of programmes, which runs counter to Cohesion Policy objectives.
Additional research on beneficiaries’ use of consultants could yield more insights into ways to guide a more strategic use of services offered by consultants. According to the estimation model (Annex 1.A), beneficiaries who report using consultants are more likely to find project implementation challenging than those who report no such use, even though most surveyed beneficiaries use consultants for application and preparation rather than implementation. This dynamic can be interpreted in several ways. First, beneficiaries may hire consultants to navigate the application process but then rely on in-house teams for implementation – even if they encounter difficulties – because implementation involves more of the organisation’s “core business” activities (e.g. engaging with project partners, procuring technologies and goods). Beneficiaries may still use consultants for project application even when they do not find the process particularly challenging. A second interpretation is that the project designed by consultants may not align with the beneficiary’s reality (capacities, resources, strategic interest), making it difficult for the beneficiary to implement. Finally, when beneficiaries use consultants only for project applications, they tend to be less involved in the design details, weakening beneficiaries’ ownership and making them more prone to struggle during the subsequent implementation phase. A deeper understanding of why and how beneficiaries use consultants could provide valuable insights into ways to overcome their capacity gaps.
These findings highlight the pressing need to address persistent institutional capacity gaps among beneficiaries, for example through inclusive and direct support mechanisms (e.g. simplified templates, guidance documents and coaching), especially at the early stage of project development. This will prevent reliance on external (potentially inequitable) market solutions from becoming the norm. Additionally, there exists a potential need to guide beneficiaries in working strategically with consultants, so that they can manage immediate capacity gaps while building in-house knowledge over time.
Beneficiaries face multiple challenges in project design and delivery
Navigating the Cohesion Policy fund system – from application, through implementation, to reporting – appears to be most challenging for non-public entities, such as SMEs and CSOs (Figure 1.3). On the one hand, the Cohesion Policy funding process involves many tasks requiring significant administrative capacities (Table 1.1). On the other hand, many non-public beneficiaries – often small in size – lack dedicated administrative resources (Figure 1.2) and institutional familiarity with EU procedures to manage those tasks. Without suffiicent qualified staff, these entities are more likely to avoid applying for EU funds owing to their fear of potential administrative burdens (Hansum, 2025[15]). The risk is forgoing potentially valuable and impactful projects by these non-public actors. Addressing this issue calls for tailored, accessible administrative support specifically adapted to the operational realities of non-public organisations. At the same time, simplifying administrative requirements per se is necessary to change beneficiary perceptions of EU funds. Even in a region with high administrative capacities, high administrative burden remains a large factor behind the non-demand of EU funds (Hansum, 2025[15]). As Cohesion Policy increasingly targets SME competitiveness and innovation, it is essential to simplify processes – especially related to funding applications for such non-public entities (e.g. small in size, with limited experience with Cohesion Policy) – based on user experience at the programme, national and EU levels.
Conversely – and somewhat counter-intuitively – few subnational public entities find it challenging to access and use EU Cohesion Policy funds, despite confronting significant institutional constraints (Figure 1.3). This could owe to their familiarity with public procedures, experience with bureaucracy or established institutional memory among those with a dedicated team for EU funds (Figure 1.2), unlike less-experienced non-public entities. The lower perception of difficulty by subnational public beneficiaries could have two implications. First, while they too have capacity needs, universal administrative simplification alone may not address their challenges – measures to address deeper structural constraints or thematic needs, rather than basic procedural guidance, are required. Second, it could confirm the high demand for administrative and bureaucratic capacity in Cohesion Policy implementation. Moreover, empirical analysis underscores the value of specialised technical skills (e.g. financial management, data analysis) in reporting and evaluating EU-funded projects among surveyed beneficiaries (Annex 1.A). Investing in strengthening technical capacities related to data management, reporting, monitoring and evaluation could alleviate the burden associated with reporting.
% of surveyed beneficiaries indicating Cohesion Policy programme application, project implementation and reporting as “very challenging” or “challenging”
Note: Total respondents= 1 058. National public (88). Subnational public (555). Non-public (private, CSO, universities, etc.) (415).
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
Empirical analysis estimates that beneficiaries under regional programmes are more likely to consider investing Cohesion Policy funds challenging compared to those under national programmes. This finding is complemented by empirical research findings that national programmes with larger projects have lower error rates6 (Foglia, Molica and Santos, 2025[16]). The more complex the programme(s) (e.g. in terms of number of priorities, multi-fund focus), the higher the risk of irregularities, and the more difficult it is for programme authorities to detect them. The perceived higher challenges among beneficiaries of regional programmes could be associated with the programmes’ characteristics. First, some regional programmes channel relatively modest resources through a limited set of measures to advance diverse objectives (Figure 1.1). This demands that regional managing authorities and their beneficiaries possess strategic and technical capacities to prioritise, articulate and deliver a portfolio of high-impact projects that can advance multiple policy goals. Second, regional programmes often work with smaller beneficiaries with more limited institutional capacity (Figure 1.1). Other characteristics may also influence perceived challenges, such as the programme’s total investment amount, the average number of calls, the investment areas covered and the size of the beneficiary organisation. Future research could explore these factors to better understand how they contribute to beneficiaries’ perceived challenges or actual implementation difficulties.
In sum, the findings from survey results and other analyses call for several actions:
1. tailored approaches to beneficiary support, recognising the unique contexts and beneficiary profiles served by each programme, such as support focused on thematic and technical capacity for subnational public entities and administrative support for non-public ones
2. stronger attention to building the capacity of regional programme beneficiaries and managing authorities, including through dedicated mechanisms to build their strategic and technical capacity in project design and selection
3. making access to and use of Cohesion Policy funds more user-friendly by reducing the complexity that contributes to difficulties facing beneficiaries, especially by simplifying the administrative burden linked to fund application for non-public entities and encouraging their participation.
Applying for funds: Beneficiaries find it difficult to understand calls and conduct pre-project analysis
Zooming in on the fund application process, the top two challenges identified by surveyed beneficiaries are understanding call criteria and indicators, and conducting pre-project analyses (e.g. feasibility studies, cost-benefit analysis) (Figure 1.4). These findings signal substantial gaps in beneficiaries’ capacity to interpret intricate requirements and produce rigorous analyses for project proposals, likely associated with insufficient specialised knowledge. The findings presented earlier also show that project preparation is the most outsourced activity by beneficiaries. While outsourcing may sometimes be essential to fill beneficiaries’ knowledge or resource gaps, beneficiaries risk relying excessively on external support to prepare projects rather than buidling in-house capacity. Addressing these issues requires capacity-building measures targeting calls and pre-project analysis. Such measures could include involving potential beneficiaries in call design; creating glossaries; providing practical examples to help understand indicators; and offering trainings and workshops to reinforce expertise in pre-project analysis.
These findings also hint at the need for simplifying selection criteria and making the calls more accessible to beneficiaries. A study by the European Commission that sampled 87 calls across 29 programmes in the 2014-20 programming period showed that the number of selection criteria per call generally ranged between 11-30, with the maximum being 68 (European Commission, 2023[3]). On average, around two-thirds of selection criteria were about eligibility, and the one-third about project quality and strategic priorities. Applicants needed to provide approximately 10 documents to prove their eligibility for a call. The study also found that the more selection criteria and the more documents and proof were required, the more confusing the criteria were (i.e. there was lower clarity in terms of how these criteria were defined and calculated). Calls with burdensome selection criteria are also characterised by a longer evalutaion process at the later stage – the number of days (13.5) necessary to evaluate a single application was almost twice that of calls with less burdensome criteria (6.9 days) (European Commission, 2023[3]). Nevertheless, it is important to note that defining selection criteria and drafting calls are only two steps in the broader project selection process. The process begins with preparing the investment measure based on needs analysis and market research, and continues through to communicating the award decision, handling complaints, and signing contracts. Effective simplification must address the entire process (European Commission, 2023[3]).
The pilot project’s survey results also showed that fulfilling administrative requirements within the stipulated timeframe is one of the top three challenges in the application stage. This is particularly acute among non-public beneficiaries. Public beneficiaries, on the other hand, identify one of their top challenges as designing projects that align effectively with relevant policy frameworks – or, for those at the subnational level, ensuring projects address regional/local needs while successfully aligning with higher-level policy objectives. This highlights a different, albeit equally critical, set of strategic capacity constraints among public bodies. The first relates to strategic planning and multi-level governance systems; the second relates to ensuring the proposed projects are not just technically sound, but also strategically coherent with the broader policy landscape. Therefore, addressing the complexities of the application stage requires a differentiated response. For non-public entities, it means focusing on simplifying application procedures and administrative requirements, and providing targeted support. For public entities, it means offering strategic guidance and capacity building to help them develop strategically relevant and policy-aligned investment projects.
% of survey respondents considering as top challenges in Cohesion Policy fund application
Note: N=1 058. Respondents were asked to select their top three challenges on the list.
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
Project implementation: Beneficiaries struggle to meet project milestones and keep up with regulatory changes
Beyond the application hurdles, the project implementation phase introduces a new set of operational and regulatory challenges for beneficiaries. Project management – such as meeting milestones and timelines – is identified as the primary difficulty by 41% of surveyed beneficiaries (Figure 1.5). Almost equally challenging (40% of surveyed beneficiaries) is keeping pace with evolving legislative and regulatory changes affecting EU funds. Effective project management requires robust operational planning, strategic resource allocation and proactive risk monitoring – capacities that many beneficiaries evidently struggle to build or maintain. The lack of these capacities does not just lead to minor administrative inconveniences. Rather, it can lead to fundamental operational and compliance bottlenecks, resulting in project delays, budget overruns and financial penalties, impeding the successful delivery of the intended investment results.
A much smaller share of the beneficiaries (29%) identify direct compliance with legislation as a top challenge, compared to the difficulty of keeping pace with regulatory changes (Figure 1.5). This suggests that frequently changing rules (and the associated uncertainty) may pose a significant challenge to project delivery – perhaps more so than the burden of complying with regulatory requirements alone. This points to the importance not only of reducing regulatory burden, but also enhancing the predictability and clarity of rules throughout the project lifecycle (OECD, 2020[17]). Helping beneficiaries better manage uncertainties, changes (both small adjustments and disruptive transformations), and mitigate the associated risks in their investments is even more critical in the current context of potential structural changes to Cohesion Policy. Specifically, this can be done through: 1) practical capacity building for project management and execution; and 2) continuous support throughout the project lifecycle to ensure all administrative, financial and regulatory requirements are met. Effective communication of changes, assistance with reporting and audit requirements, risk-management checks, and other practical tools can help beneficiaries adapt their projects to regulatory changes.
% of survey respondents considering as top challenges in Cohesion Policy fund implementation
Note: N= 1 058. Respondents were asked to select top three challenges among the list. MA: managing authority; IT: information technology.
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
National public beneficiaries find procurement practices particularly difficult, with almost one-third (32%) identifying it as a top challenge. This could be explained by the size of projects often implemented by national beneficiaries, which are larger and potentially more complex. Over 40% of surveyed beneficiaries with projects over EUR 1 million indicated procurement as a top challenge, compared to only 19% of beneficiaries with projects below EUR 1 million. This reinforces broader evidence that for both managing authorities and beneficiaries, ineffective procurement practices, coupled with unclear or frequently changing procurement laws and lengthy procedures, can hinder the efficient execution of projects, impeding the absorption of funds (Ciffolilli and Pompili, 2024[18]; OECD, 2020[17]). The specific difficulties with procurement, combined with the steep challenges in keeping up with legislative changes, call for greater clarity and reduced uncertainties in procurement legislation and processes (OECD, 2020[17]). Equally important is increasing technical assistance to navigate these processes effectively, especially for beneficiaries managing larger projects or with less procurement experience.
The need for beneficiary capacity building is substantial and complex, encompassing strategic, technical, administrative and financial abilities throughout the investment cycle (Table 1.1). It is also structural, manifested in the multi-faceted internal capacity gaps among beneficiaries and the recurring challenges associated with complex EU funding processes. However, the specific capacity needs of beneficiaries are highly different across programmes, organisational types and their level of experience working with Cohesion Policy funds. These needs also change: for any given programme, beneficiary capacity building needs evolve with changes in the beneficiary pool, shifting investment priorities, and the future implementation context of Cohesion Policy. Beneficiary capacity building therefore requires moving beyond addressing beneficiaries’ one-off, project-specific problems (e.g. clarifying the types of documents required in applications) to developing tailored, agile and future-proofed strategies that tackle underlying and persistent problems – from structural constraints for subnational governments, to the complexity of Cohesion Policy investment procedures targeting SMEs and CSOs. This effort is a long-term investment and can require refocusing beneficiary capacity-building efforts from assistance with administrative compliance, to promoting the strategic and technical skills needed to design and deliver truly innovative initiatives for regional development.
Designing effective capacity support is not a simple exercise. It demands a rigorous understanding of what lies behind the challenges and capacity constraints faced by beneficiaries, and how these shape each beneficiary group’s distinct challenges. A nuanced, tailored and flexible approach is fundamental: it helps ensure that beneficiary capacity-building measures tackle root causes and yield the expected outcomes over time. A set of recommendations emerges for enhancing beneficiary capacity:
1. Recognise and act upon the differentiated beneficiary capacity needs, providing tailored support that reflects the unique programme context, as well as the needs of various beneficiary groups: for non-public beneficiaries such as SMEs and CSOs, the priority is administrative support and simplified procedures (such as user-friendly guidance) tailored to their operational reality, making the system accessible and easy to navigate. For subnational public beneficiaries grappling with structural constraints (e.g. lack of co-financing resources, access to thematic expertise), support must target technical and investment management capacities, strategic alignment between projects and policy frameworks, and project planning by upgrading public administration workforce skills and encouraging experience sharing. For regional programme beneficiaries and the managing authorities, support can focus on strategic project design and selection to help them advance multiple policy objectives and optimise investment resources. For more integrated national programmes, beneficiaries and managing authorities may need to further build their co- ordination capacity for planning and project delivery.
2. Ensure that the Cohesion Policy system is “beneficiary friendly” and integrates enhanced, direct administrative support: administrative burden and procedural complexity are major barriers, disproportionately affecting beneficiaries with less ability to hire staff or access external support. They risk sidelining high-quality, impactful projects because their originators cannot overcome the hurdles to reach the selection stage. It is therefore crucial to simplify processes and administrative requirements based on user experience, and yield tangible benefits for beneficiaries. Direct, accessible administrative support mechanisms, such as templates and guidance with simpler language, along with early-stage coaching to understand calls and application processes, should be systematically integrated into the programme cycle. While external consultants can help, guiding beneficiaries to use consultants strategically – to build, not replace, in-house knowledge – is of utmost importance.
3. Use targeted interventions and agile communcation to help beneficiaries overcome operational and regulatory bottleneck, particularly during project implementation: managing projects, navigating regulatory changes, ensuring continuous compliance and executing complex procurement processes are all challenges that hinder beneficiary project delivery. Investing in beneficiary capacity building that focuses on practical execution skills – such as project planning methods and tools, risk anticipation and mitigation – as well as tools that help beneficiaries navigate changes (e.g. an up-to-date regulation information centre and real-time examples of project adaptation) could help address these issues. Ensuring greater regulatory stability, and providing beneficiaries with clear, timely communication of changes and practical adaptation tools, is also important. Finally, the persistent procurement bottleneck among public beneficiaries calls for targeted simplification, along with technical assistance for beneficiaries managing large projects or with less experience in these processes.
Between March and October 2024, the OECD and the six pilot managing authorities launched online surveys among the beneficiaries of the six pilot programmes to understand their capacity needs and preferred support. The OECD analysed the results, which served as inputs to the action plans for the managing authorities and this report. This annex first presents the respondent profiles (organisation type, job position, project size) and the results of a brief empirical analysis, which feed into the analysis in Chapters 1 of the report. Technical details regarding survey design, data compilation, and the strategy and methodology for the empirical analysis are provided at the end. This annex also includes ideas for future research on the topic of beneficiary capacity, and suggests improvements to future survey design and dissemination.
Annex Figure 1.A.1 shows that over half (53%) of survey responses come from subnational public entities – and within this group, predominantly from local governments, with a smaller share of regional authorities. This skew is largely driven by participants in the Technical Assistance for European Funds programme in Poland, whose principal beneficiaries (in the scope of this pilot project) are local government bodies. Private organisations make up the next largest group (28%), almost entirely comprised of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. This share is driven by beneficiaries of the Emilia-Romagna ERDF Regional Programme in Italy. By contrast, national-level public authorities account for only a sliver of the sample, as most pilot programmes do not primarily target this tier of government. “Other” respondents (7%) encompass associations, foundations, sectoral agencies, social cooperatives, individuals and other entities that cannot be identified as either public/private or subnational/national. This result further confirms the diversity of beneficiaries. Notably underrepresented are civil society organisations (CSOs), universities and research institutes. Future beneficiary surveys could devise outreach strategies targeting these entities. Surveys targeting national public beneficiaries across a range of national and transnational programmes could also be conducted. These targeted approaches could yield a more balanced and comprehensive picture of beneficiary profiles across all organisational types.
Note: N=1 058
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
Annex Figure 1.A.2 maps the job roles of survey respondents within their beneficiary organisations. The most common roles are EU fund project manager/officer, head/director and head of the EU fund department. However, a substantial “other” category highlights the breadth of competencies involved in EU fund projects. This group includes:
secretariat, assistants and administrative officers
professors, researchers and scientists
project co-ordinators and co-operation managers
public investment or extra-budget fund specialists (beyond Cohesion Policy), fundraising staff, and various unspecified officers and managers
fund inspectors and accountants
economists and analysts
project designers and engineers.
Interestingly, most respondents from private entities are heads/directors (44%), while most respondents from CSOs are EU fund project officers or managers (43%). This pattern suggests that CSOs are more likely than small- and medium-enterprises to dedicate staff to EU projects, although the small CSO sample (n=46) warrants caution in interpretation. This suggests the potential to further analyse the differing needs of private entities and CSOs, even they are both non-public entities. Public-sector respondents display the most varied mix of positions, spanning departmental heads, project officers and the full range of other roles. This could hint at a more flexible engagement approach with public beneficiaries, adapting to a variety of teams and roles within their organisations.
“What is your main role in your organisation?”
Note: N=1 058
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
As Annex Figure 1.A.3 shows, most respondents manage small projects with budgets ranging from EUR 100 000 to EUR 250 000. This applies to projects undertaken by different types of organisations (public, private), except for subnational public beneficiaries – nearly one-third of subnational public beneficiaries have large projects amounts between EUR 1 million and EUR 10 million. Beneficiaries with large projects are relatively underrepresented in this survey. This could be related to the nature and portfolio of the pilot programmes – only the Programme Sustentável 2030 in Portugal targets large infrastructure investment projects. It should be noted that programmes that support large investment projects tend to have a smaller number of beneficiaries overall. That said, managing authorities could also use other formats, such as focus group meetings, to understand the beneficiaries working on large investment projects.
“How much funding did, or will, your organisation receive within the project(s) funded by the Programme?”
Note: N=556. This question only applies to respondents who have implemented projects, submitted applications, are preparing applications, or plan to apply for funds.
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
Cohesion Policy fund beneficiaries’ perceptions of capacity gaps and implementation challenges arise from a complex interplay of programme design features, regional and national contexts, and the inherent characteristics of the beneficiary organisations themselves. Annex Table 1.A.1 shows that conditional on the other variables in the regression models:
Respondents who state they have technical expertise have 46% lower odds of perceiving application as challenging, 42% lower odds of perceiving implementation as challenging, and 47% lower odds of perceiving reporting as challenging, compared to those lacking technical expertise.
Respondents in a pilot regional programme are associated with 187% higher odds of perceiving application as challenging, 265% higher odds of indicating implementation as challenging, and 482% times higher odds of perceiving reporting as challenging, compared to those in a pilot national programme.
Respondents reported using consultants have 58% higher odds of finding implementation challenging, compared to those reported not using consultants.
Many factors could also be associated with beneficiaries’ engagement with the managing authorities. Beneficiary engagement includes two aspects: being consulted by managing authorities and actively engaging with them. The results of estimations (Annex Table 1.A.2 and Annex Table 1.A.3) show that when controlling for other variables in the models:
Respondents with small project portfolios (below EUR 250 000) have 67% lower odds of indicating they have been consulted by the managing authorities across the programme cycle, compared to respondents with large projects (over EUR 1 million).
Respondents with experience in Cohesion Policy programmes have 80% higher odds of indicating they have been consulted by the managing authorities, compared to those without experience.
Respondents from non-public beneficiaries have 70% lower odds of reporting being consulted by the managing authorities, compared to those from national public entities.
Respondents who reported possessing sufficient in-house thematic or technical experts have 155% or 86% higher odds, respectively, of indicating that they actively engage with the managing authorities, compared to those who reported not having sufficient in-house thematic expertise.
Respondents who reported using consultants have 58% higher odds of reporting that their organisations actively engage with the managing authorities.
The beneficiary surveys were designed to be concise, with mostly closed-ended questions to minimise respondent burden and maximise completion rates. The survey consisted of 20 questions in 3 sections: basic information on the beneficiaries; beneficiaries’ experience and interactions with the programme; and beneficiaries’ opinions on their main challenges and how the managing authority can help. The survey was translated into each managing authority’s language. The full questionnaire template in English is available in the Managing Authority Toolkit for Beneficiary Capacity Building under EU Cohesion Policy (OECD, 2025[4]).
The six managing authorities individually disseminated the survey to their beneficiaries and networks. Dissemination channels included websites, social media, online and in-person events, mailing lists and newsletters. According to the calculations and estimates by the six pilot managing authorities, over 10 000 individuals were reached. While this decentralised approach (independent dissemination by each pilot managing authority) enabled broad outreach and capitalised on managing authorities’ existing stakeholder networks, it also produced uneven response patterns. Beneficiaries of some programmes and beneficiary types are underrepresented.
The absence of stratified quotas or post-collection weighting means that findings should be interpreted with caution: the results illuminate prevalent themes, but may understate the perspectives of harder-to-reach groups. Future iterations should consider quota sampling or targeted follow-ups to bolster representativeness and strengthen both internal validity (accurately capturing the voices of the surveyed beneficiaries) and external validity (generalising across programmes), as non-responses may in fact be related to beneficiaries' administrative capacities. Introducing a weighting scheme to adjust for differential response rates could also enhance analytic rigour, ensuring that the conclusions drawn genuinely reflect the diversity of the beneficiary population.
A clearer wording of questions (or with additional explanations) can reduce post-survey data correction. For example, the organisational type indicated by beneficiaries was manually corrected based on additional information they provided. If a beneficiary indicated itself as “other” and then indicated “municipal budget office” in the subtype, the organisation type was changed to “subnational public”. Out of 1 058 responses, 153 were corrected. To avoid such data correction, clearer instructions could be given in the question to help respondents identify their organisation type.
Empirical analysis strategy and methodology
The brief empirical investigation strategy is the follows:
1. A descriptive overview of the data was developed to identify key variables. Each variable was tabulated and visualised to identify prevailing patterns.
2. Bivariate relationships among key variables were explored to uncover which factors tend to co-occur. To examine pairwise associations without controlling for third variables, Pearson’s chi-square tests of independence were applied across all key variables (all variables are categorical) and quantified effect sizes using Cramer’s V. The results were used to identify the variables to build the regression models.
3. The multivariate logistic regression models were run to assess how specific independent variables predict the likelihood that a beneficiary will report application, implementation and reporting as “challenging or very challenging” (Annex Table 1.A.1). Two other regression models were also run to understand beneficiaries’ engagement with managing authorities (Annex Table 1.A.2 and Annex Table 1.A.3).
Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; **p<0.01. The dependent variables are recorded as: 1= very challenging and challenging, 0= somewhat challenging and not challenging at all.
Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; **p<0.01. The dependent variable is recorded as: 1= consulted by the managing authority at least at one stage during the programming cycle, 0= not being consulted by managing authorities.
Note: p<0.1; **p<0.05; **p<0.01. The dependent variable is recorded as: 1= agree that “my organisation actively engages with the managing authority”, 0= neutral or disagree that “my organisation actively engages with the managing authority”.
Ideas for future research
While these methods offer a solid starting point, several avenues could deepen and broaden the analysis. First, including additional variables related to programmes and beneficiary organisations (e.g. organisation size, annual operating budget) would allow a more granular assessment of how beneficiary capacity shapes perceived obstacles. Administrative data on beneficiary organisations (as opposed to perception data) could also add analytical benefits. Second, expanding data collection beyond the six pilot programmes would improve representativeness and enable more subgroup analyses. Additionally, further surveys could incorporate numerical scales into the survey, enabling more sophisticated statistical analyses, such as factor analysis or other regression modelling. It could also include more open-ended question to gain a more nuanced understanding of the capacity gaps. Responses to open-ended questions can be analysed either qualitatively or using quantitative text analysis, including using large language models to collect qualitative information. Finally, future research could employ advanced multivariate techniques to build more rigorous predictive models. For example, exploratory factor analysis could reduce dozens of procedural items into a smaller set of underlying dimensions (for example, “bureaucratic complexity” or “information accessibility”), while decision-tree algorithms could identify non-linear interactions and rank the most influential predictors of capacity gaps. Together, these enhancements would yield more robust, generalisable insights.
References
[18] Ciffolilli, A. and M. Pompili (2024), Research for REGI Committee – Absorption rates of Cohesion Policy funds, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747284/IPOL_STU%282023%29747284_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[1] European Commission (2025), 2021-2027 Planned finances detailed (categorisation, multi funds) - Cohesion Policy Open Data, https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/d/hgyj-gyin.
[7] European Commission (2025), A modernised cohesion policy to boost the EU’s strategic priorities, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_929.
[6] European Commission (2025), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: A modernised Cohesion policy: The mid-term review, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/communication/mid-term-review-2025/communication-mid-term-review-2025_en.pdf.
[2] European Commission (2025), Kohesio: discover EU projects in your region - Beneficiaries, https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/beneficiaries.
[3] European Commission (2023), Towards simplification Analysis of selection of operations, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/selection-operations/analysis-selection-operations.pdf.
[8] European Investment Bank (2025), The state of local infrastructure investment in Europe – EIB Municipalities Survey 2024-2025, EIB Economics Department, https://doi.org/10.2867/3529559.
[19] European Parliament (2025), Error rates compared: Methodologies underpinning the European Commission’s risk at payment/closure and the European Court of Auditors’ estimated level of error, European Union, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/772485/BUDG_STU(2025)772485_EN.pdf.
[16] Foglia, F., F. Molica and A. Santos (2025), “Exploring the drivers of irregular spending in the EU cohesion policy”, Regional Studies, Regional Science, Vol. 12/1, pp. 252-269, https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2025.2472065.
[15] Hansum, R. (2025), “‘Why organizations leave money on the table: explaining non-demand for EU funds’”, Regional & Federal Studies, pp. 1-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2025.2485052.
[5] Hunter, A. (2025), Cohesion policy’s mid-term review: Stress-testing regional development in a new EU era, https://www.epc.eu/content/Cohesion_DP.pdf.
[14] Ministry of Public Administration of Italy (n.d.), 1000 Experts projects, https://www.espertipnrr.it/en/il-progetto-dei-1000-esperti-en/.
[4] OECD (2025), Managing Authority Toolkit for Beneficiary Capacity Building under EU Cohesion Policy, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/06/building-beneficiary-capacity-under-eu-cohesion-policy_ed3f6463/managing-authority-toolkit.pdf.
[13] OECD (2025), Rethinking Regional Attractiveness in the Italian Region of Sardinia, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/cfe/rethinking-regional-attractiveness/rethinking-regional-attractiveness-sardinia-en.pdf.
[12] OECD (2024), Rethinking Regional Attractiveness in the Region of Eastern Macedonia - Thrace in Greece, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/cfe/rethinking-regional-attractiveness/rethinking-regional-attractiveness-in-eastern-macedonia-thrace.pdf.
[9] OECD (2024), Subnational Public Employment in OECD and EU Countries: Takeaways from the SUBEMP Pilot Database, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ae2102f4-en.
[10] OECD (2023), OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92cd40a0-en.
[17] OECD (2020), Strengthening Governance of EU Funds under Cohesion Policy: Administrative Capacity Building Roadmaps, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9b71c8d8-en.
[11] OECD (2014), OECD Council Recommendation on Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government, https://www.oecd.org/effective-public-investment-toolkit/.
← 1. The 58 “specific objectives” are investment areas such as access to employment, sustainable urban mobility and quality education. The 193 investment measures (“categories” or “intervention fields”) define the scope of investment, such as funding business infrastructure for SMEs, energy efficiency in housing, health equipment and employment integration for disadvantaged people. One investment measure can be used to support different specific objectives. For example, a programme can invest in various projects targeting youth employment and their integration, but serving different areas or specific objectives (e.g. inclusive education and training system, social integration of people at risk, access to employment).
← 2. These programmes include those funded by the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Just Transition Fund the Cohesion Fund and the Home Affairs funds. They do not include the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy; and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund.
← 3. “National” or “regional” programme indicates whether the programme is managed at the national or regional level; it does not indicate the territories covered by the programme.
← 4. This is admittedly not always the case, depending on the programmes and the specific objectives. Some national programmes also channel a large amount of funds through a small set of measures to support an objective, showing a lower level of investment integration. In terms of the number of measures per objective, there exists higher variation across national programmes than across regional programmes.
← 5. N=963, excluding those who reported “I do not know”.
← 6. The European Court of Auditors measures the level of “error” in the sense of money that should not have been paid out from the EU budget because it was not used in compliance with the relevant EU legislation or with specific national rules (European Parliament, 2025[19]).