ол а
алын ан
конституциялық
ре орманың
ең
маңы ды
ет ұрысы
—
а ақстанның
ре идентт к
асқару
ж йес нен
ре идентт к
-
арламентт к
асқару
ж йес не
ауысуы
екенін
айттық
.
Б л
демократияландыру
саласындағы
сөзсіз
лкен
жа алық
.
Енді
Президенттік
басқару
мерзімі
7
жылдан
5
жылға
қысқарады
.
Партиялық
фракцияларды
ж мысы
к шейтіледі
.
Парламентте
Премьер
-
министрлікке
кімді
сынатынын
фракциялар
өз
ішінде
талқылап
,
Премьер
-
министрді
кандидатурасы
фракциялар
тарапынан
сынылатын
болады
.
Орталық
сайлау
комиссиясы
,
Конституциялық
Ке ес
,
Есеп
комитеті
қ рамдарын
анықтау
Парламентке
беріледі
[7].
Б л
жəне
басқа
өзгерістер
,
бізді ше
,
авторитарлы
демократия
белгілерін
артқа
тастайтын
шынайы
демократияға
қарай
жасалған
е
лкен
қадам
болып
табылады
.
оғамдық
қатынастарды
жа аруына
,
ел
алдындағы
міндеттерді
өзгеруіне
сəйкес
президенттік
билік
өзін
-
өзі
немі
жа артып
отыруға
тырысты
.
ағдарыс
жылдарында
биліксіздікті
ауыздықтау
мақсатында
вертикалды
президенттік
билік
к шейтілді
.
Ал
қоғамдық
өмірді
демократия
-
ландыруыны
тере дету
қажеттілігі
туғанда
2007
жылы
мамыр
айында
Конституцияға
енгізілген
өзгертулер
мен
толықтыруларға
сəйкес
Президенттік
билік
Президенттік
-
парламенттік
билікке
ауыса
бастады
.
Елбасы
сынысымен
за
шығарушы
билік
тармағы
—
парламентті
,
за дарды
орындауды
қамтамасыз
ететін
—
сот
билігі
тармағыны
к шеюі
байқалады
.
Елдегі
билік
бөлінісіні
қ қықтық
,
демократиялық
қоғамға
бастайтындығын
саяси
тəжірибе
дəлелдейді
.
М ны
өзін
Елбасыны
реформаторлық
қасиеттері
мен
білікті
саясаткерлігіні
нəтижесі
деп
бағалауға
болады
.
азақстан
қоғамы
демократияны
принциптері
мен
қағидаларын
баянды
ете
отыра
,
Президент
басшылығымен
дамыған
мемлекеттер
қатарында
көрінетініне
сенім
к шті
[8].
дебиеттер
тізімі
1.
азақ
Советтік
Социалистік
Республикасыны
Мемлекеттік
егемендігі
туралы
декларация
.
азақ
ССР
Жоғарғы
Советі
1990
жылғы
қазанны
25-
де
қабылданған
//
азақ
əдебиеті
. — 1990. — 2
қараша
. — 1-
б
.
2.
асым еков
М
.
азақстан
Республикасындағы
президенттік
институтыны
қалыптасуы
. —
Астана
:
Елорда
, 2000.
3.
али
.
олтығы
ке
қазақ
ж рты
//
Ана
тілі
. — 1994. — 12
мамыр
. — 4-
б
.
4.
Жа а
əлемдегі
жа а
азақстан
:
азақстан
Республикасы
Президентіні
халқына
жолдауы
. —
Алматы
:
Жеті
жарғы
,
2007. — 16-
б
.
5.
азақстан
Республикасыны
Президенті
туралы
азақстан
Республикасыны
Конституциялық
за ы
. 2007
жылды
1
тамызына
дейінгі
өзгертулер
мен
толықтырулар
енгізілген
ресми
мəтін
. —
Алматы
:
Жеті
жарғы
, 2007. — 6,7-
б
.
6.
азақстан
Республикасыны
Конституциясы
. —
Алматы
:
рист
, 1995. — 13–15-
б
.
7.
На ар аев
Н
. .
азақстан
Республикасы
Парламент
палаталарыны
бірлескен
отырысында
сөйлеген
сөзі
//
Егемен
азақстан
. — 2007. — 18
мамыр
. — 2-
б
.
8.
Бор асов
С
.
М
.
Президенттік
билікті
тиімділігі
//
Егемен
азақстан
. — 2009. — 15
сəуір
. — 3-
б
.
234
АС
ҒАЛЫ ДАР
Н ЕС
ТРИ УНА
ОЛОДЫХ
У ЕНЫХ
У К
327.7(460)
A.A.Yeskendirov, G.M.Smagulova
Academician E.A.Buketov Karaganda State University
REGIONAL POLICY OF THE EU IN SPAIN (by the example of the
С
ohesion Fund)
Макалада
Б р кт ру
оры
мысалында
уроОдақтың
Ис анияда ы
аймақтық
саясаты
қарастырыл ан
.
Ол
арқылы
мемлекетт к
ж не
жеке
ұйымдардың
Б р кт ру
орынан
қаржыландырыл ан
р
т рл
жо алар
к рсет лген
.
уроОдақтың
Ис анияда ы
аймақтық
саясатына
сара тама
жасай
отыры
,
мақаланың
авторлары
уроОдақтың
ұл
а дарламасы
Ис анияда
н ң
ти мд л г н
к рсетт
деген
тұжырым
жаса ан
.
статье
рассматривается
региональная
олитика
С
в
Ис ании
на
римере
деятельности
онда
С ло ения
.
ока аны
ра ного
рода
роекты
,
реали у
иеся
государством
и
астными
органи ациями
,
инансируемые
и
джета
онда
.
Анали ируя
региональну
олитику
С
в
Ис ании
,
авторы
ри ли
к
выводу
,
то
данная
рограмма
дока ывает
сво
ективность
.
«We believe there is still a great deal to do in the Community in the field of regional policy. The possi-
bilities have perhaps not been properly realized or acted on. In particular, we need to give a fresh impetus to
regional policy formulated at the same level of the Community and, I should point out, with regular coopera-
tion by Member States’ governments, which is essential if it is to succeed».
Jean Rey, President of the European Commission 1967–1970.
In 1986, Spain became a full member of the European Economic Community. Since then, according to
the European Commission, Spain carries out the tasks set by the European Council (EC) and included 2701
directive into its domestic law.
Accession to the European Union marked for Spain, as for the other Member States, significant
changes: from the middle 90’s established the European single market and the European Economic Area, a
pledge of retail space without borders. Since then, the European Union visibly moved forward in the integra-
tion process by strengthening the political and social ties between citizens; Spain in the course of this process
was characterized by the fact that it became one of the leaders in a matter of the introduction of measures for
liberalization.
In May 2004 ten new terms were joined to the European Union (Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic). This expansion of union is unprece-
dented on the scales and the variety: territory increased by 23 %, and population grew by 100 million people.
Furthermore, since January 1, 2007 in the European Union Romania and Bulgaria have status of member
states of the European Union. Spain acquired serious responsibility within the framework of the European
Union, after becoming, together with Poland, the fifth country on the number of voices in the Council of
Ministers.
Introduction to Euro on January 1, 2002 marked the beginning of the third period of the chairmanship
of Spain in the European Union, after becoming the culmination of long process and creation of a number of
conditions for an increase in the Spanish and European markets. With the introduction of the euro in the
European Union was formed currency area, which becomes the largest area of trade in the world and will
facilitate the integration of financial markets and economic policies included in its Member States. These
changes ensured the coordination of fiscal systems of Member States, promoting the growth of the stability
of the European Union. The introduction of the euro area and the single European currency has clear results
at the international level, helped promote this initiative on the international and financial forums (meetings
235
«Seven»), as well as in multilateral organizations. Economic and trade stability, achieved because of the
euro, consolidate the current growth of the Spanish economy, along with its international political projection.
Financial instruments and initiatives to address economics and social imbalances at Community level
did exist since the beginning of European integration but only in 1986 legal foundations introduced by the
Single European Act paved the way for an integrated cohesion policy. During the period 1957–1988, the
European Social Fund (ESF, since 1958), the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF, since 1962), and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF, since 1975) co-financed pro-
jects which had been selected beforehand by Member States [1].
Differences between regions of the European Community have been from the beginning (the clearest
example — the lagging regions of Southern Italy). These differences became more vivid after the entry into
it in countries such as Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal. The variance of GDP for some regions reaching
3.5 times the unemployment rate — up to 7 times. Reduction of regional social and economic disparities and
promote equitable development of all the EU is one of the components to the overall EU policy — regional
policy. EU regional policy can be considered an integral part of structural policy, which is implemented
through EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. Structural support of the European Union has consistently
reduces the social and economic differences between member countries and selected regions of the EU. Un-
derlying its value can be called in two words — «solidarity» and «cohesion». Solidarity — because the aim
is to help as compared with the average EU economically and socially poorer regions. Cohesion — as the
decrease in the difference between income and property of the poorer and richer regions is beneficial for all.
Structural Funds policies primarily aim to assist in difficulties to adapt to changing economic and social con-
ditions. The Structural Funds finance projects that help keep the difficulty for companies and their employ-
ees to start other more promising activities. Another option — to increase the efficiency of economic activity
sectors of the economy experiencing a crisis and to help them withstand the pressure of competition. For ex-
ample, unemployed people can learn to acquire more promising profession. However, the Structural Funds of
funds do not fund passive social policies (unemployment benefits, etc.).
Spain — a member state, which in recent years has received the largest amount of structural funds and
the Cohesion Fund, which used to finance infrastructure projects and development projects. In fact, states
that Spain has received in the period 2007–2013 more than 35 billion euro through a variety of structural and
Cohesion funds [2], becoming the second recipient of such funds from the EU after Poland. Furthermore,
Spain will receive a special grant for research and development amounting to 2 billion euro according to the
decisions taken at the European Council meeting in London. Through these funds the Government has em-
barked on major projects for joint investment in infrastructural facilities with the participation of private ini-
tiative. The most important of these measures was the introduction of the Program «INGENIO 2010». The
main goal of the Program will a chive in 2010 the level of 2 % of GDP on public and private investment in R
& D. «In line with what was agreed at the Lisbon European Council (2000), its aims include increasing the
ratio of investment in R&D in relation to GDP, from 1.05 % in 2003 to 2 % in 2010, and also increasing the
private sector's contribution to investment in R&D, from 48 % in 2003 to 55 % in 2010» [3]
The 7 new regulations, which regulate the work of structural funds for the period of 2000–2006, were
accepted in June and July 1999[4]. Structural funds for this period will be further used for the support of the
programs of 15 member states, although they will be concentrated, mainly, in the regions, which are needed
aid to the greatest degree. On the proposal of the Commission, the Council decided to reduce to three the
236
number of groups of priority objects of structural funds in accordance with the simplification and concentra-
tion of structural actions:
A new group of objects first concerns the structural development and regulation of the least devel-
oped areas, those where per capita income below 75 % of the average for the EU.
The new second group of objects will obtain support for the social and economic reconversion of re-
gions with the structural difficulties; this task will cover a maximum of 18 % of the population of the Euro-
pean Union.
New third group of objects associated with the adaptation and modernization of policies and systems
of education, training and employment.
Funds allocated to these funds for the period 2000–2006 up 195 million euro, distributed among the ob-
jects as follows:
Objects 1: 69,7 %.
Objects 2: 11,5 %.
Objects 3: 12,3 % [3].
The remaining 6 % are sent to finance innovative projects and technical assistance, as well as other ini-
tiatives within the EU.
The support within the framework the European Union selected for the period of 2000–2006 are the fol-
lowing initiatives:
Interreg III, which aims to stimulate cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation;
Leader+, which promotes rural development;
Equal, which provides for the development of new ways of combating all forms of discrimination
and inequality in access to the labor market;
Urban II, which encourages the economic and social regeneration of declining towns, cities and sub-
urbs [4].
The contribution of funds to development projects in Spain used in the following limits:
Object 1 provided the percentage of funding for structural funds cannot exceed 75 % of the total
cost, in Spain, with its status as the beneficiary Cohesion Fund in the period 2000–2006, to increase the
maximum permitted level of 80 %. In the case of channeling investments to companies limit reduced to 35 %
of the total cost.
For other objects sets the maximum limit of 50 % of the total cost.
For investments in companies within the zone of the object 2, set a maximum limit of 15 % of the to-
tal cost [4].
However, the above limits may be increased to a maximum of 10 % in cases of the use of funding other
than direct assistance.
EU structural funds used almost the entire Spanish territory, are as follows:
the European Social Fund (ESF)
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)
the Cohesion Fund
The Cohesion Fund is aimed at Member States whose Gross National Income (GNI) per inhabitant is
less than 90 % of the Community average. It serves to reduce their economic and social shortfall, as well as
to stabilize their economy. It supports actions in the framework of the Convergence objective. It is now sub-
ject to the same rules of programming, management and monitoring as the ESF and the ERDF. For the
2007–2013 period the Cohesion Fund concerns Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Spain is eligible to a
phase-out fund only as its GNI per inhabitant is less than the average of the EU-15. The Cohesion Fund fi-
nances activities under the following categories: trans-European transport networks, notably priority projects
of European interest as identified by the Union; environment; here, Cohesion Fund can also support projects
related to energy or transport, as long as they clearly present a benefit to the environment: energy efficiency,
use of renewable energy, developing rail transport, supporting intermodality, strengthening public transport,
etc.
The financial assistance of the Cohesion Fund can be suspended by a Council decision (taken by quali-
fied majority) if a Member State shows excessive public deficit and if it has not resolved the situation or has
not taken appropriate action to do so [5].
237
Map 1. The Cohesion (convergence) Fund
The European Union has as one of the main objectives of the development of economic and social con-
vergence of its citizens, strengthening the socio-economic progress and gradually eliminating the distinction
between different levels of life. In this sense, the introduction of the single currency further reinforces the
need for a growing convergence between the economies and economic policies of participating Member
States. From the Fund financed projects related to conservation and trans-European transport networks in
Member States, which GNP of less than 90 % of the EU average. For the period 2000–2006 European Coun-
cil highlighted on the Cohesion Fund of 18 billion € [6].
Table 1. Cohesion Fund for the four eligible Member States in average, 2000–06 (1)
Elláda
España
Ireland
Portugal
3 388
12 357
584
3 388
(1) Ireland only until the end of the year 2003 (million EUR commitments in 2004 price)
Table 2. Cohesion Fund for the ten new eligible Member States in average, 2004–06
eská Rep. Eesti Kypros Latvija Lietuva Magyarország Malta Polska
Slovenija Slovensko
936,05
309,03 53,94 515,43 608,17 1 112,67
21,94 4 178,60 188,71
570,50
(million EUR commitments in 2004 price)
Source: European Commission. Regional policy. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/procf/cf_en.htm
For the period 2000–2006, expenditure from the Structural Funds amounted to approximately € 4 bil-
lion in Spain R & D and innovation activities covered:
over 21 000 R & D and innovation-based projects;
nearly 10 000 researchers participating in projects;
the co-financing of most of the present 64 Spanish technology parks;
support for technology-based activities in around 100 000 small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs);
investment of nearly € 1 billion in information and communications technologies (ICT) infrastruc-
ture, significantly narrowing the gap with the EU average [7].
Thus we see that Spain and the EU placed a great emphasis on research and development, proof of the
above are used to finance research and development. As a result, the finance allocated under the Structural
Funds and Cohesion Fund and the high level of management of the Government of Spain became the reason
that Spain has shown a very good development evaluation. Thus, Spain has reduced the gap with the rest of
the EU-27 in terms of gross domestic product (GDP),»moving from 92 % to reach 106.8 % of the Union av-
erage GDP per head between 1995 and 2007. Growth in GDP per head was on average 0.5 percentage points
238
a year higher than the EU average between 1995 and 2006» [7]. This is a vivid example of the effectiveness
of strategies selected by EU.
In social terms, there are also good examples of positive results of the program. The population of Spain
provided employment through various projects financed by the Cohesion Fund. From 2000 to 2005 more
than 377 000 people have received support for activities related to self-employment and social economy,
which includes housing, child care, vocational training and retraining. «Almost 2.5 million people received
support in the form of continuous training» [7]. So we can firmly say that the projects and activities imple-
mented with funding from the Cohesion Fund clearly show the benefit in the social sphere. Also, with the aid
of the Cohesion Fund has been improved road infrastructure in Spain. There have been renovated or built
new roads connecting the districts and cities of the country, «Cohesion Policy co-financed over 1 200 km of
roads and motorways, saving an estimated 1.2 million hours of travel time a year. The Spanish high-speed
train network was extended in the period 2000–06 with connections linking Lleida-Tarragona-Barcelona,
Cordoba-Malaga and Madrid-Valladolid (some 850 km in total)» [7].
Were repaired 2 000 km of water pipelines and built 600 km of new pipelines, serving approximately
2.6 million people, about 6 % of the population of Spain, «In addition, between 1995 and 2005, the construc-
tion or enlargement of 57 water treatment plants increased the coverage among the population of urban ag-
glomerations from 41 % to 77 %».[7]
As we see the results of this fund impressionable. 2007–2013, Spain allocated over € 35 billion, a total
of € 26, 2 billion under the Convergence objective (€ 3, 5 billion from the Cohesion Fund) [8].
Map 2. The Cohesion policy in Spain
-Convergence region
-Phasing- in Regions
-Phasing- out Regions
-Competitiveness and Employment regions.
Source: European Commission. Regional Policy. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas2007/spain/index_en.htm
Aragón, Baleares, Cantabria, Cataluña, Madrid, Navarra, País Vasco Canarias, Castilla y León, Comu-
nidad Valenciana and La Rioja fall under the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective. Anda-
lucía, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, Asturias, Ceuta, Melilla, Murcia and Galicia fall under the Conver-
gence Objective. From these data, about 16 million will live in Convergence area. If we will compare it will
be 37 % to 59 % in 200–2006 [9].
In our days implementing 2 long-term programs with funding from the Cohesion Fund. So-called
«Technology Fund» and «Knowledge economy». These 2 programs are aimed at implementing the main
«Lisbon objectives». «Lisbon objective» is aimed at increasing the labor sites, with increasing the competi-
tiveness and highly skilled workers. Allow the EU to strengthen positions at the world level. This is the main
task of the «Lisbon objectives». Also noticeably increased funding in R & D, if the 2000–2006 has been al-
located some € 3,9 billion in increasing the quality of scientific research and the Information Society in the
sector allocated € 8 billion in 2007- 2013. We can see a huge increase in funding this sector; it identifies and
confirms the EU's development strategy, strategy implementation «Lisbon objectives.
239
Source: European Commission. Cohesion Policy 2007–2013.Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas2007/fiche/es_en.pdf
In conclusion, we would say that the totals for 2000–2006 program years have shown the effectiveness
of all development policies, so say the EU's development strategies in Spain through its structural funds. This
is a true indicator of the direction of development in general. But despite all these successes are a great num-
ber of outstanding problems, as transport and communications, water supply, illegal immigration, increasing
and improving the quality of intellectual wealth of the country and certainly the most important problem of
modern Spain is the high rate of unemployment, need to be solved in a short time in order not to lag behind
their more developed neighbors in the EU. But surely we are entitled to repeat that success of projects fi-
nanced from the Cohesion Fund in 2000 — 2006 and it also have successfully implemented projects for
2007–2013.
References
1.
European Commission. Regional Policy. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/history/index_en.htm
2.
European Commission. Regional Policy. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/country2009/es_en.pdf
3.
The Spanish presidency. Available at http://www.eu2010.es/en/espanadecerca/idi/ingenio/
4.
The official website of the European Union. Council Regulation (EC)
№
1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provi-
sions on the Structural Funds. Available at
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/provisions_and_instruments/l60014_en.htm
5.
European Commission. Cohesion Fund available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/cf/index_en.htm
6.
European Commission. Regional Policy and Cohesion. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/newsroom/document/pdf/newsletter/62_99_en.pdf
7.
European Commission. European Cohesion policy in Spain. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/country2009/es_en.pdf
8.
European Commission. Cohesion Policy 2007–2013. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas2007/fiche/es_en.pdf
9.
European Commission. European Cohesion policy in Spain. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/country2009/es_en.pdf
240
У К
()
A.S.Suinova, G.M.Smagulova
.
А
.Buketov Karaganda State University
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |