The document discusses the 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement between the EU Commission and member states for implementing the Common Strategic Framework. It outlines the guiding principles, implementation approaches, and new instruments available under the agreement. While partnerships are meant to increase coordination, ownership, and transparency, there are challenges to effectively applying the partnership principle across different countries due to variations in institutions and political cultures. Implementing integrated territorial investments (ITIs) at domestic levels also faces challenges due to mismatches between governance and functional regions, and a history of poor territorial cooperation. Overall, the success of the partnership agreement will depend on balancing efficiency with legitimacy and overcoming issues of policy fragmentation, political accountability, and fitting objectives to appropriate instruments and scales of administration.

1. The 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement:
governance innovation or just another paper tiger?
João Mourato

2. The Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020
... the last one?
Discourse wise.... this was then...
•Guiding principles: competitiveness, growth, cohesion, knowledge, etc.
•underlying ethos: coordination,, cooperation, capacity-building, joint-decision making, shared
legitimacy of action, etc....
•Main Implementation approach: sector-based, region-based
...and this is now:
•key new trend: growing territorialisation
•Guiding principles: integrated, inteligente, inclusive
•Underlying ethos: participation, governance, and partnerships
•Main implementation approach: (multi) theme-based, multi-fund, place-based
•new instruments available: CLLD, ITI, AIDUS

3. CSF’s new (old) friend...
•underlying ethos: partnership principle... The real multi-level/ cross-cutting issue
the ideal...
…added value that partnership can bring when it comes to implementing the funds, enhancing
collective commitment and ownership of EU policies, increasing the available knowledge, expertise
and view-points in the strategies' design and implementation, (…) ensuring greater transparency in
decision-making processes (…) reduce coordination and capacity gaps in policy making in terms of
information, resources, funding, administrative and policy fragmentation.
the real…
Experience shows however that there are wide differences across the Member States on
application of the partnership principle, depending on national institutional set-ups and political
cultures. The effectiveness of the partnership principle also depends on the technical ability of the
partners to contribute substantively to the process, raising the question of capacity-building…
Commision’s Input: The partnership’s agreement code of conduct...
once more into the breach...

4. closer look at the partnership agreement – what’s at stake?
A 2-tier discussion
•national: EU Comission – member-states
•sub-national: domestic partnership-building for CSF 2014-2020 implementation
where can all go wrong?
e.g. at the national level (PT):
• still an ongoing negotiation
• join up of former institutions into a single:
• political coordination unit
• techinical coordinatino unit
• financial support unit
e.g. at the domestic level (PT):
multiple upcoming challenges... let’s focus on the Integrated Territorial Investments

5. Why/why not ITIs?
• functional region-based approach;
• socioeconomic dynamics/phenomena don’t match
political/administrative boundaries;
• gap in the scope of existing policy instruments (e.g.
non-sub regional);
• mismatch between Form and Function of existing
governance solutions.
• CSF principle of concentration of resources
• CSF multi-fund approach
• poor domestic territorial cooperation trackrecord (CIMs,
PAT, PIMOT, PRUs, etc).
• anyway.... national rules/strategic priorities/funding
allocation are yet to be defined.
a functional approach to spatial development

6. The 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement:
governance innovation or just another paper tiger?
• efficiency vs. legitimacy
• strong structural context-dependency (e.g. institutional and political culture,
financial capacity, etc.)
• stand alone syndrome – policy fragmentation/ Institutional conflict
• political accountability / ownership Issues
• scale-based conflicts (i.e. national, vs. regional, etc.)
• evidence-based policy: the data challenge - design and
monitoring/evaluation
• fit objectives to instruments syndrome - the paradox: conformity = certain
funding
• Scale to fit administrative borders (e.g. CIM).
...everything must change so that all remains the same.

7. joao.mourato@ics.ul.pt