1. The Impact of Interreg on Norwegian Regional Development Policy Einar Leknes International Research Institute of Stavanger

2. Overall conclusions 1.Interreg A-, B- and C-projects have had lasting impacts on regional development policy in the county councils 2.The follow up of the projects have contributed to: –development of skills –networks that include foreign regions –increased allocations of funds pertaining to the topic of the projects –new public services –new infrastructure –setting a new political direction in regional development policy for a third of the projects 3.Factors that promotes several of the impacts are: –role as Lead-partner –county council directors being active in the project –high Norwegian share of the project budget

3. Research questions •How are Interreg prosjects followed up in county councils´ regional development policy? –Permanent changes in the direction of regional development policy? –Indirect efffects as result of single looop learning? •Changes in form of collaboration, network methods and work structures in regional development policy –Strategic effects as result of double loop learning? •Changes in policy in form of priorities within or between different policy areas, fundamental changes in approaches and instruments, establishment of new collaborative relations. •What factors affect whether or not projects are followed up in regional development policy beyond meeting their own stated goals?

4. Research methods •44 case-studies of the follow up of different Interreg projects completed between 1998 and 2007 in 10 county councils –16 Interreg A projects –22 Interreg B projects –6 Interreg C projects •Interviews with project participants and with political and administrative representatives of the county councils + written documents –What has happened with the project topic after the project period? –What has happened with the project participants aften the project period? •Analysis of factors that promote or deter lasting project impact by use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis

5. Hypothesis regarding the impact of Interreg on the county councils regional development policy

6. Interreg-A project Aquaculture Murmansk Air route Luleå - Tromsø Barents Road Crossmedia Design Fishing along the Kruttfjell road Chanting song: revitalisation Countryside recreationKungspilen Implementation Mid-Scandia Cross-connection Culture bus without borders Growth corridorMaster of Public Administration Health fountain Økomuseum Borderland New Railway Oslo - Gøteborg Borderland 2005

7. Interreg-B projects SEAGIS Northern Maritime Corrridor II Northern Maritime Corridor I Northern Potentials Nature Based Tourism Water Cities Canal Link Hi Trans Northern Maritime Corridor I NAM Big Lakes II Metropolitan Areas + North Sea Cycle Route II Forum Skagerak II Northern Maritime Corridor I Northern Maritime Corridor II North Sea Cycle Route II Metropolitan Areas + PIPE Northern Maritime Corrridor II

8. Interreg-C projects Enable Aquareg Enable Marema Euromountain Net

9. Follow up: New Interreg projects •20 of 44 projects have been followed up by new Interreg projects •Interreg-funded expansion of the county councils policy- field for transport and education •continuation of horizontal Europeanization •vertical Europeanization Deltakernes posisjon og integrering i den øvrige organisasjonen

10. •Permanent changes of the direction of regional development policy •Not a part of the Europeanization of the development policy •Latent potential for future Europeanization

11. •Variations between A-,B- and C-projects •Increased formalisation of cooperation between regions •Horizontal «Nordification» (A-projects) and Europeanization (B- and C)

12. •Conservative estimates •The direction of the regional development policy has changed and often permanent •Many examples shows that this is a result of organisational learning •Horizontal «Nordification» (A-projects) and Europeanization (B- and C) •The spatial scope of the regional development policy has been expanded

13. •In 34 of 44 Interreg-projects we find follow-up through specific efforts by the county council or by other bodies •Budget allocations, public services, infrastructure etc. •Changes in directions of policy by the county council is found for 15 of the projects

14. Factors promoting or deterring Interreg project impact Types of impacts Follow up factors

15. Factors promoting or deterring impacts of Interreg Type of impact FACTORS New Interreg project Mainte- nence of skills Mainte- nence of project networks Higher priority of project topic Changes in policy direction Interreg A-project High Norw. budget-share Basis in an earlier project High internal participation Traditional responsibility Active politicans Active directors Lead Partner

16. Overall conclusions 1.Interreg A-, B- and C-projects have had lasting impacts on regional development policy in the county councils 2.The follow up of the projects have contributed to: –development of skills –networks that include foreign regions –increased allocations of funds pertaining to the topic of the projects –new public services –new infrastructure –setting a new political direction in regional development policy for a third of the projects 3.Factors that promotes several of the impacts are: –role as Lead-partner –county council directors being active in the project –high Norwegian share of the project budget