There are multiple policy level and practical governance issues that present obstacles for citizen participation in EU cohesion policy, including:
Top-down multi-level governance structures: cohesion policymaking has traditionally been characterized by top-down, multi-level governance processes dominated by national level actors. The role of sub-national level stakeholders and citizens has been curtailed by central government control over the direction of cohesion policy programmes and funding (Dabrowski et al 2014). There is also the issue of pork barrel politics within cohesion policy, where funds are used to support local authorities politically aligned with central governments (Dotti 2016).
Weak implementation of subsidiarity: the principle of subsidiarity has been vaguely defined and narrowly applied in policy competence disputes between the EU and national levels, rather than being used as a tool for empowering sub-national level actors and bringing decision-making closer to the citizen (Moodie et al 2021b).
Complex terminology: “cohesion” is a vague and highly contested concept (Medeiros 2016). As a policy and academic construct, notions of ‘cohesion’ are not easily comprehendible or relatable to citizens, thereby creating a disconnect between citizens and their understanding of what cohesion policy is and how it affects them (Corchado et al 2018).
Poorly defined role of territory: The concept and role of “territory” remains ill-defined in cohesion policy (Luukkonen & Moilanen. 2012). Nested administrative regional boundaries are important constructs for framing citizen engagement processes. EU policymakers current focus on fostering interregional and cross-border cohesion through “integrated territorial development”, “soft space planning”, and the development of “functional areas” takes cohesion policy further away from citizens. Citizens identify closely with regional identities and the territories in which they live and work, therefore, the role of territory needs to be reconsidered in relation to cohesion policy and citizen engagement (Moodie et al 2021b).
Focus on economic growth: Local and regional stakeholders have been critical of the economic growth orientated focus of EU cohesion policies, arguing that a primary focus on economic development does not solve other underlying social and environmental challenges important at regional and local levels (ESPON 2020). A narrow focus on economic growth also targets cohesion policy funding on larger urban areas with critical innovation infrastructures. This stimulates the involvement of the “usual suspect” cohesion policy stakeholders/beneficiaries with an interest in business and innovation growth (e.g. industries, businesses, and universities) rather than citizens.
Lack of capacities: Research has shown that the overall administrative quality and performance of regional and local public authorities can impact on the delivery of EU cohesion policies (Mendez & Bachtler 2022). Regional and local public authorities often lack the capacities, time, and resources to implement citizen engagement methods effectively, and are reliant on expert facilitators to assist with these processes (OECD 2022).
Limitations of citizen engagement tools: Many citizen participation tools are time and resource intensive. Levels of openness and inclusivity can be restricted to those citizens selected to participate, or citizens with the time, interest, resources, and knowledge to participate (Elstub & Escobar 2019). Citizen involvement efforts can also be viewed as window dressing exercises if they do not impact directly on policy, or if discussions are framed around an agenda predetermined by politicians and experts, which restrict the capacity of citizens to drive the overall direction of discussion (Baiocchi & Ganuza 2016).