This chapter discusses and compares some of the key findings from chapters 4 and 5 and analyses how the findings reflect on the initial theoretical framework. The most interesting discoveries are related to the thematic focus of today’s Cohesion policy and the way it is projected on to the ‘Finnish way of CLLD’, the multi-level governance and impact of the tool.
Finally, future perspectives of CLLD and its related research are considered.
Thematic focus
The original idea of Cohesion policy was not based on a clear economic motive. It was more about solidarity than a pursuit of financial benefit: distributing the money from the wealthier countries to the poorer ones. However, this setting should not be seen as a zero-sum-game, or a “Robin Hood” -approach to economic development. On the contrary, through Cohesion policy measures one plus one can become three, as the development of weaker areas and countries will (at least) in the long run benefit the wealthier areas as well. Besides directly improving the well-being of groups of people in a disadvantaged position, maintaining (or even improving) the vitality of less developed areas can help maintain the population and the necessary service structure, which will correspond to more even distribution of economic activity and people. In brief, the mitigation of the negative effects caused by out-migration and brain drain in the less developed areas simultaneously results in decreased growth pressure in the more developed areas and cities.
However, the focus of Cohesion policy has changed. As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1, the thematic focus of Cohesion policy has been tied closer to the EU´s strategic objectives. Elaborated in 5.3.4, this has also been the case for the Finnish cohesion policy measures. The question whether the themes of cohesion and that of growth and competitiveness are compatible, was already pointed out in the article by Baun et al. (2014, 69):
“The adaptation of Cohesion policy to new economic and political realities, in other words, may result in policy incoherence and the effectiveness of Cohesion policy could be undermined.”
This sentiment fits well with the findings of this thesis. In the studied Finnish examples, the goals of employment and employability shine through from the projects, overwhelming the idea of taking on purely local-led development activities as originally envisioned by the EU.
However, the question whether this is the wrong direction stimulates interesting thoughts. The CLLD in Finland has shown some evident signs of being a useful tool for activating the third sector, which in turn has achieved positive social impact by interacting and helping deprived
66
people in multiple different ways. Why not then continue using it as such? This would of course render the original idea of place-based approach into a sectoral policy focusing on enhancing third sector activities in their provision of social services. It would also demean the notion of a bottom-up initiative by substituting the ideas from local people with national policy goals.
The vagueness of Cohesion policy also provides an opportunity for a more liberal and flexible execution and it is thus not merely a negative factor. Stahlecker et al. (2010, 22) have argued that a place-based approach cannot be seen as something that can be applied uniformly across the EU, but instead there is always a need to leave room for institutional manoeuvring in the Member States. This appears to be the case for the Finnish approach to CLLD as well. In the light of the findings from this thesis, there is no reason to criticise the decisions of either the EU or the Finnish Ministry for Employment and Economic Affairs for making and retaining the CLLD tool voluntary. Perhaps the fact it was optional has actually been beneficial for such a tool that requires initiative and enthusiasm from the people implementing it. It is hard to imagine that mandatory demands would entail a successful deployment of the tool.
Nevertheless, since the approach has been rather unknown and small in scale, it could do well with some additional attempts to prompt and spread its use. Perhaps enabling or encouraging other than ESF priority objective 5 -type projects – or untying it from the project-based-nature altogether – could help promote it as a new, systemic and collaborative tool for local development.
Impact of the approach
Assessing the impact of CLLD is not straightforward. This is due to the intangible outputs that the projects tend to have: social innovation, increased cooperation among third sector organisations, increased capacity of the local level to act and so on. The difficulty of evaluating the approach has already been marked at the start of the programming period (Kolosy, 2013, 32).
When analysing the impact of the studied CLLD cases, the novelty of the approach should be kept in mind. The programming period started in 2014, making most of the Finnish CLLD projects no more than five years old. As of writing this thesis, in many cases the projects are still ongoing (Appendix Figure 4). While properly breaking them down and assessing the impact is better done in retrospect, some early impacts can already be seen and the potential postulated.
67
The Finnish way of CLLD is clearly a soft form of intervention aimed at local development.
These often-small-scale projects approach local development as a voluntary attempt to mobilise local associations, communities and people to take part in projects or events carried out in their city. However, CLLD should also be seen as a process and not merely a platform for project approval and execution. As observed in the article by Bosworth et al. (2016, 456), the multi-sectoral collaborative environment fostered by the CLLD approach, combined with certain longevity, can stem innovations even by “accident”. This resonates well with the empirical findings, which indicate that the cooperation between different sectors was seen as one of the key contributions, and that having a more long-term focus and getting detached from the project cycles were seen highly important (Appendix Figure 10 & Hämäläinen & Kahila, 2019).
The CLLD projects in Finland have had a positive impact towards mitigating some social issues within the cities where the projects have been carried out. The positive impact has been achieved mainly indirectly through the supporting of the third sector actors. To use the KAKE-projects as one of the most successful examples, it has stimulated the emergence of several new associations and seemingly reinforced the operating of existing ones. The funding opportunities offered by KAKE are made easy for any association to apply for. In concrete terms, the City´s employee is the one helping with the application process all the way and the applicant only needs to have a good idea. It is via the work of the associations that social problems are mitigated, and underprivileged people reached (KAKE-project interviews, #1 & #2).
The impact of the CLLD projects is then directed via the practical work of the civil society actors to benefit the target groups of the projects: underprivileged groups of people, such as the unemployed, youth, immigrants, disabled and so on. The associations have been able to fill holes in the provision of these “soft” services that are important for well-being in the cities.
What elevates it in comparison to the normal funding provided to the third sector, is the systemic way in which the development needs have been identified beforehand in the strategy document, the benefits provided by the broad cooperation both horizontally and vertically, and the way the approach promotes innovative and new ways of doing things.
Since one of the key components to social change lies in the cooperation between grassroots-level actors (creative individuals) and higher-grassroots-level authorities (institutions wielding power to influence change) (Murray et al., 2010, 8), in the light of this study it can be said that CLLD certainly has the potential to reinforce this link between the levels via its multi-level governance scheme, thus providing a fertile base for fostering social innovation. In cases such as Joensuu, it can be seen how the ideas of civil society associations are backed up and upscaled by the
68
City, giving rise to new practices and social innovations. On the other hand, in many cases this potential remains unused. If the City is not properly involved, the Action often remains small-scale and does not appear in “the radar” of the City officials, hence not converting into wider use of the good practices learned.
The involvement of the city officials in the steering groups of the CLLD projects have opened up a chance to learn about some of the needs or issues articulated by local people or communities. The cases of Joensuu, Kotka (Sepra) and Savonlinna (Kolomonen) all exhibit a chance for the City to learn from the experiences gathered from the grassroot-level activities and the associations involved. The information can, and does, in some occasions make it all the way to the higher City leadership as well, but often not to an extent where it would be an effective source of information for local development. For example, in Kotka the city leadership views the CLLD project as any other project (Fritsch et. al., 2019). However, these partnerships have much untapped potential for piloting a more flexible form of governance, where the linkages between civil society and residents and city administration are frequently and efficiently used. Whether municipal governments are ready for such changes remains probably the key question (KAKE-project interviews, #1, #2, #5 & #6).
Another issue hindering the more systemic way of adopting these CLLD projects as a resource for the Cities is the short-term project-based nature of the initiatives. For instance, the continuation of KAKE was deemed uncertain. The City will analyse the benefits of the KAKE projects, but the final decision will be highly influenced by the financial situation of the City at the start of the next programming period. If there is no longer any comparable EU funding available to the previous extent, or if the budget of the City is too tight, there is no opportunity or incentive to continue the voluntary KAKE projects. After all, KAKE makes up just a part of a much broader spectrum of local association development activities supported by the City.
Despite it being seen as an interesting and useful tool in the City´s toolbox for urban development, money will be the deciding factor (KAKE-project interviews, #1 & #2).
The multi-level governance of CLLD
In Finland, the multi-level governance of the CLLD tool seemingly offers an effective administrative constellation for carrying out development measures at the local level. It combines the initiative and ideas from the locals with the expertise and experience of administrative management of higher-level authorities. This is especially relevant because the EU is trying to enforce a more locally led management of Cohesion funds and the related
69
development measures, where the lacking institutional and administrative capacities of the local actors is seen as one of the greatest concerns (Darvas et. al., 2019, 18).
The idea of CLLD combines the typical top-down governance (EU idea, national implementation, regional funding authority) and a bottom-up local-led initiative (local context, use of endogenous capital, local people as participants), which is characterised by the multi-level governance concept. As has been mentioned in the previous chapters, also the Finnish way of CLLD involves authorities at several different scales. Already the steering groups of the projects involve City officials, members of associations and local people. The funding decisions are done by the supra-regional ELY-centres. The interplay between these different stakeholders highlights the dynamics and possibilities of multi-level governance. An important outcome of this is that the institutional capacities of the actors involved have increased. It has often formalised practices of cooperation with and between scales. This cooperation has received a lot of positive feedback, which was also evident in the survey results.
The CLLD tool and its introduction should also be seen against the backdrop of the historically strong position that the local level has in Finland (Czischke et al., 2015, 15). The role and tasks of the municipalities have been further increased by the introduction of the new Local Government Act in 2015. The municipalities were made responsible for providing the residents with additional platforms and avenues for participation. The Act also further increased the legal rights and opportunities for the citizens to participate and exert influence in local decision-making (Ministry of Finance, Finland, 2015, 7). In the light of this, it is perhaps not so surprising that cities too have been keen to get involved in the CLLD activities. These projects have offered the cities another new way to engage with the locals, bringing democracy and policymaking one step closer to the people. To what extent initiatives like CLLD are used, or could be used, by the municipalities to enhance the participation of the residents could be further researched.
The EU ideal for CLLD would have placed more emphasis on the involvement of local residents or actually, local communities (hence the name). However, in the case of the Finnish CLLD, the vast majority of activities were carried out by the third sector. In other words, the geographical scale of the Action is at the level of associations. Here some differences exist depending on what stakeholder is in charge of the project. Whereas the City might have been ranked as the appropriate manager for these projects, it was the work of the LEADER LAGs that was deemed to happen closest to the grassroots-level (see 5.3.7). This situation is illustrated in Figure 16 on the next page.
70
Figure 16. Simplified illustration of the different scales of managing the CLLD projects. (own illustration, also presented in the RELOCAL 2nd project Conference in Lodz, Poland in March 2019)
What is the most appropriate scale for the CLLD tool then? The idea that individual residents could also carry out the projects did not receive widespread support (Appendix Figure 11). It was often thought that the best impact will be achieved when the Action targets the third-sector organisations and through them indirectly the local residents. The third sector was seen as an important, strong actor and that it could be more systematically integrated into the service provision of the cities (second Webropol-questionnaire, questions #9 & #10).
Other interesting findings
Authorities responsible for EU funding are the ELY-centres, Regional Councils, Business Finland and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (Ministry for Economic Affairs and Employment, 3). Between these authorities, different roles and focus points exist. The ELY-centres fund the widest spectrum of projects by providing funding for both ERDF and ESF projects, including support for businesses. The Regional Councils finance only ERDF projects and they cannot support businesses (Rakennerahastot.fi-webpage, 2019a). Business Finland has a clear focus on innovation-based projects conducted by research institutes or businesses, funded solely from ERDF (Business Finland-webpage). Lastly, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has its own niche of projects funded from the ESF priority objectives 3 and 5 (Sosiaali ja Terveysministeriö-webpage). As a result, the abundance of funding sources may appear complicated for the possible applicant. In this regard, integrating the use of funds could simplify the process for the associations or people applying for funding. In the focus group discussion in Kotka (RELOCAL interviews) it was pointed out by the LEADER LAG representative that for them it does not matter where the money comes from, as long as there is money. The advantages of the integrated use of the funds was also largely agreed to in the first Webropol-questionnaire (Appendix Figure 12).
71
The CLLD actions analysed in Finland, interestingly, do not appear for example in the works by Servillo (2017, 2018, 2019) or Servillo et al. (2018). This is because the categorisation used in these studies only distinguishes the actions based on the ESIF that funds a LAG. In other words, as the Finnish CLLD projects are run by LEADER associations funded through EAFRD or by Cities, although the actual projects are financed through ESF, the CLLD projects in Finland fail to be noticed by this EU level inspection due to this chosen institutional set-up. The LEADER LAGs (such as in Kotka) fall in the category of “mono-funded EAFRD” and are thus simply seen as the old LEADER method. The projects run by a City, or an association cooperative like in Savonlinna, would not come up in this kind of calculation at all, since to an outsider they would only appear as any other kind of ESF project. As a result, in cases like Finland, finding the CLLD-like initiatives can be challenging, if not impossible, without a deeper qualitative research. To what extent this dilemma can cause distortions and seemingly low (or high) numbers in the uptake of the tool, should be further investigated. Establishing a common framework for the distinction of CLLD would make tracking the numeric amounts of CLLD easier, while a persisting diversity of approaches in terms of scope, funds, leadership and implementation scale etc. will require qualitative investigations and the development of typologies based on in-depth, contextual studies.
Future perspectives of the tool
The excessive administrative burden and red tape surrounding Cohesion policy have not gone unnoticed by the EU. In the proposal memorandum from the European Commission on the new Common Provision Regulations for 2021-2027, the main goal is administrative simplification and increasing regulatory flexibility. Simultaneously to the aim of simplification, the new Common Provision Regulations for 2021-2027 has distinguished the importance to strengthen CLLD. The EU has a new priority objective “a Europe closer to citizens” of which CLLD and other territorial development investments are a part of. Also, the multi-fund approach is further encouraged, entailing that the EU is still keen to promote this key component of the original method (European Commission, 2018b, 1, 15-16).
In tandem with the EU-level preparations, also the Finnish government is faced with planning for the next programming period. This means also the (re)allocation of Finnish regional development funds. In this sense, it is interesting to pay attention to the ongoing debate on how the funds inevitably will be divided. On the one side there is the argument for supporting the North and East Finland that are hindered by the long distances, decreasing population etc. On the other side, there exists an argument for supporting the South Finland where the majority of
72
the population, jobs and employers are. Furthermore, the latter would be in line with the Finnish national policy goals of improving the employment rate. This would mean a further shift from Cohesion policy´s “original goal” of promoting the even and balanced development of regions.
However, as pointed out by a recent policy brief reviewing Cohesion policy, the financial contribution of cohesion funding for the more-developed areas is so tiny in relative terms that the achieved impact there is somewhat questionable (Darvas et. al., 2019, 15). It will be interesting to see what discourses will be used, and what kind of role political will shall have.
Ideas for future research
Ideas for future research