Common agricultural policy EU (CAP), subsidies to farmers, which accounted for 39% of the EU budget (in the past, this share was almost 70%), for many years been subjected to much criticism – and rightly so.
This is one of the worst government policies in the world, supporting farmers who have long left the business, directing huge amounts of money, large farm corporations, and the rich landowners that are detrimental to African farmers, due to an obvious oversupply, with the result that they become uncompetitive.
Moreover, in the drama that is associated with the CAP, you can almost forget about the second more ambitious programme of EU: cohesion Policy or the European structural and investment funds (ESIF), which accounted for about a third of the budget.
Here’s how it explains the European Commission: “Regional policy aims to ensure that all regions and cities in the EU has created jobs, strengthened the competitiveness of businesses created economic growth, sustainable development and improved quality of life of citizens. To achieve these goals within the framework of cohesion Policy has been allocated 351,8 billion euros for 2014-2020, a third of the overall EU budget”.
Policy cohesion is something that will use the EU to carry out a redistribution from one country to another. All member States will receive substantial sums as a result of this redistribution, as can be seen in the following graph research service European Parliament:
But if you look more closely at the integration Foundation (CF), which is included in ESIF, the element of redistribution is seen more clearly. In ESIF, Germany and France continue to occupy fifth and sixth places in the larger economy with high GDP per capita do not even have the right to CF, the explicit aim of which is to achieve “convergence.” It means helping poor countries, mainly in Eastern and Central Europe in order to catch up with leading economies, mainly in Western Europe. It is here that the huge amounts of money are transferred from one side of continent to another, as seen in this graph:
However, a study conducted in southern Italy, a major recipient of funds (almost all of 43.8 billion euros, which gets Italy, go to the South region) shows that “the ability of these funds to compensate for the negative effects of the economic crisis is very limited”.
In General, it seems that, especially Fond of integriy, have a positive impact on economic indicators, but the actual effect is relatively small. As in the case of the Marshall plan, a huge amount of money thrown at the poor regions, can help – it would be strange if this were not so. However, a really good policy should be efficient: good management, low taxes, rights to private property.
Studies have shown that what is usually called “social capital”, i.e. cooperation and trust among the population, may be reduced due to the cohesion policy of the EU.
From the Central Bank of Italy received the latest information on the harmful effects of the redistribution policy of the EU. Three researchers Banca d’italia found that in fact corruption has increased by 4% per year, thanks to these translations.
This is not surprising. In the end, it’s hard to believe in a system where money being given out by Brussels, i.e. in Belgium, and then go down to different regions – for example, in South Italy, no government employee would not use the funds in this way. OLAF, the investigative body of the EU, revealed that the volume of criminal acts in 2016 exceeded 600 million euros (in 2015, this amount was almost 1 billion euros), adding that “the sector of structural funds remains in the spotlight OLAF”.
In fact it is the essence of bureaucracy and government activities in General, which is difficult to prosecute any one person.
Thus, the Central Bank of Italy is another reason the necessary reduction of the cohesion policy. It redistributes huge amounts of money from rich countries to the poorest countries, getting a small economic benefit, the deterioration of civil society and the growth of corruption. The debate on the next long-term EU budget from 2021 to 2017 is now in full swing. The only recommendation for Brussels: reduce funds. Recommendations for policymakers: regardless of how the redistribution is perceived in theory, it can have significant unintended and decidedly negative consequences.
