Blog Post

Will European Union countries be able to absorb and spend well the bloc’s recovery funding?

To help finance the post-coronavirus recovery, the European Union is raising large amounts to pass on to its members. But absorption of EU funds is typically slow and some countries might struggle to spend what they can get, even if they will have broad freedom to design spending programmes. The focus should be on worthwhile spending, not just on absorbing EU funds.

By: Date: September 24, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

The European Union’s landmark recovery instrument, Next Generation EU (NGEU), will be embedded into the EU’s budget. This makes sense, because the EU budget is a well-established framework and hence can be deployed readily. But pay-outs from the EU budget are disbursed slowly to member states, partly because programmes have to be designed, approved and implemented, and must also pass various checks to ensure the proper use of EU funds.

EU budgets include two types of numbers: ‘commitment appropriations’, which are ceilings on spending promises, and ‘payment appropriations’, which are ceilings on possible payments. Actual payments from the EU budget are typically less than payment appropriations, because not all beneficiaries are able to use the available funds. EU funding is considered to have been absorbed when money is paid out by the Commission to an EU country. Such payments include advances, interim and final payments.

Of the recovery money, the European Commission expects only a quarter to be paid out in 2021-2022, while three-quarters will be paid out in 2023 and after. Even this rather slow expected speed of NGEU disbursement would be rapid compared to the record of absorption of EU Structural Funds (Figure 1). This puts a question mark over whether the NGEU money can really be paid out as planned.

Figure 1: Historical EU structural fund pay-out rates and assumed pay-out rates from NGEU (%)

 

Source: Bruegel[i]. Note: Year 1 is the first year of the respective programme, ie 2007 for the 2007-2013 MFF, 2014 for the 2014-2020 MFF, and 2021 for NGEU. MFF: Multiannual Financial Framework; CF: Cohesion Fund; ERDF: European Regional Development Fund; ESF: European Social Fund. The pay-out rate (or in other words, the ‘absorption rate’) is the percentage of the total amount committed in the EU budget to a member state that has been paid by the Commission to that member state.

Italy and Spain, the two largest expected beneficiaries of the NGEU in terms of euro amounts, are among the worst performers in terms of absorption of EU funds. For the 2014-2020 period, Spain had absorbed only 39% of the money it was due from European Structural Investment Funds (ESIFs) by 23 September 2020 – the EU’s worst rate – while Italy at 40% is also among the slowest.  Croatia was similarly a poor performer with a 2014-2020 ESIF absorption rate of just 39% (by 23 September 2020), yet Croatia is expected to receive grants from NGEU equivalent to more than 10% of its GDP, with potentially another 6.8% as loans.

For the new EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) period starting in January 2021, countries will have to absorb:

(a) The remaining portions of the 2014-2020 MFF funds, which are rather large for many countries;

(b) The ‘standard’ seven-year 2020-2027 MFF funds; and

(c) The funds available under NGEU.

Altogether, the amount of EU money to be absorbed from January 2021 will be several factors greater than earlier amounts. Absorbing all these EU funds might prove to be an immense challenge.

Will NGEU programme design help absorption? For the largest component of NGEU, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), countries will have to prepare reform and investment proposals in their national recovery and resilience plans, which will be assessed by the European Commission and approved by the Council. The July 2020 European Council set the following principles for assessment: “The criteria of consistency with the country-specific recommendations, as well as strengthening the growth potential, job creation and economic and social resilience of the Member State shall need the highest score of the assessment [sic]. Effective contribution to the green and digital transition shall also be a prerequisite for a positive assessment.

Country-specific recommendations (CSRs) are made in the context of the European Semester, the EU’s annual economic policy coordination mechanism. The implementation rates of CSRs have been rather poor and hence, at first sight, one might conclude that linking NGEU to CSRs will pose additional challenges. But in fact, the link provides great freedom to member states, because the 2020 CSRs, quite naturally, ask member states to address the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, which they are doing anyway. For example, Italy received four CSRs:

1) Address the pandemic, sustain the economy and support the ensuing recovery; later, when economic conditions allow, ensure public debt sustainability;

2) Provide income replacement, social protection, preserve jobs;

3) Provide liquidity to the real economy, promote public and private investment (here some concrete green and digital areas are listed: energy, research and innovation, sustainable public transport, waste and water management, digital infrastructure);

4) Improve the efficiency of the judicial system and the effectiveness of public administration.

The first three CSRs for Spain are almost identical to those for Italy, while the fourth recommends improved coordination between different levels of government and strengthening of the public procurement framework.

The freedom EU countries have in designing national recovery and resilience plans might foster faster absorption of NGEU funds, since countries should know the investment areas where they can make the fastest progress. Will this freedom be enough to overcome the hurdles to EU fund absorption?

Slow implementation and low absorption capacity are major problems, yet absorption of EU funds cannot be an objective in itself. As a 2018 special report of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) highlighted, the rush to absorb funds can lead to insufficient consideration of value for money. ECA argued that the actions taken by the Commission and member states to tackle slow absorption of the 2007-2013 funds “focussed mainly on absorption and legality, but did not take due account of performance considerations” (paragraph 87). This makes designing a strong governance framework for NGEU even more important, in order to ensure that the money is well spent.

Annex

Table 1: Pay-out rates of the 2007-2013 ERDF, CF and ESF

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Greece 2.0 5.0 10.6 21.9 34.9 49.2 69.6 88.3 98.1 100.0
United Kingdom 2.0 5.0 13.6 27.8 38.9 51.0 56.8 73.1 88.0 95.0
Bulgaria 2.2 5.6 9.6 15.7 23.8 36.6 50.1 66.2 85.2 95.0
Austria 2.1 5.2 19.3 29.4 40.3 53.7 69.0 80.3 93.2 95.0
Portugal 2.0 5.0 13.0 25.2 37.8 59.2 78.7 92.6 95.0 95.0
Finland 2.0 5.0 16.5 25.8 40.9 54.7 75.7 89.2 95.0 95.0
Ireland 2.0 11.1 23.3 36.2 48.3 60.3 70.1 79.7 90.0 95.0
Sweden 2.0 5.0 16.2 26.9 46.5 53.3 68.7 89.9 94.7 95.0
Denmark 2.0 5.0 11.5 19.7 38.3 45.3 54.4 80.8 95.0 95.0
Estonia 2.2 5.5 19.5 35.0 42.0 61.3 81.3 92.3 95.0 95.0
Latvia 2.2 5.5 14.9 25.1 36.4 52.2 66.0 81.7 95.0 95.0
Lithuania 2.2 5.5 21.3 34.1 48.0 62.9 78.8 93.7 95.0 95.0
Luxembourg 1.0 5.0 10.1 16.1 40.6 51.8 67.8 83.8 95.0 95.0
Slovenia 2.2 5.5 13.5 24.8 37.0 50.3 62.9 81.7 95.0 95.0
France 1.6 5.0 13.6 23.6 34.5 43.0 60.0 76.3 92.1 95.0
Netherlands 2.0 5.0 8.3 17.4 33.6 45.6 63.9 80.6 91.2 95.0
Poland 2.1 5.4 13.0 23.2 37.2 52.3 67.9 85.3 94.9 95.0
Slovakia 2.2 5.5 10.0 18.9 27.8 41.1 52.7 60.1 85.3 95.0
Cyprus 2.2 5.5 15.2 26.2 37.4 44.3 61.3 84.3 91.9 95.0
Belgium 1.7 5.0 18.1 23.2 32.2 49.2 68.9 82.5 93.1 94.7
Germany 2.0 5.2 17.5 28.6 41.2 54.1 70.8 83.3 92.5 94.6
EU28 2.0 5.3 12.7 22.2 33.6 46.6 62.0 76.9 88.9 94.1
Hungary 2.2 5.6 13.1 21.0 35.0 43.9 59.0 76.1 88.4 94.0
Czechia 1.4 5.6 12.3 20.4 26.9 38.9 52.6 63.8 84.5 94.0
Italy 1.7 5.0 9.8 15.0 21.7 30.8 50.1 63.4 79.4 91.3
Spain 2.0 5.0 10.7 22.5 36.7 51.9 62.9 73.0 84.1 91.2
Romania 2.2 5.6 10.5 13.2 16.9 23.0 38.3 57.1 70.9 90.4
Malta 2.2 5.5 9.7 17.6 27.3 37.2 50.3 73.4 81.6 89.0
Croatia 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 7.4 10.3 18.3 45.1 58.6 80.7

Source: Bruegel based on the Commission’s ‘SF 2007-2013 Funds Absorption Rate’ dataset (which includes the ERDF, CF and ESF). Yet the implied maximum available funds for 2007-2013 was cut back by more than 4% from 2015 to 2016, so I adjusted the 2016 absorption rate included in the dataset to eliminate this retrospective cutback. Note: CF: Cohesion Fund; ERDF: European Regional Development Fund; ESF: European Social Fund.

Table 2: Pay-out rates of the 2014-2020 ERDF and CF

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Lithuania 0.9 1.9 9.2 16.6 30.0 36.9 66.9
Estonia 0.9 2.3 10.9 19.7 32.1 46.5 61.9
Greece 0.6 6.1 16.1 23.2 29.5 39.0 60.0
Sweden 0.7 1.9 9.4 19.5 35.6 43.5 59.9
Finland 0.9 1.9 11.9 22.6 36.7 49.3 59.6
Hungary 1.9 7.9 19.1 33.8 43.6 59.2
Portugal 0.6 2.4 9.1 19.1 31.1 44.1 57.6
Poland 0.3 1.9 8.6 15.3 28.5 42.8 57.6
Latvia 0.9 1.9 8.5 12.6 20.4 37.3 55.7
Czechia 1.9 5.0 12.5 22.2 37.4 54.4
Luxembourg 0.9 1.9 6.3 13.4 36.1 40.0 54.3
Slovenia 0.0 1.9 5.8 11.3 18.8 35.5 52.9
Cyprus 1.4 2.8 6.1 20.7 39.7 47.2 51.8
EU28 0.6 2.4 7.7 13.8 24.2 35.9 49.5
Bulgaria 0.0 1.9 8.4 15.2 23.4 33.5 48.9
Denmark 0.9 1.9 5.1 14.1 22.9 34.9 48.4
Malta 0.9 1.9 6.8 12.5 20.4 33.9 47.0
Interreg 1.0 2.0 5.3 8.3 16.4 29.4 45.0
United Kingdom 0.9 1.9 5.8 10.5 22.4 31.5 42.0
France 0.6 1.9 5.6 12.1 21.3 32.7 41.3
Belgium 0.8 1.9 4.7 9.0 16.6 32.0 40.6
Germany 0.7 1.9 6.0 12.1 20.8 32.4 40.6
Austria 0.9 1.9 4.7 11.5 20.0 35.4 39.4
Romania 0.0 2.8 5.6 12.3 19.0 29.0 39.3
Slovakia 0.8 1.9 7.4 12.2 22.3 29.5 39.2
Ireland 1.4 2.3 5.2 10.9 23.9 29.9 38.6
Croatia 0.9 1.9 4.7 9.2 11.0 25.7 38.6
Italy 0.0 1.9 4.8 7.3 16.6 26.0 38.5
Netherlands 0.9 1.9 4.7 10.9 21.1 31.3 37.8
Spain 1.4 5.9 10.7 10.9 19.8 28.8 35.3

Source: Bruegel based on the Commission’s ‘Regional Policy 2014-2020 EU Payment Details by EU Countries’ dataset (which includes the ERDF and CF only). The approximate the expected pay-out rate end-2020, I assumed that the average daily pay-out amounts in 1 January – 11 September 2020 will be made on average in 12 September – 31 December 2020. Note: CF: Cohesion Fund; ERDF: European Regional Development Fund.

[i] Sources for Figure 1 in detail: absorption rates for the 2007-2013 MFF are from the Commission’s ‘SF 2007-2013 Funds Absorption Rate’ dataset (which includes the European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Social Fund). The implied maximum available funds for 2007-2013 was cut back by more than 4% from 2015 to 2016, so I adjusted the 2016 absorption rate included in the dataset to eliminate this retrospective cutback. The 2014-2020 pay-out rates are based on the Commission’s ‘Regional Policy 2014-2020 EU Payment Details by EU Countries’ dataset (which includes the ERDF and CF only). To approximate the expected pay-out rate end-2020, I assumed that the average daily pay-out amounts from 1 January to 11 September 2020 will be made on average from 12 September to 31 December 2020. The expected annual pay-out speed of NGEU is from the 28 May 2020 European Commission proposal, adjusted by the modifications approved by the 21 July 2020 European Council, which set the pre-financing for the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the largest component of NGEU, at 10% in 2021, required that all NGEU-related payments will have to be made by 31 December 2026, and changed the available amounts of all instruments of NGEU compared to the Commission’s initial proposal.

Recommended citation:

Darvas, Z. (2020) ‘Will European Union countries be able to absorb and spend well the bloc’s recovery funding?’ Bruegel Blog, 24 September


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Next Generation EU debt: how is it structured?

The impact of EU debt on the EU market of safe assets.

Speakers: Gert-Jan Koopman and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 22, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

The pandemic will structurally change the global economy more than we think

It is time to rethink many of the basic principles of our economic model to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 20, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The European climate law needs a strong just transition fund

To deliver on the goals of the European climate law, the European Union needs finally to get coal out of its energy mix: the EU should quicken the pace of decarbonisation whilst delivering on its goal of social inclusion.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: October 6, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2020 - Day 3

Third day of Bruegel Annual Meetings.

Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 3, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2020 - Day 1

The Annual Meetings are Bruegel's flagship event which gathers high-level speakers to discuss the economic topics that affect Europe and the world.

Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 1, 2020
Read article
 

Blog Post

Is the EU Council agreement aligned with the Green Deal ambitions?

On 21 July, EU leaders agreed on a €1.8 trillion package that should boost the recovery after the COVID-19 crisis, but also contribute to the advancement of key EU societal objectives, starting with the climate transition. In this blog post we assess the green ambitions of the package and evaluate its consistency with the European Green Deal.

By: Grégory Claeys and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 23, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Having the cake, but slicing it differently: how is the grand EU recovery fund allocated?

The European Commission’s original allocation mechanism really favoured lower-income countries and to a large extent was based on pre-COVID economic data. The modification adopted by the European Council gives more consideration to the country size and the adverse economic impact of COVID-19. As a consequence, by using the Commission’s May 2020 economic forecasts, I estimate that only Germany and France will get more grants from the EU’s recovery fund compared to the Commission’s original proposal, while other countries will get less.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 23, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

The EU’s Opportunity to Turn Its Markets Toward the Future

Meeting the fiscal demands of COVID-19 will require the European Union to borrow on capital markets more than ever, and for European pension funds and households to look more widely for ways to build their nest eggs safely. The EU should take the challenges of the pandemic and Brexit as a chance to get its financial infrastructure house in order.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 16, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

An EU budget for Europe's future with Johannes Hahn

How do we make the EU fit for future?

Speakers: Zsolt Darvas, Johannes Hahn and Mehreen Khan Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: July 7, 2020
Read article Download PDF More by this author
 

Parliamentary Testimony

Italian Parliament

EU priorities and the recovery during Covid19

Testimony at the Committee on EU Policies of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Italian Parliament, Testimonies Date: June 18, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The EU’s recovery fund proposals: crisis relief with massive redistribution

Poorer European Union countries and those hardest hit economically by the COVID-19 crisis could obtain up to 15% of their GNI in grants and guarantees from the EU’s proposed recovery instruments. Yet the proposal would represent a net benefit for all EU countries, even if there is only a small positive economic impact over the long-term. The proposed very long-maturity loans would lead to non-negligible benefits, exceeding 1% of GDP for some countries.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 17, 2020
Read article
 

Blog Post

One last push is needed to improve the Just Transition Fund proposal

The European Parliament and the Council still have an opportunity to improve the Just Transition Fund by refocusing it on social support and basing fund allocations on more granular information that takes into account not only countries’ needs but also their green ambitions.

By: Aliénor Cameron, Grégory Claeys, Catarina Midões and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 11, 2020
Load more posts